KATU takes on fixie ticketing issue
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on December 19th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
KATU, Portland’s ABC affiliate, ran a special “On Your Side” report last night on the fixed-gear bicycle brake issue.
The story was given the headline of “Are brakeless bikes safe to ride?”. Of course “brakeless” bikes are not safe. But are fixed-geared bikes technically brakeless? That depends on your definition of brake and it seems to me that the issue should focus on whether or not someone can safely stop their vehicle (a standard that is laid out in the law), not on what type of brake is used.
KATU unfortunately makes this into yet another story where people who ride bikes are portrayed as dangerous scofflaws who are just trying to “stick it to the man” (a phrase which was uttered by the KATU reporter in the story).
behalf of the fixed-gear bill in Salem.
(Photos © Jonathan Maus)
[Background: This issue of Portland police officers ticketing fixed-gear bike riders began back in July of 2006 with the court case of messenger Ayla Holland. Holland was found guilty of a bicycle equipment violation because her bike was a fixed-gear and the judge ruled that a fixed-gear bike does not technically have the legally-required “brake”. A few months later a different judge ruled that fixed-gear bikes were OK, thus putting the whole issue into legal limbo (but that didn’t stop police from issuing tickets). A bill that would have specifically legalized fixed-gear bikes nearly became Oregon law, but was modified at the last moment (see more on that below). I’ve written over 20 articles on this, you can read it all on my special coverage page.]
As of January 1, the bicycle brake equipment law will state that, “a bicycle must be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to stop the bicycle within 15 feet from a speed of 10 miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement.”
Unfortunately, because of an 11th hour decision by Oregon State Senator Ginny Burdick to strike fixed-gear specific language from the bill, the new law does nothing to help solve the problem.
So, just what exactly is the problem? Here are few things that come to mind:
- People riding fixed-gear bikes (without a hand-brake) continue to get ticketed by police and are being told they must attach a front hand-brake to their bike (even though nowhere in the law does it mention being required to have a hand brake and a front brake is technically illegal since it is impossible to “skid” with the front wheel as the law requires).
- Many people I’ve talked to claim they are being unfairly targeted by one or two specific Traffic Division officers (Officers Barnum and Balzer frequently come up).
- Many of the people ticketed are professional bike messengers who can ill-afford the repeated $92 dollar tickets they are receiving.
As for the Police Bureau, KATU claims in story they have issued “less than two dozen tickets per year” for this infraction. That may be true if they are taking an average over the last decade, but clearly there have been many more tickets than that issued recently (feel free to chime in the comments if you’ve gotten one).
Bicycles on Hawthorne.
The people interviewed In KATU’s story alone claimed to have tallied six tickets for riding a fixed-gear. Lawyer Mark Ginsberg told me this morning he doesn’t think the ‘less than two dozen’ amount is accurate.
Back in November of 2006, Ginsberg fought six fixed-gear tickets in a single day in court.
The Police Bureau has repeatedly stood by their claim that messengers and fixed-gear riders are not being targeted. However, I continue to hear stories that refute this. The latest being an officer who stood outside a downtown office building, waiting near a group of fixed-gear bikes to ticket the owners when they returned.
In the KATU piece, Police Bureau spokesperson Brian Schmautz says, “I know for a few people this is the only issue that exists, but for us, just put a brake on your bike for crying out loud… It’s the law and nobody will bother you ever again.”
However, not everyone agrees that “it’s just the law” and for the people impacted by these tickets, it is a serious matter.
Let’s not forget that Senate Bill 729, which would have said that a “fixed gear bicycle is not required to be equipped with a separate brake,” passed the House and the Senate before hitting that unexpected snag.
To her credit, Senator Burdick has said she wants to revisit this issue in the future.
In the meantime, people who ride fixed-gear bicycles will keep getting tickets, allegations of targeted enforcement will remain, and, because some people think fixed-gear bikes are inherently unsafe and unfit to be on the road, the cat-and-mouse game will continue.
You can read the report and watch the video on KATU.com.
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
December 19th, 2007 12:28
Who are the dangerous scofflaws trying to stick it to the man?
...Randy Leonard, maybe?
December 19th, 2007 12:29
who ever is getting these tickets (i've personally never been stopped by a cop on my training fixie)...just put a visual hand brake on..doesn't mean it has to be attached to a cable...
December 19th, 2007 12:33
I didn't see the piece, but seems one thing they should have done was have some fixed gear riders demo stopping in 15 feet to prove whether or not they are meeting the letter of the law. And maybe comparing it to what "real brakes" can do. I don't ride a fixie, but I'll bet they can stop quicker than me in some of the wet conditions we're getting these days.
December 19th, 2007 12:35
bahueh,
that is until the cop ask's you to demonstrate that it is functional.
December 19th, 2007 12:36
I'm with the fixies on this one. If you guys think you can stop in time without the Hail Mary moment, GO 4 IT.
There is something to be said for the STRICT construction in PLAIN english meaning of "braking" mechanism.
Hey, PPB show me one DRUNKEN, outta-control, reckless village idiot on a fixie crashing into a SUV and KILLING everyone on board, I'll show you the said village idiot impersonating Santa at the Tulsa PD Awards Banquet. :-P
December 19th, 2007 12:40
This whole thing pisses me off every time I hear about it. PPB has no time to investigate crashes that send people to hospitals, but they do have time to worry about fixies. How embarrassing is that?
If fixed grear bcicyles were causing crashes with traumatic injuries PPB might have a point. This is authoritarian crap from PPB. They are rousting fixie riders because they do not like their attitude. "Stick it to the man" indeed, I cannot think of a better reason!
December 19th, 2007 12:45
I know this is a divisive issue for us, but a simple question: approximately what percentage of fixed gear bikes being ridden on our roads are not drilled for either front or rear caliper brakes? My only slightly educated guess is that it's somewhere less than 10%.
For the other 90% who's frames/forks can accommodate brakes, just install 'em for god's sake. Sellwood Cycle Repair has 5 gallon buckets full of calipers and levers in their back room. You could have a functional hand brake on your bike for less than twenty bucks. If 90% of fixed gear riders put brakes on their bikes, the police would likely stop targeting the issue and the remaining 10% who truly cannot install them would stop getting hassled. And stories like this wouldn't show up in the press, making all of us look foolish.
Even the 10% or so who's frames/forks are not drilled can get a high quality fork which IS drilled for a couple hundred bucks. Not cheap, but cheaper than multiple tickets.
Seriously, if your bike is drilled for caliper brakes, can anyone name any good reason why you should not install brakes today? Please, please, please do not say it has anything to do with vanity or some desire to 'stick it to the man.' Those would be lame reasons.
December 19th, 2007 12:45
I need some education please. What is the advantage associated with running "brakeless" on a fixed gear? Is this purely a fashion statement? Is this a live free or die ethos? I've always been confused by the apparent lack of logic but I'm open minded. In the relatively unlikely but possible event of a loss of a chain a brakeless fixie is a liability. I know that a talented rider can bring one to a stop by other means. I wouldn't put too many of the riders I see in the talented category.
Give me the straight story.
thanks,
bruce
December 19th, 2007 12:50
Countdown to 200+ redundant comments begins now. To save yourselves time you can cut and paste the ones from all the other articles on this corpse of a topic.
December 19th, 2007 12:53
i feel alot safer on the roads riding fixed than trying to stop with wet capiler pads.
todd
December 19th, 2007 12:54
I feel even safer stopping on wet roads with a fixed AND caliper pads.
December 19th, 2007 12:55
This is a classic example of police officers abusing their discretion to harass people. Not only is it fundamentally unfair, but it severely undermines peoples' confidence in the value and impartiality of government. Any responsible Mayor would immediately order an end to such police misconduct.
