Total Motorcycle Community Forums

...lol nothing like a good booty roll.. We need a booty roll smiley.

The world would be a better place wouldnt it?

Thursday
Miles: 8,305
Mood:

Confession #36- I remove my matress tags.

I can see it now. The average bloke is working on his bike and has decided to change his oil. He's a relatively competant shade-tree mechanic in his own, humble opinion. Besides, its just changing the oil, anyone can do that. The guys at Jiffy Lube have nothing on this guy. $60 for an oil change at the dealer? He'll show them where they can stick their high prices.

So he drains his oil, unscrews his oil filter, pops a new one in place after wiping some oil on the seal (like he pappy once told him) and fills her back up. He fires it up, and tears down the road.

Then, disaster strikes!

His bike slips out from under him, he comes crashing to the ground. He wasn't wearing any gear, it was just a test ride after all to get it warmed up. His skin is bruised, there's a bump on his noggin. He looks behind him, oil is everywhere, a trail follows back to his driveway. He didn't even make it to the stop sign at the corner. He forgets to shut off his engine, its smoking while he still tends his wounds. Gosh what happened? As he tries to figure it out, the engine seizes. He kicks his bike, walks defeated back to the garage, picks up the oil drail plug that he forgot to put back in and throws it in the trash.

Fast forward a month later and the judge awards him full damages and medical, in front of a panel of dumbfounded motorcycle manufacturer lawyers. Now our average bloke has a new bike, some spending cash with which he bought a 70 inch projection TV, and a big smile on his face.

This happened, I know it did. There is no other reason why my motorcycle is covered from headlight to taillight with warning stickers. Ranging from the obscure to the obvious, these stickers plague us all. "Warning!" it declares to me, "Consult owners manual before performing maintenance!"

"Yes, sir!" I salute my bike.

I read the owner's manual under the section "Maintenance." It has a list of capacities, and underneath reads "Maintenance on this vehicle should only be performed by a certified technician. For more information, consult the warning stickers on your vehicle."

Thanks!

I would tear off the sticker, but I fear being pulled over. Red & Blue behind me, a big whack on the back of my head with a riot baton.

"Son, just who do you think you are? Where are your warning stickers?"

"But officer!"

"No buts...here's your ticket."

It wouldn't be funny...except that I know, somewhere, someone has just spent 30 minutes reading the sticker on the bike, referring to the manual, then re-reading the sticker per the manual, then referring back to the manual, and finally, riding to the nearest dealership, defeated.

There is no hope for any of us.

Ask a designer/engineer why those stickers are there. I'm a designer, and I know it's called "saving you own butt" because some idiot (like you mentioned) will sue you for it if you don't slap them on.

Kinda like how McDonalds was sued because they're coffee didn't say "hot". Seriously? People suck.

Ian

imorgan202 wrote:Ask a designer/engineer why those stickers are there. I'm a designer, and I know it's called "saving you own butt" because some idiot (like you mentioned) will sue you for it if you don't slap them on.

Kinda like how McDonalds was sued because they're coffee didn't say "hot". Seriously? People suck.

Ian

I'm all for anti-warning labels. lets get some of these people out of the gene pool.

Toaster: To clean, Plug in immerse head in full sink. drop toaster in. scrub well.


I just hate that this crap ever managed to get to a court in the first place.

*crazy drinker "hello, i just burnt myself with coffee from mcdonalds. I would like to sue because they didnt tell me it was hot.
*judge with an iota of common sense* "Bailiff, have this person taken outside and shot. repeatedly. next case"

imorgan202 wrote:Kinda like how McDonalds was sued because they're coffee didn't say "hot". Seriously? People suck.

Ian

Nope, they were sued because:
1) Their coffee was so much hotter than coffee should be served that it caused immediate full-thickness skin burns

2) They knew this and still did nothing about it

3) They admitted that the coffee, as served, was "unfit for consumption"

4) They REFUSED TO PAY THE WOMAN'S MEASLY MEDICAL BILLS

The poor woman tried for months to get McDonald's to simply cover her medical bills, the way they covered the medical bills of (literally) dozens of people who have received third degree burns from their coffee. They refused and forced her to go to court.

