Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - chicago: has anyone else hear about the fixie ban?

i've recently heard through the grapevine that there's been talk of a ban on fixies, due to a few recent pedestrian/cycle collisions.
the cops have been harassing some messengers by testing their brakes, but i haven't heard of anything else.
i haven't been stopped during my workday yet (and i am definitely brakeless). although, the segue cops did try to give me a ticket for no helmet while coming out of a drop on south mich.

ha ha, one of them yelled at me once, I'm not quite sure what about, as I got out of there with the quickness. I'm sure it was about my lack of helmet though, as I ride rather conservatively.

Gay

considering banning fixies before those damn ricer ****boxes is rediculous.

are you a courier or a commuter?

as a courier, i find they've been giving us a much harder time about the helmet thing. but, the cops really only try to crack down if you: a. make them mad, or b. become a presence during the last week of the month when they've got to make their ticket quota.

You HAVE to wear a helmet in Chicago?!?! WTF! Really?

I don't see how banning fixies is the solution. The more logical step would be to require traditional mechanical brakes on all bikes and enforce it. the ability to coast is not what makes bikes crash into peds and cars; it's the inability to stop quickly. The easiest way to try to make a change there is to require good brakes and not allow resistive/skip/skid braking to count towards the requirement. Not that I'm taking a side here or anything. :)

sounds like this is strictly hearsay, and i dont think it has a shred of plausibility. tougher brake laws maybe, but banning fixed gear bikes? yeah right.

I guess the even deeper problem is not that fixies are being ridden without powerful brakes, but that bicycles in general are being ridden through red lights, traffic, and herds of peds. Making people ride coasties or just any bike that has good brakes will not prevent people from cutting through traffic and blowing red lights, which is what is probably causing the crashes cited.

Helmet law for bicycles, but not for motorcycles? I don't think there is any bike helmet law, that makes no sense at all. . .

I guess the even deeper problem is not that fixies are being ridden without powerful brakes, but that bicycles in general are being ridden through red lights, traffic, and herds of peds. Making people ride coasties or just any bike that has good brakes will not prevent people from cutting through traffic and blowing red lights, which is what is probably causing the crashes cited.

Time for Saudi style, you get your feet cut off if you blow through a red light.

^^^ sounds reasonable to me.

Helmet law for bicycles, but not for motorcycles? I don't think there is any bike helmet law, that makes no sense at all. . .

if i'm not mistaken, only messengers are required to where helmets, not regular cyclists.

if i'm not mistaken, only messengers are required to where helmets, not regular cyclists.
That's probably a company insurance thing or part of the workers comp laws.

fixies should be banned everywhere...

the law in chi town states you have to have a helmet with you or other some stupid ****, people have gotten away with helmets straped to their bags

I should be banned everywhere...

yes.

;)

yes.

;)

you are the best, I was wondering when someone would catch on :D

I think the biker pedestrian accident can happen to anyone, fixie or not, if they ride agressively in traffic. It just so happens that most doing this are on fixies. The most I've had the **** scared out of me was not by a car, but by pedestrians walking through stopped traffic downtown. We can anticipate the movement of cars most of the time, but when you are riding up a line of stopped traffic and all of the sudden there is a pedestrian walking into your path there aren't many options. I don't ride a fixed, but I ride moderately aggresively, and I damn near could have killed a pedestrian on michigan one day. Same story, the only thing that kept me from hitting them was me yelling as loud as I could as soon as I saw them- they stopped dead in their tracks. Brakes would not have helped. Banning fixed gear bikes doesn't sound plausible and I don't think it would solve the "problem"... It just so happens that most geared commuters ride like grandmas in traffic (more dangerous IMO) and most fixed riders ride aggressively. The line is much blurrier than "fixed gears lead to pedestrian-bike accidents. My two cents.

