Google sponsored links
Do you ever read about an incident and get so mad you have to tell someone about it? This is one of those:
http://bikeportland.org/2007/06/29/bus-operator-cited-in-collision-with-cyclist/
I mean, it sounds like empty threats, but the bicyclist is ready to get a lawyer, he's so worried!
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I read this, and feel the same way about it. Like many other groups of people who are in the minority amongst a large majority, the majority (motorists) seems to have an expectation that if the minority (bicyclists) doesn't behave perfectly 100% of the time, they are at fault. I do not know enough about the FG riding skills of this particlar cyclist to make a comment about the brakes one way or the other. What I do know is that a good number of those Tri-Met LIFT operators are some of the scariest drivers on the roads here in the Portland area.
For those of you who wonder what a Tri-Met LIFT operator is:
The TriMet LIFT Program is a shared-ride, public transportation service for people with disabilities that prevent them from using TriMet's regular bus or MAX light rail service for some or all of their trips. LIFT service operates during the same hours and covers the same geographic area as regular TriMet service.
Who can use LIFT?
* TriMet LIFT service is available only to people who have a physical and/or mental disability that prevents them from independently using TriMet buses or MAX for some or all of their trips.
* You must apply and be certified as eligible before scheduling your first LIFT trip.
* Many LIFT customers find that regular TriMet bus and MAX service is their preferred choice for some trips. Choosing bus and/or MAX for some trips does not affect LIFT eligibility.
When and where does LIFT operate?
* LIFT operates during the same hours as TriMet's bus and MAX service, from 4:30 a.m. to 2:30 a.m., seven days a week.
* The LIFT service area covers all locations that are within three-fourths of a mile of TriMet's bus and MAX lines and also within the TriMet district. All locations inside the service area boundary are served.
* LIFT does not serve locations outside the TriMet District, the legal boundary for TriMet.
How does LIFT provide service?
* LIFT uses a fleet of small buses, sedans and taxicabs to provide service.
* LIFT rides are scheduled by advance reservation. Service is from the door or a designated curb stop at the pickup location to the door or a designated curb stop at the destination.
* Several passengers share the vehicle, and vehicles may stop and travel in other directions during any passenger's trip to accommodate other riders.
* Travel time will vary, depending on trip distance and stops made to accommodate other riders during the trip.
The LIFT operators are not the same staff who operate our regular buses. While trying to share the road with them, my impression from their behavior in general is that they have different training, and/or are held to a different set of standards than the regular Tri-Met bus drivers. I have had some pretty unpleasant encounters with LIFT operators, and yet I generally get along fine with the regular buses on the road.
I concur that the transit driver was at fault, but I still think the presence or absence of a front brake on the bike is extremely relevant. The bike would arguably be legal in California (and Oregon?), which has only an archaic one-wheel (presumably the rear) skid standard, but "safe" sets a higher standard than "legal." I would absolutely not ride a bike without a front brake in traffic.
Is it the bus driver's fault? It sounds like it definitely is. Left turning traffic always yields the right of way.
Could it have been avoided? Probably. A scary long skid mark from a rear wheel means that the cyclist would have had plenty of time to stop using a front brake.
Az
Was the court ruling in Portland “that fixed gear without handbrakes did not meet the legal brake requirements” overturned. Seems the cops were referring to that as a possible contributing issue.
Note that a blog comment further down did say Tri-met cited their driver as at fault.
Regardless of fault, riding in traffic without a front brake is nuts. I almost never use my rear, you can generally stop a lot faster with the front only.
The bike left a skid mark as the rider was attempting to stop. As was pointed out in one of the comments below the report, this demonstrates that he had sufficient stopping power despite not having a front brake. A front brake would make it easier to control the bike but that does not seem relevant to the situation since the bike did not go down until the bus hit it. Personally, I would be afraid to ride without a front brake, but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily dangerous.
You do not understand braking dynamics.
Exactly.
Yup, front brake lets you brake a heck of a lot better.
Is it the bus driver's fault? It sounds like it definitely is. Left turning traffic always yields the right of way.
Could it have been avoided? Probably. A scary long skid mark from a rear wheel means that the cyclist would have had plenty of time to stop using a front brake.
Az
I don't think it is fair to use the "scary long" skid mark description to make assumptions about how much time the cyclist had or didn't have or how effectively he might have stopped with a front brake.
I have had collisions (one involved being right hooked), had two brakes, it felt as though I had all the time in the world to stop, and I clamped down hard on those brake levers. There were no skid marks, but there were eye witnesses who all agree that there was not sufficient time for me to stop.
Also, as I read this article, I don't really see anything there to raise the ire of the cycling community other than the fact that the bus hit the cyclist.
What driver (especially one who drives for a living) isn't going to make an initial claim of innocence at the scene? It sounds to me as though the policeman sorted things out in short order, as the driver of the bus was cited.
This is one article I read where it sounds as though the system worked. Why the fuss and the claim that everyone always tries to blame the cyclist? Sorry, I don't see it in this example.
Caruso [did I miss something? I don't see anything in the article about an unfavorable court ruling]
Why the fuss and the claim that everyone always tries to blame the cyclist?
