US: Judge finds fault with fixies

[[email protected]]

Bleve wrote:
> Foot, front tyre, jam foot between fork and tyre.... it works. Did it
> as a kid ...

I tried this a couple of years ago and went over the handlebars.
Cut myself up pretty bad and I think I broke a finger, but the
first thing I did was jump up and look around to see if anyone
had seen...

Can't say I recommend the technique.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Gemma_k wrote:

> It's NOT that uncommon to see track bikes unscrew a cog.....

You're supposed to put the lockring on.

Theo

 

[PiledHigher]

John Stevenson wrote:

> The judge has decided to interpret it in such a way that he has an
> excuse to send a message that fixies should have at least one *actual
> brake*. Good for him.
>
> Interpreting legislation written by cretins so that it is actually
> useful out in the world is one thing judges are for.

But the judge didn't so that, the legislatilation says that you have to
be able to skid the wheel.
He didn't test that.

If it said had to have one caliper, then fine.

Its a dumb ruling because it means that you can't read the rule, say I
can skid my wheel, therefore its legal, Judges are ment to interpret
existing rules rather tha write new ones, thats for legislature..

 

[Theo Bekkers]

PiledHigher wrote:

> But the judge didn't so that, the legislatilation says that you have
> to be able to skid the wheel.
> He didn't test that.

Because he had enough sense to see it was a stupid measure.

> If it said had to have one caliper, then fine.
>
> Its a dumb ruling because it means that you can't read the rule, say I
> can skid my wheel, therefore its legal, Judges are ment to interpret
> existing rules rather tha write new ones, thats for legislature..

It is the judge's job to decide the intent of a law that was poorly written.
He made the right decision. Fixies ridden on roads with traffic should be
required to have brakes as we think of 'brakes' other than the pedal and
chain.

Theo

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-04, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> PiledHigher wrote:
>> If it said had to have one caliper, then fine.
>>
>> Its a dumb ruling because it means that you can't read the rule, say I
>> can skid my wheel, therefore its legal, Judges are ment to interpret
>> existing rules rather tha write new ones, thats for legislature..
>
> It is the judge's job to decide the intent of a law that was poorly written.
> He made the right decision. Fixies ridden on roads with traffic should be
> required to have brakes as we think of 'brakes' other than the pedal and
> chain.

So you want coaster brakes outlawed?

--
TimC
TELESCOPE, n.
A device having a relation to the eye similar to that of the
telephone to the ear, enabling distant objects to plague us with a
multitude of needless details. Luckily it is unprovided with a bell
summoning us to the sacrifice.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

 

[PiledHigher]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> PiledHigher wrote:
>
> > But the judge didn't so that, the legislatilation says that you have
> > to be able to skid the wheel.
> > He didn't test that.
>
> Because he had enough sense to see it was a stupid measure.
>
> > If it said had to have one caliper, then fine.
> >
> > Its a dumb ruling because it means that you can't read the rule, say I
> > can skid my wheel, therefore its legal, Judges are ment to interpret
> > existing rules rather tha write new ones, thats for legislature..
>
> It is the judge's job to decide the intent of a law that was poorly written.
> He made the right decision. Fixies ridden on roads with traffic should be
> required to have brakes as we think of 'brakes' other than the pedal and
> chain.
>
> Theo

The intent of the law is clear, if not necessarily sensible. Skidding
is not indicative of optimal braking. Theoretically this forces the one
minimum brake to the rear as this is the only one you can safely skid.
A more measurable but not prescriptive would give a decelaration rate
from a given speed.

The judge can't interpret it in any way they like.

And the judge said stupid stuff, like if the defendant had a stick to
rub on the wheel they would have been fine.

Additionally what we think of as breaks has changed:

Disks,
Coaster
Drum
Caliper
Cantilever
V-brakes
hydraulic
Spoon
Rim

So do we have to write laws that define what a brake is or the intent?

 

[Tamyka Bell]

TimC wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-04, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > PiledHigher wrote:
> >> If it said had to have one caliper, then fine.
> >>
> >> Its a dumb ruling because it means that you can't read the rule, say I
> >> can skid my wheel, therefore its legal, Judges are ment to interpret
> >> existing rules rather tha write new ones, thats for legislature..
> >
> > It is the judge's job to decide the intent of a law that was poorly written.
> > He made the right decision. Fixies ridden on roads with traffic should be
> > required to have brakes as we think of 'brakes' other than the pedal and
> > chain.
>
> So you want coaster brakes outlawed?

