I still think that using both brakes will result in a quicker stop *if* done properly. It might be a very, very small difference in the distance to stop compared to only using the front brake, but still a "real" difference. I say "real" (in quotes) because I imagine the difference is much less obvious on a bicycle as compared to a motorcycle (where most of my experience with experimenting has occurred).

I also disagree with some of the turning section in the article. Specifically, the part about leaning your body out with the bike more upright not having a benefit for cornering (other than the stated pedal strike avoidance). I will say that the benefit of leaning the body out more with the bike upright would not be a big advantage compared to a motorcycle where the speeds are obviously much greater. The whole point of the techinque is to keep more of the tire in contact with the road by using your body to shift the center of gravity to the side thus "making" the turn with a larger contact patch on the tire (the bike still leans, of course, just not as much). I find this technique fairly useless on the road as the speeds just aren't high enough to benefit (for me anyway), but the usefullness offroad are real, and have benefitted me on occasion.

The experiment referenced by Jobst Brandt is irrelevant, IMO. Of course the bike will follow an erratic line - you're *leaning* the bike! A better experiment would be to do the variations of the turning techniques mentioned on a bumpy road while *turning*. I think you'll find that the method of leaning just the bike with the body upright will have less traction, and the methods of keeping both body and bike in the same plain and leaning the body more than the bike will have greater traction (with slight advantage of the latter technique in some situations).

$0.02 (I hope that made sense.)