[peter6061]

So a judge has just ruled in Portland that fixed gear bikes need a brake because the rider is incapable of stopping on their own.

http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fixies/

I ride a fixie, and mine has a front brake, but I know many people who can stop just fine without one. I don't know exactly where I stand on this as I'm all for not being restricted as a cyclist, but see the safety issue as well if someone is not fully capable of stopping without a brake. And with the growing number of EMO kids thinking fixie is a lifestyle, chances are they don't all know how to correctly stop.

Anyone else out there ride fixie and have a problem with this?

 

[sanjuro]

Bike without front brake = missing 70% of braking power.

 

[splat]

I own a Fixie , I can Skid the rear Wheel. But I would not want to have to rely on that in an emergency. I think it is stupid not to have at least a front brake on the bike ( That is all I have )

 

[Heidi]

Hey there! We pretty much covered this in another thread:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162547&highlight=Fixie

 

[peter6061]

Hey there! We pretty much covered this in another thread:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162547&highlight=Fixie

Sorry. Did a quick search and didn't see it. (How the fvK did I miss it?)

 

[ntron350]

i always found it easier to stop w/ bigger gears. i worked as a messenger in dc for 8 years riding a 53-15 and never really had an issue stopping. IMO it harder to stop your legs when they are moving at 90rpm than if they are moving at a slower rate. as for the girl having trouble with the law, it comes w/ the territory of being a messenger. i have had friends get tickets for not having a bell, front wheel over the white line while waiting for a light to change, and there is apparently a law stating that you must have your bike registered with the city of dc. cops would do occasional sweeps in the park (messengers only) and confiscate any bike without a city registration sticker. you would need a sales receipt and go to the station to get it back. after seeing that i just began to steer clear of those that "protect and serve" while riding. if the issue really is "brakes," then technically they could cite children on trikes which also have direct drive. the fewer laws against cyclists the better.

 

[.:Jeenyus:.]

Bike without front brake = missing 70% of braking power.

Not the point here.

I know I ride a bike with only a back brake around town a bunch (my DJ bike) and I don't see how that is less dangerous then someone who knows what they are doing riding a brakeless fixie.

 

[sanjuro]

Not the point here.

I know I ride a bike with only a back brake around town a bunch (my DJ bike) and I don't see how that is less dangerous then someone who knows what they are doing riding a brakeless fixie.

Well, a track bike could conceively be going around 30mph on the flats, whereas a bmx bike is lucky to push 15mph.

Obviously either bike could be smoking downhill.

I really don't care if people ride unsafe bikes or not, unless their decision starts to affect my riding. If the law feels to reach and touch someone about brakes, then what I do on a bike will probably also be affected.

 

[killthecar]

Since skids are about the only thing that the hipsters can do, they can stop fine... as long as they have clipless or toeclips. If you don't have either of those, then you shouldn't ride without a brake, no matter how skilled you are.

Platforms only allow you to resist the pedals for about 40% of the pedal stroke. Clip or clipless allows you to resist for 95% of the stroke AND allows you to skid on demand wheras with platforms you have to wait for the pedals to hit the 50-50 position (up and down)

 

[Silver]

I'm not an expert on physics or friction or rubber compounds or anything, but since when has being able to lock up the wheel meant the same thing as being able to stop in a safe and controlled manner?

 

[OGRipper]

I'm not an expert on physics or friction or rubber compounds or anything, but since when has being able to lock up the wheel meant the same thing as being able to stop in a safe and controlled manner?

Since never. Skidding a rear wheel doesn't work very well when you need to stop quickly. It just doesn't. Anyone who says otherwise is either confused or lucky. Hopefully, learning that lesson won't hurt too much.

 

[LordOpie]

Since bikes are considered a form of vehicle... aren't all vehicles required to have a brake on each wheel?

 

[ire]

After reading that link, I disagree with the judges ruling; here is what the statute 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.

By this definition a fixie has a brake through the drive train, not that you would want to stop in this fashion. I don't think its safe to ride without a front break because it would be difficult to stop in an emergency

 

[OGRipper]

By this definition a fixie has a brake through the drive train, not that you would want to stop in this fashion. I don't think its safe to ride without a front break because it would be difficult to stop in an emergency

Good point! That fixie rider should have hired you as their lawyer.

 

[BikeMike]

Not the point here.

I know I ride a bike with only a back brake around town a bunch (my DJ bike) and I don't see how that is less dangerous then someone who knows what they are doing riding a brakeless fixie.

Physics: a) slowing with a brake on the verge of skidding w/o skidding is a much faster and more controlled way of stopping than locking and skidding. different coefficients of friction.
b) more coefficient of friction--contact patch with pavement: I have yet to see a DJ bike rocking 23s.

A DJ bike w/o front brake still has it's shortcomings.

 

[JewBagel]

Beating it to death, skidding doesn't slow you down quickly enough. The judges ruling is quite uninformed, making a front brake be able to lock up on a dry surface is impossible on probably 90% of the bike sold/on the road right now(I work in a shop and am often disgusted and the **** people ride around). But fixed gear bike should have a brake. I don't f*cking care if you can stop with out on, it isn't safe for all the others around you.

Fixed gears were never meant for the streets and IMO shouldn't be on them. There is nothing but disadvantages compared with single speeds and a serious problem with hipsters and fashionistas riding them and getting into accidents, injuring others, or getting killed. Frankly, if you die riding a fixed gear with out a brake, you'll get no sympathy from me, unless of course, you are riding along and a car runs into you, but most of the time it is the other way around. Someone left a copy of Puma's guide to fixed gears in the shop I work in, if I ever found the person who wrote that uninformed bulls*it advocating fixed gears as the best city bike solution I love to give him a piece of my mind.

Get a damn SS and put brakes on it. You can still dress and act like a hipster if you want, but at least the city will be a little safer.

Before anyone gives me crap, I'd rather ride my bike to get place than drive, I own a fixed/free bike so I know the differences and I leave it mostly on free with two brakes.

Finally, fixed gears in the citylthumbsdown:
Fixed gears back in velodromes

 

[Silver]

There is nothing but disadvantages compared with single speeds and a serious problem with hipsters and fashionistas riding them and getting into accidents, injuring others, or getting killed.

I only think the bolded part is a bad thing, myself...