Portland: Fixies are Illegal
Paul J. Berg
Jay Beattie
Paul J. Berg wrote:
> <http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
They're illegal only if you do not have a brake. Plenty of people in
town on fixies with a front brake. -- Jay Beattie.
Blair P. Houghton
They should propose a law that all bikes have to be able to be
ridden in reverse to avoid collisions.
Of course it'd be voted down, but it'd be fun to watch.
I happen to agree with the city. A few people can control a fixie
like it has a brake. The rest can't and their attempts to do it
out in public endanger those around them.
--Blair
Kinky Cowboy
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A few people can control a fixie
>like it has a brake. The rest can't and their attempts to do it
>out in public endanger those around them.
>
Nobody in the world can slow an unbraked fixie as quickly as I can
slow mine with a front brake; regardless of skill or leg strength,
simple physics is against them.
Kinky Cowboy*
*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
Bill Sornson
> <http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
When you post the same thing in more than one (appropriate) newsgroup, why
not do so simultaneously* so that all replies are seen by all?
* "multi-posting" rather than "cross-posting"?
Robert Lorenzini
>
><http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
>
It's already the law in CA.
Michael Press
<3590-44D...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>,
pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote:
> <http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
They do not accept 1879 as a birth date.
--
Michael Press
jtaylor
"Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3590-44D...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
>
>
<http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.x
ml&coll=7>
>
The same sort of anti-cycling legislation exists in British Columbia, which
section outlaws not only fixed-gear cycles, but ordinaries and unicycles;
They also have defined the road to include _any_ shoulder, which means that
if an unpaved shoulder abuts a paved road surface, cyclists are required by
law to ride on the unpaved portion.
That, and they have an MHL.
jtaylor
"Michael Press" <ja...@abc.net> wrote in message
news:jack-2BE630.2...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
Tell the page you live in Nigeria.
dusto...@mac.com
It's anti-stupidity legislation. As in, it's stupid to ride a bicycle
that doesn't have any brakes on it.
--D-y
dusto...@mac.com
Paul J. Berg wrote:
> <http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
Why the dishonest, intentionally misleading, alarmist subject line?
"Downtrodden of the earth" rhetoric? No sale. --D-y
jtaylor
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1154695468....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
All unicyclists are stupid?
Alan Hoyle
>> <http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
They accept 2006 though. Today's youth are ahead of the curve.
--
Alan Hoyle - al...@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.
Bill Sornson
> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>> <http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
>
> Why the dishonest, intentionally misleading, alarmist subject line?
Whaddya, new? (That, or, "The AHZs got bored.")
> "Downtrodden of the earth" rhetoric? No sale. --D-y
Ditto...but the /troll/ worked, nonetheless.
Werehatrack
>On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:47:34 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
>> In article
>> <3590-44D...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>,
>> pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote:
>
>>> <http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
>
>> They do not accept 1879 as a birth date.
>
>They accept 2006 though. Today's youth are ahead of the curve.
Their website keeps popping up the Print dialog box on my browser. If
I wanted their newspaper in hardcopy, I'd have asked for it.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
dusto...@mac.com
No, but taking words out of context to try to "win" arguments in a ng
is pretty stupid. IMHO, of course.
Thinking about it, in context: riding a unicycle in traffic would be
stupid, yeah.
Brakeless FG is a macho subculture thing that doesn't even make
economic sense for the messengers who practice it.
The "antisocial" element is clearly what appeals to you. --D-y
Bill Sornson
>>> It's anti-stupidity legislation. As in, it's stupid to ride a
>>> bicycle that doesn't have any brakes on it.
>> All unicyclists are stupid?
> No, but taking words out of context to try to "win" arguments in a ng
> is pretty stupid. IMHO, of course.
Welcome to "jtaylor 101" -- liar, hypocrite, weasel.
> Thinking about it, in context: riding a unicycle in traffic would be
> stupid, yeah.
Pretty clear to any /thinking/ person; leaves Flailor out.
> Brakeless FG is a macho subculture thing that doesn't even make
> economic sense for the messengers who practice it.
>
> The "antisocial" element is clearly what appeals to you. --D-y
You're giving him too much credit. He's just a blind zealot.
Werehatrack
wrote:
>
><http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
"Fixies without a handbrake are illegal", more like.
I have mixed feelings about this whole mess. On the one hand, my only
experience with a fixie absolutely convinced me never to ride one
again voluntarily, regardless of whether it had a handbrake. On the
other hand, I don't consider anti-stupidity laws to be worth enforcing
unless the stupidity endangers someone else directly...but there are
so many variables in this issue that the discussion of when and where
such enforcement is justified could be a helmet thread; I'd rather not
go there. On the gripping hand, having such a law on the books, with
the proviso that it kicks in to make the penalty worse when the
stupidity causes harm to another, seems like a supportable concept
until the stupidity-OF-enforcers factor is considered as well.
There are no perfect laws outside of physics.
Werehatrack
<b...@newportharbornet.com> wrote:
Technically, it's the law in every state that I've checked, but in the
majority of locales it seems that the police aren't enforcing it.
This may be due to the cops' lack of knowledge of what a fixie is.
Their ignorance is the rider's bliss.
Bill Sornson
> On 4 Aug 2006 00:43:32 GMT, Robert Lorenzini
> <b...@newportharbornet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:21:09 -0700, Paul J. Berg <pjb...@webtv.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
>>>
>>
>> It's already the law in CA.
>
> Technically, it's the law in every state that I've checked, but in the
> majority of locales it seems that the police aren't enforcing it.
> This may be due to the cops' lack of knowledge of what a fixie is.
> Their ignorance is the rider's bliss.
Your idea of "bliss" is...well, interesting! (With my knees, I can't
imagine riding a SS much less a fixed-gear, much less a BRAKELESS fixie.)
Bill "don't they call 'em 'track bikes' for a reason?" S.
Vee
Werehatrack wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:21:09 -0700, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg)
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
>
> "Fixies without a handbrake are illegal", more like.
>
> I have mixed feelings about this whole mess. On the one hand, my only
> experience with a fixie absolutely convinced me never to ride one
> again voluntarily, regardless of whether it had a handbrake. On the
> other hand, I don't consider anti-stupidity laws to be worth enforcing
> unless the stupidity endangers someone else directly...but there are
> so many variables in this issue that the discussion of when and where
> such enforcement is justified could be a helmet thread; I'd rather not
> go there. On the gripping hand, having such a law on the books, with
> the proviso that it kicks in to make the penalty worse when the
> stupidity causes harm to another, seems like a supportable concept
> until the stupidity-OF-enforcers factor is considered as well.
>
> There are no perfect laws outside of physics.
>
What is an example of a perfect law in physics?
-Vee
jtaylor
"Bill Sornson" <sorno...@sanon.rspamr.com> wrote in message
news:MqKAg.9139$Vq1....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
I welcome insults; they show that the person using them has no substantive
argument to make.
dusto...@mac.com
jtaylor wrote:
> I welcome insults; they show that the person using them has no substantive
> argument to make.
Yeah yeah.
So how about some substance IRT "bikes without brakes in traffic being
stupid"?
Or, macho taking over from economic sense with working messengers?
--D-y
Kinky Cowboy
>
>Or, macho taking over from economic sense with working messengers?
>--D-y
Well, the courier who fell on his arse in front of me today
(Pentonville Road, London, England) wasn't making money while he sat
on the pavement. Why did he fall on his arse? Because he was riding a
brakeless fixie and, with stopped traffic blocking his path, he had
nowhere to go but the pavement (sidewalk for our American readers) and
didn't have the skill to hop up the kerb.
Andrew Price
<rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>Their website keeps popping up the Print dialog box on my browser. If
>I wanted their newspaper in hardcopy, I'd have asked for it.
Nerd software is alive and well ...
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> On 4 Aug 2006 14:58:51 GMT, Alan Hoyle <al...@unc.edu> wrote:
> >On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:47:34 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
> >> pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote:
> >
> >>> <http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
> >
> >> They do not accept 1879 as a birth date.
> >They accept 2006 though. Today's youth are ahead of the curve.
>
> Their website keeps popping up the Print dialog box on my browser. If
> I wanted their newspaper in hardcopy, I'd have asked for it.
