quote='JLB'Richard Goodman said:"JLB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Richard Goodman said:The problem is those Regs just say they have to be 'correctly adjusted'.
There's no definition of what that means, no defined standard of
performance, and no standard way to measure performance against a
standard.
[snip]
However, a great many regulations are written in a similar manner and I
can assure you they do get enforced. People can be convicted of this type
of offence! Been there, done that.
It works like this. The prosecution alleges the brakes were not correctly
adjusted. If the defendant decides to contest this, it goes to trial. The
prosecution puts up an expert to explain what correctly adjusted means and
why the evidence shows this brake was not correctly adjusted. The defence
argues the contrary and may also argue that the expert is no such thing,
possibly by fielding its own expert. The magistrate / judge / sheriff (no
jury; this will be a summary offence) decides who to believe and delivers
its verdict.
Sure. But it would be easier to prove one way or t'other if there was a
defined standard!
Be careful what you wish for... If the powers that be decide to do that,
it will put a stranglehold on development of new brake technology, just
as the old standards for bike lights have not been helpful with LED
lights. It will also create a committee that will sit for years
determining what to do, proabaly at tax-payers expense. Is it worth it?
With properly made brakes from respectable manufacturers there really is
not a problem. All the information needed to determine if a brake
supplied by, say, Shimano, is correctly adjusted is readily available in
Shimano's instructions; although if the brake is fitted with some
non-standard forks / frame / wheel it might need some intelligent
interpretation to work out if it is actually correct.
ISTM that a lot of the brakes on cheaper bikes are
Quoted message said:simply 'not fit for purpose' (there's another somewhat woolly statement, but
one on which the Courts are often called upon to make judgement)!
I agree that this particular regulation is not appropriate if the brake
itself is not up to the job. That's because this regulation is aimed
more at the local bike shop than the manufacturer.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap[/QUOTE]____________________________________________________________________________________________________________#
Sniper:#
If there is no definition of the correct adjustment in the statute it follows that this is yet to be determined and that will be done by case law.
To most persons a correctly adjusted brake would be one which stops the travel of the bike without excessive play or pull at the lever and which does not foul or otherwise display an obvious fault, IE sticking after application.
I would suggest these regulations would be almost impossible to enforce, except in the case of very high end braking systems, where any degree of care had been used in setting the brakes to an acceptable standard sufficient to satisfy the above caviet and assuming that all parts were of good condition.
The evidence of correctness would be of primary concern in this case. How that is achieved and what evidence is or will be required by a court remains to be decided. I would suggest however that the purpose of the statute is not to make it impossible for second hand cycles to be sold and that any test of funtionality would have to be based on an 'acceptable standard' of use, such that a caring parent may apply.
Question, since anyone can be a cycle mechanic and there are no compulsory professional qualifications how can anyone be an 'expert' above the point where a brake works within the above limits, IE it stops the bike smartly and functions with no apparent faults.
Sniper8052
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
