"Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Paul J. Berg) wrote:

`
It is fine to allow brakeless fixed gear bikes on the track, in the
control of skilled and trained riders. But, out on the roads? I don't
think public want brakeless bikes in the control of unskilled riders.

Bull**** Paul! I Know you are old enough to have ridden a fixed gear for
years when you were a kid. The fixed gear IS THE BRAKE.

I'm 55 years old, the single speed bikes I rode as a kid had coaster
brakes. Those bikes were not "fixies".

BTW, I did have the baseball cards in the spokes and the raccoon tails
hanging from the handle bars.

Growing up in the Taborside area of Portland, Oregon, there were many
streets I could ride down and "get air" without the need of a ramp.
Favorite ride was down Clay Street from 72nd, getting airborne at
75th, landing and then doing the "S" curve between 75th and 76th.
During the last snowstorm in Portland, Clay Street between 72nd and
76th was the last street to be reopened by the city.

On Mar 9, 6:09 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
I don't deny they have skills (at least the breathing ones do). ;-)

It's not just 'skills' in the typical sense that makes it possible
for messengers to ride year after year without brakes on city
streets, but situational awareness. Track bike riders ride
a bit more conservatively than their compadres on regular
road bikes. Their accident rates are certainly no worse than
those of other messengers. And the accident rate for messengers
as a whole is certainly better than that for cyclists as a whole.

Anyway, as Chalo notes, the mere presence of 'brakes' does not
mean that those brakes work. Furthermore, some brakeless
riders could stop themselves faster than someone with
great brakes who doesn't know the best way to use them.
Bikes don't stop people. People stop people

In short, keep your laws off my body. You'll take away
my brakeless fixed wheel bike when you pry it from my
cold, dead hands.

Another way to interpret your statement: "they use the limited
resources they have effectively". That's not the same as saying "they
can make a fixie as safe as a bike with brakes", of course.

Many cyclists gravitate to track bikes for the extra
challenge; many, of course, gravitate to track bikes because
of shallow sociological reasons -- rookie messengers and
assorted urban hipsters are some of the most egregious
fashion victims that the world has to offer. Nobody chooses
to go brakeless because they think it's safer. But those who
have ridden these bikes every day for years, decades, in
heavy traffic are much safer riders than your average
brake-equipped commuter.

Robert

On 9 Mar 2007 08:54:13 -0800, wrote:

I'm 55 years old, the single speed bikes I rode as a kid had coaster
brakes. Those bikes were not "fixies".

Anyone without a New Departure coaster brake was looked down upon.

Only the smallest Little Kid Bikes had direct drive with no coaster
brake. They were never meant to be ridden at speed.

BTW, I did have the baseball cards in the spokes and the raccoon tails
hanging from the handle bars.

But did you have the flourescent plastic color streamers that were
inserted in the plastic handgrips too?

Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
fiend999 wrote:

In article , Paul J.
Berg wrote:

`
Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.

So what? Fixed-gear bikes don't really need brakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-gear_bicycle
"Because there is no freewheel mechanism, fixed gear bicycles cannot
coast. Whenever the rear wheel is turning, the pedals turn in the same
direction. By resisting the forward motion of the pedals, a rider is
able to slow the bike to a stop, without the aid of a brake."

So, by your wonderful logic, cars don't really *need* brakes either


He means that if you don't turn the pedals the back wheel stops.
Bicycles meant mostly for racing tracks where the bicyclist is not
supposed to rest anytime during the trip.

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:36:01 -0800, cor
wrote:

He means that if you don't turn the pedals the back wheel stops.
Bicycles meant mostly for racing tracks where the bicyclist is not
supposed to rest anytime during the trip.

Interestingly, much of the advantage to a messenger comes from the
ability to stop and stay stopped with both feet snapped into the
pedals - just as what happens in the sprint events in track racing.
The lack of freewheeling means that you can move the wheels in either
direction, which is necessary to do a long track stand at any point
(you can do a decent track stand with a freewheel/cassette if the
terrain lets the bike rock backwards). Being snapped in and ready to
move lets the messengers jump traffic through an intersection.