Sorry my note wasn't more clear. I stated that the bus driver was clearly at fault. By law, all left turning vehicles yield the right of way. I don't care if the guy going straight through the intersection is a backwards travelling drunk driver running a yellow light while cheating on his taxes... he still has the right of way.
However, and this is where the confusion lies, the bicyclist could have avoided the crash had he used proper braking.
Two points here that are critical: One, I am not placing any blame on the cyclist for the crash, I'm simply stating that it could have easily been avoided. Secondly, braking being what it is on a fixie, long skids are what back pedaling is all about. Stopping is what front brakes are all about. If you don't believe me, go try it for yourself. It doesn't have to be terribly scientific, but use a tape measure and record the stopping distance for rear brake only, front brake only, and both brakes. The results will amaze you. Please post them.
Az
I can go out and drag the rear wheel of my bike for a long time, that DOES NOT indicate strong braking. During hard braking 75-100% of your braking power is provided by the front brake.
I'm not saying that the biker was at fault, but it's pretty stupid to go out in traffic and expect back pedalling to save you life.
The length of the skid mark doesn't really say anything about how much braking force was applied. On a group ride a few weeks ago, I came on an intersection while on a 40mph descent. I nailed the front and rear brakes in a panic stop. I didn't leave any skid marks, but my rear wheel did lift from the pavement because of how hard I was braking. A person who locks the rear wheel without a front brake isn't braking all that hard, because there is no weight on the rear wheel during braking.
The length of the skid mark doesn't really say anything about how much braking force was applied. On a group ride a few weeks ago, I came on an intersection while on a 40mph descent. I nailed the front and rear brakes in a panic stop. I didn't leave any skid marks, but my rear wheel did lift from the pavement because of how hard I was braking. A person who locks the rear wheel without a front brake isn't braking all that hard, because there is no weight on the rear wheel during braking.
There's more weight on the rear wheel when an rear only brake is available. versus when a front/rear brake system is used together, since the front brake tends to lessens the weight on the rear the more the front is applied. I definitely prefer the front/rear brake system over the rear only brake for it's extra stopping power on dry pavement, but can still use the rear only portion on slick surfaces.
Okay, I get it. Thanks for the explanation.
If the cyclist had to slow down, or brake at all, then the accident is still the bus driver's fault.
I must be lucky to have survived my childhood with bikes that only had coaster brakes.
Despite the driver's initial statement and the report that the police are trying to blame the cyclist, it sounds like the police only cited the driver.
I won't join the debate about how much a front brake actually helps braking on a fixie, but keeping your bike up to code can only help if you get into an accident.
skid = uncontrolled stop with loss of tire traction.
one has more control if brake pressure does not result in a skid. this is why your car has anti-lock brakes.
a long skid mark in the road means the cyclist was in a panic to stop, and applied as much force as possible. and from reading the account, i'd say the bus driver failed to see the cyclist.
Despite the driver's initial statement and the report that the police are trying to blame the cyclist, it sounds like the police only cited the driver.
I won't join the debate about how much a front brake actually helps braking on a fixie, but keeping your bike up to code can only help if you get into an accident.
Apparently, the Oregon legal code merely requires a rear wheel skid. So far, one Portland judge ruled that a "brakeless" fixie does NOT meet this requirement regardless of rider ability to skid the rear wheel and another judge ruled that a fixed gear bike without hand levers/calipers DOES meet the legal requirement because the legs can provide sufficient braking action to produce a skid.
So, depending on the jurist, this rider may or may not have been "up to code."
Question: If the bus turned into him, what difference would it have made if he had a brake. For all we know he could have locked up his rear tire once the bus had hit him---the bus could have dragged him for a while before he went under.
Apparently, the Oregon legal code merely requires a rear wheel skid. So far, one Portland judge ruled that a "brakeless" fixie does NOT meet this requirement regardless of rider ability to skid the rear wheel and another judge ruled that a fixed gear bike without hand levers/calipers DOES meet the legal requirement because the legs can provide sufficient braking action to produce a skid.
So, depending on the jurist, this rider may or may not have been "up to code."
Yeah, but do you want to have to worry about which judge you'll get?
Yeah, but do you want to have to worry about which judge you'll get?Some riders are willing to take that chance, because they must have their bikes as free of all extraneous parts as possible.
Then they stick cards in their spokes.
There's more weight on the rear wheel when an rear only brake is available. versus when a front/rear brake system is used together, since the front brake tends to lessens the weight on the rear the more the front is applied. I definitely prefer the front/rear brake system over the rear only brake for it's extra stopping power on dry pavement, but can still use the rear only portion on slick surfaces.
Faster braking (regardless of which brake) results in more weight on the front wheel. The fact that rear-wheel braking results in less of a load imbalance is proof that it is less efficient.
The explanation why is simple - the faster you stop, the less weight is on the rear, which reduces the amount of downforce on the rear tire, which reduces the force due to friction, which reduces deceleration. This effectively caps how effective the rear brake can ever be.
