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

[mjr]

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?

Yes, but not all of the criticism was well founded. His decision to shout instead of brake (IIRC) was probably more to blame.

But, as that illustrated, if you deliberately use an illegal bike, it is another book they will throw at you if you're involved in an incident. I suspect even if you are a victim, you may still be prosecuted for vehicle offences if they can be proved, as well as the perpetrator using them to argue for reducing any damages paid to you.

 

[slowmotion]

Yes, but not all of the criticism was well founded. His decision to shout instead of brake (IIRC) was probably more to blame.

But, as that illustrated, if you deliberately use an illegal bike, it is another book they will throw at you if you're involved in an incident. I suspect even if you are a victim, you may still be prosecuted for vehicle offences if they can be proved, as well as the perpetrator using them to argue for reducing any damages paid to you.

Maybe only having one brake on UK roads is an indicator of an arrogant prat?

 

[Ajax Bay]

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?

I raised this as a 'worked example' upthread ^^^ https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/j...disengaged-illegal.285686/page-2#post-6740859
And he didn't "only have one brake" he didn't have any brake on the fixed wheel bike, relying on the braking effect of the chain/chainset: the bike was illegal but that's not what he was convicted for.

 

[slowmotion]

I raised this as a 'worked example' upthread ^^^ https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/j...disengaged-illegal.285686/page-2#post-6740859
And he didn't "only have one brake" he didn't have any brake on the fixed wheel bike, relying on the braking effect of the chain/chainset: the bike was illegal but that's not what he was convicted for.

Sorry, I missed your post.

 

[Hornchurch]

A strangely pointless question which with

Asking for direct CLARIFACATION on the law itself (with me not hitherto NOT knowing, or aware), is anything but "pointless"

.

 

[Hornchurch]

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.

Just to clarify,

Back Brake was disconnected purely as rear-wheel was/is "out of true" & binding (rim brakes, older-bike)

I shall (obv's) be fixing it soon, but have had a mountainside of 'other' (far more important) "domestic jobs" (most, not listed, here)

91 y/o father needs constant attention.

Intent is, that, once I've "caught up", I'll take "rear" in (shop), to be "trued-up", before re-adjusting cable & b/blocks accordingly.


Back Brake on the oldest MTB can actually wait, until I have "time on my hands" - wasn't done for a (or any) "benefit".


Aforesaid bike HAS been temp' retired, but DID use it for a month earlier (before purchase of other 'newer' THREE)

As stated in my original post, I've purchased THREE "immaculate" (mint) well-maintained other cycles I am riding (to stay fit), INSTEAD

So as of April 25th till current day, am using cycles w/BOTH brakes operative.

Brakes on ALL those THREE are adjusted AND are ALL working 'fine' (thanks), both front & back, with zero-issues whatsoever.


Was also hitherto unaware as the law on "one or both" - Glad to see that some folk(s) have put me straight on that one.

P.S ; Lastly ; Not that it's "right" in any way....

But as I'm (previously) riding down empty country lanes @ 10-mph with no-one about, it hadn't phased me & I'm still here.


As I control a 150+mph bike weighing nearly 1/4-ton, daily, I figured I won't "spill" or lose control of the 10mph cycle, mentioned.

Considerable weight differential between my GPz.900-R, Honda CB.900-F & my Suzuki GS.1000, as opposed to 'cycle' in question !


Re cycle ; Cables are MINT, so "fraying" wasn't an issue - Knew it needed fixing.

Acquisition of a 2nd "Mint" (well-maintained) example of 'same bike' on 23rd April 2022 meant I was able to 'lay-up' the bike in question.


Fear I may have to (be forced to) re-quote this message to a few on here, as to re-explain "why" - (temp'-measure)

Also, as stated, I was hitherto unaware of the law (brakes, 1 or 2), so felt it WAS worth asking - (Clue is in unadjusted thread title)

No deference on you, T.W - just explaining.

.

 

[Time Waster]

Unfortunately not knowing the rules isn't considered a good defence. I also understood that you were asking for information and wasn't saying that you were deliberately choosing to ignore certain rules.

