"Cyclists" are the problem

Chips Lovell

seamus wrote: »

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.

Furthermore, if the law actually meant that a fixed drivetrain counted as a brake it would make no differentiation between fixed gear bikes and bikes where the pedals act directly on the wheel. In addition to this, if the drivetrain acted as one brake, then it would also make little sense to stipulate that freewheel bicycles should have two brakes. Under this logic they should only need one.

dubmess wrote: »

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.

Fair enough, I thought you were advocating the safety of riding brakeless. My mistake.

FWIW, it's also illegal to ride a bike that endangers the safety of any person, which means that you could also be done for riding with poorly maintained brakes.

lukester

<rant-mode>Briefly returning to the main topic for a moment- cyclists who ride through pedestrian crossings when it's green for the pedestrian deserve a u-lock in the face.

Happened to me last night, pushing a toddler in a pram. Hi-vis fredtard fcukwit Darwin candidate on a POS BSO, near Grand Canal Dock, barrelled towards us both, I had to evade him.
</rant>

blorg

lukester wrote: »

cyclists who ride through pedestrian crossings when it's green for the pedestrian deserve a u-lock in the face.

I guess it's an option, but still not as effective as a front brake.

lukester

blorg wrote: »

I guess it's an option, but still not as effective as a front brake.

I'll try it next time, as an experiment.

Chips Lovell

It could depend on the size of the U-Lock

lukester

el tonto wrote: »

It could depend on the size of the U-Lock

Should do the trick.

Nietzschean

should pedestrian lights have resessed spikes that rise on green man? encourage pedestrians to stay within the lines and puncture a tyre off anyone who crosses....

lukester

Nietzschean wrote: »

should pedestrian lights have resessed spikes that rise on green man? encourage pedestrians to stay within the lines and puncture a tyre off anyone who crosses....

The thing is that I don't really mind if a cyclist goes through on a green man if they do so carefully and slowly, giving way to peds.

Unfortunately this seems to give license to the legions of FFs to dimwittedly trundle on through as well.

Nietzschean

lukester wrote: »

The thing is that I don't really mind if a cyclist goes through on a green man if they do so carefully and slowly, giving way to peds.

Unfortunately this seems to give license to the legions of FFs to dimwittedly trundle on through as well.

While the former might be good, hard/fast rules seem to be the only way to avoid the latter?

DisasterIRL

blorg wrote: »

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.

I agree with you completely blorg, in your situation it makes little or no sense to not run any brakes, long distances, big inclines and declines.
But very few people if any who do that sort of cycling would not use a brake, if not two.
The people who run brakeless are the people would do most of their cycling in and around town, mainly bike messengers.
I have a quote from one here:

6 years working as a courier brakeless, no accidents. That's roughly 12,960 hours on the bike.

Also for people around town bigger tyres that last longer are more important than lighter faster tyres. Skidding does wear down tyres quite quickly but don't forget that it's not the only way to stop, the latter, resisting, is a far more efficient way to stop, more so than you would ever think.

Not fighting for the legality but.
(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;
What stops the drivetrain being the one breaking device?

Lumen

I spent some time recently reading the law on offences against the person.

I was amazed to discover that smashing someone in the face with a u-lock is not legal, even if they have jumped a red light or are operating a fixed-gear bicycle with insufficient braking mechanisms.

The law is an ass!

monument

lukester wrote: »

<rant-mode>Briefly returning to the main topic for a moment- cyclists who ride through pedestrian crossings when it's green for the pedestrian deserve a u-lock in the face.

Happened to me last night, pushing a toddler in a pram. Hi-vis fredtard fcukwit Darwin candidate on a POS BSO, near Grand Canal Dock, barrelled towards us both, I had to evade him.
</rant>

I've being noticing in the last while that a large percentage of law breaking cyclists -- salmon cyclists, those who pass you out when stopped at a red light etc -- seem to be wearing helmets and/or high-vis.

Each time I see one I feel like saying: Maybe you'd think cycling is less dangerous if you followed the rules of the road!

blorg

DisasterIRL wrote: »

The people who run brakeless are the people would do most of their cycling in and around town, mainly bike messengers.

