46x17

Don't know if this has ever happened to anyone here, but imagine the scenario.

I hit some car, pedestrian, train, bus, rollerblader, cow, etc.
They go to court and try to sue me even though it was their fault.
For some reason I get questioned if my brakes were set up correctly.
"Uh no, well, your honor, you see, it is a track bike, it has, uh, no brakes... No, I can still stop it, I uh, skid and backpedal... ."

I can imagine it would be very hard to explain properly.

gilby

I remember a reply to a thread about riding a tour brakeless a while back where someone defined "brake" as anything capable of slowing or stopping the bike, i.e. your feet.

DMax

Depends on where you live.

In Texas, state law says "A person may not operate a bicycle unless the bicycle is equipped with a brake capable of making a braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement."

"brake" is not defined. An attorney could try to argue that a "brake" is a distinct seperate component, just as one could argue that being able to skid by stopping the pedals is ipso facto a braking device. I'm not aware of any case law regarding this issue, it sounds like a stretch to argue that a seperate mechanical device is needed in this case.

When you say "They go to court and try to sue me even though it was their fault." you really should consider a couple of things.

#1, if they contest their liability completely, they are arguing that it is actually your fault, not theirs. People go to court every day all day for this reason.

#2 aspect to consider is that while it may be agreed that the majority of liability is on the vehicle driver, there may be issues of comparative negligence, depending again on what state you live in. They may contest that you are 10% or 25% or whatever at fault because of you not having a workable brake, thereby causing you to share some of the blame. This might reduce your total damages - IOW, say the jury awards 1 million dollars but in a pure comp-neg state, they find you 25% at fault - you could only collect $750,000.

This really becomes an issue in some states where if it can be shown that a person is 50% at fault, they cannot collect from the other party. So if they convince a jury that yes, they (the car driver) were 50% at fault but you share equal blame due to whatever - lack of a brake in this scenario - you would be unable to collect damages.

MKRG

that would be a smart cow.

JASON R. TOMSIC

Oddly enough, I was pondering the exact thing myself on the way home today. I believe if you buy a bike that did not come with brakes (ie, a track bike, or such) you have nothing to worry about. But if you modified your bike and rendered the original equipment inoperable, as I have, you (I) may be held responsible, no matter who may have been truly at fault. That is just part of the "SUE ME, SUE YOU" mentality out there, and the inability of our laws to deal with our legal system.

46x17

What if I built it myself and never included a brake?

About the cow - it is about as smart as the majority of humans.
Too dumb to look left or right before entering the intersection, but
smart enough to get a lawyer and sue.

DMax

Maybe, maybe not. Again it depends on your state laws.

In Texas, I could see a smart lawyer (if I could find one) point out the fact that it is a "track bike".

It would go something like this:

"Track bike? What exactly does "track bike" mean? Oh, so you say that this bike was designed to be ridden on an enclosed track, a velodrome, and not on the street? But were you were riding this "track bike", which was designed to be ridden on an enclosed track, on the street at the time of this accident? I see.

So Mr. Track bike, are you familiar with the state statutes for required safety equipment for the operation of a bicycle on public streets? Yes, the one where it says that a bicycle must be equipped with a brake? You are? Well, can you point out the brake on your bike for me, in this photograph of your bike which was taken at the scene by the police?"

Anyway, it could go something like that. It's a stretch, nothing to lose sleep over I would think.

I have seen cows in court; well, not the cow exactly but the cows owner. Cows can get expensive and their owners don't like them to get damaged. Nice pics of semi-decapitated and crippled cows when a drunk driver takes an unplanned late night off-road adventure in his 4x4 can sway juries pretty quick.

JASON R. TOMSIC

The powers that be would surly say "You, sir, do not know how to build a safe bicycle. Now give this nice innocent person alot of money."

jimv

Curiously, are there any Bianchi Pista or Fuji Track owners that still have the paperwork that came with their bike? Have Bianchi or Fuji inserted any butt-covering statements in those docs regarding street-use of their bikes without brakes?.

