Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => Freewheeling => Topic started by: tonycollinet on 08 December, 2009, 10:55:17 pm

Title: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: tonycollinet on 08 December, 2009, 10:55:17 pm
Some tosser *at work* decided it would be a lark to loosen my front wheel today. It felt odd when I wheeled it from the racks. Thought the headset bearings might be going loose, so put the front brake on (disk) and rocked it back and forward. But the brake held the wheel, so it felt OK.

On the bike, and over a couple of bumps, and it was rattling. Probably went about three hundred yards up a hardcore path before I realised what was wrong. Without the lawyer lips, I'd probably have lost some teeth  :(

Now given that the bike racks are in a secure area, away from general public. This means it has been done by someone who works at the same site. I'm still trying to get my head around how someone can be such a total FUCKING WANKER!!!  >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: border-rider on 08 December, 2009, 10:57:00 pm
Lucky escape.  I'm glad you're OK
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Wowbagger on 08 December, 2009, 10:59:27 pm
By "same site" would that automatically be "same organisation"?

I'd certainly report it. There may well be some CCTV footage.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Lucky on 08 December, 2009, 11:02:11 pm
I assume there are no CCTV cameras in the area? Ask other cyclists if they saw anything suspicious?
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: tonycollinet on 08 December, 2009, 11:04:13 pm
Same site, same organisation - one factory.

It will be reported (round about Feb this year a friend came of his bike on the A34, cos someone had adjusted his brakes so they were rubbing. Loss of traction as he turned off caused his front wheel to go away from him.) Organisation takes it very seriously. Said they would put cameras on, but I think it was on the other bike racks. Still - if there is a camera, I'll be asking for the tapes.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Regulator on 08 December, 2009, 11:04:21 pm
Report it at work.  
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Tewdric on 08 December, 2009, 11:05:36 pm
This is why I always keep my bike in my office!

Glad it didn't go wrong though.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Regulator on 08 December, 2009, 11:07:54 pm
One of the forum legal bods may be able to advise but IIRC there is an offence of interfering with a vehicle's safety (but I may be wrong).  It might be worth pointing that out at work.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Ian H on 08 December, 2009, 11:42:50 pm
I have on one occasion forgotten to do up the front QR. Reason: sheer stupidity absent-mindedness. No lawyers' lips on any of my bikes. The wheel didn't come out.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Polar Bear on 09 December, 2009, 06:48:49 am
I know it's after the event but swap the QR skewers for allen key ones.   Not quite so easy to just flip, a bit more secure and thus maybe just a bit safer?

The mentality of a moron or opportunist thief seems to extend to flipping a QR lever but not to getting an allen key or multitool out of his bag and undoing the skewer.   I know we see pictures of stripped frames hanging form railings but I'd suggest that generally the vultures go equipped.   

+1 re the security cameras.   If you don't ask you don't know.   
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 09 December, 2009, 07:25:59 am
Is it likely to be just some general tosser or could there be someone at work who has a personal dislike to you, for whatever reason? In which case you might already have an idea who it could be, though obviously you can't really do anything without proof.

I'd second the allen ky skewer suggestion. They cost about 16quid IIRC.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: delthebike on 09 December, 2009, 07:49:02 am
One of the forum legal bods may be able to advise but IIRC there is an offence of interfering with a vehicle's safety (but I may be wrong).  It might be worth pointing that out at work.
I believe it's a criminal offence of tampering with a vehicle.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Regulator on 09 December, 2009, 07:51:47 am
One of the forum legal bods may be able to advise but IIRC there is an offence of interfering with a vehicle's safety (but I may be wrong).  It might be worth pointing that out at work.
I believe it's a criminal offence of tampering with a vehicle.

