US: Judge finds fault with fixies

Only in America? A curly one folks?

*****
Judge finds fault with fixies
http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/j...t-with-fixies/
Posted by Jonathan Maus on July 28th, 2006
Fighting for fixed gears in court


Yesterday at the Multnomah County Courthouse the law came down against
fixed gear bicycles.

On June 1, 2006 Portland bike messenger Ayla Holland was given a ticket
for allegedly violating Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 815.280(2)(a) which
states,

A bicycle must be equipped with a brake that enables the operator
to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement. strong
enough to skid tire.

At issue was whether Holland’s fixed gear bicycle met this requirement.
She and her lawyer Mark Ginsberg thought it did, but Officer Barnum of
the Portland Police Bureau thought otherwise so they brought the matter
in front of a traffic court Judge.

According to Officer Barnum, he stopped Holland at SW First and
Jefferson and told her that she was in violation of the law and that
she must put a front brake on her fixie to avoid a ticket. Holland
disagreed. She and Ginsberg claim that Oregon statute does not clearly
define what a brake is and that as long as a bicycle can perform a
“skid on dry, level clean pavement” it does not need to have a
separate, traditional braking device.

At the start of the trial it was clear that neither the Judge nor the
Officer understood just what a fixed-gear bicycle was. To help them
visualize, Ginsberg likened a fixie to a child’s Big Wheel. Once
everyone was clear and the cop was finished with his opening testimony,
Ginsberg began his cross-examination:

Ginsberg (to Officer Barnum):

“When you approached the rider did she stop?”

Officer Barnum:

“Yes.”

Ginsberg:

“How’d she stop the bike?”

Officer Barnum:

“I don’t know.”

Ginsberg:

“The gear itself stopped the bike.”

Officer Barnum:

“But the gear is not a brake.”

From the outset, the judge seemed to agree with the cop and it was up
to Ginsberg to change his mind. The trial began to hinge on the
definition of brake. Ginsberg continued to ask questions of the cop.

Ginsberg:

“What is a brake?”

Officer Barnum:

“A lever, a caliper or a coaster brake hub.”

Ginsberg:

“Can you show the court where in the vehicle code a brake is
defined as such?”

Officer Barnum:

“No.”

Ginsberg:

“Did you at any time during the traffic stop ask my client if she
could skid (thus meeting the performance requirement of the statute)?”

Officer Barnum:

“No.”

At this point the judge seemed increasingly exasperated with Ginsberg’s
direction and pointed out that “brake” was a commonly accepted term. To
end this line of questioning, Ginsberg offered to demonstrate to the
court that Holland could easily bring her fixed-gear bike to a skid on
dry, level pavement. The judge declined his offer.

Now it was time for Officer Barnum to ask questions. He asked Holland,

“What would you do if your chain broke?”

Fighting for fixed gears in court

Holland:

“I would use my feet.”

Officer Barnum:

“What if your leg muscles had a spasm?”

Holland:

“I’m not sure…these are emergency situations.”

Ginsberg interjected with a question for Holland:

“Did any of these situations happen on the day you were stopped?”

Holland:

“No.”

Now it was time for Officer Barnum to submit his closing testimony. He
continued to argue that nowhere in the statute does it say gears can be
utilized as brakes (it doesn’t say they can’t either). He also said that
“motorists and the public deserve to have these bikes be properly
equipped,” and that a “skid is not as good or safe as a stop.” “The
requirement,” he said, “has not been met.”

Now it was Ginsberg’s turn. He said,

“The state is overreaching in seeking to define a brake as a lever
and a caliper. The question remains; is the fixed gear the brake? The
statutes are clear that the answer is yes.”

To solidify his point, he took out a huge Webster’s dictionary and
opened it to the word “brake.” The definition stated that a brake is a
“device to arrest the motion of a vehicle.” It did not stipulate
anything about a distinct lever or caliper. In his last few comments he
proclaimed that the current statute is not well-written and that it is
“frightening to require only a front brake.”

