"Look Ma!, No Brakes"

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 07 Mar 2007 12:08:14
From: Paul J. Berg
Subject: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

`
Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.

`

Date: 17 Mar 2007 01:30:08
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <1174118904.682486.269880@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
"Steven" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > writes:

> There are some really strange espionage or terrorist implications to
> the drugs' side effects. Zombie couriers that can't be questioned
> normally or unconscious bombers...maybe not but I'll bet it's been
> looked at.

[music up -- X Files theme]

Maybe they should rename Ambien to Nambulen.
Then you can go to the drug store and say:
"Give me some Nambulens."

Anyways, sage is a pretty good soporific (Bill Baka,
take note -- I know you've complained in the past about
bouts of insomnia.)
It goes nicely in your homemade chicken/turkey soup, too.

It's most effective for sleep inducement when smoked.
No morning grogginess, no lucid dreams. Just sweet sleep,
and waking up refreshed and ready to tackle the day ahead.

Of course I'm talking about garden sage, not the coarse,
wild, shin-kicker scrub.

cheers, & trust no 1,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 17 Mar 2007 01:08:24
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 16, 10:02 am, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Steven wrote:
> > On 15, 11:37 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Chalo wrote:
> >>> Tom Keats wrote:
> >>>> I have an unsubstantiated hunch that fixed-gear bikes are good
> >>>> for bringing the fast-twitch muscle fibres more into play.
> >>>> I think hackey sack does that, too. In fact, a round of
> >>>> freestyle or 4-square hackey sack provides a pretty good
> >>>> pre-ride warm up. And it's fun.
> >>> Oh gawd. I guess a big ol' sack of dreadlocks makes a effective bike
> >>> helmet too. And smoking weed until you forget to keep puffing helps
> >>> not only your long depletion ride, but also your carbo-loading
> >>> afterwards.
> >>> Chalo
> >> Chalo,
> >> That sounds like something I would say. Scuse me, I gotta take a puff.
> >> Now that I'm like, uh, 58, I think I will have to buy another
> >> motorcycle. What mid-life crisis? I don't know where 'mid' begins.
> >> Good shit I got this time.
> >> Now I will have to try riding stoned tomorrow.
> >> Should be interesting.
> >> I tried riding my motorcycle totally toasted in 1977 and went 30 miles
> >> the wrong way before I realized it.
> >> The El Camino Real looks the same from S.F. to San Jose at night.
> >> Bill Baka
>
> > Take Ambien and do it in your sleep!
>
> I can't. I tried Ambien and it makes me hallucinate. Weird stuff.
> Bill Baka
> I saw that on the news too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There are some really strange espionage or terrorist implications to
the drugs' side effects. Zombie couriers that can't be questioned
normally or unconscious bombers...maybe not but I'll bet it's been
looked at.

Date: 16 Mar 2007 05:33:34
From: DanKMTB@gmail.com
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 16, 8:00 am, "Steven" <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> even long distance driving WHILE ASLEEP.

The scary thing is they get where they're going, without crashing or
getting pulled over. I know somebody who drove on this stuff,
including through a rotary that's never empty. It's only a matter of
time before the business travelers and the truckers get the timing and
dosage down on this stuff and the highways fill up with Zombies.

"Morning Bill, you look refreshed for having driving all the way down
to HQ Philly from your branch in Boston. Did you come down last night
and get a hotel locally?"

"No, I slept on the way down."

"Oh? Did you hire a car? Ride the bus?"

"No, I took my car. Gotta love that Ambien."

Date: 16 Mar 2007 05:00:13
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 16, 2:54 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <1174030395.610958.49...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> "Steven" <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> Chalo,
> >> That sounds like something I would say. Scuse me, I gotta take a puff.
> >> Now that I'm like, uh, 58, I think I will have to buy another
> >> motorcycle. What mid-life crisis? I don't know where 'mid' begins.
> >> Good shit I got this time.
> >> Now I will have to try riding stoned tomorrow.
> >> Should be interesting.
> >> I tried riding my motorcycle totally toasted in 1977 and went 30 miles
> >> the wrong way before I realized it.
> >> The El Camino Real looks the same from S.F. to San Jose at night.
> >> Bill Baka
>
> > Take Ambien and do it in your sleep!
>
> What -- again?
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
> --
> Nothing is safe from me.
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

You haven't been watching the news!

