Trivial brake law question.

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
thirdcrank
Posts: 30529
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby thirdcrank » 21 Dec 2020, 5:20pm

tatanab wrote: ... it is not something they dreamed up in 1983. I recall from a few decades ago that this particulate part of the requirements has been in place since the late 1940s or early 1950s and simply carried over .


Exactly. That's the point I was trying to make and I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer. I don't think that the legislators dreamed up anything, except two different ways - originally wheel size and then saddle height - to exempt toys. I cannot imagine, for instance that Kirkpatrick Macmillan was able to check any Hobby Horse (Construction and Use) Regulations before he got his thinking cap on.

For long enough the pedal cycle and its predecessors were treated as "carriages," governed by the same rules and that persists, of course in some statutes. (A schoolfriend thought he was clever when he referred to a bicycle as a horseless horse.)

I'm saying that at each stage they formalised what was already customary.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17971
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby [XAP]Bob » 25 Dec 2020, 5:16pm

Something spelled out in detail in the regs is legal or it isn't.


My recollection was that anything not covered was legal, as opposed to everything being illegal unless permitted by law.

In the case of a ‘bent trike I’d be happy to suggest that seat height is where your hips are, and that will basically always be below the legal height.
From a practical perspective there is no benefit to having a rear brake in almost any circumstance - they are good parking brakes (but so are the fronts) and they can be used as a drag brake for alpine descents (not many of those in the UK). In normal use they are as likely as not going to lock the rear wheel which will then be free to move sideways and overtake the fronts. Indeed the junior KMX uses that exact configuration, but it’s so low and wide that it results in handbrake turns as the default way to stop if you use that lever.


From a practical perspective I’d be happy to suggest that two brakes to the front wheels are adequate, and legally sufficient - but defending in court seems obvious, but carries some risk.
To show that it is the “normal” configuration is probably a good start.

The question is whether the dual cable pulle wind cheetah design counts as two braking systems. I argue that it does, and I do so by comparison with motor vehicles. Two braking systems are required, though controlled by one pedal.

A bigger question arises if people link hydraulic brakes on a tadpole (tiger, are you on cables or hydraulics?). Because then that’s two brakes, but they are certainly not independent.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

OldLimey
Posts: 127
Joined: 1 Aug 2020, 8:53pm

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby OldLimey » 27 Dec 2020, 2:03pm

I was reading through some of this thread and thinking to myself, I'm so glad we don't have seemingly trivial laws pertaining to bikes here in the US. But then a quick search brought me to a US consumer protection website which shows the requirements for bikes; they explain things without all the legalese.

One of the requirements was about wheel reflectors which must be in place when a new bike is sold, but it's legal for a customer to remove them. I was already aware of this law. When I bought my Specialized fat bike, it had no wheel reflectors. I happen to like them so I tried to buy some. There aren't any that will fit the spoke spacing!

On this consumer protection page I also saw this, about having no protrusions over or under the crossbar. The place they do allow it is right by the crank arms, which could cause a problem if it came loose. Well, I carry a tool pouch on top of the crossbar, under the saddle; I have no other place to put it! I doubt that any cop would even know about this law, so why have such laws?

bike protrusion.jpg
bike protrusion.jpg (24.88 KiB) Viewed 216 times
If I knew how to ride a bike, properly, I'd do it every time

Brucey
Posts: 42162
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby Brucey » 27 Dec 2020, 2:25pm

OldLimey wrote:I was reading through some of this thread and thinking to myself, I'm so glad we don't have seemingly trivial laws pertaining to bikes here in the US. But then a quick search brought me to a US consumer protection website which shows the requirements for bikes; they explain things without all the legalese....


Ha. I am old enough to remember the actions of the CPSC forcing a redesign of the Campagnolo Nuovo Record groupset, without which it would not have been possible to continue selling it in the USA. Amongst other things the outer plate of the FD became wider and this necessitated a redesign of the RH crank, meaning that (to the annoyance of everyone, including bike fettlers to this very day) a whole swathe of different bottom bracket spindles were required.

Bicycle manufacture is pretty globalised, so manufacturers usually try and make their components/bikes so that they can be sold (with minimal changes) in almost any country.

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

drossall
Posts: 5099
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby drossall » 27 Dec 2020, 6:42pm

OldLimey wrote:I was reading through some of this thread and thinking to myself, I'm so glad we don't have seemingly trivial laws pertaining to bikes here in the US. But then a quick search brought me to a US consumer protection website which shows the requirements for bikes; they explain things without all the legalese.

It was US legal practice that forced the introduction of "lawyer's lips" on front drop-outs, to prevent wheels from coming out if quick releases were loose. Views vary - a lot of people see them as a good idea - but they are quite a detailed aspect of bike design.

9494arnold
Posts: 1058
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 3:13pm

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby 9494arnold » 27 Dec 2020, 7:56pm

Don't forget that older Trikes are often fixed wheel drive , and often through a differential so both rear wheels can
( theoretically at least)be used for restraining the beast via the transmission.
Not as easy as I make it sound here. I do own such a machine.