Also for people around town bigger tyres that last longer are more important than lighter faster tyres. Skidding does wear down tyres quite quickly but don't forget that it's not the only way to stop, the latter, resisting, is a far more efficient way to stop, more so than you would ever think.

If anything you are more likely to need to do an emergency stop cycling around town. Maybe due to someone else's stupidity but this happens. I agree with the hard tyres, they would be fine for around town use and indeed I appreciated mine. Thing is, most of the time you may not need it but an emergency crops up and you do.

lukester

I may be contradicting myself, but I think some riders are skillful and aware enough to break the 'rules' and do so at no risk to themselves or others. I'd categorise some of the couriers I've seen around town in this group.

Unfortunately there is an amorphous horde of fluoro POBs who don't have the skill, experience or plain intelligence to do the same safely.

U-locks should be applied selectively.

Chips Lovell

DisasterIRL wrote: »

I agree with you completely blorg, in your situation it makes little or no sense to not run any brakes, long distances, big inclines and declines.
But very few people if any who do that sort of cycling would not use a brake, if not two.

You need brakes more in town than out in the country. There aren't many traffic lights or pedestrians in Wicklow.

DisasterIRL wrote: »

The people who run brakeless are the people would do most of their cycling in and around town, mainly bike messengers.
I have a quote from one here:

6 years working as a courier brakeless, no accidents. That's roughly 12,960 hours on the bike.

Which comes from dubmess, who said on this thread he wouldn't advocate riding brakeless.

It's anecdotal evidence. There are countless people in this country who've driven home every weekend after a feed of pints. That hardly makes drink driving a.)legal or b.) safe.

DisasterIRL wrote: »

Not fighting for the legality but.
(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;
What stops the drivetrain being the one breaking device?

As has been pointed out before, if that was the case, the law would not differentiate between bikes where the pedal acts directly on the wheel and those that operate through a geared drivetrain.

monument

lukester wrote: »

I may be contradicting myself, but I think some riders are skillful and aware enough to break the 'rules' and do so at no risk to themselves or others. I'd categorise some of the couriers I've seen around town in this group.

Unfortunately there is an amorphous horde of fluoro POBs who don't have the skill, experience or plain intelligence to do the same safely.

U-locks should be applied selectively.

When one cyclist/motorist/pedestrian/person does something you can expect a few others to follow. So the rules apply to everybody.

Lots of drivers may well be able to drive above x speed limit safely, but you have to enforce rules which are safe for the majority. You generally can't have different rules of the road for different skill sets.

blorg

The definition of braking device is:

"braking device" means a device fitted to a vehicle or combination of vehicles, designed for the purpose of reducing the speed of, and stopping, the vehicle or combination, or of keeping the vehicle or combination stationary, and which consists of a control, a component or components in which the forces opposing the movement of the vehicle or combination develop, and a transmission system (which may be mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, electrical or a combination of these) linking the said control and the said component or components;

Now arguably a drivetrain is NOT "designed for the purpose" of reducing speed and stopping. The likes of a coaster brake would be designed for this purpose.

You can stop a bike by using your shoe on the rear wheel or scraping your foot along the ground, would you argue that these are braking devices?

The intent of the law is that there must be two braking devices to counter the possibility of brake failure, if you read the rest of it in the definitions section you will see mention of an emergency brake in case the service brake fails (in the context of motor vehicles.)

Why would a bicycle with a freewheel require a minimum of two brakes while a bicycle with a fixed drivetrain requires none? That makes no sense. A freewheel bike requires two brakes in case one of them fails.

If that were the intention of the law it would state that bicycles with a fixed drivetrain to be exempted from requiring a brake, not that they require one brake.

There is a specific exemption in there for fixed gears as it is recognized that in the case of brake failure a fixed gear DOES have redundancy through the drivetrain giving you a stopping capability. But with just a chain you have no redundancy; if you had a chain failure, for example, you would need your front brake.

