Advocacy & Safety - Brakeless fixed gear & a courtroom near you.

What are the thoughts of you legally-minded folks regarding this (http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fixies/)?

check the SS/Fixie forum

So any vehicle that uses regenerative brakes would also be illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_braking

How does a Segway stop?

seems like a coaster brake would be ruled out too if the 'brake' has to work when the chain fails.

check the SS/Fixie forumI did see the discussion there, but it seemed mostly personal opinion. I posted here to hear some more legal based arguments/ideas.

What if the cable fails on a freewheel bike?

I think her attorney did a great job defending her. Good cross-examination, good statutory construction. His use of the dictionary to discern a plain language construction of the statute made for a good argument that a fixed gear is the brake.

The counter-argument is that the fixed gear requires the cyclist to use her muscular strength to overcome the inertia of her bike, whereas a bike equipped with a "brake" is stopped through the application of friction to the wheel. This is the argument the judge accepted.

A counter-argument to that would be that if the brake had been a coaster brake or a hand-brake, the application of friction would still require the cyclist to use her musculature to stop the bike. The counter-argument to that is that the application of friction is probably a more efficient use of the rider's musculature applied against the inertia of the bike.

The bottom line is that for this judge, a fixed gear is not a brake. Another judge may see it differently. No comment on the possibility of appeal without looking at the standards for error on findings of law and findings of fact.

EDIT: I think her attorney is right, the law is poorly written. However, it seems likely that any rewrite of the law would leave no doubt that a fixed gear is not a brake, which is hardly the result fixed gear riders would be looking for.

A quote from MA general laws, chapter 85, section 11B:


Every bicycle operated upon a way shall be equipped with a braking system to enable the operator to bring the bicycle traveling at a speed of fifteen miles per hour to a smooth, safe stop within thirty feet on a dry, clean, hard, level surface.

This specifies a "smooth, safe stop", from fifteen miles per hour within 30 feet. I have heard of bicycle messengers in Boston getting ticketed for riding brakeless.

I dont believe there is a stopping distance part of the brake equipment law in oregon.

So why would it be so hard to just put a little brake on the front? Its not like it has to be used.

Gosh, that police officer in the article surely is an idiot! "What if your chain broke, what if you had a leg spasm"! Duh, what if your brake cable broke, you had a leg spasm and a heart attack at the same time?..


So why would it be so hard to just put a little brake on the front? Its not like it has to be used. Same reason why you wouldn't just attach wire basket to the hood of your car: why should you?? I know, in this situation it might be the easiest way to go to avoid trouble with courts, but one shouldn't have to do that. You should ideally have trouble with the courts if and only if you have trouble with the law.


A counter-argument to that would be that if the brake had been a coaster brake or a hand-brake, the application of friction would still require the cyclist to use her musculature to stop the bike. The counter-argument to that is that the application of friction is probably a more efficient use of the rider's musculature applied against the inertia of the bike. And what is the threshold efficiency? Who is going to set it? Who is going to measure it?

I did see the discussion there, but it seemed mostly personal opinion. I posted here to hear some more legal based arguments/ideas.
Don't expect the legal arguments/ideas posted here to be any less based on personal opinion than those found on the SS/FG forum or in a dorm room debate.

Don't expect the legal arguments/ideas posted here to be any less based on personal opinion than those found on the SS/FG forum or in a dorm room debate.

:lol:

And what is the threshold efficiency? Who is going to set it? Who is going to measure it?

Oh great, so now we all are going to have to have bike inspections like they have for cars.

Don't expect the legal arguments/ideas posted here to be any less based on personal opinion than those found on the SS/FG forum or in a dorm room debate.

Brakes make a bike more dangerous.
I heard of a friends, cousins sister crashed from using her
brakes see we took them off. People die from using brakes !

Brakes make a bike more dangerous.
I heard of a friends, cousins sister crashed from using her
brakes see we took them off. People die from using brakes !

