interesting...

That should make coaster brakes on 20" bikes illegal too?

Aren't there more important things for legal types to be worried about?

 

that this even made it to court is rediculous as well. and its surprising that the officer even showed up for court. the attorney should have brought video of a fixie stopping to illustrate that it can and does stop without a conventional brake.

 

Actual force necessary to 'skid' stop

Of course this figure would vary based on the traction levels, but it seems to me that 'sufficent leg strength' to 'skid' stop a fixed gear is far less than the weight of the average rider (<100 ft/lbs I'm sure). In other words - as long as you have the leg strength to stand up then you have the leg strength to stop the bike. This guys lawyer doesn't seem all that cunning either.

 

You are wrong and there is nothing new about this.

It has already been endlessly discussed in the RBR Fixed Gear Forum.

What you seem to miss is that bicycles on the roadway have always been required to have a brake that can skid the tire on clean dry pavement. The plaintiff was trying to have his legs be that brake. The judge said no to this questionable argument.

As long as there is a functional mechanical brake on the bike fixed gear bicycles are still legal everywhere in the US (including Portland).

 

fixie perfectly legal

so long as it has a brake.
It should be demonstrated that a fixed gear (without rear brake) can be stopped (skid the back wheel on clean, level, dry pavement)... problem is, not everyone who rides a brakeless fixed gear can skid the back wheel. makes for a weak argument.

BTW ajaptwo... riding a brakeless bike is illegal in California too.
CVC 21201

Equipment Requirements

21201. (a) No person shall operate a bicycle on a roadway unless it is equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make one braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.

 

being from Portland, this was inevitable..

due to the sheer amount of riders (many of them messengers) who daily ride fixies without brakes and the large prevalence of riders in the downtown area who shun regular traffic devices (stop signs, red lights, rigths of way). I commute almost daily and see the actions and interactions of drivers and cyclists (good or bad) through downtown Portland...
Yes, the ruling seems a bit trite and a waste of taxpayer dollars using the courts time (the ticket was only 70$...so it had to be a matter of principle) and the cyclist should consider the implications of a collision (I would say a majority of these messengers and downtown riders dont' wear helmets) caused by insufficient braking power...I suspect the ruling is designed to attempt to reduce those interactions.
Fixies are still being riden, the police now just have a larger precedent to ticket cyclists (they already ticket over 200$ for running stop signs or red lights) at moving violations, etc. But yes, the police must be bored here in town....

 

"What you seem to miss is that bicycles on the roadway have always been required to have a brake that can skid the tire on clean dry pavement. The plaintiff was trying to have his legs be that brake. The judge said no to this questionable argument."

Whats happening here is that the rider is arguing that his mechanism for braking is the gear itself, and he would use his leg strength to activate this brake. The same way a lever and caliper are braking mechanisms and you use your wrist and finger strength to activate them. The judge and officers argument about insufficent 'leg strength' apply equally to someone who might not have sufficent wrist or finger strength to actuate a caliper. Additionally, as I mentioned - I seem to remember as a kid that merely standing up on the pedal in the opposite direction will skid stop just about any tire on any given surface (indeed, you full weight is about the maximum force you can apply to the pedal in any scenario - minus roadies who off-sadle and pull up on the handlebars)
I fully understand the mechanics - I'm more concerned as chase 15.5 pointed out that this even made it to court. Wondering how prevalent this is and what type of experiences people have with this (ie have you been cited, did you get off, what was your argument etc)

 

Eh...so what. It's a gray area. A lot of fixed riders can't skid very well. Plus most time riders unweight the wheel to skid. It not gonna stop nearly as fast as a decent brake would....especially unweighted....even with a good rider. It's not going to modulate as well either. Put an unskilled rider on one and it's no contest.

The law is worded poorly, but the overal idea is that the bike should be able to stop quickly regardless of how skilled the rider.

 

Don't break the brake law and you won't get busted.

Ignore the brake law at your peril.

If you ever get into any kind of an accident with another vehicle or person and no legally required brake on your bicycle and the fault will legally be at least partially yours regardless of the circumstances.

 

I understand the idea and draw towards a single gear, but why not just ride single speed instead of fixed. I just seems so much more practicle, especially for riding downtown.

 

Additionally, as I mentioned - I seem to remember as a kid that merely standing up on the pedal in the opposite direction will skid stop just about any tire on any given surface (indeed, you full weight is about the maximum force you can apply to the pedal in any scenario - minus roadies who off-sadle and pull up on the handlebars)

No way. Maybe with a small small gear ratio...but with an average ratio not even close. Not at least with any weight over the back wheel. If you have unweighted the back wheel you dont have the friction to stop very fast. Are you thinking back to your big wheel days? Small wheel + directly connected pedals + plastic wheel = easy to skid. That's not your average fixed gear and not the speed that they would be riding.

Judge is correct.

 

I understand the idea and draw towards a single gear, but why not just ride single speed instead of fixed. I just seems so much more practicle, especially for riding downtown.

Best I can say is try it. It's an completely different experience. Much more direct, being able to control the speed of the bike with your legs. Bike moving = you moving.....much more connected ride.

No reason not to have a brake though.

 

"What you seem to miss is that bicycles on the roadway have always been required to have a brake that can skid the tire on clean dry pavement. The plaintiff was trying to have his legs be that brake. The judge said no to this questionable argument."

