# Do you legally need two brakes?



## Chris S (29 Dec 2011)

Do bikes have to have two brakes by law? An internet trader is selling new Dutch-style bikes in the UK. They don't have a front brake, they've just got a coaster one on the rear.


----------



## dave r (29 Dec 2011)

Yes, you can legally ride fixed with a front brake only as the fixed wheel counts as a second brake, if the bike has a freewheel then as I understand it you need two brakes, I wouldn't want to ride in todays traffic with only a coaster brake.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (29 Dec 2011)

Chris S said:


> Do bikes have to have two brakes by law? An internet trader is selling new Dutch-style bikes in the UK. They don't have a front brake, they've just got a coaster one on the rear.


 

Difficult one to answer.

RTA says yes ( Fixies excepted)
BS standards for bikes says yes.
Single Market says if it meets the relevant standards in one EU country it's OK in another.


----------



## dave r (29 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Difficult one to answer.
> 
> RTA says yes ( Fixies excepted)
> BS standards for bikes says yes.
> *Single Market says if it meets the relevant standards in one EU country it's OK in another.*




Is this going to be one of those things where Europe overrides our laws?


----------



## gaz (29 Dec 2011)

dave r said:


> Is this going to be one of those things where Europe overrides our laws?


For selling, yes. BUT when a vehicle is used on the road, it must adhere to our laws. As such a bicycle must have two braking systems, one applied to each wheel, when used on british roads.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (29 Dec 2011)

dave r said:


> Is this going to be one of those things where Europe overrides our laws?


 

No this is one of those things were we benefit from a common market.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Dec 2011)

Chris S said:


> Do bikes have to have two brakes by law? An internet trader is selling new Dutch-style bikes in the UK. They don't have a front brake, they've just got a coaster one on the rear.


Are we sure it isn't a hub brake upfront. Even in the Netherlands they need to stop from time to time, and without a front brake then in traffic that can be tricky.


----------



## oldroadman (29 Dec 2011)

Construction and Use laws. Two brakes required, front and rear, on a bike with freewheel. Simple.
Try telling a court that euro law applies to UK legislation when vehicles are involved. Wait for smiles, and the fine.


----------



## tyred (29 Dec 2011)

oldroadman said:


> Construction and Use laws. Two brakes required, front and rear, on a bike with freewheel. Simple.
> Try telling a court that euro law applies to UK legislation when vehicles are involved. Wait for smiles, and the fine.


 
Just suppose I was a Dutchman on holiday in the UK with my coaster brake equipped Batavus with no front brake. Could I be prosecuted for riding without a front brake even though my bike meets the requirements at home in another EU country?

As an aside, I do own an old Batavus roadster with a coaster brake. It has been fitted with a Weinmann front caliper brake which is virtually useless as the rim doesn't have a proper braking surface. It probably complies with the law but to all intents and purposes, it may as well not have a front brake.


----------



## CopperCyclist (29 Dec 2011)

tyred said:


> Just suppose I was a Dutchman on holiday in the UK with my coaster brake equipped Batavus with no front brake. Could I be prosecuted for riding without a front brake even though my bike meets the requirements at home in another EU country?



Yes.

You could also be considered for prosecution for riding on the right hand side of the road, which would be perfectly acceptable back in Holland! As the old saying goes, 'When in Rome...'


----------



## oldroadman (29 Dec 2011)

Possibly, in the same way that in France you can be nicked for not having a fluo jacket or bulb kit in the car, or in Germany for not having spare specs if you need them for driving. Courts can be funny places!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (29 Dec 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Yes.
> 
> You could also be considered for prosecution for riding on the right hand side of the road, which would be perfectly acceptable back in Holland! As the old saying goes, 'When in Rome...'


 
...ride on the right!


----------



## Yellow Fang (29 Dec 2011)

Some BMXs do not have any brakes, and track bikes only have the fixed wheel acting as a brake. I suppose these are not legal to drive on our roads, but I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for it. I am not sure whether the two braking systems have to be on separate wheels neither. I notice road tricycles often have two sets of brakes installed on the front wheel.


----------



## dave r (29 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> No this is one of those things were we benefit from a common market.


 
How?


----------



## gaz (29 Dec 2011)

Yellow Fang said:


> Some BMXs do not have any brakes, and track bikes only have the fixed wheel acting as a brake. I suppose these are not legal to drive on our roads, but I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for it. I am not sure whether the two braking systems have to be on separate wheels neither. I notice road tricycles often have two sets of brakes installed on the front wheel.


It has to be two independent wheels. As such a tricycle which has one brake on each of the front wheels which are both operated by a separate brake leaver would be perfectly legal.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (29 Dec 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Yes.
> 
> You could also be considered for prosecution for riding on the right hand side of the road, '


 

Has the RTA been ammended now to make this illegal. I seem to remember it not being specified which side to drive/ride , unless directed by Keep Left signs?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (29 Dec 2011)

dave r said:


> How?