Ambien is a sleeping pill with some interesting sideeffects, including
sleeping, eating, having sex and even long distance driving WHILE
ASLEEP. This is part of the reason stronger warnings are being asked
for on packaging. It seems to cause the equivalent of sleepwalking or
the unconscious processing of complex data (blackout).

Date: 16 Mar 2007 01:54:18
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <1174030395.610958.49610@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
"Steven" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > writes:

>> Chalo,
>> That sounds like something I would say. Scuse me, I gotta take a puff.
>> Now that I'm like, uh, 58, I think I will have to buy another
>> motorcycle. What mid-life crisis? I don't know where 'mid' begins.
>> Good shit I got this time.
>> Now I will have to try riding stoned tomorrow.
>> Should be interesting.
>> I tried riding my motorcycle totally toasted in 1977 and went 30 miles
>> the wrong way before I realized it.
>> The El Camino Real looks the same from S.F. to San Jose at night.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Take Ambien and do it in your sleep!

What -- again?

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 16 Mar 2007 00:33:15
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 15, 11:37 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
> > Tom Keats wrote:
> >> I have an unsubstantiated hunch that fixed-gear bikes are good
> >> for bringing the fast-twitch muscle fibres more into play.
> >> I think hackey sack does that, too. In fact, a round of
> >> freestyle or 4-square hackey sack provides a pretty good
> >> pre-ride warm up. And it's fun.
>
> > Oh gawd. I guess a big ol' sack of dreadlocks makes a effective bike
> > helmet too. And smoking weed until you forget to keep puffing helps
> > not only your long depletion ride, but also your carbo-loading
> > afterwards.
>
> > Chalo
>
> Chalo,
> That sounds like something I would say. Scuse me, I gotta take a puff.
> Now that I'm like, uh, 58, I think I will have to buy another
> motorcycle. What mid-life crisis? I don't know where 'mid' begins.
> Good shit I got this time.
> Now I will have to try riding stoned tomorrow.
> Should be interesting.
> I tried riding my motorcycle totally toasted in 1977 and went 30 miles
> the wrong way before I realized it.
> The El Camino Real looks the same from S.F. to San Jose at night.
> Bill Baka

Take Ambien and do it in your sleep!

Date: 16 Mar 2007 17:02:49
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Steven wrote:
> On 15, 11:37 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>>> I have an unsubstantiated hunch that fixed-gear bikes are good
>>>> for bringing the fast-twitch muscle fibres more into play.
>>>> I think hackey sack does that, too. In fact, a round of
>>>> freestyle or 4-square hackey sack provides a pretty good
>>>> pre-ride warm up. And it's fun.
>>> Oh gawd. I guess a big ol' sack of dreadlocks makes a effective bike
>>> helmet too. And smoking weed until you forget to keep puffing helps
>>> not only your long depletion ride, but also your carbo-loading
>>> afterwards.
>>> Chalo
>> Chalo,
>> That sounds like something I would say. Scuse me, I gotta take a puff.
>> Now that I'm like, uh, 58, I think I will have to buy another
>> motorcycle. What mid-life crisis? I don't know where 'mid' begins.
>> Good shit I got this time.
>> Now I will have to try riding stoned tomorrow.
>> Should be interesting.
>> I tried riding my motorcycle totally toasted in 1977 and went 30 miles
>> the wrong way before I realized it.
>> The El Camino Real looks the same from S.F. to San Jose at night.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Take Ambien and do it in your sleep!
>
I can't. I tried Ambien and it makes me hallucinate. Weird stuff.
Bill Baka
I saw that on the news too.

Date: 16 Mar 2007 00:07:28
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <MWqKh.10522$jx3.1531@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:

> What mid-life crisis? I don't know where 'mid' begins.

I'm not surprised.

> Good shit I got this time.
> Now I will have to try riding stoned tomorrow.
> Should be interesting.

Go for it. Get back to us.

<g >,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 14 Mar 2007 19:47:32
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <1173923564.214287.58210@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
"Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>> I have an unsubstantiated hunch that fixed-gear bikes are good
>> for bringing the fast-twitch muscle fibres more into play.
>> I think hackey sack does that, too. In fact, a round of
>> freestyle or 4-square hackey sack provides a pretty good
>> pre-ride warm up. And it's fun.
>
> Oh gawd. I guess a big ol' sack of dreadlocks makes a effective bike
> helmet too. And smoking weed until you forget to keep puffing helps
> not only your long depletion ride, but also your carbo-loading
> afterwards.

