J
Jay Beattie
Guest
FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
L
landotter
Guest
Jay Beattie wrote:
> FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
> judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
OMG, some veggie emo kid scored major justice over the "MAN" or
sumptin'.
"outrage" over a law that can save your life is downright juvenile and
folks that ride fixed in traffic w/o at least a front brake are idiots.
All of the fixed riders I know that ride in the city are bike shop
employees and use both front and rear brakes, as in that "oh ****!"
moment, it's always good to have belt and suspenders.
Yeah, you can do a fix skid, but in the hour that you need to stop, it
doesn't do jack compared to a front brake.
BTW, the topic title itself is worthy of Goebbels. It was never about
fixed gear and the phony outlaw mystique, it was about brakes, moron.
> FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
> judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
OMG, some veggie emo kid scored major justice over the "MAN" or
sumptin'.
"outrage" over a law that can save your life is downright juvenile and
folks that ride fixed in traffic w/o at least a front brake are idiots.
All of the fixed riders I know that ride in the city are bike shop
employees and use both front and rear brakes, as in that "oh ****!"
moment, it's always good to have belt and suspenders.
Yeah, you can do a fix skid, but in the hour that you need to stop, it
doesn't do jack compared to a front brake.
BTW, the topic title itself is worthy of Goebbels. It was never about
fixed gear and the phony outlaw mystique, it was about brakes, moron.
R
landotter wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
> > judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> OMG, some veggie emo kid scored major justice over the "MAN" or
> sumptin'.
I believe it was a guy in his 40's.
> "outrage" over a law that can save your life is downright juvenile and
> folks that ride fixed in traffic w/o at least a front brake are idiots.
> All of the fixed riders I know that ride in the city are bike shop
> employees and use both front and rear brakes, as in that "oh ****!"
> moment, it's always good to have belt and suspenders.
>
> Yeah, you can do a fix skid, but in the hour that you need to stop, it
> doesn't do jack compared to a front brake.
>
> BTW, the topic title itself is worthy of Goebbels. It was never about
> fixed gear and the phony outlaw mystique, it was about brakes, moron.
The level of hostility you bring to this topic is disconcerting.
Robert
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
> > judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> OMG, some veggie emo kid scored major justice over the "MAN" or
> sumptin'.
I believe it was a guy in his 40's.
> "outrage" over a law that can save your life is downright juvenile and
> folks that ride fixed in traffic w/o at least a front brake are idiots.
> All of the fixed riders I know that ride in the city are bike shop
> employees and use both front and rear brakes, as in that "oh ****!"
> moment, it's always good to have belt and suspenders.
>
> Yeah, you can do a fix skid, but in the hour that you need to stop, it
> doesn't do jack compared to a front brake.
>
> BTW, the topic title itself is worthy of Goebbels. It was never about
> fixed gear and the phony outlaw mystique, it was about brakes, moron.
The level of hostility you bring to this topic is disconcerting.
Robert
P
Paul Hobson
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>> FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
>>> judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
>> OMG, some veggie emo kid scored major justice over the "MAN" or
>> sumptin'.
>
> I believe it was a guy in his 40's.
An architect, no less.
http://bikeportland.org/2006/09/05/cyclist-wins-fixed-gear-case/
\\paul
> landotter wrote:
>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>> FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
>>> judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
>> OMG, some veggie emo kid scored major justice over the "MAN" or
>> sumptin'.
>
> I believe it was a guy in his 40's.
An architect, no less.
http://bikeportland.org/2006/09/05/cyclist-wins-fixed-gear-case/
\\paul
J
Jay Beattie
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> > > FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
> > > judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > OMG, some veggie emo kid scored major justice over the "MAN" or
> > sumptin'.
>
> I believe it was a guy in his 40's.
>
>
> > "outrage" over a law that can save your life is downright juvenile and
> > folks that ride fixed in traffic w/o at least a front brake are idiots.
> > All of the fixed riders I know that ride in the city are bike shop
> > employees and use both front and rear brakes, as in that "oh ****!"
> > moment, it's always good to have belt and suspenders.
