If you want to be cool, ride without a brake.

If you want to be faster, and have more fun, ride with a brake.

I've had it both ways, and been doing it for a long time. One time my chain got to stretched out and it fell off while I was going down the house side of Constitution avenue. That is as steep as some of those steep a$$ hills in SF. I would be dead if there had been cross traffic.

Sheldon Brown convinced me that it is too much hassle to ride brakeless. Putting on a brake doesn't mean you can't skip/skid. It doesn't mean you can't add nuance to your bike handling by means of reverse input to the rear wheel. You can still do all that stuff. But from a standpoint of efficiency, what do you want to spend your energy on, going backwards or going forwards? When I'm biking I want to get somewhere efficiently. And a brake makes me more efficient. I don't have to slow down way before an intersection or on a hill to keep from getting squashed. If some stupid indecisive motorist can't decide to speed up or slow down and just gets in my way (happened twice this morning, incredible!) then I don't start to get worried about getting hit, I just lose my momentum, and thats it. And I can ride with people on road bikes easilly without making them get all worried 'cause I'm weaving all over the place and what not.

The only drawback is it ain't as pretty. And like I said to begin with, it just ain't cool. So what matters to you, form or function?

I started on a track bike with no brakes and just went real slow. I didn't get killed or anything and I rode brakeless in Washington DC for years and years. So you can do it; but the question isn't can you, but should you. I don't think it is worth it, and all this stuff about not using your brake is just pointless from my viewpoint, even though I would have defended that position recently.