That would be bad for my shopping bike!

Tam

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
>Theo Bekkers wrote

>> It is the judge's job to decide the intent of a law that was poorly
>> written. He made the right decision. Fixies ridden on roads with
>> traffic should be required to have brakes as we think of 'brakes'
>> other than the pedal and chain.

> So you want coaster brakes outlawed?

Did I say that? I certainly did not intend to say that. Coaster brakes are
fine with me.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

PiledHigher wrote:

> Additionally what we think of as breaks has changed:
>
> Disks,
> Coaster
> Drum
> Caliper
> Cantilever
> V-brakes
> hydraulic
> Spoon
> Rim
>
> So do we have to write laws that define what a brake is or the intent?

You didn't mention fixie pedals and chain as an option of brakes.

Theo

 

[PiledHigher]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> TimC wrote:
> >Theo Bekkers wrote
>
> >> It is the judge's job to decide the intent of a law that was poorly
> >> written. He made the right decision. Fixies ridden on roads with
> >> traffic should be required to have brakes as we think of 'brakes'
> >> other than the pedal and chain.
>
> > So you want coaster brakes outlawed?
>
> Did I say that? I certainly did not intend to say that. Coaster brakes are
> fine with me.
>
> Theo

And probabaly less effective than back pedalling a fixed.. Particularly
on a poorly maintained bike.

You've heard of repack hill from the early history of MTB? Called that
because without repacking the grease in your coaster brake after every
run you had no brakes.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

PiledHigher wrote:

> And probabaly less effective than back pedalling a fixed..
> Particularly on a poorly maintained bike.

Many things are not effective when poorly maintained. You had a point?

Theo

 

[PiledHigher]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> PiledHigher wrote:
>
> > And probabaly less effective than back pedalling a fixed..
> > Particularly on a poorly maintained bike.
>
> Many things are not effective when poorly maintained. You had a point?
>
> Theo

Less effective than back pedalling a fixed, but given two similar brake
types one less effective but called a brake, versus one not
specifically called a brake but with better outcomes you'll take the
one called a brake?

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 3 Aug 2006 22:01:46 -0700
PiledHigher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Less effective than back pedalling a fixed, but given two similar brake
> types one less effective but called a brake, versus one not
> specifically called a brake but with better outcomes you'll take the
> one called a brake?

so going down hill at speed, does the fix stop more slowly or does a
well maintained coaster brake?

Zebee

 

[PiledHigher]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> PiledHigher wrote:
>
> > Additionally what we think of as breaks has changed:
> >
> > Disks,
> > Coaster
> > Drum
> > Caliper
> > Cantilever
> > V-brakes
> > hydraulic
> > Spoon
> > Rim
> >
> > So do we have to write laws that define what a brake is or the intent?
>
> You didn't mention fixie pedals and chain as an option of brakes.
>
> Theo

I also didn't mention

Roller
Delta
U-brakes
Drag
Those foot thingies on scooters

That's why laws are designed with outcomes not technologies. I've
probably missed 10 others.

The US state in question defined a rule (bad as it is as previously
stated). Both the policeman and the judge decided not to judge the case
by the rule but their perception.

If you had never driven a car or saw them in common use, you would
suggest that is was downright dangerous and stupidly wasteful to drive
around with a ton of metal at 100km an hour with 1 person in it.

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-08-04, PiledHigher <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you had never driven a car or saw them in common use, you would
> suggest that is was downright dangerous and stupidly wasteful to drive
> around with a ton of metal at 100km an hour with 1 person in it.

It *is* stupidly wasteful. But try telling society as a whole that.

Personally? I'm a very big believer in the belts and bracers principle,
especially where personal safety is concerned. The odds of a chain
snapping? Small. The chance of a brake cable snapping? Also small. Both
happening at once? Significantly smaller than either happening on their
own.

The reasoning of the judge was inaccurate, but I can't say that I
disagree with his end conclusion.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[rdk]

cfsmtb wrote:

Interpreting legislation written by cretins so that it is actually
useful out in the world is one thing judges are for.

