Death on a Sondors

BatteryPower

New Member
Some throttles are very cheap.. It could be a shorted throttle which would cause the bike to lurch or stay at full power.

Obviously if you are dead nothing is going to help you; but when you buy an ebike you should do so from a company that can stand behind it from a liability perspective. Liability insurance is a major cost that Storm skirted.
 

BatteryPower

New Member
The throttle is not the cause of this unfortunate accident.

"the man then lost control of the eBike and was ejected onto the pavement as a result of the collision."

I have seen failed electrical systems on ebikes whereby the throttle engages and the brakes won't override. The result is you can get "ass launched" into traffic; sometimes the front wheel will even lift off the ground.

We don't know why there was a Sondors fatality; we just know that a fatality occurred, the bikes were not tested to US standards, the company lacks insurance, the officers of the company are in a lawsuit and are judgement proof. Sorry this bike is bad mojo.
 

Hurley

Active Member
"the man then lost control of the eBike and was ejected onto the pavement as a result of the collision."

I have seen failed electrical systems on ebikes whereby the throttle engages and the brakes won't override. The result is you can get "ass launched" into traffic; sometimes the front wheel will even lift off the ground.

We don't know why there was a Sondors fatality; we just know that a fatality occurred, the bikes were not tested to US standards, the company lacks insurance, the officers of the company are in a lawsuit and are judgement proof. Sorry this bike is bad mojo.

Hello FTC compliant.
To insinuate the bike is the cause of the accident without due diligence is irresponsible. Do you think 2:00 am or riding in an altered state had anything to do with it?
C'mon man. Let it go.
 

BatteryPower

New Member
1) Sondors lacks the financial depth of many ebike manufacturers - No recourse
--cost savings to him, risk to you
2) Sondors lacks product liability insurance and is judgement proof - No recourse
--cost savings to him, risk to you

There are other ebikes that will be far far safer than Sondors, many bike systems have had extensive testing of both components and the total system. YES the Sondors is more dangerous to you than some other ebike systems.

Yes, see the dead guy.
 

Cameron Newland

Well-Known Member
1) Sondors lacks the financial depth of many ebike manufacturers - No recourse
--cost savings to him, risk to you
2) Sondors lacks product liability insurance and is judgement proof - No recourse
--cost savings to him, risk to you

There are other ebikes that will be far far safer than Sondors, many bike systems have had extensive testing of both components and the total system. YES the Sondors is more dangerous to you than some other ebike systems.

Yes, see the dead guy.

I've yet to see any convincing information that might indicate that the bike itself was responsible for a death in that case, but thank you for the suggestion anyway.
 

BatteryPower

New Member
I've yet to see any convincing information that might indicate that the bike itself was responsible for a death in that case, but thank you for the suggestion anyway.

This industry operates under the theory of STRICT LIABILITY.

Under this legal theory this means that a bike manufacturer will be held responsible under a very wide variety of circumstances. The lack of documentation from Sondors makes the scope even greater. A manufacturer would have considered strict liability in their planning and pricing; clearly Sondors did not.

Financially, he could not care if you get injured or killed.
 

Cameron Newland

Well-Known Member
This industry operates under the theory of STRICT LIABILITY.

Under this legal theory this means that a bike manufacturer will be held responsible under a very wide variety of circumstances. The lack of documentation from Sondors makes the scope even greater. A manufacturer would have considered strict liability in their planning and pricing; clearly Sondors did not.

Financially, he could not care if you get injured or killed.

Please do let me know if any evidence is unearthed that Sondors might be responsible for the death. Thank you so much! :D
 

Jim123

Member
1 incident would have to be applied to a broad type of circumstances. Many Ebike companies are small, that can't be to blame by it's self. But all Ebikes could be required to have 200 mm hydraulic disk brakes with standardized motor cut offs. No brand should be blamed from what we know. But the general circumstance could be improved.
 

BatteryPower

New Member
1 incident would have to be applied to a broad type of circumstances. Many Ebike companies are small, that can't be to blame by it's self. But all Ebikes could be required to have 200 mm hydraulic disk brakes with standardized motor cut offs. No brand should be blamed from what we know. But the general circumstance could be improved.

I know small bike shops and manufacturer-importers (including Big Cat) that do the right thing and pony up for product liability insurance. They are providing PL because it is the right thing to do both for consumers and for the longevity of a company.

Companies that don't have PL should be required to post a bond to cover liability; the same way your licensed contractor does when he works on your house.

The fact storm was allowed to get away with this failure by Indigogo and Kickstarter-alike is telling. Both those entities need to be named in any lawsuit that arises under strict liability.
 
Last edited:

Cameron Newland

Well-Known Member
I know small bike shops and manufacturer-importers (including Big Cat) that do the right thing and pony up for product liability insurance. They are providing PL because it is the right thing to do both for consumers and for the longevity of a company.

