What is a brake?

Marc Brett said:

An Oregon judge has ruled that fixed-gear cycles are illegal beause they
don't have brakes, even though they meet the statutory requirement to be
able to skid on dry pavement.

http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fixies/

To be rather more specific: a fixie *without a front brake* has been
declared illegal in Oregon. I just can't see anyone in u.r.c-land riding
a fixie on the road without a front brake. Even the unicycle crowd have
a brake on both the front and rear wheels. And the one in the middle.

Mike

Marc Brett said:

An Oregon judge has ruled that fixed-gear cycles are illegal beause they don't
have brakes, even though they meet the statutory requirement to be able to skid
on dry pavement.

http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fixies/

It appears that the judge sensibly ruled fixed gear bikes with no method of
stopping other than the drive-train are illegal, not all fixed gears. We had
a thread a few years back discussing what constitutes a "brake" in the
context of fixed gear:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/d373869176e0bd4a/221efae38f6f460f?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en

The Oregon law appears to be badly drafted though. Under UK law, we are
required to have two independent braking mechanisms, and AIUI the drivetrain
of a fixed gear counts as one. Certainly I rode my fixie with a front brake
only for ages without mishap, but fitted a rear caliper when I got my claws
on a suitable one. It is ocasionally useful though I do appreciate the very
intuitive control of speed that the drivetrain provides over a
freewheel-equipped drivetrain.

I have never had any inclination to ride fixed on the road without any extra
brakes at all though, and confess I don't understand the attraction. Even
with thigh muscles like Charles Atlas a rider can't stop that quickly by
resisting the pedals, or even jumping the rear wheel and skidding it[1].

Regards,

-david

[1] This wrecks your tyres and knees. Nasty trick.

David Nutter wrote on 01/08/2006 22:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I have never had any inclination to ride fixed on the road without
any extra brakes at all though, and confess I don't understand the
attraction. Even with thigh muscles like Charles Atlas a rider can't
stop that quickly by resisting the pedals, or even jumping the rear
wheel and skidding it[1].

I have been very relieved to have brakes on my fixie going down some
hills. The consequences of my legs reaching their rev limit could have
been very unseemly.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

In article <[email hidden]>

David Nutter said:

Marc Brett said:

An Oregon judge has ruled that fixed-gear cycles are illegal beause they don't
have brakes, even though they meet the statutory requirement to be able to skid
on dry pavement.

http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fixies/

It appears that the judge sensibly ruled fixed gear bikes with no method of
stopping other than the drive-train are illegal, not all fixed gears.

'Sensibly'? It's not about what's safe or sensible, it's about a county
judge interpreting a statute, when that's what the Supreme Court is for,
and making a particularly ill-considered interpetation at that, it
seems. If the statute needs updating (and it certainly sounds that way
to me) then this is the job of the state legislature.

Marc Brett said:

An Oregon judge has ruled that fixed-gear cycles are illegal beause they don't
have brakes, even though they meet the statutory requirement to be able to skid
on dry pavement.

http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fixies/

part of the argument appears to be that thebike was lacking in a lever.

Surely the cranks act as a lever in either propelling or retarding the bike.

[I don't condone not having another form of braking on a fixie on the road]

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>

David Nutter said:

Marc Brett said:

An Oregon judge has ruled that fixed-gear cycles are illegal beause they don't
have brakes, even though they meet the statutory requirement to be able to skid
on dry pavement.

http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fixies/

It appears that the judge sensibly ruled fixed gear bikes with no method of
stopping other than the drive-train are illegal, not all fixed gears.

'Sensibly'? It's not about what's safe or sensible, it's about a county
judge interpreting a statute, when that's what the Supreme Court is for,

Judges are there to interpret the law where it is unclear in countries like
America and the UK with common-law based legal systems. If the defendant is
unhappy with the decision, she can of course appeal to a higher court.
However, I doubt the Supreme Court would be interested in such an
inconsequential case relating to local law, even if by some chance it did
work its way up through the various levels of appeal court.

Quoted message said:

and making a particularly ill-considered interpetation at that, it
seems.

His wording could certainly be improved. However, the reasoning is sound: a
fixed gear is no more a pure "device to arrest the motion of a vehicle" than
a car's engine and gearbox is, though you can use both in this way.

Quoted message said:

If the statute needs updating (and it certainly sounds that way
to me) then this is the job of the state legislature.

Indeed. In the meantime however the judge is quite entitled to interpet the
law in this way. Certainly in the UK judges are required to consult Hansard
to determine the intent of legislators in case of doubt. Assuming Oregon has
similiar directives, I find it unlikely that Oregon's legislators intended
fixed gears to be exempt from the requirement to have an independent braking
system.

Regards,

-david

pete whelan said:

part of the argument appears to be that thebike was lacking in a lever.

Surely the cranks act as a lever in either propelling or retarding the bike.

Yeah, where does that leave 'german' (back-pedal) brakes? The action
is the same, the resul is the same, just the back-pedal brake has a
more complex mechanism to allow the free-wheel to work.

sothach said:

Yeah, where does that leave 'german' (back-pedal) brakes? The action
is the same, the resul is the same, just the back-pedal brake has a
more complex mechanism to allow the free-wheel to work.

