Van pulled out infront of me today..

Raam

scottreynolds wrote: »

Can you post a link to this law please . I rang the Department for the Environment and RSA but they couldn't help me.

I can see some shoulds, but no musts, but I haven't read the whole thing.

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_bicycle-checklist.html

A bicycle should have the following braking system:

* If it has one fixed wheel or is designed for a child under 7 years of age, it should have at least one brake;
* If it is designed for an older child or an adult or neither wheel is fixed, it should have one brake acting on the front wheel and another for the back wheel.

seamus

Interestingly, the rules of the road requires that your brakes are in good working order, but does not require that brakes are fitted in the first place.

So whether these are at odds is a matter of interpretation. One would assume that "good working order" only applies to things which are fitted, and where the item is not fitted you can ignore the "good working order" requirement.

Indeed, the same is true for cars.

But the link el tonto puts up would indicate that the ROTR are wrong. Or at least a little misguiding.

Raam

seamus wrote: »

Interestingly, the law requires that your brakes are in good working order, but does not require that brakes are fitted in the first place.

So whether these are at odds is a matter of interpretation. One would assume that "good working order" only applies to things which are fitted, and where the item is not fitted you can ignore the "good working order" requirement.

Indeed, the same is true for cars.

Just imagine: "Yes Garda, my brakes work fantastically, thank you very much. Where are they? Well they are at home on the kitchen table".

Chips Lovell

seamus wrote: »

But the link el tonto puts up would indicate that the ROTR are wrong. Or at least a little misguiding.

Well the rules of the road can sometimes misinterpret the law, but in this case I think the guidance is made on the assumption that your bike would be fitted with brakes as legally required.

Chris Peak

The Rules of the Road are really just a guide.
The relevant Road Traffic Act is what counts in the eyes of the law.

Tau

Lumen wrote: »

Also, obviously if you have both front and rear brakes you can use both at once and stop more quickly, which is funnily enough why normal bikes come with two brakes.

Interestingly, this is not true.

If you're braking as much as you can with the front brake, then there will be absolutely no weight at all on the rear wheel (ie. you're just on the point of flipping the bike over). Then if you even touch the rear brake, the rear wheel will skid.

The fastest way to stop is with the front brake only.

The only time you'd ever correctly use the rear brake is in low grip conditions, where the front wheel would skid before you would tip the bike over. That's pretty low grip, tbh.

Probably better explained here:
http://sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html

Lumen

Tau wrote: »

Interestingly, this is not true.

It is in the wet. I looked out of my window, and saw rain.

IM0

jesus people!

If a car/van knocks you off your bike, and they are in the wrong, and then offer you 100 quid to make it go away, do alarm bells not ring in your heads
the OP has no comeback now, so this post if for people reading it and who have the misfortune of something like this happening to them.

1 dont let the driver leave the scene (its illegal for him to do so)
2 get the cops
3 you will then get their insurance info via the cops
4 accepting money at the scene is the WORST thing you can do!

you've been warned....

keano007

I think it's fair enough to say that he should of had brakes on the bike as that IS THE LAW, stop trying to interupt it in any other way...Also can I ask why u didn't go to the guards? Taking money off someone at the side of the road isn't a great idea I think anyway!

Did u get the registration of the van? God help ya if you went to the doctor and there was a bone broken or something?

Chips Lovell

keano007 wrote: »

stop trying to interupt it in any other way.

What way?

Tau

Lumen wrote: »

It is in the wet. I looked out of my window, and saw rain.

Like I said, it is true in low grip conditions.

Sleipnir

keano007 wrote: »

Also can I ask why u didn't go to the guards? Taking money off someone at the side of the road isn't a great idea I think anyway!

Did u get the registration of the van? God help ya if you went to the doctor and there was a bone broken or something?

Aside from "we don't all need the Gardai for every spill, trip and knock that we get" I would imagine the lack of a means of bringing his bicycle to a halt probably played it's part in the decision as to whether or not to call the Gardai.

