gally99

i'm trying to find out for sure how california (oakland specifically) law views riding brakeless...
i got doored on saturday and totalled my bike and i'm trying to find out if i should rig a brake on before dude's insurance company comes to take pictures...
i'm currently just getting put on hold constantly when i try to call the police for an answer...
thanks folks...

adamkell

Google is the answer to all of life's questions.

From CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODES RELATED TO BICYCLES:

21201. (a) No person shall operate a bicycle on a roadway unless it is equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make one braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.


....vague laws with multiple possible interpretations are one reason why we have lawyers.

labratmatt

Wow. That law makes it sound like you need a rear brake. Weird.

Cynikal 

My impression of Ca law in regard to my fixie is that the fact that I can skid the rear wheel makes me legal. I'll ask a bike cop the next time I see one. But for your situation, throw a brake on for a few days...you don't need to use it. It would suck if the insurance co calls you on it.

powerjb

This is a good point. After all, isn't this basically what a coaster brake does? Let me know what the bike cop says.

gally99

the hassle is that i'm gonna have to fabricate something to hold a brake (no brake holes)...
i'm thinking i can probably stick two small pieces of metal (that are drilled) right above the bridge, and then find some long reach brakes to stick in em...

thank you adamkell...

danger DLFUENTE

I got out of a ticket today at work by the infamous traffic motor cop, for not having brakes. in cali you have to have one working brake. wack!

bubba's_BCS

yes but they give you a fix it ticket, so you fix it, then take it off

bostontrevor

Well technically leg locking will allow you to skid the wheel which complies with the letter of the law. In practice, I suspect a judge will want evidence of something recognizable as a brake. And yes, the skidding provision implies a rear brake and is absolutely stupid as anyone can make just about any wheel skid and has nothing to do with stopping distance. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this comes from the Uniform Vehicle Code

In one of the rare instances of Mass refusing to adopt UVC, we have a much more useful requirement: "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."

Fascinating! A requirement that actually bears some relation to the performance of the braking system in question! Of course it's still generally believed here that not having a separate braking mechanism would leave you open to charges of no brake.

khackney

AAAAARRGGGG.... When are you all going to get it. You're riding a bike that is NOT STREET LEGAL. You understand that. You make that choice of your own free will. The consequences are that (1) you're stopping distance will be longer than a bike with a decent front brake. And (2) you may well be denied any insurance claims if you are involved in an accident.

I know you can all skid to a stop. So what? You throw your weight forward to unload the rear wheel so you can stop the cranks. Then, maybe you shift weight back on the rear tire. But, all that takes time and distance especially if you are seated at the time you need to really clamp down in a hurry.

Bottom line is you opened the door to have the claim denied. It may well be the car owner’s fault, but the adjuster or the judge didn’t see it happen. Nor do they know what an unbiased honest witness you are. You caused the doubt. If I were the judge, the most I would give you is 50% of the damages, because you and the car share responsibility. But quick, throw on a brake so you can lie about what happened. Then, go back to looking cool when the smoke clears.

chimblysweep

fyi for washingtonians:
right now, the law says you need a brake. it also says you need lights, reflectors, and a horn or bell.

fyi:
we're changing it to drop the brake requirement. hey, it's a first step.

ajkloss42

Amen brother.

gally99

well yeah, that pretty much sums it up...

just a note however, the handlebars still have a brake lever on them from when i took them off another bike last week, and i was far enough past dude's bumper when the door opened, that it actually caught the lever and that's what caused me to fly and crumple...
so perhaps if i'd gone all the way dug my nut driver out of my closet so i could take it off all this could have been avoided...