See the "printer" in the original URL? The OP gave the URL for
the printer-friendly version that comes up if you hit the "Print This"
button on the article page. Possibly so you didn't have to see
the usual version littered with ugly ads. I hate those auto-dialog
boxes too, but can hardly blame the Oregonian for assuming that
somebody who hits the "Print This" button wants the hardcopy.
Michael Press
Kinky Cowboy <us...@domain.com> wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2006 11:55:46 -0700, dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Or, macho taking over from economic sense with working messengers?
> >--D-y
>
> Well, the courier who fell on his arse in front of me today
> (Pentonville Road, London, England) wasn't making money while he sat
> on the pavement. Why did he fall on his arse? Because he was riding a
> brakeless fixie and, with stopped traffic blocking his path, he had
> nowhere to go but the pavement (sidewalk for our American readers) and
> didn't have the skill to hop up the kerb.
Mark this in your diary. Seldom do we witness in real life
an episode of `You Got What You've Been Asking For' so
satisfying that it brings tears to the eyes.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<1154711433....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Vee" <v.po...@excite.com> wrote:
> Werehatrack wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:21:09 -0700, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > ><http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
> >
> > "Fixies without a handbrake are illegal", more like.
> >
> > I have mixed feelings about this whole mess. On the one hand, my only
> > experience with a fixie absolutely convinced me never to ride one
> > again voluntarily, regardless of whether it had a handbrake. On the
> > other hand, I don't consider anti-stupidity laws to be worth enforcing
> > unless the stupidity endangers someone else directly...but there are
> > so many variables in this issue that the discussion of when and where
> > such enforcement is justified could be a helmet thread; I'd rather not
> > go there. On the gripping hand, having such a law on the books, with
> > the proviso that it kicks in to make the penalty worse when the
> > stupidity causes harm to another, seems like a supportable concept
> > until the stupidity-OF-enforcers factor is considered as well.
> >
> > There are no perfect laws outside of physics.
> >
>
> What is an example of a perfect law in physics?
Noether's Theorem. A corollary states:
Conservation of momentum is a consequence of the isotropy
of space.
If we argue this long enough, we will conclude that these
laws are tautologies.
--
Michael Press
Bill Sornson
{Blowing Tumbleweed Wave File Goes HERE}
HTH
Werehatrack
I can imagine it, but my imagination is capable of things that I am
not. For a couple of weeks, long ago in my near-forgotten youth, I
inflicted a fixie on myself by misrepairing a three-speed hub in a
creative manner that I have never since duplicated...or wanted to.
The lesson learned has remained fresh for all the years since,
however; I do not ever want to ride another fixie. At least it had a
hand brake; were it not for that, I'd have had to walk, as I could not
hope to slow the mass composed of the bike, myself, and a load of
newspapers. As it was, I spent two miserable weeks nursing a series
of bruises on my legs and ankles.
Some stupidities are self-punishing.
jtaylor
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1154717746.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> jtaylor wrote:
>
> > I welcome insults; they show that the person using them has no
substantive
> > argument to make.
>
> Yeah yeah.
>
> So how about some substance IRT "bikes without brakes in traffic being
> stupid"?
>
Brakes (as defined by the judge's ruling) are not necessary for slowing
and/or stopping a cyclist.
And you seem to be making the mistake of excluding cyclists from "traffic" -
they are not separate from it, they are part of it. Remember, cyclists use
the road by right, drivers of motor-vehicles do so merely by licence.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Paul J. Berg wrote:
> <http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
Not exactly...bicycles w/o a brake are illegal, as they are here in the
republic as well.
Some of these 'commuters' can whine about how they can stop as fast w/o
a brake as somebody with one but it just ain't true. Why not just put
one on??
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Yep, but that's Canada..
jtaylor
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
news:1154784441.7...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
You don't know how many MHL's the US has?
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Peer pressure to conform.
--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Impact is not a synonym of affect or effect
dusto...@mac.com
jtaylor wrote:
> Brakes (as defined by the judge's ruling) are not necessary for slowing
> and/or stopping a cyclist.
But they sure do work a ton better. So, they make a bike safer. A whole
lot safer. Safer is smarter, at the very least because it tends to hurt
a lot less. See "arse", above post. IMHO, as long as it's just some
skin and a tender sit-down, and maybe a lesson dearly needing learning,
it's pretty darn funny. Smashing into a car or pedestrian, not funny.
Or cool. Stupid, if done without at least one brake on the bike,
preferably two, with real levers, etc.
> And you seem to be making the mistake of excluding cyclists from "traffic" -
> they are not separate from it, they are part of it. Remember, cyclists use
> the road by right, drivers of motor-vehicles do so merely by licence.
Wiggle wiggle. Where did I "exclude"? You sound like a Critical Masser.
Cyclists get to use the road by law, not some imaginary divine right.
In some locations, the law prohibits cycling. What about that? How can
that happen?
"Merely" by license? In the USA, driving tests are pretty easy to pass.
Not so in other countries; there's no "merely" about getting a DL in
France or Germany, for instance. --D-y
jtaylor
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1154810639....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Cyclists get to use the road by law, not some imaginary divine right.
> In some locations, the law prohibits cycling. What about that? How can
> that happen?
>
No
Cyclists can use the road unless there is a law forbidding it.
Motor-vehicle drivers cannot use the road unless they comply with the laws
governing licensing allowing it.
That is the difference.
Jay Beattie
jtaylor wrote:
> <dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1154810639....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > Cyclists get to use the road by law, not some imaginary divine right.
> > In some locations, the law prohibits cycling. What about that? How can
> > that happen?
> >
>
> No
>
> Cyclists can use the road unless there is a law forbidding it.
Not if they don't have a brake. No brake, no riding on any public
road. The fact that complying bicyclists can use any road unless
there is a law forbidding it really means nothing. It is not any sort
of property right that is entitled to special protection. The states
can, and obviously do, exclude bicycles from lots and lots of roads. --
Jay Beattie.
jtaylor
"Jay Beattie" <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:1154813935....@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
True.
And irrelevant.
It is the _person_ who must have a licence to use a motor-vehicle, but not
to use a bicycle.
The equipment required for the _machine_ is a separate issue.
John Thompson
Indeed. I'm 51 years old and ride fixed gear regularly. My bike has
front and rear caliper brakes but I seldom use them -- only in panic
situations. I know I can lock up the rear wheel with my legs, because
I've done it more than once, but a locked wheel stop is not a controlled
stop. If I need to stop quickly, I'll use the brakes; otherwise I just
use the levers as hand rests.
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
dusto...@mac.com
Let's get back to the imaginary divine right to bicycle. Imaginary.
Along with an imagined moral superiority for cyclists. Foo foo.
Reality, calling jtaylor...
All kinds of people with defective licensing, lack of mandatory
insurance, missing or forged registrations, stolen cars/parts thereof,
forged/missing inspection stickers drive on the road, all the time,
every day. --D-y
Bill Sornson
> Reality, calling jtaylor...
Better get comfy! It's going to ring a /while/... LOL
Tom The Great
wrote:
>
><http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1154141722159250.xml&coll=7>
Legislating from the bench?
dusto...@mac.com
Yes. The forest is dense in places. --D-y
jtaylor
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1154871467....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[for the benefit of those new to usenet and the method of indicating quotes,
the portion of this post below prefixed by ODD numbers of quote marks (">")
was written
by dusto...@mac.com; while the portion of this post below prefixed by
EVEN numbers of quote marks was written by me - zero being considered, for
this purpose, as an even number]
>
> jtaylor wrote:
> > <dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:1154810639....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >
> > > Cyclists get to use the road by law, not some imaginary divine right.
> > > In some locations, the law prohibits cycling. What about that? How can
> > > that happen?
> > >
> >
> > No
> >
> > Cyclists can use the road unless there is a law forbidding it.
> >
> > Motor-vehicle drivers cannot use the road unless they comply with the
laws
> > governing licensing allowing it.
> >
> > That is the difference.
>
> Let's get back to the imaginary divine right to bicycle. Imaginary.
Please cite the post where I stated that such right is
a) "divine"; and/or
b) imaginary.