TinyExplosions

el tonto wrote: »

(a) where at least one wheel of the cycle is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals... the cycle shall be equipped with one braking device;

My reading of that is that a fixie requires one braking device, and the argument can be made that your legs are a braking device, and therefore it's legal to ride with one brake. This is how people get round just having a front brake in the states, where a pair of brakes are the rules.

kirving

If you shift your weight slightly to the back of the bike and use both brakes, you'd probably stop as quickly. Your using both surfaces against the road to stop which should be more effective. This leaves the front more likely to skid, which may happen anyway if you only brake with the front. Its scary when it does ever slide though! Even if im just messing about on grass.

Depends on a load of circumstances really which makes it difficult to describe, but a brake really should be on the bike whether legally required or not.

Saying that bicycle helmets are tested to 12mph is irrelevant really, they still protect your head. I dont wear one - I really should get in the habit:rolleyes: Cars recieve a Euro NCAP rating at something like 45mph, but I'd much rather be in a 5 star car in a 100mph accident - every little helps.

keano007

seamus wrote: »

Interestingly, the rules of the road requires that your brakes are in good working order, but does not require that brakes are fitted in the first place.

So whether these are at odds is a matter of interpretation. One would assume that "good working order" only applies to things which are fitted, and where the item is not fitted you can ignore the "good working order" requirement.

Indeed, the same is true for cars.

But the link el tonto puts up would indicate that the ROTR are wrong. Or at least a little misguiding.

This interpretation lol.....of course brakes should be on the bike

petethedrummer

Raam wrote: »

I can see some shoulds, but no musts, but I haven't read the whole thing.

No you see 'Shalls'. I draw your attention to section 7.2.3 of 'The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries' by Jennifer Coates.

SHALL=MUST in a legal context. The defense rests.

Sleipnir

TinyExplosions wrote: »

My reading of that is that a fixie requires one braking device, and the argument can be made that your legs are a braking device, and therefore it's legal to ride with one brake. This is how people get round just having a front brake in the states, where a pair of brakes are the rules.

No, the "argument cannot be made" that you are the braking device. That's a load a bull.

That's right Garda, it's not equipped with a mechanical means to steer, I just lean in the direction I want to go. Now I'm not a big City Lawyer but I put it to you that I am the steering mechanism."

You need a brake on it, end of.

TinyExplosions

Sleipnir wrote: »

No, the "argument cannot be made" that you are the braking device. That's a load a bull.

In what way is it a load of bull. The law doesn't specify that the brake must be a hand brake, or that it must be a calliper or in fact specify any type of brake. Therefore, you can extrapolate that anything that allows you to stop can be classed as a brake, and in the case of a fixed gear bike, the drive chain is effectively a brake, as when you stop pedalling, you will stop the bike.

Chips Lovell

TinyExplosions wrote: »

My reading of that is that a fixie requires one braking device, and the argument can be made that your legs are a braking device, and therefore it's legal to ride with one brake. This is how people get round just having a front brake in the states, where a pair of brakes are the rules.

I doubt if any judge would take that seriously. Legs aren't a device and if they were, why legislate for two brakes on a freewheeled bike?

Stark

You can slow the bike by pedalling backwards on a fixie which acts as the rear brake. You can't on a freewheel.

TinyExplosions

el tonto wrote: »

I doubt if any judge would take that seriously. Legs aren't a device and if they were, why legislate for two brakes on a freewheeled bike?

The fixed gear mechanism could be argued as a braking device. I'm not a lawyer, but these guys are. Yes, it's a different, more specific law over there, but the arguments are still valid imo. The fact is that it's not been put to the test as far as I know, so we're all arguing on conjecture here

edit: I don't know why they specify two brakes on a freewheeled bike, but under the law, you could run a fixie with only a back brake -the law doesn't necessarily make sense...

Sleipnir

TinyExplosions wrote: »

In what way is it a load of bull. The law doesn't specify that the brake must be a hand brake, or that it must be a calliper or in fact specify any type of brake. Therefore, you can extrapolate that anything that allows you to stop can be classed as a brake, and in the case of a fixed gear bike, the drive chain is effectively a brake, as when you stop pedalling, you will stop the bike.

