Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - Brakeless is legal in Seattle

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/261830_get06.html

Silly messenger apparently didn't know how to stop his bike, but the traffic mananagement director said this:


Track bikes are fixed-gear bikes where braking is activated by resisting the rotation of the cranks with the rider's legs instead of using the hands to squeeze a lever that compresses braking pads onto a wheel's rim. Casseday said track bikes are able to skid on dry, level pavement and are legal.

Does this mean we have to stop the brakeless/brakes legality debate? We can still talk about which is really safer, right?

:p

Stare decisis...

thats a pretty stupid interpretation of the law if you ask me. shes turning "bikes must be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level pavement" into "bikes must be able to skid on dry, level pavement.

thats a pretty stupid interpretation of the law if you ask me. shes turning "bikes must be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level pavement" into "bikes must be able to skid on dry, level pavement."


What's the definition of a brake? How is this different than a coaster brake?

Arizona Law (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00817.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS) is:

"C. A bicycle shall be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement."

My desire to be legal is not if I get stopped by the police, but if I am in an accident and the lawyer of the other party tried to use my lack of rear hand brake as a way to put blame where it shouldn't be on me.

I have a front hand brake which I can't skid on pavement, but no rear hand brake. Obviously I can skid my rear wheel with my leg brake. Am I at risk of nasty lawyering by not having a rear hand brake?

I know some fixie folks don't consider rear leg braking a brake, while others do. It would be better if law said 'braking system' instead of just 'brake'

Al

Arizona Law (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00817.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS) is:

"C. A bicycle shall be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement."

My desire to be legal is not if I get stopped by the police, but if I am in an accident and the lawyer of the other party tried to use my lack of rear hand brake as a way to put blame where it shouldn't be on me.

I have a front hand brake which I can't skid on pavement, but no rear hand brake. Obviously I can skid my rear wheel with my leg brake. Am I at risk of nasty lawyering by not having a rear hand brake?

I know some fixie folks don't consider rear leg braking a brake, while others do. It would be better if law said 'braking system' instead of just 'brake'

Al

as to the debate of wether a fixed wheel constitutes a brake, well you can debate that all you want, but since brake in the above quoted law is singular, and you have "a brake" I don't think there is any need for further interpretation. with a front brake OR a rear brake you're golden.

Great. I guess I can take off that pesky brake now.

as to the debate of wether a fixed wheel constitutes a brake, well you can debate that all you want, but since brake in the above quoted law is singular, and you have "a brake" I don't think there is any need for further interpretation. with a front brake OR a rear brake you're golden.
Can you make your front wheel skid on dry clean level pavement with no tricks like riding backwards?

Al

Can you make your front wheel skid on dry clean level pavement with no tricks like riding backwards?

Al

easy peasy. grab the bars and hop a little wheelie grab the brake, then just be sure and keep your weight back when it comes down unless you LIKE the taste of pavement.

Not that the ability to skid SHOULD be the test of an effective brake. Stopping distance from a given speed tells you a lot more. Skidding increases stopping distance. I hope the law for cars isn't worded similarly, or ever car with ABS will fail. ;)

Anyway, like I said, as long as you've got a brake on one of your wheels I wouldn't sweat it. Nobody gonna cite you for running only one brake. Coaster brake bikes have a way worse stopping distance than most road calipers.

easy peasy. grab the bars and hop a little wheelie grab the brake, then just be sure and keep your weight back when it comes down unless you LIKE the taste of pavement.

Not that the ability to skid SHOULD be the test of an effective brake. Stopping distance from a given speed tells you a lot more. Skidding increases stopping distance. I hope the law for cars isn't worded similarly, or ever car with ABS will fail. ;)

Anyway, like I said, as long as you've got a brake on one of your wheels I wouldn't sweat it. Nobody gonna cite you for running only one brake. Coaster brake bikes have a way worse stopping distance than most road calipers.
That front wheel skidding by unweighting front really falls into the tricks category. I don't even know if I can do it on my fixed gear - certainly without some practice.
You are so right the law is silly.
I don't sweat it, I am not at all worried about being cited. But what if a car driver turns left in front of me we collide and heavy damage results and driver has high paid lawyer who uses this lack of rear hand brake to get driver out of fault? If I was still able to ride could they try and have me prove I compy to brake law thru demonstration of front brake skid post accident?

Really I don't sweat the later either, just thinking out loud.

Al

http://www.moviequotequiz.com/reviews/SleeplessInSeattleBig.gif

Can you make your front wheel skid on dry clean level pavement with no tricks like riding backwards?

Al

it's not while on the bike...the operator would be to the side of the bike, demonstrating that with the front brake applied the front wheel would skid on dry pavement, due to certain laws of enertia (basically that envolving momentum) the front brake will not skid on dry pavement if the rider is moving...

with that said depending on how good the brakes stopping power is the rider could potentially lock up the front wheel causing the rear to lift and possibly throw the rider over the handlebars

edit: legally speaking (the above part) is how to demonstrate a front brake's skidding ability

it's not while on the bike...the operator would be to the side of the bike,
Really? I assume the operator of a vehicle is in the drivers seat and/or position. I think that is how the law would be interpreted.

Al

that line "must be able to skid one wheel on dry leel pavement" or whatever is very standard, lots of cities&state hwy etc use that dont they

But what if a car driver turns left in front of me we collide and heavy damage results and driver has high paid lawyer who uses this lack of rear hand brake to get driver out of fault?

In that case have your lawyer look up the stopping distance of a fixed gear bicycle with a front brake from 15mph, and compare that to the stopping distance of an SUV with ABS from 15mph.