With both sides at rest, it was time for the Judge’s final opinion. His
contention was that the main source of braking power on a fixed gear are
the muscles of the rider, not the gear itself. To this end, he
questioned how messengers—whom he’s seen riding “much too fast”—could
stop safely.

In the Judge’s opinion, gearing itself and/or leg muscles are not a
sufficient source of braking power. He said,

“The brake must be a device separate from the musclulature of the
rider. Take me for instance. I don’t have leg muscles as strong as a
messenger…how would I stop safely?”

He then turned directly to Ginsberg and said,

“If your client had a stick she could rub against her tire, you’d
have a case. I don’t believe the defense has convinced me to broaden
the definition of a brake. I find the defendant guilty.”

So now Holland has 30 days to either attach a hand brake to her bike
and pay a $73 fine, or appeal the decision. In talking with her outside
the courtroom it seemed like she did not think the Judge’s opinion was
fair and I wouldn’t be surprised if she and Ginsberg decide to continue
the fight.

This decision by the Judge raises some concerns and questions. Will the
cops now feel emboldened to go out and ticket everyone on a fixed-gear?
Are fixed-gears now essentially illegal? Are fixed-gears truly a public
safety hazard?

Fixed gears have become a huge trend across the country and with
hundreds if not thousands of them in Portland, I don’t think we’ve
heard the end of this issue.


--
cfsmtb

cfsmtb wrote:
Only in America? A curly one folks?

*****
Judge finds fault with fixies
http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/j...t-with-fixies/
Posted by Jonathan Maus on July 28th, 2006
Fighting for fixed gears in court


For Gawd's sake, just put a brake on the front wheel, already! Bloody
seppos . . .

On 2006-08-02, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
“What would you do if your chain broke?”

Fighting for fixed gears in court

Holland:

“I would use my feet.”

Bzzzt! Wrong answer!


"About the same as what I'd do if the brake cable snapped -- panic.
Note that the last thing that broke on any of my bikes was the
derailleur cable, and not the chain -- I haven't broken a chain since
1993. Brake cables have a lot more stress put on them than mere
derailleur cables, and so I would expect them to fail more often than
a chain".



-- Ti "This is not really me. I have postposted all reading of
USENET, livejournal, etc, until such time as I hand in my thesis" mC.

TimC Wrote:

"About the same as what I'd do if the brake cable snapped -- panic.
Note that the last thing that broke on any of my bikes was the
derailleur cable, and not the chain -- I haven't broken a chain since
1993. Brake cables have a lot more stress put on them than mere
derailleur cables, and so I would expect them to fail more often than
a chain".

My dear old Hartley, when fully restored, is probably going to have a
coaster brake. And a slightly restored Gem rearbrake for show. Actually
think again, those Gem brakes were dodgy fer starters so I'll track down
something more modern and safe..


--
cfsmtb

cfsmtb wrote:
TimC Wrote:

"About the same as what I'd do if the brake cable snapped -- panic.
Note that the last thing that broke on any of my bikes was the
derailleur cable, and not the chain -- I haven't broken a chain since
1993. Brake cables have a lot more stress put on them than mere
derailleur cables, and so I would expect them to fail more often than
a chain".

My dear old Hartley, when fully restored, is probably going to have a
coaster brake. And a slightly restored Gem rearbrake for show. Actually
think again, those Gem brakes were dodgy fer starters so I'll track down
something more modern and safe..

They do actually have a bit of a point. Rear wheel braking is not
terribly effective, and a fixie with no front brake (or any bike with
no front brake) is not going to pull up as well as a bike with a
working front brake.

And the difference is significant.

I cite Sheldon : http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html

If you don't ride it terribly fast, a rear brake only is probably not
too bad, but the ability to skid the back wheel, does not an effective
brake make. It's ok on little kids bikes, where the kids aren't strong
enough to operate a front hand brake effectively, and they don't go
fast enough to need a front brake anyway.

Odd that this didn't come up in the case, either the prosecuting copper
didn't do his homework, and/or the defendant was determined to obscure
the truth. Brakes should be judged by how well they stop a vehicle
from speed, not some irrelevant furphy re skidding. That's how they're
tested in cars (you use an accelerometer to test brakes for a
roadworthy test, if you do it properly, and there's a standard for this
in Australia)

TimC wrote:
On 2006-08-02, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
"What would you do if your chain broke?"