It's bull because in the real world, your arguments don't stack up.

A wall allows you to stop but it's not a brake. Sliding along on your ass will bring you to a stop, but it's not a brake.

Your interpretation of the law doesn't matter a damn. A judges interpretation of law, however, does. Explain your 'extrapolations' to a Garda or a judge and report back here.

niceonetom

TinyExplosions wrote: »

My reading of that is that a fixie requires one braking device, and the argument can be made that your legs are a braking device, and therefore it's legal to ride with one brake. This is how people get round just having a front brake in the states, where a pair of brakes are the rules.

I'm pretty dubious of that. My legs = "a device" ? Really? That ain't gonna fly. Perhaps in another jurisdiction where perhaps the law is worded otherwise (where, say, a "means of slowing" is called for rather than "a device") this tactic would work, but not here, not with that wording.

Could I ride freewheel without stoppers, and claim my hands as devices? I could after all reach down and grasp the tyres firmly, bringing me to a graceful halt should I need to. Yeah?

Anyway, even if nobr akes could be said to be legal, I have never heard an argument for riding sans freins that amounted to more than "because I'm that good, yo." Legal? I doubt it. Clever? Absolutley not. For anyone.

"Personal choice" FTW, but by the same token, "accepting the fruits of your own stupidity" FTW too.

[edit]If you cycle long enough in traffic you are going to have an incident. Riding around with no brakes is essentially admitting liabity for any and all accidents right up front. All any other party has to do is point to your bike and say "but your honour, he has no brakes." and you are done, no matter who was truely at fault. I wonder if the van driver in the OP's incident had noticed the no brakes state of the OP's bike and had a think for a second, would he have been as quick to reach for the wallet? Or might he have thought, fcuk it, he hasn't a leg to stand on, back in the van, let's go.[/]

Chips Lovell

Are you trying to pull my leg Tiny?

There's no way you can seriously argue that someone's legs are a braking device on a fixed gear bike. If they were, that piece of legislation would make no sense:

where at least one wheel of the cycle is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals or where the cycle is designed for use by a child not more than seven years of age, the cycle shall be equipped with one braking device;

So a brakeless fixed gear bike would be one without a rider? Why legislate then?

TinyExplosions

Sleipnir wrote: »

It's bull because in the real world, your arguments don't stack up.

A wall allows you to stop but it's not a brake. Sliding along on your ass will bring you to a stop, but it's not a brake.

A wall isn't attached to the bike. The fact is that the drivetrain on a fixie allows you to brake with your legs. A calliper brake on a bike allows you to brake with your hands. In both cases you are 'activating' a braking device. The drivetrain in this case is analogous to a calliper

Sleipnir wrote: »

Your interpretation of the law doesn't matter a damn. A judges interpretation of law, however, does. Explain your extrapolations on a Garda or a judge and report back here.

And how does your argument matter any more? Why don't you explain your side to a Garda or a judge and report back? As stated above, there is no test case in law to prove either of our positions, therefore both can be seen as valid until proven otherwise

TinyExplosions

el tonto wrote: »

Are you trying to pull my leg Tiny?

There's no way you can seriously argue that someone's legs are a braking device on a fixed gear bike. If they were, that piece of legislation would make no sense:

where at least one wheel of the cycle is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals or where the cycle is designed for use by a child not more than seven years of age, the cycle shall be equipped with one braking device;

So a brakeless fixed gear bike would be one without a rider? Why legislate then?

I'm actually not trying to pull your leg at all. As I say above, the drivetrain on a fixie is analogous to a brake calliper, only you use your legs to stop instead of your hands pulling a brake lever.

I don't know why the legislation is written the way it is, the fact remains that you only need one braking device on a fixie. Now, either that means that they class the drivetrain as one already (with the one extra one required making it 'the same' as a freewheeled bike), or for some reason one brake is seen as enough, does that make sense?

monument

petethedrummer wrote: »

No you see 'Shalls'. I draw your attention to section 7.2.3 of 'The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries' by Jennifer Coates.

