Bikes with no front brake. Surely this is not safe.

[Cyclone]

I'm not the one who's making up claims in order to refute them am I.

[lilypiglet]

I haven't been following the thread, where these bikes BMX or another type? Were they being used on a public road or were they on the skate/BMX park at Millhouses, or anything else off-road?

 

Yes, it was BMX's being used in the skate/BMX park.....so they are perfectly safe for the area they were being ridden in.

 

Typical SF...flying off the handle and screeching on about wet roads and stopping distances blah, blah, blah...

 

If they were being used for a 5 mile commute thro' the city centre on roads, they would be unsafe..

 

If they were using them to ride gnarly DH in Greno Woods, they would be unsafe..

 

 

BUT, they were the correct bike for the correct environment...so I really can't see what everyone's bleating on about.

[eckerslike]

I'm not the one who's making up claims in order to refute them am I.

 

Yes you are. It is quite simple. Youth on bike with brakes that don't meet legal requirements gets involved in road accident because he couldn't stop. Coroner says he died because his bike had no/faulty brake. Car/bus/truck drivers insurance says thank you very much that will save us a few bob.

Now you can do you usual turd peeling and claim you can swerve, stop with your feet etc etc. The fact remains that folk on bikes get killed frequently, and cycling without brakes just increases the danger and gives the insurance companies the excuse they need not to pay out.

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2014 at 10:24 ----------

 

Yes, it was BMX's being used in the skate/BMX park.....so they are perfectly safe for the area they were being ridden in.

 

Typical SF...flying off the handle and screeching on about wet roads and stopping distances blah, blah, blah...

 

If they were being used for a 5 mile commute thro' the city centre on roads, they would be unsafe..

 

If they were using them to ride gnarly DH in Greno Woods, they would be unsafe..

 

 

BUT, they were the correct bike for the correct environment...so I really can't see what everyone's bleating on about.

 

How do you imagine they get to the park?

[Cyclone]

Right... So what claim did I make up?

 

For reference, you posted this

 

"The fact remains that under law a bike needs to have 2 independent braking systems. No ifs. No buts!"

 

When I hadn't said otherwise.

 

I think you're just upset that your scenario doesn't make a lot of sense. Trying to blame a cyclist for a car driver opening a door and a bus that is illegally overtaking, there are much more sensible scenarios to demonstrate why not having brakes would be dangerous (not that the thread was ever about having NO brakes).

[jezzyjj]

What I was saying is that it is dangerous driving for any road user not to give a cyclist room to swerve. With two perfectly operating brakes a cyclist still may have all manner of reason to swerve and road users overtaking a cyclist need to take this into account.

As mention above, the law says bikes have a right to wobble.

This came about after a court case where a driver said an accident was the cyclist fault as he wobbled. The judge quite correctly said you should have anticipated that and taken it into account. This would fall into the same category I would imagine.

 

Though having said that, given the option this is why you should cycle out away from parked cars and a bike should stay as far away from the kerb/parked vehicles as a car does. It's safer. But sadly traffic won't let you a lot of the time.

 

Now you can do you usual turd peeling and claim you can swerve, stop with your feet etc etc. The fact remains that folk on bikes get killed frequently, and cycling without brakes just increases the danger and gives the insurance companies the excuse they need not to pay out.

Usually by large vehicles turning left on them and where brakes have zero relevance.

 

How do you imagine they get to the park?

On pavements usually. BMX are rarely seen on the road as they are a bit rubbish in traffic. No matter how many brakes they have. I would avoid roads as much as I could if going somewhere on my BMX.

 

 

BUT, they were the correct bike for the correct environment...so I really can't see what everyone's bleating on about.

That was exactly my view. But then people like to moan and complain whilst showing how they no very little about anything, in particular the source of their annoyance. Like eckerslike has done repeatedly in this thread or the OP in starting it.

[eckerslike]

 

On pavements usually. BMX are rarely seen on the road as they are a bit rubbish in traffic. No matter how many brakes they have. I would avoid roads as much as I could if going somewhere on my BMX.

 

"The maximum fine for ‘cycling on the pavement’ is £500. However this is usually enforced by way of a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) which carries a £30 fine if pleading guilty"

[altus]

"The maximum fine for ‘cycling on the pavement’ is £500. However this is usually enforced by way of a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) which carries a £30 fine if pleading guilty"

 

Actually - Home Office guidance is that it should not be enforced if cyclists aren't putting pedestrians at risk:

The guidance, which was first issued by Home Office Paul Boateng 15 years ago, states: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.

[confuse]

Yes you are. It is quite simple. Youth on bike with brakes that don't meet legal requirements gets involved in road accident because he couldn't stop. Coroner says he died because his bike had no/faulty brake. Car/bus/truck drivers insurance says thank you very much that will save us a few bob.

Now you can do you usual turd peeling and claim you can swerve, stop with your feet etc etc. The fact remains that folk on bikes get killed frequently, and cycling without brakes just increases the danger and gives the insurance companies the excuse they need not to pay out.

 

Are you being the clown asusual? Why should the insurance company lose out when it is clearly not the vehicles at fault?

[scargill]

As any motorcyclist knows, the front brake is the main brake. If you jump down on the back brake you might come off as when you slow, all the weight goes to the front and the back becomes light and locks the wheel easily. The front is the safest brake to use in the dry, the wet, if there is ice and pretty much any time unless you are going very slow or stopped.

For the same reasons car brakes are much bigger on the front because when braking the front of the car dives, compresses the front springs and pushes the front weight into the ground while the back becomes light. The weight is where the tyres have the most grip, and therefore the place where you need the brakes.

 

But cars and motor bikes both have suspension to damp the effect of front breaks, the same can be said for some bikes, but a non suspension bike needs careful manipulation of both brakes to effect a safe stop.

[Obelix]

But cars and motor bikes both have suspension to damp the effect of front breaks, the same can be said for some bikes, but a non suspension bike needs careful manipulation of both brakes to effect a safe stop.

 

Where we all these desperately sensitive bike made then? As kids no-one seemed to have any problems using both brakes to stop fast if needed....

 

Back brake on, then the front a half second later, let go a bit if the front goes squirrely. Bikes don;t suddenly lock up and you jump in the air over the bars - that's for Wacky Races or the Roadrunner cartoons...