But this all could be prevented if Ginny Burdick had simply done her job.
December 19th, 2007 13:08
"Who are the dangerous scofflaws trying to stick it to the man?"
Larry Craig?
Poor taste -- maybe. Still funny.
December 19th, 2007 13:14
Well said a.O.
I whole heartedly agree.
December 19th, 2007 13:19
My email to KATU.
"Thanks for another sensational (not in a good way) news story that entirely misses the point and, yet again, seeks to marginalize cyclists.
Dictionary.com defines a brake as " a device for slowing or stopping a vehicle or other moving mechanism by the absorption or transfer of the energy of momentum, usually by means of friction."
Why do you refer to fixies as brakeless, when whether or not they have a brake is exactly the question?
Fixies, in the hands of an even moderately competent rider, meet the literal requirements of the current law, (skidding on dry level pavement).
Did you know that the law forbids trucks from using compression brakes within city limits? Doesn't this mean that the law admits that the engine/drivetrain is a brake?
Why is an engine/drivetrain considered a brake on a truck, but not on a bike?
I have an idea for something that you guys can do that might actually be constructive. Go stand at a public intersection and see how long it is before a car stops to allow you to cross.
Every car that drives by without yielding is breaking the law. Cars kill 43,000 people a year, many of them pedestrians.
Every public intersection IS a crosswalk, whether it is marked or not (ORS 801.220). Therefore drivers are required to yield to peds at all public intersections.
Did you know that? Do you do that? Most drivers don't. Why?
How about a story that actually helps inform us as a society, not just exploit our differences."
December 19th, 2007 13:20
Unless someone can give a satisfactory response to #8, I'm siding with the police on this one. And I wouldn't mind if the PPB started ticketing cyclists for riding sans lights at night.
December 19th, 2007 13:22
NWD,
Let's say cops started ticketing cyclists who weren't wearing helmets. Would you be saying that folks should just buy a helmet and stop complaining?
Helmets are a good idea. Caliper brakes are swell. Neither is legally required on our roads.
Disappointing that there was no mention of Judge Larson's ruling that a fixed-gear IS a braking device.
And putting a front brake on your bike actually makes your bike in violation of the law. Unless you can skid your front wheel. So, if you've got front brakes...for the love of God take 'em off you scofflaw! It's not hard.
December 19th, 2007 13:25
I ride a brakeless track bicycle. I have done this for over 2 years. I do it for a few reasons. When you are first starting out on a fixed, it's NECESSARY to have a brake. But, after you become accustomed to using your feet to stop, it is both rewarding and challenging to use your feel only. NOW, some would view this as unsafe, but this is where experience comes in. You CAN ONLY TRAVEL AT A SPEED WHICH YOU CAN STOP SAFELY!!! Now, as you become a more experienced and confident rider, you can slowly work that speed up, and eventually you will be able to ride at a very quick pace and still keep total control. understand?
December 19th, 2007 13:32
#8: For many, riding fixed with no brake has a financial advantage -- no brake means no worn out rims. And it is not unusual to go through a wheel in a single winter when riding a lot with all the crap on the road.
Many people think that a fixed gear is just a fashion statement -- there is no doubt they can be quite sexy -- but a good brakeless fixy is nearly maintenance free, which is a real consideration for a segment of the population (messengers) who make very little riding their bikes 8-10 hours a day.
Disclaimer: I ride a single speed with a front brake in the winter, and I make plenty of money and have never been a messenger.
December 19th, 2007 13:33
#8: For many, riding fixed with no brake has a financial advantage -- no brake means no worn out rims. And it is not unusual to go through a wheel in a single winter when riding a lot with all the crap on the road.
Many people think that a fixed gear is just a fashion statement -- there is no doubt they can be quite sexy -- but a good brakeless fixy is nearly maintenance free, which is a real consideration for a segment of the population (messengers) who make very little riding their bikes 8-10 hours a day.
Disclaimer: I ride a single speed with a front brake in the winter, and I make plenty of money and have never been a messenger.
December 19th, 2007 13:36
responding to bruce's #8: chain loss aside (this really shouldn't happen if your chainline is straight), in my experience the one instance you might really want a hand brake on a fixie is when a toe clip and/or strap snaps. if you're slowing/stopping from high speeds on a steep descent using just your legs, chances are you're exerting a lot of force in opposite directions on your metal clips, which can sometimes cause them to shear off. in such a situation, having a redundant hand brake can be a godsend, as it's much more difficult to stop yourself with only one functional clip/strap. granted, if you ride with cleats this won't impact you.
December 19th, 2007 13:38
jleiss,
I'm with you on the light thing.
Regarding your comment on #8, I'm assuming you're referring to the chain breaking/slipping off thing?
In my years as a mechanic, I saw 0/zero/nada chains break on fixies. I saw many, many more cables break.
Note, I'm saying chains on fixies. I've seen many broken chains on geared bikes. The stresses on a geared bike's chain are tension AND lateral/shear which contribute to chain failure. Fixie chains only experience tension.
The cops keep bringing up the damn chain thing, and as far as I'm concerned, it's the yapping of a completely uninformed partisan.
Not to say that somewhere out there a chain has never broken on a fixie, but those failures are far exceeded by cable failures. Please find a new argument.
Oh, yeah, if the chain argument flies, then coaster brakes are out too.
December 19th, 2007 13:47
There are some serious realities missing from the discussion of this topic.
For one, riding fixed-gear bikes (especially without a hand-brake) has become extremely popular in the urban environs of the US. This is an extension of the mass-marketing of the "messenger" style and sub-culture. While messengers remain... well, messengers... with all their well-documented ethos and pathos intact, many, many others are adopting the bikes and riding style of these supposed scofflaws without nearly the same level of experience in urban riding.
The result: there are many more people choosing to ride fixed-gear bikes without a hand-brake that are not capable of safely coming to a stop, especially in urgent circumstances.
While I remain faithful in the prowess and skills of experienced riders to handle their hand-brake-less fixed-gear bikes, I am extremely doubtful about the safety of a great many people who are being attracted to this riding style.
If I were responsible for enforcement, I would feel tempted to outlaw riding bikes set up this way as a method of protecting those foolish enough not to know better than try to emulate such a potentially dangerous practice. That being said, the safety hazard here is clearly unexperienced riders, who do not appear to be the ones being targeted by the Portland Police.
I suggest that if the PPB wants to issue these citations they should do so in the way that they require field sobriety tests: if you can't walk the line (or skid to a stop), then you get the fine. If you can, then they've only managed to waste a small amount of your time (and theirs).
By the way, this is not just conjecture on my part about fixed-gear riders in Portland. I see these people (and their bikes) on a very regular basis. And I have first-hand experience on multiple occasions of watching people fail to meet the current guidelines for stopping a bike safely without a hand brake.
So, do I think PPB enforcement practice needs to change: YES, definitely. Do I think inexperienced riders should be legally allowed to ride a bike they can't safely stop: Leaning towards NO on this one. Viable solution: ???
December 19th, 2007 14:03
Everybody! Write KATU. It's easy and it's the kind of thing that gets noticed! Stop complaining and do something simple that helps.
Here's the 'news' item:
http://www.katu.com/news/12619171.html
Here's where to write:
yourturn@katu.com
December 19th, 2007 14:06
Experience this, skill that, Blah!
Who among you, that are actually riding regularly, has not seen the stereotypical hipster douche or douchette, careening out of control on a brakeless fixie?
Frame too big, seat way too high, riding on platforms and completely out of control. What do we do about these people? They seem to be multiplying with the water..
To be clear, I own and can safely operate a brakeless bike.
Imagine you are a dumb as a rock traffic cop. For a lot of you this should be easy.