By being able to buy a Dutch bike which doesn't comply with a BS standard? That means that £0.05 doesn't have to be wasted by attaching Chinese made bell loosely to the brake cables.


----------



## dave r (29 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> By being able to buy a Dutch bike which doesn't comply with a BS standard? That means that £0.05 doesn't have to be wasted by attaching Chinese made bell loosely to the brake cables.


 
How is that a benefit, whats the benefit of buying a bike that might not comply with safety or traffic laws, that might be dangerousness to ride as well as possibly being illegal.


----------



## CopperCyclist (29 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Has the RTA been ammended now to make this illegal. I seem to remember it not being specified which side to drive/ride , unless directed by Keep Left signs?



Nah, it's still not illegal per se, but thanks to the Highway Code which is accepted guidance that does state we should drive on the left, you can guarantee you'll get a prosecution under careless driving at least if you try it for any decent distance!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (29 Dec 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Nah, it's still not illegal per se, but thanks to the Highway Code which is accepted guidance that does state we should drive on the left, you can guarantee you'll get a prosecution under careless driving at least if you try it for any decent distance!


 "Careless driving" a bicycle?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (29 Dec 2011)

dave r said:


> How is that a benefit, whats the benefit of buying a bike that might not comply with safety or traffic laws, that might be dangerousness to ride as well as possibly being illegal.


 
The benefit is that " I can". I might want to buy one becuase I'm off to Gouda, or because I want to complete my collection, or maybe because I want to buy a bike without a bell!


----------



## dave r (29 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> The benefit is that " I can". I might want to buy one becuase I'm off to Gouda, or because I want to complete my collection, or maybe because I want to buy a bike without a bell!


 
I understand because I can, either of us could, but I don't understand why you would want to, even if its because you can, theres enough dangers inherent in cycling so why would we want to deliberately add to them.


----------



## CopperCyclist (29 Dec 2011)

Yep, section 28 and 29 of the RTA are about dangerous/careless cycling. At least they were when I joined! An example of it in use:

http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle...list-prosecuted-for-injuring-biker/19266.html

Please don't let this turn into a debate about iPod wearers, that wasn't what I intended - this was simply the first google result I found of the charge being used.

:edit: unless you're simply being picky about my grammar of 'careless DRIVING' when referring to a cycle, in which case I apologise for my error and you can ignore this post.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

dave r said:


> I understand because I can, either of us could, but I don't understand why you would want to, even if its because you can, theres enough dangers inherent in cycling so why would we want to deliberately add to them.


Are there? The Dutch don't seem to find it so, maybe it's the extra brake that causes the problems?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Yep, section 28 and 29 of the RTA are about dangerous/careless cycling. At least they were when I joined! An example of it in use:
> 
> http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle...list-prosecuted-for-injuring-biker/19266.html
> 
> ...


I wasn't be "picky" just seeking clarification.

To sum up..

Riding on one side or the other is still not defined and it's not an absolute offence to ride on the right, but it may be proved to be dangerous/careless cycling?

Thanks


----------



## rusky (30 Dec 2011)

oldroadman said:


> Possibly, in the same way that in France you can be nicked for not having a fluo jacket or bulb kit in the car, or in Germany for not having spare specs if you need them for driving. Courts can be funny places!


 
Going slightly OT here, The spare bulb kit is an interesting one these days as some exterior bulbs are dealer only replacements!!!


----------



## dave r (30 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Are there? The Dutch don't seem to find it so, maybe it's the extra brake that causes the problems?


 
The more you post the more it sounds like you are on the wind up! After over 40 years cycling I can say there are plenty of dangers on the roads, some of the nutters we share the roads with, the conditions we encounter, snow ice, wet roads, wet leaves, fuel and oil spills, two brakes give me the best chance of dealing with these.


----------



## subaqua (30 Dec 2011)

rusky said:


> Going slightly OT here, The spare bulb kit is an interesting one these days as some exterior bulbs are dealer only replacements!!!


 
likely worded "where possible to replace " to overcome sealed beam and sealed units. any frenchies on here who can ind and translate relevant french law for us.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

dave r said:


> The more you post the more it sounds like you are on the wind up! After over 40 years cycling I can say there are plenty of dangers on the roads, some of the nutters we share the roads with, the conditions we encounter, snow ice, wet roads, wet leaves, fuel and oil spills, two brakes give me the best chance of dealing with these.


 So explain to me then, how the Dutch manage not only to survive, but thrive; more cyclists, more bikes, more journeys, more miles, all with less brakes? Maybe, just maybe, the number of brakes is not the be all and end all of cycle safety?