Well, for god's sake, what type of brakes were they? Only a V-Brake up front could cause such a happening with an inexperienced rider. I am completely against the manufacture of Wal-Mart machines with cheap V-Brakes - one idiotic assemblyman + a [brake] lever-groping starting cyclist = a nasty throw over the bars.

As for calipers though, never had a problem with 'em.

-Kurt

^^^^ Im sorry 'cuda....I shoulda used a smiley.
Brakes / no brakes are the same as the helmet vs. no helmet type
stuff that ineviatably pops up in any forum.
Really though, its a shame this stuff needs to be legislated.
No matter where you stand on the issue, obviously there is a
problem with bikes hitting stuff if cops are not only taking the time
to stop people but actually know what to look for.
Common sense goes a long way in these matters.
Speaking of helmets, I would ride without one before I would ride
without a front brake.

This specifies a "smooth, safe stop", from fifteen miles per hour within 30 feet.
i'm pretty sure any good fixed gear rider can fufill this requirement. it doesn't seem too outlandish.

i'm pretty sure any good fixed gear rider can fufill this requirement. it doesn't seem too outlandish.

You're right, it doesn't sound like they're asking for a lot.

In that article, I do detect some anti-bicycle bias on the part of the judge and police officer. I don't think that Ms. Holland should bother with an appeal though. I suspect she would only be wasting her time and money. Better to focus her energy on other areas of cycling advocacy.

Heh, there would be an enormous temptation to take that officer's line of questioning, and give it a "twist": "Officer, what would you do if the brake system on your cruiser were to suddenly fail? Would you put one foot out and drag it? What would you do if the brake system on you police motorcycle were to fail? Wouldn't a 700+ pound motorcycle be much harder to stop in traffic than a bicycle?" Just a temptation though. You could go round and round with this, and get nowhere.

I think the bigger issue here is why in the world would a cop even mess with a guy on a fixie and its because cops have a bad image of fixie riders. Clear case of selective enforcement. Cops see fixie riders as law breaking hooligans and so they harass them.

Simple physics:

1. Bikes stop in a shorter distance if both wheels are slowed down
2. Non-braked fixies can only use the back tyre as a braking surface
3. Stopping as quickly as possible in an emergency tends to push the weight of the rider forward
4. The weight of the rider is therefore transferred to a considerable extent away from the rear wheel and therefore reduces the weight and therefore the maximum tyre/road friction available on that wheel
5. Not making use of the additonal weight applied to the front wheel for applying additional braking on that front wheel is inefficient and therefore less safe as the bike will therefore take longer to stop.

Stop being so damn fixie purist and fit a front brake

Simple physics:
...
Stop being so damn fixie purist and fit a front brake
So, since disk brakes work better than your canti brakes, you should be forced to convert your bicycle to disk brakes, right.

I think the bigger issue here is why in the world would a cop even mess with a guy on a fixie and its because cops have a bad image of fixie riders. Clear case of selective enforcement. Cops see fixie riders as law breaking hooligans and so they harass them.
And, apparently, at least one judge as well.

Hipster bikes don't have a brake and can't get a break (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7)
Saturday, July 29, 2006
JEFF MAPES
The Oregonian

When Portland bike messenger Ayla Holland wants to stop, she depends largely on her powerful leg muscles as she exerts backward pressure on the pedals of her fixed-gear bicycle.

"I actually feel a lot more confident riding a fixed-gear because your control over the bike is so much stronger," said Holland, 24.

But a Multnomah County judge has thrown fans of "fixies" for a loop by ruling that the Portland police were correct in giving Holland a traffic ticket last month for riding downtown without a brake.

In one of the most bike-friendly cities in the country, the ruling cast a new legal cloud over the increasing number of hard-core bicyclists who are eschewing mechanical brakes for the balletic challenge of riding a fixie.

The bike blogs and Internet discussion groups are full of debate about whether the judge's ruling made any sense -- and just how safe fixies are without conventional brakes.