I wouldn't worry about any type of a fixie ban in Chicago. More likely to happen is the mandatory registering and taxing of bicycles as hizzoner looks for more ways to squeeze fees from the citizens.

the law in chi town states you have to have a helmet with you or other some stupid ****, people have gotten away with helmets straped to their bags


So THAT is why I always see people riding around with helmets strapped to their bags. I always make fun of those people.

I wouldn't worry about this. No cop is going to stop you unless you do something really stupid. They don't want to get out of their cars.

Primary sources, please.

I never get why people will haul around a helmet and not just go ahead and wear it. That's like catching Roger Clemens with your cup tucked in your back pocket.

Primary sources, please.
+1

I will say that i have seen in the past 9 months (from the inside of a car, no less) 2 separate brakeless fixed versus pedestrian collisions - one of which was pretty severe. Both incidents appeared to be the result of novice riders losing control of their bikes, but the really bad one was an art student riding a fix with clipless pedals while wearing cole-haans...on the sidewalk. The huge upswell in track bike/fixed gear popularity, combined with the tradition/feat/fashion/machismo allure of riding brakeless means a much greater potential for mayhem & injury. I'll add that both my bikes are brakeless, but the fixes i've built for my brother and my girlfriend have brakes... Not only because I don't trust their riding skills & judgement enough to feel comfortable with the idea of them going brakeless, but because i don't want an accident report to reflect the fact that they were riding without brakes under the suggestion/influence of myself. I think there are a lot of people out there (and there are more every day) who are romanced by these bikes and tangentially by the attitudes/groups associated with them, and as that group grows, the ratio of profficient and conscious brakeless riders to dangerous and liable brakeless riders is going to dwindle. It IS only a matter of time until all 'off the shelf' fixes will be required by law to be sold with brakes already mounted. Each of our cities is one hapless 15-year-old with a fractured skull and vocal mother away from having the brakeless/front brake debate moved from these forums to legislature.

bummer.

fixies should be banned everywhere...

"fixie" and "rattlecan" should meet a firey fate together.

Check out the "Brakeless legal in Arizona" thread for Illinois law on bikes without handbrakes (plain reading seems to indicate handbrakes aren't necessary).

Edit:

The related part of the the Chicago Municipal Code reads:


Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake that will enable the operator to make the braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
from 9-52-080(b)

A bike without handbrakes meets this requirement. A rear wheel on a fixed gear, or coaster brake bike can skid on dry, level, clean pavement. It doesn't appear that handbrakes are required in Chicago.

coming up: CHICAGO FIXIE OUTLAW GANG.

god that would be cool.

"fixie" and "rattlecan" should meet a firey fate together.

yes.

though fixie and fixed are used interchangeably by some, i was under the impression that fixie are conversions.

CHICAGO FIXIE OUTLAW GANG.


sign me up: no breaks, no helmets, and no clothes...

Just imagine if someone on a bike with "no brakes" hits one of Ald. Burton Natarus' constituents.

Just imagine if someone on a bike with "no brakes" hits one of Ald. Burton Natarus' constituents.

Hahahaha!

Hahahaha!

Yeah, there probably would be a ban if that happened. Him & Burke would re-write that code in a second.

Just this past year I've seen 3 accidents right where 90/94
feeds into Augusta/Milwaukee. I pass this intersection all the
time, drive on it frequently, & respect it as dangerous. Yet
sure enough 2 of those accidents involved fixed gear riders
who couldn't stop in time. The third one involved a geared
biker who tried to beat the red.

I think Chicago should spend more resources on re-designing
treacherous intersections thus preventing in the long term instead
of passing new legislation on such a small group.

The third one involved a geared biker who tried to beat the red.
I ride on Damen mostly, but I know I need to stop sprinting when I see the flashing "Don't Walk" sign. One of these times some car is going to be timing the light and I'm gonna be road pizza.

BTW, on my commuting at least, I'd say more than half the bikes I see are fixies/fixed. Not sure about their brake situation, though. Dunno about cops hassling them. I'd say they'd do as well enforcing that law as they are enforcing the cell phone law.

