noglider 

@genec, a common person knows what a brake is. Only people who argue about it don't.

VTBike

Genec, have you been reading this thread? A brake has at least one component that transfers or absorbs the energy of momentum.

howsteepisit

Enough of this...Bailiff whack his pee-pee

genec

The intent of the law is that a bike should be able to be stopped by the operator... Can an operator stop said fixie? The law also specifies how the stop should be demonstrated... can the operator make such a demonstration?

If the above can be met, the intent is served.

noglider 

No, I think the intent is that you be on a bike that any unskilled fool can stop easily and quickly. There is no provision for someone with amazingly exceptional skills and strength.

VTBike

Bingo. The law is written for the masses - like it or not.

Paul Barnard

Absent a definition that conflicts what the dictionary says, then a fixie does indeed have a brake.

[h=4]n[/h]

• a device for slowing or stopping a moving vehicle, typically by applying pressure to the wheels:

Coal Buster

By that definition, my car doesn't need brakes, downshifting my car's transmission alone meets your standard. In practice, old, mechanical style car brakes work well enough to satisfy any equipment law. The reason disc brakes are so popular is because consumers want better stopping power and are willing to pay extra for it. Only on A&S do people argue for less stopping power.

Paul Barnard

Now measure your comments against NY's performance standard for brakes. I didn't argue for less stopping power. I didn't offer a value judgment. I provided a dictionary definition of brake and evaluated that relative to how fixies are stopped. I'd think an enlightened state like NY could easily improve their definition of brake.

unterhausen

you can't actually stop a car by downshifting, but you can stop a fixed gear using the pedals. I happen to value my life more than that, but it is possible.

noglider 

There are lots of brakeless fixie riders. They are not just the A&S crowd.

I-Like-To-Bike

Enlightened or not, what state or government agency could possibly give enough of a fig about satisfying clueless and/or pedantic fixie riders to go about redefining the definition of brakes in order to specify the obvious?

OK, maybe in Portland there exists (or there is a need for) such alleged "enlightenment", but probably nowhere else.

genec

Bingo. When I drive I drive a stick... no matter how much I downshift, I can never get to "stop."

Coal Buster

I was referring to Paul Barnard's dictionary citation which I quoted:

RaleighSport

That reminds me, Tom you probably already mentioned in this thread but I don't really feel like wading just this moment. How many brakes were you using for street riding on your fixed gear? And slightly OT, did you ever get a new one?

JoeyBike

Right when you think the car won't stop in 1st, put it in 4th without touching the accelerator. You will stop.

genec

Right you are... had not thought of that one. 'Course by the same token, I could just turn off the key while in first... that would stop it too.

VTBike

Go for it. Let me know how it works out. I thank you in advance for your voluntary tax payment.

noglider 

You can stop a car by shutting off the engine while it's in gear. It's analogous to riding fixed.

@RaleighSport, I have a front brake on my fixie.

Vintage_Cyclist

Since this thread is still going, I'll chime in again.

Re: letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. Cops have discretion to warn and admonish violations and minor crimes and the issue of the the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law is a training topic when they go through the Police Academy. Believe it or not a very large percentage of violations do not result in a summons; if they did, cops would be doing nothing but writing summonses all day long. The letter of the law especially comes into play where there are safety and criminal conditions that have been deemed to have gotten out of hand. In such cases police patrols may be specifically dedicated to the area of the condition with a mandate to write everything up.

One ironic thing about a bicycle equipment violation is that for a motor vehicle equipment violation there is actually a DMV procedure for the vehicle owner to get the equipment violation fixed within one business day and provide the court with proof from a registered inspection station that it is fixed. This results in dismissal of the summons. Most people are unaware of this option. I doubt there is any such procedure for a bicycle equipment violation.

Saving Hawaii

If you really want to be banal, there's no need to be skilled at locking the pedals on a fixie to do a skid stop. Shoe braking on the rear tire works too (though the reaction time is terrible). Let that foot wedge between the tire and the frame and you'll be skidding all the way to a complete stop. I wouldn't try that one in court though unless you think it'd benefit your case that the judge thought you were an utter fool.

noglider 

@Vintage_Cyclist, that's a fair point, but isn't it true that whether to issue a summons or not is at the discretion of the officer? Given that, it's not up to us to say that the officer is wrong for citing a law that is on the books. Right?

JoeyBike

Dude is just doing his job.

Vintage_Cyclist

Yes, they normally have discretion regarding summonses. However, in some cases they may assigned to a specific condition, ex. a red light controlled intersection with lots of accidents from red light runners, where total enforcement may be directed for them by police management. I would be almost certain that the bicycle equipment summons that started this thread was issued because of safety hazards cyclists were causing for pedestrians at that location. That causes a driftnet to get thrown into the ocean of potential offenders and everyone it catches gets one!

As far as saying an officer is right or wrong for citing a law on the books, that depends. They may be legally correct, but from the standpoint of the common good, enforcing some of the archaic and ridiculous laws on the books may fall into the area commonly known as "that's bullsh-t!" by most people. For instance, 18 year olds drinking and being rowdy in a playground would be a good summons for drinking in public vs. a 45 year old who is drinking a beer after work while sitting on the porch of his own residence talking to his kids would fall into the BS category, in my opinion (but it does get written and causes community aggravation). If necessary, the public should rightfully advocate for changing or abolishing laws that don't legitimately work anymore or push for less than total enforcement of certain offenses.

noglider 

I'm totally with you, @Vintage_Cyclist. As long as the penalty for brake-less cycling is in proportion to the offense, I have no problem with enforcement of the law. In other words, it's not, in my view, a BS law.