You are standing downtown and see Mr and Ms hipster on their ill fitting brakeless bikes, spinning out of control through a stop. How do you think your hall monitor brain would interpret such a scene? How would it affect your future behaviour towards fixies? Especially if you have the pleasure of occaisionally cordoning of an intersection full of biker brains and blood?
All I am saying, is this 'I have the experience to operate a brakeless bike safely' argument, simply steps us right up to the bicycle licensing argument.
Your subjective interpretation of "skill" and "safe" is meaningless in a public, shared use environment. In other words, for you narcissitic folks, it ain't all about you!
There are track versions of many cars and they sure as hell are not allowed on public roads. Why are you so special?
One last thing to the moronic argument that you save wear and tear on your rims by not having a brake. If you do not need the brake to stop, why would you use it? In other words, mounting a brake that you do not need or use, should not wear out your rim, or the brake pads right? Though it might save your life if you happen to need it. It certainly would help out the scenesters which appear to be flocking here in droves.
December 19th, 2007 14:14
Regarding chains,
A person can loosen a stiff link on a chain, and may be able to break it entirely, by bending it side to side for a while.
Now, spend the same amount of time tugging on a chain in a straight line, without twisting or bending it, and see how much damage you have done.
It will be virtually none.
This is a simple test of the different stresses a chain is put through, depending on what kind of drive train you are running.
A geared drive train subjects the chain to bending, twisting, and sideways movement, while at the same time going either forward, or backward, sometimes slack, sometimes stressed.
Imagine the wear on the links and pins throughout all of this, over miles and miles.
A fixed, or even single speed drive train, is generally well lined up, relieving the chain of the constant stresses of sideways and twisting motions.
This leaves the chain available to do what it is really designed for, which is work long and strong at going forward.
And also cuts back on the possibilities of encountering the infamous "Weakest Link".....
December 19th, 2007 14:38
Sorry,
One more point.
A properly applied chain on a straight drive train is stronger than possibly all of the parts of a brake caliper, and or lever, especially one that is of lesser quality. If one of these parts fails, the brake is useless.
Simply take into thought the sautered cap on the lever end of the brake cable.
Is that stronger and more reliable than your chain?
Why force, as a required redundant, a weaker and less reliable caliper brake onto our bikes? Many of which cannot even accommodate them.
And not to mention once again the reality of yanking on that front brake too hard, leaving you flying over the handlebars, possibly into traffic itself.
December 19th, 2007 14:47
I just don't understand why the deraileur can't get no love. It's an incredible invention. It makes climbing easier, sprinting faster, and let's you keep the Mo under all conditions.
And you will never, ever find a better braking system than my disc brakes. I can instantly lock both of my wheels. But more importantly, I can instantly slow my wheels so drastically without locking them that I can stop faster than anyone else I see.
I guess wearing a bright yellow jacket and a helmet with lights taped on and riding a Trek Portland will never be cool enough to be emulated by the kids. But I'm not gonna complain.
December 19th, 2007 14:59
Riding a fixed without brakes is just pure, rank stupidity--but a fixed plus front brake is probably equal to many two-brake machines. As long as you want to crucify the connective tissues in your knees...........
December 19th, 2007 15:09
fix gear bikes are dangerous. i rode them for a long while, until i realized i can't travel at speeds downhill and hop a curb. last year a nut-job of a forklift operator decided to cut me off... had i had a free wheel i could have easily cleared the curb and landed smooth, but damn if your cadence is fouled up when you're going 30+ and suddenly you have no traction then traction again. i consider myself a good rider..., but, well i don't know i have fingers -may as well use them for something.
i still keep a track bike around, but my decutables are too high.
ps: i was also arrest on a track bike in gainesville, fl
December 19th, 2007 15:11
Hey "Concerned." Brilliant rant. Seriously.
One point of contention though.
You said;
"If I were responsible for enforcement, I would feel tempted to outlaw riding bikes set up this way as a method of protecting those foolish enough not to know better than try to emulate such a potentially dangerous practice."
Are you by chance related to our Vice President? He too seems intent on combining the powers of the Executive Branch with those of the Legislative Branch
Fortunately we have (or so we're told) separation of powers so that those who enforce the law are not also charged with writing it. Perhaps a refresher course in Civics is in store for you.
December 19th, 2007 15:15
if you're building up old bikes with lesser parts than a fix makes sense... but the real problem is in the fad... like g-strings. some folks can handle it... others need to spent sometime in the gym. its a good time watching the newbies try to stop for coffee on their stipped down (not bolted up) bikes.
horizontal drop-outs kids. know what to build or yeah, it will break or come apart (to simplify the terms) -brake or old chain.
this is no disrespect for those who can ride.
December 19th, 2007 15:31
The comment about burning through your rims in a winter is a load of crap, unless you wear your pads down to nothing and keep on riding. I rode through seven Portland winters on the same rims.
I couldn't agree more with a.O. Now that I have disc brakes I love them! Why wouldn't you want to stop as fast as possible? I guess I continue to be the uncool, non-hipster with his helmet, blinking lights, yellow jersey, gears, and disc brakes. Wow, I'm so uncool.
December 19th, 2007 15:42
Lots of good arguments on all sides....
Just STOP, please STOP denying that fashion plays a big role in this argument. Go on any web site devoted to fixies and hear the constant gushing about style...
Make up your own mind on the issue. Just stop denying the fashionistas their due...
December 19th, 2007 15:45
Hey "tonyt." Brilliant condescension. Seriously.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "Administrative Rules?" Didn't think so. Perhaps you should take some of your own advice re: civics 101.
Here's a crash course: agencies in the Executive Branch writes enforceable regulations ALL THE FREAKING TIME.
December 19th, 2007 15:50
I should clarify my earlier question about #8: What is it important to ride a fixie WITHOUT additional braking mechanisms? Having a caliper brake doesn't mean you have to use it (re: #19), it just means you can if you need to.
I'll grant that the fixies are legal if you can stop. But rather than allowing brakeless fixies, I think the law should actually be rewritten to prohibit them. Here's why:
My bike has two braking mechanisms, the front brake, which I use most of the time and can stop me within the required distance, and a rear brake. The important thing is that these are independent braking systems. Redundancy is a great thing.
Even though it is unlikely that a bikes brakes would experience mechanical failure, it is possible. You leg-brakes could also fail (broken toe-strap, cramp, etc). That is a good reason to have at least one additional brake, even if you never use it. (Once again, I echo #8 - why can't you just have the brake installed and keep using the drive train to brake? Why such vehement resistance?)
(I'd like to point out that manual-transmission cars can also use the drive train as a brake. I could use it to stop a standard coupe pretty quickly, as could any decent driver. But it should still be illegal for such a vehicle to operate without both a regular brake system and a separate emergency brake.)
The PPB may be overreacting on this, but I say just get the brakes. And then let's focus on getting the PPB to enforce the laws protecting cyclists from autos with the same enthusiasm they are protecting us from ourselves.
December 19th, 2007 16:03
same freaking arguments, all over again.
December 19th, 2007 16:03
Here's a crash course: agencies in the Executive Branch writes [sic] enforceable regulations ALL THE FREAKING TIME.
But only after a grant of authority to do so from the Legislative Branch (and, I might add, in clear violation of the Separation of Powers principle and the non-delegation doctrine).
Anyway, it should be abundantly clear that no one "responsible for enforcement" can "outlaw" anything, unless the Legislature says they can.
Really, is this about fashion? I understand the simplicity of no deraileur and no brakes, but their lack of relatively utility must mean that it's primarily about form rather than function. I'm not passing judgment. But I want to understand.
December 19th, 2007 16:05
One more thing:
Everyone owes a BIG THANK YOU to Mark Ginsberg, who did his best to make this problem go away.