However I do hold to the principle that use of the highways of our country has responsibilities which include knowing and obeying the rules. I'm sure you do that with your 1/4 tonne bikes as much as you'll be doing with your 15kg bikes going forward. That's a good result from a thread if it leaves one or more persons better informed and able to follow the rules intended for safer roads.

Jeez that sounds patronising but in my head I was trying to be positive. Sometimes I just can't get things across right. 😕

 

[Solocle]

Yes, but not all of the criticism was well founded. His decision to shout instead of brake (IIRC) was probably more to blame.

But, as that illustrated, if you deliberately use an illegal bike, it is another book they will throw at you if you're involved in an incident. I suspect even if you are a victim, you may still be prosecuted for vehicle offences if they can be proved, as well as the perpetrator using them to argue for reducing any damages paid to you.

Thing is riding in London one time, I did make a decision to shout, instead of brake. Well, that's not a fair assessment. My decision was to shout instead of not shout, and not brake instead of brake.

Why?
Well, at the point the risk became apparent to me, my assessment was that braking would significantly increase the likelihood of a collision.

I didn't feel I had time to stop completely, at the least without risking crashing into the other pedestrians or cyclist there. And if I had slowed down, that gave them more time to enter my path, whereas holding steady felt like it would be a near miss, I'd get past before they actually crossed onto my side. The shouting was because that was still uncomfortably close and still posed a risk.

And I had to weigh all that up in 1 second from their feet starting to move.

Swerving and alerting instead of braking aren't necessarily wrong when other road users do stupid things - they can be the lowest risk of a collision. Of course, that risk isn't zero, and severity is increased if you do collide. But the problem of the majority being drivers raises its ugly head again - cars have ABS and don't tip over if you lock the front wheel. Not that Alliston could have done that without reaching down and grabbing it...

 

[chris667]

It's an interesting question. I am sure the law says you need to have two brakes on a bike - as others have pointed a fixed wheel satisfies this requirement.

But then the law says you can ride a rod braked roadster with steel rims through a thunderstorm and that's the same thing as twin discs, which hardly seems consistent.

My feeling is you shouldn't ride your bike without two brakes, whether that's illegal or not. I would even say you should do it on a road. Not for legal reasons, but why wouldn't you want the best brakes you have? How does having an extra brake limit the performance of your bike?

 

[Ajax Bay]

It's an interesting question. I am sure the law says you need to have two brakes on a bike - as others have pointed a fixed wheel satisfies this requirement.

And one that's been answered, Chris. Why are you "sure"?
A fixed wheel does not satisfy the legal requirement for two brakes - and people have not "pointed [that out]".
Please read the thread, now you're "back" - if only to help with that "sure" thing.

 

[Alex321]

And one that's been answered, Chris. Why are you "sure"?
A fixed wheel does not satisfy the legal requirement for two brakes - and people have not "pointed [that out]".
Please read the thread, now you're "back" - if only to help with that "sure" thing.

A fixed wheel alone doesn't, but a fixed wheel and a front brake does, which is what had actually been pointed out. I think Chris was just using a bit of shorthand there (probably not a good idea when discussing legal issues).

 

[chris667]

And one that's been answered, Chris. Why are you "sure"?
A fixed wheel does not satisfy the legal requirement for two brakes - and people have not "pointed [that out]".
Please read the thread, now you're "back" - if only to help with that "sure" thing.

@Ajax Bay , thanks for your weirdly antagonistic reply.

I am not interested in having pseudo legal discussions with you or anyone else, so I think I'll bow out of this thread. Thank you for your interest.

 

[a.twiddler]

Asking for direct CLARIFACATION on the law itself (with me not hitherto NOT knowing, or aware), is anything but "pointless"

It does surprise me that someone who had a career in motorcycle rider training did not know how to to source various construction and use regulations or road traffic law or even the Highway Code, and get the original information from the horse's mouth as it were. Surely a driving instructor would learn how to find information relating to all sorts of vehicles as part of their own training, as learners will ask all sorts of unexpected questions and nobody can remember everything.