The bikes, once largely restricted to track racing but now popular in many cities, have just one speed and the simplest of drivetrains. You can't coast. When the wheels are turning, you're forced to pedal, just like little kids on a tricycle.

Fixies aren't for the faint of heart. Jonathan Maus, who writes the BikePortland.org blog, admires the skill of the fixie riders but has tried one himself just a couple of times.

"It was really disconcerting," he said. "I was like, 'Holy cow, I could get in trouble here.' "

Oregon law says that bicycles "must be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement."

Mark Ginsberg, a local attorney and bike activist, argued in court Thursday that Holland and other skilled fixie riders meet the letter of that law because they have the skill to bring their bikes to a skidded stop on dry pavement.

The law doesn't define what a brake is, he said, only how it works.

Circuit Court Judge Pro Tem Gregg Lowe wasn't impressed by that.

"It seemed to me it was a relatively simple issue," Lowe said Friday in an interview. "A rose is a rose is a rose. A brake is a brake is a brake. And feet or musculature aren't brakes."

Ginsberg said he may appeal the decision, which gives the police the green light to continue handing out tickets to fixed-gear riders who don't have a mechanical brake. In the absence of an appeal, Holland has to either pay a $73 fine or install a brake on her front wheel.

In fact, many fixies do have such a brake. One of Holland's fellow messengers, watching as Holland was interviewed, said she relies on the front brake on her bike because she feels less competent in using only her pedals to bring her bike to a stop.

Sam Adams, the Portland commissioner in charge of the city's Office of Transportation, said he has asked the city attorney to review the law to see whether Portland police are properly applying it.

As it happens, Adams said his chief of staff, Tom Miller, has also been ticketed for not having a brake on his fixie. Adams said Miller relented and put a brake on his front wheel -- although he demonstrated for the commissioner that he can stop as quickly as a conventional bike.

But Adams said he's still not convinced. "My advice to people is to get handbrakes," he said. "I think it's an added margin of safety."

Anybody see problems with the wording of the law requring ability to skid? Skidding isnt really stopping, and as far as brakes go, I can only skid using disk brakes. - just a thought

Simple physics:

1. Bikes stop in a shorter distance if both wheels are slowed down
2. Non-braked fixies can only use the back tyre as a braking surface
3. Stopping as quickly as possible in an emergency tends to push the weight of the rider forward
4. The weight of the rider is therefore transferred to a considerable extent away from the rear wheel and therefore reduces the weight and therefore the maximum tyre/road friction available on that wheel
5. Not making use of the additonal weight applied to the front wheel for applying additional braking on that front wheel is inefficient and therefore less safe as the bike will therefore take longer to stop.

Stop being so damn fixie purist and fit a front brake

So coaster brakes are now illegal too? Better recall a LOT of childrens' bikes.

Anybody see problems with the wording of the law requring ability to skid? Skidding isnt really stopping, and as far as brakes go, I can only skid using disk brakes. - just a thought

Actually, there's a big problem with skidding a tire if it's your front. I certainly wouldn't want to have to demonstrate that to a police officer.

Actually, there's a big problem with skidding a tire if it's your front. I certainly wouldn't want to have to demonstrate that to a police officer.

Hah... I'd do it in a heartbeat. Probably end up with an assault charge, as well, because when I went over the front I'd make damn sure I landed on the dumb-ass cop.

I'd have to say that EVERY bike sold in Oregon is in violation of this law.

The law states:


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

If both wheels don't skid, it's in technical violation of the law. Let's put the cop on a bike, and have him demonstrate his technique for skidding the front wheel. :)

I'd appeal, and fight it on the fact that the law is nearly impossible to obey, and dangerous, besides.

I'd have to say that EVERY bike sold in Oregon is in violation of this law.

The law states:



If both wheels don't skid, it's in technical violation of the law. Let's put the cop on a bike, and have him demonstrate his technique for skidding the front wheel. :)

I'd appeal, and fight it on the fact that the law is nearly impossible to obey, and dangerous, besides.Actually, it's just an example of poor statutory writing. The statute could be taken to mean that a bicycle must be equipped with one brake which is capable of making the braked wheel skid. It could also be taken to mean that a bicycle must be equipped with a brake on each wheel, which is capable of making the braked wheel skid.