> >
> > Yeah, you can do a fix skid, but in the hour that you need to stop, it
> > doesn't do jack compared to a front brake.
> >
> > BTW, the topic title itself is worthy of Goebbels. It was never about
> > fixed gear and the phony outlaw mystique, it was about brakes, moron.
>
> The level of hostility you bring to this topic is disconcerting.
>
I guess he did not read the original thread, "Portland: fixies are
illegal" -- which explains the title of my post, and not any desire to
emulate Goebbels, or Satan or ****** or Pee Wee Herman (Herr Pee Wee).
-- J Beattie.
> landotter wrote:
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> > > FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
> > > judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > OMG, some veggie emo kid scored major justice over the "MAN" or
> > sumptin'.
>
> I believe it was a guy in his 40's.
>
>
> > "outrage" over a law that can save your life is downright juvenile and
> > folks that ride fixed in traffic w/o at least a front brake are idiots.
> > All of the fixed riders I know that ride in the city are bike shop
> > employees and use both front and rear brakes, as in that "oh ****!"
> > moment, it's always good to have belt and suspenders.
> >
> > Yeah, you can do a fix skid, but in the hour that you need to stop, it
> > doesn't do jack compared to a front brake.
> >
> > BTW, the topic title itself is worthy of Goebbels. It was never about
> > fixed gear and the phony outlaw mystique, it was about brakes, moron.
>
> The level of hostility you bring to this topic is disconcerting.
>
I guess he did not read the original thread, "Portland: fixies are
illegal" -- which explains the title of my post, and not any desire to
emulate Goebbels, or Satan or ****** or Pee Wee Herman (Herr Pee Wee).
-- J Beattie.
L
landotter
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> > > FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
> > > judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > OMG, some veggie emo kid scored major justice over the "MAN" or
> > sumptin'.
>
> I believe it was a guy in his 40's.
>
>
> > "outrage" over a law that can save your life is downright juvenile and
> > folks that ride fixed in traffic w/o at least a front brake are idiots.
> > All of the fixed riders I know that ride in the city are bike shop
> > employees and use both front and rear brakes, as in that "oh ****!"
> > moment, it's always good to have belt and suspenders.
> >
> > Yeah, you can do a fix skid, but in the hour that you need to stop, it
> > doesn't do jack compared to a front brake.
> >
> > BTW, the topic title itself is worthy of Goebbels. It was never about
> > fixed gear and the phony outlaw mystique, it was about brakes, moron.
>
> The level of hostility you bring to this topic is disconcerting.
>
> Robert
What hostility? It's called strong language. People that chose to ride
fixed on public streets w/o proper brake are the aggressor.
Look, there's a place for a fixed gear bike without a brake, and it's
called a "velodrome".
Anyway, the argument is about as rediculous as the Harley-heads who
think that straight pipes are a right, and somehow safer, even though
they're usually wearing short pants and a polycarbonate yarmulke. If
you ride on public streets, comply with the law. Yeah, you can
interpret the law to your own benefit, but the bottom line is that
fixed gear bikes, though they have an ability to reduce velocity, don't
have a real brake.
Should I be forceful and loud about my car with a stick shift and no
brakes? Yeah, dammit, I can downshift, I don't need no stinkin brakes.
Yeah, right.
Grow up, you hipster fixie riders, share the road, and obey the law,
don't bend it in a way that threatens all of our safety.
What's the penalty? 500g? Or is it the "hip" factor? Get a life people.
> landotter wrote:
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> > > FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
> > > judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > OMG, some veggie emo kid scored major justice over the "MAN" or
> > sumptin'.
>
> I believe it was a guy in his 40's.
>
>
> > "outrage" over a law that can save your life is downright juvenile and
> > folks that ride fixed in traffic w/o at least a front brake are idiots.
> > All of the fixed riders I know that ride in the city are bike shop
> > employees and use both front and rear brakes, as in that "oh ****!"
> > moment, it's always good to have belt and suspenders.
> >
> > Yeah, you can do a fix skid, but in the hour that you need to stop, it
> > doesn't do jack compared to a front brake.
> >
> > BTW, the topic title itself is worthy of Goebbels. It was never about
> > fixed gear and the phony outlaw mystique, it was about brakes, moron.
