Cycling UK Forum

tatanab wrote:So you want one lever that operates both brakes, and a lever to operate just one. Hence one brake has to be operated by either of two levers. A very expensive way is https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/cables/prob ... oubler-21/

Yes, that is a bit expensive. I just left a question with them asking about it's suitability for our situation. Thanks.

alexnharvey wrote:I think two levers can act on the one brake, so long as failure of one doesn't cause failure of the other they're independent.

But the failure of the lever would result in the failure of both brakes. Whereas if one of the two cables snapped the other brake would still work.

mattsccm wrote:Has either the fork or the brace on the seat stays got a mudguard mount hole. That's what usually doubles up as a calliper brake mount. Could your 3rd brake( to keep legal so independently connected ) fit there?

Yes. But the front one has the hole on the shocks, so there isn't room underneath. The back one is better as the new brake could go on the other side of the tube running down in the triangle under the seat.

Brucey wrote:twin pull flat bar lever (matching one for the other side also available; see note for making set of left double/right single set like you probably need)

https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/brake-levers/sjsc-twin-cable-pull-brake-lever-for-straight-bars-right/

cable splitter;

https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/cables/jtek-doublecontrol-s/

NB this is the short stroke version and won't work with V brakes; you need a different (longer) one for that. For best efficiency I suggest that the cable from the dual lever is the 'straight through' cable and the one from a (mostly unused) RH lever is the offset one terminated with a grub screw. However (unlike the alternative cable routing) this doesn't quite make the RH brake fully independent of the left, in that the LH cable has to be intact to make the brake work with the RH lever.

hth

cheers

Thanks Brucey, that looks good. I'll get my local bike engineer to look at this.

meic wrote:

rob_wales wrote:Is it legal to use a head-torch (on your head) for the front light?

Then there are the ninjas who have no lights whatsoever.

You refer of course to the dead ninjas. They tend to wear dark vests too.

Schwalbe Marathon. Never had a puncture in 5 years that I have used them.

LollyKat wrote:Is there room to fit an extra U brake inside the rear triangle like this?

Yes. Good idea. I will look into that too. Thx.

Tigerbiten wrote:But the chances of you being done for it are nil unless you get into an accident.

I hate to bring up the subject again in a different thread but perhaps Mr Alliston also thought that. My wife and I are very careful and responsible in our 60s. But get into an accident and someone gets hurt and things change completely. I am not concerned with cost here, I just want to do the right thing. I certainly don't want anyone to get injured.

Abradable Chin wrote:BTW, the setup you have could suffer a common mode failure from a single cable snap because it appears that, were the top cable to snap at the barrel, the pin/elongated barrel could fall through. You might want to check it, or swage it if necessary, so this couldn't happen.

You are quite correct. I just checked it and the pin holding the cables is not fixed in the casing. So if the top cable failed as you say the pin could drop through.

I think I'm going to take the bike in to get this sorted. There's a very good bike engineer near where I live. I'm sure he can sort it. I think an additional lever on the right side operating the front as well as the left side lever operating both brakes is the best option. That will cover the legal issues, and give her plenty of brake power. Although she doesn't want to go over the bars if it's too efficient!

Cunobelin wrote:I would suspect that there would ba an allowance for modifications due to disability

My wife's car has hand controls, which means you have to steer one handed, so we use a steering wheel ball




It is something that is illegal under other circumstances.

Yes, that is the sort of thing I meant. An allowance is made (as it should be) that some people need some leeway when it comes to applying the letter of the law. I think everyone in that position takes extra care anyway. My wife certainly does.

Brucey wrote:BTW there are proper levers available with a cable doubler built in; they are not expensive and look both better made/more reliable than that arrangement and less likely to make a hole in someone in the event of a prang.

There are also cable splitters/doublers which (IIRC) allow both brakes to be worked off one lever, but also allow one the brakes to be worked by a second lever independently of the first. If you can get an arrangement like that to work, you might satisfy the legal requirement with just two brakes on the bike and 'normal operation' via one lever only.

cheers

That sounds good. I will look into that. Thanks.

I just found this on this site https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/construction-use

The relevant part is...

The basic requirement is for two efficient braking systems, by which the front wheel (or wheels) can be braked independently of the rear wheel (or wheels). This means that if there are two wheels at the front and/or the rear, the relevant system must act on the pair. It also means that the combined operation of front and rear brakes from one lever is not allowed - except as an extra braking system: additional to the two independent front and rear braking systems required by this law.

I'm really not sure about this. My wife is not registered disabled at all, and it's not a serious loss of grip. But it is clearly more efficient for her to operate 2 brakes with one lever. The law, as usual, doesn't take account of individual circumstances. What about disabled motorists with adapted cars? I'ts possible that some of their adaptions lead to a reduction in vehicle control, but they are legal. Should we go back to two levers with reduced braking power? What happens in an accident?

meic wrote:How about fitting some other "bobby dodger" brake to a lever on the other side? Even though she cant use it.
This will only be possible on a few frames where there are alternative places that brakes could be mounted (eg a fork crown bolthole taking deep reach calipers on a cantilever brake bike).

It's a mountain bike (although she only uses it on flatish cycle tracks and quiet lanes) so I don't think there is space for another brake.

My wife has some restriction and loss of grip in her right wrist, and as a result of that we had a single Shimano lever fitted on the left side which operates both cantilever brakes (with long arms for extra leverage). There is a front and rear brake, and each has its own cable, but they are operated by the same lever. There is of course some loss of overall control as she can't apply different pressures to each brake as we all do at times. If one cable failed (as they can) she is still left with one brake, as normal. But if the lever failed she is without brakes, which is not the normal case. The lever is a pretty solid bit of kit. How likely is it to fail?

The lever was fitted by a pro bike shop who sourced the part from a UK supplier, and I noticed recently that Amazon sell something similar. But are they legal?

The law states you need two independent brakes (front and rear). These are independent as normal, but does that single lever remove the independent status? Can anyone suggest anything better? I have seen a post on another forum which suggested having a twist grip (gear shift type) operation for the brake, but not sure how well that would work.

EDIT: Should have mentioned. The brakes are Shimano XT sidepull. Each arm is about 11cm overall length.

Is it legal to use a head-torch (on your head) for the front light?