Using front/rear together on slick surfaces is even worse, because it makes fishtailing very easy - with little weight on the rear, applying a bit of rear brake can make the rear wheel go all over the place. Read Sheldon's article on it.
Front-only braking works fine for a rider who 1) has good brakes, and 2) knows how to shift his weight while braking to prevent flying over the bars. If you can skid your front wheel while applying maximum braking power and keeping 95% of your weight on the front wheel, you're stopping as fast as your front tire and the surface of the road will allow.
brakes make you stop faster. it's that simple. they should be required, imho.
Faster braking (regardless of which brake) results in more weight on the front wheel. The fact that rear-wheel braking results in less of a load imbalance is proof that it is less efficient.
The explanation why is simple - the faster you stop, the less weight is on the rear, which reduces the amount of downforce on the rear tire, which reduces the force due to friction, which reduces deceleration. This effectively caps how effective the rear brake can ever be.
Using front/rear together on slick surfaces is even worse, because it makes fishtailing very easy - with little weight on the rear, applying a bit of rear brake can make the rear wheel go all over the place. Read Sheldon's article on it.
Front-only braking works fine for a rider who 1) has good brakes, and 2) knows how to shift his weight while braking to prevent flying over the bars. If you can skid your front wheel while applying maximum braking power and keeping 95% of your weight on the front wheel, you're stopping as fast as your front tire and the surface of the road will allow.
I don't disagree with the main thesis here, but a couple misconceptions. First, I'd take a fishtail anyday over a washed out front wheel. Fishtailing I can control. There is no controlling a bike with a sliding front wheel.
Second, because of the angles involved, it is difficult if not impossible to get the front wheel to slide on dry pavement. It is a simple statics problem involving the critical angle at which the wheel will never slide because the horizontal force on the wheel will never catch up to the frictional force imposed by the downward force vector. This is why you can get a broom to stand up against a wall without fear of it sliding out.
And third, if it is slick enough that you can get your front wheel to slide on a maximum force stop, you will crash, plain and simple. And it will be the type of crash that is fast enough that you cannot get your hand up in time to shield your face. It's an eating pavement type crash, in the literal sense.
But overall, you are right. It is faster to brake with a front brake than with a rear brake. It can also be said though that you have more control with the braking with the rear brake than with the front brake.
But overall, you are right. It is faster to brake with a front brake than with a rear brake. It can also be said though that you have more control with the braking with the rear brake than with the front brake.You've hit on a good point. A beginner will feel safer braking with the rear brake. An experienced rider, who has practiced braking with the front brake, will be able to brake to a stop faster.
I don't disagree with the main thesis here, but a couple misconceptions. First, I'd take a fishtail anyday over a washed out front wheel. Fishtailing I can control. There is no controlling a bike with a sliding front wheel.
Second, because of the angles involved, it is difficult if not impossible to get the front wheel to slide on dry pavement. It is a simple statics problem involving the critical angle at which the wheel will never slide because the horizontal force on the wheel will never catch up to the frictional force imposed by the downward force vector. This is why you can get a broom to stand up against a wall without fear of it sliding out.
And third, if it is slick enough that you can get your front wheel to slide on a maximum force stop, you will crash, plain and simple. And it will be the type of crash that is fast enough that you cannot get your hand up in time to shield your face. It's an eating pavement type crash, in the literal sense.
But overall, you are right. It is faster to brake with a front brake than with a rear brake. It can also be said though that you have more control with the braking with the rear brake than with the front brake.
I never said it didn't take more *skill* to do front-only braking. ;)
The thing about fishtailing is that not only is it a not-good thing in itself, but it also means that with the given weight distribution, the rear brake is useless.
To me, there are two ways to brake: 1) Front only, or 2) start with all rear and shift to front as necessary. But never do the opposite - don't start with a large amount of front braking and then engage the rear, because it'll just get wiggly on you.
Yeah, but do you want to have to worry about which judge you'll get?
Nope. And that's why the sole fixed gear among my bike collection has brakes.
i'm not a fixie rider, so I don't know, but, having broken a couple-three chains in my life I don't guess I'd want to have only a chain to rely on to stop.
i'm not a fixie rider, so I don't know, but, having broken a couple-three chains in my life I don't guess I'd want to have only a chain to rely on to stop.
It can be done. I for one would never ride brakeless and for sure there are many out there riding brakeless who have no business doing so. However, there are some very experienced riders who are able to safely ride brakeless. The problem is all the dorky 15 yr old hipsters trying to emulate bike messengers who can't control their machine.
Fist full of Brakes!!!! oh yes........
AND it is possible to ride out a front wheel skid..... just not easy.
Fist full of Brakes!!!! oh yes........
AND it is possible to ride out a front wheel skid..... just not easy.
I bow to your bike handling skills. :)
Some riders are willing to take that chance, because they must have their bikes as free of all extraneous parts as possible.
Then they stick cards in their spokes.
ZING!!
ZING!!
god damned emo hipster wanna be cyclists. can't follow traffic laws either and ride like morons. ugh i hate them i hate them
I bow to your bike handling skills. :)
A dozen Canadian winters riding will give 'em to ya too. :)
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.