December 19th, 2007 16:36
GLV,
Regarding Civics. What A.O. said.
(thanks A.O.)
Separation of power. As it should be.
December 19th, 2007 17:24
good show #15
December 19th, 2007 17:38
Hasn't this whole debate been done already, ad nauseum?
It seems to me that a hand brake is just common sense. Like a helmet.
If folks want to go without, then perhaps the law could be written so that when a fixie rider gorks him or herself on the side of a car, truck, powerpole (I saw it happen once, seriously), then they and their families will not be eligible for government benefits.
Think it'll happen? Never. Why not? Becuase of the social contract. But it seems to me the other end of the social contract implies that the individual in society act in a responsible way, with conduct aimed at basic self preservation.
A "redundant" brake seems to fit that bill. "Cool factor" be damned.
Common sense. Get a hand operated brake, go ticket free, and stand a better chance to live on and continue to "stick it to the man."
December 19th, 2007 17:47
Many high-powered sports cars and jacked-up trucks, while technically legal, are unsafe as driven by the average person. Do the police have the power to assume that the drivers' of those vehicles cannot handle them properly and cite them for moving violations that have not yet happened?
The new law on bicycle brakes requires a performance requirement, not an equipment requirement. How can the police assume a failure to meet that requirement without testing for it? How can they issue tickets on that assumption?
December 19th, 2007 17:51
In my opinion, every bicycle should be equipped with two brakes, front and rear. The rear brake should be permitted to be a fixed gear.
A front brake stops you fastest. I'm sure a rear caliper brake is equivalent in braking power to a skid stop, particularly if the rider is skilled, but the fact of the matter is that your weight transfers forward as you're slowing down, giving the front wheel much better traction, and making front brakes far more effective.
December 19th, 2007 18:08
Still haven't seen anyone advance a convincing reason for not installing a front brake on fixies. No one's saying that you have to _use_ it, but are you so in love with looking cool that it's worth tickets to maintain your hipster image?
December 19th, 2007 18:21
I have a question about that performance standard. What is the required speed for this demonstration? The reason I ask this is because the braking power required to stop increases as the square of the initial speed.
The Texas standard is just that the brake has to be able to lock the wheel, with no regards to at what speed the wheel can be locked. Or even if the wheel has to be locked with a rider on the bike.
Opus
December 19th, 2007 19:23
It is astounding how many of you would toss away your rights because a few people are in over their heads. "Just put a hand brake on, it is safer... bla... bla... whaaaaa..." Just effing amazing. No wonder Cheney makes a sport of pissing on neo-liberals - it is just too easy.
We grant cops the right to enforce certain behavior standards. If they are not doing it right, and no one is listening. Civil disobedience is the bare minimum of our responsibilities.
December 19th, 2007 19:23
it is disturbing to hear people say "just install the brakes"
"just give in."
"just stop bothering me with this issue that does not affect me but which i am willing to offer my opinion"
the proof is in the puddin: if you can stop you will (when necessary) and if you can't just sue Schmautz. It was his responsibility to keep you from killing yourself.
December 19th, 2007 20:45
pdxrunner
Its not a load of crap. I have been a courier for 17 years (not a misprint). When I started there was no such thing as "Fixie" as the bikes are now known. I still call them track bikes. But I am also too old to be cool anymore. One thing for certain is my track bike saved me a load of loot before it was essentially outlawed by the the circus twins. now I ride a single speed with calipers. I need new wheels, the side walls are caving in. I need new brake pads and and it is only December. In the 9 plus years i rode a fixie I only had to replace my wheels twice. Both times were due to wrecks, not wear and tear.
So now I'm looking at @ least $300 in repairs. My boss does not pay for these expenses. I do. I have never broken a chain on my track bikes. yet several on my road and MT bikes. Also I could not stop for shit today due to the amount of water on the road.
But of course you and the cops know much more than i do about what is good for me and my peers. thanks for your concern. jerk
December 19th, 2007 21:20
#8 (i think. i kinda lost count.) -
theres one, perfectly valid, reason to ride a fixed wheel without a mechanical hand brake - you simply dont want to.
and why should you not want to?
because you already *have* a braking mechanism - the very same mechanism used to move a fixed wheel forward - that is to say, your legs.
"brakeless fixie" is an oxymoron, pure and simple.
unfortunately, this is an argument thats been going on for over 100 years now, and people dont seem to be ready to wrap their heads around this one anytime soon.
December 19th, 2007 21:33
@ joel
Similarly, I simply don't want to stop at red lights. And in fact, I usually don't. But the law and current interpretation thereof have been made abundantly clear in both cases, so we need to be adults and accept our tickets without whining when the cops get us.
Work to change the law and/or its interpretation? Sure! But honestly, I don't necessarily support that - I see plenty of fashion victim fixie riders that don't have the skills to stay safe and really should have handbrakes.
Frankly, the "freedom of speech" argument doesn't really wash for me - try applying that argument to not wearing a seatbelt and see how far you get.
December 19th, 2007 21:34
I would like to respectfully submit that those of you who are debating the pros and cons of fixies and the pros and cons of stopping by exerting force on the crank are missing a very important point:
First, there is not a significant public health or safety issue here. Lots of people ride these bikes in Portland every day and they don't endanger themselves or others by their stopping or lack thereof, at least not in relation to other road users.
Second, there is no evidence that the Legislature ever even intended to make "brakeless" fixies illegal. In fact, it's just the opposite. Mark Ginsberg's bill was a "clarification" that the law does not apply to these bikes. It had the votes to pass until ...
Third, there is an obvious and long-stand pattern of "enforcement" of this law by specific PPB officers against a very specific segment of the population.
Therefore, the police are abusing their discretion by targeting a disfavored group of people to punish because they don't like them.
This ought to outrage citizens of a democracy and it ought to be an embarrassment to anyone who directs the law enforcement priorities of a community like Portland, i.e., Mayor Tom Potter.
Yes, this is a relatively tiny injustice. But it is further proof that certain members of the Portland Police Bureau act like they are above the law and that our City's government is apparently unable or unwilling to stop them.
It's the same Institutional Dysfunction that has given us the murder of James Chasse and the Nazi Mark Kruger pepper spraying babies.
That's the important issue here.
December 19th, 2007 22:14
Piles and piles of $.02! Here's mine.
I ride bikes, I work on bikes professionally, I like fixed gears. After being a mechanic for several years I decided to rig up a fixed gear bike. It didn't have caliper brakes and I took a few trepidatious rides around the block before attempting commuting with it. I had no problems. I could always stop when I needed too. The charm wore off and I let it hang in the basement.
Fast forward 8 years, it seems like everybody and their kid brother comes into the shop I work at and wants to strip off the perfectly functional center-pull calipers brakes and friction shifters/derailleurs and throw on a 48tx18t and a new flip-flop wheelset. It seems like a lot of these people don't have a history of riding bikes at all and their sole bike will be a caliiper-brakeless fixie (without mudguards no less!). I guess its cheaper to buy/build up/maintain a cheapo fixie than it is to buy/build up/maintain a derailleur bike. Maybe thats why messengers like them so much, they don't have to know how to adjust brake toe in, or have the tools to straighten a derailleur hanger. Less fuss, less muss.
While I have confidence that most of the people being targeted by the cops for not having caliper-brakes (professional riders) posses pretty advanced fixed-gear riding skills (they may choose not to stop, but they definitely could've) I don't know how I feel about these others that are jumping in to things maybe a bit too quickly and possibly with a too-high gear.
I rode a 44x19 and I could lock into a skid with all my weight on the saddle meaning I could stop in a fraction of the distance some fixie riders can since a lot of them have to shift their body weight forward to initiate the skid
There is definitely a stigma to riding a fixie with one or more caliper brakes, which is unfortunate.
