What's with fixie riders who rely on strong legs to slow down their bikes and do not have even one brake? The only rationale I can think of it that it's part of their minimialist look.
So far as I can see brakeless bikes pose a serious hazard to everyone on the road and I'd be happy if police seized them on the spot.

It's also a bit of a blow to a no-brake fixie rider if the chain breaks or comes off.

Some municipalities (mine included) have brake requirements for bikes in the law.

12.60.120 Lamps and other required equipment.

B. Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake or brakes which will enable its driver to stop the bicycle
within twenty-five feet from a speed of ten miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement.
(Ord. 99-1815 § 9, 1999; prior code § 27-1-256)

One look at the age and "hipness" of the brakeless riders will answer your question quite clearly.......

And since a fixed gear rider can stop from that speed in that distance, the law is satisfied.

OP, where are all the dead victims from these dangerous riders?

It may not be our choice to ride fixed without handbrakes, and it may not be AS safe, but are they really hurting anyone?

Fixed offers several advantages for city riding...above all, less maintenance. No brake pads, no tune ups...the simplicity controls costs and labor. I knew a lot of pros who rode fixed in the winter to build strength...they felt it improved cadence and bike control.

It's not my thing, but I have no issue with it.

I have nothing against fixed gear riders with no brakes. If they can ride the bike safely, then let them. However, IANAL, but I am not sure that the law is satisfied even if the can stop that quickly. The law quoted clearly says the "bicycle shall be equipped with a brake or brakes..." It doesn't just say the driver needs to be able to stop within 25 feet.

New York State law says:§ 1236 (c) Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement.

Again, I don't think a brake-less fixed-gear would satisfy the letter of the law since it is not equipped with a brake. That said, they may be able to satisfy the spirit of the law which is good enough for me but maybe not for a police officer or a judge.

Most fixie riders have a front brake. The ones who don't, well, you're not going to reason with them. They have their reasons, to be sure.

I ride fixed, but not brakeless. Most of the trackies I know think riding brakeless on the road is foolish, but I have to admit that some of those who do it are extremely skilled. The truth is probably that a highly skilled rider, fixed and brakeless, is much less of a hazard than the majority of riders without brakes, many of whose bike-handling skills and situational awareness frequently bring me close to despair. So while it isn't something I'd choose to do myself, I wouldn't generalise.

And since it isn't illegal, at least here, to ride a unicycle on the roads...

I think it's kind of dumb--if your chain brakes or slips, you have no way to stop--but to each their own, I guess. And yes, I HAVE seen a guy on a fixie break his chain and crash.

Of course, the exact same limitation applies to a bike with a coaster brake. And as for a bike with a a single brake and a freewheel -- if the brake cable breaks, they cannot brake.

The real issue is that without a brake, even the best fixie rider can't stop as fast as grandma on her bike with a coaster brake, and grandma stops about 3x slower as somebody on a bike with a good front brake. And most fixie riders can't stop as fast as the best fixie rider.

No brake pads to replace once a year or so, no rim replacements every few years -- but their rear tire needs to be replaced (or at least rotated to even out the skid pads) every month or so.

The "less maintenance" bit certainly does ring true for ditching gears and going to a single speed or a fixie. But as for ditching the brake -- no, that argument does not work anymore, because the maintenance you save on your brake is greatly exceeded by the additional maintenance required on your tires.

Ditching the brake on a fixie is a fashion decision, not a "less maintenance" decision. The only thing the brake will hurt is if you do bar spins during tricks -- but even then you could just get a detangler.

Brake cables and housings, adjusting the brakes...every little bit counts. It's not something I would do, but others enjoy it, who am I to judge? I would use a flip flop and two brakes.

Texas law saws something similar.

Now, one could argue that the bike is equipped with a rider, and the rider is able to make the braked wheels skid, or that the pedals are the brake, and by using the pedals the operator can make the braked wheels skid ... but I don't know how effective such arguments have been. Certainly, the police do occasionally give "no brake" tickets to riders of bicycles without brakes, and usually the cyclists just pay them (rather than trying to right them.)

Note that the way this law is written is sort of unfortunate, as most upright bicycles cannot skid the front wheels, no matter how good the brakes are -- instead the bike will endo before the front wheel skids. So reading this law literally (as laws should be read), any bike with a front brake (either only a front brake or both a front and back brake) violates the law. That said, I've never heard of anybody getting a ticket for it, so it's probably OK.

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.

I don't care how well you can skid the rear wheel on your brakeless FG, there ie NO way you can stop as quickly as a rider with a front brake. If you just pedal around at cruising speed you might be be able to avoid a collision, but if you ride at speed in traffic there is no way you are safe without a front brake.

Yes, I agree, but of course it is possible to ride at a speed that is suitable to your brakeless condition. And if that's what you want to do, then it is possible to stop very fast.

My point was that going "brakeless fixie" over "fixie with brakes" to save on maintnenace is a stupid decision, because the brakeless fixie needs far more mainenance -- you're replacing rare replacement/adjustment of brake components with more often needed replacement and adjustment of your rear tire -- and a plethora of flats if you don't do it often enough.

That is, if you ride it on the road. If you ride it on the track where you really don't have to stop, then it's all good.

I understand your point, and it has validity. I am giving the rationale.

All of my bikes have gears and brakes.

Rather than posting a cranky, trollish, mini-rant in the A&S forum, why not head on over to SSFG and actually ask the question nicely and have a grown-up discussion about it? You're acting like the proverbial old man telling those damn kids to get off his lawn...

This is the real question. I mean, it seems more dangerous, and *I* wouldn't ride a bike without regular brakes...but fixies have been trendy for several years now, and I can't remember ever seeing anything anywhere suggesting that fixie riders were actually being injured at a higher rate than other riders.

To be fair, the dearth of good bicycle statistics reinforces "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I'm not aware of any studies done on the issue, but in my own personal experience brakeless fixie riders absolutely are being injured at a higher rate than other riders.

They run into other riders (who had to slow or stop for some reason), they run into cars when they would have avoided the collision if they had brakes, they go down steep hills thinking they can stop and then find out they can't (which often leads to really bad injuries if there's cross traffic or a barrier down below), etc.

I've been on a lot of large group rides with significant numbers of brakeless fixie riders, and I've seen all these things happen multiple times, when I haven't seen them happen to riders with standard brakes. (I've seen them run into cars, and run into riders in front of them, but in smaller numbers, and I've never seen one lose it down a hill like I've seen brakeless fixie riders do.)

Now, this is just my own experience, an anecdote, not a scientific study, but the difference seems significant.

I want a grown-up discussion about the merits of brakeless fixies about as much as I want a reasonable discussion about the merits of scientology. I know the 'rationale' and it comes down to fashion. The dangers to others on the road are obvious. I would like this particular law to be consistently enforced and am annoyed that it is not.

I rode about 4000 miles across the US with a guy on a brakeless fixie. He was a pretty good rider that could handle high speeds and steep grades as well as city riding.