Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Brucey
Posts: 41442
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby Brucey » 22 Oct 2014, 9:30am

profpointy wrote:after all my scepticism....... Mmm...I'd have thought a brown-trouser moment at best would be the outcome with or without the plastic clippy-release. Maybe it's some chance rather than a definite off....


No, once the mudguard starts to crumple (as per the illustration above) it'll almost certainly have you off in the worst way possible unless some kind of QD is fitted. It is a potential killer, pretty much on a par with having your forks break spontaneously.

If you don't want to (or can't) use secu clips for some reason then the danger may be considerably mitigated by using a stay mounting that is set an inch or two above the front axle; should anything get trapped and the mudguard start to crumple, the gap between the mudguard and the wheel will open up (initially) which substantially reduces the risk of a severe jam. I suspect that bike builders knew this exactly in the 1930s (when more fragile lightweight mudguards were first more commonly used) but somehow this was 'forgotten' by bike designers later on. Nearly all quality lightweights from the 1930s onwards for about 30 years had the stay mounts well above the axle, front and rear.

BTW for anyone who has rattly secu-clips; possibly the loop in the stay was deformed (to make it narrower and therefore prone to move and loosen further over time) when the stays were installed originally. In any event if you open up the loop slightly (and then bend the stay elsewhere to make it line up with the mudguard brackets OK) you can make one that was slightly loose snug again. If they are very loose then the (huge.. :roll: ) investment in new clips and careful fitting should see you right again.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Keith Bennett
Posts: 34
Joined: 26 Jan 2009, 12:21pm

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby Keith Bennett » 24 Oct 2014, 3:41pm

Started club riding more than 70 years ago, In that time I have heard of only one instance where a small branch was dragged up by the front tyre and jammed the front wheel causing a fellow club member to be thrown over the top, he was in a coma for a couple of weeks, no helmets in those days. There might very well be many more instances but I wouldn't be surprised that more injuries were caused by touching the wheel in front.

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby Tonyf33 » 24 Oct 2014, 4:43pm

Any suggestion of making quick release mudguards to be fitted as a legal requirement at POS is utterly ridiculous :roll:
For one the occasions when it would make a jot of difference are infinitessimally small as to being immeasurable in their benefit except for a few cases out of millions upon millions of journey's.

Why not have legislation that all adult bikes come with stabilisers because people fall off bicycles all the time either through losing balance or near misses/sideswipes, how about mandatory studs in all bike tyres at point of sale so you don't lose grip on the black ice once or twice a year, no point selling bikes with tyres with only rubber tread eh because you know ice is always a risk.
How about every bike has to come with non slip/foot shrouding pedals, we don't want your feet to slip off ever..How about totally encasing ALL derailleurs at point of sale, more chance of sticks being thrown up at them and causing an incident, what about solid wheels with no spokes at all, just in case a squirrel tries to jump through. How about all solid tyres along with them studs, because y'know people have accidents due to punctures :roll:

Start taking responsibility for yourselves, not forcing insane legislation on something that has negligible if ANY increase in safety and could easily go the other way.

Ugly
Posts: 448
Joined: 14 Jul 2009, 8:34am

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby Ugly » 24 Oct 2014, 5:56pm

A very big thumbs up to Tonyf33 comments.

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby beardy » 24 Oct 2014, 6:33pm

Start taking responsibility for yourselves, not forcing insane legislation on something that has negligible if ANY increase in safety and could easily go the other way.


Plenty of things that I dont see about that post.

First and most important, what is the downside of fitting a small cheap plastic interface on the mudguards?

How is suggesting that they be made compulsory at POS either utterly ridiculous or abdicating self responsibility.
How can this tiny change in manufacturing even be considered as comparable to all the other situations that you suggest it is comparable to when they all carry major levels of inconvenience (rather like helmets :mrgreen: ) to riders.

This is more like general rules that all sharp edges must be smoothed off on a frame before sale, though just like that example regulation has not been needed as the threat of litigation has adequate effect.

I would not bat an eyelid at having to ride a bike without mudguard releases, as you say the chances are tiny to any individual. However it is wholly reasonable to think that they could prevent a few injuries each year and their imposition would have negligible effect on the cost of a bike. Just like bells and front reflectors you can remove them if you wish and in the event of a breakage you can continue riding quite legally without them in operational condition.

I have had them pop on me three times now, one time I caught it on a wall squeezing through barriers so little risk of serious injury there. The other two times I was stopped before I could react but NOT over the bars just a fast halt, I dont know if exactly the same thing would have happened without them or not but it can not be that rare an occurrence that they are at least activated.

I dont really give a hoot if they are compulsory at POS or not, I will fit them to my bikes whenever I have a choice but not refuse free mudguards without. Not something that I am going to get worked up about but I can not see why anybody would want to mass manufacture mudguards without them.

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby Tonyf33 » 24 Oct 2014, 6:59pm

Again, if we need mandatory quick release mudguards (I have a pair btw) as has being suggested why not all the other things I mentioned. they are far more likely to save lives/injuries in one year than quick release mudguards will in a century.
if you want to buy them additionally, fine, just the notion of making them compulsary is crazy beyond belief!
Last edited by Tonyf33 on 24 Oct 2014, 7:01pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby Bicycler » 24 Oct 2014, 7:01pm

it is very easy to look at a single bit of a single part and ask why it deserves special treatment but it does make sense to include safety improvements in product design as they develop. This is where standards compliance has a role to play. By insisting that parts are manufactured and constructed to the relevant standard we could see that safety improvements were included in the design of bicycles and components. Whilst standards compliance for certain items (such as mudguards) remains optional there can be a competitive advantage to manufacturers from the lower costs of not supplying little extras like secu-clips.