As for just having a front-caliper brake (on a fixie or a single speed, or whatever), well, I don't like that one either. Sometimes fixie riders call them "emergency brakes". Try locking up your front wheel on a wet/leafy road. You'll hit the ground before you know what happened. I would rather have no caliper-brakes. At least I could fish-tail around and avoid whatever I was trying to avoid.
Are cops doing this because they don't like seeing fixed gear bikes blow redlights or are they just trying to follow the letter of the law, or are they just picking on people they don't like? If they think that people adding a front brake to their fixed gear bike will make more people stop at red lights, I think they are sorely mistaken.
But in the end, when I overhaul my fixie, it will have TWO! dorky brakes, I may not use them that much, but when I need to stop, I'll have lots of options. Colorful brake housing, nice levers and shiny brake calipers look good.
December 19th, 2007 23:08
A friend and I, both bicyclists, were walking across the Hawthorne Bridge about noon on a summer day. A fixie rider coming from behind us thought he'd be able to pass us before the on-coming jogger reached us. He misjudged his speed and that of the jogger. We heard the words "Oh, s--t," about two seconds before he hit my friend's left shoulder, knocking her to the railing. There was no rim brake.
Install a hand brake. Don't use it if you don't need to, but use it if you do.
December 19th, 2007 23:29
Almost anybody can stop a bike equipped with a coaster brake, a front and rear calipers, or the latest popularly accepted innovation, disc brakes. Can the same be said about fixed gear track bikes that do not have any of those brake systems? No it cannot.
It really doesn't matter how proficient some people that ride fixie track bikes are at stopping their bikes. What is important is that bikes allowed for use in traffic on public streets with motor vehicles be equipped to meet a safety standard consistent with traffic conditions encountered on public streets.
December 20th, 2007 00:29
I totally agree with your 2nd paragraph wsbob (#52) - that's why the standard should be performance-based. 9 out of 10 fixie riders should have to have additional brakes, because they don't have the skills necessary to stop properly on a fixie. Once they can, they should be able to remove the additional brake, like training wheels. The other 1 of 10 are the pros, who have no problem stopping and can do things on a fixie that the rest of us can only dream of trying.
December 20th, 2007 01:19
and again the dead horse it beat....poor poor dead horse.
i have a great idea, how about everyone that this doesn't concern keep their uninformed opinions to themselves hmm? the law isn't going to be changed for at least two years right? for some reason your guys "awareness" and "advocacy" only covers a small amount of the bike "community", always ignoring the different smaller sects, which i'm fine with, just leave me out of it, seriously. every time one of these stupid articles or tv spots come on drivers get more agro, police get more agro, i get more agro. cars have known about bikes for YEARS. a damn sticker on a fender or a city vehicle or a damn license plate isn't going to change a damn thing, and the last thing i would ever expect to help change the law's interpretation is your armchair bickering thats made me loath so many cyclists
pretty much leave it alone, please
December 20th, 2007 02:21
Brakes aren't just a personal safety issue, they're a safety issue for those who may end up in our paths as well. I don't believe in helmet laws for adults, but brakes are another matter entirely.
And I don't think performance standards are practical. Spot checks won't work, since the conditions and equipment required for a test are not always available. Should skilled fixie riders be licensed, or do they just get huge numbers of tickets that they can then contest in court with proof of skidding skill?
December 20th, 2007 03:00
"I totally agree with your 2nd paragraph wsbob (#52) - that's why the standard should be performance-based. 9 out of 10 fixie riders should have to have additional brakes, because they don't have the skills necessary to stop properly on a fixie. Once they can, they should be able to remove the additional brake, like training wheels. Matt Picio.
Perhaps, but not definitely, they should be able to remove their additional brake(s)at some point in time. Considering whether to adopt such a policy raises the question of how to reliably establish whether riders desiring to ride without additional brakes have in fact developed the ability to safely stop without them.
Who should determine that this ability has been developed, and how should determining it be arrived at? If it's going to cost money to determine that fixie riders have developed the ability to safely stop their bikes, how much of that cost will fixie riders be willing to shoulder for the privilege to ride without caliper, disc or coaster brakes?
December 20th, 2007 07:11
Beffa
I don't care if you don't have brakes.
Based on your post, you've been a courier for 17yrs and a fixie rider for the first 9, right? So you've been using brakes for 8 years? And your rims are starting to wear out? Sounds normal.
My original post was that unless you have real cheap rims your not going to wear them out in one winter, I rode for 7 winters (nearly everyday) on the same rims. Of course I had to change alot of pads.
Better yet, with disc brakes, my rims will last until some jerk cuts me off. But hopefully they will stop me in time so I don't eat his door.
Do what you want, but don't accuse me of siding with the cops.
December 20th, 2007 08:36
Look a dead horse! Let's go kick it! Kick it some more.
That sums up my feelings.
December 20th, 2007 08:51
Thank yo for dredging this crap up one more time, putting it on the radar, making us no-handbrakes having fixed riders a target of enforcement.
A fixed gear hub IS a brake, It slows the bike down, and yes you can skid the rear tire with it.
Comparisons to ten-ton trucks are ridiculous because they weigh 100 time more than their driver and a bike weighs about 1/10th. Engine braking on a semi is cutting power to the ignition anyways not downshifting.
Faux brake levers are not an option on a bike that is meant to stripped down to it's bare functional part and nothing else. If you are going to hang a brake on it, it might as well work.
A fixed gear bike with just a back handbrake would be a death trap. The resistance of your legs combined with the rear brake would lock up the wheel too easily and everyone knows the brake power is up front.
As it has been said a milllion times before a fixed hub functions as a brake and stops the bike within the requirements of the law. That should be the end of it.
This is down to two Police Officers and one judge, who don't understand how a fixed gear bike works. Maybe those two cops do understand but it is much easier to roll up next to a messenger who is just ridng along, ask him/her to stop, and when the comply by stopping (demonstrating that they have a brake, it is the fixed hub, stupid) they get a ticket for no brakes; instead of chasing them down when they are hauling ass and possibly make a moving violation.
And finally the rider themself should be the one who determines whether they have the skill to stop a fixed gear bike without the assistance of a handbrake. It is called common sense, and personal responsibility.
December 20th, 2007 08:56
Coasting is fun.
That is all.
December 20th, 2007 09:49
I was writing about this issue a year ago. Fixies have no business on the road. The law clearly states that there must be a braking mechanism, not just the ability to stop. Furthermore. It's your representation. PPD is responding more to your cries for attention, than any inherent safety issue. Has it really been that long since you'all watched Easy Rider? Let's see, you deliberately engage in a mode of dress that you feel makes you individual. Your uniform elicits the desired response from the public, et al. Then you bitch and whine when you get called on it. Priceless.
Shit, there are only a couple of riders on the road in the 201 since 1990. Since one of them wouldn't be caught dead posting a comment in here, that leaves Stefa. This is the guy that wanted to strike a messenger pose so badly, that he took the job of the only girl riding at the time. Hence the nickname, TIS-girl, Stefa. I wouldn't be drawing attention to your past if I were you, holmes. You are, without a doubt, the biggest poser to ever pull tags in PDX.
I used the s*** word so this post would trigger your mod, Mr. Maus. I was hoping you would mod my post, as I'm including a link to my article about this issue, as I mentioned above. I don't like posting links in my comments without your permission. Feel free to not post it. With that said, the blog is still under construction, I just feel very strongly about this issue, and wanted my comments to be available to those who care.
http://vance.blogsavy.com
December 20th, 2007 10:29
...just invite the cops and the judges to a skid competition. is there one during pedalpalooza? have a short stop contest along with the long one.
December 20th, 2007 10:29
Wake up you legal eagles!