> Reality, calling jtaylor...
>
> All kinds of people with defective licensing, lack of mandatory
> insurance, missing or forged registrations, stolen cars/parts thereof,
> forged/missing inspection stickers drive on the road, all the time,
> every day. --D-y
Are you stating that because some people defy the law, their actions
a) are right; and/or
b) become rights?
jtaylor
"Tom The Great" <Po...@here.com> wrote in message
news:u51cd25h93qcubo2g...@4ax.com...
No.
Leaving aside for the moment the anti-cycling nature of this and other laws,
the judge was within his area of jurisdiction, that is, interpretation of
the law; in that the law required a "brake" capable of making the braked
wheel skid on dry level ground. He (I presume he, but the female should be
included by convention) found that the arrangement of parts sometimes known
as the transmission (pedals, crank-arms, chain, sprocket, etcetera) did not
meet the criteria.
dusto...@mac.com
jtaylor wrote:
> Please cite the post where I stated that such right is
>
> a) "divine"; and/or
>
> b) imaginary.
You said: "Bikes use the road by right".
The "imaginary" is obvious. The "divine" was just a little poke at your
fatuousness.
> > All kinds of people with defective licensing, lack of mandatory
> > insurance, missing or forged registrations, stolen cars/parts thereof,
> > forged/missing inspection stickers drive on the road, all the time,
> > every day.
> Are you stating that because some people defy the law, their actions
>
> a) are right; and/or
>
> b) become rights?
<http://www.digave.com/videos/red-web.mpg>
No. --D-y
dusto...@mac.com
jtaylor wrote:
> Leaving aside for the moment the anti-cycling nature of this and other laws,
> the judge was within his area of jurisdiction, that is, interpretation of
> the law; in that the law required a "brake" capable of making the braked
> wheel skid on dry level ground. He (I presume he, but the female should be
> included by convention) found that the arrangement of parts sometimes known
> as the transmission (pedals, crank-arms, chain, sprocket, etcetera) did not
> meet the criteria.
What is "anti-cycling" about requiring at least one real brake on a
bicycle?
Why drag in "other laws"? Make your case on the point in question, if
you can.
I notice you didn't refute the subject line, which is false and
alarmist, since only brakes were mentioned in the judge's decision, not
"transmission" to use your term.
Maybe the judge saw this movie, or something similar:
<http://www.digave.com/videos/red-web.mpg>
Or maybe the judge has had experience similar to the drivers and
pedestrians who come into contact (so to speak) with the antisocial
cyclists in this clip, and hoped his ruling would give the police a
little extra leverage in dealing with them.
Maybe you can provide a link to a stopping contest between brakeless
fixie and a bike with at least one real, working brake on it that shows
the fixie stopping quicker. That would be a lot more productive for you
than foolishly trying to pick a "word fight" in here.
Let's have a statement on your reaction to the clip above. An honest,
straightforward one, please. --D-y
r15...@aol.com
> <http://www.digave.com/videos/red-web.mpg>
>
> No. --D-y
That video shows us among other things how handbrakes
allow riders to rider much more aggressively in
traffic. Maybe you meant to show the brakeless
Monster Track video with the racers riding much
smoother and more conservative.
R
r15...@aol.com
> Let's have a statement on your reaction to the clip above. An honest,
> straightforward one, please. --D-y
Among about a dozen or so on-camera
racers, only one is using a track bike that
I can see.
Clearly, brakes need to be outlawed, at least
for use in heavy traffic. Damn kids.
Robert
jtaylor
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1154962265.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Are you then suggesting that because people ignore the law, other's rights
somehow become "imaginary"?
dusto...@mac.com
Got a link? Real track racers or dorks?
Maybe I meant to show a bunch of jerks playing in traffic. I could have
spelled it out, too: this kind of activity is what gets you negative
reaction from "the law". You know, citizen complaints, and buzzing the
wrong person in a crosswalk (i.e., who has the right of way) who
happens to know someone downtown, etc. etc.
Freewheeling in evidence, too. Similar "aggression" factor as brakes.
Ironic that yeah, a good set of f/r brakes would allow an even higher
level of antisocial behavior compared to using only a fixed wheel to
slow. Well, I already said that riding without brakes isn't very smart.
--D-y
dusto...@mac.com
jtaylor wrote:
> Are you then suggesting that because people ignore the law, other's rights
> somehow become "imaginary"?
No. Just pointing out that your "rights" are controlled by law.
You "can't" ride anywhere you want, for instance. IOW, you might be
able to ride a bike where prohibited, but you are subject to ticket,
fine, arrest depending on applicable law, and how you do on the
attitude test if you do get stopped.
The clip showed cyclists intimidating drivers and pedestrians. This is
entirely normal behavior for a good number of riders of all ages and
"demographic"; including buzzing peds on shared "hike and bike" trails.
Note the peds in the crosswalk giving the bikes a *lot* of room. That's
due to a well-earned reputation.
Just a jab at your holier-than-thou bicyclist attitude. --D-y
r15...@aol.com
dusto...@mac.com wrote:
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > dusto...@mac.com wrote:
> >
> > > <http://www.digave.com/videos/red-web.mpg>
> > >
> > > No. --D-y
> >
> > That video shows us among other things how handbrakes
> > allow riders to rider much more aggressively in
> > traffic. Maybe you meant to show the brakeless
> > Monster Track video with the racers riding much
> > smoother and more conservative.
>
> Got a link? Real track racers or dorks?
http://www.digave.com/videos/monster.mpg
Clearly they are the anti-christ, and dressed
like it. If you know what to look for however you
will see some incredibly smooth riding by
veteran riders.
> Maybe I meant to show a bunch of jerks playing in traffic. I could have
> spelled it out, too: this kind of activity is what gets you negative
> reaction from "the law". You know, citizen complaints, and buzzing the
> wrong person in a crosswalk (i.e., who has the right of way) who
> happens to know someone downtown, etc. etc.
Luckily for the good of mankind these events only
take place every few weeks at most and last maybe
an hour or two. The workaday messenger activity is
completely different--conservative and thus sustainable.
> Freewheeling in evidence, too. Similar "aggression" factor as brakes.
How ya gonna skitch at 40-50 mph and all that with
a fixed gear? I'm thinking we should outlaw freewheels
as well.
> Ironic that yeah, a good set of f/r brakes would allow an even higher
> level of antisocial behavior compared to using only a fixed wheel to
> slow. Well, I already said that riding without brakes isn't very smart.
These bikes don't stop themselves, brakes or no brakes.
The key is riding within the limitations of your machine,
no matter what it is, and your own skill level on that
machine.
Robert
dusto...@mac.com
r15...@aol.com wrote:
> http://www.digave.com/videos/monster.mpg
> Clearly they are the anti-christ, and dressed
> like it. If you know what to look for however you
> will see some incredibly smooth riding by
> veteran riders.
Naw, just dorks.
I watched about a third. Saw a couple of saves by drivers who could
have just "didn't see him, officer!" later.
> Luckily for the good of mankind these events only
> take place every few weeks at most and last maybe
> an hour or two.
Despite your sarcasm <g>, I don't admire (worship?) these guys.
> The workaday messenger activity is
> completely different--conservative and thus sustainable.
Not from testimony here, is messenger activity completely different.
Sustainable? You're crowding some buzz words in here for some reason. I
mean, the hooligans aren't being killed off faster than they can be
replaced, are they?
> These bikes don't stop themselves, brakes or no brakes.
> The key is riding within the limitations of your machine,
> no matter what it is, and your own skill level on that
> machine.
Or you could follow most of the traffic rules most of the time; for
instance, not weaving in and out of oncoming traffic. But then where
would the cheap thrills come from, right?
It's ironic that these scofflaws depend on the mercy of the very people
they're fucking with.
Oh, well, not my problem and if ever I couldn't avoid, and I would try
within certain limitations, no guilt here whatsoever.
Have fun, and don't be careful out there! --D-y
Chalo
>
> jtaylor wrote:
> >
> > > It's anti-stupidity legislation. As in, it's stupid to ride a bicycle
> > > that doesn't have any brakes on it.
> >
> > All unicyclists are stupid?
