Snarky safety notice anyone?

[thelawnet]

Just received by email:

Important safety notice
Issued 19th May 2015

Applies to Cnoc 14 and Cnoc 16 bicycles purchased between March 2006 and 26th August 2014.


According to our records you have purchased an Islabikes Cnoc 14 or Cnoc 16. If the bike is no longer in your possession please pass this notice to the current owner.

We have been made aware of some instances of extreme usage which have resulted in frame failure. Unfortunately, for bikes purchased before 26th August 2014 we did not provide any explicit guidance on normal usage.

We apologise for this oversight and draw your attention to the user instructions for the Cnoc 14 and Cnoc 16:


Weight limit and usage instructions:

The Cnoc 14 and Cnoc 16 have been designed to be ridden by children on smooth paved, grassy or dirt surfaces with moderate gradients. It is not intended for any kind of jumping.

Parental supervision is required at all times. Avoid areas involving motorised vehicles, and obstacles or potential hazards including inclines, kerbs, stairs, sewer grates or areas near drop-offs or pools.

Your Cnoc has been designed for a maximum combined rider and luggage weight limit of:

Cnoc 14: 24kg (approximate rider age range 3 – 5 years)

Cnoc 16: 26kg (approximate rider age range 4 – 6 years)


What to do next:

Whilst the vast majority of riders will have used their bicycle in accordance with the usage instructions above, we recognise there may be a small minority of customers that have exceeded them.

• If your bike has been used in normal circumstances no action is required. We hope your child continues to enjoy their cycling.

• If you suspect that the bike has been used for jumping (i.e. both wheels leaving the ground) there is a potential for frame failure because the bike has not been designed to withstand these stresses. Please cease riding and contact us for further information and advice (see contact details below).

• If you suspect the bike has been ridden outside of the user weight instructions (e.g. an adult or older child for a prolonged distance) please cease riding and contact us for further information and advice (see contact details below).

We appreciate your understanding in this matter and would like to reassure you that the small number of incidents reported have all been due to jumping and usage outside of the above instructions.

[Flinders]

On the face of it I wouldn't say that was snarky- in what way do you think it is?

[thelawnet]

On the face of it I wouldn't say that was snarky- in what way do you think it is?

Well I suppose the fact that it is very clearly a three/four-year-olds bike and they are putting out a warning for adults not to ride it, and not perform extreme stunts on it.

When you receive a 'important safety notice' you expect something like 'the fork will catastrophically fail after 1000 miles' or 'the brakes are lethal', not basic common sense advice about use of a child's bike

[[XAP]Bob]

I think sewer grates are an odd restriction, given that rabbit holes could easily be worse...

[LollyKat]

Presumably they are covering their backs. And after all, some (a lot?) of children do jump their bikes. Just look at this small child on his balance bike: www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10150958302247596

[Si]

I would be more put out by the comment: "Avoid areas involving motorised vehicles"...surely it's up to the parent to decide if their child can ride in such areas and has nothing to do with what bike they are on (or do these particular bikes spontaneously explode if they come within 10yds of a car)?

I've taken 4-6yos out who, under appropriate supervision, were perfectly safe on minor roads, and were riding somewhat less nice than the cnoc ones.

[danhopgood]

I got one of those notices. It's certainly a "CYA" notice, but it did make me smile - as I have occasionally been known to ride my son's CNOC 14 when he seems reluctant to. I'm obviously not alone!

I won't be returning the bike - but I may give the welding on the frame the once over.....

[[XAP]Bob]

I would be more put out by the comment: "Avoid areas involving motorised vehicles"...surely it's up to the parent to decide if their child can ride in such areas and has nothing to do with what bike they are on (or do these particular bikes spontaneously explode if they come within 10yds of a car)?

I've taken 4-6yos out who, under appropriate supervision, were perfectly safe on minor roads, and were riding somewhat less nice than the cnoc ones.

Presumably therefore they suggest that their other bikes give protection against motor vehicles?

[Flinders]

I still wouldn't call it snarky.
And bar the bit about other vehicles, it all seems reasonable enough.

We all know here that even adult frames are designed to take only up to certain weights, and can fail in time if they are ridden by people who are too heavy for them, especially if they're ridden in a way they clearly aren't designed for (like my lightweight road bike being used as if it was a MTB), but parents who aren't cyclists may not know/appreciate all that, so what's wrong with the company being specific?
I also wonder if, with so many kids now being grossly overweight, it isn't a timely reminder to make sure the kid has a bike that is (as we say about horses) 'up to weight'.