I'll say it again:
Putting a front brake on doesn't satisfy the current law. Unless you can skid your front wheel with them, front brakes are ILLEGAL. Read the law.
Luckily the PPB makes up their own laws (get a rear light!) so they're letting all of you scofflaws with front brakes off the hook.
Putting a front brake on your track bike actually makes it illegal.
December 20th, 2007 10:51
wsbob (#58) - you missed the point entirely. If the standard is performance-based, you don't NEED to have a program to determine whether they're ready - they determine that. As long as you meet the standard, you're in compliance with the law.
This is all such a non-issue anyway (except for the harassment portion), so I'll refrain from posting on it again.
December 20th, 2007 11:58
Matt Picio and Skidmark, sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Motor vehicle operators aren't allowed to determine on their own whether or not their vehicles are sufficiently equipped to safely stop in traffic situations on public streets.
Such vehicles are required to meet standardized equipment guidelines ensuring that they are capable of being safely controlled by an operator with a demonstrated ability to use that equipment competently.
For a variety of reasons, bikes have mostly not had to undergo that type of scrutiny. With increasing numbers of bike riders wanting to ride their bikes as commuters or for work in traffic, questions about the ability of their bikes to meet a basic safety standard are a reasonable concern. The public has a right to expect that all vehicles authorized to use its streets meet such a standard.
If fixie riders want to make the argument that on their bikes, their legs are brakes that are comparable to conventional bike brakes such as caliper, disc and coaster brakes, they'd probably be prepared to prove this. Caliper, disc and coaster brakes are equipment consistently manufactured to a given performance standard.
That's not the case with people. Human bodies and individuals strength and co-ordination abilities range dramatically. Conventional bike braking systems are designed with that in mind. The fixie brake system is not.
If fixie riders really believe a reasonably average person can stop a fixie bike in emergency traffic situations as well as a person on a bike equipped with a caliper, disc or coaster brake system can, well then maybe they should just set about to prove it. I keep reading seemingly credible stories that suggest reasonably average people have considerable difficulty stopping or otherwise controlling their bikes.
There's no reason non-conventional braked fixie bikes should be given consideration to have free reign on public streets until people that defend them are prepared to clearly establish the ability of their type of bike to be safely stopped in traffic by a reasonably average person.
December 20th, 2007 13:24
I've been riding and racing the track (Alpenrose) for 18 years now, so I feel I know my way around a fixed-gear bike, as well as considering myself a relatively skilled rider. I've been riding fixed-gear on the road as a training tool for significantly longer than it has been trendy and would never consider riding a fixed gear bike on the road without a brake (my winter fixxie has both front and rear). Yes, a skilled rider can stop a fixed-gear bike fairly quickly, but never in my experience, can they do so faster than a bike with brakes front and rear. Locking up the rear wheel just results in a skid; you need at the very least a front brake (which does 60% of the stopping anyway).
December 20th, 2007 13:50
Carl (#64):
I think you are wrong in your assertion that putting a brake on the front wheel is "illegal." You should take a closer look at the law ORS 815.280 (3) states "Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of additional parts and accessories on any bicycle not inconsistent with this section."
And, by the way, I think I can make the front wheel skid for an instant, though we know that's not the optimum way to stop. Of course, locking up the rear wheel(s) on any vehicle is not the optimum way to control a vehicle either.
December 20th, 2007 14:07
pursuit-a-beast, you can make that point all you want around here, but you'll still get folks claiming they can stop faster on a fixie. physics anyone?
December 20th, 2007 14:37
My skateboard doesn't have any brakes... I know how to stop it very quickly but not as quick as I can on a fixed gear bike (I do have a functional front brake on my bike but it doesn't get used much).
I think the cops and others are under some illusion that there is no such thing as stopping distance with a 'legal braking mechanism.' Its surprising how quickly you can slow down and stop, with some controlled skips and skids.
If you ride within your abilities, and don't put other road users at risk, you should be free from harassment from the police. End of story.
December 20th, 2007 14:37
John, @ #70, you are mistaken. The law requires that "[a] bicycle must be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement." ORS 815.280(2)(a).
The language in 815.280(3) is intended to clarify that it's OK to exceed the requirements. E.g., you are only required to have a "white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front of the bicycle" but you can have two, or one visible from 1000 feet. Or, like my MiNewt.X2 Dual, visible from low Earth orbit.
Having only a front brake is inconsistent with 815.280 because it cannot make the bike skid and that's the legal requirement.
December 20th, 2007 14:43
Vance, you've just managed to out-pose Stefa (whoever that is) while confusing the lot of us....Great dude... Keep on posing and "pulling tags", wtf that means...
December 20th, 2007 14:46
Hey jonathan. I was talking to a friend the other day and he was telling me he just got a ticket for not having a brake even though he came to a skidding stop at a light and the cop continued to follow him for at least a mile or more until he decided to stop and ticket him, the whole time the cop could clearly see he was in control of his bike. i might be mistaken but I believe he said that this was his second "no brake" ticket in a month.
and I've had another friend about a month ago get a ticket also for being "brakeless"
to the person who posted above me. being on a fixie makes you more in control of your bike and forces you to be more aware of what's going on and looking 5 steps ahead, and someone who isn't used to riding fix sure in the hell isn't going to go downtown and ride in traffic, it's just what the reasonably average person isn't going to do. it's like throwing a kid on a race horse for the first time when they've never rode one.
December 20th, 2007 14:47
a.O.
Just goes to show the legislators are talking out their asses... They need to talk to some experts on the subject. Skidding is not a safe or reasonable way to control a vehicle under any circumstances, when considered in the context of the general public. It's preferable to have an effective (means meets a performance standard) braking mechanism that simultaneously allows braking and control... Skids are largely out-of-control, no matter how much someone fishtails like a jackass....
December 20th, 2007 14:47
I meant to comment 68 not above.
December 20th, 2007 14:50
The standard should not be performance based per individual. It should be based on engineering performance metrics vetted by industry and experts...
The legislature fucked up big time on this one...
December 20th, 2007 15:02
"(a) A bicycle must be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement."
Here's how I read it: if it's one of the "braked wheels," you must be able to make it skid.
Okay. So some might say that a front brake is still "legal" to have on your bike. Regardless, front brakes don't meet the legal requirement of a brake because 99% of the time, they can't make a bike skid.
My point here is that there's all this blather about changing the law when the police clearly don't even understand (or care about) the current law. If they did, they'd know that a front brake doesn't make your bike any more legal.
December 20th, 2007 15:35
Yes, it's a poorly drafted law. You should see the rest of the Oregon Revised Statutes, as well as the regulations of various State agencies. What else would you expect when the vast majority of your Legislators don't have a legal education? I'm not saying I'd draft flawless laws all the time, but I could do better than what we've got now.
December 20th, 2007 15:43
If the rider is adequately controlling his or her bike, why is there a need to ticket? Plenty of riders operate unsafe bikes every day-- think wal-mart quality bikes with steel rims and plastic brake levers. Yet a cop is never gonna pull one of those riders over for having crappy components. Nor will they ever receive a ticket for using only the back brake. Or riding a too-low saddle. Or a backwards-installed fork.
That said, brakeless riding is by and large just macho posturing. I wish people would stop rationalizing it and admit that it's a largely imaginary war for street cred. You do it to look tough. Dangerous. Brakeless fixies are to urban cycling as Hummers are to off-roading.
I want no part of that scene. What nonsense.
December 20th, 2007 16:21
Carl & a.O:
The law says the bike must be "equipped" with a brake that can cause a skid of the braked wheels. It doesn't say that you must "accomplish" your braking by actually skidding the wheels.