SHALL=MUST in a legal context. The defense rests.

The rules of the road are not written in such a way. In the Rules of the Road, 'should' is a recommendation and 'must' is a requirement.

Chips Lovell

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Now, either that means that they class the drivetrain as one already (with the one extra one required making it 'the same' as a freewheeled bike), or for some reason one brake is seen as enough, does that make sense?

It doesn't make sense, that's what I'm trying to say. Under your interpreation, the only illegal fixed gear bike would be one without a rider.

TinyExplosions

el tonto wrote: »

It doesn't make sense, that's what I'm trying to say. Under your interpreation, the only illegal fixed gear bike would be one without a rider.

How so?

I think I haven't got my point across eloquently enough. It goes like this in my mind:

1. Coaster brakes are prefectly legal and allowed on bikes. This are operated by pedalling backwards, using your legs to work the brake
2. On a fixie, you can stop by pedalling backwards, using your legs to stop the drivetrain, thereby braking the bike. In my mind, this is much the same as a coaster brake, albeit slightly harder to operate.
3. Therefore, a fixie works like a coaster brake, making the drivetrain effectively a brake.
4. The law states that in the case of a fixie, one brake is required (not specifying if it has to be front or back, or hand operated or not)
5. Given that from point 3 the drivetrain on a fixie is a brake, it is legal under the law.

Maybe saying that the legs are a braking device was the wrong wording. The fact is that no brakes work without a rider operating them, be it with their hands or feet (in the case of a coaster brake or a fixie)

What I suspect is that the law is implying that the drivetrain on a fixie is a brake, and that a second, front brake is required. That is why only one is specified on a fixed gear, and two on a freewheel.

Does that clear my point up at all?

Sleipnir

We're getting in the philosopical realms with this "what is a brake" and what isn't.:D

I mean we have another post above which says that the law states that your brakes should be in good working order BUT! it doesn't state that they should actually be fitted.
Either the law is an ass or the interpretation is.

With your interpretation, a brake seems to be anything that can bring a bike to a halt. That means that if you have a chain and anchor, you're good. Braking Parachute? Yup.

Reversing the drivetrain is using something which has a particular purpose for something it's not really intended to do. That's not "a brake"
It's like saying
"This train doesn't need a brake, we just put the engine into reverse"
**EDIT** Actually, it's more like saying
"The brake on this train is putting the engine in reverse"

Not the same thing.

scottreynolds

TinyExplosions wrote: »

How so?

I think I haven't got my point across eloquently enough. It goes like this in my mind:

1. Coaster brakes are prefectly legal and allowed on bikes. This are operated by pedalling backwards, using your legs to work the brake
2. On a fixie, you can stop by pedalling backwards, using your legs to stop the drivetrain, thereby braking the bike. In my mind, this is much the same as a coaster brake, albeit slightly harder to operate.
3. Therefore, a fixie works like a coaster brake, making the drivetrain effectively a brake.
4. The law states that in the case of a fixie, one brake is required (not specifying if it has to be front or back, or hand operated or not)
5. Given that from point 3 the drivetrain on a fixie is a brake, it is legal under the law.

Maybe saying that the legs are a braking device was the wrong wording. The fact is that no brakes work without a rider operating them, be it with their hands or feet (in the case of a coaster brake or a fixie)

What I suspect is that the law is implying that the drivetrain on a fixie is a brake, and that a second, front brake is required. That is why only one is specified on a fixed gear, and two on a freewheel.

Does that clear my point up at all?

I'm with el Tonto here. I also pretty sure that this would only go to court when there is a serious death or major accident which is unfortunate. My understanding, and hopefully of the normal man, would be that a brake is a hand operated brake as we know it. This may indeed be why BMX bikes are sold with a front brake.

Essentially its a fairly silly debate, like the usual helmet debates, you should have a brake to emergency stop. Any other argument, while entertaining, is pointless. People are only wrong in a accident which is unfortunate.

I hope this is never tested in court.