I thought that as well, but I have a feeling that in that context it's to do with TWOCing or preparing to TWOC.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: HTFB on 09 December, 2009, 08:11:49 am
In Oxford about ten years ago there were regular thieves who would look for a bike locked up by the front wheel, just taking a wheel from another bike nearby.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: delthebike on 09 December, 2009, 08:22:21 am
I thought that as well, but I have a feeling that in that context it's to do with TWOCing or preparing to TWOC.
It's more to do with vandalising and leaving the vehicle with a fault, especially a dangerous one like the OP's.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: clarion on 09 December, 2009, 09:33:15 am
Lawyer lips are the most stupid invention of a whole heap of steaming idiocy in the world of cycling in the last twenty years.

As Ian points out, the wheel is not much more likely to come out.  When I was younger & unused to qr, I managed 20miles into the Peaks with a bit of roughstuff thrown in with a qr open :-[

Now, though, I do a quick visual check of my bike - brakes, tyres, qrs - before getting on it.  If your bike park is badly lit, that can be tricky, but it's always worth finding out sooner rather than later.

All that said, I think it's a really unpleasant thing to do, and I hope the scrote concerned meets a suitably kammic fate.  And I'm very glad you're OK. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: richie on 09 December, 2009, 11:13:32 am
Those moaning about 'lawyer lips' on a disk-brake equipped bike need to do a google search on the issue. 
Plenty of evidence stating that the braking force on a disk attached to the lower fork leg using standard mountings, has the effect of cantilevering the bike away from the QR. Potentially leading to the afore-mentioned loss of teeth (if not worse).

I'd be scared to ride my MTB without the damn lawyer lips.  I fall off it enough as it is, without throwing extra hazards into the mix.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: hellymedic on 09 December, 2009, 11:20:18 am
One of the forum legal bods may be able to advise but IIRC there is an offence of interfering with a vehicle's safety (but I may be wrong).  It might be worth pointing that out at work.

I think this law is quoted at the back of the Highway Code, BICBW.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Jaded on 09 December, 2009, 11:30:26 am
When I was younger I managed 20miles into the Peaks with a bit of roughstuff thrown in

Now you are just boasting...  ;D
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Polar Bear on 09 December, 2009, 11:31:10 am
I don't agree Clarion.  

There is a proven and substantive risk to the cyclist if a 'failure' causes rapid ejection of the front wheel where disk brakes are in use.   I'd rather have such a simple extra bit of risk mitigation than expensive and extensive dental surgery.   None of my machines that don't have disk brakes have lawyers lips.   And, they can be quickly and easily filed down.   I'd rather have the choice, just like the choice to don a H****t.      

What is stupid is the behaviour of the idiot who flipped the qr open.      
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Wendy on 09 December, 2009, 11:35:55 am
Those moaning about 'lawyer lips' on a disk-brake equipped bike need to do a google search on the issue. 
Plenty of evidence stating that the braking force on a disk attached to the lower fork leg using standard mountings, has the effect of cantilevering the bike away from the QR. Potentially leading to the afore-mentioned loss of teeth (if not worse).

I'd be scared to ride my MTB without the damn lawyer lips.  I fall off it enough as it is, without throwing extra hazards into the mix.

+1
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Wendy on 09 December, 2009, 11:36:23 am
p.s. what are the chances of someone's trouser leg/pannier having accidentally caught and opened the QR?
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: clarion on 09 December, 2009, 11:45:10 am
I'd missed the mention of discs :-[

That does change things.

But I've come across plenty of bikes without discs where 'quick release' is no longer so, and it's a PITA to have to adjust the tension every damn time...
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: tonycollinet on 09 December, 2009, 12:43:32 pm
For clarification - the QR was closed, not open.

When I left the bike in the morning, it was fine. When I picked it up in the evening, the wheel was loose enough to rattle in the dropouts. As I wheeled it out of the shed I felt somthing wrong - so I am pretty certain I'd have noticed in the morning also.

If it didn't come loose on its own (and I can't think how), then someone has opened the QR, unscrewed a turn or so, and then closed the QR again.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: clarion on 09 December, 2009, 01:10:42 pm
That's even worse - not just someone flipping it, or even (conceivably) catching it accidentally as they get their own bike out.  That's got to be malicious.

I do hope you find out who it was.  It may be something personal against you, or it may be some nut who's been doing it to other bikes.

