Just ONE Brake ; Front Brake Only ; Back Brake Missing / Disengaged = Illegal ?

[MichaelW2]

For undersea divers, 2 is 1 and 1 is 0.
This is also what happens when your brake cable snaps.

 

[Sharky]

Yeahbut that was a increased safety feature. Losing one brake could hardly be classed as such.

I was responding to "is it right to pick and choose which law to follow". In the case of lights, it seemed to be the general consensus that it was OK to break the law. But when it comes to brakes, is very hard to justify only using one and the law is usually followed.

 

[Ian H]

There are occasions - slippery conditions - where it's safer to use the rear brake.

 

[Fab Foodie]

"It's only Illegal if you get caught" - Boris Johnson....

 

[T4tomo]

"It's only Illegal if you get caught" - Boris Johnson....

and even then, being slippery can get you off

 

[Ajax Bay]

Can anyone actually prove it AND actually point to me, where it says that, legally, in print [that only one brake is illegal)?

Hope this helps. Just keep in mind the fixed rider who decided he was an awesome cyclist (but not as experienced as the OP) so dispensed with a front brake and killed a pedestrian and was convicted (of breaking a law, and not having that front wheel brake was a key element in deciding his guilt, aiui).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1176/pdfs/uksi_19831176_en.pdf
(if a normal (non-fixed) bicycle, be equipped with two independent braking [effective] braking systems, one operating on each wheel.)
7. (1) (b) (ii)

 

[a.twiddler]

In real life that up to 25% of braking ability on the back on a motorcycle is still 25% braking ability and no matter what nonsense you have heard about that, you wouldn't get a racing bike past inspection with a disconnected or ineffective rear brake, no matter how little it might allegedly be used. On a motorcycle the weights are higher, the speeds are higher, the weight transference to the front is more noticeable as the front suspension weights up and the rear unloads under heavy braking, and in those circumstances the rear brake becomes less effective and can become a liability if mis handled. That's still no reason to be without it. On a race circuit everything is going in the same direction.

On real roads you are manoevreing, riding slowly, riding (hopefully feet-up) round obstacles, doing U turns (again hopefully feet up) avoiding oncoming road users. You may have to ride up an unmade road or across mud on the way to work or even get across an icy patch or snow . Engine braking or the back brake lightly applied is a lot more useful than the front in all these circumstances. With this background now look at what you're proposing with a rear brakeless bicycle.

The whole point is control. There's more to riding a bike than just not falling off. With a fixed wheel and front brake you can do all on a bicycle that's in the previous paragraph. With two brakes, mostly using the rear you can do the same. Your options are more restricted with just the front.

Legally, see what @Ajax Bay posted above.

To claim that being unable to maintain your bike to the extent that the rear brake drags as a justification for disconnecting it is a bit feeble. Why not disconnect them both? No remote possibility of drag there. Still just as illegal. Or learn to set up your brakes correctly. No drag there either.

A strangely pointless question which with all your experience and knowledge you ought to be able to answer for yourself.

 

[nickb]

In the UK 2 brakes are required on a pedal cycle unless its a fixed wheel, a fixed wheel requires a front brake only, the fixed transmission counting as the bake brake.

I'd love to know how many people are capable of stopping a fixed-wheel bike, with anything more than about 50" gearing, by attempting to skid the back wheel at speed without getting thrown out of the saddle.
Even those that can must chew through back tyres.

 

[cougie uk]

Yes it's illegal.

Hope that helps.

 

[Electric_Andy]

It seems to be the fashion for young lads with BMXs to have no brakes, but to use their shoes on the top of the tyres to stop. I've had both front and rear brakes go on a MTB once, and had to jam both feet down and pray. I wore through my shoes but I didn't die. It wasn't the bikes fault though, my mate's Dad didn't set them up right.

Whatever the case, why risk having only one set of brakes? And for extra points, I've ridden a motorbike with only a back brake before and I could stop fine with rear only, if you're riding at safe and appropriate speeds and planning ahead like you should be anyway

 

[Threevok]

My son's BMX came with a front brake and back brake - despite it also having a coaster brake.

The disclaimer clearly stated that neither brake could be removed (UK) legally - although the coaster brake could be removed or deactivated.

 

[Solocle]

In the UK 2 brakes are required on a pedal cycle unless its a fixed wheel, a fixed wheel requires a front brake only, the fixed transmission counting as the bake brake.

Actually a lot of recumbents could legally have only one brake. The saddle height is generally under 63.5 cm...

 

[Deleted member 1258]

I'd love to know how many people are capable of stopping a fixed-wheel bike, with anything more than about 50" gearing, by attempting to skid the back wheel at speed without getting thrown out of the saddle.
Even those that can must chew through back tyres.

I'm crap at leg braking, always have been, I've been riding fixed regularly since the late 1980's, my fixed has both a back and a front brake, bikes mostly used as a winter bike now I'm retired, I used to commute on fixed, I don't want to have to rely on front brake and legs when its slippery, I've come across people who are very good at leg braking but its hard on the back tyre.

 

[Seevio]

Could you just have one brake if you removed the saddle?

From memory, flashing back lights were never illegal as such, it was just that they didn't count as lights so as far as the law was concerned, you were riding without lights.

 

[tyred]

I'd love to know how many people are capable of stopping a fixed-wheel bike, with anything more than about 50" gearing, by attempting to skid the back wheel at speed without getting thrown out of the saddle.
Even those that can must chew through back tyres.

Prior to my accident I rode fixed a fair bit and was always rubbish at leg braking and always had both brakes.

I don't see any sensible reason for not running front and back brakes on any bike. It's hardly difficult or expensive to maintain both brakes and it gives better control.