It's clear that the statute isn't well-written. The solution to that won't make you any happier, I'm afraid. The legislature is perfectly capable of writing a definition of the word "brake," and the legislature is perfectly capable of specifying whether a bicycle must have one brake or a brake on each wheel.

As far as appeal, you can't appeal on the grounds you suggest. An appeal on findings of law must argue that the trial court was clearly erroneous in its findings of law, if I recall correctly. You'd have to argue that the Judge's definition of a "brake" was a "clearly erroneous" application of legal principles, not just that you disagree with the judges defintion. It may be that the finding of law is "clearly erroneous," and appealable, but you have to have a legal argument that consists of more than "I don't like the Judge's decision."

Even if you could appeal on grounds that the law is impossible to obey, it is clearly not impossible to obey. The law doesn't require you to skid your front wheel. The law requires you to have your bike equipped with a brake. Your appeal would be dismissed because it is possible to equip your bike with a brake (it may even be possible, though not desirable, to make your front wheel skid).

The exact wording of the law, which sounds like California's, is flawed, outdated, and unfortunate. California's is even worse, since it requires a bicycle to have at least one brake capable of skidding the braked wheel.

If I could have only one brake on a bicycle, I would choose a front over a rear, but I certainly would never want to demonstrate a front wheel skid to anyone!

I would not ride in traffic on any bicycle lacking a front brake, because I believe doing so is inherently unacceptably dangerous.

I note that neither of you address my basic point that only having one wheel braking is inherently more inefficient and therefore less safe than two wheel braking


So coaster brakes are now illegal too? Better recall a LOT of childrens' bikes.

Coaster brakes on children's bikes are designed to overcome problems arising from children's relatively weak hands and their inability to apply sufficient pressure to handbrakes which are frequently of poor quality in both design and materials. If US bikes are allowed to be sold fitted with only a coaster brake, it is a poor decision since it installs bad habits on the part of the children. I've not seen such bikes in the UK - the only children's bikes sold with only one brake are so-called pavement bikes designed for 3-5 year olds


So, since disk brakes work better than your canti brakes, you should be forced to convert your bicycle to disk brakes, right.

Since it was perfectly possible to lock wheels with old Weinmann sidepulls, fitting disc brakes doesn't change things that much, altho' it may improve modulation. In any case, locking a wheel reduces braking efficiency - your law is an ass in that respect, except for the caveat below.

Altho' it doesn't seem to require the rider to be able to skid the wheel, merely that the brake can be proved to be able to do so, if applied hard enough. I don't see how one could easily apply the kind of braking efficiency test that, for example, the UK's annual car test requires, using a rolling road, so it's a simple, straightforward method for easily checking a brake's effectiveness.

Finally, I've no doubt that some people riding fixies with no brakes and who rely on the braking effect of backward pressure on the pedals can operate reasonably safely. However, there will come an occasion when the lack of a front brake will endanger their safety. Two braking surfaces are better than one and nitpicking about the legal meaning of the word "brake", is irrelevant where safety is concerned.

Coaster brakes on children's bikes are designed to overcome problems arising from children's relatively weak hands and their inability to apply sufficient pressure to handbrakes which are frequently of poor quality in both design and materials. If US bikes are allowed to be sold fitted with only a coaster brake, it is a poor decision since it installs bad habits on the part of the children. I've not seen such bikes in the UK - the only children's bikes sold with only one brake are so-called pavement bikes designed for 3-5 year olds.