My reference to ORS 815.280 section 3 is to refute the arguement that "having a front brake is illegal" as claimed by some. If you have a brake (caliper, legs, or whatever) with which you can demonstrate the ability to cause a skid, I argue that the "extra" brake on the front is legal, whether or not you can cause a skid.
So, has anyone actually been cited by the PPB (or any other enforcement authority) for being unable to demonstrate a skid with a mechanical (caliper or coaster) brake?
December 20th, 2007 16:43
I guess I have no sympathy for those that whine about getting tickets on their brakeless fixies for exactly the reasons stated by max in #79.
Those that ride and vehemently defend riding brakeless do so out of sheer hubris. It is exactly that -- macho posturing. It is about image and fashion, pure and simple.
I ride a fixed gear, with a brake I use rarely if ever, but I'm not so full of my abilities to think that situations don't occur where a brake might save my life. I consider it an emergency brake, and I've been damn glad I have it a couple times. I fully support (and prove daily) the notion that one can ride safely without a brake. But I'll also never get my head around the idea that I'm somehow less cool, fashionable, or badass for having one.
Whatever. Maybe you aren't targeted for not having a brake. Maybe you're targetted for being superficial fools. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to ride without it, just that it's likely not the wisest choice to not have a backup.
No doubt, this will invite loads of "I've been doing it for years" retorts from some, as thought thats some kind of proof that it's as effective as a brake. All it proves to me is that you've been lucky, and that you still don't value your life enough to make a wiser decision.
Again, I'm not defending arbitrary enforcement by police, but I certainly can't defend the notion that brakeless is somehow as safe as having a backup plan.
December 20th, 2007 18:06
John, as I explained, your reference to ORS 815.280 as supporting the idea that a front brake is legal is incorrect. It's not illegal to put any brake on your bike, and that's the point of subsection (3).
But if you have only a front brake, you are not compliant with the law. The law requires that "[a] bicycle must be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to make the braked *wheels* skid on dry, level, clean pavement." You have to make the "wheels" - plural - skid. You can't do that with only one brake on the front or with only one brake on the back. You also can't do that on a "brakeless" fixie.
You can only do that with a device, or devices, that make the wheels skid.
December 20th, 2007 18:18
pdxrunner
I had my velocity rims laced in March ofthisyear. Thats9 months on a pair of rims,not 8 years. In your line of work mabey you can get 7-8 years out of a set of rims. I dont know, or care. Mine I cannot. not even close. so once again. It is not bullshit.
December 20th, 2007 19:00
Experience this, skill that, Blah!
Who among you, that are actually riding regularly, has not seen the stereotypical hipster douche or douchette, careening out of control on a brakeless fixie?
Frame too big, seat way too high, riding on platforms and completely out of control. What do we do about these people? They seem to be multiplying with the water..
To be clear, I own and can safely operate a brakeless bike.
Imagine you are a dumb as a rock traffic cop. For a lot of you this should be easy.
You are standing downtown and see Mr and Ms hipster on their ill fitting brakeless bikes, spinning out of control through a stop. How do you think your hall monitor brain would interpret such a scene? How would it affect your future behaviour towards fixies? Especially if you have the pleasure of occaisionally cordoning of an intersection full of biker brains and blood?
All I am saying, is this 'I have the experience to operate a brakeless bike safely' argument, simply steps us right up to the bicycle licensing argument.
Your subjective interpretation of "skill" and "safe" is meaningless in a public, shared use environment. In other words, for you narcissitic folks, it ain't all about you!
There are track versions of many cars and they sure as hell are not allowed on public roads. Why are you so special?
One last thing to the moronic argument that you save wear and tear on your rims by not having a brake. If you do not need the brake to stop, why would you use it? In other words, mounting a brake that you do not need or use, should not wear out your rim, or the brake pads right? Though it might save your life if you happen to need it. It certainly would help out the scenesters which appear to be flocking here in droves.
December 20th, 2007 19:57
I think TIS girl was lisa. She lives in Bend now. she dated the lead songer of the Moxie love crux. They wrote the song, TIS girl.
December 20th, 2007 22:20
i have to keep reminding myself that the people who post here are but a small contingent of portland's cycling culture.
December 20th, 2007 22:53
I'd put a front brake on but I don't want to scuff the paint off of my sweet new Velocity deep v rims. Does anyone make a fixed gear frame with disc brakes?
December 20th, 2007 22:59
I love TIS girl...didn't she ride a fixie?
anyway, she had a front brake so she never got a ticket, but her front brake was a disc brake so her rim never wore out. She was nice to cops, she would give them new pens and pepper spray as gifts...they liked her. I think she moved to bike utopia...some dutch country. anybody heard from her?
December 20th, 2007 23:11
The hipsters aren't getting the lion's share of the tickets, the experienced bike messengers are.
wsbob, not everyone can operate a manual transmission, should my old Toyota be made illegal?
I like how the 18 year veteran track rider is trying to pretend that the only way to stop a fixed gear bike without a handbrake is by skidding.
Race cars are not allowed on the street because they don't have headlights, taillights, and turn signals. It has nothing to do with their safety, especially when they are safer with better brakes, 6 point seatbelt harnesses, rollcages, and onboard fire extinguisher systems.
Adding a front brake to a track bike does not satisfy the law. You can't skid the front wheel.
In places that require a bicycles to have brakes on both wheels like the UK and Germany, a fixed gear hub is considered an adequate brake. So how come when we hop the ocean it is no longer a brake?
December 20th, 2007 23:40
Hey, if you are bothered about those of us who ride fixed wheels, but you, having done so before, know all about it, etc., can then please put your bike on craigslist and I will actually use it.
December 21st, 2007 01:13
"wsbob, not everyone can operate a manual transmission, should my old Toyota be made illegal?" skidmark
I don't know your old heap. Maybe it should be made illegal, but not because it has a manual transmission. It's clearly established that cars so equipped can be safely operated by a wide range of different people because the techniques involved in doing so aren't particularly demanding. Perhaps not everyone can drive a stick shift, but it seems like almost everyone can with a little practice. Can that also be said about non-conventionally braked fixed gear bikes?
Race cars? Oh, they're plenty safe alright...for the driver. On city streets, it's doubtful they'd be very safe for everyone having to share streets with them.
If it's true that bike messengers are getting slammed with the majority of the non-standard equipment citations, that might be a tip-off that the real problem here might be a personality issue between certain bike messengers and certain cops. That's what I'd look in to.
Are there certain messengers that use their job as an opportunity to be self-righteously snotty to cops and everyone else they decide to be impatient with?
As for certain cops singling out people, playing games with them, or otherwise being general pains in the ass, anybody spending much time on the street, that doesn't understand that reality of life and is not interested in learning how to avoid encounters with said people might as well go home and spend the rest of their lives watching scooby-doo and brady bunch re-runs. It'll be safer there for you.
December 21st, 2007 08:52
Don't the Portland police have better things to do? Are there no more homicides, rapes, robberies, or DUI's in the city anymore?
December 21st, 2007 09:01
wsbob #93 "Can that also be said about non-conventionally braked fixed gear bikes?"
Absolutely yes. After a few days of fixed gear riding most people will be braking at a level at that easily meets the performance standard laid out in the new law. (Personally, I think the old law is a tougher standard for fixed gear.) THis is very similar to the learning curve of manual transmission.
If this was not the case, PPB would be scrapping up hipsters off the pavement every day. This is not happening. Yes many do look awkard trying stop there machines, but they manage to stop.
None, IMO, will ever meet the perfoamnce of front and rear brakes. (The highest performance system available might be a disc front and a fixed gear.) Neither law specifies a high performance braking system, just a minimium one.
In general I support the police's right to roust mal contents. However, this has crossed a line. Just because someone looks like an idiot, does not make them a danger.