I wouldn't know.

Hackey sack does sometimes give some good
ideas for new dancin' moves, though.

'Specially if you can jump around without
crackin' the concrete underneath ya, or
causing earthquakes, ya big galoot Herman
Munster, ya ;-)

Welcome to the West Coast. Expect no mercy.
Well, maybe a little.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 14 Mar 2007 18:52:44
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Tom Keats wrote:
>
> I have an unsubstantiated hunch that fixed-gear bikes are good
> for bringing the fast-twitch muscle fibres more into play.
> I think hackey sack does that, too. In fact, a round of
> freestyle or 4-square hackey sack provides a pretty good
> pre-ride warm up. And it's fun.

Oh gawd. I guess a big ol' sack of dreadlocks makes a effective bike
helmet too. And smoking weed until you forget to keep puffing helps
not only your long depletion ride, but also your carbo-loading
afterwards.

Chalo

Date: 16 Mar 2007 06:37:32
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Chalo wrote:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> I have an unsubstantiated hunch that fixed-gear bikes are good
>> for bringing the fast-twitch muscle fibres more into play.
>> I think hackey sack does that, too. In fact, a round of
>> freestyle or 4-square hackey sack provides a pretty good
>> pre-ride warm up. And it's fun.
>
> Oh gawd. I guess a big ol' sack of dreadlocks makes a effective bike
> helmet too. And smoking weed until you forget to keep puffing helps
> not only your long depletion ride, but also your carbo-loading
> afterwards.
>
> Chalo
>
Chalo,
That sounds like something I would say. Scuse me, I gotta take a puff.
Now that I'm like, uh, 58, I think I will have to buy another
motorcycle. What mid-life crisis? I don't know where 'mid' begins.
Good shit I got this time.
Now I will have to try riding stoned tomorrow.
Should be interesting.
I tried riding my motorcycle totally toasted in 1977 and went 30 miles
the wrong way before I realized it.
The El Camino Real looks the same from S.F. to San Jose at night.
Bill Baka

Date: 14 Mar 2007 18:44:33
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Dane Buson wrote:
> Claire Petersky wrote:
> > Dane Buson wrote:
>
> >> Is their a macho element to it? Probably.
>
> > Definitely.
>
> Now now, be nice. I'm sure there's someone somewhere running a fixed
> gear strictly for pragmatic reasons. Other than track racers I mean.

Dutch rental cargo bikes and trikes ("bakfietsen") usually have fixed
gearing. It makes them simple, reliable, and robust, and it keeps
their speeds safe and modest. On the trikes, fixed gearing provides a
valuable reverse drive capability.

http://www.workcycles.com/workbike/bicycles/professional-worktrikes/workbike-classic-dutch-large.html

There is definitely a sort of manliness at work here, but "macho" is
not exactly the right term for it.

While I was riding around SXSW-related events today with my lovely and
talented musician wife, I isolated my core general objection to
fixies. Coasting downhill is absolutely the best experience you can
have on a bike-- one of the best experiences you can have anywhere,
for that matter. So it's as stupid as can be, if you ride for
pleasure, to use a bike that takes away that very best part of
cycling. On a fixie, a nice fast downhill becomes almost as much of a
chore as the climb you did to earn it. Figuratively speaking, fixies
are all courting and no nookie. That might be stylish, but it's not
cool.

Chalo

Date: 14 Mar 2007 15:31:55
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <7ETJh.12659$tD2.3147@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Claire Petersky" <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > writes:
> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message
> news:933kc4-9bh.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>
>> Is their a macho element to it? Probably.
>
> Definitely.

Well, maybe not always.
http://www.momentumplanet.ca/?q=node/33

Scroll down to "Fixie Chicks are Fast Friends".

Maybe it's a youthful exhuberance thing? Or, in some cases,
a mid-life crisis thing, like celebrating one's fiftieth year
with the acquisition of a motorcycle or a stoopid sports car
:-) :-) :-) <r, d & c >

Of course, some folks (like Curtis Russell and myself and
yourself) retain their youth despite the fugiting of tempus.

