Originally Posted by halfbiked
Possibly sheldon's point is that far too many people believe that the front brake is dangerous to use. His theoretical example is effective, valid and, as it happens, true. If you start talking about going downhill, speaking of real-world examples, the rear brake becomes next to useless - even with weight shift. Without using the front brake, you won't stop. Frankly, the only surfaces on which the front brake is more dangerous than the rear are ice and wet steel. If you give me the option of a front or rear brake, I'll take the front every time.
You just totally verified my point. Thank you.
The idea is that you really should use BOTH brakes at the same time in a balanced proportion for maximum braking in high performance conditions. Sheldon's talk is about front OR rear. He dosen't consider front AND rear. Front only can give you a front end washout (which results in a face plant) or a nice little something called snap oversteer (which results in a high-side exit) if you are not going in a straight line.
This is taking a SIMPLE (ie real world variables not applied) example, that was being made to tell a casual cyclist that it is OK to use the front brake and that you won't flip over the handlebars, and having people that race and ride in fast groups thinking that what he is saying is that you should only use the front brake.