Penny Farthings, Legality and responsibility.

beauf · 03-01-2021 9:58pm

lawrencesummers wrote: »

That’s it again, the cyclist deciding nothing they do matters because other road users have to take responsibility because the blame will lie with them.

Best of luck with that.
ER’s are full of people saying “I should have...”

That's just a straw man. I never implied a cyclist should do nothing.

It's not my fault you used a daft example where nothing the cyclist can do will compete with the 35.73 octillion lumens the sun puts out. It's like trying to shoot a gun with your eyes closed. Then blaming the person you just shot.

Weepsie · 03-01-2021 10:07pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

They are not road legal in the UK. We have covered this already too

They are depending on how they are made as the rules that apply to fizies 9.1 overrules rules 7 and 8 in regards to it's braking mechanism.

breezy1985 · 03-01-2021 10:12pm

Weepsie wrote: »

They are depending on how they are made as the rules that apply to fizies 9.1 overrules rules 7 and 8 in regards to it's braking mechanism.

Fixies are illegal if they don't have a front break in the UK.

beauf · 03-01-2021 10:16pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

No cause I'm on my phone and lazy.

Bikes in the UK need a front and rear break to be legal which although not impossible on a farthing is not normal.

In a non legal sense having a fixie break on a front wheel is probably a bad idea too

That's not correct. You are referring to hand operated brakes. Whereas...

9.(1) Nothing in Regulation 7 or 8 applies to -(a) any pedal cycle so constructed that the pedals act on any wheel or on the axle of any wheel without the interposition of any gearing or chain;

This makes fixies (which have a chain) and such illegal without another brake but PF, unicycles etc legal.

I'm open to corection. But this is quoted all over the place.

breezy1985 · 03-01-2021 10:21pm

beauf wrote: »

That's not correct. You are referring to hand operated brakes. Whereas...

This makes fixies (which have a chain) and such illegal without another brake but PF, unicycles etc legal.

I'm open to corection. But this is quoted all over the place.

No your probably right. I didn't factor the chain bit

beauf · 03-01-2021 10:23pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

....

In a non legal sense having a fixie break on a front wheel is probably a bad idea too

Apparently having a rim brake on a PF front wheel is a bad idea. Only the back pressure on the pedals is a viable brake. You can have rear rim on a PF but traditionally you used your heel.

Incidentally most of the braking force on a bicycle comes from the front wheel not the back wheel. Same with cars. All the weight goes to the front. It's why you often see disc brakes only on the front.

beauf · 03-01-2021 10:27pm

None of this has to with close calls though. Maybe it could be split into a different thread.

CramCycle · 03-01-2021 11:48pm

beauf wrote: »

None of this has to with close calls though. Maybe it could be split into a different thread.

MOD VOICE: Agreed, I will move this all into a riveting separate thread in the morning.

AndrewJRenko · 04-01-2021 1:08am

lawrencesummers wrote: »

That’s it again, the cyclist deciding nothing they do matters because other road users have to take responsibility because the blame will lie with them.

Best of luck with that.
ER’s are full of people saying “I should have...”

A quick review of the road safety statistics would suggest that ERs are full of people who've been hit by cars, vans and trucks.

CramCycle · 04-01-2021 10:22am

MOD VOICE: Posts moved to a new thread as it was dragging the Near Miss thread away from its normal conversation style. To make it easier on posters, leave the Hi Vis and Helmets to their respective mega threads. The cyclist avoided hitting his head and it was the middle of a bright clear day, any discussion on those two points can be taken to PM or to the aforementioned threads.

tomasrojo · 05-01-2021 8:34pm

beauf wrote: »

Apparently having a rim brake on a PF front wheel is a bad idea. Only the back pressure on the pedals is a viable brake. You can have rear rim on a PF but traditionally you used your heel.

Incidentally most of the braking force on a bicycle comes from the front wheel not the back wheel. Same with cars. All the weight goes to the front. It's why you often see disc brakes only on the front.

Didn't penny farthings have spoon brakes?

beauf · 05-01-2021 9:39pm

No idea there was some mention of using your heel online.

tomasrojo · 05-01-2021 10:07pm

Yeah, I think a spoon brake is just a fancier version of pressing your foot against the tyre. Probably a bit better, as it included a lever.

tomasrojo · 05-01-2021 10:10pm

Think this has one. Resting just above the front wheel in front of the fork.
http://media.talkingbeautifulstuff.com/2013/08/MAD-6.jpg

breezy1985 · 05-01-2021 10:11pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, I think a spoon brake is just a fancier version of pressing your foot against the tyre. Probably a bit better, as it included a lever.