It wouldn't be legal in the UK to have a back pedal brake as your only brake.
This seems good to me.

--
Arthur Clune

Tony Raven said:

David Nutter wrote on 01/08/2006 22:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I have never had any inclination to ride fixed on the road without
any extra brakes at all though, and confess I don't understand the
attraction. Even with thigh muscles like Charles Atlas a rider can't
stop that quickly by resisting the pedals, or even jumping the rear
wheel and skidding it[1].

I have been very relieved to have brakes on my fixie going down some
hills. The consequences of my legs reaching their rev limit could have
been very unseemly.

Indeedy. My fixed has cantilever brakes, front and back.

And they are very nice when I want to stop in a hurry
(e.g. careless ped steps in frotn of me. Again.)

BugBear

Tony Raven said:

I have been very relieved to have brakes on my fixie going down some
hills. The consequences of my legs reaching their rev limit could have
been very unseemly.

Provided your feet remained attached to the pedals your maxed-out legs
would have acted as a speed limiter and your bike would have stopped
accelerating (or did you mean their muscle-powered rev limit?). Of
course your ability to slow down might have been rather limited.

I can't see the attraction of taking a fixer onto the road without a
front brake. Actually that's wrong, I confess that I can. I should have
said I can't see any wisdom in taking a fixer onto the road without a
front brake. :-)

--
Dave...

sothach said:

pete whelan said:

part of the argument appears to be that thebike was lacking in a lever.

Surely the cranks act as a lever in either propelling or retarding the bike.

Yeah, where does that leave 'german' (back-pedal) brakes? The action
is the same, the resul is the same, just the back-pedal brake has a
more complex mechanism to allow the free-wheel to work.

According to the link, Officer Barnum was quite prepared to accept the
existence of a coaster brake, but was concerned about a chain failure on
a fixie. I have no idea how he was expecting a coaster brake to work in
the case of a chain failure.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.

David Nutter said:

Indeed. In the meantime however the judge is quite entitled to interpet the
law in this way. Certainly in the UK judges are required to consult Hansard
to determine the intent of legislators in case of doubt. Assuming Oregon has
similiar directives, I find it unlikely that Oregon's legislators intended
fixed gears to be exempt from the requirement to have an independent braking
system.

And yet bikes with only a coaster rear brake are legal under the same laws,
in spite of being just as ineffective because of weight transfer, and just
as vulnerable to chain breakage.
While I too think a front brake is sensible on a fixed gear bike, I think
the judge's reasoning (at least as reported) was poor.

Alan Braggins said:

And yet bikes with only a coaster rear brake are legal under the same laws,
in spite of being just as ineffective because of weight transfer, and just
as vulnerable to chain breakage.
While I too think a front brake is sensible on a fixed gear bike, I think
the judge's reasoning (at least as reported) was poor.

I'm trying to understand the line of reasoning myself. If he were
considering coaster brakes, then might he not have reasoned that a
coaster brake effective enough to skid the rear wheel (for what little
that's worth) can be operated with less force than can a fixed rear
wheel? To quote the article:

""" The brake must be a device separate from the musclulature of the
rider. Take me for instance. I don't have leg muscles as strong as
a messenger...how would I stop safely? [1] """

Judges unfortunately have to interpret law, and their interpretations
need to apply to all road users. Not all cyclists have the leg
strength required to cause a fixed rear wheel to skid, but I assume most
could make a coaster brake do the same. That would be the lowest-common-
denominator intepretation anyway.
An appeal ought to sort out the matter though; the statute could also be
interpreted quite sensibly in a non-LCD way too.

FWIW, I'm sure my knees are healthier thanks to my proper front brake,
and I seriously don't give a stuff about any lost messenger chic or
hipster cred. I hope that's aready been destroyed by the scruffy touring
saddlebag and its supporting ironwork.

[1] Great. Now I'll keep picturing an English high court judge in full
robes and wig on an indoor track or trackstanding at a junction
somewhere.

--
Andrew Chadwick

dkahn400 said:

Quoted message said:

I have been very relieved to have brakes on my fixie going down some
hills....

Provided your feet remained attached to the pedals your maxed-out legs
would have acted as a speed limiter and your bike would have stopped
accelerating

not necessarily so. You're asking your legs to dissipate energy being
constantly topped up by gravity - there's a limit to show much they can
do before you damage something.

Quoting Mike Causer <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Marc Brett said:

An Oregon judge has ruled that fixed-gear cycles are illegal beause they
don't have brakes, even though they meet the statutory requirement to be
able to skid on dry pavement.
http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fixies/

To be rather more specific: a fixie *without a front brake* has been
declared illegal in Oregon. I just can't see anyone in u.r.c-land riding
a fixie on the road without a front brake.

Yes - _but_ under Oregon law in general a front brake is not required. If
they don't like that, they should change the law, not single out fixie
riders who are no more reckless and should be no less legal than unfixed
riders with a single back brake.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Wednesday, July.

sothach said:

Yeah, where does that leave 'german' (back-pedal) brakes? The action
is the same, the resul is the same, just the back-pedal brake has a
more complex mechanism to allow the free-wheel to work.

I've only got very limited experience of coaster brakes, but I'm
pretty sure they should be easier to operate at speed than the
leg-brake on a fixie.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________