I have an unsubstantiated hunch that fixed-gear bikes are good
for bringing the fast-twitch muscle fibres more into play.
I think hackey sack does that, too. In fact, a round of
freestyle or 4-square hackey sack provides a pretty good
pre-ride warm up. And it's fun.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 14 Mar 2007 00:56:20
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 13, 9:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
> > Of course, part of it is certainly just that it's fun to ride something
> > a little different. Is it some sort of transcendant experience? Not
> > for me, but other peoples mileage varies I'm sure.
>
> After riding various track bikes and conversions
> -- all of which I intended to put brakes on but never
> did -- for about 4000 injury-free hours worth
> of work and general utilitarian cycling, I'm
> definitely no expert on riding these bikes
> compared to many of my peers, but I have
> enough experience to say two things for certain:
>
> (1) it can be done
>
> (2) I much prefer the road bike. Much prefer.
> Despite the superior mid-range speed
> modulation I find the fixed wheel to be
> a tedious machine.
>
> Robert

I installed the horn, newly painted (temp so no rust) tank, made sure
it was all water resistant, put the front basket on.

I still have better fenders than ANY car, except a 1968-70 Cao to
which I bow in wonderment.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 21:59:43
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Dane Buson wrote:

> Of course, part of it is certainly just that it's fun to ride something
> a little different. Is it some sort of transcendant experience? Not
> for me, but other peoples mileage varies I'm sure.

After riding various track bikes and conversions
-- all of which I intended to put brakes on but never
did -- for about 4000 injury-free hours worth
of work and general utilitarian cycling, I'm
definitely no expert on riding these bikes
compared to many of my peers, but I have
enough experience to say two things for certain:

(1) it can be done

(2) I much prefer the road bike. Much prefer.
Despite the superior mid-range speed
modulation I find the fixed wheel to be
a tedious machine.

Robert

Date: 13 Mar 2007 08:10:23
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 13, 10:44 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> k Hickey wrote:
> > Apparently there is a sub-culture who view making intelligent
> > decisions as a bad thing. Stay away from them, run a front brake, and
> > know that you'll never have to go through life wondering what it's
> > like to have front teeth. ;-)
>
> Great, now putting a front brake on a fixed is like
> installing a magical force-field that will keep you
> absolutely safe forever and ever. Risk compensation,
> anyone?
>
> And you impugn the intelligence of others?

Ah, irony!

> Reality check: messengers on brakeless track
> bikes crash into things at no higher rate than their
> crewmates on road bikes, and at a far lower rate
> than the average 'serious commuter.'

Got data?

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 13 Mar 2007 08:07:45
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Sam Rouse wrote:
> In article <1173713564.414155.222750@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> >
> > > One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
> > > their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
> > > order?
> > >
> > > Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
> > > Honor.
> >
> > More likely it didn't have anything to do
> > with a lack of brakes.
> >
> > Rookie probably had his attention
> > mis-directed.
>
> Question from the peanut gallery - is there any downside to having caliper
> brakes on a "fixie" used on city streets, esp. by professional messengers, other
> than negation of some kind of bicyclist macho? Is it measured in grams?

Short answer is not really.

But let's see. There's extra expense; and
installation. Last I checked they weren't giving these
things away or setting them up. Do it yourself you
say. Well you'll need to get the brake, find one
suitable lever, install the lever on your bars which
may require redoing the handlebar tape, buy a cable
and cable housing, make sure you've got the right
ferrules and whatnot, cut the housing to the right
length (good housing cutters are a must for this and
aren't exactly free either), grease everything up just
right, install and finally, adjust. If you're good it's not
a difficult or long operation; if you've never messed
with this stuff before it could take half a day. If you
like track bikes specifically and not road bikes, and
a lot of people are track bike people these days,
the front fork is not even drilled for a
brake. Hassle.

And there is this little nugget: if you are satisfied
that installing a front brake on your fixed gear
makes you safer, then you have probably just
canceled out whatever benefit you might
have received from it.

Riding brakeless on the streets can be done
safely with the right mindset and is not the bugaboo
deathwish that it is made out to be. And putting
a front brake on a fixed gear is not the magic
force field that it is made out to be, either.