>
> No, but taking words out of context to try to "win" arguments in a ng
> is pretty stupid. IMHO, of course.
>
> Thinking about it, in context: riding a unicycle in traffic would be
> stupid, yeah.
I've built a large adult-sized Big Wheel style trike that doesn't have
any brakes, technically speaking. It has been ridden all over town
with my bike club. It is an easy matter to skid its front wheel on dry
pavement, making it compliant with that part of the law in a way no
normal upright bike with only a front brake can equal.
Technically speaking, a front brake only is illegal too, even though
it's far superior to the plainly legal rear-only brake layout.
> Brakeless FG is a macho subculture thing that doesn't even make
> economic sense for the messengers who practice it.
I don't think it's a macho thing for the several charming young lady
messengers I know who are so equipped. It's not something *I* would
choose for safety and convenience-- but then I can say exactly the same
for sub-32mm tires, or drop bars.
> The "antisocial" element is clearly what appeals to you.
I think there's definitely a "different drummer" aspect to fixed gear
bikes in the city, but I don't think it's fair to brand any
transportational rider "antisocial" based on his or her choice of
equipment.
Anyway, common civility means not outlawing things that others do just
because you don't do those things.
Chalo
G.T.
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>http://www.digave.com/videos/monster.mpg
>
>
>>Clearly they are the anti-christ, and dressed
>>like it. If you know what to look for however you
>>will see some incredibly smooth riding by
>>veteran riders.
>
>
> Naw, just dorks.
> I watched about a third. Saw a couple of saves by drivers who could
> have just "didn't see him, officer!" later.
>
And the lead rider was lucky that modern cars have collapsible mirrors.
What a bunch of fucking idiots.
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
G.T.
> dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>
>>jtaylor wrote:
>>
>>>>It's anti-stupidity legislation. As in, it's stupid to ride a bicycle
>>>>that doesn't have any brakes on it.
>>>
>>>All unicyclists are stupid?
>>
>>No, but taking words out of context to try to "win" arguments in a ng
>>is pretty stupid. IMHO, of course.
>>
>>Thinking about it, in context: riding a unicycle in traffic would be
>>stupid, yeah.
>
>
> I've built a large adult-sized Big Wheel style trike that doesn't have
> any brakes, technically speaking. It has been ridden all over town
> with my bike club. It is an easy matter to skid its front wheel on dry
> pavement, making it compliant with that part of the law in a way no
> normal upright bike with only a front brake can equal.
>
And a skidding tire stops as quickly as a non-skidding, well-modulated
front brake?
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Chalo Colina wrote:
> ...
> Technically speaking, a front brake only is illegal too, even though
What about two (2) front brakes, but no rear brake?
r15...@aol.com
> Despite your sarcasm <g>, I don't admire (worship?) these guys.
Coulda fooled me!! I think you have a little thing
for them.
Anyway, that's the video you want to bolster your
whole anti-track-bike persona you've got going, not
the other one which only has one track bike in it.
I'm just trying to help.
> > The workaday messenger activity is
> > completely different--conservative and thus sustainable.
>
> Not from testimony here, is messenger activity completely different.
Well, consider that messengers have been riding
track bikes and other types of bikes in cities for
decades without anyone taking much notice. Only
recently has the track bike become a cultural
icon of wide appeal to poseur hipsters, and the
number of brakeless riders on the streets has
exploded. Now you hear all kinds of complaints
about messengers, but only a small percentage of
the folks out there on track bikes are actual messengers.
The moral of the story is that most jack donkeys
on this and other internet forums wouldn't know an
actual bike messenger if he/she came up and bit
them on the ass.
And yes, normal messenger work is completely
different than anything seen on the Lucas Brunelle
videos, which show riders in various states of
intoxication and post-week euphoria blowing off
steam in contests of great micro-cultural importance
(bragging rights). But I guess in your fantasy world
this is what messengers do all day every day.
> Or you could follow most of the traffic rules most of the time; for
> instance, not weaving in and out of oncoming traffic. But then where
> would the cheap thrills come from, right?
You really are off in your own little world. You should
definitely get out more.
> It's ironic that these scofflaws depend on the mercy of the very people
> they're fucking with.
> Oh, well, not my problem and if ever I couldn't avoid, and I would try
> within certain limitations, no guilt here whatsoever.
>
> Have fun, and don't be careful out there! --D-y
Hey thanks! You're a real dickweed. Kind of
ironic for someone who's so up in arms about 'anti-
social' behavior.
Robert
Chalo
G.T. wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > I've built a large adult-sized Big Wheel style trike that doesn't have
> > any brakes, technically speaking. It has been ridden all over town
> > with my bike club. It is an easy matter to skid its front wheel on dry
> > pavement, making it compliant with that part of the law in a way no
> > normal upright bike with only a front brake can equal.
>
> And a skidding tire stops as quickly as a non-skidding, well-modulated
> front brake?
I didn't say that. But the (dumb) law stipulates that the brake must
be able to skid the tire on dry pavement, which a normal bike's front
brake can't do. A rear brake can do it, and a fixie (even my Big
Wheel) can do it.
Chalo
Chalo
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Chalo Colina wrote:
> > ...
> > Technically speaking, a front brake only is illegal too, even though
> > it's far superior to the plainly legal rear-only brake layout....
>
> What about two (2) front brakes, but no rear brake?
Can you skid them on dry pavement? If so, they are legal. If not,
then they are illegal.
Chalo
jtaylor
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1154978244....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> jtaylor wrote:
> > Are you then suggesting that because people ignore the law, other's
rights
> > somehow become "imaginary"?
>
> No. Just pointing out that your "rights" are controlled by law.
>
> You "can't" ride anywhere you want, for instance. IOW, you might be
> able to ride a bike where prohibited, but you are subject to ticket,
> fine, arrest depending on applicable law, and how you do on the
> attitude test if you do get stopped.
>
Yes - but any person can ride a bicycle. Motorists need a licence to drive
their vehicles. The geographical constrainsts placed upon them have nothing
to do with the licensing issue, which is one of right rather than
permission.
Why do you claim that such a right is imaginary?
jtaylor
"G.T." <getn...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:12dg5gc...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > I've built a large adult-sized Big Wheel style trike that doesn't have
> > any brakes, technically speaking. It has been ridden all over town
> > with my bike club. It is an easy matter to skid its front wheel on dry
> > pavement, making it compliant with that part of the law in a way no
> > normal upright bike with only a front brake can equal.
> >
>
> And a skidding tire stops as quickly as a non-skidding, well-modulated
> front brake?
>
The Law is not often logical; if you examine those who make it, that should
not surprise you.
jtaylor
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunset...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155013033....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chalo Colina wrote:
> > ...
> > Technically speaking, a front brake only is illegal too, even though
> > it's far superior to the plainly legal rear-only brake layout....
>
> What about two (2) front brakes, but no rear brake?
>
Chalo was pointing out that a front brake cannot skid the wheel as required
by the legislation.
Two front brakes will not achieve this either.
dusto...@mac.com
Chalo wrote:
> I've built a large adult-sized Big Wheel style trike that doesn't have
> any brakes, technically speaking. It has been ridden all over town
> with my bike club. It is an easy matter to skid its front wheel on dry
> pavement, making it compliant with that part of the law in a way no
> normal upright bike with only a front brake can equal.
I've appreciated your offerings in the past. Link to a photo?
> Technically speaking, a front brake only is illegal too, even though
> it's far superior to the plainly legal rear-only brake layout.
The law is imperfect. It does give a responding officer an option or
two.
(I wrote):
> > Brakeless FG is a macho subculture thing that doesn't even make
> > economic sense for the messengers who practice it.
(Chalo responded):
> I don't think it's a macho thing for the several charming young lady
> messengers I know who are so equipped. It's not something *I* would
> choose for safety and convenience-- but then I can say exactly the same
> for sub-32mm tires, or drop bars.
Do they weave in and out of oncoming traffic just for grins?
(I noted, speaking to another poster):
> > The "antisocial" element is clearly what appeals to you.
(Chalo):
> I think there's definitely a "different drummer" aspect to fixed gear
> bikes in the city, but I don't think it's fair to brand any
> transportational rider "antisocial" based on his or her choice of
> equipment.