Note that minor changes to product design which may enhance safety whilst in no way affecting the normal functionality of the product are in no way comparable to mandating major changes severely affecting the product's suitability for its designed purpose
Last edited by Bicycler on 24 Oct 2014, 7:08pm, edited 1 time in total.

wirral_cyclist
Posts: 781
Joined: 17 May 2010, 9:25pm
Location: Wirral Merseyside

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby wirral_cyclist » 24 Oct 2014, 7:03pm

Only guy I know who went over the bars due to a jam (1) had safety devices that failed as designed - sadly the jam still worked... Do you propose 700c guards and 650c wheels "just to be sure?"
(1) obviously his helmet stopped him splitting his thumb - oh hang on it didn't do that.
PS I'd vote for to tonyf33 too !

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby beardy » 24 Oct 2014, 7:05pm

Tony:
As I said, because (unlike secu-clips) they are all a significant imposition on riders and manufacturers.

If you could somehow ride with studded tyres all year that did not have any drawbacks then it would be a good idea to make them compulsory at POS but their drawbacks are many and significant.

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby Tonyf33 » 24 Oct 2014, 7:09pm

I've yet to see ANY statistical evidence that proves quick release mudguards are safer than std ones. yes have safety improvements but you might as well mandate every single infinitessimal 'safety' aspect of every single activity we ever do as human beings. What about bumper rails for getting out of bed..Them pesky bed manufacturers better ensure no-one hurts themselves getting out of bed..sheer lunacy!! :x
What happens to the guard section when it breaks away from the stay, that's right it often drags on the tyre, ergo you increase the chances of more incidents. it is a solution to a massively minor problem that creates other problems that probably nullify what is just not that much of a big deal in the first instance.

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby beardy » 24 Oct 2014, 7:40pm

It is a minor solution to a minor problem and that is quite fitting.

Beds do not have bumper bars fitted because that would be a major solution to a minor problem but they do now have rounded edges, another minor solution to a minor problem.

Of course you do not see any statistical evidence for the harm caused by mudguard jams because (apart from CJ) nobody has even looked into it and the incidents that do not result in harm are not recorded, so no conclusions about the effectiveness can be deduced from population studies either way.

In a way we do regulate on every aspect of human activity, you can not buy screwdrivers without a rugged handle inorder to prevent people putting the back of it through their palm, car windscreens must now be made of toughened or laminated glass etc etc.

You can still take the handles off if you wish, I dont know about the glass for windscreens.

I really dont care if the mudguards releases are compulsory at POS but it isnt unreasonable or out of the expected norms.

I would be happy to accept a clear engineering analysis of the effects of releases v fixed without it having to be tested with population studies. As it is I am just going on trust of the CTC's expert who has our (and his own as a cyclist) interests at heart.

niggle
Posts: 3423
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:29pm
Location: Cornwall, near England

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby niggle » 24 Oct 2014, 8:28pm

wirral_cyclist wrote:Only guy I know who went over the bars due to a jam (1) had safety devices that failed as designed - sadly the jam still worked... Do you propose 700c guards and 650c wheels "just to be sure?"
(1) obviously his helmet stopped him splitting his thumb - oh hang on it didn't do that.
PS I'd vote for to tonyf33 too !

More explanation please- did the mudguard blade concertina under the fork bridge (which is what the secu-clips are supposed to avoid) or was something jammed in the wheel spokes (which they are not designed to avoid)?

fastpedaller
Posts: 2677
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby fastpedaller » 24 Oct 2014, 8:38pm

beardy wrote:
car windscreens must now be made of toughened or laminated glass etc etc.



In fact the old type (toughened glass) windscreens are less dangerous if you go through them or impact with them compared to the latest laminated glass - which doesn't shatter into smaller, less harmful pieces, but breaks into large sharp pieces because it is standard glass with a plastic lamination between. This is deemed better because a) it is less likely to shatter b) objects can't penetrate it so easily but thirdly (and this is the biggy!) if occupants are wearing their seatbelts then the chances of them hitting or going through it are minimal.

Brucey
Posts: 41442
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby Brucey » 24 Oct 2014, 8:39pm

some mudguards have the release built into the connections between the mudguard and the stays rather than the stays and the frame. Could this result in a more benign failure mode?

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

niggle
Posts: 3423
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:29pm
Location: Cornwall, near England

Re: Any law re: safety release on front mudguards?

Postby niggle » 24 Oct 2014, 8:42pm

Tonyf33 wrote:I've yet to see ANY statistical evidence that proves quick release mudguards are safer than std ones. yes have safety improvements but you might as well mandate every single infinitessimal 'safety' aspect of every single activity we ever do as human beings. What about bumper rails for getting out of bed..Them pesky bed manufacturers better ensure no-one hurts themselves getting out of bed..sheer lunacy!! :x
What happens to the guard section when it breaks away from the stay, that's right it often drags on the tyre, ergo you increase the chances of more incidents. it is a solution to a massively minor problem that creates other problems that probably nullify what is just not that much of a big deal in the first instance.

I really do not understand your objection to point of sale compulsion, in what way could this possibly impact on you? I am right with you for any 'safety' feature that has unintended consequences, e.g. risk compensation, but simply cannot see any such issue with the secu-clips.

Neither do I understand your comment above- the guard section does not break away from the stays, the stays detach from the fork, so that the blade is not held tightly against a foreign body jammed against the tyre and dragged under the fork.

An alternative could be compulsion that all front mudguard eyelets are placed, say, 10cm above the wheel axle, as Thorn already do it: would you object to that?