Actually, coaster brakes are quite common on adult cruiser-style bikes as well. They work just fine for slow speed, flat road riding. I personally find coaster brakes annoying but I'm used to being able to back pedal. I don't see how they instill any bad habits as the way the bike is braked is so inherently different from hand brakes. Hand brakes that brake the front wheel offer more stopping power but if someone doesn't need that much stopping power, say someone who rarely gets over 10mph and never goes down any big hills, a coaster brake can work just fine. There is a small amount of retraining that needs to happen when going from a rear-only braking bike to a bike with hand brakes front and rear but if you can't figure that much out, you probably shouldn't be riding a bike at all.

I note that neither of you address my basic point that only having one wheel braking is inherently more inefficient and therefore less safe than two wheel braking


You're right that two wheel braking is more efficient, etc. I think where we disagree is how much efficiency and safety we should be forced to use by law. Some people ride with coaster brakes, some with fixies. Some with sidepulls, some with discs. Tire size and contact patch and tread compound matters, too. You seem to be saying that we should be using the braking system that has the maximum efficiency, control, and therefore safety. Trouble is, where do we draw the line? To me we'd be looking at twin-discs up front with a 29er 2.5 slick tire, and a recumbent bike frame that keeps our weight low and back, putting maximum traction on that huge front tire for braking. We'd probably need ABS, too (already on motorcycles). In fact, we should probabaly be on tricycles, for stability, too (plus more tire contact).

So, while we agree that one-wheel braking is less safe perhaps than two wheel braking, I would say that two wheel braking also varies greatly in efficiency and safety. That leaves us with the current situation, where your personal level of comfort with braking systems differs with others. Yes, it is probably "less safe" to have only one brake. Many of us just don't think it's less safe enough that we should be forced by law to change, just as your weinnman's may be less safe than discs, I doubt you'd be enthusiastic about the law requiring you to change.

I might be persuaded if scientific evidence could be found that shows that proportionally more fixie riders are in accidents than other cyclists (not sure how to categorize coaster-brake only). It'd still be tough to show these could have been avoided if a brake had been fitted. I'm guessing that instead of legislating brakes, you will find we should ban railroad tracks and cars with doors.:)

When I an on vacation on Ocracoke Island, NC, we rent coaster-braked adult bikes with trailers, and use them for transporting ourselves, our child, and about 40 pounds of beach gear. I agree that not being able to backpedal is irritating, but the braking action is perfectly fine for speeds of 10-15 mph, even with lots of cargo. The theoretical stopping distance is twice that of a bike with front brakes, but that is only about 10 feet at these speeds.

Coaster brakes are very durable and reliable. The only habit such bikes are likely to engender is that of hopping on the bike to run an errand, which can hardly be called a bad one.

Paul

We had a fixie guy in an LAB Road One class, we were having a stopping contest as part of the class, and he did so badly at stopping relative to the bikes and riders with hand-operated brakes that he resolved to put a front brake on his bike!

Reality wins out over ideological purity.

^^^^^
There are classes on riding a bicycle ?

This judge seems to have let his ignorant bias against messengers to support their being fined:

To this end, he questioned how messengers—whom he’s seen riding “much too fast”—could stop safely.
Perhaps it wasn't explained clearly enough to him how riding a fixed gear works. It's clear he really does not understand the mechanics.

“If your client had a stick she could rub against her tire, you’d have a case. I don’t believe the defense has convinced me to broaden the definition of a brake. I find the defendant guilty.”
I mean, really. A stick being more effective?

I disagree with the judge's ruling. I think that a fixed gear bike's drivetrain can sufficiently double as a brake. There is plenty of evidence for this just from the numbers of people riding fixies.

However, I do think it's a good idea to have a backup brake on the bike in case the chain broke. I've had chains break, sometimes they fall off. On my bike (which isn't a fixie), I have a front and a rear brake...so if one fails, I still have the other.

Anybody see problems with the wording of the law requring ability to skid? Skidding isnt really stopping, and as far as brakes go, I can only skid using disk brakes. - just a thought
I see a huge problem with the wording of the law. As you say, skidding is not stopping.

It is the least efficient brakes (rear brakes on a bicycle) that are the easiest to skid. The Oregon law more or less mandates that bicycles have bad brakes.

