Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by bovlomov »

meic wrote:
Does fast braking = safety?


It offers safety benefits which can (and will by many) be squandered by making full use of that extra ability to go faster instead of to improve safety. On the other hand many people will actually not use risk compensation and will reap the rewards of good brakes in an emergency.

A recent research did show that fitting ABS brakes to cars had increased the speed at which drivers would drive in situations where hard braking might be needed.

Yes, I was wondering whether it might encourage faster riding. But, also, I was wondering whether efficient brakes in the wrong hands lead to loss of control.

About ABS (and off topic). There was an accident outside my house recently in which a young woman was hit by a car. I have no idea about the circumstances, but was interested to see that there were no skid marks - and I'm told that's what the police investigator reported. Has ABS done for the old method of measuring speed by length of skid mark?
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by thirdcrank »

bovlomov wrote:... Does fast braking = safety?


Better brakes - and knowing how to use them - must be safer.

My own tale about being surprised by unexpectedly sharp brakes goes back to youth hostelling in NI + Eire in 1960. My own bike was damaged just before setting off so I went on my dear old dad's with Conloy (Asp?) sidepulls and Constrictor rims. We were all riding through a pretty quiet Newcastle when a car in front of me stopped sharply. Only 15 and probably following a bit too closely and when I jammed all on, my feet slipped off the Constrictor flat platform pedals and I ended up standing in the road straddling the bike. Probably more spectacular than it sounds because a chap at the side of the road suggested something on the lines that I wouldn't be able to repeat it even for a cash sum.

All I'm trying to say is that older brakes are no big deal and they are in any case fading out, so to speak. For me it's a sleeping dogs issue.
User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by bovlomov »

thirdcrank wrote:All I'm trying to say is that older brakes are no big deal and they are in any case fading out, so to speak. For me it's a sleeping dogs issue.

You're right. I left chromed rims behind when I bought new wheels. It wasn't an option by then.

There may be an artisan producer somewhere, for those cyclists still hanging on steel for authenticity and nostalgia, but there can't be many of those.

The same for brakes. I don't think such crappy brakes are an option these days, even on the worst bikes.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by meic »

The same for brakes. I don't think such crappy brakes are an option these days, even on the worst bikes.

Most of the cheap BSO's and budget bikes come with pretty effective V brakes. At least for a short while. Many of those you see being ridden have lost their pads, snapped cables, have cables rusted up, disconnected because of buckled wheels, noodles torn out where cheap metal bends etc etc etc.
Yma o Hyd
PDQ Mobile
Posts: 4659
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by PDQ Mobile »

Psamathe wrote:I don't see how you could guess at how efficient this brake is. To me does not say "efficient braking system" or "efficient brakes". As long as it has at least one brake that is efficient then that would comply with (my interpretation of) said regs (as quoted above).
Ian


Well if it can only lock the back wheel but still not stop you within a reasonable distance IMHO it's not efficient.
Efficiency of (a) brake(s) has to be measured by the ability to stop the bike, surely?

The question of the steep hills is just a demonstration of how efficient brakes work.
The effect is greater because more weight is removed from the back wheel and thrown forward,of course.
It's obvious to me because every time I leave the house I cycle up and down such steep hills on narrow and often wet roads, between stone walls. My life literally depends on my brakes every trip.
What's more, this efficiency translates over into level roads, urban cycling and, as Meic has said, emergency stops. All IMHO.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by mjr »

PDQ Mobile wrote:Well if it can only lock the back wheel but still not stop you within a reasonable distance IMHO it's not efficient.
Efficiency of (a) brake(s) has to be measured by the ability to stop the bike, surely?

The bike as ridden, on the route it's ridden.

PDQ Mobile wrote:The question of the steep hills is just a demonstration of how efficient brakes work.

Really? It smells like a red herring intended to manufacture the conclusion that a front brake is somehow essential in general and Dutch cyclists are the luckiest people alive not to be dying every time they ride a rear-brake-only bike.

PDQ Mobile wrote:It's obvious to me because every time I leave the house I cycle up and down such steep hills on narrow and often wet roads, between stone walls. My life literally depends on my brakes every trip.
What's more, this efficiency translates over into level roads, urban cycling and, as Meic has said, emergency stops. All IMHO.

Including more people travelling faster and relying on their super-duper brakes to stop them in stupidly short distances, like the ABS Meic has mentioned. If their brake develops a fault, it leaves them with too little time to react and things are likely to end badly - old farts like me who grew up with crap brakes try not to rely on them too much and remember emergency dismounts, emergency turns and even scraping our shoes to stop!

I can understand why anyone riding down such steep hills would prefer two good brakes, but let's not kid ourselves that only stuff as good as that is safe on level ground - that's a very slippery slope which could end with anything less than the latest sharpest disc brakes being banned.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
PDQ Mobile
Posts: 4659
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by PDQ Mobile »

Well I don't agree with any of that.
"The bike as ridden etc."
Now that is a red herring!

The point you raised from the Vienna Convention states the brake must be efficient.
It is my contention that a rear brake is not efficient (travelling in a forwards direction!!)

I am not saying or suggesting that all bikes need super modern discs. That's 2+2=6.

I possess no bike with discs.(( Idon't particularly like them, I find them too hi tech (see other threads) but each to their own.))
But I ride a bike with decent brakes and I maintain them so they work well.
And my healthy life and others healthy lives depend on them at times.
I agree with Chris Juden as quoted earlier that a front brake is essential.
Just that.

Can't see a problem with it really?
The sad case that this thread concerns seems to bear that out.
Had the guy had a decent simple front brake then it is very possible that he could have reduced the energy of the impact considerably in a very short time. And the consequences would have been less severe.
All in my very humble opinion.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by mjr »

PDQ Mobile wrote:The point you raised from the Vienna Convention states the brake must be efficient.
It is my contention that a rear brake is not efficient (travelling in a forwards direction!!)