Not that it should matter though, because your breaking a law does not excuse the driver from being at fault. Turning in front of you when you have the right of way is clearly the drivers fault. OTOH, if they stop suddenly, and you hit them in the ass, you are considered at fault no matter how good your brakes are "Failure to stop in the assured clear distance ahead" is always the rear drivers fault regardless of how or why the front driver stopped.

Not that I'm sweating it either, I'm just in an argumentative mood, and arguing with fictitious lawyers about hypothetical cases is much more productive than arguing with that intelligence challenged person over in the "This bike is a pipebomb thread" ;)

Not that I'm sweating it either, I'm just in an argumentative mood,,...
I'm actually pushing this for a reason, not because I want to argue. I was asked by a co-worker who is getting a fixed gear if having a rear hand brake (in addition to a front hand brake which he will have) was required to be fully in compliance with law here in AZ. I couldn't answer definitive yes or no and just quoted the law to them and told them they should be able to skid the rear wheel with minimal practice. I also told them having a rear hand brake would be useless in practice if not also problematic. So when the opportunity came up to discuss in this thread, I took it.

Al

I live/work in downtown Seattle.... always ride brakeless..
Even if it were not legal, none of the local messengers would put on a brake anyway.

I always thought this definition of skid in these things was that you needed to be able to apply the brake and then not on it drag it across the ground and it'll keep the tire locked. Not "you need to be able to skid your front wheel while riding."

http://www.moviequotequiz.com/reviews/SleeplessInSeattleBig.gif

are you suggesting a love story about two bike geeks called "brakeless in seattle" should be made? if so....

...seconded!

the houseboat from that film is still on lake union and is valued at five million plus. friggin weird.

I always thought this definition of skid in these things was that you needed to be able to apply the brake and then not on it drag it across the ground and it'll keep the tire locked. Not "you need to be able to skid your front wheel while riding."
Pretty sure not:
-operators of vehicles including bicycles don't stand on the ground next to them
-bikes with coaster brakes and fixed gears with no other brakes could not pass the test

Al

Hand brakeless bikes are street legal in Illinois:


Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will adequately control movement of and stop and hold such bicycle. 625 ILCS 5/11‑1507(b)

"Brake" is not defined in ILCS. The dictionary definition is "a restraint used to slow or stop a vehicle." A fixed gear without a handbrake meets this test, as does a coaster brake bike without handbrakes.

Hand brakeless bikes are street legal in Illinois:
"Brake" is not defined in ILCS. The dictionary definition is "a restraint used to slow or stop a vehicle." A fixed gear without a handbrake meets this test, as does a coaster brake bike without handbrakes.
I think this is it. 'Brake' is not defined in AZ law either. Per this dictionairy definition fixed gear riders without handbrake need to stop calling their bikes brakeless - it only adds to the confusion. I've been scolded/corrected on this forum and on the wiki for refering to braking with the rear wheel on a fixed gear as 'leg activated rear brake' (or some such nonsense) and been told that this is not a brake. We can't have it both ways.

Al

"Brakeless" is a term of art in the bike community. It is obvious to a bike rider what "brakeless" means. The phrase does what it needs to do. The mere fact that it is not grammatically perfect does not mean it should disappear.

I think I found noisebeam a new avatar.

http://www.3dmd.net/gallery/albums/textures/walls/brick/BrownBrickWall_tileable.jpg

Hand brakeless bikes are street legal in Illinois:


Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will adequately control movement of and stop and hold such bicycle. 625 ILCS 5/11‑1507(b)

"Brake" is not defined in ILCS. The dictionary definition is "a restraint used to slow or stop a vehicle." A fixed gear without a handbrake meets this test, as does a coaster brake bike without handbrakes.

Actually the wording on this one is better than the rest. By reaffirming the necessity of being able to stop in time to avoid a collision regardless of the mechanism used the state can charge you for reckless endangerment if the reason you struck someone/something was your inability to stop in time based on the equipment you choose and your ability to operate it.

Not that it matters, if you hit someone in a crosswalk you are at fault, hell or highwater, no argument may change that.

I think I found noisebeam a new avatar.

Thanks. I've been waiting for the moment to have one bestowed upon me. I've also installed it on my bike and removed the geeky front brake.

Al

Cars with ABS can't skid, why should bikes?

I'm way more non-brakeless than you. I have front and rear brakes. Of course the back brake is useless now that I have completely trashed my rear rim with dents (2 of em). :rolleyes:

I also run 40-18 free, wahoo!

in mass it's stop within a certain distance, 25 yards?

Pretty sure not:
-operators of vehicles including bicycles don't stand on the ground next to them
-bikes with coaster brakes and fixed gears with no other brakes could not pass the test

Plenty of coaster brake cruisers 'round these parts. Haven't heard of anyone getting ticketed. I've been thinking of getting the $60 nycbikes 26" coaster wheel and throwing it on my spare 1x1 frame.

in mass it's stop within a certain distance, 25 yards?
25 yards is a LONG ways. I bet at 15mph, you could stop in 25 yards if you flintstoned it.

CT just has the skid requirement. But you can't include your fiance in your employer-provided healthcare unless you are a same-sex couple. :(

Plenty of coaster brake cruisers 'round these parts. Haven't heard of anyone getting ticketed. I've been thinking of getting the $60 nycbikes 26" coaster wheel and throwing it on my spare 1x1 frame.
I think you missed the context. I said I am pretty sure the operator must be ON the bike when the test is performed, otherwise coaster brake bikes, etc. would not pass the test in response to:

Originally Posted by endform: I always thought this definition of skid in these things was that you needed to be able to apply the brake and then not on it drag it across the ground and it'll keep the tire locked. Not "you need to be able to skid your front wheel while riding."

Al