>
> The level of hostility you bring to this topic is disconcerting.
>
> Robert
What hostility? It's called strong language. People that chose to ride
fixed on public streets w/o proper brake are the aggressor.
Look, there's a place for a fixed gear bike without a brake, and it's
called a "velodrome".
Anyway, the argument is about as rediculous as the Harley-heads who
think that straight pipes are a right, and somehow safer, even though
they're usually wearing short pants and a polycarbonate yarmulke. If
you ride on public streets, comply with the law. Yeah, you can
interpret the law to your own benefit, but the bottom line is that
fixed gear bikes, though they have an ability to reduce velocity, don't
have a real brake.
Should I be forceful and loud about my car with a stick shift and no
brakes? Yeah, dammit, I can downshift, I don't need no stinkin brakes.
Yeah, right.
Grow up, you hipster fixie riders, share the road, and obey the law,
don't bend it in a way that threatens all of our safety.
What's the penalty? 500g? Or is it the "hip" factor? Get a life people.
R
landotter wrote:
> What hostility? It's called strong language. People that chose to ride
> fixed on public streets w/o proper brake are the aggressor.
To the contrary sir, riders of un-braked fixed wheel
bikes ride far less aggressively than riders of
freewheel/braked bikes, out of necessity.
> ...but the bottom line is that
> fixed gear bikes, though they have an ability to reduce velocity, don't
> have a real brake.
Either did the coaster brake bikes that we all tore ass
around on as kids.
Some fixed gear bikes have a 'real brake' (handbrake), and
some don't. And some, like my fender bike, have brake
levers that aren't hooked up to anything. All can be
ridden safely on crowded streets. Consider that riders
can alter their riding style based on the limitations of whichever
machine they happen to be on at the time.
> Grow up, you hipster fixie riders, share the road, and obey the law,
> don't bend it in a way that threatens all of our safety.
That is such a crock, to say that riders of
track bikes 'threaten all of our safety.' The people
I know who ride track bikes on city streets are among
the most conservative riders out there. And there is
not an ounce of evidence to suggest that fixed gear
no brakes bikes or riders thereof pose any extraordinary
danger to themselves or others.
You seem to be threatened somehow, but it aint
your safety.
> What's the penalty? 500g? Or is it the "hip" factor? Get a life people.
A better question is: what's the penalty for you?
Why do you care what kind of bike somebody else
rides, as long as they are reasonably competent
on the thing? Why not just recognize that ugly
self-inflicted accidents await anyone who
rides a track bike without the required attitude and
skills, and leave it at that? To each his own.
It would be much more positive for cycling in
general to ban those giant padded seats the
comfort bikers are using these days.
Robert, who is rarely to be found on a track bike but
who will ride one when and if he damn well pleases
> What hostility? It's called strong language. People that chose to ride
> fixed on public streets w/o proper brake are the aggressor.
To the contrary sir, riders of un-braked fixed wheel
bikes ride far less aggressively than riders of
freewheel/braked bikes, out of necessity.
> ...but the bottom line is that
> fixed gear bikes, though they have an ability to reduce velocity, don't
> have a real brake.
Either did the coaster brake bikes that we all tore ass
around on as kids.
Some fixed gear bikes have a 'real brake' (handbrake), and
some don't. And some, like my fender bike, have brake
levers that aren't hooked up to anything. All can be
ridden safely on crowded streets. Consider that riders
can alter their riding style based on the limitations of whichever
machine they happen to be on at the time.
> Grow up, you hipster fixie riders, share the road, and obey the law,
> don't bend it in a way that threatens all of our safety.
That is such a crock, to say that riders of
track bikes 'threaten all of our safety.' The people
I know who ride track bikes on city streets are among
the most conservative riders out there. And there is
not an ounce of evidence to suggest that fixed gear
no brakes bikes or riders thereof pose any extraordinary
danger to themselves or others.
You seem to be threatened somehow, but it aint
your safety.
> What's the penalty? 500g? Or is it the "hip" factor? Get a life people.
A better question is: what's the penalty for you?
