Man refused Giant bike because of his weight; Vincenzo Nibali calls on pros to bin power data during races; Update on THAT cycle lane; Paris-Nice déjà vu as local authorities say final stage must be moved; A very Dutch problem + more on the live blog

cmedred wrote:

It might be a good idea if every time he started worrying about his weight he went for a walk. Exercise has been shown to be even better for mental health than for weight loss. It would surely help him sleep better. And who knows, it might help him drop a few kilos.

We are in the midst of a global pandemic where obesity has been shown to greatly increase one's risk of death. Is this really the time to worry about people being "fat shamed?"

We're always in the middle of something - war, recession, pandemic, environmental crisis, poverty.

I don't think that gives us a licence to forget how we treat each other. Afterall a large amount of the issues we face would be significantly eased if we paid more attention to how we behave towards each other.

Awavey wrote:

What kind of bike could support 136kg ? And would you even be able to pedal it to move it ?

A good touring bike is likely to be rated at least that high. The first thing that sprung to mind was something like the Surly Long Haul Trucker and that claims to be fine for a total weight of 150kg (https://surlybikes.com/bikes/long_haul_trucker) 

That said, if the specific bike he was after isn't rated for his weight, then I agree the shop shouldn't sell it to him. But there could have been a more delicate handling of the matter.

Its rough, but at the same time. 300lb is no average weight, even if youre just a regular overweight joe.

Giant could have built him a special one off bike but at the same time it would have probably cost him more than the bike he was originally looking to purchase and with 300lb. youre probably better off looking at more of a recumbant to help spread the weight a bit more evenly. 

Giant could have, but why should they?

I think the manager made a good call and it wasnt as if it came from bad place. Though, offering him a big discount on the day he finally comes in and make his purchase after shedding some weight would have probably been a very good gesture and also serves as movtivation for him as well as good PR for Giant.

If he wanted it that bad, the only way i would have accepted his money is if i had a legal contract drawn up saying that he has been warned multiple times about his weight and Giant will not be held responsible for any injuries caused as result of hm riding the bike and it breaks while he was out riding it --- But then again this would sound like Giant are fat shaming and discriminating against him.

If I was Barsetti and i was refused. I would be sad and i would be angry too but at the same time it would light a fire in my heart and motivate me to work harder at weight loss.

according to the update they offered to let him sign a waiver but he refused

RobD wrote:

according to the update they offered to let him sign a waiver but he refused

Then the whole thing is a non issue then. Manager didnt want to sell the bike unless a waiver was signed, customer didnt want to sign waiver  -- end of story.

This is quickly turning around to looking like he just wanted a 'get-rich-quick' scheme. He wanted to buy a bike that would break so he could sue Giant for big money. The manager didnt take the bait so he's gone to social media and the news tabloids to cry about it and give Giant negative PR when really all Giant cared about was their customers health & wellbeing.

The manager cared about him enough not to take his money.

RoubaixCube wrote:

...

Then the whole thing is a non issue then. Manager didnt want to sell the bike unless a waiver was signed, customer didnt want to sign waiver  -- end of story.

This is quickly turning around to looking like he just wanted a 'get-rich-quick' scheme. He wanted to buy a bike that would break so he could sue Giant for big money. The manager didnt take the bait so he's gone to social media and the news tabloids to cry about it and give Giant negative PR when really all Giant cared about was their customers health & wellbeing.

The manager cared about him enough not to take his money.

Or perhaps he wanted a bike, and was refused, and felt hurt.

In which case why did he not just sign the waiver? He could have had his bike if he did but he didnt.

If i walk into a store to buy a toaster and the store says refuses the sale unless i sign a waiver that states I accept all damages and responsbilities if my house burns down because of it. It wouldnt be the retailer that refused me the sale. Its that i didnt agree to their T&Cs for the sale to take place.

Being refused a sale and leaving empty handed because you refused to sign a peice of paper are two different things.

