Wrong dumb argument--we're going to get lectured about how we're not fit enough to pedal backwards properly, and that doing so is as efficient as brakes. SPOILER ALERT -it's not.

Yes it is.

No, it isn't.

If you skid, it's as efective as applying only rear brake.

I'm confused. Is it or isn't it?

He's backpedalling.

And going downhill, getting into a skid requires you to overcome a bunch of momentum pushing the pedals forward. Definitely takes longer than engaging a brake. Any assertion otherwise is absurd.

Well look, this isn't even an argument. It's more than just saying "No, it isn't."

No it isn't.

But even Trek riders wear helmets

Darwin Award candidate?


-Kedosto

C'mon.. argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

No it isn't.

But at any rate, look here: if you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

I've seen pseudo fixies with a cog screwed onto a freewheel hub (no freewheel though) and then a bottom bracket adjustable cup ring tightened up against that cog. I guess the rider rides a bit in a quiet area to tighten the cog and then retightens the lockring. I wonder just how secure that really is. I think there's a good reason why the lockring of a true fixed gear hub screws on differently than the cog does.

Cheers

True, although I reckon a skilled fixie rider can lock the wheel/pedals almost instanteneously by raising the rear for a moment. But it would still take more time than just to squeeze a lever.

Shocking.

Gotta love good reporting. Unfortunately, this wasn't it.

1. Fixie, single-speed, Wal-mart MTB? Not mentioned. Only "no brakes."
2. Did the rider's "serious injuries" include serious head injuries? Otherwise the note that he was not wearing a helmet was irrelevant.

But if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

That was never five minutes.

Another Darwin-award contestant (hopefully) learns one of life's valuable lessons.

The reporting appears to be based entirely on police statements and limited released medical information, so I don't think it is good reporting to hold onto the story until all such facts are available.

Frankly, I don't care what kind of bike it was, if it had no brakes, he had no business riding it on the street. Brakes are required by Maine law, and riding brakeless in traffic without a freewheel is only slightly less crazy than doing so with a freewheel.

There are stories where it's quite clear that the mention of no helmet is gratuitous, I'm not at all certain this is one of those. Someone appears to have chosen to ride downhill into an intersection with no brakes, and doing so without a helmet seems to compound that bad judgment in my mind.

If not wearing a helmet was against the law, I can see the usefulness of mentioning it in a news article, when someone involved in a crash was not wearing one.

But since I don't think this is the case in Maine. So to me, that fact is about as relevant as whether or not the cyclist said "thank you" or "yes ma'am" to the Starbucks barista who served him his latte just before the crash.

BREAKING NEWS: Impolite cyclist struck in intersection.

This motivated me to look up the Philly Municipal Code. It now requires a "brake." At one point in time it did not specifically use the word "brake." Instead, it required something like a "mechanical system" capable of causing a skid within a certain number of feet. I believe there were some other jurisdictions with similar language and once read something about someone arguing that the legs of a fixe rider qualified as a "mechanical system" under the law. I'll bet that potential argument was the impetus for the change.

Legs may or may not qualify as a mechanical system, but cranks and chain, i.e. drivetrain certainly does. One could argue that brake levers, cables/hoses, calipers etc. can't make a wheel stop on their own either - they need external power applied order to do so.