McDonald's got what they deserved.

Coffee is not and should not be served at temperatures high enough to require hospitalization and surgery in the event of simple spillage. Theirs was, and they knew it. It was consistently 20-30 degrees higher than how coffee is typically served at restaurants. That's a difference of first degree burns and skin grafts for simply spilling some coffee. That's a big deal.

jonnythan wrote: Nope, they were sued because:
1) Their coffee was so much hotter than coffee should be served that it caused immediate full-thickness skin burns

2) They knew this and still did nothing about it

3) They admitted that the coffee, as served, was "unfit for consumption"

4) They REFUSED TO PAY THE WOMAN'S MEASLY MEDICAL BILLS

The poor woman tried for months to get McDonald's to simply cover her medical bills, the way they covered the medical bills of (literally) dozens of people who have received third degree burns from their coffee. They refused and forced her to go to court.

McDonald's got what they deserved.

Coffee is not and should not be served at temperatures high enough to require hospitalization and surgery in the event of simple spillage. Theirs was, and they knew it. It was consistently 20-30 degrees higher than how coffee is typically served at restaurants. That's a difference of first degree burns and skin grafts for simply spilling some coffee. That's a big deal.

While I'm not sure how bad coffee burns are in comparison to water burns; Coffee is supposed to be served at just off the boil (coffee boils at 214* at sea level I believe) between 212* and 205*. McDonalds must have some crazy coffee maker to make it 30* hotter. But then again, their coffee sucks enough that it might not be actual coffee. Maybe battery acid or something equally caustic.

skoebl wrote:While I'm not sure how bad coffee burns are in comparison to water burns; Coffee is supposed to be served at just off the boil (coffee boils at 214* at sea level I believe) between 212* and 205*.

Uh, no, it's not. Home coffee is generally brewed and served in the 140-150 degree range, and restaurant coffee is generally brewed and served in the 155-165 degree range.

The coffee in question was served at approximately 185 degrees.

No one brews or serves coffee that close to boiling. I'm not sure where you got that, but it's totally made-up.

The difference those 25 degrees makes is staggering. Coffee at 160 degrees does not cause third degree burns burns if you spill it. Coffee at 185 degrees causes them in ~3 seconds.

Coffee at this temperature is a known severe safety hazard. McDonald's admitted it. It was common knowledge in the food service industry. The knew what they were doing and they did it anyway.

McDonald's now serves coffee at 158 degrees, which is actually in line with industry norms.

The funny part of the McDonnald's Coffee Fiasco was the reason *why* the coffee was so hot.

They hired a consultant.

The consultant said "Coffee should be served at 155 degrees".

The consultant then figured out/decided that most drive-through customers buy coffee and take it somewhere to consume. E.g. they consume it at the office.

The consultant further figured out that the trip from store to place of consumption takes an average of 20 minutes.

The consultant then determined that disposable coffee cups will lose about 30 degrees of heat over that 20 minutes.

So the consultant concluded, "Dispense for the drive through line at 185, because by the time drinkers consume the coffee it will have cooled to 155 and be at the right serving temperature. Dispense for in-store consumption at 155."

I'm simplifying a little (there was more about storage and pot management at the store itself) but it was just that stupid. Basically the store was giving drivers, who are already in a more dangerous environment (well...theoretically) than in-store customers, coffee that was dangerously hot to transport.




Justified lawsuit, justified judgement... it actually makes a good test to see whether internet peeps pay attention or just moan about whatever Rush Limbaugh tells them to moan about. Anyone who reads the actual story will laugh at McDonnalds for being so terminally stupid... anyone who doesn't will use it as an example of frivolous lawsuits. Either way I gotta say, "that happened a long time ago... move on!"

dieziege wrote:The funny part of the McDonnald's Coffee Fiasco was the reason *why* the coffee was so hot.

They hired a consultant.

That's a great tidbit I've never come across. Thanks!