We had a very, um, lively discussion here a year or two ago started by a guy who had a terrible problem. He was going at high speed ( I think he said 40mph) down a fairly steep hill (in Massachusetts), road was two lanes, fairly busy, and he noticed the cars going his way were stopping. He figured it was because one intended to turn left and had to wait for traffic going the other way to clear. So he sped past the stopped cars on the right, only to find as he cleared the last one that---oops, it was a car coming the other way turning LEFT IN FRONT OF HIM. So he ran right into the side of the turning car, putting a dent in it. This sounded just awful. However, somehow he was not more than shaken up, and the bike was even ridable. He saw that people were stopping and getting out of cars and he sensed unfriendliness there so he got back on the bike and headed away.

His first question was whether he should have left the scene, which everyone agreed that he should not have. His other question was if it wasn't the turning car's fault. Or maybe also the person who'd stopped to let them through. That is where things got lively as some felt you should assume that stopped traffic is stopped for a REASON and as he couldn't see what it was it was only prudent to at least slow down. Of course some felt that the turning car was at fault and owed him damages to his bike, also the person who let them through, and hell, probably all the other cars too because TWO WHEELS GOOD FOUR WHEELS BAD AMIRITE. Or something.

Anyway, it was only after three or four pages of this argy bargy that the OP returned to say, 'Oh yeah, I was on a brakeless fixie and I couldn't have stopped if I wanted to.'

It was kind of hard to know what to say after that. But some did anyway.