Proposed Ammendments to Bicycles Safety Regs

User avatar
zenzinnia
Posts: 293
Joined: 30 Jun 2008, 1:54pm

Proposed Ammendments to Bicycles Safety Regs

Postby zenzinnia » 5 Jan 2009, 4:29pm

The DfT are consulting on some small changes to bells and reflectors on bicycles. Anyone intereted can get more info and consultation stuff here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/ope ... lbicycles/

User avatar
DaveP
Posts: 3239
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 4:20pm
Location: W Mids

Postby DaveP » 5 Jan 2009, 7:04pm

Hhmmm. Doesnt look too bad - except for the bit about brake levers.
Why do I have this sinking feeling that mine are going to be in the wrong place?

Amendment Explanation Costs Remove the reference to BS 6102-1 from the regulations. To Simplify and harmonise legislation. Improve construction standards for bicycles allowing enforcement bodies to assess safety under the GPSR.Approx. £2.50 increase in production costs.
Add a generic marking requirement where a product is built to a recognised standard Consumer information - Identification of construction standard.Reassurance for retailers. Minor cost
Reflectors: BS6102-1 covers Rear, Side, Front and Pedal The requirements currently referenced in BS6102 Part 1 will be included in the Regulations – The proposal aims to align performance requirements of reflectors with in-use requirements (The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989) and the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations ( Northern Ireland) 2000) No cost.
Brake lever position: BS 6102-1 (5.2.1) The requirements specified in BS6102 Part 1 (5.2.1) will be listed in the Regulations. No cost.
Equivalent Standards Regulation 8 'Equivalent Standards' is deleted. The safety of a product can be demonstrated in a number of ways under the GPSR No cost. Bicycle Bell: Requirement for a bell to be supplied at point of sale will be maintained. The reference to clause 6.3 of the ISO standard on bells (7636-1984is removed as the standard is now obsolete. No cost.

Tom Richardson
Posts: 772
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 1:45pm

Postby Tom Richardson » 5 Jan 2009, 8:26pm

it doesn't apply to previously supplied bicycles, competition bicycles or tradesmans delivery bicycles - so it doesn't apply retrospectively and doesn't apply to butchers bikes. And depending on how competition bikes are defined may not apply to much else either!

User avatar
tonym1959
Posts: 21
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 10:13pm

Postby tonym1959 » 5 Jan 2009, 11:53pm

the regulations do not apply to:

a tradesman's delivery bicycle

a tandem bicycle.

Where can I get a tandem Pashley? No mention of Tricycles or three-wheel recumbents either, or is there small print or a separate order somewhere that I have missed?

User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3043
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Postby CJ » 6 Jan 2009, 10:12am

This merely replaces one British Standard with more up to date but very similar European Standards, in a regulation that applies to bicycle shops rather than cyclists.

This regulation specifies what may legally be sold and does not affect what may legally be used. Once you've bought the bike, you are at liberty to have the brake cables switched around, if that's how you prefer it, and to remove the bell and any reflectors you consider unnecessary (provided you don't go out in the dark, in which case you'll be riding illegally without some of the latter).

So as far as we're concerned it's a harmless improvement of a mostly harmless regulation. Which isn't to say that it couldn't do with some general improvements. It's too easy for manufacturers/retailers to get around it and sell an ordinary member of the public a bike that doesn't conform in some unsuspected way - simply by omitting the pedals upon the pretext of catering for choice.

I think the public would be better protected if the "not a complete bike" loophole were closed, but one could still buy a non-conforming bike by agreement, by putting one's signature to a list of those aspects of said bicycle that deviate from the approved specification, such as brakes connected t'other way about, toe overlap, no reflectors, etc. etc.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.

User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Postby EdinburghFixed » 12 Jan 2009, 8:53am

I didn't realise it was a legal requirement to have the front brake controlled by the right hand!

I left a note with the LBS to set up my new mountain bike with reverse levers, but maybe they'll refuse.

It will be a pain if the first thing I have to do is master bleeding hydraulic brakes! :?

thirdcrank
Posts: 28793
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 12 Jan 2009, 9:31am

EdinburghFixed wrote:I didn't realise it was a legal requirement to have the front brake controlled by the right hand!


It isn't. (As explained by CJ, these regs deal only with the retail sale of bikes.) In fact, once the bike has been bought, I don't think there is anything that says that bike brakes must be controlled by hand, as long as those that are legally required - normally one front, one back, with exemptions - are effective and are operated independently.

User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Postby EdinburghFixed » 12 Jan 2009, 10:14am

Sorry, I was referring to the fact that they have to be that way at point of sale (i.e. when the bike shop assemble my new bike, they can't put it together the 'wrong' way round).

