BIGDINNERS Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 confused as to what this has to do with the OP 2 types of bmx? not quite, I'd say there are at least 5 distinct types and many variations on these, each type can be run brakeless depending on ones ability Ok:suspect: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamf Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 There's a difference between offer and require though. Barriers to cycling reduce uptake and increase danger. Exactly. And it's obviously in society's interest to make it easy for people to drive less and exercise more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 confused as to what this has to do with the OP:confused::confused: It's a direct reply to your comment, which itself was a reply to the comment from Truman. If that's confused you then I'd give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I suppose the good news is that the law requires cycles to have 2 independent braking systems. So if you kill someone on a bike with inadequate brakes that will be taken into account. It is like having a crash with a drunken driver. It is never going to be your fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I suppose the good news is that the law requires cycles to have 2 independent braking systems. So if you kill someone on a bike with inadequate brakes that will be taken into account. It is like having a crash with a drunken driver. It is never going to be your fault. It depends doesn't it, if the lack of a front front brake had some part in the accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 It depends doesn't it, if the lack of a front front brake had some part in the accident. Not at all. If a vehicle is un-roadworthy it isn't fit for purpose. Bald tyres, faulty brakes..Accident. No insurance pay out. If you are driving on the wrong side of the road and hit another car being driven by a drunk in which someone dies, he will be the one going to jail. If you collide with a rider on a brakeless bike and he gets killed any lawyer worth his salt will have you home free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Not at all. If a vehicle is un-roadworthy it isn't fit for purpose. Bald tyres, faulty brakes..Accident. No insurance pay out. If you are driving on the wrong side of the road and hit another car being driven by a drunk in which someone dies, he will be the one going to jail. If you collide with a rider on a brakeless bike and he gets killed any lawyer worth his salt will have you home free. Even if it's proven that the car driver was driving in a highly irresponsible manner, like speeding, and the cyclist was cycling at say walking speed of 2/3MPH, you believe that the driver would be home free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Even if it's proven that the car driver was driving in a highly irresponsible manner, like speeding, and the cyclist was cycling at say walking speed of 2/3MPH, you believe that the driver would be home free? I would say there is a very good chance. Consider.. One of the most common accidents involving bikes if folk opening car doors without looking. If a cyclist is wiped out hitting a car door and the bike has no brakes what do you think will happen? Now consider someone getting off a bus and being collected by a cyclist. What do you think would happen if the bike had no brakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I would say there is a very good chance. Consider.. One of the most common accidents involving bikes if folk opening car doors without looking. If a cyclist is wiped out hitting a car door and the bike has no brakes what do you think will happen? That is itself a specific offence so you wouldn't get to argue that the cyclist was automatically responsible and the door opener automatically blameless. Given that such accidents usually happen to cyclists riding bikes with brakes you'd have a hard job convincing a court that the accident wouldn't have occurred if the bike had had them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 That is itself a specific offence so you wouldn't get to argue that the cyclist was automatically responsible and the door opener automatically blameless. Given that such accidents usually happen to cyclists riding bikes with brakes you'd have a hard job convincing a court that the accident wouldn't have occurred if the bike had had them. It is called contributory negligence, and once you have established that the lack of brakes on the cycle contributed to the accident occurring it is very easy to make the case that had the brakes worked in an efficient manner there wouldn't have been an accident at all. There are many cases where folk open car doors without a cyclist piling into it. To put it in a nutshell it isn't necessary for a motorist to prove that the accident wouldn't have happened if the bike had brakes. In a land where innocence is assumed unless proved otherwise it would be up to the cyclist or prosecutors to prove that it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.