Anyway, on a positive note your question has stimulated some discussion and unearthed some facts that some of us didn't know. I hope that the OP finds that posters on this forum have generally taken his question seriously and tried to give their best info.

Here is something from Cycling UK which tries to bring things together in a readable manner (at the risk of repeating some information previously posted). Perhaps the info on more than 2 wheels might be superfluous but it just gives some background into the general weirdness of cycle braking legislation.

According to the Road Traffic Acts, it is illegal to ride a pedal cycle, including an electrically-assisted pedal cycle, on a public road in Great Britain, unless it meets the requirements of Statutory Instrument (1983 No. 1176). It can also be an offence to sell a pedal cycle that fails to meet these requirements – unless it's sold for racing off-road or on enclosed tracks.

But don't worry, these requirements are much simpler than those of the Pedal Bicycle Safety Regulations, which have apply to the sales of all new bikes since 1983. So any new-ish bike is bound to be legal to use – assuming it's been kept in good condition and not modified too much.

More exacting requirements apply to the construction and use of bicycles and tricycles with electrical assistance.

This regulation has a general exemption for pedal cycles (but not EAPCs) brought into Britain by a foreign visitor for their own temporary use. Nothing in these regulations applies to such a 'temporarily imported' cycle, provided that it has one effective brake as required by the International Convention on Road Traffic. The equivalent of the Road Traffic Acts in most other countries have a similar exemption.


It should be noted that this legislation applies only in Britain, meaning England, Wales and Scotland. Other parts of UK have their own subtly different versions of the Road Traffic Acts and are for this purpose: abroad.

Brakes​

In the case of a pure pedal cycle (no electrical assistance) these regulations are so simple, that the only parts that matter are the brakes.

The basic requirement is for two efficient braking systems, by which the front wheel (or wheels) can be braked independently of the rear wheel (or wheels). This means that if there are two wheels at the front and/or the rear, the relevant system must act on the pair. It also means that the combined operation of front and rear brakes from one lever is not allowed - except as an extra braking system: additional to the two independent front and rear braking systems required by this law.

Each braking system is required to be in efficient working order, but apart from saying that a brake that bears directly upon a pneumatic tyre in not efficient, these regulations do not define how the brakes work or how they are operated. So back-pedal brakes are just as legal as the usual hand-levers. (You could even brake with your teeth if you could invent a way to do it efficiently!)

A lot of words are nevertheless devoted to wheels that cannot rotate independently of the pedals (i.e. no freewheel), the upshot of which is very simply that a fixed wheel drive counts as a braking system – on that wheel or wheels.

Exceptions​

Tricycles and quadricycles are allowed many and various deviations from the above requirements, depending on age, purpose and wheel size.

The most important exception applies to any normal tricycle, with at least one wheel bigger than 460mm diameter and 'not constructed or adapted for the carriage of goods'. (By goods they mean unusual heavy loads, not ordinary shopping or touring luggage.) A normal tricycle, with two rear wheels, is allowed to have both braking systems acting upon the single front wheel, or if the tricycle has two front wheels: on the single rear wheel.

And a normal tricycle manufactured before 1st August 1984, with two rear wheels, is allowed to have its rear braking system acting upon just one of those wheels.

If the highest part of the 'seating area' of a bicycle or tricycle cannot be raised above 635mm from the road surface, the minimum requirement falls to just one efficient braking system. This is clearly intended for (very) small children's cycles, but inadvertently lets most recumbents under the bar!

A pedal cycle with four or more wheels, none of which exceed 250mm diameter (i.e. a tiny-wheeled quadricycle+) is allowed to have brakes that operate directly on its pneumatic tyres without them being deemed inefficient.

I've already noted that fixed wheel counts as a brake. Taking that a stage further: if one wheel is not only incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, but the pedals are fixed directly to it without any intervening chain or gears, the cycle does not have to be equipped with any actual brakes at all. This is obviously designed to allow various antique machines to be exercised on the highway without adding incongruous modern accessories!