Robert

Date: 13 Mar 2007 09:53:05
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

<r15757@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1173798465.252836.30910@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> But let's see. There's extra expense; and
> installation. Last I checked they weren't giving these
> things away or setting them up. Do it yourself you
> say. Well you'll need to get the brake, find one
> suitable lever, install the lever on your bars which
> may require redoing the handlebar tape, buy a cable
> and cable housing, make sure you've got the right
> ferrules and whatnot, cut the housing to the right
> length (good housing cutters are a must for this and
> aren't exactly free either), grease everything up just
> right, install and finally, adjust. If you're good it's not
> a difficult or long operation; if you've never messed
> with this stuff before it could take half a day. If you
> like track bikes specifically and not road bikes, and
> a lot of people are track bike people these days,
> the front fork is not even drilled for a
> brake. Hassle.
>
Gee, most bikes I've seen come with the brake already installed and you have
to modify (take things off) the bike in order to make it a Fixie.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 13:22:02
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Tue, 13 2007 09:53:05 -0700, "Baxter"
<lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:

>Gee, most bikes I've seen come with the brake already installed and you have
>to modify (take things off) the bike in order to make it a Fixie.

Highly likely to be a completely true statement and as true as it is
irrelevant, since the vast majority, if any, will ever be a fixed gear
bike.

Almost every single fixed gear bike I've seen is either a track bike
that started without brakes or one of the new fixed-gear-for-road
bikes that usually start with a single front brake. Modifying a
standard road bike to make it a fixed gear is generally the stupid way
to go, beginning with drop outs designed for the wrong rear wheel
set-up and working through dealing with chain line issues.

Besides, it isn't like there is a real problem buying a track bike.
And it starts with the right chain line and pieces. All you have to do
(in my case) was have the frame maker (Proteus) drill the crown for a
brake and add the front brake. The last is optional, of course. It
took an extra day, seeing as Proteus was local, the frame maker was
local, and he had all the equipment necessary at hand.

Now I personally know six people that have fixed gear bikes and all
are one of the above. Over the years I've known probably three times
that number (counting myself) and, again, all were one of the above.
How many people do you know with fixed gear bikes and how closely did
you look at the bike?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 13 Mar 2007 12:00:41
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Tue, 13 2007 09:53:05 -0700, "Baxter"
> <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>>Gee, most bikes I've seen come with the brake already installed and
>>you have to modify (take things off) the bike in order to make it a
>>Fixie.
>
> Highly likely to be a completely true statement and as true as it is
> irrelevant, since the vast majority, if any, will ever be a fixed gear
> bike.
>
> Almost every single fixed gear bike I've seen is either a track bike
> that started without brakes or one of the new fixed-gear-for-road
> bikes that usually start with a single front brake.

I think this is highly regional/demographic specific. I've only seen a
few people riding fixed gear bikes that started that way in my neck of
the woods.

>Modifying a standard road bike to make it a fixed gear is generally the
>stupid way to go, beginning with drop outs designed for the wrong rear
>wheel set-up and working through dealing with chain line issues.

Actually a standard road bike makes a great fixed gear... IFF you start
with an older frame that has horizontal dropouts. Thankfully those
frames are cheaply available (often free even).

> Besides, it isn't like there is a real problem buying a track bike.
> And it starts with the right chain line and pieces. All you have to do
> (in my case) was have the frame maker (Proteus) drill the crown for a
> brake and add the front brake. The last is optional, of course. It
> took an extra day, seeing as Proteus was local, the frame maker was
> local, and he had all the equipment necessary at hand.

> Now I personally know six people that have fixed gear bikes and all
> are one of the above. Over the years I've known probably three times
> that number (counting myself) and, again, all were one of the above.
> How many people do you know with fixed gear bikes and how closely did
> you look at the bike?

I know scads of people with fixed gear bikes [1], I only know a couple
that have frames that were built specifically for fixed. A fetish, a
few bareknuckles, this and that. Mostly it's older bike boom bikes. My
Atami fits right in.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Why bother building any more nuclear warheads until we use the ones we have?

Date: 13 Mar 2007 16:37:22
From: Curt
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message
news:pv8jc4-aue.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...

> I know scads of people with fixed gear bikes [1], I only know a couple
> that have frames that were built specifically for fixed. A fetish, a
> few bareknuckles, this and that. Mostly it's older bike boom bikes. My
> Atami fits right in.

What's fixed gear FOR? Is it easier to accelerate, or something? Or for
weight reduction? I've never been able to figure that one out.

Curt

Date: 13 Mar 2007 19:26:17
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Curt <cje@hevanet.com > wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
>
>> I know scads of people with fixed gear bikes, I only know a couple
>> that have frames that were built specifically for fixed. A fetish, a
>> few bareknuckles, this and that. Mostly it's older bike boom bikes. My
>> Atami fits right in.
>
> What's fixed gear FOR? Is it easier to accelerate, or something? Or for
> weight reduction? I've never been able to figure that one out.