Schiek

Don't forget the license plate. Can't ride a bike in the District without your license plate! (DC Regs. 1202.6)

bostontrevor

I would seriously question that. First of all, I'll assume you're talking about the original poster because I sure as hell am riding with a brake and never said otherwise. Still, I know people who brake very effectively and quickly by skidding and skipping. You may not believe it, but I've seen it. I've certainly seen people who can comply with the letter of the law. For that matter *I* can comply with the letter of the law through those means. They're not terribly onerous. On the other hand, I've seen folks riding around on bikes with brakes far less useful than skidding/skipping (and heard--because they usually squeal to beat all) though they would still comply with the letter of the law. I've seen coaster brakes less effective than the aforementioned technique And for that matter, what differentiates a coaster brake from a brakeless fix in the hands of a skilled operator? A coaster hub is constructed such that back pressure on the pedals actuates a mechanism that slows the hub through friction. A fixed hub is consructed such that back pressure on the pedals directly decelerates the wheel.

Sorry, but for those in the know with a brain in their head, it's far from cut-and-dried. I have seen no evidence (and by that I mean more than just emotional knee-jerk responses--I'm talking about studies with actual experiments and quantification) that shows that a "brakeless" fixed gear cannot be safely handled, including the requirement to slow and stop. I have a simple challenge for you: tell me how, if I can bring my bike to a stop on 30ft of dry, level pavement from 15mph using backpressure, that doesn't qualify my equipment as street legal under Massachussets law or, how if I can make it skid on same level dry pavement, how that doesn't qualify it street legal in a state that has a skidding requirement.

Now the judge or jury, not generally being educated on the question, will probably rule that you have no brakes as defined in law. I believe their interpretation is incorrect.

PS: I will also agree that a front brake is the most effective way to quickly slow a moving bicycle. It's simply a matter of physics. There's no way any rear braking system can be more effective than a front brake (under ideal circumstances it can be as effective, but that's going to be rare or never in actual use). Besides, it's impossible except with an absurdly (and I mean this literally) long wheel base or seat beam to make a front wheel skid. So those of you with only a front brake in a state with a skidding requirement (again, I believe that's any state that's adopted UVC), you'd better put on a rear one because you're the one without a street legal bicycle.

chimblysweep

Actually, your registration sticker takes the place of a license plate.

Oh, and we're trying to get rid of that too. Our proposed changes are to dump the useless DC bike registration and instead "encourage residents to use the national bicycle registry."

I like regs that have the word "encourage" in them. How lovely.

Schiek

That's too bad. I could almost be encouraged to register my bikes if I got a license plate.

bostontrevor

Boston requires that bikes be registered but the city scrapped its internal registration program in favor of the NBR, but you can't actually get NBR forms from the city. Yet another way Boston demonstrates how it truly values its cycling population.

Fortunately the state law covering municipal registration says the fine for violation is $1 and will not affect your civil rights or liability. So it's not street legal but if you get into an accident with an unregistered bike, the worst that happens is that you may end up paying a $1 fine (though I've never heard of it happening).

auroch

that is the sound of someone blowing their safety load.

jeff

econobot

I've got a brake, but no bell, license, registration, or light. Looks like I better get cracking.

46x17

More on this debate here: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...awsuits+brakes

catatonic

Yeah this argument has been said and done.

To me I just dont see how someone could stop quickly by skidding the wheel in varyingweather conditions..but I havent tried it, since I'm a front brake junkie.

ephemeralskin

well the thread has drawn to a redundant close, but one more point: trevor you said yourself that a front brake doesnt allow for skidding. skidding can reduce stopping distance because of the ability for 'tactical fishtailing'. if you only count linear stopping distance, a 'brakeless' fixed can stop faster than a front hand brake stop by fishtailing.

glowingrod

multiple interpretations are the danger here. From what I've heard this has been twisted around before to mean that ANY operator should be able to make the one braked wheel skid....

anyway I got me a front brake, can skid it too! So could a cop, but only for an inch or two before being catapulted, but I doubt any would want to try. skid either wheel if they ask nice though hehe

bostontrevor

No it can't.

Weight transfer under deceleration causes your weight to shift to the front wheel. Therefore the rear will skid far more readily than the front. Indeed, those with better math and physics skillz can actually demonstrate that skillfully operated, a front brake provides just as much stopping power as two brakes. In fact, I think even a simple thought experiment will show this.