Penny Farthings, Legality and responsibility.

Gerry T

cletus wrote:

Are you suggesting a sort of NCT for bikes? Would this be run by the government? Would you have your bike impounded for not displaying the disc? Would new bikes be exempt for a period? Would older bikes be tested more frequently than newer bikes?

You can call it an nct if you want.
Yes who else would run it, it would most likley need funding
Fine would work, or a guard asking you to produce the cert at your friendly station.
With a bit of thought it can be organised, all bikes would need the test but a brand new bike might get 24mth, but brakes on a bike is at least an annual test.
Why would an old bike need more than an annual test.

This is far simpler to do than cars with multiple systems and far more issues. It would be a simple annual test.

It would also help with theft as all bikes would need to be on a register, i guess your laughing at the idea and the fuss this creates but any vehicle on a road should be tested and users should have a basic understanding of the road.

People have no issue paying thousands for teenagers to learn how to drive with lessons, insurance etc, but cycling is still like the wild west.

road_high

Wouldn’t have been easy to see either for the van driver- dressed in black on a black tall thin cycle even in day light hours

beauf

Gerry T wrote: »

Very very very simple, set a standard and if the bike doesnt meet that then its not allowed on the road.
Dont see how a solid tyre affects braking
If fixed wheel braking meets the standard then great if not then fit a break to the bike. Do you think pedal braking is safe

You said check tyre pressure...

They did set a standard. It's in the regulations.

Define safe. All bikes stop in a different distance depending on a variety of factors. Bit of gravel, wet manhole, big rider, a few panniers, and it can take a long time to stop.

So what you don't do is dangerously cut across a cyclist, car, or truck leaving them no space.

Seth Brundle

Would this bike need that bike nct?
https://www.halfords.ie/cycling/bikes/bikes-available-stock/apollo-firechief-kids-bike---12%22-wheel-607862.html
What about the rules and understanding of the road for when they are outside their house? Would the rider need to pass a test?
Edit: I'd also add that this bike is not allowed (as per the law) be cycled on a footpath.

cletus

Gerry T wrote: »

You can call it an nct if you want.
Yes who else would run it, it would most likley need funding
Fine would work, or a guard asking you to produce the cert at your friendly station.
With a bit of thought it can be organised, all bikes would need the test but a brand new bike might get 24mth, but brakes on a bike is at least an annual test.
Why would an old bike need more than an annual test.

This is far simpler to do than cars with multiple systems and far more issues. It would be a simple annual test.

It would also help with theft as all bikes would need to be on a register, i guess your laughing at the idea and the fuss this creates but any vehicle on a road should be tested and users should have a basic understanding of the road.

People have no issue paying thousands for teenagers to learn how to drive with lessons, insurance etc, but cycling is still like the wild west.

Im not laughing, but I do think it's a silly idea. It's putting large amounts of bureaucracy and cost into solving a problem that doesn't exist, as far as I can tell.

magicbastarder

on the topic, i was out earlier and stuck behind an uber eats cyclist (on a franken-e-bike contraption) and i was thinking 'i wonder if they get any allowance to make sure their bike is kept reasonably well safe and serviced?' and then laughed at myself for such naivety.

this was kinda prompted by the fact that he essentially had no rear mudguard which meant the bag he had on which carries the food was filthy.

beauf

Gerry T wrote: »

You can call it an nct if you want.
Yes who else would run it, it would most likley need funding
Fine would work, or a guard asking you to produce the cert at your friendly station.
With a bit of thought it can be organised, all bikes would need the test but a brand new bike might get 24mth, but brakes on a bike is at least an annual test.
Why would an old bike need more than an annual test.

This is far simpler to do than cars with multiple systems and far more issues. It would be a simple annual test.

It would also help with theft as all bikes would need to be on a register, i guess your laughing at the idea and the fuss this creates but any vehicle on a road should be tested and users should have a basic understanding of the road.