Looks like it has the potential to wreck your tyre

tomasrojo · 05-01-2021 10:12pm

Better view
http://classiccycleus.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Spoon-brake.jpg

tomasrojo · 05-01-2021 10:13pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

Looks like it has the potential to wreck your tyre

I think there's a good reason they died out!

05-01-2021 10:22pm

Am I alone in thinking it convenient there was specific and clear video?

tomasrojo · 05-01-2021 10:23pm

beauf wrote: »

That's not correct. You are referring to hand operated brakes. Whereas...

This makes fixies (which have a chain) and such illegal without another brake but PF, unicycles etc legal.

I'm open to corection. But this is quoted all over the place.

I always thought that rule was to exempt tricycles for very small children, the tricycles where the cranks are joined through the front wheel hub.

Not saying it doesn't exempt the "ordinary"!

05-01-2021 10:28pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

House!

Wow! That's some cringy sh1te! Even worse you had to lift it from someone else.

tomasrojo · 05-01-2021 10:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow! That's some cringy sh1te! Even worse you had to lift it from someone else.

You interrupted a perfectly good conversation about spoon brakes. The least you could have done is bring up rod brakes.

beauf · 05-01-2021 11:13pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

I always thought that rule was to exempt tricycles for very small children, the tricycles where the cranks are joined through the front wheel hub.

Not saying it doesn't exempt the "ordinary"!

Maybe. Some seemed to think it was also to allow antique bikes.

beauf · 05-01-2021 11:15pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

You interrupted a perfectly good conversation about spoon brakes. The least you could have done is bring up rod brakes.

Don't spare the rod eh...

Gerry T · 05-01-2021 11:15pm

First the van driver is at fault, he cut dangerously in front of the cyclist...but... the cyclist turned into the van, if he had kept straight on the road he prob wouldn't have hit him.
Aside from that, how do you stop one of those at traffic lights, had he just travelled through a zebra crossing (road markings?), again how do you stop to let people cross.
If your cycling a bike you have a responsibility to be in control, even though the van driver is at fault i would think a standard road bike could have very easily stopped in that situation, the Cyclist would have seen the dopey driver start that manoeuvre.

beauf · 05-01-2021 11:17pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

Looks like it has the potential to wreck your tyre

Were they solid tyres?

07Lapierre · 05-01-2021 11:22pm

Gerry T wrote: »

First the van driver is at fault, he cut dangerously in front of the cyclist...but... the cyclist turned into the van, if he had kept straight on the road he prob wouldn't have hit him.
Aside from that, how do you stop one of those at traffic lights, had he just travelled through a zebra crossing (road markings?), again how do you stop to let people cross.
If your cycling a bike you have a responsibility to be in control, even though the van driver is at fault i would think a standard road bike could have very easily stopped in that situation, the Cyclist would have seen the dopey driver start that manoeuvre.

The cyclist had a split second to make a decision. He chose not to move out. He chose to Turn left and avoid any cars that might be coming from behind?

magicbastarder · 05-01-2021 11:26pm

Gerry T wrote: »

First the van driver is at fault, he cut dangerously in front of the cyclist...but... the cyclist turned into the van, if he had kept straight on the road he prob wouldn't have hit him.

if you see a vehicle like that coming at you from your right, what do you think is the instinctive/emergency thing to do? go straight ahead?

breezy1985 · 05-01-2021 11:28pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you see a vehicle like that coming at you from your right, what do you think is the instinctive/emergency thing to do? go straight ahead?

Id go to my right

BorneTobyWilde · 05-01-2021 11:28pm

The guy on the bike was taking that left turn at such a high speed/ Not sure he would have made it even without the van getting in his way .

tomasrojo · 05-01-2021 11:29pm

beauf wrote: »

Were they solid tyres?

Yeah, think so. The ride was less harsh than it would have been for a smaller-diameter wheel.

Yes, Wikipedia says solid rubber tyres

Penny Farthings, Legality and responsibility.

Comments