Jim

supcom

Since the law basically defines the brake in terms of its capability to stop a moving wheel, any device which is capable of doing so would meet the criteria. In the case of a fixed gear bike, so long as the rider is capable of causing a skid, then the cranks and chain provide the brake. It's no different than a coaster brake, IMHO, except that it takes more skill to apply the fixed gear brake.

Texas law does not specify how effective the brake must be in stopping the bike. It only requires that the braked wheel be capable of skidding.

South Fulcrum

Can a car, pedestrain, train, bus, rollerblader, cow, etc. be considered a brake?

Msngr

in ny, at least, a fixed gear is in the defined in the statute as being a legal brake. it may be the same in your state. however, i do seem to remember that this is not the case in Illinois --or maybe that was Boston.

DMax

Actually it is very different from a coaster brake. A coaster brake is an actual device on a bike designed for stopping the bike - IOW a "brake". There is an actual component you can point to on the bike showing the it is "equipped" with a "brake".

As Texas law is written, it could be argued that a track bike is not "equipped" with a "brake" as the law requires.

Attorney: "You say, well, in order to stop the bike you just stop pedalling. Well, OK then if I drive a car without brakes, can I just let off the accelerator to stop? Is that considered a brake in a car?

Well, you say you can skid the tires on a track bike. Can you demonstrate braking to a skid on your track bike for us here in the courtroom?

Sir, can you please point to the device on your bicycle that is considered the "brake"?"

And on and on ad nauseum.

Just playing devil's advocate here, I really doubt this would come up in court, but I have seen equally ludicrous exchanges in court regarding similar esoteric legalities. And it could easily be argued the other way as well, just depends on the side of the aisle (defense or plaintiff) as to what extremes of absurdity you want to take it.

By the way, the fact that you say it "requires more skill" to perform a skid on a fixed bike would open up a whole new line of questioning regarding the legality of a fixed gear drivetrain being considered a brake... as in, (attorney so sir can anyone cause this wheel to skid using the devices on this bike? No you say, it takes skill and practice? So you would agree with me that this bicycle does nt come equipped with a brake, but rather is capable of being skidded only by a skilled and experienced rider? Sir, how many years have you been riding? How many times have you had occasion to skid your bike?... on and on until you cry uncle.

Schiek

Boy, you can't shake a stick in this forum without hitting a lawyer.

s2sxiii

what's wrong counselor, you don't like the competition?

MKRG

If there are lawyers here I'm not shaking sticks, I'm swinging bats.

ryan_c

If you're driving stick, then that actually is pretty effective - you can come very close to stopping (or stop) without using the brakes if you know how to drive it. I sometimes do that when people behind me are f'ing with me (as long as they're not too close).

Not that that would hold up in a court, of course, just saying...

Trek Rider

New York State Consolidated Laws : Vehicle & Traffic

ARTICLE 34
OPERATION OF BICYCLES AND PLAY DEVICES

Section 1236. Lamps and other equipment on bicycles.

c) Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the
operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement.

South Fulcrum

On my bike, I am the motor and the brake. I would point to my own ass.

supcom

Nice fantasy questioning. Try this one:

Sir, you say you have a brake on the front wheel of your fixed gear bike. Could you demonstrate the required capability to skid the front wheel on dry level pavement? Would you say that anyone could do so successfully without going over the bars face first into the pavement?

Schiek

Not my competition. I left the court room in 2000 and haven't looked back. Poor saps.

twahl

Just browsing this forum so I'm not really qualified to answer, but wouldn't the arguement be that a track bike by it's nature isn't meant to be used in street conditions? I mean like you see car parts that aren't for sale or use on street legal vehicles, they are intended for race use, and as such are illegal on the street. Knd of like no turn signals on a race car thing, know what I mean?

In any case, Virginia law says:

"Bicycles ridden on highways must have brakes which will skid the wheels on dry, level, clean pavement."

For clarification: "A highway is defined as the entire width between the boundary lines of every place open to public use for purposes of vehicular travel."

s2sxiii

Curses! and i was hoping I could come down there and best you on the road AND in court. Eh, one out of two ain't bad.

lala

Stop being too kool fer skool, put on a brake or two, and quit worrying/whining.

pitboss

wait a tick - I am starting my grad program in January. Does this mean a brake is mandatory? crap...