DisasterIRL

blorg wrote: »

If anything you are more likely to need to do an emergency stop cycling around town. Maybe due to someone else's stupidity but this happens. I agree with the hard tyres, they would be fine for around town use and indeed I appreciated mine. Thing is, most of the time you may not need it but an emergency crops up and you do.

Sorry I was saying this in relation to Doc Savages comment to, that the more you ride fixed the less you use your brakes, I just meant this is the case in city riding and that, you can use your legs to emergency stop.

I didn't come here to argue the point just to make one

el tonto wrote: »

Which comes from dubmess, who said on this thread he wouldn't advocate riding brakeless.

He also says at the end, don't tell him he can't do it, never once did he make an argument for anyone else doing it or the fact that you should do it.

It's anecdotal evidence. There are countless people in this country who've driven home every weekend after a feed of pints. That hardly makes drink driving a.)legal or b.) safe.

Not the same, simple as

As has been pointed out before, if that was the case, the law would not differentiate between bikes where the pedal acts directly on the wheel and those that operate through a geared drivetrain.

I see where you're coming from 100%, personally I see it as up for interpretation, either way not very clear.

Anyone I'm done

blorg

DisasterIRL wrote: »

Sorry I was saying this in relation to Doc Savages comment to, that the more you ride fixed the less you use your brakes, I just meant this is the case in city riding and that, you can use your legs to emergency stop.

You can use your legs to make a much less effective emergency stop compared to using a front brake. Maybe we should have a Boards braking distance challenge? :pac:

DisasterIRL wrote: »

I see where you're coming from 100%, personally I see it as up for interpretation, either way not very clear.

It is only up for interpretation if you wilfully twist the obvious intent of the legislation with semantic games. Unfortunately that is not how courts will interpret it.

Chips Lovell

DisasterIRL wrote: »

I just meant this is the case in city riding and that, you can use your legs to emergency stop.

Are you honestly claiming that using your legs for an emergency stop is anyway as close to effective as braking?

DisasterIRL wrote: »

Not the same, simple as

How so? The point is that simply because one person claims to have never had an accident proves neither the safety or legality of such a move. I could ride without lights every night and never get hit. That doesn't mean it isn't a dumb move.

dubmess

I certainly am not advocating riding brakeless.
Personal choice... I also ride fixed with a brake, road bike with brakes, and cargo bike with brakes.

I've been doing this for 14 years in the city, have knocked down 2 peds who stepped out from behind buses, both times I was riding an mtb with brakes and both times I sent those peds to hospital. I've been knocked down twice. Once by being doored and once by a taxi who was blinded by the sun and drove straight into me. Neither instance would have been helped by brakes. I think I have avoided many accidents by riding fixed, but again this is anecdotal and just one person's subjective experience.

I stop at most red lights ( I didn't always, but I'm older now and give a ****), don't ride down 1-way streets the wrong way and generally don't ride like a tit.

That's it, personal choice, and I am not advocating riding brakeless.

Chips Lovell

blorg wrote: »

Maybe we should have a Boards braking distance challenge? :pac:

We could do it up in Sundrive Road some evening. Blorg vs. a brakeless dude. Have a few volunteers placed at intervals around the track who hold out their arms at random to signal riders to come to a stop. If someone brings a tape we could measure the difference in braking distances.

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

We could do it up in Sundrive Road some evening. Blorg vs. a brakeless dude. Have a few volunteers placed at intervals around the track who hold out their arms at random to signal riders to come to a stop. If someone brings a tape we could measure the difference in braking distances.

I think we should lay small children out on the road - it would make it much more exciting. I have spares.

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

I think we should lay small children out on the road - it would make it much more exciting. I have spares.

I'll pop into Dunnes, buy a pink bathrobe and run around the track in front of the riders shouting "ye should all be locked up!", really give it that authentic feeling.

Anyone got a set of roller blades?

w123

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I'll pop into Dunnes, buy a pink bathrobe and run around the track in front of the riders shouting "ye should all be locked up!", really give it that authentic feeling.

No need for that, a shout up to the wonderful playground should suffice.

On another note - my kids want to get into the velodrome - is it one? - to have a go around it, do I just lift them over the fence.

waits anxiously for the abuse to follow...