In fact, the best kind of brake I could imagine (an anti-lock front brake, if such a thing existed) would not be acceptable under Oregon law while a really lousy rear brake that locks up at the slightest touch and throws the bike totally out of control would be acceptable. It's absurd.

(yea, I know, it's not just Oregon that has such a stupid law; other states have similar laws, probably based on the California law, which has the same stupid skid requirement)

But, as the law stands, I disagree with the judge's decision. Of course the drivetrain of a fixie can be used as a brake. And I have little doubt that fixie riders can cause the rear wheel to skid.

But it's a stupid law.

Laws which specify a stopping distance on dry pavement from a specific speed are much better than "skid requirement" laws.

But it's a shame that people think either kind of law is necessary. Must we legislate everything? Wouldn't it be simpler to simply specify that a bicycle have an adequate brake?

On, no, what am I thinking? That would require common sense. Nevermind.

I think perhaps the cops hassle fixie riders because they don't like the way some of them ride. The brake law is just a convenient vehicle (harassment by means of selective enforcement is a common use of many bicycle laws, no matter how well-intentioned the laws may be originally).

I don't doubt that it's possible to ride safely on a fixie without a front brake, but I don't think the outlook is good for fixie riders fighting a front brake requirement. In the long run, one way or another, I think the safety nannies are going to win.

For one thing, rear brakes aren't worth squat in an emergency. I rode coaster brake bikes for years and I skidded, lost control and wiped out in every way imaginable. I even used my foot (pressed against the rear wheel) a few times as a brake (it actually kind of works although it's probably a good way to brake some bones). I once had a chain fail when I was barreling down a hill as fast as I could go (that was kind of scary).

I went from coaster brakes to the early hand brakes - on steel rims. Why, pray tell, is the legal standard for adequate brakes based on what happens on dry pavement? Early hand brakes were fine in dry weather but when they got wet, it was as if you didn't have brakes (even coaster brakes, with aren't worth diddly in the rain, were better in the rain than early hand brakes). Riders of bikes with early hand brakes survived only because they compensated.

Eventually, somebody invented bicycle brakes that actually worked. Even in the rain. The first time I rode a bicycle with such brakes was a revelation.

It's simple physics. A good front brake can stop a bicycle in a much shorter distance than even the best rear brake can. Which is why I think fixie riders will eventually lose the war, even though they may win some battles along the way.

BTW, when did it become legal to ride a fixie without a hand brake on the road? Perhaps it was just urban legend, but all the books I ever read on the subject said that a fixie couldn't be legally ridden on the road unless fitted with a hand brake.

I see a huge problem with the wording of the law. As you say, skidding is not stopping.


I think perhaps the cops hassle fixie riders because they don't like the way some of them ride. The brake law is just a convenient vehicle (harassment by means of selective enforcement is a common use of many bicycle laws, no matter how well-intentioned the laws may be originally).
Huge problem? Just how extensive is this brake law crackdown? I haven't heard about it in any courtroon near me or anywhere else for that matter except for this one isolated traffic court case reported in the OP.

Hassle fixie riders? How extensive is that problem? I haven't heard much about that either.

Huge problem? Just how extensive is this brake law crackdown? I haven't heard about it in any courtroon near me or anywhere else for that matter except for this one isolated traffic court case reported in the OP.

Hassle fixie riders? How extensive is that problem? I haven't heard much about that either.
I see a problem with the law. It's absurd.

The "crackdown" is another matter.

Fixie riders are probably upset about it. As you say, this thread is about a single isolated case. I'm not sure there's any crackdown. As I said, in the long run, I personally think fixie riders are going to be disappointed in the results. The more they press the issue, the sooner I think they'll be disappointed. Current law may be on their side but physics is not.

Huge problem? Just how extensive is this brake law crackdown? I haven't heard about it in any courtroon near me or anywhere else for that matter except for this one isolated traffic court case reported in the OP.

Hassle fixie riders? How extensive is that problem? I haven't heard much about that either.