Why do you care what kind of bike somebody else
rides, as long as they are reasonably competent
on the thing? Why not just recognize that ugly
self-inflicted accidents await anyone who
rides a track bike without the required attitude and
skills, and leave it at that? To each his own.
It would be much more positive for cycling in
general to ban those giant padded seats the
comfort bikers are using these days.
Robert, who is rarely to be found on a track bike but
who will ride one when and if he damn well pleases
D
[email protected] wrote:
> To the contrary sir, riders of un-braked fixed wheel
> bikes ride far less aggressively than riders of
> freewheel/braked bikes, out of necessity.
Not always true in my observation, where "agressive" includes dodging
through traffic after running (or rolling) a stop sign or traffic
light.
That's the big disconnect in the messenger ethos: "I'm under the gun on
time, my living depends on how many calls I make during a day, so I use
a bike that limits how fast I can ride, and is more dangerous to ride
than a bike with real brakes on it".
> Either did the coaster brake bikes that we all tore ass
> around on as kids.
That actually is the model (IMHO) for the "skid one wheel on dry
pavement" laws. The kids I hung with didn't unweight the back wheel to
skid, either. To the contrary, you put your weight back and slammed the
pedal down. Not as good as a front caliper, disc, or drum, but a real
brake. Backpedaling a fixed wheel only slows you down, unless you skid.
And then it still only slows you down. Until you run into something.
> Some fixed gear bikes have a 'real brake' (handbrake), and
> some don't. And some, like my fender bike, have brake
> levers that aren't hooked up to anything. All can be
> ridden safely on crowded streets. Consider that riders
> can alter their riding style based on the limitations of whichever
> machine they happen to be on at the time.
Until some other user of the public byways does something unexpected
and you need to stop quickly. Never as safe as a bike with two
good-working real brakes, one on each wheel.
--D-y
> To the contrary sir, riders of un-braked fixed wheel
> bikes ride far less aggressively than riders of
> freewheel/braked bikes, out of necessity.
Not always true in my observation, where "agressive" includes dodging
through traffic after running (or rolling) a stop sign or traffic
light.
That's the big disconnect in the messenger ethos: "I'm under the gun on
time, my living depends on how many calls I make during a day, so I use
a bike that limits how fast I can ride, and is more dangerous to ride
than a bike with real brakes on it".
> Either did the coaster brake bikes that we all tore ass
> around on as kids.
That actually is the model (IMHO) for the "skid one wheel on dry
pavement" laws. The kids I hung with didn't unweight the back wheel to
skid, either. To the contrary, you put your weight back and slammed the
pedal down. Not as good as a front caliper, disc, or drum, but a real
brake. Backpedaling a fixed wheel only slows you down, unless you skid.
And then it still only slows you down. Until you run into something.
> Some fixed gear bikes have a 'real brake' (handbrake), and
> some don't. And some, like my fender bike, have brake
> levers that aren't hooked up to anything. All can be
> ridden safely on crowded streets. Consider that riders
> can alter their riding style based on the limitations of whichever
> machine they happen to be on at the time.
Until some other user of the public byways does something unexpected
and you need to stop quickly. Never as safe as a bike with two
good-working real brakes, one on each wheel.
--D-y
C
Claire Petersky
Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That's the big disconnect in the messenger ethos: "I'm under the gun on
> time, my living depends on how many calls I make during a day, so I use
> a bike that limits how fast I can ride, and is more dangerous to ride
> than a bike with real brakes on it".
Read Roy Wilkie's post in this thread:
http://www.cascade.org/Community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=5598
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
news:[email protected]...
>
> That's the big disconnect in the messenger ethos: "I'm under the gun on
> time, my living depends on how many calls I make during a day, so I use
> a bike that limits how fast I can ride, and is more dangerous to ride
> than a bike with real brakes on it".
Read Roy Wilkie's post in this thread:
http://www.cascade.org/Community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=5598
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
R
[email protected] wrote:
> That's the big disconnect in the messenger ethos: "I'm under the gun on
> time, my living depends on how many calls I make during a day, so I use
> a bike that limits how fast I can ride, and is more dangerous to ride
> than a bike with real brakes on it".