People have no issue paying thousands for teenagers to learn how to drive with lessons, insurance etc, but cycling is still like the wild west.

The issue you have it would cost millions to fix a problem that no one's saying is a problem.

Dante

Didn't a lad get done for manslaughter in the UK a few years ago after hitting a pedestrian while riding a brakeless bicycle? Despite the fact she walked out in front of him, it was deemed that the bike was illegal so he was at fault. Would a penny farthing fall under the same ruling?

cletus

DaaaaaaaaaaN wrote: »

Didn't a lad get done for manslaughter in the UK a few years ago after hitting a pedestrian while riding a brakeless bicycle? Despite the fact she walked out in front of him, it was deemed that the bike was illegal so he was at fault. Would a penny farthing fall under the same ruling?

If it's the case I'm thinking of, I don't think it had anything to do with the bike, the ruling was that he should have expected the unexpected, ie, that somebody might step out in front of him

breezy1985

DaaaaaaaaaaN wrote: »

Didn't a lad get done for manslaughter in the UK a few years ago after hitting a pedestrian while riding a brakeless bicycle? Despite the fact she walked out in front of him, it was deemed that the bike was illegal so he was at fault. Would a penny farthing fall under the same ruling?

It seems not as a penny farthing has the pedal attached directly to the wheel. Someone sent me a link to the law a few pages back

beauf

DaaaaaaaaaaN wrote: »

Didn't a lad get done for manslaughter in the UK a few years ago after hitting a pedestrian while riding a brakeless bicycle? Despite the fact she walked out in front of him, it was deemed that the bike was illegal so he was at fault. Would a penny farthing fall under the same ruling?

No because the rule is different for a PF and Fixie.

Also the PF isn't at fault here. The guy on the Fixie was. It was the way he was cycling. I could be corrected but he didn't attempt to brake, it was more get out of my attitude. No remorse etc.

But it's curious how people try to associate that with this. It's like people want to blame the cyclist or the bicycle or cycling for causing the accident. Even where is obviously caused by the motorist. As it is in the majority of cyclist Vs Car accidents.

breezy1985

cletus wrote: »

If it's the case I'm thinking of, I don't think it had anything to do with the bike, the ruling was that he should have expected the unexpected, ie, that somebody might step out in front of him

I assume we are talking about the one in or around Commercial St. and yes they did try claim he should have been more attentive but his lawyer showed that no vehicle could have stopped regardless given the distance away he was when she stepped out. His bike was illegal though but like many people I don't think he was aware of that till after the case

The whole circus around that case was horrible and even if his bike had been legal lots of people were still gonna blame him despite it not really being his fault. He didn't help himself though by boasting about it on social media before he realized she was dead

magicbastarder

DaaaaaaaaaaN wrote: »

Didn't a lad get done for manslaughter in the UK a few years ago after hitting a pedestrian while riding a brakeless bicycle? Despite the fact she walked out in front of him, it was deemed that the bike was illegal so he was at fault. Would a penny farthing fall under the same ruling?

it's an interesting 'quirk' (word used advisedly) of the law in some contexts here.

let's say i was out driving, and a pedestrian ran out in front of my car and i killed them. for the sake of this thought experiment, it is ruled that i am blameless, for i could not have anticipated this.
but, now say i'm 50% over the legal alcohol limit, all other things the same. despite the fact that my drunkenness has nothing to do with the outcome, you can bet your bottom dollar i'd be done from drunken drivng causing death (or whatever way the term is used)

breezy1985

beauf wrote: »

No because the rule is different for a PF and Fixie.

Also the PF isn't at fault here. The guy on the Fixie was. It was the way he was cycling. I could be corrected but he didn't attempt to brake, it was more get out of my attitude. No remorse etc.

But it's curious how people try to associate that with this.

I used this case earlier as an example of how bikes without 2 brakes were illegal but was proven wrong on the law. I don't think anyone is trying to say the two situations are the same just the bikes

gctest50

beauf wrote: »

.............