Companies that don't have PL should be required to post a bond to cover liability; the same way your licensed contractor does when he works on your house.

The fact storm was allowed to get away with this failure by Indigogo and Kickstarter-alike is telling. Both those entities need to be named in any lawsuit that arises under strict liability.

That's preposterous. No marketplace is responsible in any way for claims of injury from products sold on their platform. Does your local car dealership get sued every time someone buys a car from them and consequently dies in a wreck? I don't think so.

Are you an ambulance-chasing attorney, a corporate insurance salesman, or both?
 

BatteryPower

New Member
That's preposterous. No marketplace is responsible in any way for claims of injury from products sold on their platform

Actually that is the way the tort law is practiced and works;

All Parties in the Chain of Distribution
As a general principle, you want to include any and all parties involved in the chain of distribution (the path that the product takes from manufacture to distribution to the customers) of the injury-causing product.

More so

With goods subject to strict liability is usual for the parties in the chain to have overlapping insurance policies; this overlap allows the insurance to be affordable.

The distribution method here;

Like most "silicon valley innovations" crowdfunding evade established business processes thereby adding some confusion into the litigation. Eventually, Indigogo and Kickstarter will be sued on this kind of issue. The issue to prove is whether or not they are in the chain; and to what extent they were involved in "the process." Indigogo was clearly notified that there were issues and concerns with this offering and they failed/refused to act, there is some indication that they were closely involved in the process , the coordination with Sondors and Agency 2.0 These are legal points that would have to be argued.

A death, which I anticipated on this very forum (and well documented herein), is just the kind of case where the effort of litigating against Indigogo and Kickstarter would be monetarily justified. You are never going to collect money from Sondors, there is no insurance, so the only party in the chain to go after with deep pockets would be Indigogo and Kickstarter.

If you bought a bike you are in a very poor risk position (even if the bike is working for your technically, and you enjoy it).

Nothing could be done against the wave of consumer frenzy; it boils down to fact resistant humans.


“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”

More worryingly, Logsdon said, “As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.”

--that is the case here where retractions, lawsuits, and now a death are factual items of irrelevance.




Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant
www.newyorker.com/.../scientists-earth-endangered-by-...
The New Yorker
May 12, 2015 - Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, Andy Borowitz ...

 
Last edited:

Cameron Newland

Well-Known Member
Actually that is the way the tort law is practiced and works;

All Parties in the Chain of Distribution
As a general principle, you want to include any and all parties involved in the chain of distribution (the path that the product takes from manufacture to distribution to the customers) of the injury-causing product.

More so

With goods subject to strict liability is usual for the parties in the chain to have overlapping insurance policies; this overlap allows the insurance to be affordable.

The distribution method here;

Like most "silicon valley innovations" crowdfunding evade established business processes thereby adding some confusion into the litigation. Eventually, Indigogo and Kickstarter will be sued on this kind of issue. The issue to prove is whether or not they are in the chain; and to what extent they were involved in "the process." Indigogo was clearly notified that there were issues and concerns with this offering and they failed/refused to act, there is some indication that they were closely involved in the process , the coordination with Sondors and Agency 2.0 These are legal points that would have to be argued.

A death, which I anticipated on this very forum (and well documented herein), is just the kind of case where the effort of litigating against Indigogo and Kickstarter would be monetarily justified. You are never going to collect money from Sondors, there is no insurance, so the only party in the chain to go after with deep pockets would be Indigogo and Kickstarter.

If you bought a bike you are in a very poor risk position (even if the bike is working for your technically, and you enjoy it).

Nothing could be done against the wave of consumer frenzy; it boils down to fact resistant humans.


“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”

More worryingly, Logsdon said, “As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.”

--that is the case here where retractions, lawsuits, and now a death are factual items of irrelevance.




Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant
www.newyorker.com/.../scientists-earth-endangered-by-...
The New Yorker
May 12, 2015 - Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, Andy Borowitz ...

While this silly tort system surely may benefit trial lawyers, it's morally unjustified because it punishes those members of the supply chain that may have done nothing wrong, and incentivizes claimants to go after those with deep pockets instead of those most at fault. The standard of proof is too low and as a result, justice is perverted. That's why the current system of torts is so patently ridiculous and improper (see Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 1963).

Clearly you're a deontological ethicist who believes that whatever happens to be enshrined in law at the current time is the only proper remedy for society's ills, so I doubt I'll be able to convince you of the serious ethical and moral faults in our tort laws, however, if you remember correctly, forced slavery used to be the law of the land, too. Did the fact that it was the law make it morally and ethically right? I would argue that it did not.

Anyway, you seem to have dodged my question: are you an ambulance-chasing attorney or an insurance salesman or both? I'm curious to know your answer. I'd be even more curious to know why you're so interested in this issue if it turns out that you're neither an attorney nor an insurance salesman! ;-)