Yeah I didn't think of that but I know in my state any bicycles ridden on public streets must be equipped with brakes which, when engaged, must be able to make the tires skid on pavement. Trying to backpedal on a fixie certainly wouldn't make the tires skid.

I'm assuming most state bicycle laws have something similar. This incident is precisely the reason these laws exist.

Context is important here. I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to jump out of an airplane without a parachute or a wingsuit, but I think the lack of the equipment would be a relevant thing to report.

Riding a bike downhill in traffic through an intersection with no brakes is a high risk for hitting something or forcefully flying off the bike, so the fact that the rider is not wearing a helmet seems rather relevant to me in this one case.

Maine law is "A bicycle, scooter or motorized bicycle or tricycle must be equipped with a brake sufficient to enable the operator to stop the vehicle or device within a reasonable distance."

In that case, "brake" is clearly a separate device. Per [MENTION=186391]indyfabz[/MENTION] , it sounds like Philadelphia encountered someone making your drivetrain=stopping device argument, and changed the law to make it clear an actual brake was required.

Can't remember where it actually happened. May have been NYC. And I think the issue was discussed/argued/debated a while back on this forum.

*Braking news.

It sure wasn't "braking" news. :lol:

Not that it would be an effective way to stop, but it sure is possible.

Possible for what? There's not a single example of anyone stopping that way, and some of those skids are dozens of feet long. This is stunt riding, not representative of almost any riders' skill levels. In any event, it's just low quality rear wheel braking which is why it's great for skidding stunts, but not good for actual street riding.

I hate these videos of people doing stupid crap like weaving in and out of oncoming traffic lanes and am sorry I gave them another view.

Yes it is.

I don't condone that type riding either. it was just to show that backpedalling on a fixie CAN cause the rear tire to skid, contrary to what has been said in this thread before. While it isn't a great way to stop (certainly nowhere near a front brake), it can be used to stop; the fact that skidding isn't used for stopping in the posted video doesn't mean there is no practical use for that.

Your video shows that there are some riders who can use it to skid. Unless there are some video tricks being employed, that is some exceptionally fast riding by people who are clearly expert in bike handling. For us lesser mortals, it's almost certainly not practical. I can post links to videos of people balancing their fixed gears on their chin, doesn't show it's a practical method for carrying a bike.

I have no problem with people arguing that all you need on a fixie for road use is a good front brake, but without that the stopping distances using just backwards pedaling are just too great for safe road and path operation.

Well if you are going to ride a bike without brakes in traffic and survive, you have to be an expert in bike handling. Us lesser mortals will have to do with a bike that has brakes.

To be fair, I didn't see anyone actually stop in that video, and in one clip, around the 4 minute mark, the clip ends just before it appears the rider is about to slam into the guardrail.

I don't care if someone is expert, their survival may be at the expense of a pedestrian's. Around these parts, it's illegal, and there should be no exceptions for "expertise". Track bikes are for tracks and need to be modified to be street legal.

Lots of old people sounding old around here.


and no it isn't.

No it isn't! ... oh wait.

And lots of old people trying to sound like they're hip instead of at risk for fracturing one.

Fractured hips and/or preventing them keeps me employed :)

Watched a great interview with Laird Hamilton on Off Camera that talks about getting mentally old. I relate his surfing to my bike riding:

I kind of had the opposite experience coming back to riding in my mid-50s. My mind thought I was just going to ride a few miles, but my body just kept doing more than I expected. Now a century is one of my shorter rides.

I was never young enough to think riding on a road without a brake was something to try.

Depends on the roads I suppose. Out in the rural countryside where I do my weekend riding there is really no need for sudden stops. But there are some hills and I suck enough that I'm in trouble so I have a front brake. On the flats you can slow and stop well enough with just with the legs. I do most of those rides without touching the brake.

A more urban setting with other traffic adds a dimension of unpredictability that makes a brake pretty necessary imo.

It's not always just a show off thing though. One of the interesting aspects of FG riding that I experience is how pared down the inputs are. You very much become part of the movement of the bike in an active way that transforms what might be an otherwise banal ride. They keep you "in the moment".

OK, I went a bit overboard on the phrasing. About 6 months of the year, I do a weekly ride on the weekend well in excess of 100 miles, generally in the 125-150 mile range. The other day of the weekend I ride whatever I need to do to get to 200 miles for the weekend. So what I should have said is that I am at a point where 100 miles does not seem like a long ride to me, which is something my brain couldn't have conceived of four years ago. My body completely surprised me.

I agree that brakes generally are less used on the country. I do a lot of rural riding on my freewheel bikes and can go many miles without squeezing them. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be there for the unforeseen. Urban setting with intersections, I don't care how good someone thinks they are. If they're going to exceed single digits mph, they're going to need a brake at some point.

I think one thing that happens with FG's in discussion and media is that the tool gets confused with the activity, sort of like skateboards. The bike itself, if used appropriately, isn't that bad - even with no brakes (note I said appropriately). The problem is that they are often used by people engaging in risk taking activities. They see the NewYork alley cat videos and want to replicate that image or vibe. The problem in this article wasn't the bike with no brakes (assuming it was intentionally FG and not just broken). It was blowing the intersection. Brakes or not, that's a bad idea. We don't know if that happened because of the bike or because of the riders decision making process.

I think FG's are a great tool for teaching riders to be actively engaged in what they are doing. You have to be aware of your surroundings, the terrain, effort, judgement of distance, muscle control etc... In my case I added the front brake because my honest assessment says I did not have the prerequisite skill to stop safely on hills (and the fact I have traction tires that don't skid). But when I ride, my operational goal is to not use the brake at all if I can help it. It will eventually become like a helmet, there for safety but not something I actually use to remain safe.