The choice of equipment is (unfortunately) emblematic of a riding
style, as seen in the film clips provided, that is most certainly
antisocial. "Scaring old ladies in pedestrian crossings", "intimidating
MV drivers into giving up their ROW".
I have lots of FG and SS saddle time; the objection is to the flagrant
lawbreaking, on the grounds that it is extremely bad "public relations"
that leads to retaliation in various forms.
(Chalo):
> Anyway, common civility means not outlawing things that others do just
> because you don't do those things.
Fixies have not been outlawed in Portland. I don't think you've seen me
ever propose that fixies or brakeless bikes should be outlawed. My
viewpoint is the MBL could be very useful in the aftermath of an
accident, for both legal and civil actions. --D-y
dusto...@mac.com
r15...@aol.com wrote:
> dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > Despite your sarcasm <g>, I don't admire (worship?) these guys.
>
> Coulda fooled me!! I think you have a little thing
> for them.
Yeah. Disdain.
> Anyway, that's the video you want to bolster your
> whole anti-track-bike persona you've got going, not
> the other one which only has one track bike in it.
> I'm just trying to help.
You're running with the ball after the play is over. I said riding a
brakeless bike, especially in traffic, is stupid. I've stated
objections to riding as seen in the vids posted here. I have lots of
hours on FG and SS bikes.
Your buttons have obviously been pushed (name calling a telltale
there).
Oh yeah, I also noted that the brakeless FG bike is an inferior tool,
compared to a freewheeling, and/or multispeed bike with a good set of
brakes, f/r, on it.
> Well, consider that messengers have been riding
> track bikes and other types of bikes in cities for
> decades without anyone taking much notice.
Only a few movies made. True, not much box office appeal.
> Only
> recently has the track bike become a cultural
> icon of wide appeal to poseur hipsters,
Talk about an unfair characterization! The ol' tar brush is never far
away from your hand, is it?
> and the
> number of brakeless riders on the streets has
> exploded. Now you hear all kinds of complaints
> about messengers, but only a small percentage of
> the folks out there on track bikes are actual messengers.
> The moral of the story is that most jack donkeys
> on this and other internet forums wouldn't know an
> actual bike messenger if he/she came up and bit
> them on the ass.
>From what I've seen, I'd guess that most of the people on this ng are
at least as perceptive as you are.
> And yes, normal messenger work is completely
> different than anything seen on the Lucas Brunelle
> videos, which show riders in various states of
> intoxication and post-week euphoria blowing off
> steam in contests of great micro-cultural importance
> (bragging rights). But I guess in your fantasy world
> this is what messengers do all day every day.
Guess is wrong. I never said anything about messengers in the first
place. Just a minor point you rushed past.
(I wrote):
> > Or you could follow most of the traffic rules most of the time; for
> > instance, not weaving in and out of oncoming traffic. But then where
> > would the cheap thrills come from, right?
(reply):
> You really are off in your own little world. You should
> definitely get out more.
You're just throwing mud. The clips are not about messengers. They are
about antisocial "cheap thrill" riding.
(me, earlier):
> > It's ironic that these scofflaws depend on the mercy of the very people
> > they're fucking with.
>
> > Oh, well, not my problem and if ever I couldn't avoid, and I would try
> > within certain limitations, no guilt here whatsoever.
> >
> > Have fun, and don't be careful out there!
(reply):
> Hey thanks! You're a real dickweed. Kind of
> ironic for someone who's so up in arms about 'anti-
> social' behavior.
I said, to restate, that I wouldn't wreck my vehicle to avoid hitting a
scofflaw cyclist (such as the wrong-way riders in the vid). If I ever
hit one, I would have absolutely no guilt about it. I probably wouldn't
get a ticket; and I'd probably go after the estate if necessary
(probably futile with these guys) to repair any damage to my vehicle.
IOW: Why should I or my insurance company pay for this bullshit?
If you don't like that attitude for some reason, go ahead and have it
for lunch and dinner. --D-y
Tom The Great
>
>jtaylor wrote:
>
>> Leaving aside for the moment the anti-cycling nature of this and other laws,
>> the judge was within his area of jurisdiction, that is, interpretation of
>> the law; in that the law required a "brake" capable of making the braked
>> wheel skid on dry level ground. He (I presume he, but the female should be
>> included by convention) found that the arrangement of parts sometimes known
>> as the transmission (pedals, crank-arms, chain, sprocket, etcetera) did not
>> meet the criteria.
>
>What is "anti-cycling" about requiring at least one real brake on a
>bicycle?
Where does it stop? Why not two brakes? How about anti-skip brakes?
What about emergency brakes? How about air brakes for falling off a
cliff, etc, etc..
See what I mean, I'm going extreme here, but many activities are
having less and less following because of higher costs associated with
higher regulation.
Just tossing this out for peronal reflection, not a flame war.
tom
r15...@aol.com
> > I don't think it's a macho thing for the several charming young lady
> > messengers I know who are so equipped. It's not something *I* would
> > choose for safety and convenience-- but then I can say exactly the same
> > for sub-32mm tires, or drop bars.
>
> Do they weave in and out of oncoming traffic just for grins?
No, they don't.
> The choice of equipment is (unfortunately) emblematic of a riding
> style, as seen in the film clips provided, that is most certainly
> antisocial. "Scaring old ladies in pedestrian crossings", "intimidating
> MV drivers into giving up their ROW".
??? If anything, these videos show that handbrakes
and freewheels are 'emblematic of a riding style.' You
are completely twisting in the wind. And who are you
quoting?
> > Anyway, common civility means not outlawing things that others do just
> > because you don't do those things.
>
> Fixies have not been outlawed in Portland. I don't think you've seen me
> ever propose that fixies or brakeless bikes should be outlawed. My
> viewpoint is the MBL could be very useful in the aftermath of an
> accident, for both legal and civil actions.
The law is ridiculous, as pointed out by Chalo
and others. All that matters is how quickly one
can stop, regardless of type of bicycle. Require
say the ability to perform a .6 or .7-g stop and
you will find many veteran track bike riders passing the
test while a good number of folks on 'normal' bikes
would fail. (Falling on your head is automatic
failure of test.) This might also put the lid on the newbie
hipster element of track bike riders, allowing
the old veterans to continue virtually unnoticed
by the safety nannies as they have been for decades.
Robert
Jay Beattie
Requiring a brake in our downtown, which has real-live down hills and
relatively fast moving traffic (compared to New York) is very
reasonable. Even assuming these guys are running 70" gears or smaller,
none of them could do a panic stop down a 4+ percent downhill to a
light (and a crosswalk), which pretty much describes all of the streets
through downtown that go from west to east. Not that there is an
epidemic of crashing fixie riders, but a brake is reasonable in our
particular urban landscape and with our less jaded and witless
pedestrian populaiton that actually thinks it can walk through a green
light. The judge also properly interpreted the law, so whatever we
might think of it, it is the law. -- Jay Beattie.
jtaylor
> On 7 Aug 2006 08:22:10 -0700, dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>
> >
> >jtaylor wrote:
> >
> >> Leaving aside for the moment the anti-cycling nature of this and other
laws,
> >> the judge was within his area of jurisdiction, that is, interpretation
of
> >> the law; in that the law required a "brake" capable of making the
braked
> >> wheel skid on dry level ground. He (I presume he, but the female
should be
> >> included by convention) found that the arrangement of parts sometimes
known
> >> as the transmission (pedals, crank-arms, chain, sprocket, etcetera) did
not
> >> meet the criteria.
> >
> >What is "anti-cycling" about requiring at least one real brake on a
> >bicycle?
>
> Where does it stop? Why not two brakes? How about anti-skip brakes?
> What about emergency brakes? How about air brakes for falling off a
> cliff, etc, etc..
>
Indeed.
Why not helmets?
Chalo
dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > I've built a large adult-sized Big Wheel style trike that doesn't have
> > any brakes, technically speaking. It has been ridden all over town
> > with my bike club. It is an easy matter to skid its front wheel on dry
> > pavement, making it compliant with that part of the law in a way no
> > normal upright bike with only a front brake can equal.