Personally, I might find a different place to park.  Of course, I speak from the luxury of being able to keep a bike in an upstairs office.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Greenbank on 09 December, 2009, 01:22:53 pm
That's even worse - not just someone flipping it, or even (conceivably) catching it accidentally as they get their own bike out.  That's got to be malicious.

Maybe not, someone who doesn't understand QRs could have snagged on it as they walked past and pulled it open. When they tried to fix it they didn't know it's supposed to be done up so tight, so they loosened it a bit and closed it again.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 09 December, 2009, 01:27:11 pm
Possibly, and preferably, but it usually takes a deliberate action to open a QR. I can't imagine you could open one by brushing against it unless it was so loose as to be already dangerous.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: fred the great on 09 December, 2009, 01:43:52 pm
And where were the Security Guards? if no cameras are to be found.

I can't say what I would do to the vandal 'cos it's rather rude :demon:
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: CommuteTooFar on 09 December, 2009, 02:00:56 pm
I hate lawyers lips. (Despite suffering disc break ejection).  A puncture is an annoyance so as I irritatedly pull the wheel from the dropout I want as little interference as possible.  I have cut my finger as I realign the hub so it passes these useless pieces of American liability avoidance.

Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Zipperhead on 09 December, 2009, 02:39:57 pm
Those moaning about 'lawyer lips' on a disk-brake equipped bike need to do a google search on the issue. 
Plenty of evidence stating that the braking force on a disk attached to the lower fork leg using standard mountings, has the effect of cantilevering the bike away from the QR. Potentially leading to the afore-mentioned loss of teeth (if not worse).

That's surely a good reason for not using forks & brakes in that configuration - if the braking forces are ejecting the wheel, the design is wrong. Merely having lawyer lips to hold it in place (intentionally or otherwise) is not the solution.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Zoidburg on 09 December, 2009, 05:42:37 pm
One of the forum legal bods may be able to advise but IIRC there is an offence of interfering with a vehicle's safety (but I may be wrong).  It might be worth pointing that out at work.

I think this law is quoted at the back of the Highway Code, BICBW.
I believe the offence commited in this case is "malicious tampering"

A simple criminal offence covering all acts of deliberate vandalism that are intended to cause injury, IIRC correctly it can cover anything from loonies that tamper with food in supermarkets to oiks leaving stuff on the railway tracks.

TC needs to get the tapes and get this fecker fired and nicked before he hurts someone.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Regulator on 09 December, 2009, 05:43:55 pm
Hmmmmm.... I've always had a thing about lawyer lips....

***Winks at Spen***







Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: JonBuoy on 09 December, 2009, 05:52:37 pm
I hate lawyers lips. (Despite suffering disc break ejection).  A puncture is an annoyance so as I irritatedly pull the wheel from the dropout I want as little interference as possible.  I have cut my finger as I realign the hub so it passes these useless pieces of American liability avoidance.

Flip QR.
Hold QR nut and rotate lever 5 full turns.
Remove wheel, fix puncture, reinsert wheel etc.
Hold QR nut and rotate lever 5 full turns (in other direction).
Flip QR.

It must add a couple of seconds to the whole process.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Valiant on 09 December, 2009, 06:37:12 pm
I like to see it as attempted manslaughter. People tend to take it more seriously then.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: tonycollinet on 09 December, 2009, 07:45:15 pm
Update:

Event reported - video has been watched. Unfortunately is of the type that only records when movement is detected, plus some time either side. It only recorded when I arrived, then nothing till midnight. The area is a thoroughfare, so either the CCTV is not working or the sensitivity is set too low.

However, after the site email warning cyclist to check their bikes went out, someone else reported that they came off their bike a couple of weeks ago, when riding home - and the wheel was loose. They have just put 2+2 together. I had a chat, and before the off, they experienced the same symptoms as me, again, like me initially attributing it to a loose headset.

So we have another day to check video from.

I like to see it as attempted manslaughter. People tend to take it more seriously then.