Also the PF isn't at fault here.....

The PF rider altered his course and cycled straight into van - looks like a compo claim tbh

If the PF rider continued in a straight line he wouldn't have cycled straight into the tail end of the van


https://imgur.com/Fqu57L5

Seth Brundle

gctest50 wrote: »

The PF rider altered his course and cycled straight into van - looks like a compo claim tbh

If the PF rider continued in a straight line he wouldn't have cycled straight into the tail end of the van


https://imgur.com/Fqu57L5

The cyclist tried to change course when they realised what might happen but this isn't easy on that bike. Instinct kicks in to swerve and had they swerved right they'd be into traffic. Swerving left would almost be instinctive.

breezy1985

gctest50 wrote: »

The PF rider altered his course and cycled straight into van - looks like a compo claim tbh

If the PF rider continued in a straight line he wouldn't have cycled straight into the tail end of the van


https://imgur.com/Fqu57L5

The whole let's troll the cyclists has been done already on this thread so you are a bit late sorry.
Plenty of other threads out there for you ya big mad edgelord

beauf

breezy1985 wrote: »

I used this case earlier as an example of how bikes without 2 brakes were illegal but was proven wrong on the law. I don't think anyone is trying to say the two situations are the same just the bikes

The bikes aren't the same. One was carbon fibre and braked using a chain to the back wheel. The PF (I assume is steel) has no chain and is braked using the front wheel and pedals only.

Most braking comes from the front wheel. Cars are the same which is why the brakes are bigger and better on the front of most cars. Bicycles are the same most effective braking comes from the front wheel.

So the bikes are very different. There is nothing in common.

gctest50

breezy1985 wrote: »

It seems not as a penny farthing has the pedal attached directly to the wheel. Someone sent me a link to the law a few pages back

From the sentencing remarks after Judge Wendy ripped him a new one :




"Sentencing remarks of Her Honour Judge Wendy Joseph QC Sentencing remarks: The offence of wanton or furious driving or other misconduct for which I must sentence you, Charlie Alliston, was committed on 12th February 2016 but it had its roots in your conduct long before that.


It is against the law to ride any bicycle on a public road without a front-wheel brake. It must be obvious to anyone that this is not an arbitrary rule designed to spoil the pleasures of the Charlie Allistons of this world.
It is a law designed for the safety of all road users including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
You, Mr. Alliston, assert that you – despite being an experienced cyclist and regular user of an internet forum specifically for fixed-wheel cycle enthusiasts – were unaware that what you were doing was illegal. It is not necessary for me to make a finding of fact on this point since a) ignorance of the law is irrelevant and b) I am sure that whether or not you knew the law, you knew the danger of riding without a front brake. It could not be otherwise since, relying only on the rear-wheel system, it takes 4 times the distance to stop. That your bike was safer with a front-wheel brake was a"s obvious to you as to anyone else"

beauf

gctest50 wrote: »

The PF rider altered his course and cycled straight into van - looks like a compo claim tbh

If the PF rider continued in a straight line he wouldn't have cycled straight into the tail end of the van


https://imgur.com/Fqu57L5

Van drove at the cyclist. What is that...

magicbastarder

gctest50 wrote: »

looks like a compo claim tbh

that is an utterly bizarre claim. are you saying the rider saw a van heading for him, and decided to make the incident *worse*? so he could claim?

breezy1985

beauf wrote: »

The bikes aren't the same. One was carbon fibre and braked using a chain to the back wheel. The PF (I assume is steel) has no chain and is braked using the front wheel and pedals only.

Most braking comes from the front wheel. Cars are the same which is why the brakes are bigger and better on the front of most cars. Bicycles are the same most effective braking comes from the front wheel.

So the bikes are very different. There is nothing in common.

I know that I understand how front and back brakes work. I used it as an example of how bikes with only one brake were illegal and penny farthings and that guys fixie had only one brake so we're the same for the purpose of the conversation I was having.