December 21st, 2007 09:46
Well Coyote, if the bikes are that easy to learn to handle, fine. I say, prove it. Maybe there's a way to do that that will turn doubters into believers. I think most people having to make their way through crowded streets just want to know they're not going have to take some sudden evasive maneuver because of a person out of control on a bike because it is non-conventionally brake equipped.
December 21st, 2007 10:00
wsbob, it is being proven everday. Where are all the crashes because of brakeless fixies?
That being said, I do not think they are easy to master. However, I think they are easy to master well enough to meet the standard set out in the law. Whether that standard is safe is not PPB's question to answer.
December 21st, 2007 10:35
"Perhaps not everyone can drive a stick shift, but it seems like almost everyone can with a little practice. Can that also be said about non-conventionally braked fixed gear bikes?" wsbob
Yes, it can. There is a little technique to learn, but it is fairly simple, and it is not limited to skidding.
Probably the 4th time I have posted this link. Here it is, Fixed Gear 101 : Slowing and Stopping http://www.63xc.com/gregg/101_10.htm
December 21st, 2007 12:06
In re: "Where are all the crashes because of brakeless fixies" -Cøyøte #96
- from the KATU article. So basically, they don't know whether there the perceived safety concern is even valid or not. I am curious about this. I'm sure people crash on fixies (two people gave examples in the comments here), but I'm sure people also crash with hand brakes (I've done my fair share of crashing - once almost injuring another cyclist). How frequently does one occur vs. the other? It seems to me, when it comes to fining and potentially imprisoning citizens, we should err on the side of fewer baseless laws. Prove that fixies are less safe than other kinds of bikes, otherwise leave 'em alone.
Mark Ginsberg is right on when he says "It doesn't mean that people should be given tickets for things that might happen." (in the KATU article)
If there is only a perceived safety issue, rather than an actual safety issue, the law should have passed with the fixie exception intact. How disappointing that it did not.
December 21st, 2007 13:02
None of the recent fatalities have been the result of so-called "brakeless fixies".
December 21st, 2007 13:04
Maybe there haven't been any crashes due to un-conventionally braked fixies. I really don't know.
What I know about the subject is mostly what I've read on this weblog. I don't recall any such crashes having been described by anyone, but do recall numerous people describing uneasiness they've experienced because of the apparent inability of fixie bike riders to control their bikes because they're unconventionally braked.
I remember some of those comments as expressing quite a bit of alarm and genuine concern over their experience in observing out of control fixies in traffic. I don't know how to bring up related comments made over the last year, or I would, as a means of providing a little informal survey.
It's the people that make and enforce laws that have to be provided with convincing proof that something such as a non-conventionally braked fixed gear bike, under specified conditions, can meet the criteria necessary for a safe vehicle on public streets.
The outcome of this issue doesn't really affect me personally one way or the other, since I neither ride fixie or have to drive enough to have to watch out for those that do. It's interesting to think about, but beyond that, my main interest is that everybody on the road have a safe and enjoyable experience.
December 21st, 2007 14:32
but don't you think that with as much attention the "brakeless fixies" are getting that if one of these fatalities or crashes that happened they would have "brakeless" all over it as a way to be like I told you so and give them more reason to ticket.
December 21st, 2007 15:52
Think about it wsbob, are you going to notice when a fixed gear rider without a handbrake is in control of their bike? They are not going to stand out because they will be blending in.
Yesterday I saw an older gentleman with a mountain bike and BOTH brakes were disconnected, truly a case on NO BRAKES. I wonder if he has ever been pulled over for it while just riding down the street?
There are quite a few BMXers downtown who don't have brakes on their bikes, and BMX bikes have freewheels. Do they get tickets?
Neither of these two examples has any means to stop, but that's OK right. They are not riding one of those "fixie" death traps.
BTW a conventionally braked fixed gear does not have a handbrake. They were around before caliper brakes.
A fixed gear hub is as much a drive as it is a brake. When you pedal forward it goes forward. When you slow your pedaling the bike slows. When you stop pedaling the bike stops.
brake : a device for arresting or preventing the motion of a mechanism.
Hmm, seems like a fixed hub meets this description as you can bring the bike to a halt with it.
The UK thinks it is a brake and so does Germany, they just require both wheels to have brakes.
You will notice that nobody is complaining about getting this ticket in conjuction with getting a ticket for running a stop sign or a red light. Not stopping is pretty damning evidence that you can't stop, and nobody is going to try and fight that. It is the fact that you demonstate the ability to stop when you are asked to do so (Pull over.") and then, like a $94 insult, you are handed a ticket for "no brakes". If you have "no brakes" how the hell did you stop?
December 21st, 2007 19:34
I know of several tickets given to bmx riders without brakes. You seem to have quite the persecution complex.
Put some brakes on your bike like a big boy!
December 21st, 2007 19:46
I've never gotten the ticket, steve. In my neck of the woods the cops don't give a sh!t.
Almost every bike messenger I have ever met has gotten one. It is not a "persecution complex" if it doesn't effect you directly, and if it is based in reality.
I don't know how doing as you are told for no other reason than "because I said so" makes you a big boy.
December 21st, 2007 22:21
once again, dead horse.
some of you guys need to grow some balls. if you see some hip-dude riding uncontrollably and fighting against their bike, CALL THEM OUT ON IT. do something to create change or atleast suggest it. people have no business on the road if they're riding brakeless and haven't mastered the basics of riding a track bike on the street.
on the flip side, for those of us who actually know how to ride a track bike on the street / stop seated on split second reflex, how about a damned "skid test" by the cops to determine whether we can ride safely or not? just like the person somewhere above suggested mirroring that of a DUI test, ticket the kids that can't stop and leave those of us who can alone.
as far as messengers getting the bulk of the tickets, this is to be expected when you work downtown where barnum/balzer patrol. i haven't heard yet of anyone getting ticketed in a great deal of neighborhoods on the east side.
December 21st, 2007 22:25
"Think about it wsbob, are you going to notice when a fixed gear rider without a handbrake is in control of their bike?" skidmark
The people I remember commenting on this weblog noticed fixed gear riders not in control of their bikes. That's the issue. A persuasive argument that non-conventionally braked fixed gear bikes can be safely stopped has to be made to the people that make and enforce the law (I know I'm repeating myself).
Skidmark, you must have read the other thread, "Burdick axes fixed gear language from brake bill", currently on the front page. A lot of intelligent, experienced people have already spent a lot of time working out how to deal with this situation. Arriving at a workable answer is not that simple. If you really feel strongly about this subject, why not try talk directly to some of the people mentioned on the other thread that have tried to get legislation through that would make allowances for non-conventionally braked fixed gear bikes?
State Senator Ginny Burdick seems to be a key player in this effort and obviously, she seems to have some doubts about the implications of allowing the use of non-conventionally braked fixed gear bikes on public streets, or she wouldn't have removed the related language from Senate Bill 729.
December 21st, 2007 23:02
Actually it wasnt Senator Ginny Burdick's doubts but her daughters opinion which made her about face. Fact is fact, she asked her daughter, her daughter stated her opinion and that was a major influcencing factor in the decision. Fixed gear bikes are more safe than a steel wheelset in wet weather.
December 21st, 2007 23:34
I thought Ayla's video wasa pretty convincing argument.
These people won't listen to a lawyer, they won't listen to the professional bike messengers that are getting the damn tickets. They don't want to listen. It is typical knee-jerk behavior. it's like someone wants a book or a song or a film banned; they haven't read it or heard it or saw it, but they know it's bad. They haven't ridden a fixed gear bike (w/o a handbrake) and don't know how to ride a fixed gear bike (w/o a handbrake), and they don't know how one stops, so nobody else should because nobody else knows how, and nobody can stop one.
It's willful ignorance.
December 22nd, 2007 01:57