I've had some occasional correspondence from James DeMarco (his email address seems to have died as of Jan 2005) of the CPSC ('The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death'). Unfortunately, he has behaved in a deliberately obstructive manner.

In the middle of June 2003, he said he was initiating an investigation and said he would get back to me. "Please stay in touch with me and I will do likewise" he said.

By August 8th, nothing had happened, so I emailed him to ask. He replied the next day, saying that the investigation was actually complete, and that I would receive a formal snail-mail letter by the end of the week or early the next. "Thanks for the reminder" he added cheerfully.

Nothing arrived, so on the 25th August I emailed again. He replied saying that the letter had been sent and would be with me next week. He also emailed me a copy as a Word document, which I have pasted below. Curiously, he felt the need to warn me that this unofficial copy might differ in some details from the paper version. At the time, I assumed this was probably just a standard disclaimer.

---

Dear Mr. Annan:

The staff of the Office of Compliance, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, has completed its review of the information concerning the potential hazard associated with the disengagement of the front wheel of a bicycle with quick release mechanisms and disk brakes.  Your concern that this combination of bicycle components could pose the risk of injury and death to a bicycle rider, prompted the Commission and a major bicycle manufacturer to investigate the complaints, injuries and testing that was available, both from your and other sources.

Based upon the information currently available, the staff does not believe the problem identified necessitates further action by the Commission under Section 15 of the CPSA.  However, the Commission has recommended that the ASTM Bicycle Committee, which meets in October 2003, take this matter under advisement for further discussion, additional testing and problem examination.

This determination by the staff is based upon the information presently available to us.  The staff will assess any new information concerning this product to determine if action should be taken to protect the public.  Should the staff decide to investigate further, we will notify the firm.

If you have any questions concerning this file, please contact me at 301-504-7594.

Sincerely,

James A. DeMarco
Senior Compliance Officer
Recalls and Compliance Division

---

Here is section 15 of the CPSA.

By September 2nd, nothing had arrived, so I asked him again if the letter had been sent. I also specifically asked him if the text in the official letter would be different from the email version, as I was keen to publish his response. He told me again that the letter was enroute, having been "signed off by supervisory staff" on the 27th August. "Give it another week" he advised. He did not reply to my question about whether the text would differ from what I had already been sent, and I had no reason to believe it would, so I published the Word document on this web page.

The letter finally arrived on the 20th October. Here are scans of the two pages, and also the envelope. Note the contrast between the date on the letter (2 Sept) and franking date on the envelope (15th October). Also, spot the difference in the second paragraph:


The letter now includes crucial information about the ASTM meeting, firstly the date and location, and more importantly the fact that any member of the general public can attend. The letter is dated 2 Sept, but was not posted until the 15th October, just a couple of days after the ASTM meeting - a delay of more than 6 weeks! The Word document that had been sent by email omitted the critical details about the ATSM meeting. The letter bears DeMarco's signature (only), so it would be hard for him to pretend that he was unaware of the differences between the two versions, yet even though he emailed me on the very same day that the letter was date-stamped, he did not answer my question about changes to the text.

I find it very hard to think up an innocent excuse for all this. Either he altered the final text after sending the email version, and then stalled the letter for 6 weeks to make sure I didn't find out on time, or the final letter was printed and signed before he sent the censored Word document, which is equally bad. Of course I was hardly likely to fly to Las Vegas for the ASTM meeting, but I know some other people who were there (the ASTM meeting took place during the Interbike show), who certainly would have attended the meeting had they known that it was possible.

DeMarco has not offered any apology or excuse for his behaviour. He no longer replies to my emails. "Please stay in touch with me and I will do the same". Sure.  He seems to have moved on now, someone tried to report another QR failure to him in Jan 2005 and his email address bounced. So any future complaints should go through the main CPSC site.

The letter was also sent to two Cannondale employees, as they were the "major manufacturer" who co-operated in the investigation. One of them, Mark Laplante, produced a report for the CPSC and also presented it at the ASTM. This report alledgedly "proved" that there was no safety risk with the current design of forks. Despite being presented at the "open to the public" ASTM meeting, he refuses to allow the public to see his report.

Draw your own conclusions. I have.