>
> I've appreciated your offerings in the past. Link to a photo?
Here's an early photo. I'd go to my garage and make a new one, but one
of my friends is borrowing the thing right now:
http://deadbabybikes.org/bikes/300x300k/bigwheel.jpg
It now sports a spiffy red frame/yellow fork paint job, and I've
swapped the rear wheelbarrow wheels for some smaller diameter and
stylishly wider golf cart wheels. I've removed the 700x52 knobby in
favor of a 700x60 slick.
Chalo
r15...@aol.com
Jay Beattie wrote:
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > The law is ridiculous, as pointed out by Chalo
> > and others. All that matters is how quickly one
> > can stop, regardless of type of bicycle. Require
> > say the ability to perform a .6 or .7-g stop and
> > you will find many veteran track bike riders passing the
> > test while a good number of folks on 'normal' bikes
> > would fail. (Falling on your head is automatic
> > failure of test.) This might also put the lid on the newbie
> > hipster element of track bike riders, allowing
> > the old veterans to continue virtually unnoticed
> > by the safety nannies as they have been for decades.
>
> Requiring a brake in our downtown, which has real-live down hills and
> relatively fast moving traffic (compared to New York) is very
> reasonable. Even assuming these guys are running 70" gears or smaller,
> none of them could do a panic stop down a 4+ percent downhill to a
> light (and a crosswalk), which pretty much describes all of the streets
> through downtown that go from west to east.
That is only an issue if the person is riding in
such a way that a 'panic stop' may be necessary.
> Not that there is an
> epidemic of crashing fixie riders, but a brake is reasonable in our
> particular urban landscape and with our less jaded and witless
> pedestrian populaiton that actually thinks it can walk through a green
> light. The judge also properly interpreted the law, so whatever we
> might think of it, it is the law.
The judge's reasoning was warped, I
read the exchange.
Requiring a brake is reasonable for beginning
riders. If I were one of Portland's longtime track
bike riding messengers, I would be pissed. For them
a brake is highly superfluous. If someone can
ride say 100,000 miles in city traffic with no brake
and not hurt anybody or him/herself because of it,
then let him or her continue doing that. Messengers
don't make much money--is the city going to buy
that brake for them and set it up?
Robert
G.T.
> On 7 Aug 2006 08:22:10 -0700, dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>
>
>>jtaylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leaving aside for the moment the anti-cycling nature of this and other laws,
>>>the judge was within his area of jurisdiction, that is, interpretation of
>>>the law; in that the law required a "brake" capable of making the braked
>>>wheel skid on dry level ground. He (I presume he, but the female should be
>>>included by convention) found that the arrangement of parts sometimes known
>>>as the transmission (pedals, crank-arms, chain, sprocket, etcetera) did not
>>>meet the criteria.
>>
>>What is "anti-cycling" about requiring at least one real brake on a
>>bicycle?
>
>
> Where does it stop? Why not two brakes? How about anti-skip brakes?
> What about emergency brakes? How about air brakes for falling off a
> cliff, etc, etc..
>
It stops at one front brake on a fixed gear so one can stop in a
reasonable amount of time and so one has one level of redundancy, or two
brakes in the case of freewheel bikes.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Chalo,
But the original cat is still installed, right?
Cheers,
G.T.
>
>
>
> The law is ridiculous, as pointed out by Chalo
> and others. All that matters is how quickly one
> can stop, regardless of type of bicycle. Require
> say the ability to perform a .6 or .7-g stop and
> you will find many veteran track bike riders passing the
> test
I call bullshit on that. I've ridden on the road with professional
track riders and with very experienced messengers on fixies, and none of
them could stop as fast as someone with a front brake.
dusto...@mac.com
r15...@aol.com wrote:
> Requiring a brake is reasonable for beginning
> riders.
"Them too". Certification requirements?
> If I were one of Portland's longtime track
> bike riding messengers, I would be pissed.
Well, you're not and you're pissed anyhow.
Again with the messengers. The vid I linked to showed an outlaw race,
not messengers. But trying to say that messengers don't exemplify a
certain cycling lifestyle is disingenuous. Part of which lifestyle is
breaking traffic laws, and there we go around again, huh? Deny deny
deny?
> For them
> a brake is highly superfluous.
Hand brakes would save a lot of legwork over the course of a working
day. You can ride faster and safer with at least one (front pref.)
brake. Two, adding one for the rear, is better yet.
> If someone can
> ride say 100,000 miles in city traffic with no brake
> and not hurt anybody or him/herself because of it,
> then let him or her continue doing that.
Whew, more bureaucracy. Forms to fill out, proof of miles, etc. etc.
Gov't intrusion.
> Messengers
> don't make much money--is the city going to buy
> that brake for them and set it up?
Oh my goodness, the poverty appeal. "I'm too broke to obey the law".
--D-y
Sandy
illiterate and lacking in knowledge. But we'll let that go.
> Requiring a brake is reasonable for beginning
> riders. If I were one of Portland's longtime track
> bike riding messengers, I would be pissed. For them
> a brake is highly superfluous.
mortals. And the cachet of being a fixie daredevil is always bathed in
the glow of "we don't need extraneous machinery to do a pure job."
Can't you even get a inkling of what you sound like, you nincompoop !?
Like having a brake mounted, even if not used, is heretical. Like using
it is like a vegetarian eating roast beef. "Oops ! I just got a load
on my karma that will never be balanced !"
> If someone can
> ride say 100,000 miles in city traffic with no brake
> and not hurt anybody or him/herself because of it,
> then let him or her continue doing that. Messengers
> don't make much money--is the city going to buy
> that brake for them and set it up?
>
If they choose the profession, the trappings go with it. Prior to
getting their first track bike, the last time they had any connection
with a things with no brakes was their Big Wheel.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
--
-Il n'est aucune sorte de sensation qui soit plus vive
que celle de la douleur ; ses impressions sont sūres,
elles ne trompent point comme celles du plaisir.
- de Sade.
Chalo
G.T. wrote:
>
> It stops at one front brake on a fixed gear so one can stop in a
> reasonable amount of time and so one has one level of redundancy, or two
> brakes in the case of freewheel bikes.
Does it? To my knowledge, bikes with but one rear coaster brake have
been legal just about everywhere, for as long as anybody can remember.
I know I'd be irked if lawmakers tried to ban the only kind of bike
most of them have probably ever ridden.
Chalo
r15...@aol.com
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Requiring a brake is reasonable for beginning
> > riders.
>
> "Them too". Certification requirements?
>
> > If I were one of Portland's longtime track
> > bike riding messengers, I would be pissed.
>
> Well, you're not and you're pissed anyhow.
>
> Again with the messengers. The vid I linked to showed an outlaw race,
> not messengers. But trying to say that messengers don't exemplify a
> certain cycling lifestyle is disingenuous. Part of which lifestyle is
> breaking traffic laws, and there we go around again, huh? Deny deny
> deny?
What am I denying?
You are a bit confused, dust-me-off-sky. The messenger
_industry_ (not 'lifestyle') is based on the running of
red lights, etc. But that is not up to the messengers
themselves. I believe we went over this sometime before.
Just know that when you sue the guy's estate after you
run him over that all your shitty little legal papers will be
hauled around by messengers going through red lights and
generally stomping all over your delicate sensibilities.
Because that's how it works out there, still.
> > For them
> > a brake is highly superfluous.
>
> Hand brakes would save a lot of legwork over the course of a working
> day. You can ride faster and safer with at least one (front pref.)
> brake. Two, adding one for the rear, is better yet.
I much prefer to ride a traditional road bike myself.
Others feel no desire or need whatsoever to use a
brake or freewheel. They have proved they can do it
safely, so why not?
> > If someone can
> > ride say 100,000 miles in city traffic with no brake
> > and not hurt anybody or him/herself because of it,
> > then let him or her continue doing that.
>
> Whew, more bureaucracy. Forms to fill out, proof of miles, etc. etc.
> Gov't intrusion.
Indeed. What was the need for this whole argument to
start in the first place? Is there an epidemic of brakeless
fixed gear riders smashing into pedestrians and such.
Why the need for govt. involvement at all. Because, if
the safety nannies don't step in, massive disasters will
befall all mankind?