Not sure you can attempt manslaughter. If you attempt it, it aint manslaughter any more.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Oaky on 09 December, 2009, 09:08:31 pm
I hate lawyers lips. (Despite suffering disc break ejection).  A puncture is an annoyance so as I irritatedly pull the wheel from the dropout I want as little interference as possible.  I have cut my finger as I realign the hub so it passes these useless pieces of American liability avoidance.

Flip QR.
Hold QR nut and rotate lever 5 full turns.
Remove wheel, fix puncture, reinsert wheel etc.
Hold QR nut and rotate lever 5 full turns (in other direction).
Flip QR.

It must add a couple of seconds to the whole process.


for me it usually goes as follows

Flip QR.
Hold QR nut and rotate lever 6 full turns.
Try and fail to remove wheel
Swear about the lawyer lips
Turn QR another couple of turns (#)
Fail to get the wheel out again
Realise that yet again the lawyer lips weren't the problem - it was me forgetting to undo the brake release  :-[
Fix puncture, reinsert wheel etc.
Hold QR nut and rotate lever 6 full turns (in other direction).
Flip QR.
Realise that it needed an extra one since I lost count at (#)
Flip QR back
Give it one more turn
Flip QR

 :-[ :-[ :-[ ::-)
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: nuttycyclist on 09 December, 2009, 09:48:29 pm
I don't understand the issue with lawyer lips either.   I've never had any problem removing a wheel.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: rogerzilla on 09 December, 2009, 09:51:30 pm
You have to readjust the QR every time you refit the wheel, so the QR becomes a very Slow R.  Get a fork custom made by Argos and they'll never put the bastard things on  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: nuttycyclist on 09 December, 2009, 10:47:09 pm
Very slow R?

It adds about one and a half seconds to the release and about two seconds to the closing.

If that four seconds (I'll be generous) is too much of a hindrance to you, then why not get a team car to follow you with a spare bike in case of problem.



It usually takes me nearly a minute to find the spare tube.  ::-)
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Greenbank on 10 December, 2009, 10:18:22 am
That's if you don't have to adjust it, otherwise it becomes:-

Try closing it, too easy, tighten a couple of revolutions, try closing again, still a bit too loose, spin one more revolution, tiny bit too tight, loosen slightly on the nut side, close QR, done.

That can easily take 10 seconds or so, still better than rummaging around for a spanner or an allen key or even a pitlock key.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Jaded on 10 December, 2009, 10:20:20 am
and that 10 seconds could certainly put me out of time on a 200km.  ;D
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Ian H on 10 December, 2009, 11:49:26 am
Those moaning about 'lawyer lips' on a disk-brake equipped bike need to do a google search on the issue...

Front disks on standard forks are an issue. I thought that some if not all new forks designed for disks now had the dropouts suitably angled so the axle won't try to wind out.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: richie on 10 December, 2009, 11:57:27 am
Those moaning about 'lawyer lips' on a disk-brake equipped bike need to do a google search on the issue...

Front disks on standard forks are an issue. I thought that some if not all new forks designed for disks now had the dropouts suitably angled so the axle won't try to wind out.

Possibly - however as i haven't bought a set of MTB forks for three years at least, then i don't know.   I'd have thought the only 'safe' answer is a re-design of the brake mount so the braking forces pull the disk/QR together rather than forcing apart, regardless of drop-out angle.  probably cost the manufacturers too much, though.

There is (was?) an ongoing court case earlier this year where a MTBer paralysed in a crash in the Brecons was suing Specialised.  I think his argument was that Spesh were aware of the issue but neglected to do anything about it. 
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: clarion on 10 December, 2009, 11:59:45 am
Isn't this the reason for 'bolt-through' MTB axles?
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: PhilO on 10 December, 2009, 01:00:40 pm
There is (was?) an ongoing court case earlier this year where a MTBer paralysed in a crash in the Brecons was suing Specialised.  I think his argument was that Spesh were aware of the issue but neglected to do anything about it. 

Russ Pinder. He went over the bars near the bottom of 'The Gap' a few years ago and broke his neck. I was curious as to how he could prove that the wheel had ejected, but it was settled out of court in the end, so all we have is hearsay and rumour.