Can't speak for other places, but they're really cracking down on this in Portland at the moment. Ayla Holland received her ticket on June 1. Up until Thursday, I had heard maybe 3 or 4 times about fixie riders with no brakes getting tickets this summer. The Multnomah County judge made his ruling just this past Thursday. I heard that the police were writing tickets left and right all day Friday from 3 different sources: the bikey community word around town, my housemate's current steady date who is a bike messenger, and my housemates's mom who works in the police citizen complaint office. That office received a lot of calls Friday afternoon from people who received tickets and weren't happy about it. It's possible that the numbers coming from the local bikey grapevine are exaggerated and that it's just that fixie riders are feeling sensitive about this ruling, but then there's what housemate's mom said about citizen complaints about the police that day. (She does not ride a bike much & didn't know what was happening until her daughter told her.) I work downtown where bike messengers are thick, and thus so are fixies. There wasn't a lot of good feelings going on between the cops downtown and the messengers before Thursday, so I could see some individual officers having a field day with this ruling.

The best opinion I've heard on this one is that the ruling should be appealed to clarify the law. Yea, so fixed gears can stop; but there is no mechanical advantage in that stopping. It takes the same effort to stop as it does to move forward. It also requires a fair bit of technique. (I have a fixed running a front brake). From my experience, yea, you can comply with the wording of the law pretty easily (provided you are running the right gear), but you'd have to be pretty good to comply with the spirit without using a front brake to assist.

The problem is that the law needs to cater to the lowest common denominator. That is not the skilled messenger who spends 10 hours practicing riding a fixed without a front brake. If Joe Schmoe comes along and buys a fixed gear on eBay, takes it out running a 48/15 and hits a ped because he cannot stop, he is not in compliance with the law. Give the same bike to a messenger who has many hours of practice, he is in compliance. But the police officer cannot just see that the bike/person is in compliance because skill is not immediately visible.

The flip side is that not all bikes that people want to ride are easily converted to have a front brake. The vintage track bike would even be dangerous if the front fork were drilled for a brake because the fork is not designed to withstand braking forces. Mount a front brake onto it without thinking and the fork might fold under the braking force. So now you have a situation where, again, the letter of the newly interpreted law is followed, but the bicycle is still dangerous on the street. So to get around this, you'd have to train officers to recognize, not the frame, but the type of fork on a bike to enforce safety. Now you have the same problem as the one of "seeing" the skill level of a cyclist.

Part of the problem is that many bikes on the road are built out of spare parts; the mongrels of the bike world, like my commuter. Cars are rarely home built, but bikes regularly are. How do you legislate the mechanical soundness of a bike built from the parts up? Any new interpretation or wording of the law needs to take this into account.

So what is the answer? I don't know. I think this case needs to be appealed, if only to clarify the law as it now stands - the resurgence of fixed gears for the road makes it inevitible that this conflict would occur. The law is based on a time when there were few caliper braked bikes around and is based on coaster brakes being the standard; for a coaster brake, a skid test is a good test of a working mechanism. For calipers and disk brakes, a skid test is a poor test of a brake because it is the wrong brake; the front should be the one tested because it is the one doing most of the stopping and has all the weight on it. For a fixed, the requirements are different because braking is a matter of technique (even if running only a front brake); and that should be recognized.

What should not happen is for this issue to become, simply, another way for cops to get at messengers for being messengers. The fact is that skill level is all important on the road no matter what type of vehicle is driven or ridden, and the current set of laws do a poor job at recognizing this fact. You can follow every law in the book and have all the licenses required while driving a car and still be a hazard to those around you. On the other hand; you can break many different laws (and almost everyone does this on both car and bike) and be an extremely safe driver. We are trying to apply mechanistic rules to a trait (skill level) which is not mechanistic. No wonder why traffic laws are the most violated laws on the books.