It is interesting to note that whereas these regulations cater for pedal cycles with any number of wheels from two (bicycle) to four (quadricycle) – or even more – electrical assistance is not permitted with more than three (tricycle). This means that load-carrying quadricycles, increasingly used for deliveries into areas from which motor vehicles are excluded, cannot receive a little necessary electrical assistance without themselves becoming classified as motor vehicles.

Enforcement​

Any constable in uniform is empowered to stop a cyclist and test the cycle for compliance with these regulations, and to enter the premises where a cycle is kept if it has been involved in an accident up to 48 hours previously.

So there you go.

 

[Hornchurch]

It does surprise me that someone who had a career in motorcycle rider training did not know how to to source various construction and use regulations or road traffic law or even the Highway Code, and get the original information from the horse's mouth as it were. Surely a driving instructor would learn how to find information relating to all sorts of vehicles as part of their own training, as learners will ask all sorts of unexpected questions and nobody can remember everything.

Cycling for me, (sad to say), had ALWAYS came-out as a 'pi$$-poor' 4th relation

Car driving. Lorry driving, Motorcycling all came before it - (importance & 'useage' wise).

My "main" spell of cycling (pedal-bikes) had always been between 1972-1979, when it WAS my main mode of transport (26in 'racer' Road bike)

Passed my car-driving test (1st-time), in 1979, so, thereafter, the Edwards 26in 'racer' was consigned to the shed.

Aforesaid cycle was 'revived' & re-sprayed, then taken to shop for new-brakes/tyres, only in 1988-1989 - (commute rail-station)

Thereafter, "back in the shed" unused.

Bought only my 3rd-ever cycle as late as 1998 - that's the one we speak of, the one which had, for two-months, a disconnected "REAR"

Not that it makes it "right", but - Lorry driving, cars & M/cycles were daily-useage - My focus on pushbikes then in "non-existence" (no interest)

My Lorries, cars & M/cycles ALL needed M.o.T's - the bike (languishing/shed) AND the new '1998' one, did not.


I coulda (no-doubt) culled the info' from the www-'net, but didn't - I believe I had "the intelligence to", but once again, didn't.

Sub 10-mph down deserted Norfolk countryside lanes (sparse area/Farmland), didn't phase me, with ONLY front-brake, for 7-weeks.

Call it laziness, whatever, it happened. At no stage "not in control", after all, it's hardly my 515Lb Suzuki GS.1000 from 1978


Sub 10-mph cycle that I CAN lift with two fingers, as opposed to above M/cycle that, "if dropped", I'd NOT be able to lift, on my own !

Anyways "it happened" (the rear-brake disengaged), so, I rode for about 7-weeks, with ONLY my 75% of front-brake available.

Incidentally, out of habit, I rarely use the back brake anyways, on pushbikes, even tho' they (others) ARE fully-functional.

This, purely out of ('bad habit'), plus, I'm always in the 2 x lowest gears (out of 14 or 21, dependant on which bike I use)


Actually, re-reading this thread AND all the answers, makes me ponder as to just how many UK cycles ARE in a perilous state ?

I'm talking about yer 'average Joe' here, many of whom are NOT 'enthusiasts', as you guys on this forum are.

Sarah, our barmaid being just a typical-example - She doesn't even KNOW the name or make of her bikes, or about the brakes....

"I just get on it & ride" (she said), until she had it stolen in Town, outside the large Pub where she works (& I saw her, last-night)


As cycles (pushbikes) = DON'T get the legal NEED for an M.o.T (unlike Trucks/Cars/M/cycles), many get away with mech' liberties.

Anyways, as a so-called former 'non-enthusiast', I am now more enlightened as to my shed-nags.

Anyway, on a positive note your question has stimulated some discussion and unearthed some facts that some of us didn't know. I hope that the OP finds that posters on this forum have generally taken his question seriously and tried to give their best info.

Yes indeed - Having read many threads (before I joined here), I do "know" that some folks here, CAN get a bit 'spicy'

One forumite (can't remember his name) quit the forum over a remark made on the football-thread & that invoked discussion.

