NOT using the front brake regularly will likely lead one to grab too much some day due to inexperience with it. Practice makes perfect (or at least less imperfect).

I disagree completely with this statement. More like, make a habit of using your rear brake and you'll find yourself fishtailing all over the road just when you don't want to be, during an emergency stop. The rear brake should be reserved for reducing the risk of front wheel lockup under conditions of poor road grip, such as on a wet, muddy, bumpy, snowy, icy or gravel surface, for spreading the heat during long descents, for technical riding, or for allowing the other hand to signal a turn. At all other times, particularly during emergency stops, I use only the front brake.

I don't know about you, but I definitely can't brake without holding the bar with both hands. At least not without turning unpredictably.

I have to do this all the time when commuting - as you brake for a turn, you want to be signalling it as well.

I only signal if I need to for my own safety. About once a month or so.

Bro, you really need to spend some quality time getting intimate with the correct application of front brake. I'd have to say that I use my front brake for a good 85% of my braking needs. You need to know exactly how that front brake is going to work. It talks to you if you only listen.

Here's a little exercise for you... Disconnect the back brake and remove the lever from the perch. Ride this way for a month. You'll be surprised at the results.

To the OP,

I've done a front disc conversion on two of my bikes One I did myself, the other a shop did, both came in right around $400, but then I also went from threaded to threadless too and used new bars.

I have a front disc brake on my fixie. That thing will stop on a dime. I recommend front disc brakes unless you're a weight weenie.

You must be a track cyclist, right?

No, really, I very rarely need to signal in traffic. Maybe traffic density and intensity plays a part. I only do it when I can be perceived as blocking the lane and there is only one lane, and the street splits into two or more directions. To avoid having the traffic behind me try to pass me before the turn, I signal my intention. That allows them to position themselves properly.

Other than that, I sometimes need to signal for a lane change, but usually I just look behind me and move when it's clear.

I somewhat agree with this statement, but I find that the lane that I'm in, reveals my intentions most of the time. I live in a large city and I find the need to signal only when I have conflicting traffic (pedestrian as well).

And almost always, it's a left turn with traffic coming up behind me.

What is the situation with bike lanes in your city, and in Sweden in general? The one time I was in Stockholm, I didn't find it particularly bike-friendly, although my standards of measurement are maybe too high (in Finland every town has an extensive network of bike lanes - along almost every road).

First of all, I distinguish between three kinds of bike-specific things.
- Bike roads (often rural bikeways built where railroad tracks once lay, or bicycle-exclusive roads in built-up areas).
- Bike paths (separated paths, usually MUPs that parallel regular streets most of the time, but often undulate extensively past intersections)
- Bike lanes (a bike-specific lane in the regular street, with no peds)

Out of these, we have almost none of the first and third kind, but a disgusting amount of the second. I like bike lanes, and I'm ok with bike roads, but bike paths are pure evil, especially when they're MUPs, which most are. (We don't have the luxury of legally using the real street - if a bike path exists, it must be used, the law says.)

I'd like to see all bike paths torn up and replaced with pure sidewalks and bike lanes on all streets all over Sweden. Unfortunately, the trend is the opposite - new bike paths are finished and planned almost every week in Gothenburg alone. It's a virus! I hate it!

I absolutely love bikepaths. We'll have to agree to disagree.

EDIT: so what is the answer to what I was asking, then? You seem to imply there are a lot of bikepaths? How about the rest of the country?

The cities definitely have a lot of them, yes. The virus hasn't spread too much outside of the urban areas, but you'll usually find that in most towns, the major road through it will have bike paths. Often a tiny bit on one side, then a crossing to the other, then 100-200 m later, you're forced back across the street again, and so on, ad nauseam. The same is often true here in Gothenburg as well, and that is one of the many reasons I hate them with a passion.

Sounds about the same as in Finland. OK, so what other reasons do you have to hate bikepaths?

The reason I like them is, they offer a lot of safety. Now, of course, you might not care for that because you're a big boy and can take care of yourself. But that's not the case with small children. I really like to see families on bicycles, pop and mom, and between them a couple of children, pedaling away and enjoying themselves. That would be impossible on the road, don't you agree? And that's why I think bikepaths are the best solution - because they offer the possibility for cycling to everybody.

I think Hydraulic feels and modulates better, but costs more, and when it does break down, its harder/costs more to have repaired (bleeding).

Cable feels squishier and i feel does not modulate as well, but costs a lot less. Its simpler to maintain since its pretty much like a standard cable brake.

As a mechanic, hydraulic brakes (if they are pre-assembled and pre-bled from the factory) have an easier initial setup since both pads move in when the lever is depressed. Just loosen the bolts on caliper, pull the brake lever so it clamps the caliper, and tighten down the bolts. But for cable, since only one pad moves in, its slightly harder. But Avid BB7's make it pretty easy to adjust and set up

Your choice, it really boils down to how much you want to spend.

I'd like to have wide streets where bicycles and motorised traffic co-exist on equal legal terms.