TinyExplosions

Sleipnir wrote: »

We're getting in the philosopical realms with this "what is a brake" and what isn't.:D

Getting into? That's been essentially the whole point from the start!

Sleipnir wrote: »

With your interpretation, a brake seems to be anything that can bring a bike to a halt. That means that if you have a chain and anchor, you're good. Braking Parachute? Yup.

Reversing the drivetrain is using something which has a particular purpose for something it's not really intended to do. That's not "a brake"
It's like saying
"This train doesn't need a brake, we just put the engine into reverse"

Not the same thing.

Nope. See my post above, a fixed drivetrain is the same as a coaster brake, therefore is a brake. If you can demonstrate the flaw there, then grand!

TinyExplosions

scottreynolds wrote: »

My understanding, and hopefully of the normal man, would be that a brake is a hand operated brake as we know it.

So what's the deal with a coaster brake?

Sleipnir

scottreynolds wrote: »

Essentially its a fairly silly debate, like the usual helmet debates, you should have a brake to emergency stop. Any other argument, while entertaining, is pointless.

+1.

TinyExplosions

Sleipnir wrote: »

+1.

Pointless, yet you continue to argue?

I will point out that I run a front brake, and don't particularly agree with going brakeless, but I also think that the drivetrain is a brake on a fixie!

Sleipnir

TinyExplosions wrote: »

So what's the deal with a coaster brake?

That is an actual braking system, the function of which is to stop the bike.
Reversing the drivetrain is not "a brake". It's a method of slowing the bike but then so is putting your foot on the ground. That's not "a brake" either.

scottreynolds

TinyExplosions wrote: »

So what's the deal with a coaster brake?

I'm sure the law implies Coaster Brake for rear plus one brake for the front... but s I said we will never really know

Sleipnir

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Pointless, yet you continue to argue?

Of course. That's what the internet is for isn't it!?

TinyExplosions

scottreynolds wrote: »

I'm sure the law implies Coaster Brake for rear plus one brake for the front... but s I said we will never really know

And I'm fairly sure it also implies a fixed drivetrain for rear plus one for the front!

No, I don't think we will ever know unless someone puts it to the test.

@Slepnir, that's a fair point, but there's a big difference between putting your foot down and using a fixie to brake -in application, a fixie is as effective as a coaster brake. See my link waaaaay above for the link to an actual lawyers arguement for a fixie drivetrain acting as a brake. I'm inclined to agree with their point of view as they're familiar with law, and aren't totally working on conjecture!

scottreynolds

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with their point of view as they're familiar with law, and aren't totally working on conjecture!

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with interpretations I agree with as well.

dave2pvd

I'm with Tiny on this one. In some US states, the law is the same. Fixie's have only one wheel that is regarded as 'independent of the drivetrain' when attempting to slow down. Hence, 1 brake is required. All other bikes = 2 brakes. Which is why fixie bikes can be sold with only a front brake (can you imagine the manufacturer's liability if the law were different?).

The OP could have stopped quicker if he had been properly able to modulate a brake. Tough to come to a controlled stop on a fixie. That said, WTF was the van doing pulling out in front of him? If the bike's not damaged and the rider's not damaged, $150 = not so bad. Plus, I'll bet the driver learned his lesson. For a while.

Regarding must vs should: take it up in court. If should is in a statute, that's what a judge will likely refer to when assigning duty of care.

The 12mph helmet standard: also means that a helmet will protect your head above that speed. Come on people, get some sense. Or have you fallen off once too many above 12mph?

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

Statutory Instrument No. 190/1963: ROAD TRAFFIC (CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT AND USE OF VEHICLES) REGULATIONS

93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance, and no other type of audible warning instrument shall be fitted to a pedal cycle while used in a public place.


(2) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle so constructed that the pedals act directly on any wheel or its axle without the intervention of any gearing, chain or other device) while used in a public place shall be equipped with an efficient braking device, or two efficient braking devices, in accordance with the following provisions, that is to say:—

(a) where at least one wheel of the cycle is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals or where the cycle is designed for use by a child not more than seven years of age, the cycle shall be equipped with one braking device;

(b) in any other case, the cycle shall be equipped with two braking devices and, in the case of a bicycle, one device shall operate on the front wheel and one device shall operate on the rear wheel.