----------



## dave r (30 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> So explain to me then, how the Dutch manage not only to survive, but thrive; more cyclists, more bikes, more journeys, more miles, all with less brakes? Maybe, just maybe, the number of brakes is not the be all and end all of cycle safety?


 
I've no idea how the Dutch do it, but Holland is a different country with a different culture, I've never ridden over there, and no good brakes are not the be all and end all of bike safety, they are an essential part of it.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

dave r said:


> I've no idea how the Dutch do it, but Holland is a different country with a different culture, I've never ridden over there, and no good brakes are not the be all and end all of bike safety, they are an essential part of it.


 
That's your opinion, it seems that those making, selling and using "Dutch" bikes have a different opinion(s) and find them less than essential. It's IMHO a dangerous route to follow to think that "illegal=dangerous, therefore* Legal=safe"


*( Why can I never find the symbol for therefore?)


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> That's your opinion, it seems that those making, selling and using "Dutch" bikes have a different opinion(s) and find them less than essential. It's IMHO a dangerous route to follow to think that "illegal=dangerous, therefore* Legal=safe"
> 
> 
> *( Why can I never find the symbol for therefore?)


∴ 
I think you can only put it in if you have a numerical keypad.

Hold down alt
Press + on the numerical keypad
press 2234 on the numerical keypad.
These instructions are for windows based operating systems.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> ∴
> I think you can only put it in if you have a numerical keypad.
> 
> Hold down alt
> ...


 Thanks but no keypad and Umbutu! :-(


----------



## HLaB (30 Dec 2011)

I could be wrong and maybe it has already been said but I thought you only legally needed a front brake or are 90% of little kids bikes illegal?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

HLaB said:


> I could be wrong and maybe it has already been said but I thought you only legally needed a front brake or are 90% of little kids bikes illegal?


*BS 6102-1:1992*

*Cycles. Specification for safety requirements for bicycles*


Status: *Current, Obsolescent, Partially replaced*
Abstract
Requirements for all bicycles intended for use on public roads with a saddle height of 635 mm or more.


----------



## HLaB (30 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> *BS 6102-1:1992*
> 
> *Cycles. Specification for safety requirements for bicycles*
> 
> ...


I guess that rules out most kids bikes


----------



## Jezston (30 Dec 2011)

oldroadman said:


> Construction and Use laws. Two brakes required, front and rear, on a bike with freewheel. Simple.
> Try telling a court that euro law applies to UK legislation when vehicles are involved. Wait for smiles, and the fine.


 
Has anyone heard any stories of any brakeless fixed riders ever being so much as pulled over for not having two brakes?


----------



## dave r (30 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> That's your opinion, it seems that those making, selling and using "Dutch" bikes have a different opinion(s) and find them less than essential. It's IMHO a dangerous route to follow to think that "illegal=dangerous, therefore* Legal=safe"
> *( Why can I never find the symbol for therefore?)


 
Our legislators don't always get it right, sometimes the law is an ass, but in this case they have got it right, two brakes are usually safer than just one brake.



Little yellow Brompton said:


> Thanks but no keypad and Umbutu! :-(


 
What flavour of Ubuntu are you on? I'm running 10.04.


----------



## Riding in Circles (30 Dec 2011)

To be legally sold in this country a pedal cycle has to have two independently braked wheels as far as I understand the law, unicycles are exempt for obvious reasons.


----------



## Holy Warrior (30 Dec 2011)

I've just taken the front brake blocks off a crappy £15 old MtB off ebay because when you apply the front brake it doesn't release. Also for some reason the brakes are the opposite way round so by habit I apply the front instead of the back. Now they're off there's no problem and it runs well.

That bike is just for a short commute to work and back, about 3/4 miles in all. Surely it's just up to you if you want to ride it that way? I won;t be thrashing it down the hills like I would on my roadie.


----------



## Riding in Circles (30 Dec 2011)

By the way recumbent trikes are only required to have a single brake in general.


----------



## Zoiders (30 Dec 2011)

tyred said:


> Just suppose I was a Dutchman on holiday in the UK with my coaster brake equipped Batavus with no front brake. Could I be prosecuted for riding without a front brake even though my bike meets the requirements at home in another EU country?
> 
> As an aside, I do own an old Batavus roadster with a coaster brake. It has been fitted with a Weinmann front caliper brake which is virtually useless as the rim doesn't have a proper braking surface. It probably complies with the law but to all intents and purposes, it may as well not have a front brake.


Ignorance of the law is no defence.


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2011)

I've done some digging and found the legislation regarding brakes on bikes. It can be read here.

Basically it outlines the following



> 7.
> a. Every pedal cycle shall be equipped with at least one braking system​b. (ii) if it is not so constructed that one or more of the wheels is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, be equipped with two two independent braking systems one of which operates on the front wheel, or if it has more than one front wheel, on at least two front wheels, and the other of which operates on the rear wheel, or if it has more than one rear wheel, on at least two rear wheels.​


​


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2011)

Catrike UK said:


> To be legally sold in this country a pedal cycle has to have two independently braked wheels as far as I understand the law, unicycles are exempt for obvious reasons.


