"Cyclists" are the problem

niceonetom

Nietzschean wrote: »

yeah unfortunately my lycra would all have chamois...which would look a tad odd rollerblading....

Lumen wrote: »

Get some tri shorts and a man bra. You'll look fabulous.

Both of you seem to be operating under the false assumption that a grown man on rollerblades could somehow look more ridiculous.

Chips Lovell

ROK ON wrote: »

I really detest that way most fixie riders look smelly and dress like homeless people.

Actually that is unfair in that most of the hobo population are better dressed than the fixie crowd.

Come on, tell us how you really feel.

I think I look quite stylish on my fixie actually

Nietzschean

niceonetom wrote: »

Both of you seem to be operating under the false assumption that a grown man on rollerblades could somehow look more ridiculous.

I don't know, dressing like and doing the moves from http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=WMPM1q_Uyxc as i rollerblade i imagine while far more entertaining would look that bit more ridiculous...

Chips Lovell

Ah, who can forget that immortal line: "I'm as serious as cancer when I say rhythm is a dancer"

Lumen

redmaxi wrote: »

obviously being clipped in is an advantage when putting the power down but on braking the pressure is coming up not down. So if you can't hold it back with your legs alone and if you're not clipped in at least you can get your legs up and onto the back tyre to slow you else you go careering down cartoon character like out of control stuck to the pedals.

My emphasis. Seriously, do people do this?

As far as I know, the only even mildly effective way to stop quickly on a brakeless fixie is to skid. But if that's not an option I think I'd just jump off rather than careering along with my legs in the air.

redmaxi wrote: »

I've always had a front brake anyway, but cables have been known to snap !

That's why having two actual brakes is a legal requirement.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

That's why having two actual brakes is a legal requirement.

Actually, on a fixie the legal requirement is one brake.

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

My emphasis. Seriously, do people do this?

Used to do it all the time back in the BMX days when usually one or both brakes would be iffy. Stick the sole of your shoe onto the back tyre at the seat stays. The harder you push down, the quicker you stop.

Yes, it's idiocy

Chips Lovell

I remember reading about one particular organ donor in New York who used to ride brakeless single speed. Yes, single speed, not fixed. He braked using the foot on the back wheel method.

blorg

niceonetom wrote: »

Both of you seem to be operating under the false assumption that a grown man on rollerblades could somehow look more ridiculous.

ROK ON

@Tonto I did say most not all. I would expect that you would be well groomed on your fixie.

On the topics of bladers. A guy in the park last summer tried to race me on my bike and actually became pretty aggressive.

Finally. Lumen you have an unhealthy obsession with manbras. I am getting worried.

blorg

el tonto wrote: »

I remember reading about one particular organ donor in New York who used to ride brakeless single speed. Yes, single speed, not fixed. He braked using the foot on the back wheel method.

You're not thinking of Ted Shred? San Francisco resident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH5W1Z23wPg

droidus

ROK ON wrote: »

Finally. Lumen you have an unhealthy obsession with manbras. I am getting worried.

'Manbra' :rolleyes: Its either the mansierre or the bro.

Chips Lovell

ROK ON wrote: »

On the topics of bladers. A guy in the park last summer tried to race me on my bike and actually became pretty aggressive

How so?

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

Actually, on a fixie the legal requirement is one brake.

I know that's what the fixie-ists claim based on their interpretation of "braking device" or whatever, but I found the case unconvincing.

You've obviously gone native.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

I know that's what the fixie-ists claim based on their interpretation of "braking device" or whatever, but I found the case unconvincing.

You've obviously gone native.

Au contraire, their contention is that no brakes are legal, since a fixed gear is a braking device, which is utter bunk.

ROK ON

el tonto wrote: »

How so?

I was heading home on a fine evening having been out in Wicklow. Ran of of water was shattered and just wanted to get home.
I was on the cycle path in the park, passed the blader after excusing myself.

He raced after me screaming. Then he wanted to race me so I told him to p1ssoff and leaveme alone.
He just kept at me. He was annoyed in that he was going at full effort to pass me but couldn't. I eventually got to the gates of the park and he didn't follow me.
To be honest if I wasn't so parched and shattered I would have made something of it. But I was just trying to get home have a drink and a shower.
This guy was unhinged. I obviously was supposed to cycle at a ludicrously slow pace behind him.

I know your going to say use the road . . . And you are correct.

Chips Lovell

Jesus. He sounds like a total fruit loop.

Harrybelafonte

Glanza V Porsche :rolleyes:

blorg

ROK ON wrote: »

I was on the cycle path in the park, passed the blader after excusing myself.

He raced after me screaming.

I read blader with two Ds, had me a bit confused for a second.

CramCycle

Lumen wrote: »

My emphasis. Seriously, do people do this?

