law is up to interpretation. "equipped with a brake" is the part that california cops and courts are using to issue you the ticket.

and i'm of the opinion that they're right to do so insofar that you are actually breaking the law by any reasonable interpretation.

pretty easy to find your local laws about this, because most places have the exact same language. http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scrip...ct6=HITOFF&f=G

i am brakeless and i am breaking the law.

just because you interpret the rest of the law and conveniently think your legs are brakes, does not mean a reasonable person will think so too. a reasonable person would think you need a brake. it's like if there was a law that stated "you must wear pants that have pink frilly tassles around the ankle opening" and so you ran around with a shirt and your johnson wanging out but you had little pink frilly anklets, and when a cop wrote you a ticket for not having pants you were like

"Bro, but just look at my tassles!"

you can contest it, but you'll likely pay more in court fees or attorney fees when you lose because there's no precedent for fixed gears counting as a brake. then again, if you win an appeal it will set precedent and then everyone and their mom can start killing peds with their brakeless fixies. though i'm pretty sure in every court that's heard it they've ruled that you need a brake if you're on public roads.

which is totally something you want, right? for everyone to start riding brakeless?

pay to play, brah.