Track stands have been done for hours, so the bikes definitely can be
at rest for some time.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

wrote:

But where does it say that are three-wheeled machines are _not_
permitted on the roads?



I don't know where the three-wheeled business got started here, but--
1) if the tricycle is a children's toy, then it isn't a bicycle and
cannot legally be ridden in the street at all (like a Big Wheel is not a
bicycle)
2) if the seat is not at least 24 inches off the ground.

If you happen to be the owner of a fixie /tricycle/ I wish you the best,
but you may have a bit of a struggle to organize much of any advocacy
group, I fear.
~

"Aeek" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:53:17 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:

Now, this is stupid and in violation of a Federal Law. This won't hack it
and the first time that there is a serious injury it will be corrected.
Not
to have at least the front brake would be suicide.

so why is a single REAR brake encouraged as the minimum standard ?

That's the minimum. That means, without it, the darwin factor comes into
play.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4445 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:53:17 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:


Now, this is stupid and in violation of a Federal Law. This won't hack it
and the first time that there is a serious injury it will be corrected.
Not
to have at least the front brake would be suicide.

No, its not suicide. Not that I think it is a good idea, but bet your
money that the person injured is a ped, not the cyclist.

But as someone else noted, any reasonably adept rider on a fixie can
stop as fast as the old fashioned coaster brake, and can do it over
and over, while the coaster brake fades with heat build up. So until
they outlaw coaster brakes, most of you that don't know diddly about
fixies are blowing smoke. A fixie has as much redundancy (none) as a
coaster brake, with greater efficiency and reliability. Period.

And the fixie does pass the relevant Federal statutes, which are built
around the capability to skid a bike to a stop in a certain distance
from a certain speed.( A couple of 'expert' comments must think that
they stopped selling coaster brake bikes without a front brake.) Lift
the rear wheel and back pedal on a fixie, then drop the tire and it
flat out stops as quick as pretty much anything.

I ride both types and I can assure you that even just a coaster brake beats
the daylights out of no break at all. I am not going to destroy my shoes by
dragging them on the ground when I wish to stop.

One, if I am going 15 mph then it will take forever to stop. Better to just
dump the bike.

Two, just how many pairs of sneakers each month am I going to go through
again?

The good news about this whole thing is, Darwinism does come into play.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4445 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:07:31 -0600, DougC
wrote:


I don't know where the three-wheeled business got started here, but--
1) if the tricycle is a children's toy, then it isn't a bicycle and
cannot legally be ridden in the street at all (like a Big Wheel is not a
bicycle)
2) if the seat is not at least 24 inches off the ground.

These are local regulations, not Federal. First of all, a tricycle is
never a bicycle, and a state code calling it a bicycle may as well
call a dog's tail a leg. Its still a tail...

Second, what constitutes a vehicle and/or a legal user of the road or
roadway is set by the state. Generally it is by default and the issue
is whether or not the vehicle you are riding fails to meet safety
requirements. Since these safety requirements can range from having a
bell on the handlebars to specific braking requirements, and vary in
some states from city to city, citing one standard is meaningless.

FWIW, in most areas in the U.S. an adult trike with a low seat (as in
a recumbent) is completely legal anywhere an adult bike is legal. Also
in general, the height standards are usually an issue for sidewalk
riding, where there is a maximum height in either seat or tire to
eliminate adult bikes. Quite often, recumbents will qualify for either
(having usually low seats and often using 16"-20" tires, at least on
the front).

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:07:31 -0600, DougC
wrote:

wrote:

But where does it say that are three-wheeled machines are _not_
permitted on the roads?



I don't know where the three-wheeled business got started here, but--
1) if the tricycle is a children's toy, then it isn't a bicycle and
cannot legally be ridden in the street at all (like a Big Wheel is not a
bicycle)
2) if the seat is not at least 24 inches off the ground.


Can we have a cite please, rather than just an "I say so"?