Billy Rocket
Winger
No idea mate. As I said, the last cycling I did was back at uni. I daresay the laws were different back then anyway.
What about bells or hooters?
Arrogant cyclist slaughters innocent mother
- Thread starter Pseudonym Number 1
- Start date
- Status
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1176/pdfs/uksi_19831176_en.pdf Sections 6 and 10 covers the brakes
Regarding the bell, it must be present when the cycle is sold but can be removed afterwards in the mainland UK, seems Northern Ireland and IoM both have a legal requirement to have one fitted apparently.
D
Deleted member 6694
Guest
He bought it 2nd hand and supposedly said he was using it on the track. The bike he had before, he removed the brakes himself and tweeted that it was like being in a well known stunt rider's video.
Only required on the front isn't it? Here's the regulations from this link and I can see 7b states it requires just 1 braking system but my head is spinning from reading it
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1176/pdfs/uksi_19831176_en.pdf
Logon or register to see this image
General Zod
Striker
So there is a legal requirement to have front brakes on a bike but not a requirement that you have to use them? Is there a test for how effective they are to satisfy the legal requirements or do you just have to have some sort of front breaking system?
J
Jardin
Guest
...
The 1983 law states that all bikes must have a single braking system unless they have a saddle over 635mm (children's bikes only require one brake). It further states that more than one is required on any system with 4 or more wheels. The rules then stipulate that any bike over 635mm to saddle height must have two braking systems that must be independent, and that one must be fitted to the front wheel. Exceptions are made in the case of a tricycle with two front wheels and one back wheel, which requires one of the independent systems to be on the solitary rear wheel, and also when a wheel has peddles directly attached to the wheel hub (such as a penny farthing), which then require no brakes.
The biggest oddity is that a non-freewheel with peddles attached directly to the hub is treated differently to a non-freewheel, reverse-action braking hub such as on a fixie - both would have the same stopping ability as each other and one requires no brakes at all.
A further interesting point from the 1983 regulations is that your brakes must be "efficient", yet no clarification of efficiency is provided, it seems that a brake's effectiveness is perceptual.
They have to be "efficient" but no clarification of this term is provided. They can be tested at request by a policeman, although what he is measuring the efficiency against in the test seems to just be down to his own opinion of efficiency.
He bought it 2nd hand and supposedly said he was using it on the track. The bike he had before, he removed the brakes himself and tweeted that it was like being in a well known stunt rider's video.
Only required on the front isn't it? Here's the regulations from this link and I can see 7b states it requires just 1 braking system but my head is spinning from reading it
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1176/pdfs/uksi_19831176_en.pdf
Logon or register to see this image
The 1983 law states that all bikes must have a single braking system unless they have a saddle over 635mm (children's bikes only require one brake). It further states that more than one is required on any system with 4 or more wheels. The rules then stipulate that any bike over 635mm to saddle height must have two braking systems that must be independent, and that one must be fitted to the front wheel. Exceptions are made in the case of a tricycle with two front wheels and one back wheel, which requires one of the independent systems to be on the solitary rear wheel, and also when a wheel has peddles directly attached to the wheel hub (such as a penny farthing), which then require no brakes.
The biggest oddity is that a non-freewheel with peddles attached directly to the hub is treated differently to a non-freewheel, reverse-action braking hub such as on a fixie - both would have the same stopping ability as each other and one requires no brakes at all.
A further interesting point from the 1983 regulations is that your brakes must be "efficient", yet no clarification of efficiency is provided, it seems that a brake's effectiveness is perceptual.
They have to be "efficient" but no clarification of this term is provided. They can be tested at request by a policeman, although what he is measuring the efficiency against in the test seems to just be down to his own opinion of efficiency.
If the rear wheel doesn't 'freewheel' (i.e. a fixie) then a front brake only would be required, if it freewheels then you need a front and back brake, which also appears to cover those BMX read hubs where you could pedal backwards slightly to lock the hub.He bought it 2nd hand and supposedly said he was using it on the track. The bike he had before, he removed the brakes himself and tweeted that it was like being in a well known stunt rider's video.
Only required on the front isn't it? Here's the regulations from this link and I can see 7b states it requires just 1 braking system but my head is spinning from reading it
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1176/pdfs/uksi_19831176_en.pdf
Logon or register to see this image
They have to be fitted, if you didn't use them and there was a witness or CCTV then I dare say they'd do you for not paying attention (wonder if the same sort of due care and attention applies as it does to car drivers)
Anyway, only came across the above as the missus is swotting for her theory test and had the Highway Code to hand
General Zod
Striker
@peil & @Jardin thanks for the info. I wonder if on the back of this there will be more info/legislation in the public domain. Any of you know how this compares with laws in other countries? Any chance it could lead to tests/servicings being carried out on bikes or having to pass a test to get a license to cycle on the road?
That won't happen, no. A total overreaction.
They all ride back pedal brake bikes in the Netherlands an they're alright. The bike isn't really the issue here really is it.
sidneyeric
Striker
He killed someone riding an illegal bike, should be found guilty.
Scorer
Striker
He seems to be a bit of a tosser and needs to take responsibility for riding an illegal bike but in many respects this is a horribly unlucky incident with tragic consequences. For things to be fair from a legal perspective his sentence should be similar to that of someone knowingly driving a car or motorbike with defective brakes but no more severe just because it's a cyclist.
Not guilty of manslaughter, guilty of wanton and furious driving.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...s_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...s_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
Dave Herbal
Striker
Not strictly driving though eh?
D
Deleted member 559
Guest
Off to the gallows?
pavarotti1980
Striker
driving relates to carriages given it was a law from 1861
sidneyeric
Striker
Ridiculous.
pavarotti1980
Striker
It seems strange. He was negligent and reckless and killed her
gazc24
Striker
And looks a bit of a twat tbh.
pavarotti1980
Striker
Completely arrogant. Evidenced by his social media postings afterwards.
monkeytassle
Striker
The manslaughter charge? I agree.
itscoldinhere
Winger
But will he be jailed?
That's the question
After all a life has been lost through his negligence
That's the question
After all a life has been lost through his negligence
- Status