They do. My lady did this, apparently for 3 years, on her little mountain bike until I came along and put on new pads and tightened the callipers and the cables. She used to push her clip on mudguard with her runners to slow/stop. Sort of like a Tron bike position for those with a bad bike.

Like my father always told me. Go for the one you can guarantee you'll outsmart

tomasrojo

el tonto wrote: »

I remember reading about one particular organ donor in New York who used to ride brakeless single speed. Yes, single speed, not fixed. He braked using the foot on the back wheel method.

I saw a kid on North Brunswick Street going to school braking using this method on a mountain bike. He had the front and rear brakes unyoked because both wheels were warped. I departed from usual taciturnity and recommended him strongly to get his wheels and brakes seen to.

redmaxi

Lumen wrote: »

My emphasis. Seriously, do people do this?

I can do it with the back or front. You'd want to weeks at it ! :pac:

dubmess

So many in this city technically ride brakeless whether they think so or not.

The amount of pieces of crap I see every day with warped wheels and brakes not even attached.

Give me a 'mechanically brakeless' fixed any day.:p

On the original point of this meandering thread, I have had more arguments with other cyclists in the last few weeks than with drivers. They say more cyclists on the roads makes it safer for everyone? Perhaps the likelihood of being cut off by an unaware driver is lessened, but the likelihood of being cut off by terrible cyclists has increased tenfold.

tomasrojo

Cycling's enemy is not the car; it is the idiot. And idiots travel by foot, car, and bicycle.

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2009/09/power-struggle-sucking-and-sucking-it.html

it's mick

redmaxi wrote: »

Ok, fair enough I don't know what all that is about meister Eckhart but anyway, obviously being clipped in is an advantage when putting the power down but on braking the pressure is coming up not down. So if you can't hold it back with your legs alone and if you're not clipped in at least you can get your legs up and onto the back tyre to slow you else you go careering down cartoon character like out of control stuck to the pedals.
I've always had a front brake anyway, but cables have been known to snap !

the pressure when you're breaking is coming up and down. one foot should be pulling up while the other pushes down, that's why you "need" clips and straps (or some other form of foot retention).

Caroline_ie

ROK ON wrote: »

I was heading home on a fine evening having been out in Wicklow. Ran of of water was shattered and just wanted to get home.
I was on the cycle path in the park, passed the blader after excusing myself.

He raced after me screaming. Then he wanted to race me so I told him to p1ssoff and leaveme alone.
He just kept at me. He was annoyed in that he was going at full effort to pass me but couldn't.

Must be the same dude who was sucking my wheel last summer ... I had to sprint to get rid of him ... lunatic.

blorg

it's mick wrote: »

the pressure when you're breaking is coming up and down. one foot should be pulling up while the other pushes down, that's why you "need" clips and straps (or some other form of foot retention).

Unless you have some sort of sense and use a front brake.

Raam

blorg wrote: »

Unless you have some sort of sense and use a front brake.

You can also find a vehicle that is slowing down and push against the back of it with your hand. This technique is bound to work flawlessly every time.

it's mick

blorg wrote: »

Unless you have some sort of sense and use a front brake.

ha, i do have a front break and i use it.

steinone

dubmess wrote: »

So many in this city technically ride brakeless whether they think so or not.

The amount of pieces of crap I see every day with warped wheels and brakes not even attached.

Give me a 'mechanically brakeless' fixed any day.:p

+1
The amount of bikes I see coming into where I work without functioning brakes is ridiculous.
Dubmess, quite a few other people and I seem to be doing fine, legal or otherwise.

Chips Lovell

dubmess wrote: »

So many in this city technically ride brakeless whether they think so or not.

The amount of pieces of crap I see every day with warped wheels and brakes not even attached.

Give me a 'mechanically brakeless' fixed any day.:p

That's hardly a convincing argument for riding brakeless, is it? "Other people's bikes are even more dangerous than mine, so I'm alright".

What is about brakes that people find so aesthetically unappealing that their afraid they'll appear uncool if they put them on their bike?

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

What is about brakes that people find so aesthetically unappealing that their afraid they'll appear uncool if they put them on their bike?

Look Dad, just wha-eva, alright? (slam)

Doc_Savage

this thread has degenerated into a fixie hating thread, most people who ride fixed are running a front brake. if they don't, then, that's their decision. You CAN ride around with out brakes. it is difficult but most people who ride like that are experienced and make the decision themselves.

Toestraps are just about mandatory on a fixed bike and the fact that no brakes makes you less able to make emergency stops makes you give yourself more room to stop and the experienced rider knows this.

As for the reasons: aesthetics? **** off! the more and more you ride fixed the less and less you use your brake. some people don't use them and don't want them after a while. if you see someone with no brakes and risers on then they probably do tricks and want to be able to do barspins! just like all the brakeless bmx's of old.