Maybe 20% of the messengers I know ride brakeless
bikes at work on a regular basis.
This isn't a messenger issue, it's a posenger issue.
Or, as you say, a 'messenger ethos' issue.
If it weren't for the explosion in posenger population
in recent years, the messengers on track bikes
would have continued basically unnoticed as they
were for decades.
Robert
> That's the big disconnect in the messenger ethos: "I'm under the gun on
> time, my living depends on how many calls I make during a day, so I use
> a bike that limits how fast I can ride, and is more dangerous to ride
> than a bike with real brakes on it".
Maybe 20% of the messengers I know ride brakeless
bikes at work on a regular basis.
This isn't a messenger issue, it's a posenger issue.
Or, as you say, a 'messenger ethos' issue.
If it weren't for the explosion in posenger population
in recent years, the messengers on track bikes
would have continued basically unnoticed as they
were for decades.
Robert
R
landotter wrote:
<snip disconcertingly hostile diatribe>
> BTW, I'm a fix rider, with two brakes.
Of course you are.
Good luck panic-stopping your fixed gear,
brakes or no brakes, you trend-following
ninny.
Robert, who is rarely to be found on a track bike
but who will ride one if and when he damn well
pleases, and who may ride one today, out of
simple spite
<snip disconcertingly hostile diatribe>
> BTW, I'm a fix rider, with two brakes.
Of course you are.
Good luck panic-stopping your fixed gear,
brakes or no brakes, you trend-following
ninny.
Robert, who is rarely to be found on a track bike
but who will ride one if and when he damn well
pleases, and who may ride one today, out of
simple spite
C
Chalo
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
> The kids I hung with didn't unweight the back wheel to
> skid, either. To the contrary, you put your weight back and slammed the
> pedal down. Not as good as a front caliper, disc, or drum, but a real
> brake.
In my recollection, the faux-BMX bikes that were hot kidbikes in my
youth got much better braking from the rear coaster than from the ****
front caliper if they were so equipped.
I reckon that now, with a better caliper, but also with something like
4X the gross weight, I might still find that a rear coaster beats a
long reach front caliper.
> > Consider that riders
> > can alter their riding style based on the limitations of whichever
> > machine they happen to be on at the time.
>
> Until some other user of the public byways does something unexpected
> and you need to stop quickly. Never as safe as a bike with two
> good-working real brakes, one on each wheel.
And that isn't as safe as a bike that's gearing-limited to 6mph. And
that isn't as safe as a bike that doesn't leave the house. It's a
pointless line of reasoning.
The fact is that all bikes were fixies (with ineffectual brakes at
best) at the time bikes got their legal standing on the roads and
highways. These were the bikes that *got us our paved roads to begin
with*, and there's no good reason to deny them access now on the basis
of not being the latest and greatest technology.
Risky equipment choices are naturally self-limiting. Folks who are
comfortable with brakeless fixies in the long run (or drop bars, or
clipless pedals, or any of the other safety compromises we might make)
are probably capable of operating safely enough for the purposes. If
they spook themselves often, they'll add a brake or sell the fixie. If
they do add a brake, it will be one that works that they will use
habitually, unlike one that is installed only to meet the letter of the
law.
I personally wouldn't ride a fixed-gear bike on the street, but that's
because I don't like pain. If I did use one, I'd have brakes on it--
but that's because I don't like pain. On the other hand, I have
friends who are completely comfortable (and in my observation,
completely competent) riding their brakeless fixies in this crowded,
hilly city. They've proven themselves with years of daily riding; on
any given day I see helmeted riders on bikes with lots of gears,
brakes, and suspension who are plainly at much more risk of serious
accident than the fixie-riding messengers I know.
Chalo
>
> The kids I hung with didn't unweight the back wheel to
> skid, either. To the contrary, you put your weight back and slammed the
> pedal down. Not as good as a front caliper, disc, or drum, but a real
> brake.
In my recollection, the faux-BMX bikes that were hot kidbikes in my
youth got much better braking from the rear coaster than from the ****
front caliper if they were so equipped.
I reckon that now, with a better caliper, but also with something like
4X the gross weight, I might still find that a rear coaster beats a
long reach front caliper.
