two brakes, one lever - is it legal?

[Tigerbiten]

Just say you have a catastrophic failure of the rear hydraulic cylinders.

A catastrophic failure of both rear cylinders simultaneously!
You are really pushing the boundaries of bad luck there.

You don't need the hydraulic brakes to fail.
You just need something to jam under the pedal, that will still cause you to loose the brakes.

[Brucey]

Similarly I once had my brake fluid boil, I dont know where exactly it was and was not boiling but I certainly was not getting braking on one side only, so it was making the fluid compressible either in both front pipes or a part shared by both sub-systems.

I think we have now established that cars dont really have two fully independent effective braking systems.
However they have enough safety measures that you retain braking after most types of failures.

well they used to; the MOT rules used to describe the parking brake as an 'emergency brake' which is a good description because it has been needed as such before now, should the main brakes fail totally.

However increasingly the (electronic) parking brake on a modern car cannot be applied when the vehicle is moving, which makes it useless as an emergency brake.

I have seen quite a few cars with apparently 'normal' (i.e. diagonally split, hydraulic) brakes where it was possible to have no main brakes at all following failure of one tiny part.

I like cars with a manual handbrake....

I also like (tadpole) trikes with a third brake on the centreline wheel, since having one brake on one side only (in the event of a failure of the other main brake) does not make for safe braking; it is (depending on the machine) at least difficult to go in straight line and slow down appreciably with one front brake.

cheers

[[XAP]Bob]

Similarly I once had my brake fluid boil, I dont know where exactly it was and was not boiling but I certainly was not getting braking on one side only, so it was making the fluid compressible either in both front pipes or a part shared by both sub-systems.

I think we have now established that cars dont really have two fully independent effective braking systems.
However they have enough safety measures that you retain braking after most types of failures.

well they used to; the MOT rules used to describe the parking brake as an 'emergency brake' which is a good description because it has been needed as such before now, should the main brakes fail totally.

However increasingly the (electronic) parking brake on a modern car cannot be applied when the vehicle is moving, which makes it useless as an emergency brake.

I have seen quite a few cars with apparently 'normal' (i.e. diagonally split, hydraulic) brakes where it was possible to have no main brakes at all following failure of one tiny part.

I like cars with a manual handbrake....

I also like (tadpole) trikes with a third brake on the centreline wheel, since having one brake on one side only (in the event of a failure of the other main brake) does not make for safe braking; it is (depending on the machine) at least difficult to go in straight line and slow down appreciably with one front brake.

cheers

Very much depends on steering geometry.

On an ICE you can (apparently) disconnect the steering rod from one wheel and ride around just fine.. You can also brake - with the *other* front wheel - and it will stop you just fine...
At least that's the theory, I might ask if I can try it next time I am there, and video it.

However I seem to have terrible luck with rear disc brake mounts - can't fit one on either of my 'bents without modification at the moment... (I'd quite like a drum dynamo combination for my rapto, and a drum/3spd/9spd cassette for the trike - although a drum/dynamo/cassette would probably do for most things).

[[XAP]Bob]

I would consider that personal safety and the safety of others, is more important than the letter of the law, If you ride your bike and pretend that your lever has broken, you will feel decidedly unsafe and out of control, even on flattish terrain. A back up brake that you are able to operate and that is effective is necessary should the primary braking system fail and is essential in my opinion.

Given the OP...
We are talking about weak grip with one hand.

So if that is the 'backup brake' hand... then it's still operable - although you wouldn't choose to operate it in most situations.

I have two independent braking systems on my trike - one on the left front, one on the right front.
I can use either to stop me fairly well - if I use both at full power then I am a bicycle until I stop (or stop braking), since the tail is in the air - loaded or not - that thing can brake at over 1g in the dry.


Mind you I really ought to adjust the cable on the rear brake of the rapto (it's relatively useless in terms of stopping power, but even more so if the cable is too slack...)

[thirdcrank]

[youtube]xSn-wHTLRcg[/youtube]

Obviously that's for competition on closed roads, but I imagine she trains as well...

The brakes are mostly independent, it depends how they define independent really.

I've only just watched that and it's really interesting both from the POV of her overcoming disability through personal determination and that of the innovation in the sense of getting all the complications of two modern combined brake/gear levers into one unit which works to that remarkable standard.

It would be interesting to know if there's been any advice about legality: apart from anything else it would be a good pointer for the OP, even if there was no plan to use STI or Ergo. Otherwise, we are back to what if? In particular, if she were unfortunately to be in a crash, eg van failing to give way, would the driver's insurance allege contributory negligence? Would they stoop ....?

[[XAP]Bob]

Would they stoop ....?

