psirue

No, I was asking of the benefits of rigging up some suicide hub not the benefits of a DIY solution vs. a custom fixed wheel build.

What are the benefits of putting a kid on a fixed-geared bicycle vs. a freewheel bicycle? Like I have said already, I only see downsides.

devilshaircut

Tell that to Sheldon "Coasting is a Pernicious Habit" Brown (RIP).

Parental supervision? This is dangerous for a 4-year old on ANY bike, you realize, right???

I ride brakeless so I understand the dangers of coming unclipped. So please spare me. I am sure it has happened to all of us. The answer is to just brake. Frankly, I have heard of and see more people faceplant because they front braked too fast, not because they came unclipped.

Like, every newspaper article that ever was written about a cyclist who happened to be on a FG and died?

Better yet, you make the poll coz I don't care, or do a little research into these archives and read for yourself. It's kind of obvious that this phrase is said a lot.

Please, your entire beef with me was because you thought I was advocating being an overbearing parent. When all I said was that FG bikes offer a unique opportunity to improve cycling technique. I've cited opinions from SB who is probably everyone's favorite online bike guru. If you really wanna keep arguing this, feel free, but frankly if you think FG bikes don't help improve technique, you're arguing an opinion that cannot be substantiated.

FG BIKES ARE NOT DANGEROUS. Can I just say that one more time? Thanks.

psirue

I think he'd agree that decent cycling technique takes practice and it not something you can purchase.

I took my bikes down the hills of San Francisco growing up from the time of my first bicycle (1st grade) until I moved away in Junior High. Kids can be sneaky.

If you're so aware of the dangers of unclipping, then why are so adamant about putting children on bicycles without foot retention or on bicycles where foot retention is a must? I honestly think you're backpedaling again and have no experience in the matter [yet].

Source?

So, in other words, you're talking out of your ass and you realize your opinion simply does not hold any water but you dont want to admit it. Got it.

I think fixed-gear bicycles can improve cycling technique -- but only when improvement is the goal and when practice and training and awareness are the method. A child (and other fixed-gear riders) will not benefit magically because of what they ride without such practices. That's naive and quite ideological of you to believe.

A fixed-gear would be more dangerous to a child than a non-fixed gear would be. Thanks.

mihlbach

This argument is absurd. The OP asked about a 4 year old kid. Some you obviously have very little understanding of the state of development of a 4 year old and clearly you have zero experience teaching and riding with 4 year olds.

the_don

You people want kids??

mackerel

which is exactly why it appears in "Singlespeed & Fixed Gear"

which is exactly why it appears in "Singlespeed & Fixed Gear"

devilshaircut

So you're saying you think a 4 year old is capable of riding a bike (a regular bike you have to balance on, without training wheels), just not a FG one?

That's ABSURD.

The differences between a FG bike and a freewheel bike are not as many and as vast as people think they are. If you can ride a bike, you can ride a FG bike.

EDIT: You know, I could even buy the argument that 4 year old is not old enough to ride a bike without training wheels. Or an upright bike in general. But to say that they are fully capable of riding an upright bike ... just not one with a fixed drive train? That's silly.


To Psi:

- Of course you can't BUY skills. But you can buy equipment that gives a learning advantage. This is fairly obvious in any realm.

- If you rode your bike down the streets of SF when you were in 1st grade, you were STILL 2 if not 3 years older than a 3 (almost 4) year old, which is a world of difference.

- You obviously don't get much exposure to news stories regarding people on FG bikes. There is always unavoidably a huge explanation of FG biking that makes it sound more dangerous than it actually is.

- No, I just don't feel the need to go to the trouble to make a poll to solve an argument because that just pisses people off. If you didn't notice that's already happened once this month. Also, you are clearly irrational so 1) I have no desire to find statistical data to prove you wrong and 2) once I proved you wrong, you would STILL be arguing with me.

- Regardless of what you say about having to have an "attitude" of improvement when riding FGs, you are wrong. FGs passively promote good cycling habits. If nothing else, read the SB article. It is not rocket science. One example: can you coast when riding FG? No. This makes sure your legs don't get stiff and your legs retain good circulation. This is an IMPLICIT benefit of FG riding.

- The only way a FG is more dangerous is the risk of a kid putting his/her hand in the drive train. Slap a chain guard on. Whatever. FG is not dangerous.

... in conclusion, you have basically taken me saying that FG bikes are a good way to improve technique and loaded it with about 5 paragraphs of meaning. This is extremely annoying. Stop putting words in my mouth. I have clarified and reiterated myself about 20 times for you, I am getting sick of it. What DON'T you understand about me saying:

It's an EXTREMELY simple statement that is VERY difficult to misinterpret. Somehow you have gleaned pages of meaning from this. I urge you to take this statement at face value.

mihlbach

Go re-read my first post and stop talking out of your ass. If you would like to have an intelligent discussion about this, go spend a year riding with a 4-5 year old on a daily basis, then get back to me.

devilshaircut

Circumvent an intelligent discussion if you want by making whatever claims you want about my experience and your experience.