As I said someone already guided me to the relevant law and I was wrong on the legality of brakes

beauf

gctest50 wrote: »

From the sentencing remarks after Judge Wendy ripped him a new one :




"Sentencing remarks of Her Honour Judge Wendy Joseph QC Sentencing remarks: The offence of wanton or furious driving or other misconduct for which I must sentence you, Charlie Alliston, was committed on 12th February 2016 but it had its roots in your conduct long before that.


It is against the law to ride any bicycle on a public road without a front-wheel brake. It must be obvious to anyone that this is not an arbitrary rule designed to spoil the pleasures of the Charlie Allistons of this world.
It is a law designed for the safety of all road users including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
You, Mr. Alliston, assert that you – despite being an experienced cyclist and regular user of an internet forum specifically for fixed-wheel cycle enthusiasts – were unaware that what you were doing was illegal. It is not necessary for me to make a finding of fact on this point since a) ignorance of the law is irrelevant and b) I am sure that whether or not you knew the law, you knew the danger of riding without a front brake. It could not be otherwise since, relying only on the rear-wheel system, it takes 4 times the distance to stop. That your bike was safer with a front-wheel brake was a"s obvious to you as to anyone else"

PF has a front brake. You seem to be confused about that. Otherwise why post this it's of no relevance.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

jeremy vine getting the full gamut of responses on this tweet:

https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1348241980510367745

but he did wave back:
https://twitter.com/rhwilson83/status/1348313978116698112

beauf

breezy1985 wrote: »

I know that I understand how front and back brakes work. I used it as an example of how bikes with only one brake were illegal and penny farthings and that guys fixie had only one brake so we're the same for the purpose of the conversation I was having.

As I said someone already guided me to the relevant law and I was wrong on the legality of brakes

It's more nuanced than your description. Taken as written your comment is wrong.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just pointing out the devil is in the detail.

beauf

If you are on a fixie and the chain breaks or skips off you have no brakes. I assume that's another reason it's worded so precisely.

breezy1985

beauf wrote: »

It's more nuanced than your description. Taken as written your comment is wrong.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just pointing out the devil is in the detail.

You are arguing with me and I don't understand why.

I am agreeing the 2 bikes are very different. Earlier I thought they were not but have already been proven wrong so what the hell are you going on about.

You are talking down to me like you are the only lad on here who knows how a bike works

beauf

Apologies if that's the impression, I am not. I was curious why PF isn't treated the same as Fixie. So I started researching it. Then it occurred to me that it also has to do with the physics unique to hard braking a PF without being thrown from it. Also the effectiveness of bicycle braking. Weight distribution and why you can't just suddenly lock the front wheel of a bicycle. Why grabby brakes are problematic on a bicycle and why modulation is important on disc brakes.

gctest50

beauf wrote: »

If you are on a fixie and the chain breaks or skips off you have no brakes. .......

It also takes 4 times longer to stop, right there in the sentencing remarks i pasted in :


".From the Sentencing remarks of Her Honour Judge Wendy Joseph QC ;


" It is not necessary for me to make a finding of fact on this point since a) ignorance of the law is irrelevant and b) I am sure that whether or not you knew the law, you knew the danger of riding without a front brake. It could not be otherwise since, relying only on the rear-wheel system, it takes 4 times the distance to stop. That your bike was safer with a front-wheel brake was a"s obvious to you as to anyone else" "

breezy1985

beauf wrote: »

Apologies if that's the impression, I am not. I was curious why PF isn't treated the same as Fixie. So I started researching it. Then it occurred to me that it also has to do with the physics unique to hard braking a PF without being thrown from it. Also the effectiveness of bicycle braking. Weight distribution and why you can't just suddenly lock the front wheel of a bicycle. Why grabby brakes are problematic on a bicycle and why modulation is important on disc brakes.

Well then go back to where you tell me my comment is wrong and tell me why it's wrong.

I have been saying that the bikes are different and are treated as such by the law and you keep acting like I am saying the opposite