Just imagine if someone on a bike with "no brakes" hits one of Ald. Burton Natarus' constituents.

We could hope for a bucket-boys type of brake-required districting, another Natarus stroke of legislative brilliance. But then again, the bucket boys complainants were mainly high rise residents moaning about the "excrutiating noise," whose loftier expectations only incidentally coincided with the groundlings in this case. So you menaces may be safe yet from the law.

sign me up: no breaks, no helmets, and no clothes...

you guys won't be able to take breaks? seems like without clothes there could be a good deal of chafing.

-------------------------------------------

i hate the word "fixie" and look forward to the day when the moderators of this forum awaken to their authoritarian potential and ban it here.

Helmet law for bicycles, but not for motorcycles? I don't think there is any bike helmet law, that makes no sense at all. . .
yea seriously

Make it illigal! That would make riding more fun. :D

http://www.wasserlaw.net/Cycling/bikemsgrs.htm

Gay << Sounds like a 15 year old... Are you 15?

This doesn't surprise me the way some riders ride like they own the road. There are arogant riders and drivers and I wish they'd beat the crap out of each other and then get the f*ck off the road and out of my way.

The most I've had the **** scared out of me was not by a car, but by pedestrians walking through stopped traffic downtown

Amen brother!

Yet
sure enough 2 of those accidents involved fixed gear riders
who couldn't stop in time. The third one involved a geared
biker who tried to beat the red.



True that's no reason to restrict fixed wheel riding, all three accidents you saw were the cyclists fault. It's they're responsibility to know when the traffic situation warrants a reduction in speed. Even if it meant the fixed riders would have to go through the intersection at a walking or jogging pace, that's the breaks (no pun intended)

I've always been amused by helmet laws + messengers. It's for their own good, right? They're required to wear a helmet in the commercial district in Chi for some time now yet no one else is. Bit off kilter, that is. If the work environment they face is so dangerous that safety equipment is necessary and required by law then it would certainly hold true for cyclists with less time & experience on those same roads, true?

It's like letting the general public wander about active construction sites without the requisite helmet/safety glasses/steel toes, they aren't construction workers, so how could they get hurt on a construction site? I guess the municipality either doesn't give a damn about cyclists, or doesn't believe helmets work and only specify them for messengers as a means of harassment. Whether it's for the actual protection of the lid or the raised visibility it provides it's either one way or the other and the sponsors of that legislation are fools to let a glaring contradiction sit proudly among their achievements, especially on an issue of public safety.

no disagreement here


True that's no reason to restrict fixed wheel riding, all three accidents you saw were the cyclists fault. It's they're responsibility to know when the traffic situation warrants a reduction in speed. Even if it meant the fixed riders would have to go through the intersection at a walking or jogging pace, that's the breaks (no pun intended)

I work at a shop in chicago, so i frequently get to talk with the bike cops. most of them are very nice and undestanding. from what i have been told, the helmet law is required for messengers because they are on commercial vehicles. they are at work, and therefore are required to have the proper protection. i tis not to harrass them or make sure they are getting "stomped by the man". the reason you see so many guys with helmets strapped to their bags is because they are required to have one, but think they are dumb. they also know the bike cops won't ticket them as much, cause they can just say they were in a hurry and forgot to put it on.
as for banning fixies/fixed/track/whatever the hell you feel you need to call them to stay hip, that is the stupidest thing they could ever do. next time i see one of the bike cops i will ask them if they have heard anything. at my shop i have seen more messengers come in with beat up old bikes that don't have any working brakes at all, so banning a bike that still has the ability to stop is redundant. they would have to inspect every bike that messengers ride, and this city would be out of messengers. i have also seen many BMX riders whom have taken to the new fad of riding street without brakes. stopping with your feet after jumping around on benches and in skate parks is much more dngerous than stomping down on your pedals for some stupid ass pedestrian who can't look before he leaps.
just my .02 cents

yeah, during MnG weekend i saw a ton of non BF fixed riders in Chicago, it was pretty cool.