The trouble with the waiver is what happens if the bike had a fault that caused an accident which had nothing to do with his weight? Look at the new Aeroad for example with the wearing of the seat posts / frame and now the potential snapping of the handlebars. Both could have been confused with weight issues if happened on his bike but because he had signed a waiver, he would have no recourse legally unless proven to be design / manufacturing faults. 

Being refused a sale is exactly what happened. Requiring a piece of paper to be signed just for one person to take it out the store when no others need one is not a reason to say it is anything else. 

That depends on the waiver itself.

Maybe Giant would still warranty the frame but wont be held responsible for his injuries or medical costs should something happen.

If theyve presented him a contract of sale/agreement and he refused to accept then Giant really shouldnt be hung/demonised for it. Are businesses not allowed to protect themselves from potential or future litigation?

RoubaixCube wrote:

In which case why did he not just sign the waiver? He could have had his bike if he did but he didnt.

If i walk into a store to buy a toaster and the store says refuses the sale unless i sign a waiver that states I accept all damages and responsbilities if my house burns down because of it. It wouldnt be the retailer that refused me the sale. Its that i didnt agree to their T&Cs for the sale to take place.

 

Being refused a sale and leaving empty handed because you refused to sign a peice of paper are two different things.

I get why he wouldn't want to sign away his rights under warranty. 

The situation was a very tricky one for both Sebastian and the store owner, without searching for malice aforethought by either party

but he waives his rights to a warranty the moment he uses the bike outside of the manufacturers published limits, as lots of people find after theyve connected their bikes upto turbos, the guarantee voids on what they define is improper or excess use.

and Giant are one of the manufacturers who explicitly say you must deal with the retailer you bought the bike from on all warranty claims, hence another reason why the shop in this case is more alert to the problems of simply selling a bike not fit for purpose would cause them.

I really feel for him and hope that somewhere in the fine city of Halifax there's an LBS who can meet his needs. Thankful to my LBS not trying to fat-shame me over my purchase when I was his size. I get the safety aspect but I'm genuinely surprised that they're not engineered for North American-sized bodies. 

As a fat bloke (now much less so because cycling) I've often wondered where this 120kg limit comes from. I'm guessing insurance, because it turns up all over the place - track days, extreme sports, theme parks, and so on. Sometimes in the UK you also see it set at 16 or 18st. 

Either way, if you read this Sebastian, don't let it stop you. Cycling has changed my life from one of barely being able to walk up stairs without getting out of breath to regularly completing 60-milers, and doing ten mile commutes every day.

They could always use it as an opportunity to bring in the proposal that would have made this, along with other roads around the city centre, a one-way single-lane loop for motor traffic, and given the rest of the space over to walking and cycling. Unfortunately, that was too radical for them, and they went for a much less ambitious option instead.

Presumably they've had months of notice of the location of this.  It seems a bit half arsed to request a change at such late notice.  What kind of clown is the mayor?  Or is there a COVID spike?

From what I remember of what I read, it's the other way around - Covid levels dropping, so they want to ease lockdown, which means more people out and about, so places needed for them to spend time safely.

Is the library that building on the right of the picture?  So, the basement also goes under the road??

I believe it's mostly under a lawn on the left if I have interpreted the article correctly.  If so it runs up to the road, so presumably those nearby trees haven't been too good for it!

I'm not too familiar with Oxford but I've been a couple of times. I believe the library in question is under the lawn to the left of the photo (barely visible in that photo but clearer from the streetview) while the buildings on the right are part of Keeble Keble college. Google streetview here: https://goo.gl/maps/awtLSNiGkVnf37929

Keble (one 'e') please!

It's the Radcliffe Science Library which has a HUGE basement under the Natural History Museum lawn and, presumably, edging on to that path.

oliver.brennan [at] gmail.com wrote:

Keble (one 'e') please!

It's the Radcliffe Science Library which has a HUGE basement under the Natural History Museum lawn and, presumably, edging on to that path.

Is that one 'E' and its actually pronounced as "Smith" or some such Oxbridge nonsense...?

Haha. actually two 'e's I suppose, technically. But not three. It's pronounced "Cholomondly", obviousl