The 'protrusions rule' . This us why the Current Raleigh Chopper has the Gear Lever on the bars .

' Lawyers Lips' a result of idiots not knowing what they are doing with a quick release.
Does my head in.
Quick 'M' check, sorted.

Problem is dealing with idiots . They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience .

OldLimey
Posts: 127
Joined: 1 Aug 2020, 8:53pm

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby OldLimey » 27 Dec 2020, 8:37pm

Brucey wrote:Bicycle manufacture is pretty globalised, so manufacturers usually try and make their components/bikes so that they can be sold (with minimal changes) in almost any country.

cheers


That stands to reason. One of the things I found was the rule requiring a chain guard. It goes to great length to describe the length, width and how it must fit the bike. My Specialized Fatboy doesn't have a chain guard, but then the rule doesn't apply to bikes with multiple chain rings, probably because of the FD. So if no chain guard is okay for some bikes, why not all bikes? Okay, I'm asking a rhetorical question... but then again, maybe I'm not.
If I knew how to ride a bike, properly, I'd do it every time

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3751
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby Bmblbzzz » 27 Dec 2020, 8:48pm

As it's been explained to me, the requirement for a chain guard is to stop the chain coming off and gashing the rider's leg. The cage of a correctly adjusted FD should do the same. That's the theory.

OldLimey
Posts: 127
Joined: 1 Aug 2020, 8:53pm

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby OldLimey » 27 Dec 2020, 9:52pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:As it's been explained to me, the requirement for a chain guard is to stop the chain coming off and gashing the rider's leg. The cage of a correctly adjusted FD should do the same. That's the theory.


That sounds reasonable. Being the awkward type that likes to dig deep and know the reasons for everything, I'd like to know how a chain could come off and gash the rider's leg. I'm not saying it can't happen. I rode bikes a lot when I was young, and have gotten back into it in the last five years, and the only time I had a chain come off was soon after I got my fat bike, four years ago. The LBS hadn't adjusted the RD and the chain wrapped around the axle when I changed to the lowest gear. But coming off a chain ring is a new one to me.

Perhaps these rules are added each time someone gets hurt. That's how the electrical code is; it's updated every three years to take into consideration the dumbest things that people do, among other things.
If I knew how to ride a bike, properly, I'd do it every time

User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 2142
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby Tigerbiten » 27 Dec 2020, 11:52pm

My take on recumbent seats is ..........
You need some form of a backrest to ride a recumbent.
So the backrest is an integral part of the seat.
So you must take into account with regard to seat height.
Headrests are not really needed so are not counted.
If you cut/lock the top of a seat so it's under the magic height then that would count.
But any seat with the top of the back rest that can be moved above the magic height doesn't get away with only one brake.

As for twin cable brakes off a single lever.
It only takes some form of a cable jam for things to go wrong fast.
This will normally lock up one or both brakes.
With luck one locks on, without both lock off.
I've had both happen when I used cable brakes.
So not really independent.
With cars it's just accepted that if something gets behind the brake pedal and jams it then you lose your footbrake.
In that case you better hope your handbrake works and stops you.
So two independent brakes, one just a lot better than the other.
That's how my trikes set up.
The back drag/parking brake is there for emergency backup if the main front brakes fail.
BTW:- All the rules state that both brakes must be efficient but nowhere is it stated both must be able to be used at the same time ........ :roll:

Luck ......... :D

hemo
Posts: 883
Joined: 16 Nov 2017, 5:40pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby hemo » 29 Dec 2020, 3:31pm

The guy may be stretching the law a little as the regs also state the single brake issue is for pre 1984 built machines, other wise dual acting braking needs to apply,

Sid Aluminium
Posts: 186
Joined: 26 Feb 2019, 7:38pm
Location: Beyond the edge of the wild

Re: Trivial brake law question.

Postby Sid Aluminium » 29 Dec 2020, 7:01pm

OldLimey wrote:I was reading through some of this thread and thinking to myself, I'm so glad we don't have seemingly trivial laws pertaining to bikes here in the US. But then a quick search brought me to a US consumer protection website that shows the requirements for bikes; they explain things without all the legalese.


The US Federal CPSC requirements only apply to new bicycles at the point of first retail sale. These requirements seem to have been established sometime in the early 1960s - or perhaps by a bureaucrat who's knowledge of cycles dated from that period - and make no allowance advancements and the flowering of the US market in the last half-century.

US Federal CPSC requirements for bicycles are completely unpoliced and I've met American bike shop owners who are oblivious and ignorant of them. New cycle models are released to the American market on a regular basis that are not compliant.

Legal requirements (if any) for using one's bicycle on American public streets and thoroughfares are left up to each individual state, and in some instances, local municipalities. This is not as bad as it might sound - in general, the situation on the ground is pretty laise-faire.