in the us where the real issue will be is this:
if it was mfg with a brake and its not there and you get in a accident - YOU will be blamed for faulty equipment and pay everybody.
if it was mfg without a brake - you may still get blamed
the reason? there was a change in dot rules in 08 - to the effect of anything mfg after 1972 must have working brakes on ALL wheels.
remember none of these rules ever come up - unless there is a accident with a death or loss of use... then the lawyers get ahold of it and find the vehicle in question was not "legal" and the owner / builder eats it.
to
Originally written by timo482 on 4/3/2009 2:12 PM
in the us where the real issue will be is this:
if it was mfg with a brake and its not there and you get in a accident - YOU will be blamed for faulty equipment and pay everybody.
if it was mfg without a brake - you may still get blamed
the reason? there was a change in dot rules in 08 - to the effect of anything mfg after 1972 must have working brakes on ALL wheels.
remember none of these rules ever come up - unless there is a accident with a death or loss of use... then the lawyers get ahold of it and find the vehicle in question was not "legal" and the owner / builder eats it.
to
Can you find us a copy of that statute? The only thing I could find was one that says that all brakes with which a motor vehicle is equipped must at all times be capable of operating, and that a single application valve must, when applied, operate all the service brakes on the motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles. Fortunately, it only applies to common carriers, or almost all motorcycles would be in violation.
Originally written by Hank41 on 3/31/2009 11:16 AM
i think the sidecar brake is a matter of personal choice i dont like em but if you are happy with one so be it, it is a fact that without one the chair will not stop square without steering input from the driver, but in my experiance the need to apply the brakes agresively hardley ever happens in a straight line, i have a harley with harley sidecar & i have machined the brake drum off as it was more trouble than it was worth,( over here we have an mot test that states if its fitted it must work eficiently it never came up to requirement so i got rid of it ) again & personal oppinion only i quite like a sidecar brake with a separate pedal placed at the side of the rear brake pedal of coarse in the uk that used to be easy but we stopped putting the brake on the left in the 70s. but would still be ok in the usa. Ride safe leave space dont race. live long
Well, it sounds to me as if in UK, you wouldn't be able to operate a vintage rig, say a 1948 BSA B33 with a Watsonian sidecar. The bike itself hardly had any brakes and the sidecar would only add to the problem.
I've owned two Harley sidecars with the drum brake and one presently with the disc and, although they probably won't lock the wheel or throw you over the handlebars, they work well enough.
It is better to have some brake on each wheel than nothing at all. They are a bit short-sided in UK, I guess.
ahh.. there is where the misconception comes in
the inspection and out of service rules only apply to a common carrier
but the rules themselves apply to everybody & everything - bikes have two controls one for the front and one for the rear - by federal law.. the all wheels must have brakes rule also applies....
however it only has to be INSPECTED for common carrier.
thus it never comes up unless something bad happens and you are getting sued - if its not in compliance with the rules you pay - simple as that.
to
under the federal heading " part 393 parts and accessories necessary for safe operation"
393.40 - b1, d1 - hydraulic brake requirements
393.41 - b1 mfg prior to 1980 dont need front brakes
and remember - these rules are adopted in WHOLE by most states, including, specifically, minnesota, for all registered vehicles. but there is NO inspection etc.
if the vehicle is in a accident where liability is in question then if one of the vehicles was not in compliance it eats the liability.
so you can have a 77 harley with no front brakes, run over the little old lady in the dark with dark clothing on and have it be a "accident"
but if its a 1980 or later harley and the same thing happens her relatives will claim that your vehicle was not in compliance with the state regulations so thats why you hit her and why you get to pay.
everybody on the same page now? - if you are in a state that adopts the fed regs - run brakes and quit whining.
to
[ya im a vehicle inspector... ]
Not quite.
That 80 Harley came from the factory with front brakes.
My sidecar had them added after the fact, just like my fishing boat trailer has no brakes, nor does my snowmobile trailer. In fact, if I were to add brakes to either trailer they would then be classified differently and I would have to license and title them differently.
Subpart C—Brakes
§ 393.40 Required brake systems.
(a) Each commercial motor vehicle must have brakes adequate to stop and hold the vehicle or combination of motor vehicles. Each commercial motor vehicle must meet the applicable service, parking, and emergency brake system requirements provided in this section.
(b) Service brakes. (1) Hydraulic brake systems. Motor vehicles equipped with hydraulic brake systems and manufactured on or after September 2, 1983, must, at a minimum, have a service brake system that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 105 in effect on the date of manufacture. Motor vehicles which were not subject to FMVSS No. 105 on the date of manufacture must have a service brake system that meets the applicable requirements of §§393.42, 393.48, 393.49, 393.51, and 393.52 of this subpart.
A sidecar is an accessory and accessories do not need brakes. Wow, did I say that ...LOL.
I've had them with, and I've had them without. Prefer with myself.
Maybe they call them vehicles and license them in Minnesota. They've elected wrestlers for governers and can't decide whether they want a Senator this administration or not, so....................lol
Lonnie