Only if the driver stopped...

[rob_wales]

I've only just watched that and it's really interesting both from the POV of her overcoming disability through personal determination and that of the innovation in the sense of getting all the complications of two modern combined brake/gear levers into one unit which works to that remarkable standard.

It would be interesting to know if there's been any advice about legality: apart from anything else it would be a good pointer for the OP, even if there was no plan to use STI or Ergo. Otherwise, we are back to what if? In particular, if she were unfortunately to be in a crash, eg van failing to give way, would the driver's insurance allege contributory negligence? Would they stoop ....?

Yes, it is interesting. I have to admire her ability to get on with what she wants to do etc. She is obviously a very determined lady. But if my wife's setup is illegal, then Sarah's might be illegal too. The setup is similar, although hers seems much better engineered. We are back to the same problem - it works, and it works quite well. But in the unfortunate event of an accident you might be entering a legal minefield.

The wife's bike is now in the bike shop having two standard levers fitted, but we are swapping sides so the left pulls the front brake. I think they call that the Continental method. And there was me thinking we were doing the Brexit thing.

[Bowedw]

The reason we have the brakes operating with the rear on the left lever, is because we cycle/drive on the left and when signaling to turn Right, we are able to do so and control the bikes, speed and stability with the rear brake.
This I believe is in the Highway Code. no doubt I will soon be corrected on this and the legal requirement or not will be clarified.

[Tigerbiten]

I also like (tadpole) trikes with a third brake on the centreline wheel, since having one brake on one side only (in the event of a failure of the other main brake) does not make for safe braking; it is (depending on the machine) at least difficult to go in straight line and slow down appreciably with one front brake.

I'm fine on an ICE trike with only one front brake.
Once on tour, the left hand cable got so sticky it started to jam.
So I disconnected it for a couple of days until I could replace the cable.
Apart from a very small wigle as the right brake came on, which was easily corrected, the right hand brake was still stopping me better than the back brake.

[[XAP]Bob]

The reason we have the brakes operating with the rear on the left lever, is because we cycle/drive on the left and when signaling to turn Right, we are able to do so and control the bikes, speed and stability with the rear brake.
This I believe is in the Highway Code. no doubt I will soon be corrected on this and the legal requirement or not will be clarified.

I don't th k there is any legal requirement to set brakes up 'backwards'

Personally I agree with sheldon, that the whole world has it wrong...

[Brucey]

I think that if you want to sell a new bike in the UK with BS sticker on it, the LH brake lever must work the rear brake, and the RH one must work the front.

However I think that there is in effect no binding legal requirement to keep it this way.

cheers

[drossall]

This is covered on the main site, although it's a bit less clearly presented than the original Chris Juden version. Different regulations apply for new bicycles at point of sale (the Pedal Bicycle Safety Regulations) and for cycles in general used on the road (the Construction and Use Regulations).

In broad terms the former are more prescriptive so, as soon as you get the bike out of the shop, you can swap the brake cables round, remove various reflectors and any bell, and so on. Which is what I have done a number of times, because I've ridden with left lever to front brake for decades. Let's not do the debate on which is best again; I just prefer it that way.

[Abradable Chin]

I have two independent braking systems on my trike - one on the left front, one on the right front.

I thought you meant left foot and right foot. Some BMXers stuff one of their trainers in to the fork space between crown and tyre to stop.
I've sometimes wonderd in idle moments what the best technique is for foot braking on an upright.

[andrew_s]

I think that if you want to sell a new bike in the UK with BS sticker on it, the LH brake lever must work the rear brake, and the RH one must work the front.

Yes, right front/left rear is legally required at the point of sale (for complete bikes at least), but there's no problems with the customer swapping afterwards.
I think it's so that some unsuspecting purchaser doesn't grab a handful of front brake thinking it's the rear, and send themselves over the bars.
There's a surprising number of idiots who think that skidding the back wheel is clever. One's due up for sentencing soon.

[tony_s]

This thread has moved on apace, whereas there are many other distractions in my life (yes, really!), but in answer to questions about my failing two-cable lever -
Firstly, it was a long time ago, I abandoned that arrangement soon after acquiring it, and my memory is dim, but the lever did look like the photo Brucey posted. The cables certainly weren't slack, but the components could well have been assembled incorrectly by one of the several previous owners / maintainers. For my part, I hadn't had it long and hadn't investigated before disaster struck. There is no real prospect now of establishing what actually went wrong but in my mind it doesn't actually matter, the point being that any single point of total failure is a risk, however wonderful the quality of engineering or maintenance.
Oh yes, age and experience breed paranoia. Expect no more from this quarter, as I shall be offline for two weeks.