> > Consider that riders
> > can alter their riding style based on the limitations of whichever
> > machine they happen to be on at the time.
>
> Until some other user of the public byways does something unexpected
> and you need to stop quickly. Never as safe as a bike with two
> good-working real brakes, one on each wheel.
And that isn't as safe as a bike that's gearing-limited to 6mph. And
that isn't as safe as a bike that doesn't leave the house. It's a
pointless line of reasoning.
The fact is that all bikes were fixies (with ineffectual brakes at
best) at the time bikes got their legal standing on the roads and
highways. These were the bikes that *got us our paved roads to begin
with*, and there's no good reason to deny them access now on the basis
of not being the latest and greatest technology.
Risky equipment choices are naturally self-limiting. Folks who are
comfortable with brakeless fixies in the long run (or drop bars, or
clipless pedals, or any of the other safety compromises we might make)
are probably capable of operating safely enough for the purposes. If
they spook themselves often, they'll add a brake or sell the fixie. If
they do add a brake, it will be one that works that they will use
habitually, unlike one that is installed only to meet the letter of the
law.
I personally wouldn't ride a fixed-gear bike on the street, but that's
because I don't like pain. If I did use one, I'd have brakes on it--
but that's because I don't like pain. On the other hand, I have
friends who are completely comfortable (and in my observation,
completely competent) riding their brakeless fixies in this crowded,
hilly city. They've proven themselves with years of daily riding; on
any given day I see helmeted riders on bikes with lots of gears,
brakes, and suspension who are plainly at much more risk of serious
accident than the fixie-riding messengers I know.
Chalo
J
joshua
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>
> > What hostility? It's called strong language. People that chose to ride
> > fixed on public streets w/o proper brake are the aggressor.
>
> To the contrary sir, riders of un-braked fixed wheel
> bikes ride far less aggressively than riders of
> freewheel/braked bikes, out of necessity.
>
> > ...but the bottom line is that
> > fixed gear bikes, though they have an ability to reduce velocity, don't
> > have a real brake.
>
> Either did the coaster brake bikes that we all tore ass
> around on as kids.
>
> Some fixed gear bikes have a 'real brake' (handbrake), and
> some don't. And some, like my fender bike, have brake
> levers that aren't hooked up to anything. All can be
> ridden safely on crowded streets. Consider that riders
> can alter their riding style based on the limitations of whichever
> machine they happen to be on at the time.
>
>
> > Grow up, you hipster fixie riders, share the road, and obey the law,
> > don't bend it in a way that threatens all of our safety.
>
> That is such a crock, to say that riders of
> track bikes 'threaten all of our safety.' The people
> I know who ride track bikes on city streets are among
> the most conservative riders out there. And there is
> not an ounce of evidence to suggest that fixed gear
> no brakes bikes or riders thereof pose any extraordinary
> danger to themselves or others.
>
> You seem to be threatened somehow, but it aint
> your safety.
>
> > What's the penalty? 500g? Or is it the "hip" factor? Get a life people.
>
> A better question is: what's the penalty for you?
> Why do you care what kind of bike somebody else
> rides, as long as they are reasonably competent
> on the thing? Why not just recognize that ugly
> self-inflicted accidents await anyone who
> rides a track bike without the required attitude and
> skills, and leave it at that? To each his own.
>
> It would be much more positive for cycling in
> general to ban those giant padded seats the
> comfort bikers are using these days.
>
> Robert, who is rarely to be found on a track bike but
> who will ride one when and if he damn well please
I would like to second this motion. I belive it is the driver not the
machine that, as in most other aspects of riding a bicycle, makes the
greatest difference.
josh
> landotter wrote:
>
> > What hostility? It's called strong language. People that chose to ride
> > fixed on public streets w/o proper brake are the aggressor.
>
> To the contrary sir, riders of un-braked fixed wheel
> bikes ride far less aggressively than riders of
> freewheel/braked bikes, out of necessity.
>
> > ...but the bottom line is that
> > fixed gear bikes, though they have an ability to reduce velocity, don't
> > have a real brake.