It's fine to sell them without brakes if the intended purpose is for use on an enclosed track.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

HLaB said:


> I guess that rules out most kids bikes


 Exactly! :-)


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> That's your opinion, it seems that those making, selling and using "Dutch" bikes have a different opinion(s) and find them less than essential. It's IMHO a dangerous route to follow to think that "illegal=dangerous, therefore* Legal=safe"
> 
> 
> *( Why can I never find the symbol for therefore?)


I found something that might interest you whilst doing some reading on the subject in general.
On this page near the bottom, under the heading International Requirements.

Would it be possible to argue an imported bike falls under this? Maybe not.. but worth knowing about.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

dave r said:


> Our legislators don't always get it right, sometimes the law is an ass, but in this case they have got it right, two brakes are usually safer than just one brake.
> 
> 
> 
> What flavour of Ubuntu are you on? I'm running 10.04.


 
Yet again you seem to be arguing against the reality that is Holland.


Errr 11.1 I think...


----------



## Zoiders (30 Dec 2011)

The home office web site contains all the legislation and definitions of offences for any one who is interested.


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2011)

Zoiders said:


> The home office web site contains all the legislation and definitions of offences for any one who is interested.


It took me a while to find the one regarding brakes on bicycles though. not easy to find!


----------



## Riding in Circles (30 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> It's fine to sell them without brakes if the intended purpose is for use on an enclosed track.


However if you know or could be shown to have thought it likely for the pedal cycle to be used on the road then the onus is still on the seller.


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2011)

Catrike UK said:


> However if you know or could be shown to have thought it likely for the pedal cycle to be used on the road then the onus is still on the seller.


No doubt..


----------



## Ian H (30 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> I've done some digging and found the legislation regarding brakes on bikes. It can be read here.
> 
> Basically it outlines the following
> [etc]
> ​


It goes on to say that a (traditional) trike not designed for load carrying can just have two front wheel brakes, and, in answer to the original question, a bike temporarily imported, or for temporary use in this country, doesn't need to comply with UK standards.

So (more or less) to use a Dutch bike with no front brake would be illegal for a permanent UK resident.


----------



## Holy Warrior (30 Dec 2011)

What is the fascination with the front wheel? Surely if you just had to have one then you would choose the back? Safer surely, less chance of going over handlebars!


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2011)

Holy Warrior said:


> What is the fascination with the front wheel? Surely if you just had to have one then you would choose the back? Safer surely, less chance of going over handlebars!


You can stop in about half the distance with the front wheel alone than the rear wheel alone.
Only an in-experienced cyclist will go over the handlebars when braking with the front wheel.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> You can stop in about twice half the distance with the front wheel alone than the rear wheel alone.
> Only an in-experienced cyclist will go over the handlebars when braking with the front wheel.


 
Errr I think that's now right?


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Errr I think that's now right?


Doh!! thanks.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> Doh!! thanks.


No, no, No, NO, NOOO! When someone corrects you on the 'Tinterweb you must immediately start casting aspersions on their ancestry, intelligence and motives! Please try and maintain the established procedures!


----------



## dave r (30 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Yet again you seem to be arguing against the reality that is Holland.
> 
> Errr 11.1 I think...


 
As I said before I have no knowledge of Holland, but I do have over 40 years experience of cycling in this country, all that experience has taught me that I need two brakes.


----------



## dave r (30 Dec 2011)

Holy Warrior said:


> What is the fascination with the front wheel? Surely if you just had to have one then you would choose the back? Safer surely, less chance of going over handlebars!


 
In dry conditions with good grip the front brake is the best one to stop you, however in slippery conditions, snow, ice, wet leaves and mud etc, the back brake is the best option, use of the front brake puts you at risk of a face plant.


----------



## seadragonpisces (30 Dec 2011)

Of my 3 bikes only 1 has a front brake, the other 2 a rear coaster brake only :-). My bike shop not allowed to import any bikes from Europe for me with rear coaster only, so I had to import mine from the USA instead myself


----------



## Theseus (31 Dec 2011)

Jezston said:


> Has anyone heard any stories of any brakeless fixed riders ever being so much as pulled over for not having two brakes?


 
Not in this country, but there was a case a few years back of a courier in the states getting into trouble for no brakes ... there was a video made by a bunch of his mates where they investigated braking methods that would meet the judges criteria, but still not require the fitting of brakes. IIRC this included carrying a stick that you could thrust through your spokes.


----------



## Zoiders (1 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> It took me a while to find the one regarding brakes on bicycles though. not easy to find!


Sorry - this link not the simple home office page

www.legislation.gov.uk


----------