A lot of the mass introduction lately is fashion appeal. There is
something to be said for simplicity though. My fixed gear bike has very
little to break and is definitely the *lightest* bike I own.

They're cheap to build up. Find an old road bike in your size,
buy/build/borrow/beg a fixed rear wheel and throw it on. Voila, you
have a second bike that is a little different from your main bike and
unlikely to have anything go wrong with it.

It's a little easier to climb hills (up to a point) on a fixed gear than
a freewheel bike. The positive feedback on the pedals definitely pulls
you through the pedal cycle dead spots.

Is their a macho element to it? Probably. "I'm more hardcore than
thou! My bike doesn't even have gears *or* a freewheel! I'm such a
monster I can ride without any of that fluff!" We've already heard from
the brake optional component of the choir.

Of course, part of it is certainly just that it's fun to ride something
a little different. Is it some sort of transcendant experience? Not
for me, but other peoples mileage varies I'm sure. It's a shame
Benjamin Lewis stopped posting. If I recall correctly he had started
doing long distance rides via fixed.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow they may make it illegal.

Date: 14 Mar 2007 09:37:21
From: Curt
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message
news:933kc4-9bh.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
> Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> > "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> I know scads of people with fixed gear bikes, I only know a couple
> >> that have frames that were built specifically for fixed. A fetish, a
> >> few bareknuckles, this and that. Mostly it's older bike boom bikes.
My
> >> Atami fits right in.
> >
> > What's fixed gear FOR? Is it easier to accelerate, or something? Or for
> > weight reduction? I've never been able to figure that one out.
>
> A lot of the mass introduction lately is fashion appeal. There is
> something to be said for simplicity though. My fixed gear bike has very
> little to break and is definitely the *lightest* bike I own.
>
> They're cheap to build up. Find an old road bike in your size,
> buy/build/borrow/beg a fixed rear wheel and throw it on. Voila, you
> have a second bike that is a little different from your main bike and
> unlikely to have anything go wrong with it.
>
> It's a little easier to climb hills (up to a point) on a fixed gear than
> a freewheel bike. The positive feedback on the pedals definitely pulls
> you through the pedal cycle dead spots.
>
> Is their a macho element to it? Probably. "I'm more hardcore than
> thou! My bike doesn't even have gears *or* a freewheel! I'm such a
> monster I can ride without any of that fluff!" We've already heard from
> the brake optional component of the choir.
>
> Of course, part of it is certainly just that it's fun to ride something
> a little different. Is it some sort of transcendant experience? Not
> for me, but other peoples mileage varies I'm sure. It's a shame
> Benjamin Lewis stopped posting. If I recall correctly he had started
> doing long distance rides via fixed.

I'd think that would get old. Especially going downhill, having your feet
tugged round and round for no good purpose..

Curt

Date: 14 Mar 2007 14:28:19
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message
news:933kc4-9bh.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...

> Is their a macho element to it? Probably.

Definitely.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Date: 14 Mar 2007 14:51:21
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Claire Petersky <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
>
>> Is their a macho element to it? Probably.
>
> Definitely.

Now now, be nice. I'm sure there's someone somewhere running a fixed
gear strictly for pragmatic reasons. Other than track racers I mean.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Kindness is a language which the deaf can hear and the blind can read.
-- k Twain

Date: 13 Mar 2007 07:44:59
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

k Hickey wrote:

> Apparently there is a sub-culture who view making intelligent
> decisions as a bad thing. Stay away from them, run a front brake, and
> know that you'll never have to go through life wondering what it's
> like to have front teeth. ;-)

Great, now putting a front brake on a fixed is like
installing a magical force-field that will keep you
absolutely safe forever and ever. Risk compensation,
anyone?

And you impugn the intelligence of others?

So, when you ran into that pickup truck and
hurt yourself pretty badly, you must've been
riding a brakeless track bike at the time right?

Reality check: messengers on brakeless track
bikes crash into things at no higher rate than their
crewmates on road bikes, and at a far lower rate
than the average 'serious commuter.'

It's not about the bike.

Robert

Date: 13 Mar 2007 19:13:31
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

r15757@aol.com wrote:

>k Hickey wrote:
>
>> Apparently there is a sub-culture who view making intelligent
>> decisions as a bad thing. Stay away from them, run a front brake, and
>> know that you'll never have to go through life wondering what it's
>> like to have front teeth. ;-)
>
>Great, now putting a front brake on a fixed is like
>installing a magical force-field that will keep you
>absolutely safe forever and ever. Risk compensation,
>anyone?
>
>And you impugn the intelligence of others?