The solution to the issue of kids riding in traffic would be to allow people to ride on sidewalks, and then to do so on the pedestrians' terms. Much in the same way as there is a street classification here where all vehicles are allowed, but peds always have the right of way, and the speed for any vehicle is limited to walking speed, or close to walking speed. Which in effect means about 10-15 km/h in most cases. Such a reclassification of sidewalks would solve that problem, and leave "mature" cyclists with the choice of the much more efficient and predictable streets.

My beef isn't really with the existance of bike paths as such, but the fact that I'm forced by law to use them if they're there. I'm not allowed to use my judgement as to which is the better option for me (in almost all cases the real street). If they got rid of that law, then by all means, build as many bike paths as you want. But a related issue is that bike paths are often built using space taken from the regular street, which means that there is less space available in the street for traffic to pass me safely.

During the winter, all bike paths (but not bike lanes, thankfully!) have thousands of tons of gravel (highly angular grains between 3 and 15 mm in size) poured onto them. Gravel + hard surface + two-wheeled bicycle = disaster and highly inefficient transportation. Emergency braking becomes dangerous, and turning at more than walking speed is a sure way of sliding and falling. The effect is somewhat akin to trying to walk on a floor covered with balls from ball bearings. The gravel is always there, making it extremely dangerous for cyclists, but the very thing it is supposed to protect against, is only present a few weeks during the average winter, and the gravel is only effective when the ice is thick enough to submerge the gravel about halfway. If there is less ice, the gravel still rolls around, making you slide all over the place, and if the ice is thicker, the gravel doesn't reach up to the surface. And then they leave the gravel there until May, when it's common to ride with bare arms and legs!

I can go on and on about this...

I read it. I agree with all you said, to a degree. I know, however, that with kids, I'd want them as far from cars as possible, when they're cycling. Kids are kids, you can't control them. OK, you can somewhat, but they are so easily distracted, there's no telling when they'll turn onto something potentially lethal. Like a car. I have seen kids do the dumbest things, while cycling. It's normal, they're kids, they don't know, and that's how things are, you can't fight that. So when I cycle, I keep an eye on kids in front of me, and if I have to do a detour to avoid one that ventured in front of my wheel, well, I just do that and don't complain.

Sorry about that, I just wanted to clarify that kids' behaviour can rarely be anticipated.

Now, the gravel: I had the most painful bike-accident because of gravel. HOWEVER, with the right tyres, even gravel is manageable. What you need is a deep, agressive thread. In the winter, you still need such a thread if you expect gravel, you just need studs as well. The time I f***ed up myself on the gravel I had smooth tyres. I learned my lesson well, and if I cycle there with such tyres, I just go really really nicely and slowly. If I have the MTB-like tyres, though, I don't worry one bit.

I agree that kids do stupid things (that's exactly why I suggested the stuff about riding on sidewalks in my previous post), but so do adults. Almost every day on my short commute, I have to take quick action to avoid a collision. Just the other day, a young (20-25) woman came off the sidewalk riding straight out from behind a tree, on her way to cross the bike path on her bike. By the time she spotted me, I had already braked hard and almost stopped. She said "Sorry!" and I just mumbled "Yeah..." and continued. When such things happen to me, I often shout "Would you have done that if I had been a car?". Hopefully that makes them think about it a little bit. People are so used to bikes moving at 10-20 km/h, so that when I move at twice that speed or more, they can't seem to judge how much time they have until I pass them.

The most common stupidity, though, is people riding with earphones, making them completely oblivious to their surroundings. They just pedal along at 10-15 km/h, often moving back and forth across the bike path, blocking all faster traffic. Those who don't shut of their hearing with the damn earphones are just as bad at going in a straight line, but they hear me (for example) coming, and move to the side in time. Again, using the real street instead would allow me to stop worrying about all these people and just move! But alas, the law is the law, and I only break it when I think I could talk myself out of a ticket (there are some excuses that sometimes work).

I use Nokian 26x2.1" Extreme 294 for my winter riding and mostly Continental SportContact 1.3" or 1.6" the rest of the year. Not much difference between them on gravel. If anything, the Contis are more predictable, even if they do slide slightly more.

^^^I forgot to add: here in Finland it's usually OK to ride on the road even if there's a bikepath.

I totally agree about people with earphones.

I am genuinely surprised the Nokian 2.1" extremes don't work for you. *scratches head* It's the kind of tyre I'd have suggested, had I not known you use it already.

The Nokians work. On ice. But on gravel, they're only marginally better than slicks. Not enough of a difference to make them worth it unless I needed them to combat the ice.

Because that's another problem with the bike paths. They aren't cleared of snow and ice like regular streets. Oh, they get their little machines out and scrape the worst snow off, but they leave a layer that quickly turns into ice, and since no cars drive there, the ice stays until it thaws. And that's not the worst!

The worst part is the extremely poor surface of the bike paths. They're so bumpy and full of depressions that trap water, that huge sections are completely covered with inch-thick layers of pure ice. Again, this doesn't happen on the real streets, because of the cars. They salt the streets, which removes the snow and ice, leaving a much safer road surface.