Robert
r15...@aol.com
> > The judge's reasoning was warped, I
> > read the exchange.
> You are really an irritating flea, and unlettered. Not to mention
> illiterate and lacking in knowledge. But we'll let that go.
Okay.
> > Requiring a brake is reasonable for beginning
> > riders. If I were one of Portland's longtime track
> > bike riding messengers, I would be pissed. For them
> > a brake is highly superfluous.
> Of course, this specialized population is gifted beyond the ken of
> mortals.
Yes, and that's really saying something. Because I
know ken, and he is good. Damn good.
> And the cachet of being a fixie daredevil is always bathed in
> the glow of "we don't need extraneous machinery to do a pure job."
> Can't you even get a inkling of what you sound like, you nincompoop !?
> Like having a brake mounted, even if not used, is heretical. Like using
> it is like a vegetarian eating roast beef. "Oops ! I just got a load
> on my karma that will never be balanced !"
Damn, you're a major retard.
Is that really what I sound like? Maybe you need to
brush up on your translation skills, 'Sandy.' I prefer
to ride with handbrakes and a freewheel. Allows for
much more aggressive riding. Using such equipment
does not make me feel 'heretical.' Nor does riding
a track bike make me feel 'pure.' I do find it quite a bit
of fun and a nice change of pace however. Could it be
that your argument is with somebody else, perhaps
one of the fantasy characters in your head?
> > If someone can
> > ride say 100,000 miles in city traffic with no brake
> > and not hurt anybody or him/herself because of it,
> > then let him or her continue doing that. Messengers
> > don't make much money--is the city going to buy
> > that brake for them and set it up?
> >
> If they choose the profession, the trappings go with it. Prior to
> getting their first track bike, the last time they had any connection
> with a things with no brakes was their Big Wheel.
Some of the veteran track bike riding messengers
have never ridden any other type of bicycle, ever.
If they had brakes on their bikes they wouldn't know
what to do with them.
I hope this message is somehow translatable for you,
even though I am an 'illiterate,' 'unlettered,' 'nincompoop.'
Robert
r15...@aol.com
> It stops at one front brake on a fixed gear so one can stop in a
> reasonable amount of time and so one has one level of redundancy, or two
> brakes in the case of freewheel bikes.
Whether or not one can stop in a 'reasonable amount
of time' is dependent on how the bike is ridden relative to
the capabilities/limitations of the bike/rider system.
This is true for any type of bike--track, road, coaster
brakes, etc.
People on track bikes ride differently. It's not a
hard concept.
Or maybe it is, I don't know.
Robert
r15...@aol.com
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The law is ridiculous, as pointed out by Chalo
> > and others. All that matters is how quickly one
> > can stop, regardless of type of bicycle. Require
> > say the ability to perform a .6 or .7-g stop and
> > you will find many veteran track bike riders passing the
> > test
>
> I call bullshit on that. I've ridden on the road with professional
> track riders and with very experienced messengers on fixies, and none of
> them could stop as fast as someone with a front brake.
What I'm saying is that the best of these riders
can stop just as fast as a lot of average riders
on handbrake bikes, which is not nearly as fast
as a skilled rider on a handbrake bike. The max
stop for a bicycle is about .85-.9-g's. The max
stop for a track bike I would estimate at about
.7-g. Most people wouldn't be able to come close
to that on a track bike and I contend that
many in the general population of cyclists
can't stop that fast even with brakes.
It's not the bike, it's the nut riding it.
Robert
dusto...@mac.com
> The law is ridiculous, as pointed out by Chalo
> and others. All that matters is how quickly one
> can stop, regardless of type of bicycle. Require
> say the ability to perform a .6 or .7-g stop and
> you will find many veteran track bike riders passing the
> test while a good number of folks on 'normal' bikes
> would fail. (Falling on your head is automatic
> failure of test.) This might also put the lid on the newbie
> hipster element of track bike riders, allowing
> the old veterans to continue virtually unnoticed
> by the safety nannies as they have been for decades.
Good. Now we're getting down to cases. It's a newbie problem. AKA, too
many messengers...
Why is the answer is always more govenment with you? More micromanaging
legislation? Decelerometers?
Yes, the law isn't the best one that could be written. But field
interpretation should take care of that. And the attitude check. --D-y
r15...@aol.com
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > The law is ridiculous, as pointed out by Chalo
> > and others. All that matters is how quickly one
> > can stop, regardless of type of bicycle. Require
> > say the ability to perform a .6 or .7-g stop and
> > you will find many veteran track bike riders passing the
> > test while a good number of folks on 'normal' bikes
> > would fail. (Falling on your head is automatic
> > failure of test.) This might also put the lid on the newbie
> > hipster element of track bike riders, allowing
> > the old veterans to continue virtually unnoticed
> > by the safety nannies as they have been for decades.
>
> Good. Now we're getting down to cases. It's a newbie problem. AKA, too
> many messengers...
You're confused. There are far fewer messengers today
than there were 10 years ago. The problem is not
too many messengers, but too many fake messengers.
You are probably one of those folks who thinks everybody
they see with a messenger bag and a track bike is
a messenger. In reality it's at best 1-in-10.
> Why is the answer is always more govenment with you? More micromanaging
> legislation? Decelerometers?
Eh?? I'm saying the law, or enforcement of it as per
the judge's tortured interpretation, is still completely unnecessary,
genius.
R
whi...@hotmail.com
> > > The law is ridiculous, as pointed out by Chalo
> > > and others. All that matters is how quickly one
> > > can stop, regardless of type of bicycle. Require
> > > say the ability to perform a .6 or .7-g stop and
> > > you will find many veteran track bike riders passing the
> > > test
> >
>
> What I'm saying is that the best of these riders
> can stop just as fast as a lot of average riders
> on handbrake bikes, which is not nearly as fast
> as a skilled rider on a handbrake bike. The max
> stop for a bicycle is about .85-.9-g's. The max
> stop for a track bike I would estimate at about
> .7-g. Most people wouldn't be able to come close
> to that on a track bike and I contend that
> many in the general population of cyclists
> can't stop that fast even with brakes.
>
> It's not the bike, it's the nut riding it.
>
> Robert
That isn't the point. An argument could be made for just about any law
that has to do with equipment/skill/operation. Example, why not have
different speed limits for different people driving different cars
based on their individual skill levels? Because it doesn't
functionally work to do that.
Front brakes take nothing away from a fixie, and make them all a heck
of a lot safer - for old timers and newbies alike. And for a law of
general application, having a brake makes sense.
carl...@comcast.net
r15...@aol.com wrote:
> You're confused. There are far fewer messengers today
> than there were 10 years ago. The problem is not
> too many messengers, but too many fake messengers.
> You are probably one of those folks who thinks everybody
> they see with a messenger bag and a track bike is
> a messenger. In reality it's at best 1-in-10.
Dear R.,
Fake messengers?
I had no idea that 9 out of 10 riders (or more) who look like
messengers in large cities are in reality fakes.
Can you tell us more about these vast hordes of riders who buy fixies
and messenger bags and ride around pretending to be messengers?
Do the fake messengers ride the elevators up to law offices, too?
Curiously,
Carl Fogel
Joe Riel
> The max stop for a track bike I would estimate at about
> .7-g. Most people wouldn't be able to come close
> to that on a track bike and I contend that
> many in the general population of cyclists
> can't stop that fast even with brakes.
How do they achieve that? The maximum deceleration
from rear wheel braking alone is on the order
of 0.25g.
--
Joe Riel
Chalo
whi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Front brakes take nothing away from a fixie, and make them all a heck
> of a lot safer - for old timers and newbies alike. And for a law of
> general application, having a brake makes sense.
The same goes for wide tires and long wheelbases that prevent toe clip
overlap. But the fact is we leave those choices to the judgment of the
rider. For the law to say that a coaster brake is OK but a fixed wheel
isn't OK is just nonsensical. If the measure is intended to insure
that a rider can stop at will, then that result-- and not the
legislature's uneducated guess at what equipment allows such a
result--should be the focus of the law.
As for me, I'll stick with bikes that have not one but two handbrakes,
and good ones at that. But I don't want any busybody with no riding
experience deciding (for instance) that my drum brakes don't pass
muster just because they are unfamiliar with them.
