

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer

When using a bike on a road in the USA, is it ever legal not to have separate brakes on the front and back wheels?

share|improve this question
I think this question is likely to bring a lot of speculation and little real value. Especially because in the USA the laws vary by state, county, city. For example of how things can vary, in my town there is about 1 mile of roadway where you can't ride on the sidewalk. – Jay Bazuzi Nov 3 '10 at 15:17
It might be illegal to have no brakes, but there is no way you have to have TWO brakes. – dotjoe Nov 3 '10 at 17:26
@Jay, so when you go out for a day's riding, how do you know what the law is on the bit of road you are riding on at any given time? – Ian Nov 3 '10 at 23:21
I can't imagine that having 2 brakes in manditory. Otherwise all the coaster braked bikes would be illegal. – sillyyak Mar 28 '11 at 12:57
While ignorance of the law may not be an excuse, it's oftentimes a reality. The USA is a very ugly patchwork of laws that I don't think any human being could ever fully understand even if they dedicated their life to it. If it was easy and understandable, well, then lawyers wouldn't have anything to do! :-) – Brian Knoblauch Mar 28 '11 at 20:03
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Many places have adopted the Uniform Vehicle Code language. It currently states:

12-706. Brake required Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake or brakes which will enable its driver to stop the bicycle within 25 feet from a speed of 10 miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement. (FORMER 11-1207(c)).
The goal of the UVC is to have consistent laws between states, counties, and municipalities. It doesn't entirely work - often the process of changing the laws is too complicated, so many outdated variations exist.

In 2006, Portland, Oregon saw an interesting challenge a similarly-worded law. A cyclist was cited for failure to have two brakes, even though the fixed gear on their bicycle allowed them to meet the requirements of the statute. (Ridiculously, the previous UVC phrasing that the ORS statute is based on doesn't even require the ability to stop, only the ability to skid.) The judge and ticketing officer's contention was that a brake must be a separate device.

Meeting the UVC phrasing is your best bet for a US-wide policy, but definitely review the local statutes for the places you will be riding if you are concerned.

share|improve this answer
25 feet at only 10 mph (7.5 meters at 16km/h) seems like quite a long stopping distance to me, especially at such a relatively low speed. – meagar Nov 10 '10 at 18:32
25 feet isn't as much as it sounds like, even at 10 mph, especially when you're trying to skid-stop. – alesplin Nov 17 '10 at 23:03
Yeah, 10mph in a skid stop is enough to break a clavicle. I've done it. – zacechola Apr 1 '11 at 21:50

I don't recall anything in the Ohio Revised Code that requires bikes to have any brakes. I've never seen a single speed bike around here that had anything other than the standard rear coaster brake. While that doesn't prove legality, the shops around here tend to be really picky about all the details (such as not wanting to sell/service bikes without sound making devices back when those were required).

share|improve this answer

It depends on the state, and some states have bizarre wordings.

For example in Minnesota from


It's kind of hard to tell if this means one or two brakes is required. However, it is enforced that a single front brake is acceptable, yet skidding the front wheel is never a good thing, but not doing so doesn't mean the brake is not capable of safely stopping the bicycle.

share|improve this answer
A stick through the spokes would also apply – mgb Nov 3 '10 at 15:52
That's very similar to California law: "21201. (a) No person shall operate a bicycle on a roadway unless it is equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make one braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement." – freiheit Nov 3 '10 at 16:18
So a fixed gear with no brakes would count? I mean, using the pedals to stop the rear wheel does qualify, no? – zigdon Nov 3 '10 at 16:38
@zigdon: yes, in california law being able to make one wheel skid is the only requirement. And I believe the test is done without the rider on the bike: can you lock the wheel up well enough to skid the wheel dragging it across clean dry pavement? – freiheit Nov 3 '10 at 16:58
A hipster would say that the fixed gear has a brake because you can use your legs, but anyone with any sense would disagree. – whatsisname Nov 3 '10 at 18:14

The laws may differ from county to county and state to state, but as it stands for California:

V C Section 21201 Equipment Requirements


By this interpretation, so long as you have a brake that allows you to skid your tires, it is legal for you to ride your bicycle. Some may even argue that riding fixed gear and skidding the rear tire technically makes for a legal brake equivalent.

I do however feel that this law is lacking, as it is near impossible to skid the front tire with a brake on a level, clean pavement, and a disgruntled officer may use it as an excuse to ticket you, even though it holds 80% of the braking power. But that's another tangent...

share|improve this answer
I can also call my foot a brake, because I can make my back tire skid to a stop with it. – dotjoe Aug 8 '12 at 18:26

Although they are very rare, we even occasionally see "fixed gear" bikes with no brakes whatever. The panic-stop routine is either to try pedal-back-pressure or to press the soles of your feet against the tires.....

Lunacy, but I don't know of any law against it locally.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