<troll>oh and the worst thing on the road is idiots! people seem to jump on a dcc bike and assume that if they stick their arm out they can move anywhere they want on the road. and all the roadies who park in front of me at lights and can't get into their clips when the light changes!</troll>

as for the legality thing:

(2) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle so constructed that the pedals act directly on any wheel or its axle without the intervention of any gearing, chain or other device) while used in a public place shall be equipped with an efficient braking device, or two efficient braking devices, in accordance with the following provisions, that is to say:—
(a) where at least one wheel of the cycle is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals or where the cycle is designed for use by a child not more than seven years of age, the cycle shall be equipped with one braking device;
(b) in any other case, the cycle shall be equipped with two braking devices and, in the case of a bicycle, one device shall operate on the front wheel and one device shall operate on the rear wheel.


a device being (according to the Oxford dictionary)
Quote:
a thing made or adapted for a particular purpose, especially a piece of equipment mechanical or electronic


So arguably the drivetrain could be percieved as a braking device

now take what you want from that but please have a troll less thread and a nice day!:pac:

Lumen

Doc_Savage wrote: »

as for the legality thing

Thanks for re-posting that, I'd misremembered.

A sane reading of that legislation indicates that a fixie needs one brake, in addition to the fixed drivetrain.

blorg

Doc_Savage wrote: »

the more and more you ride fixed the less and less you use your brake.

I found the opposite, I had great fun skidding around the place when I got my first fixed gear (it is great fun I grant) but with a stock of three fixed bikes and thousands of km on them now I find I basically never do it any more. I modulate speed to an extent with the legs, but stopping, use the brake.

Simple physics tells us that rear stopping with the legs can never be as effective as a brake operating on the front wheel. One day you may need it in an emergency.

Shredding a Conti GP4000 with a single skid encouraged my brake use; you need crap hard tyres if you are going to ride brakeless... so a dead road feel and you won't be able to go as fast.

crazydingo

Lumen wrote: »

Thanks for re-posting that, I'd misremembered.

A sane reading of that legislation indicates that a fixie needs one brake, in addition to the fixed drivetrain.

In addition? Where does it say that?

Lumen

crazydingo wrote: »

In addition? Where does it say that?

A purposive analysis of the legislation (i.e. trying to understand what the legislators intended to achieve) suggests that since a normal bike requires two brakes, and a fixed drivetrain requires one brake, that the reduction of one brake is an acknowledgement that the fixed drivetrain acts as a secondary brake, the primary brake being....a brake.

Caroline_ie

@crazydingo

Was that you on sunday track standing at the lights w/ no hands near Terenure ( I think )? Green Fixie? That was impressive

Off topic sorry...

Raam

Just to lighten the mood a bit...

Some Brake dancing (yes I know I splet it worng)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyMasVRj4KI

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

A sane reading of that legislation indicates that a fixie needs one brake, in addition to the fixed drivetrain.

In fact the legislation implies that the fixed drivetrain is not a brake in and of itself.

crazydingo

You may well be right Lumen :P
However, I feel it's perfectly valid to interpret the law as it is stated. Loopholes can be fixed, but until then I will be advocating pro-choice on this one.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the arguments for front brakes and I know that they are the most efficient means of braking. I'm just arguing the point to show that, while it isn't entirely advisable, riding brakeless on a fixie isn't illegal

Lumen

seamus wrote: »

In fact the legislation implies that the fixed drivetrain is not a brake in and of itself.

Well, the legislation recognises that the fixed drivetrain can be used for braking, because fixed drivetrain bikes require only one "efficient braking device" rather than two.

It perhaps implies even that the fixed drivetrain is an efficient braking device, which it is, arguably, although efficiency and effectiveness are different. From the perspective of the pedestrian you're about to run over effectiveness is probably more important.

Chips Lovell

Doc_Savage wrote: »

this thread has degenerated into a fixie hating thread, most people who ride fixed are running a front brake.

ROK_ON's hippy hating aside, since when is pointing out the dubious legality and safety of riding brakeless "fixie hating". If I point out the need for lights at night am I bike hating?

Doc_Savage wrote: »

You CAN ride around with out brakes. it is difficult but most people who ride like that are experienced and make the decision themselves.

Toestraps are just about mandatory on a fixed bike and the fact that no brakes makes you less able to make emergency stops makes you give yourself more room to stop and the experienced rider knows this.

I've yet to see the mythical fixed gear rider who can stop efficiently without brakes. Even a tyre shredding skid stop isn't as effective as braking. Most brakeless riders I see around town seem to deal with the absence of brakes by simply not stopping at all.

Doc_Savage wrote: »

As for the reasons: aesthetics? **** off! the more and more you ride fixed the less and less you use your brake. some people don't use them and don't want them after a while. if you see someone with no brakes and risers on then they probably do tricks and want to be able to do barspins! just like all the brakeless bmx's of old.

