Judge falls from bicycle

[Jay Beattie]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> consider comedy as an avocation? subpeona internal memos? have
you
> overviewed the bush approach to torts? shows signs of moving
toward a
> napoleonic code!

Actually, its a request for production (subpoenas are for
third-party documents), and a request for internal memoranda is
routine in products cases (along with a zillion other
documents). -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Alfred Ryder]

"StaceyJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> The only VA statute making mention of both "brake" and "bicycle" (not
> counting the one defining a moped as a bicycle like device with a motor
> producing more than two brake-horsepower) reads (in part) as follows:
>
> Every bicycle, electric power-assisted bicycle, and moped, when
> operated on a highway, shall be equipped with a brake that will enable
> the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean
> pavement. Every electric personal assistive mobility device, when
> operated on a highway, shall be equipped with a system that, when
> activated or engaged, will enable the operator to bring the device to a
> controlled stop.
>
> No mention of front AND rear.
>
> God I love Westlaw.
>
> SYJ
>
So, if I understand this correctly, my bicycle would not be legal in VA
since I am not able to make the front wheel "skid on dry, level, clean
pavement." But it would be legal if I removed the front brake and retained
only the rear brake. Both front and rear brakes are not required and I
_can_ make the rear wheel skid.

 

[Paul Hobson]

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> "Ted Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>"amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>>>designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike.
>>
>>Which brake is redundant? Seems to me that any bike capable of more
>>than a walking speed ought to have both wheels braked (and here I should
>>say that a fixed gear bike's rear wheel is counted as braked).
>
>
> 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 friend of mine was getting hassled by the cops that his (fixed gear)
bike didn't have brakes. He told them that he had put a coaster brake,
and simply skidded his rear wheel. They (obviously) never knew the
difference.

--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the words to numbers
if you want to reply to me:.

 

[Joe Riel]

"Alfred Ryder" <[email protected]> writes:

>>
>> Every bicycle, electric power-assisted bicycle, and moped, when
>> operated on a highway, shall be equipped with a brake that will enable
>> the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean
>> pavement.

> So, if I understand this correctly, my bicycle would not be legal in VA
> since I am not able to make the front wheel "skid on dry, level, clean
> pavement." But it would be legal if I removed the front brake and retained
> only the rear brake. Both front and rear brakes are not required and I
> _can_ make the rear wheel skid.

No, it says "a brake", not all brakes. Just as the parking brake
on a car doesn't have to skid all (or any) wheels, the front brake
on a bike doesn't have to skid the front wheel so long as the rear
brake can skid the rear wheel. Now, if you had one of those
antilock brakes that drive the front brake off the rear brake
you might be in trouble (legally as well practically , the front
brake than being a "braked wheel" that won't skid.

Joe

 

[Alfred Ryder]

> >> Every bicycle, electric power-assisted bicycle, and moped, when
> >> operated on a highway, shall be equipped with a brake that will enable
> >> the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean
> >> pavement.
>
> > So, if I understand this correctly, my bicycle would not be legal in VA
> > since I am not able to make the front wheel "skid on dry, level, clean
> > pavement." But it would be legal if I removed the front brake and
retained
> > only the rear brake. Both front and rear brakes are not required and I
> > _can_ make the rear wheel skid.
>
"Joe Riel" <[email protected]> wrote> >
>
> No, it says "a brake", not all brakes. Just as the parking brake
> on a car doesn't have to skid all (or any) wheels, the front brake
> on a bike doesn't have to skid the front wheel so long as the rear
> brake can skid the rear wheel. Now, if you had one of those
> antilock brakes that drive the front brake off the rear brake
> you might be in trouble (legally as well practically , the front
> brake than being a "braked wheel" that won't skid.
>
I don't read it that way, not that it matters. I think the author meant
"...shall be equipped with a brake (system)that will enable the operator to
make (each of) the braked wheels skid..."

 

[Hank Wirtz]

Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote in
news[email protected]:


>
> Firstly, what's a "brake coupling?"
>

It almost sounds like the track that the noodle clips into. Make it flimsy
enough and squeeze hard enough, I can imagine the noodle popping out and
the brake failing. Lots of room for user error, though.

That he initially blamed the road surface, though, sure makes it sound like
he wasn't even trying to brake when he crashed.

-Hank

 

[[email protected]]

the usual.

 

[[email protected]]

off course!
PUGSLEY INT.:
you are ordered to produce all internal memorandum relating to the
following:
a. simplifications for communications efficiency
b. data reviewed by the welder at coffee break
c. records of information regarding the new secretary's apartment.
d. test data from comprehensive brake system tests from white sands,
stanford and cal tech
e.

 

[D]

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.

 

[meb]

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.