Just ONE Brake ; Front Brake Only ; Back Brake Missing / Disengaged = Illegal ?

[Milkfloat]

The legal situation is clear, but there is also the practical situation on slowing on slippery surfaces as mentioned above. It is also worth noting that without a back brake in the conventional position (or running fixed), moderating your speed whilst signalling right is impossible. IMO running without a back brake (or fixed) is foolhardy as well as being illegal.

 

[Time Waster]

There's an old adage with motorbiking I believe about dressing for the slide not the ride. There's possibly a safety argument for two brakes on bikes similar.

You might not feel you need both until you find you do and don't have them. 25% of the braking is still worth having when you really need to stop. It's for this reason I struggle to see the benefit of deactivating one brake. I keep my bike maintained with two brakes and lights not because they're legally required but because I want to do everything I can to keep me safe. It's really not rocket science, just common sense.

 

[Deleted member 1258]

Could you just have one brake if you removed the saddle?

From memory, flashing back lights were never illegal as such, it was just that they didn't count as lights so as far as the law was concerned, you were riding without lights.

They didn't comply with the lighting regulation as they were then.

 

[Alex321]

Could you just have one brake if you removed the saddle?

From memory, flashing back lights were never illegal as such, it was just that they didn't count as lights so as far as the law was concerned, you were riding without lights.

They were illegal if attached to the bike. Legal (but not counting as a light) if attached to the person or their clothing.

In those days it was illegal to have any flashing lights on a vehicle other than turn indicators or amber beacon lights. Red or white flashing lights on anything but emergency vehicles were not allowed.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Could you just have one brake if you removed the saddle?

Not clear what you're getting at but 'no': the legislation does not apply to a bicycle which, with its saddle at its highest safe position (ie seat post MIN just not showing) and tyres inflated is less than (from memory) 635mm above the ground.
I assume this is designed to exclude child's bikes - one front wheel brake or none.
I broad terms a BB shell centre on one of those bikes might be max 200mm and add to that the frame size, maybe 300mm so a saddle on top a short seatpost would be under 635mm.
But BMX bikes (provided the saddle is on a short seatpost) also avoid the requirements of this legislation.
As an aside, I do suggest the legality or not of flashing lights is way off topic for this thread and is done to death (and beyond) in many, many threads.

 

[Sharky]

Slightly off topic, track bikes and track frames are built for the velodrome without brakes. But I can't understand why nowadays, the front forks are never drilled for a brake. It must be Tempting for some when testing a setup or when it is used post track usage, to test ride on the road without brakes.

I would have upgraded my track frame (for TT's) with a lightweight carbon bargain a long time ago, but for the need to replace the forks which pushes the cost over budget.

 

[Electric_Andy]

I think it's all about fashion myself. I've seen fixie riders in (forget what EU country) weaving in and out of traffic at great speed, using only rear wheel lock as brakes. Very fit and skilled riding; still totally illegal and dangerous. Maybe this is the look or the "scene" that someone wants to be part of. But IMHO breaking the law in terms of safety features is utterly stupid. Same goes for those who tint their front windows beyond that which the law allows. Why blind yourself for the sake of perceived aesthetic enhancement

 

[mjr]

Interesting point. But think back to when red flashing lights were illegal. Most of us ignored the law as the flashing lights were far superior and made us more visible. Eventually the law was changed.

The law was changed because it was different to some neighbouring countries and so many people were ignoring it - and actually, still do, with non-constant flash patterns, strobing, dazzling and other offences. Very unlikely to be prosecuted unless you are involved in a crash or other incident, but still daft. The safety claim for flashing lights has never really been proven. The best evidence seems to be that drivers notice them more easily but also judge their position/distance less easily, so not a clear safety improvement.

On the brakes thing, one brake is also legal on a bike that is visiting the UK, thanks to the Vienna Conventions. Allowing that probably says something about how important the second brake isn't.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I'd love to know how many people are capable of stopping a fixed-wheel bike, with anything more than about 50" gearing, by attempting to skid the back wheel at speed without getting thrown out of the saddle.
Even those that can must chew through back tyres.

On my 73" fixed I ran a rear brake as well.

 

[presta]

Actually a lot of recumbents could legally have only one brake. The saddle height is generally under 63.5 cm...

No brake at all required on a penny farthing:

Penny farthings with no brake can also comply with BS EN ISO 4210-2, for the same reason.

 

[Sharky]

moderating your speed whilst signalling right is impossible

That's why the convention for fixed gear bikes, was to have a L/H front brake lever.

 

[Ian H]

That's why the convention for fixed gear bikes, was to have a L/H front brake lever.

All my bikes have the front brake on the left.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Interesting point. But think back to when red flashing lights were illegal. Most of us ignored the law as the flashing lights were far superior and made us more visible. Eventually the law was changed.

Yes 17 years ago (well next autumn) now

 

[slowmotion]

I may have got this all wrong, but didn't the bloke who got sent to jail a few years ago for killing a pedestrian in London get a lot of criticism in court for only having one brake?

Edit: lookee here....
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian

 

[Ming the Merciless]

There was a fatality on Buttertubs not many years ago. The rider had hydraulic brakes and one had failed a few weeks back. The rider carried on riding with just one functioning brake. On descending Buttertubs that brake failed, leaving no functioning brakes, and they crashed at high speed and didn’t survive.