- Reviewing the deposition testimony of the cyclist and bike shop mechanic;
- Reviewing a photograph of the subject bike at the accident scene taken by the cyclist;
- Conducting a forensic inspection of the subject bicycle;
- Assessing the cyclist’s description of his incident with the laws of physics; and
- Documenting the front fender installation procedures.
ARCCA’s investigation demonstrated that it was not necessary to remove the front wheel to install the fender provided that the quick-release lever did not cover the front fork eyelet for the fender stays. The bike inspection demonstrated an absence of forensic evidence, such as abrasion marks on the bottom of the fork dropouts that would be consistent with the fork’s interaction with the road. The bike inspection also showed that the bike mechanic had used lock-tight on the bolts for the rear rack. Examination of the scene photograph revealed that both fender stays detached from the fork, the front fender (including stays) did not exhibit any evidence of a crash, and the front wheel was lodged between the inner chain ring and bottom bracket. ARCCA’s investigation also determined that bolts attaching the fender stays to the fork drop-outs could not have worked loose in such a short distance, especially given that there was evidence that the mechanic used lock-tight on them. Additionally, if in fact the front wheel separated, the front wheel would more than likely have caused damage to the front fender, including the fender stays. The assessment of the cyclist’s description revealed that it was not consistent with the laws of physics. ARCCA’s expert concluded that there was no liability on the part of the bicycle shop and that the cyclist staged the accident.