BTA lobbyist Scott Bricker reports that Senate Bill 729, which seeks to amend the brake requirement for bicycles, passed through the Senate in Salem today by a landslide margin of 22-6.
spotted downtown last week.
File photo: 3/30/07
The bill, which passed through committee just one week ago, would create a performance standard for bicycle brakes (a bicyclist would have to be able to stop a bicycle in 15 feet when riding 10 mph) and would specifically exempt fixed geared bicycles from needing a separate brake to do this.
Now the bill must be passed in the House. According to Bricker, the big question is whether the bill will be heard in the Transportation or the Judiciary Committee. Bricker likes its chances in the Transportation Committee, but he says it stands a good chance in both.
If the bill passes committee in the House, it will very likely pass a floor vote and end up becoming law. Stay tuned.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I cannot believe this is what our Senate is debating. I guess I missed the memo that the meth problem has been solved, homelessness has been eradicated and that everyone has enough to eat.
At least I can ride my fixed gear to Stumptown without brakes or a helmet.
I guess if I thought the only thing they were debating was brakeless fixies, I’d be upset too.
On the plus side, Clark, this is, unlike the meth problem, something that is actually easily fixed by one simple change in legislature, and potentially results in less police and judicial system time wasted because of B.S. interpretation of a vague law regarding bicycles. Won’t result in anyone pissing rainbows or shitting sunshine, sure, but it does mean traffic violations with real-live repercussions might actually be caught in the time not spent writing somebody a ticket over the debatable lack of a proper braking mechanism.
hey clark, this is a bicycling website, why don’t you go to the Portland Tribune website and lurk there?
And also on the subject of actual crime, if this passes there will be one less reason for cops to screw with bike and more free time to deal with tweakers. eh?
right on wyatt!
Blame it on Barnum and Balzer and their corroborating Judge tying up the courts with those “no brakes” tickets. I wonder if refunds will be issued.
Maybe they can stop chasing messengers and go arrest some tweekers. They like to get around downtown on BMX bikes with freewheels and NO BRAKES.
Maybe Barnum and Balzer could ticket cars without front plates. No, seriously, I think that this is a problem. How many times have you encountered a car, and only been able to see its front? Such as, when the car is trying to come in from a side street or driveway, and cut you off. If there’s no front plate, the likelihood of identifying the car is much less. If the car driver knows he is less likely to be identified, he’s more likely to try something stupid. If he’s more likely to be identified, maybe he’s less likely to try something stupid.
A nice side effect for Barnum and Balzer is that they can cruise around town looking for empty parked cars with no front plates. The possibility of a confrontation with an angry, or possibly armed, car driver is greatly reduced. If Barnum and Balzer can be kept busy with tasks like this, then maybe they won’t bother bicyclists.
N.I.K.: I actually promise to both piss rainbows AND shit sunshine if this bill gets passed.
I can’t believe we ‘need’ a law for this. Simple solution = decriminalize whatever was previously “illegal.” Problem solved. Instead, more laws! Yay for bureaucracy!
Well, at least now we will see an end to this lame, cheapskate practice of riding with a brake, and a lever… and no cable.
pdxcommuter, they do ticket for no front license plate. I’ve gotten TWO of them when I was younger and a little dumber.
I hope the brakeless fixies are riding small gears. I’d never ride mine without a front brake. Seems pretty stupid to me. Why not have it there in case you need it? Nobody says you’d have to use it all the time.
I agree with erikv, it does seem pretty irresponsible to not have a brake, how badly are you going to traumatize someone who simply makes a mistake and takes your life (we are all human)? Should other cyclists and motorists be responsible for yours and their actions (your human too thus equally prone to mistakes)?
Just read that the meth addiction rate is up since the last fix, better stuff being produced “off shore” is more addictive.
As for the fixies, right on, an actual spec saying how fast a bike should stop (15 feet at 10 mph), now that is science. Glad the fixies are winning and using science to do it.
What a strange bill. This seems to give style precedence over safety.
Damn Clark, you want the homeless to be eradicated???
Can all the people commenting on meth please go watch the Frontline documentary on the subject, made in association with the Oregonian and featuring Multnomah Co. law enforcement too.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/view/
erikv, please go back and read the other 8 million posts about this to find out why no front brake, besides the odvious ones like some track bikes don’t have brake holes and the fact that technically it still does not satisfy the wording of the law, even moreso than having just a fixed hub. You see with a fixed hub you CAN “skid on dry, level, pavement”.
Wouldn’ a single rear brake be a better choice for fixies? I’m no expert, but it seems that a quick stop might result in a fixer flying over the handlebars with only a front brake. And for a side note. I once saw a meth-head on a fixie flying down the Burnside hill by the Sandy intersection, with his feet in the straps. How hilarious. Except when I thought about the person who just had it ripped off. I did report it…but don’t know the ending.
A rear brake serves little purpose on a fixed-gear bicycle as slowing/stopping the rotation of the cranks ultimately results in the back wheel slowing/stopping proportionately. On bikes with freewheel drivetrains, rear rim brakes are generally only useful when applying the front brake hard and fast in an emergency situation or when the front wheel rim is dirty/wet and a rim brake can’t grip it enough to decrease forward momentum rapidly.
pdxcommuter-
most states only issue a rear plate. Oregon is one of the few that issue two, for the front and back.
A “fixie” already has a rear brake. It is the hub. See, when you slow down your pedaling the wheel slows down and so does the bike, and when you stop pedaling the bike stops. It is so simple that it ends up being very hard to understand, which is why this whole stupid fiasco has developed.
I am glad to see a law with wording “all” people can understand, too many laws are incorrectly “intrperated”.
i’m sick of people that have no idea what this is all about commenting on this issue. if you really feel you have something positive to say, then say it…but dont complain about things you know nothing about.
sincerely.
Tom
It’s not a new law.
it’s just the rewording of the law.
It’s a clarification.
and trolls, go back to the previous thread that goes through all this shit.
You’re just stating the same stuff that has been said a million times before and no one cares.
So, who linked to this story and sent over all the non-bike people? It’s clear to me that a lot of commenters on this thread have not been following this issue and don’t really understand what’s going on.
“It’s clear to me that a lot of commenters on this thread have not been following this issue and don’t really understand what’s going on.”
It is an ongoing challenge to provide extensive coverage of ongoing issues without having to re-hash all the background information each time.
March was a record month for new visitors and we can’t expect them to be up to speed.
For this reason, I’ve made more categories and special pages for certain topics.
Check out the Special Coverage page of the fixie issue.
I read the proposed legislation and wonder: will cyclists on fixies be required to put a foot down at an intersection, or will track stands be permitted?
(It seems that putting one’s foot dwn makes more sense, since drivers cannot tell from a distance whether the cyclist executing at rack stand is actually moving forward or not.)
Search the site for “trackstand” for an answer to that. Oh wait, some guy just a ticket for it.
Does anyone know when the bill is going to the House? Just today, I was issued a ticket for riding my fixed gear without a front brake.
You can add Officer Sorensen to the list of Motorcycle cops harrassing bicyclists.