FireTeamCharlie

I and a few friends of mine were zooming down a hille going around 40 MPH, on out BMX bikes racing, at the bottem of the hill a cop stops us because he saw my friend stick his shoe in his tire. He yelled at us about how no brakes is illegal and then ranted about us not wearing helmets (Helmet law in mass is 18 and under must wear a helemt or be fined).

patc

You state's traffic laws should be available on-line; if not at your local library. This is entirely possible, I live in Ontario and a bike - defines as a vehicle on the HIghway Traffic Act -bikes must have (at least) a rear brake.

John E

California law stipulates that a bicycle must have a brake system capable of causing at least one tyre to skid. The precise wording and specific requirement are a bit nonsensical, particularly for those of us who realize that the FRONT brake is by far the most important one, and that skidding the front tyre is a recipe for disaster, but the intent, that bicycles have effective stopping capability, is sound.

Pick your political fights intelligently. Yes, from a purely libertarian position, neither brakes nor helmets should be mandatory, but your personal and economic cost of meeting both requirements is so trivial that you should just go along. Besides, the upside is that good brakes or a helmet just might save your life sometime.

patc

As an essentially libertarian person, I'm not sure I agree with that. Lack of a helmet may result in injury only to the cyclist, and therefore I am against mandatory helmet laws as an unreasonable limitation of my freedom. Lack of brakes could result in injury to another person, however, and I don't feel my freedom trump another person's safety.

operator

He coudl've smacked you with about a hundred bucks worth of tickets. What's your point?

-=(8)=-

I was on my Townie doing some hill training and I come up on Lance Armstrong,
so I yell "on yer left" .............

tippy

Florida Traffic Law 316.2065(14) States "Every bicycle must be equipped with a brake or brakes that allow the rider to stop within 25 feet from a speed of 10 mph on dry, level, clean pavement"

The law says you have to have them but the law doesn't say you have to use them.

So does your "friend's" bike actually have brakes? If not and your "friend" was riding it in Florida then yes that would be illegal. If your "friend's" bike DID have brakes that could meet those standards but your "friend" decided to be stupid and not use them, then no, being stupid is not illegal.

d.tipton

supcom

40 MPH with no brakes? Training for a Darwin award?

marcelinyc

didnt know bmxers use cycling computers...[/

spinbackle

Didn't know 40 mph was attainable on a BMX even on a good downhill.

catatonic

Just put the brakes on....all BMXs should have a mount around the chainstays for a caliper or similar style of brake.

Plus all you need is a tektro or whatever you can get for $10 + cable + brake lever. If you are worried about cable tangling, get one of those Oryg cable detanglers.

sestivers

It's not.

twahl

Having raced BMX, I seriously doubt that anyone was doing 40 on a BMX bike. In Virginia I think you have to be able to stop in a certain distance and may include a skid requirement, but doesn't specify brakes. I'm not going to bother looking it up, because it's state law and doesn't apply to you, although common sense should.

Cyclaholic

I'm not sure what the law is in your country/state but if you were to suffer a head injury that leaves you physically incapable of looking after yourself and you had no family to look after you does the state assume responsibility for your care at the state's expense? If so then it could be argued that the state has some right to legislate such that it reasonably minimises the chances of you suffering that injury. Ofcourse if there is no such facility run by the state then my argument is moot.

cruentus

In New Jersey a bike must have brakes.

Jersey bike laws can be found here:

https://www.state.nj.us/transportatio...gulations.shtm

randya

40 mph on a BMX bike is entirely possible.

ghettocruiser

There is absolutely NO reason that a BMX (or a cruiser, a lowrider, or pretty much anything else) couldn't roll down a hill at 40mph. With a tailwind, you don't even need all that big a hill. BMXs steer pretty twitchy at speed, but a lot of streetriders use slick tires at pretty high pressure. They roll faster than a mountain bike with knobbies.

You just need to let go of the brakes.

Which apparently wasn't an issue here...

Eatadonut

what's the point of a BMX with no front brake? aren't there like...50 tricks any good BMXer could think of that need a brake? the only valid reason for you to not have a front brake on your bike is that the cable broke, and you haven't had the opportunity to replace it.

sestivers

No, you really can't. I won't say it's not possible. But having a good deal of experience on a road bike with better aerodynamics, lower rolling resistance, and a top gear 3X that of a BMX, there is no way he's reaching 40 mph on anything short of a half-pipe the size of a pro football stadium.

You have to pedal HARD in the top gear of a road bike to reach 40 mph, even down a good hill.

They're just trying to brag, or else meant 40 kph.

Da Tinker

Look here:
https://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/
And to quote the law on brakes:
"(7) Every bicycle operated upon a way shall be equipped with a braking system to enable the operator to bring the bicycle traveling at a speed of fifteen miles per hour to a smooth, safe stop within thirty feet on a dry, clean, hard, level surface."

Better law than many states which state that the bike must be equiped with a brake capable of making the braked wheel skid on clean, dry pavement. Which is silly, since if you skid the front wheel, make ready to eat pavement.

As far as the speed, if he's lacking brakes, he likely lacking any instrumentation as well. Subjective speed versus real speed is often skewed.

patc

Canada has universal health care. While I do pay through my taxes for the preventable medical conditions of others (the obese and smokers are more of a problem than cyclist without helmets, I think) this is not a DIRECT effect on me. I only approve of limiting the freedoms of one person when that freedom has a DIRECT effect on another.

Yes, indirect effects can be very significant, and should not be ignores. That is why governments have policies to promote healthy living, exercise, etc. There are a lot of ways to encourage behaviours that put less burden on "society" without unreasonable limitations of individual freedoms.

ghettocruiser

Alright. There's no way I can argue this over the internet. But I think you really need to find some steeper hills.

recursive

Out of a cannon.

Or theoretically, a steep enough hill. I'm sure they do exist, but they're pretty rare.

thechrisproject

Wasn't the point the question stated in the thread title?

randya

Not that rare at all, well maybe in Wisconsin... Every Sunday night in Portland, ZooBombers go 40 MPH on 16" kids bikes, the people with real BMX bikes go faster...