Fighting for fixed gears in court

Holland:

"I would use my feet."

Bzzzt! Wrong answer!


"About the same as what I'd do if the brake cable snapped -- panic.
Note that the last thing that broke on any of my bikes was the
derailleur cable, and not the chain -- I haven't broken a chain since
1993. Brake cables have a lot more stress put on them than mere
derailleur cables, and so I would expect them to fail more often than
a chain".

Foot, front tyre, jam foot between fork and tyre.... it works. Did it
as a kid ...
It's very rare for brake cables to break, in my experience. They're
pretty well over-engineered.

cfsmtb Wrote:
Only in America? A curly one folks?
Judge finds fault with fixies
http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/j...t-with-fixies/
Posted by Jonathan Maus on July 28th, 2006


Sorry, riding brakeless is trendy. It's NOT safe.

I know some couriers can operate brakeless extremely well but there
will come a time where their legs won't be up to par, their bike fails
them or any number of other reasons. Bam! Game Over for them or someone
else.

Worse are the wannabees who are trying the brakeless thing because it's
"cool". Do "they" know how to stop their bike effectively without a
brake?

Of course none of this applies in London because anyone who rides here
knows that there are no rules that govern anyone and if you get in my
way I'll run you down - whether I'm riding, running, walking, driving,
scootering..

The author did seem to miss the point that fitting a front brake is
okay and means you can still legally ride fixed.

hippy
- "Brakes are good!"


--
hippy

In article . com,
says...


It's very rare for brake cables to break, in my experience. They're
pretty well over-engineered.


Gee brings back memories of my more youthful days.

I had a few brake cables snap, invariably the knob at the lever end
would let go, or the cable would fray and snap there.
Most interesting when coming down a hill with a load of newspapers on
the back
- Now theres a lost cause, teenagers delivering newspapers by pushie

Cheers, Ray

Bleve wrote:
TimC wrote:

On 2006-08-02, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

"What would you do if your chain broke?"

Fighting for fixed gears in court

Holland:

"I would use my feet."

Bzzzt! Wrong answer!


"About the same as what I'd do if the brake cable snapped -- panic.
Note that the last thing that broke on any of my bikes was the
derailleur cable, and not the chain -- I haven't broken a chain since
1993. Brake cables have a lot more stress put on them than mere
derailleur cables, and so I would expect them to fail more often than
a chain".


Foot, front tyre, jam foot between fork and tyre.... it works. Did it
as a kid ...
It's very rare for brake cables to break, in my experience. They're
pretty well over-engineered.

Pretty rare for chains to break too. Come to that. And while I would
have a front brake and your point about the importance of front wheel
braking is well made if its not what the standard requires then its
irrelevent (from the viewpoint of the law, not common sense.) Probably
not a landcruser out there that could outbrake my 1967 Sprite with drum
rear brakes either.

Dave

dave Wrote: [color=blue]
Bleve wrote:
Foot, front tyre, jam foot between fork and tyre.... it works. Did
it
as a kid ...
Pretty rare for chains to break too. Come to that. And while I would
have a front brake and your point about the importance of front wheel
braking is well made if its not what the standard requires then its
irrelevent (from the viewpoint of the law, not common sense.)
Probably
not a landcruser out there that could outbrake my 1967 Sprite with
drum
rear brakes either.

Dave

As a kid you weren't riding at 40kmhr in traffic. I am not a kid
playing on a back street.
I ride a fixie with a front brake and I am able to stop much quicker
with one than without. The place for no brakes is on the velodrome, not
trying to be cool.

Dave, there are videos if you want to do a search on the braking
improvement on modern cars. At 100km/hr, the landcruiser will stop much
quicker than your '67 if you are using original brakes. There was a
comparison on Drive a while ago between various holdens braking
distances and the results were scary. I think the Kingswood took an
additional 30m to stop from 100km/hr

Cheers

Geoff


--
geoffs