I'm pretty sure that case law is not on your side, nor does it match my experience but we probably have different definitions of efficient.

PDQ Mobile wrote:I am not saying or suggesting that all bikes need super modern discs. That's 2+2=6.

I know but it's a logical conclusion of your position of saying some brakes which stop bikes aren't good enough based apparently on your opinion rather than some definitive standard, such as not acting on a pneumatic tyre and being able to lock the wheel. While you might be happy with two brakes rated 2 out of 5, if such thinking becomes widespread then a legislator might get away with a very similar argument for two 4-out-of-5 brakes.

PDQ Mobile wrote:I possess no bike with discs.(( Idon't particularly like them, I find them too hi tech (see other threads) but each to their own.))
But I ride a bike with decent brakes and I maintain them so they work well.
And my healthy life and others healthy lives depend on them at times.

So why aren't Dutch streets lined with corpses? I think the main bit of the above that I agree with is "each to their own"!

PDQ Mobile wrote:I agree with Chris Juden as quoted earlier that a front brake is essential.
Just that.

I usually agree with CJ of this parish but I feel he's limited by his British perspective on this topic.

PDQ Mobile wrote:Can't see a problem with it really?
The sad case that this thread concerns seems to bear that out.
Had the guy had a decent simple front brake then it is very possible that he could have reduced the energy of the impact considerably in a very short time. And the consequences would have been less severe.
All in my very humble opinion.

Anything's possible, but I don't think it would have because, as the judge said to him, "you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident."
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
PDQ Mobile
Posts: 4659
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by PDQ Mobile »

An efficient brake is just that.
A front one should approach locking the wheel at full power in the dry. Though many fall short and for the less experienced rider that may be of benefit esp. in wet conditions. But nevertheless it should stop the bike reasonably well.
It would be an interesting experiment, no?
Full braking from a given point, same speed, using front, then back,then both.
My guess, and it is a guess (as yet!), is that front wheel only will stop in around half the distance of rear wheel only.

I would defy anyone that was used to using a front brake not to use it as a collision became imminent and unavoidable.
A point of principle!! Jesus!!

Just a few yards of such efficient(!)front wheel braking would have helped.IMV.
So I still think it may well have affected the outcome beneficially.

YVMV.


I might add that on many other (notable!)topics I have been in complete agreement with you.
User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3244
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by bigjim »

"you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way.

I find that quite confusing, as the judge said that he did reduce speed and went round the back of her, but she stepped back into his new path. I therefore question the front brake focus as the rear brake scrubbed off enough speed for him to manoeuvre around her. Who slams on to a full stop when a ped crosses your path and you spot them early? I'm sure that most of us just move around them.
I've cycled in Copenhagen with a coaster braked Dutch bike. Peds do step onto the cycle path, but people tend to just glide around them. No drama.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by meic »

It is interesting that you (PDQ) find it acceptable to have brakes that work in the dry but are woeful in the wet.
A brake such as a roller, drum, backpedal or even just a fixed are just as good brakes in the wet as in the dry. The acceptance of bad wet weather braking is a bit of a legacy and it would make perfect sense to insist on all future bikes having systems which are less weather dependent (such as disks) after a suitable lead in period.
Just like the introduction of pedal reflectors.
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by meic »

Who slams on to a full stop when a ped crosses your path and you spot them early? I'm sure that most of us just move around them.

On my last ride a lady fully engrossed in her phone stepped out about 4 metres in front of me and I did just that. I dont think that she noticed I was there at any point, I just carried on behind her.
The difference is that she was unobstructed in her passage across the road and had no reason not to continue and I was not going very fast.
Mrs Briggs was boxed in by traffic on the other side of the road and she had nowhere to go, she could either stay out there or she could try and get back to safety across the path of a cyclist compared to across the path of a load of cars.
Would you carry on just moving past them when they were stuck there like that?
Yma o Hyd
PDQ Mobile
Posts: 4659
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by PDQ Mobile »

Big Jim
My understanding of the tragic case (and I don't really want to start to comment on it specifically) is there were no brakes on the bike at all.
Now a skilled rider may well be able to lock the rear wheel but there were no brakes.
PDQ Mobile
Posts: 4659
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by PDQ Mobile »

meic wrote:It is interesting that you (PDQ) find it acceptable to have brakes that work in the dry but are woeful in the wet.
A brake such as a roller, drum, backpedal or even just a fixed are just as good brakes in the wet as in the dry. The acceptance of bad wet weather braking is a bit of a legacy and it would make perfect sense to insist on all future bikes having systems which are less weather dependent (such as disks) after a suitable lead in period.
Just like the introduction of pedal reflectors.


That's not what I said, with respect.
I said that brakes that work less well in the wet may offer some advantages to the less experienced rider. That is the lack of tendency for front wheel to slide.

I am not less experienced!
I am a fast and capable rider that keeps out of trouble as much as possible.
Good brakes enhance my skill! And I take pleasure in the speed.

I know my brakes will be slower to react in the wet( and it is often wet!) but they dry fast with red koolstops and I adapt my riding to the conditions. You know it makes sense!!
User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3244
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Government launches urgent review into cycle safety

Post by bigjim »

PDQ Mobile wrote:Big Jim
My understanding of the tragic case (and I don't really want to start to comment on it specifically) is there were no brakes on the bike at all.
Now a skilled rider may well be able to lock the rear wheel but there were no brakes.

I think that depends on the definition of a brake. I rode fixie bikes in my youth, but only because I built them myself because I had no money. However I was able to control the bike and slow down using pedal action through my legs. So there was a braking system IMO.
Post Reply