The law is clear on fixies, see (a) above. It specificies whether you need one or two brakes depending on whether "at least one wheel of the cycle is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals".

The general exemption from brakes is for "a cycle so constructed that the pedals act directly on any wheel or its axle without the intervention of any gearing, chain or other device".

It's pretty obvious why the law is worded this way, since having your braking dependent on the chain is an idea of dubious merit.

If you want to legally avoid brakes, you need to be rocking a p-far.

TinyExplosions

scottreynolds wrote: »

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with interpretations I agree with as well.

This is true, but remains that it's the only legal opinion hat has been posted here -everyone else is going on personal conjecture. If one of the "Tiny's an idiot" camp can come up with a ruling that shows a fixies drivetrain isn't a brake, I'll be only to happy to accept it! The internet is huge, why can't ye find an interpretation you agree with!

At the end of the day, I think the law implies the drivetrain of a fixie is an effective brake and requires a front brake in addition, but technically, as it doesn't specify a front one, you could argue that the drivetrain acts as a brake, making it legal!

kenmc

dave2pvd wrote: »

The 12mph helmet standard: also means that a helmet will protect your head above that speed. Come on people, get some sense. Or have you fallen off once too many above 12mph?

So at what speed do you propose it will stop protecting your head then? Or will it ONLY protect your head above 12mph?
I think you will probably find that it is actually designed to absorb a specific amount of energy, which, given the average weight of a human head, average height above ground etc works out to be in the region of 12mph, which would be the minimum rating; sure it MIGHT protect you at 13 or 15 or 20mph, but it's designed and tested to absorb the impacts as per the testing regs.

Lumen

TinyExplosions wrote: »

This is true, but remains that it's the only legal opinion hat has been posted here -everyone else is going on personal conjecture. If one of the "Tiny's an idiot" camp can come up with a ruling that shows a fixies drivetrain isn't a brake, I'll be only to happy to accept it!

See my post above.

If you want better than that, consider that the law is only what the courts say it is, so if you want to prove the (obviously contrary) point of view you need case law.

Lumen

kenmc wrote: »

So at what speed do you propose it will stop protecting your head then? Or will it ONLY protect your head above 12mph?
I think you will probably find that it is actually designed to absorb a specific amount of energy, which, given the average weight of a human head, average height above ground etc works out to be in the region of 12mph, which would be the minimum rating; sure it MIGHT protect you at 13 or 15 or 20mph, but it's designed and tested to absorb the impacts as per the testing regs.

No, 12mph is the effective impact speed if your head hits the ground when you fall off your stationary bike. Forward motion is not considered a factor, since it's orthogonal to the direction of impact in the simple case.

kenmc

I said nothing about forward motion - only the impact speed of head hitting the ground.

Tails142

I like the laws of the seas when it comes to issues like this, small boats must give way to big boats.

Also sounds like you were going too fast - speed kills dont ya know

Lumen

kenmc wrote: »

I said nothing about forward motion - only the impact speed of head hitting the ground.

Er, sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with you, but more with the one which took this "brakeless fixies are stupid" thread into unfortunate "helmet debate" territory:

kona wrote: »

If you decide to educate yourself further in the world of bikes and safety:

A helmet, according to the BS(british Standad) Is designed to protect the head of the rider in a crash at speeds of up to 12mph.

Now you remeber Physics in school right? and the conservtion of energy and mass X velocity well,

This standard does not cover crashes over 12mph(now applied to this scenario a bike going downhill, its safe to say its exceeding the 12mph standard).

It doesnt take into account crashes with another moving body( a van at 5 kmph is going to give you a good belt considering its Mass, hence the flying 15ft)

Now Cosidering these facts, It is IMO okay not to wear a helmet and Irish Law backs this up.

kenmc

Tails142 wrote: »

I like the laws of the seas when it comes to issues like this, small boats must give way to big boats.

You are also forgetting the other law; power gives way to sail.