I can certainly impugn the satirical receptors of others (yourself
chief among them, apparently). Yeesh.

>So, when you ran into that pickup truck and
>hurt yourself pretty badly, you must've been
>riding a brakeless track bike at the time right?

No, but I'm sure I would have hit it a bit harder had I not been able
to hit BOTH brakes instead of simply trying to backpedal. At least I
can assume so - can't pretend to remember for sure, of course. Had
the truck turned when I was 50 feet further back, I could have missed
him entirely on my road bike, but would have plowed into him on a
fixie... no doubt about it.

>Reality check: messengers on brakeless track
>bikes crash into things at no higher rate than their
>crewmates on road bikes, and at a far lower rate
>than the average 'serious commuter.'

I doubt you can show any data to confirm that. And I would hasten to
add that bike messengers sure seem to have more of a bad reputation
among pedestrians than us "serious commuters" (I've heard lots of
comments about the necessity of watching for and dodging bike
messengers, but never the same about "serious commuters").

>It's not about the bike.

Actually, in the situations we're talking about (where stopping as
fast as possible is crucial), it IS about the bike to a large degree.

Again, I'll challenge you to a "stop-off" - you on a brakeless fixie
and me on my normal commuter bike, with a large, immobile object
ahead. You hit the brakes when I do, and we see how it goes, OK?

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 13 Mar 2007 07:36:14
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 13, 5:54 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Tue, 13 2007 21:27:51 +1100, Aeek <aeeee...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Makes it rideable by the casual thief ?
>
> I doubt it, not if you are using snap in pedals or pedals with clips.
> Snapping into rotating pedals isn't as easy as you might think on the
> first try.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Don't know. Put a temporary coat of black spraypaint on the tank,
installed the horn, it's weather tight and works. Fixed a stereo
cabinet, sold it and the receiver I've fixing, I get one back that
matches the speakers I'm building in power, fix a tape belt on a dual
cassette and I get my Harman Kardon TD 202 back. Bingo! I have anothet
cabinet and 50-60 more to make.

A good case of insomnia! And I get to ride the bike to karaoke!

Date: 13 Mar 2007 07:29:59
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 12, 9:35 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <hal.i.burton-8CDB6F.22012312032...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> writes in part:
>
> > How many cars with perfectly working brakes run into things/people?
>
> Heh.
>
> --
> Nothing is safe from me.
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

I know I've hit a couple of parked cars in my life :-(((

Date: 12 Mar 2007 20:35:40
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <hal.i.burton-8CDB6F.22012312032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com >,
Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com > writes in part:

> How many cars with perfectly working brakes run into things/people?

Heh.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 12 Mar 2007 16:14:01
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 12, 4:09 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <droleary.usenet-D93318.16004512032...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2007.subsume.com> writes:
>
> > In article <110320071703578334%h...@burninglove.com>,
> > "Jack A. Lopes" <h...@burninglove.com> wrote:
>
> >> He was talking about bikes. You brought vehicles powered by the
> >> internal combustion engine into the discussion. If you can't tell the
> >> difference, go back to school "doc".
>
> > Listen, do you want to bike with traffic or not? Because every little
> > law like this you try to pass in the name of "fixie freedoms" turns you
> > more and more into a different classification of vehicle.
>
> There is no law being passed or even proposed, in
> the name of fixie freedoms. Rather, an amendment
> to an existing law is proposed, to include brakeless
> fixed-gear bicycles, which would still need to meet
> the same criteria specified in that law, as do bicycles
> equipped with brakes.
>
> --
> Nothing is safe from me.
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Ahh, don't spoil the fun! Before you know it we'll be back to
pseudopolitics from people who only see and hear crap on radio and
TV...or worst of all Iraq! What the hell has Hell got to do with
anything?

More Canadian please, I'm not drunk.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:09:09
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <droleary.usenet-D93318.16004512032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > writes:
> In article <110320071703578334%hunk@burninglove.com>,
> "Jack A. Lopes" <hunk@burninglove.com> wrote:
>
>> He was talking about bikes. You brought vehicles powered by the
>> internal combustion engine into the discussion. If you can't tell the
>> difference, go back to school "doc".
>
> Listen, do you want to bike with traffic or not? Because every little
> law like this you try to pass in the name of "fixie freedoms" turns you
> more and more into a different classification of vehicle.