Isn't this the reason for 'bolt-through' MTB axles?

One reason. But the main one is to reduce flex at the interface between the fork and axle.

Most (?) QR forks now have forward-facing drop outs to safeguard against ejection of the wheel.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: andrew_s on 10 December, 2009, 02:01:03 pm
I'd have thought the only 'safe' answer is a re-design of the brake mount so the braking forces pull the disk/QR together rather than forcing apart, regardless of drop-out angle.  probably cost the manufacturers too much, though.
It's dead simple - all you have to do it put the disk tabs on the front of the RH fork blade instead of the rear of the LH blade. There are a couple of bikes that are like that.

The only manufacturing change needed would be to disc dynohubs - if they are fitted the wrong way round, the centre can unscrew and break the wiring. A LH thread on the screw-in centre would fix that.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: andrew_s on 10 December, 2009, 02:03:09 pm
for me it usually goes as follows

Flip QR.
Hold QR nut and rotate lever 6 full turns.
Try and fail to remove wheel
Swear about the lawyer lips
Turn QR another couple of turns (#)
Fail to get the wheel out again
Realise that yet again the lawyer lips weren't the problem - it was me forgetting to undo the brake release  :-[
Fix puncture, reinsert wheel etc.
Hold QR nut and rotate lever 6 full turns (in other direction).
Flip QR.
Realise that it needed an extra one since I lost count at (#)
Flip QR back
Give it one more turn
Flip QR

 :-[ :-[ :-[ ::-)

Followed by stopping half a mile down the road when you remember that you didn't do up the brake release
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: nuttycyclist on 13 December, 2009, 10:47:51 pm
That's if you don't have to adjust it, otherwise it becomes:-

Try closing it, too easy, tighten a couple of revolutions, try closing again, still a bit too loose, spin one more revolution, tiny bit too tight, loosen slightly on the nut side, close QR, done.

That can easily take 10 seconds or so, still better than rummaging around for a spanner or an allen key or even a pitlock key.

Count how many revolutions it took to loosen after undoing lever.

Do up for the same number of revolutions, close lever.  Simples
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Oaky on 13 December, 2009, 10:51:38 pm
for me it usually goes as follows

Flip QR.
Hold QR nut and rotate lever 6 full turns.
Try and fail to remove wheel
Swear about the lawyer lips
Turn QR another couple of turns (#)
Fail to get the wheel out again
Realise that yet again the lawyer lips weren't the problem - it was me forgetting to undo the brake release  :-[
Fix puncture, reinsert wheel etc.
Hold QR nut and rotate lever 6 full turns (in other direction).
Flip QR.
Realise that it needed an extra one since I lost count at (#)
Flip QR back
Give it one more turn
Flip QR

 :-[ :-[ :-[ ::-)

Followed by stopping half a mile down the road when you remember that you didn't do up the brake release

Unfortunately, I also have to admit to that one (although I usually try and do that up on the move -- i _will_ fall off one of these times).
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: tonycollinet on 14 December, 2009, 07:09:50 am
Another advantage of disk brakes.  ;D

Regarding QR, I more or less finger tighten till it stops with the lever sticking out horizontal - then flip the lever closed.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: DuncanM on 14 December, 2009, 10:17:05 am
The most frustrating lawyer lips I encountered were on my Airnimal Joey.  To fold the thing you need to take the front wheel out, and to take the front wheel out you needed to half unscrew the "quick release".  It had V brakes, so I just filed the lawyer lips off.
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: nuttycyclist on 15 December, 2009, 12:29:57 am
I've got an Airnimal Joey.  I've not noticed an issue on that.  Does it have lawyer lips?
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: Ian H on 15 December, 2009, 08:59:46 am
I've got an Airnimal Joey.  I've not noticed an issue on that.  Does it have lawyer lips?

Mine doesn't, funnily enough...
Title: Re: An argument in favour of "lawyer lips"
Post by: nuttycyclist on 16 December, 2009, 12:27:16 am
Bugger.  That means I need to get off of the sofa and head for the spare room to check the bike  >:(