J
JNugent
Guest
JohnB wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
[ re: cycle maintenance, particularly of the brakes: ]
>>> As has already been pointed out to you there are Regulations
>>> regarding brakes on cycles.
>> And those regs (does anybody have a link to them?) are enforced how?
> The braking on cycles comes under the 1983 Pedal Cycles Construction
> and Use Regulations.
> You may like to read the CTC's summary of these:
> "A constable in uniform is empowered to stop a cyclist and test for
> compliance with these regulations, and to enter the premises where a
> cycle is kept if it has been involved in an accident up to 48 hours
> previously."
> "The main requirement is that a cycle (of any sort) must have two
> braking systems. These systems must be efficient and independent -
> which basically means two separate means of operation and for most
> types of cycle the front wheel or wheels have to be braked separately
> from the rear."
> So Adrian - enforcement exists, and as checking a cycle is a very easy
> thing to do, compared say to checking a motor vehicle, it is far
> easier to implement.
> That's a shame for you as it shoots your aguments to threads
...except that it very obviously *doesn't*.
He asked not about regulation (I think we all know that there is some
notional form of regulation as to the construction, fitness for use and
maintenance of bicycles), but about *enforcement* of that system of
regulation, and in particular, whether (and if so, how) it happens.
You have described the regulation (which was not necessary) and have
described a way in which enforcement might, theoretically, be carried out.
His question was about something significantly different, and your response
simply doesn't answer it.
You *know* that, so it is difficult to see what you are playing at.
> Adrian wrote:
[ re: cycle maintenance, particularly of the brakes: ]
>>> As has already been pointed out to you there are Regulations
>>> regarding brakes on cycles.
>> And those regs (does anybody have a link to them?) are enforced how?
> The braking on cycles comes under the 1983 Pedal Cycles Construction
> and Use Regulations.
> You may like to read the CTC's summary of these:
> "A constable in uniform is empowered to stop a cyclist and test for
> compliance with these regulations, and to enter the premises where a
> cycle is kept if it has been involved in an accident up to 48 hours
> previously."
> "The main requirement is that a cycle (of any sort) must have two
> braking systems. These systems must be efficient and independent -
> which basically means two separate means of operation and for most
> types of cycle the front wheel or wheels have to be braked separately
> from the rear."
> So Adrian - enforcement exists, and as checking a cycle is a very easy
> thing to do, compared say to checking a motor vehicle, it is far
> easier to implement.
> That's a shame for you as it shoots your aguments to threads
...except that it very obviously *doesn't*.
He asked not about regulation (I think we all know that there is some
notional form of regulation as to the construction, fitness for use and
maintenance of bicycles), but about *enforcement* of that system of
regulation, and in particular, whether (and if so, how) it happens.
You have described the regulation (which was not necessary) and have
described a way in which enforcement might, theoretically, be carried out.
His question was about something significantly different, and your response
simply doesn't answer it.
You *know* that, so it is difficult to see what you are playing at.