Judge falls from bicycle

D Wrote:
Chalo wrote:
Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:

Just an aside comment: the legal requirement in my state is to have a
brake
that skids the rear wheel. No front brake requirement.


I really hate laws that are written this way. The implication is
that
a legal bike could become illegal as the riding position became more
upright, or that a short-wheelbase racing bike could be legal while
a
chopper or a 'bent with a more effective brake would be illegal.

Stopping distance from a given speed is the only accurate and
relevant
measure of braking that can be simply assessed. And no, that
doesn't
make spot inpections by police easy to do. But why should that be
the
driving factor?

Chalo Colina


I think they would test it with the bike completely unloaded, i.e.
they
would engage the brake and move the bike forward, dragging or
"skidding"
the rear wheel. For the front wheel they could move the bike
backwards
or, when the rear of the bike comes off the ground conclude that the
tire not moving at all on the pavement is even better than it
skidding.

I'd be willing to bet that the requirement for two brakes, if there is
one, can be found in the CPSC volumes of the Code of Federal
Regulations.

Not likely as there are a great many bikes sold subject to CPSC regs
sold with only one brake and even many track and fixie bikes sold
without a brake. Brake requirements are generally promologated by the
states hence the inconsistency and emphasis on skidding the wheel.


--
meb