Some of you mention getting ticketed for riding brakeless. Legally, what does "brakeless" mean?

According to Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, Section 257.662(2):
“A bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable
the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level,
clean pavement.”

so, If I am geared low enough and riding slow enough to do a skip stop - that means that legally (in MI) I have brakes.

In some states a fixed gear is considered a brake if you are able to stop within a certain distance by using your legs and skidding.

Found it. This is copied directly from the city of memphis bicycle laws sheet.

Section 21-200. Equipment - Brake
Every bicycle operated upon streets in the city shall be equipped with a brake or brakes which will enable its driver to stop the bicycle within twenty five feet (25') from a speed of ten miles per hour (10mph) on dry, level, clean pavement. Such brake(s) shall be maintained in good working order at all times. For the purposes of this section, the drivetrain of a fixed gear bike is considered a brake provided the rider can demonstrate compliance with the braking requirement stated herein.

really depends on the cop and/or judge.

your foot jammed in the wheel is a brake. i know this for a fact. my chain actually came off once, and i HAD to stop. so even without mechanical brakes, you have a means of braking if you really really need to. philosophically, there is no such thing as "Brakeless."

Example of a totally stupid law. The only way for this to work is to have a rear brake, which guarantees the least effective braking, and is totally unrelated to the important issue, which is stopping distance.

Yeah, I wouldn't bet on it.

Most municipalities that consider a fixed drivetrain a break have specific clauses in there, as Capo quoted.
If your state doesn't have that clause, then your FG is probably required to have a separate brake.

If you get cited for riding brakeless and try to argue what you've posted here, best of luck to you. You won't be the first to try that line of logic, and you won't be the last.

Sounds like some input from the FG community was at work here. Of course, the minimum braking requirement is pretty lame and implies that the riders are children.

For general info: DC has the same fixed drivetrain exemption as Memphis.

I clicked on this thinking it was going to be a troll thread.

Maybe. But as others have pointed out, if a cop/judge decides to take "equipped with a brake" as meaning actual brakes, then I'm not really sure you can argue your way out of that one.

Someone already took this to court with a video demonstration of fixed gear vs coaster brake. Both bikes slowed the same but she still lost, so I don't see how you can argue for brakeless when it's already been shot down in court. I believe this was in CA, so if your brake law is like CA's...

oregon, actually.

The Oregon case was won by the fixed rider.

what baffles me is that a cop would actually take the time to give some dude on a bicycle a ticket.

Well, it depends on the area/how uptight the cops are. furthermore, a ticket is revenue for the municipality. really, why wouldnt a cop give anyone a ticket when, legally, they deserve it? (just for sake of argument. there are plenty of reasons, and that's just dandy)

much like a seatbelt ticket, I'd assume brakeless tickets are most often given in addition to another moving violation.

Brakeless in my town is targeted at the BMXicans......not a one of them rides with a brake nor can they stop with any control....I on the other hand am largely ignored

Traffic Court is not a "Court of Record", so judge #1 can rule exactly the opposite as judge #2 in the courtroom across the hall and that's the way it is.

Get off the bike. Clamp down of the front brake. Push the bike backwards. Tire skids on pavement.

tcs

proving me wrong just makes me happy here

It sure helps to live in an area where majority of police departments are underfunded and short staffed (Oakland just lost 80 ticket givers last week or so)..... bikers "without" brakes would be the least of their problems to attended to.

My town's police doesnt give a rats ass about brakeless bikes. Long time ago, i had to go buy some cream cheese so I took my beat up mountain bike from 1992. It had no lights, no brakes, and I passed 6 cops on the way. No one cared, they just waved at me.

the mtb was fixed?

i think he's saying the mtb was broken, actually.

Because bicycles without brakes aren't capable of putting others in danger? And there's no reason for riding brakeless other than it keeps a dudes bike lookin sexy and slick?

That's baffling