Chips Lovell

w123 wrote: »

On another note - my kids want to get into the velodrome - is it one? - to have a go around it, do I just lift them over the fence.

waits anxiously for the abuse to follow...

Yep, that's what everyone does.

ROK ON

I actually passed the velodrome/sundrive this morning for the first time.

Jaysus its a smashing looking thing. I an going to give it a go at some stage.

Chips Lovell

ROK ON wrote: »

I actually passed the velodrome/sundrive this morning for the first time.

Jaysus its a smashing looking thing. I an going to give it a go at some stage.

It's a great resource. I find it very useful for doing specific drills like intervals. Also very handy for pre-work training.

Raam

el tonto wrote: »

It's a great resource. I find it very useful for doing specific drills like intervals. Also very handy for pre-work training.

For those near the city but who don't want to go to the track, the Bull Island causeway is great for this also. I was out there yesterday evening. The road is very wide, flat and long enough for two or three minute efforts. Although I was only doing thirty second efforts. There is not much traffic on it either.

Nietzschean

Raam wrote: »

For those near the city but who don't want to go to the track, the Bull Island causeway is great for this also. I was out there yesterday evening. The road is very wide, flat and long enough for two or three minute efforts. Although I was only doing thirty second efforts. There is not much traffic on it either.

Never bothered cycling out that road, will take a spin there tonight thanks

Harrybelafonte

lukester

Raam wrote: »

Bull Island causeway

Is that just beyond Dollymount strand?

Raam

lukester wrote: »

Is that just beyond Dollymount strand?

cycle along the coast towards Howth from town.
Turn right at the second available opportunity.
It's out past St Annes Park

droidus

Opposite the best Indian restaurant in the country.

Raam

droidus wrote: »

Opposite the best Indian restaurant in the country.

That's the bridge, not the causeway

droidus

Doh.

Glad to see you're in agreement though!

Raam

droidus wrote: »

Doh.

Glad to see you're in agreement though!

Yeah it's tasty stuff in there

jaqian

monument wrote: »

I've being noticing in the last while that a large percentage of law breaking cyclists -- salmon cyclists, those who pass you out when stopped at a red light etc -- seem to be wearing helmets and/or high-vis.

Each time I see one I feel like saying: Maybe you'd think cycling is less dangerous if you followed the rules of the road!

I wear helmet and hi-vis but stop at the lights being older and feeling less invinsible now. Have to say I feel like a right eejit sometimes being the only cyclist stopped at the lights and everyone else breaking them.

petethedrummer

jaqian wrote: »

I wear helmet

Strike 1

jaqian wrote: »

and hi-vis

Strike 2

jaqian wrote: »

stop at the lights

Strike 3.....you're out of the cool gang.

Chips Lovell

Hmmm, the brakeless brigade went very quiet when it was proposed they put their money where their mouth is.

steinone

Why would we bet on something like that?
We know your two brakes would slow you faster than we would, aint no point.

Chips Lovell

Good to see at least one of you has seen reason anyway.

But I really wanted to see small child being run over.

steinone

I dont think any of us were deluded enough to think we can actually stop quicker.

How about to keep y'all happy I cycle down O' Connell st. waving and shouting "someone has stolen my brakes", then BAM, small child with tyre tracks across their back.
Might be a bit suspicious having a load of road bikers at the side of the road looking on...

Chips Lovell

That would keep me happy. Patrick's Day perhaps?

steinone

Actually I will be cycling in the parade, keep an eye out on the news

Chips Lovell

Which club are you in? My club were asked to go along as well. Not sure if I can make it though.

steinone

Im part of Bicycle Polo Ireland but im not going with them.
Going with the hardcourt polo lads.
So dont annoy us in person, we will have mallets

Chips Lovell

steinone wrote: »

So dont annoy us in person, we will have mallets

You'll have to catch me first;)

steinone

Not a problem
We might be slower stopping but were faster starting.

Nietzschean

steinone wrote: »

Not a problem
We might be slower stopping but were faster starting.

Tonto might be prone to getting lost, but he's a good sprinter i wouldn't bet on starting faster than him