Especially in the US it *is* the judges' job to interpret legislation. The people who wrote the law intended that bikes had a brake. No reasonable person (reasonable person is actually a legal concept) would interpret a brake as back peddling on a fixie. Therefore the cylist was wrong and the judge correct.

I was nearly cleaned up by one real cool dude riding a fixie on the footpath in the city the other day. I think the law here should say they have to have brakes.

 

[dave]

PiledHigher wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>>PiledHigher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But the judge didn't so that, the legislatilation says that you have
>>>to be able to skid the wheel.
>>>He didn't test that.
>>
>> Because he had enough sense to see it was a stupid measure.
>>
>>
>>>If it said had to have one caliper, then fine.
>>>
>>>Its a dumb ruling because it means that you can't read the rule, say I
>>>can skid my wheel, therefore its legal, Judges are ment to interpret
>>>existing rules rather tha write new ones, thats for legislature..
>>
>>It is the judge's job to decide the intent of a law that was poorly written.
>>He made the right decision. Fixies ridden on roads with traffic should be
>>required to have brakes as we think of 'brakes' other than the pedal and
>>chain.
>>
>>Theo
>
>
> The intent of the law is clear, if not necessarily sensible. Skidding
> is not indicative of optimal braking. Theoretically this forces the one
> minimum brake to the rear as this is the only one you can safely skid.
> A more measurable but not prescriptive would give a decelaration rate
> from a given speed.
>
> The judge can't interpret it in any way they like.
>
> And the judge said stupid stuff, like if the defendant had a stick to
> rub on the wheel they would have been fine.
>
> Additionally what we think of as breaks has changed:
>
> Disks,
> Coaster
> Drum
> Caliper
> Cantilever
> V-brakes
> hydraulic
> Spoon
> Rim
>
> So do we have to write laws that define what a brake is or the intent?
>
Well we could define every sort of current brake in the act. Then when
someone invents an anti inertia brake that lets you deacellerate from 40
kph to zero in five feet (yeah right) the cops will promply charge users
with not having any brakes on the vehicles and the judge will find em
guilty.

They defined a minimal standard of performance and she met it. Ok so it
was very minimal. Still should have been a thrown out charge

Dave

 

[dave]

PiledHigher wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>>PiledHigher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And probabaly less effective than back pedalling a fixed..
>>>Particularly on a poorly maintained bike.
>>
>>Many things are not effective when poorly maintained. You had a point?
>>
>>Theo
>
>
> Less effective than back pedalling a fixed, but given two similar brake
> types one less effective but called a brake, versus one not
> specifically called a brake but with better outcomes you'll take the
> one called a brake?
>

Thats our Theo

 

[Friday]

Stuart Lamble wrote:
> On 2006-08-04, PiledHigher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If you had never driven a car or saw them in common use, you would
>>suggest that is was downright dangerous and stupidly wasteful to drive
>>around with a ton of metal at 100km an hour with 1 person in it.
>
>
> It *is* stupidly wasteful. But try telling society as a whole that.
>
> Personally? I'm a very big believer in the belts and bracers principle,
> especially where personal safety is concerned. The odds of a chain
> snapping? Small. The chance of a brake cable snapping? Also small. Both
> happening at once? Significantly smaller than either happening on their
> own.


The odds of a chain snapping are small but the odds of the chain comming
off are high.

>
> The reasoning of the judge was inaccurate, but I can't say that I
> disagree with his end conclusion.
>

Yes, the outcome is that the bike should be able to stop reasonably quickly.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:02:01 GMT
Friday <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yes, the outcome is that the bike should be able to stop reasonably quickly.

In as many circumstances as possible.

Two independent brakes are a good idea (and mandated in motorcycles).
One stuffs up, you have the other one.

I presume weight transfer on an unsuspended bicycle isn't as great as
it is on the heavier suspended motorcycle, but wouldn't a front brake
be more efficient at stopping the bike than any back brake? Is the
desire for a completely clean bike worth the lack of redundancy and
the inefficiency of rear braking?

Zebee
- who has finally managed to use the front brake more on the bent so
isn't locking the back wheel. Damfino why I kept hitting the back
harder than the front seeing as the front brake is the same hand as
the front brake on the motorcycles...