Whats happening here is that the rider is arguing that his mechanism for braking is the gear itself, and he would use his leg strength to activate this brake. The same way a lever and caliper are braking mechanisms and you use your wrist and finger strength to activate them. The judge and officers argument about insufficent 'leg strength' apply equally to someone who might not have sufficent wrist or finger strength to actuate a caliper. Additionally, as I mentioned - I seem to remember as a kid that merely standing up on the pedal in the opposite direction will skid stop just about any tire on any given surface (indeed, you full weight is about the maximum force you can apply to the pedal in any scenario - minus roadies who off-sadle and pull up on the handlebars)
I fully understand the mechanics - I'm more concerned as chase 15.5 pointed out that this even made it to court. Wondering how prevalent this is and what type of experiences people have with this (ie have you been cited, did you get off, what was your argument etc)

1st time warned, second time cited for "fix-it" ticket... both times in San Francisco. Borrowed my buddies red road bike to demonstrate that I "fixed" the problem. Not sure how I got away with it. I don't really ride my track bike on the streets anymore. I have more respect for my well-being than I used to.

 

You have a lot more control with a fixed gear than with a freewheel.

I understand the idea and draw towards a single gear, but why not just ride single speed instead of fixed. I just seems so much more practicle, especially for riding downtown.

Just think, no one ever suggests riding a freewheel bicycle without brakes but lots of folks ride fixed gear bicycles without a brake (illegally true but quite successfully and happily).

When I switch to a geared bike from fixed it feels quite out of control for the first few miles-like the bike is going to roll away from me and I miss the subtle speed control of riding fixed).

BTW FWIW NTTIAWWT both the Mrs and I have front and rear brakes on our fixtes.

 

Just think, no one ever suggests riding a freewheel bicycle without brakes but lots of folks ride fixed gear bicycles without a brake (illegally true but quite successfully and happily).

When I switch to a geared bike from fixed it feels quite out of control for the first few miles-like the bike is going to roll away from me and I miss the subtle speed control of riding fixed).

BTW FWIW NTTIAWWT both the Mrs and I have front and rear brakes on our fixtes.

When I get on a coastable bike after riding fixed for a couple of days, I forget to coat....

I actually have seen quite a few people in S.F. particularly with a freewheel and front brake only... even one case with no brakes
Call it Darwinism.
A very grumpy mechanic once said, "bicycling is not for everyone."

 

It's not about the brake.

It's about targetting messengers, a group who annoy both drivers and pedestrians. The "brake law" was passed in response to a public sentiment similar to "We have to do something about those peopIe."

I bet I could ride my fixie all over Portland with no brake, stop by grabbing poles, and never get a ticket. Why? Because I'm 57, white, wear a helmet, disobey traffic laws cautiously and respond politely to cops.

 

As MB1 said, fixies are still legal everywhere. You must have a brake capable of skidding a tire. Whether the cyclist can demonstrate his ability to skid the tire by applying back pressure on the crank is irrelevant. It comes down to what the interpretation of a brake is. The judge looked at the letter, spirit and intent of the law and decided that applying back pressure on the crank was not a brake, regardless of whether the cyclist in question, or any other cyclist, could skid the rear wheel with this method. To the question of how did this get to court. It got there because the cyclist wanted it to go to court, not because the authorities wanted it in court. If the cyclist had decided to pay the $70 ticket it would have ended there. Don't blame the system because the accused wanted his day in court. One can question the advisability of ticketing a cyclist for such a minor infraction but there's usually more to this type of story. Maybe the cyclist ran a red light but the officer gave him a break and only ticketed him for lacking a brake, who knows?

 

Wow, interesting that this made it from our lowly bikeportland.org to RBR...

If you read the article, the interesting thing is that the way the law is worded, it's not clear at all how a brake is defined, and the defense actually made sense. Legal sense, not common sense.

Also, this is hardly a precedent, just that this case was argued in court and made it to a local website.

Anyways, no substitute for a mechanical brake on the front wheel. Riding on the road brakeless is a feeble attempt at being cool...

 

"It's about targetting messengers, a group who annoy both drivers and pedestrians. The "brake law" was passed in response to a public sentiment similar to "We have to do something about those peopIe."

I bet I could ride my fixie all over Portland with no brake, stop by grabbing poles, and never get a ticket. Why? Because I'm 57, white, wear a helmet, disobey traffic laws cautiously and respond politely to cops."

I'm prietty sure that is exactly what is happening. And as for the 'skid or no skid on fixed' argument - I just managed to skid stop my fixed cruiser without evern standing up on dry pavement and rubber (not plastic) tires. But ohh how I do miss my bigwheel days. If not for the sheer convenience of gears I probably wouldn't ride a roadie at all. Am I a wh0re?

 

Ever wonder why they leave these 'gray' areas in laws?

 

It's no wonder that bikes don't have anti-lock brackes, their illegal!

 

Ever wonder why they leave these 'gray' areas in laws?

Yeah, so the judge/jury can decide....and he did.

They can't write a law that says you can ride your fixed gear without brakes only if you have enough skill. That's kinda like giving Michael Schumacher a speed limit waver to break the speed limit just because he can drive.....

"Yeah, your honor.....I drive 200mph all the time. I have the skill. Watch...I'll show you by driving 100mph through this school zone".