>
> Either did the coaster brake bikes that we all tore ass
> around on as kids.
>
> Some fixed gear bikes have a 'real brake' (handbrake), and
> some don't. And some, like my fender bike, have brake
> levers that aren't hooked up to anything. All can be
> ridden safely on crowded streets. Consider that riders
> can alter their riding style based on the limitations of whichever
> machine they happen to be on at the time.
>
>
> > Grow up, you hipster fixie riders, share the road, and obey the law,
> > don't bend it in a way that threatens all of our safety.
>
> That is such a crock, to say that riders of
> track bikes 'threaten all of our safety.' The people
> I know who ride track bikes on city streets are among
> the most conservative riders out there. And there is
> not an ounce of evidence to suggest that fixed gear
> no brakes bikes or riders thereof pose any extraordinary
> danger to themselves or others.
>
> You seem to be threatened somehow, but it aint
> your safety.
>
> > What's the penalty? 500g? Or is it the "hip" factor? Get a life people.
>
> A better question is: what's the penalty for you?
> Why do you care what kind of bike somebody else
> rides, as long as they are reasonably competent
> on the thing? Why not just recognize that ugly
> self-inflicted accidents await anyone who
> rides a track bike without the required attitude and
> skills, and leave it at that? To each his own.
>
> It would be much more positive for cycling in
> general to ban those giant padded seats the
> comfort bikers are using these days.
>
> Robert, who is rarely to be found on a track bike but
> who will ride one when and if he damn well please
I would like to second this motion. I belive it is the driver not the
machine that, as in most other aspects of riding a bicycle, makes the
greatest difference.
josh
N
Nate Knutson
Guest
Chalo wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > The kids I hung with didn't unweight the back wheel to
> > skid, either. To the contrary, you put your weight back and slammed the
> > pedal down. Not as good as a front caliper, disc, or drum, but a real
> > brake.
>
> In my recollection, the faux-BMX bikes that were hot kidbikes in my
> youth got much better braking from the rear coaster than from the ****
> front caliper if they were so equipped.
>
> I reckon that now, with a better caliper, but also with something like
> 4X the gross weight, I might still find that a rear coaster beats a
> long reach front caliper.
>
> > > Consider that riders
> > > can alter their riding style based on the limitations of whichever
> > > machine they happen to be on at the time.
> >
> > Until some other user of the public byways does something unexpected
> > and you need to stop quickly. Never as safe as a bike with two
> > good-working real brakes, one on each wheel.
>
> And that isn't as safe as a bike that's gearing-limited to 6mph. And
> that isn't as safe as a bike that doesn't leave the house. It's a
> pointless line of reasoning.
>
> The fact is that all bikes were fixies (with ineffectual brakes at
> best) at the time bikes got their legal standing on the roads and
> highways. These were the bikes that *got us our paved roads to begin
> with*, and there's no good reason to deny them access now on the basis
> of not being the latest and greatest technology.
>
> Risky equipment choices are naturally self-limiting. Folks who are
> comfortable with brakeless fixies in the long run (or drop bars, or
> clipless pedals, or any of the other safety compromises we might make)
> are probably capable of operating safely enough for the purposes. If
> they spook themselves often, they'll add a brake or sell the fixie. If
> they do add a brake, it will be one that works that they will use
> habitually, unlike one that is installed only to meet the letter of the
> law.
Or one that doesn't work, as is the case with many, many bikes. It's
the law in most places in the US that bikes need to have brakes that
are capable of locking the wheels on dry pavement. But if both
brakeless fixed gears and bikes with brakes that are completely out of
adjustment are in violation of this, then at least the fixed gear rider
does have that one way of slowing down, plus they're usually going to
be a lot more competent than the clueless non-cyclist riding the
dilapidated 10-speed with non-functional brakes and steel rims in the
rain. And there are a lot more of the latter group than the former in
the US.
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > The kids I hung with didn't unweight the back wheel to
> > skid, either. To the contrary, you put your weight back and slammed the
> > pedal down. Not as good as a front caliper, disc, or drum, but a real
> > brake.
>
> In my recollection, the faux-BMX bikes that were hot kidbikes in my
> youth got much better braking from the rear coaster than from the ****
> front caliper if they were so equipped.