I swapped so that I could indicate right while still controlling the important brake. That's hardly a problem off-road, still I'd prefer to have all my bikes set up the same way.

I would do it myself except that they are hydraulics, so I hoped they'd do it for me.

User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3043
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Postby CJ » 12 Jan 2009, 2:12pm

thirdcrank wrote:... once the bike has been bought, I don't think there is anything that says that bike brakes must be controlled by hand, as long as those that are legally required - normally one front, one back, with exemptions - are effective and are operated independently.

Even when the bike is bought, it is perfectly legal for the rear brake to be a back-pedal brake, i.e. controlled by the feet rather than by hand.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28793
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 12 Jan 2009, 2:31pm

Yes, sorry. As the proud owner of a bike with a Nexus coaster back brake, I knew that - I was trying to get across the point that once the bike has been sold, the requirements are hardly onerous. (Having said that, I suppose with the requirement for two independent systems, at least one is going to have a hand operated lever, until somebody comes up with something electronic or similar.)

User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3043
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Postby CJ » 12 Jan 2009, 2:54pm

EdinburghFixed wrote:Sorry, I was referring to the fact that they have to be that way at point of sale (i.e. when the bike shop assemble my new bike, they can't put it together the 'wrong' way round).

I swapped so that I could indicate right while still controlling the important brake. That's hardly a problem off-road, still I'd prefer to have all my bikes set up the same way.

I would do it myself except that they are hydraulics, so I hoped they'd do it for me.

Although I dispute your logic for having brakes that way around in the first place, it is by far the most important thing that the brakes should be operated whichever way you are personally accustomed to.

The solution is for the shop to sell you an incomplete bike, i.e. without pedals, then also sell you some pedals as a separate item. It's how all high quality racing bikes are sold, because so many of them contravene one aspect or other of the safety standards.

I hope you'll agree that it would be much more honest and safer (since all the good and useful other requirements of the Standard would still apply) if the retailer could legally sell you that bike with your signed consent to any deviations from the defined specification.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.

User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Postby EdinburghFixed » 12 Jan 2009, 6:59pm

CJ wrote:Although I dispute your logic for having brakes that way around in the first place, it is by far the most important thing that the brakes should be operated whichever way you are personally accustomed to.


The front brake does 95% of the work - but it's clear that you can only use it while signalling left, or signalling right (depending on your setup). Since Edinburgh is hilly and I ride quite fast, it came down to which signal is more important - no doubt a debate in itself, but I chose right...

CJ wrote:I hope you'll agree that it would be much more honest and safer (since all the good and useful other requirements of the Standard would still apply) if the retailer could legally sell you that bike with your signed consent to any deviations from the defined specification.


Yes indeed. In fact it seems quite bizarre that when spending considerable money on a mountain bike, which will never be used on-road (and particularly not at night), I have to have reflectors and a bell. It's not a big deal but you'd think there would be an 'opt out'.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28793
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 12 Jan 2009, 7:15pm

I think you'll find (as annoying nitpickers are prone to exclaim) that most of the pressure for compulsory bells on bikes - which resulted in in the point-of-sale compromise - comes from people who walk 'off road' and encounter off-road cylists. If the people who have berated me in the past are anything to go by ( and riding on the grass verge is as far as I ever get off road) most of them would ban cycling altogether if they got half a chance. The call for bells is a surrogate for an outright ban.

dan_b
Posts: 249
Joined: 12 Sep 2008, 2:46pm

Postby dan_b » 12 Jan 2009, 7:19pm

[ removed ]
Last edited by dan_b on 12 Jan 2009, 7:24pm, edited 1 time in total.

dan_b
Posts: 249
Joined: 12 Sep 2008, 2:46pm

Postby dan_b » 12 Jan 2009, 7:23pm

CJ wrote:I think the public would be better protected if the "not a complete bike" loophole were closed, but one could still buy a non-conforming bike by agreement, by putting one's signature to a list of those aspects of said bicycle that deviate from the approved specification, such as brakes connected t'other way about, toe overlap, no reflectors, etc. etc.

Looking at the draft ("Annex B" on the link originally posted), isn't this pretty much what it does?
(4) A reference to "the supply of a bicycle" includes the supply of a substantially complete
bicycle (whether or not assembled) even if one or more parts are not supplied.

would (I guess) kill the "no pedals" getout, but
(2) But these Regulations do not apply in relation to the supply of a bicycle which--
(d) has been constructed, or is intended to be assembled, to the design of an individual person
for use by that person in competitive events; or

OK, so you have to tell them you're going to race it (or find some other way of describing your cycling as "competitive") but otherwise it seems to be a reasonable solution