Or you could actually explain how a FG is "dangerous" compared to a freewheel to a 4 year old. They are so close to being the same thing, it is kind of absurd.

mihlbach

try again...this time from the beginning.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=552930

But since you are so thick.....not only is a fixed gear POTENTIALLY more dangerous to a 4-year-old. Its going to be a big PITA to you and the kid. Moreover, a 4 year old does not care if his bike is hipster certified, and it isn't going to make a damn bit of difference to the child's development of the essential bike handling skills that a four year old should be learning.

devilshaircut

Again, not really an argument. I've already addressed these issues:

A bicycle, on the other hand, requires balance and has a potentially dangerous drivetrain.

^ True of ANY bike.

Little kids lack the coordination to ride with foot retention, which is an important safety feature on a fixie.

^ Foot retention is only necessary if you don't have some other way of braking. Most kid's bikes don't have foot retention anyhow. This is because you can coast. But ALSO because you can brake. This has been addressed.

Moreover, kids are not strong enough to pedal a high gear ratio and consequently must ride a much lower gear than an adult. Because of this, there is the potential to spin wildly out of control, sans foot retention (imagine feet and pedals flailing wildly), riding down the shallowest of hills and given the tendency for kids to crash frequently, there is a high possibility of getting hands or feet caught in the spinning drivetrain.

^ A 4 year should should not be allowed to ride down a hill steep enough to gain significant speed, on ANY bike.

This was already discussed previously by me.

Frankly, you miss the most dangerous issue which is fingers in the drivetrain.

mihlbach

You have the reading skills of a 4-year-old.

devilshaircut

Again, not an argument. Do you think just because you apparently have a kid you are the expert on parenting? And that's good enough?

Clearly, there are parents out there who have considered giving their kids fixed gear bikes, and there are adults whose first bikes were fixed gears.

But I guess your judgement supercedes theirs because "you say so"? Everyone else is a rotten parent. Being a parent doesn't make the "because I said so" argument valid to anyone but your kids.

mihlbach

Temper tantrum...
When my son has a temper tantrum, I ask him to stand in the hallway until his emotions subside. Maybe you should try the same.

devilshaircut

Okay, I am asking for a logical argument, which, in your last 4 posts, you have failed to provide. All you have done is call me dumb ... but cool dude. It's okay if you just wanna troll.

FG bikes aren't any more dangerous for kids than freewheel bikes. Sorry.

duppy.conqueror

an easy assumption to make when one doesnt have kids. I for one wouldnt let my 3 y-o girl ride one.
the risk outweighs any good that could come of it in my opinion. I see what your sayin about peoples first bike being fixed etc. but really? in this day and age? I live in the city and I cringe letting my 13 year old girl ride her bike on the streets. theres a time and a place for everything. ane when you are talking about a life that you have nurtured/are nurturing it makes a decision that seems oh so obvious to you much harder to make for say someone like me. </2cents>

mihlbach

That is correct.

I put my credentials and my logical argument, which you fail to comprehend, on the first page. I do not have and have never had any intention of arguing with you.

devilshaircut

4 is young, sure. But I've seen 3 year olds on monkey bars etc and be just fine. If a kid can ride an upright bike I see no reason a FG wouldn't also be appropriate. I can understand the parent's not wanting them on a bike altogether. Bikes can be dangerous. But the amount of inherent danger between FG and freewheel bikes is significantly less than the amount of danger a kid experiences by getting on a bike in the first place.

If you don't want your kid on a bike, fine. Not wanting your kid on a FG though is just overreaction.

devilshaircut

And I also presented a lucid argumnt which you had nothing better to say about than basically "ur dum". So yeah troll all you want. Doesn't make FGs dangerous d00d. Sorry we don't live in a world where you make a point and everyone agrees with you. You're naive if you think your opinion is the only right one. If it is even right in the first place.

mackerel

As a father of a three year old who rides both fixed and freewheel bikes, I must say my daughter has had more difficulty with her fixed.
When she had taken her feet off the pedals while the fixed bike was moving, the pedals had continued to spin and subsequently hit her shins, causing a bit of bruising and bleeding.
She has not had that problem with her little freewheel bike.

If you do not consider bleeding shins a result of danger, then you are correct that "FG bikes aren't any more dangerous for kids than freewheel bikes".

You should realize though, your lack of parental experience is quite obvious in your postings.

devilshaircut

If it was so dangerous why did you put her on it in the first place? When I was young I fell oFf my bike plenty of times and got scrapes and bruises. It's a part of childhood. Bikes are inherently dangerous. If you don't want your daughter to get scrapes, don't give her a bike.

IMO it's really condescending to every parent who ever gave their kid a FG to say doing so shows a lack of judgement on their part.

cavit8

mackerel

I said she had more difficulty, thus the bruised and bleeding shins.

I did not say it was "so dangerous" and I "don't want (my) daughter to get scrapes".

As you said: "scrapes and bruises. It's a part of childhood".

You need to chill.

devilshaircut

All I am saying is that it's safe enough for a kid to do if you think s/he can handle a bike to begin with. I do think it is condescending to presume that other parents aren't as responsibile as you in terms of parenting.

EDIT: I also said bikes themselves are inherently dangerous. I think kids can ride bikes but I wouldn't take issue with a parent who thought it was too dangerous. What I do take issue with is arbitrarily drawing the line at FGs when plently of people rode them as their first bike.

devilshaircut

I think I can explain this better by saying this:

Do you think bikes in general are too dangerous for kids? I am guessing you'd say no. But most kids get cuts and bruises from riding bikes. This is essentially the same argument being presented to me.