>
> I reckon that now, with a better caliper, but also with something like
> 4X the gross weight, I might still find that a rear coaster beats a
> long reach front caliper.
>
> > > Consider that riders
> > > can alter their riding style based on the limitations of whichever
> > > machine they happen to be on at the time.
> >
> > Until some other user of the public byways does something unexpected
> > and you need to stop quickly. Never as safe as a bike with two
> > good-working real brakes, one on each wheel.
>
> And that isn't as safe as a bike that's gearing-limited to 6mph. And
> that isn't as safe as a bike that doesn't leave the house. It's a
> pointless line of reasoning.
>
> The fact is that all bikes were fixies (with ineffectual brakes at
> best) at the time bikes got their legal standing on the roads and
> highways. These were the bikes that *got us our paved roads to begin
> with*, and there's no good reason to deny them access now on the basis
> of not being the latest and greatest technology.
>
> Risky equipment choices are naturally self-limiting. Folks who are
> comfortable with brakeless fixies in the long run (or drop bars, or
> clipless pedals, or any of the other safety compromises we might make)
> are probably capable of operating safely enough for the purposes. If
> they spook themselves often, they'll add a brake or sell the fixie. If
> they do add a brake, it will be one that works that they will use
> habitually, unlike one that is installed only to meet the letter of the
> law.
Or one that doesn't work, as is the case with many, many bikes. It's
the law in most places in the US that bikes need to have brakes that
are capable of locking the wheels on dry pavement. But if both
brakeless fixed gears and bikes with brakes that are completely out of
adjustment are in violation of this, then at least the fixed gear rider
does have that one way of slowing down, plus they're usually going to
be a lot more competent than the clueless non-cyclist riding the
dilapidated 10-speed with non-functional brakes and steel rims in the
rain. And there are a lot more of the latter group than the former in
the US.
M
Mark Hickey
Guest
"joshua" <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Robert, who is rarely to be found on a track bike but
>> who will ride one when and if he damn well please>
>
>I would like to second this motion. I belive it is the driver not the
>machine that, as in most other aspects of riding a bicycle, makes the
>greatest difference.
The skill of the rider allows the bike to approach its ultimate
braking limits.
So yes, it's theoretically possible that a skilled rider on a fixie
could stop faster than a hopeless fred on a bike with two brakes.
But the bike with a front brake has a MUCH higher potential for
stopping fast, no matter what the skill of the rider. That means that
even a slightly skilled rider on a bike with a front brake will
consistently out-stop a fixie mogul. If the skill is equal, it's no
contest.
Mark "my fixie's got a front brake" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Robert, who is rarely to be found on a track bike but
>> who will ride one when and if he damn well please>
>
>I would like to second this motion. I belive it is the driver not the
>machine that, as in most other aspects of riding a bicycle, makes the
>greatest difference.
The skill of the rider allows the bike to approach its ultimate
braking limits.
So yes, it's theoretically possible that a skilled rider on a fixie
could stop faster than a hopeless fred on a bike with two brakes.
But the bike with a front brake has a MUCH higher potential for
stopping fast, no matter what the skill of the rider. That means that
even a slightly skilled rider on a bike with a front brake will
consistently out-stop a fixie mogul. If the skill is equal, it's no
contest.
Mark "my fixie's got a front brake" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
B
landotter wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
> > judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> BTW, the topic title itself is worthy of Goebbels. It was never about
> fixed gear and the phony outlaw mystique, it was about brakes, moron.
Goebbels? Godwin's law, thread over, before it started.
Ben
P.S. Hilter rode a fixed-gear!
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > FYI: http://tinyurl.com/pg8ph . Different conclusion by a different
> > judge. Time to start keeping score. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> BTW, the topic title itself is worthy of Goebbels. It was never about
> fixed gear and the phony outlaw mystique, it was about brakes, moron.
Goebbels? Godwin's law, thread over, before it started.
Ben
P.S. Hilter rode a fixed-gear!
Similar threads
P
- Replies
- 142
- Views
- 3K
P
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 329
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 879
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 6K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 2K