One more thought on why the law should be revisited. Campagnolo's new brake set has a single pivot rear brake to even out the braking forces on the two wheels. This means it will be fairly difficult to get a rear wheel on a Campy equiped bike to skid. The new brake set doesn't hurt overall braking capability (which is mostly a function of the front brake), but is meant to keep the rear wheel from skidding and so improve the controllability of the bike.

A new interpretation will require that advances in technology, such as this example, be taken into account. People tend not to follow rules which are simply and transparently stupid. Requiring that the rear wheel skid is a hopelessly outdated standard.

Given the complications in clarifying the law, the easiest thing for the government to do might just be to back off and wait until there is an actual problem to address. There's been enough time since the fixed gear trend started to see if ridding "brakeless" has inherent problems which need to be solved by legislation. My hunch is that the cyclist's sense of self-preservation is good enough to be used as a measure of that cyclist's skill level and his or her equipment's suitability for street riding. I'd bet that on appeal, this sense will be born out. Perhaps a good education for the judge would be a street test of an actual fixed gear. That this particular judge declined that test, even though he was unaware of what a fixed gear bike was and was ruling on aspects which required that he know these details; I think this has a good possiblity of being overturned on appeal.

Anybody see problems with the wording of the law requring ability to skid? Skidding isnt really stopping, and as far as brakes go, I can only skid using disk brakes. - just a thought
Your brakes don't have much grab if you can't apply enough force to lock the wheels (though why you would want to do this is beyond me since it would reduce control).

Interestingly enough, my tadpole trike (which is equipped with dual front discs) cannot meet the skid requirement when I'm on a surface with good grip. Even though I'm only a few inches off the ground, I can generate enough braking power to flip the trike end over end. Likewise, if I jam the brakes on my racing bike, I'll go flying over the handlebars rather than skid. However, I could probably meet the skid requirement by mounting low quality tires.

Although I can imagine circumstances in which I'd ride a fixie with no brakes, I definitely wouldn't in a busy urban area. Between not being able to stop as fast and having my emergency maneuvering affected (there are many cases where being forced to keep pedaling is definitely a liability), it just doesn't sound tempting. But coolness can't be practical -- otherwise, everyone would do it.

The statute at hand requires that the brake be capable of skidding th wheel. It doesn't suggest or require skidding as appropriate braking technique. Any vehicle is going to stop in the shortest possible distance by applying braking force to bring the wheel to the threshold of locking. Thus what you want in a brake is enough force to lock the wheel, and enough modulation to bring the wheel to the edge of locking without locking. Guess what, any half decent caliper brake will do that easily.

So I guess this isn't the place to discuss Ted Shredd?

^^^^^
There are classes on riding a bicycle ?
Yup. The only one I passed in college...

I dunno... The calipers on my bike make it difficult to skid the rear wheel (with all my weight on it on dry pavement) unless I am simultainiously hitting the front brake pretty hard (which would make it so not all my weight is on the rear wheel).

As for fixed, we argue that skidding is inferior to a front brake, but some people can do a hockey stop with the fixed and come to a stop pretty damned fast. Probably faster than I can with the front brake. The braking technique is different, so all these straight up comparisons are of little worth. For instance, on a coaster brake, because of the way the brake is actuated, the rear wheel skids under heavy braking but most of the weight is on the rear wheel as well. On a caliper or disk brake, the rear wheel skids, but most of the weight is on the front brake which is doing most of the work. On a fixed, with the "skipping" technique (basically, little, intermittent skids), most of the weight is on the rear wheel as well. On a fixed, with the hockey stop technique, all the weight is on the rear AND the wheel is "biting" into the road acting like a force multiplier.

Little things to think about...

I think the bigger issue here is why in the world would a cop even mess with a guy on a fixie and its because cops have a bad image of fixie riders. Clear case of selective enforcement. Cops see fixie riders as law breaking hooligans and so they harass them.
Okay, I'll take on this question (can't resist!): It was Ms! Holland and she probably had a nice a$$ from the cop's viewpoint. He was just looking for ANY excuse to talk to her. I think a sexual harrasment suit is in order :D