If you want to do tricks, take the brake off. It's a one minute job if you have a front caliper and cross top lever. The need to do tricks is hardly a good argument for breaking the law.

Doc_Savage wrote: »

as for the legality thing:

(2) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle so constructed that the pedals act directly on any wheel or its axle without the intervention of any gearing, chain or other device) while used in a public place shall be equipped with an efficient braking device, or two efficient braking devices, in accordance with the following provisions, that is to say:—
(a) where at least one wheel of the cycle is incapable of rotating independently of the pedals or where the cycle is designed for use by a child not more than seven years of age, the cycle shall be equipped with one braking device;
(b) in any other case, the cycle shall be equipped with two braking devices and, in the case of a bicycle, one device shall operate on the front wheel and one device shall operate on the rear wheel.


a device being (according to the Oxford dictionary)
Quote:
a thing made or adapted for a particular purpose, especially a piece of equipment mechanical or electronic


So arguably the drivetrain could be percieved as a braking device


now take what you want from that but please have a troll less thread and a nice day!:pac:

As Lumen pointed out, any reasonable reading of the legislation would imply that you do need a brake in addition to your fixed drivetrain. Moreover, choosing to misinterpret the legislation this way would mean it doesn't even make sense.

crazydingo

Lumen wrote: »

It perhaps implies even that the fixed drivetrain is an efficient braking device, which it is, arguably, although efficiency and effectiveness are different. From the perspective of the pedestrian you're about to run over effectiveness is probably more important.

Indeed it most likely is, but I'd say the first thing they think when they see you coming is "oh f***" and we think "stupid f***" (or at least, I do). There seems to b a terrible onus put on us as the villain in this situation...what about those ignorant folk that walk out onto the road without looking?
I care less about what happens to those people than I for my bike or myself, and the self preservation factor is another good reason to advocate the use of the conventional front brake!
I still stand by my point though.

Caroline_ie wrote: »

@crazydingo

Was that you on sunday track standing at the lights w/ no hands near Terenure ( I think )? Green Fixie? That was impressive

Off topic sorry...

Yup, at Templeogue Bridge. I had no clue what your friend was saying though

Lumen

crazydingo wrote: »

I feel it's perfectly valid to interpret the law as it is stated. Loopholes can be fixed, but until then I will be advocating pro-choice on this one.

That's not how it works, as far as I know. There are always different interpretations of the law, but the only one the matters is the one the court chooses to accept.

You are very unlikely to be prosecuted until someone gets seriously hurt. In that event, attempting to argue semantics is not going to help.

The prosection would produce all sorts of testimony to the effect that brakes are cheap and widely available, yet you chose not to fit one.

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

Well, the legislation recognises that the fixed drivetrain can be used for braking, because fixed drivetrain bikes require only one "efficient braking device" rather than two.

It perhaps implies even that the fixed drivetrain is an efficient braking device, which it is, arguably, although efficiency and effectiveness are different. From the perspective of the pedestrian you're about to run over effectiveness is probably more important.

Well what I mean is that the legislation clearly states that you must have a brake in addition to the fixed drivetrain because it states that "If you have a fixed drivetrain, you must have a brake".
If the law considered the fixed drivetrain to be a brake, then you could interpret that legislation to read, "If you have a brake, you must have a brake". Kind of like, "Any bike with two wheels must have two wheels.".

Ergo, a fixie must have at least one brake independent of the drivetrain.

dubmess

el tonto wrote: »

That's hardly a convincing argument for riding brakeless, is it? "Other people's bikes are even more dangerous than mine, so I'm alright".

What is about brakes that people find so aesthetically unappealing that their afraid they'll appear uncool if they put them on their bike?

I don't believe I stated anywhere that I was making a case for riding brakeless, I was merely pointing out there are a lot of people on crap bikes riding around brakeless on freewheels and that I'd rather have at least one method of stopping, controlling my bike than none.

Harrybelafonte

I'm going to be careful what I say here, seen as I f**ked up royally the first time around, but is relying on the drive train to stop you similar to trying to brake by downshifting and using handbrake in a car?

Lumen

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

I'm going to be careful what I say here, seen as I f**ked up royally the first time around, but is relying on the drive train to stop you similar to trying to brake by downshifting and using handbrake in a car?

There are two ways to brake on a fixie. You can push against the pedals as they rotate, which is a bit like engine braking, or you can lock the pedals/wheel and skid, which has no real equivalent in a car since the handbrake is very weak.

Cars are a bit harder to stop though, on account of the extra mass.

Caroline_ie

crazydingo wrote: »

Yup, at Templeogue Bridge. I had no clue what your friend was saying though

That was niceonetom and he just said 'Great Skillz!' ... and I gave the thumbs up