But yeah, by & large folks have put forward their views, without (in the main) being nasty - (Less being labelled as "A Prat" - Laughs !)

Been called FAR worse in the last six decades !

Plus, "if" being berated for CHOOSING to unhook the rear (for a few weeks), am sure I'm NOT the worst-offender, or, "loss of control"

Am 1,000% certain that, "if" life were a video/DVD - I could press "rewind" & castigate a 1,000 others (forumites), for their misdemeanours !

How many of YOU folks out there, have EVER gone over 30mph (in your car) & "broke the law" - Yeah, thought so....

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

Speeding cars ARE a real bad issue around here - So many blat along at obscene speeds, which WOULD invoke loss of control

Only on Tuesday, I was driving at 46mph in a 50mph zone (A.148), when an Octavia passed ME/us, doing around 95mph-100mph

You had to SEE the craziness to even believe it - All because of a straight road (for miles) & countryside farmland.

My Father was roaring with laughter, "Wow, LOOK at THAT idiot" - (No, I seriously WAS overtaken at 95mph-100mph, in a 50mph limit)

This Octavia was going (being driven), like a scalded-cat, on Nitrous, whilst on fire.

Only 1-mile further on, an Audi driver, 23, killed himself, at 120+mph - Lost control & smashed into a wall, just two years ago.

The speed limit (all along that stretch), is 50mph.

I won't use the main roads, here, on a pushbike - Far too dangerous with many driving at lunacy/mental speeds.


Of interest to me (on this thread), is the mention of 'rear cycle flashing lights' & the Law, another I'm unaware of

I read (here) that the Law has changed, but to "what", I'm unaware - (I'll presuming flashing strobes, are "out")

You could be "lit up like a Christmas tree" living around here & still be "hit like a skittle".

Anyways, thanks to those who've participated - Lastly, "YES Jamie Whitham's bikes DO have a back-brake fitted & legal/track"
.

 

[mjr]

Actually, re-reading this thread AND all the answers, makes me ponder as to just how many UK cycles ARE in a perilous state ?

I'm talking about yer 'average Joe' here, many of whom are NOT 'enthusiasts', as you guys on this forum are.

I'm pretty sure it's not all guys on here.

Anyway, nobody really knows, but it doesn't really show up in the crash statistics as a significant factor so the police don't even seem to think it worth an enforcement crackdown and there's no good argument for a bike MoT test being made law. It's easier just to punish people if they come to attention for other reasons: most of the cycle roadworthiness tests are fairly simple and can be conducted at the roadside without special equipment. For example, any constable worth their salt would have spotted your brake flaw.

Only on Tuesday, I was driving at 46mph in a 50mph zone (A.148), when an Octavia passed ME/us, doing around 95mph-100mph

You had to SEE the craziness to even believe it - All because of a straight road (for miles) & countryside farmland.

Nope, seen it. The A148 may have straight bits, but the trees are too close to the road with none of the engineering seen on a modern road, which makes speeding very deadly. The main reason the A148 hasn't got a worse reputation is that more die per mile on the A1065 so that's what tops the charts most years!

I won't use the main roads, here, on a pushbike - Far too dangerous with many driving at lunacy/mental speeds.

Sadly, many agree with you, but we can't get cycleways to bypass the bits that have to be used to connect up the lovely byroads.

Of interest to me (on this thread), is the mention of 'rear cycle flashing lights' & the Law, another I'm unaware of

I read (here) that the Law has changed, but to "what", I'm unaware - (I'll presuming flashing strobes, are "out")

Yes, the light either has to be steady and meet an approved standard (the German StVZO is the most likely decent one; while the British Standard has ossified), or flashing steadily between 1 and 4 times a second and more than 4 candles brightness. This is summarised somewhere on www.cyclinguk.org

Another legal change that many in Norfolk seem to have missed is that cycle zebras exist since 2016... but hey, I still get idiots shouting at me for cycling across a toucan and they're over 30 years old! Do these drivers not know that keeping up to date with the law and highway code is a condition of their driving licence?