Chalo
r15...@aol.com
carl fogeled:
> Dear R.,
>
> Fake messengers?
>
> I had no idea that 9 out of 10 riders (or more) who look like
> messengers in large cities are in reality fakes.
Whether that is their aim, to be mistaken for messengers,
I couldn't say. But it's clear to me that they are mistaken
for messengers on a regular basis.
Carl, in Denver, the only city in your vicinity with
any working bike messengers, the number of them
has been cut almost in half in the past decade. Yet
the number of people rolling around on track bikes
with messenger bags has skyrocketed over that time,
I would have to guess that they number in the thousands
as opposed to the number of messengers which is
double digits. The same phenomena occurred everywhere
messengers are employed.
The end result is confusion. Whenever anyone like
dustmeoffski complains about messengers it's a pretty
safe bet that they've never actually seen many, if
any, actual messengers. But don't let that stop them.
> Can you tell us more about these vast hordes of riders who buy fixies
> and messenger bags and ride around pretending to be messengers?
>
> Do the fake messengers ride the elevators up to law offices, too?
They don't appear to be making themselves useful
in any way whatsoever.
Robert
Jay Beattie
More importantly, do the fake ones smell as bad in the elevator.
Anyway, the attorney in the fixie case, Mark Ginsberg, said I could
disclose our last exchange:
"y'know, just this a.m. I was thinking of you and roping you into this
one.
We are having the CD record transcribed right now, and I think we
should appeal, but need to review the record first.
I should have it back this week, can I send you a copy to look at?
I think we would win on appeal b/c the judge said, " i think you need a
separate brake mechanism" and this is not supported by the law or the
dictionary.
and the internet is ON FIRE with the case, and I think it is worth
fighting.
there is also local polictics involved as well, and this past week the
two cops who give out this ticket went on a ticketing spree."
Mark tells me the messenger (she) was riding a 77 inch gear. The judge
said there had to be some separate brake mechanism and made some
mention of even dragging a stick on the wheel. Now some of the
messengers are carrying sticks with the word "brake" written on them
with a Sharpie. I still think a front brake is a good idea, but again,
who knows if that complies with the UVC skid requirement. -- JBeattie.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Joe,
The usual claim, when pressed, is that the no-brake fixie rider throws
the bike sideways, locks the rear wheel just right, and skids to a
halt, rear tire shredding on the pavement under his weight.
The stunt is impressive on video, but is obviously impractical in a
typical emergency.
Proponents of this stunt rarely point to videos of riders high-siding,
crashing, and tumbling as they screw up.
It's also unlikely that the rider can react and perform the maneuver
that starts the sideways-rear-skid braking as quickly as he could
squeeze a hand-brake, so the reaction and maneuver times are usually
ignored.
I'm waiting for someone to suggest removing the front-wheel brakes
from UPS and FedEx delivery vans.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Robert,
Could you post some photos of the 9 out of 10 fake messengers that you
see with their fixies and messenger bags?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Dane Buson
I assume we're only talking about standard drop-bar diamond frames?
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
Hark, the Herald Tribune sings,
Advertising wondrous things.
Angels we have heard on High
Tell us to go out and Buy.
-- Tom Lehrer
Chalo
>
> I had no idea that 9 out of 10 riders (or more) who look like
> messengers in large cities are in reality fakes.
In my observation, he's right. The messenger style-- in clothing,
accessories, and bikes alike-- is high fashion here in Seattle at the
moment. While the ratio might not be as high as 9 to 1, real working
cycle messengers here are handily outnumbered by those who appear to be
messengers, but are not in fact so employed.
The general trend towards electronic filing for both legal and business
transactions has reduced the number of cycle messengers a given urban
area can support. Thus many of the "fake" messengers may in fact be
better decribed as "former" messengers, but I'd wager that the sum of
both the displaced and currently employed messengers is still well
outnumbered by those who could be described as poseurs.
My bike club and its greater community are well populated by examples
of both the genuine and ersatz sorts of cycle messenger.
> Can you tell us more about these vast hordes of riders who buy fixies
> and messenger bags and ride around pretending to be messengers?
There's not much to tell. In my teen years in the mid eighties, there
were a lot of young guys sporting fashions that might lead you to
believe that they were martial arts enthusiasts, when that wasn't the
case at all.
For many years, local park and schoolyard basketball courts have
displayed a proliferation of colorful jerseys from prominent NBA
franchises, but a brief interview will reveal that the wearers don't
belong to those organizations.
Even now, on any given suburban cycle path, it is possible to spot many
riders who appear, upon cursory examination, to be members of elite
professional cycle teams, when they most definitely are not.
Anyone in my circle of associates can tell you that the typical cycle
messenger is /way/ cooler than Lance, Shaq, or any karate champion--
not to mention much easier to mimic convincingly.
> Do the fake messengers ride the elevators up to law offices, too?
They might, if they thought it would get them dates.
But hey, you don't have to take my word for it... because it turns out
there's already a word for it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fakenger&btnG=Google+Search
Chalo Colina
Chalo
>
> Joe Riel <jo...@k-online.com> wrote:
> >
> > r15...@aol.com writes:
> >>
> >> The max stop for a track bike I would estimate at about .7-g. Most
> >> people wouldn't be able to come close to that on a track bike and I
> >> contend that many in the general population of cyclists can't stop
> >> that fast even with brakes.
> >
> > How do they achieve that? The maximum deceleration from rear wheel
> > braking alone is on the order of 0.25g.
>
> I assume we're only talking about standard drop-bar diamond frames?
For my part, I've observed that the longer and more rear-weighted a
bike is, the more important rear braking becomes. There are some
choppers I've tried that reverse the normal order of things by having a
front wheel that is easy to skid, and a rear wheel that can't be
skidded at all.
I think 0.7g deceleration is unlikely even for those bikes, though.
Chalo
Michael Press
<l4_Bg.33725$43.1...@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
"jtaylor" <jta...@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunset...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1155013033....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chalo Colina wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Technically speaking, a front brake only is illegal too, even though
> > > it's far superior to the plainly legal rear-only brake layout....
> >
> > What about two (2) front brakes, but no rear brake?
> >
>
> Chalo was pointing out that a front brake cannot skid the wheel as required
> by the legislation.
>
> Two front brakes will not achieve this either.
I think Johnny Sunshine cracked wise; funny and not
intended to pique.
--
Michael Press
Chalo
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> >http://deadbabybikes.org/bikes/300x300k/bigwheel.jpg
> >
> >It now sports a spiffy red frame/yellow fork paint job, and I've
> >swapped the rear wheelbarrow wheels for some smaller diameter and
> >stylishly wider golf cart wheels. I've removed the 700x52 knobby in
> >favor of a 700x60 slick.
>
Intermittently, yes.
Chalo
Michael Press
<1155051005.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
r15...@aol.com wrote:
> The law is ridiculous, as pointed out by Chalo
> and others.
I do not ridicule that law. You point out that many with
brakes on their bike cannot stop as effectively as an
expert on a brakeless fixed gear bicycle. How well will
they do on a brakeless bicycle?
> All that matters is how quickly one
> can stop, regardless of type of bicycle. Require
> say the ability to perform a .6 or .7-g stop and
> you will find many veteran track bike riders passing the
> test while a good number of folks on 'normal' bikes
> would fail. (Falling on your head is automatic
> failure of test.) This might also put the lid on the newbie
> hipster element of track bike riders, allowing
> the old veterans to continue virtually unnoticed
> by the safety nannies as they have been for decades.
I have not ridden a fixed gear bicycle enough to be any
good at it. Will you describe the precise steps an expert
performs to execute a 0.6 g stop on a fixed gear bicycle?
--
Michael Press
Diablo Scott
> Anyone in my circle of associates can tell you that the typical cycle
> messenger is /way/ cooler than Lance, Shaq, or any karate champion--
> not to mention much easier to mimic convincingly.
Lots of fake messengers on Critical Mass rides too. I'm waiting for
Converse to release their SPD compatable high-top. It's great fun but
I'm a little over-geared to ride the 1.5 mph promenade down Embarcadero.