There is no law being passed or even proposed, in
the name of fixie freedoms. Rather, an amendment
to an existing law is proposed, to include brakeless
fixed-gear bicycles, which would still need to meet
the same criteria specified in that law, as do bicycles
equipped with brakes.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 12 Mar 2007 14:29:24
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12, 2:01 am, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
> > their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
> > order?
> >
> > Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
> > Honor.
>
> Well, it may depend on what the Hizzoner was doing at the time. It's
> possible to walk out in front of a car, a bus, a motorcycle or a bike
> so they can't stop, no matter what their equipment.

After a City Club meeting, it seems Mayor Potter was outside the
Benson Hotel on the sidewalk waiting for his ride back to City Hall,
when he was hit from behind by a bike messenger. The mayor suffered
only a slight cut to his hand when knock to the sidewalk. Onlookers,
who held the bike messenger until police arrived, stated that the
messenger was cussing at the mayor.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 10:48:59
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 12, 2:01 am, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net > wrote:
>
> One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
> their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
> order?
>
> Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
> Honor.

Well, it may depend on what the Hizzoner was doing at the time. It's
possible to walk out in front of a car, a bus, a motorcycle or a bike
so they can't stop, no matter what their equipment.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 08:32:44
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Bill Shatzer wrote:

> One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
> their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
> order?
>
> Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
> Honor.

More likely it didn't have anything to do
with a lack of brakes.

Rookie probably had his attention
mis-directed.

Robert

Date: 12 Mar 2007 22:02:24
From: Harold Burton
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <1173713564.414155.222750@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com >,
r15757@aol.com wrote:

> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> > One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
> > their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
> > order?
> >
> > Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
> > Honor.
>
> More likely it didn't have anything to do
> with a lack of brakes.
>
> Rookie probably had his attention
> mis-directed.

Or the Mayor stepped into the road without bothering to look.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:13:00
From: Bill Shatzer
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Harold Burton wrote:

> In article <1173713564.414155.222750@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
> r15757@aol.com wrote:

>>Bill Shatzer wrote:

>>>One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
>>>their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
>>>order?

>>>Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
>>>Honor.

>>More likely it didn't have anything to do
>>with a lack of brakes.

>>Rookie probably had his attention
>>mis-directed.

> Or the Mayor stepped into the road without bothering to look.

But he didn't. He was standing on the freakin' sidewalk.

More or less stationary at that.

Peace and justice,

Date: 12 Mar 2007 18:35:34
From: Sam Rouse
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <1173713564.414155.222750@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com >,
r15757@aol.com wrote:

> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> > One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
> > their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
> > order?
> >
> > Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
> > Honor.
>
> More likely it didn't have anything to do
> with a lack of brakes.
>
> Rookie probably had his attention
> mis-directed.

Question from the peanut gallery - is there any downside to having caliper
brakes on a "fixie" used on city streets, esp. by professional messengers, other
than negation of some kind of bicyclist macho? Is it measured in grams?
--

Date: 13 Mar 2007 08:53:02
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Mon, 12 2007 18:35:34 -0700, Sam Rouse <nospamfun@anymore.com >
wrote:

>Question from the peanut gallery - is there any downside to having caliper
>brakes on a "fixie" used on city streets, esp. by professional messengers, other
>than negation of some kind of bicyclist macho? Is it measured in grams?

You may have to have the crown drilled out to take the front brake.
The other nice thing about a fixed gear bike is that there is very
little to steal off of it, at least in the short term. With the right
bolts, practically nothing, including the seat. It is also difficult
to ride away unless you have ridden one before.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 13 Mar 2007 21:27:51
From: Aeek
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Date: 13 Mar 2007 08:54:46
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Tue, 13 2007 21:27:51 +1100, Aeek <aeeeeeek@tpg.com.au > wrote:

>
>Makes it rideable by the casual thief ?

I doubt it, not if you are using snap in pedals or pedals with clips.
Snapping into rotating pedals isn't as easy as you might think on the
first try.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 13 Mar 2007 05:34:10
From: Kevan Smith
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <90vcv2pb0pnopomqfqad9uo70jp43qpbth@4ax.com >,
Aeek <aeeeeeek@tpg.com.au > wrote:

> On Mon, 12 2007 18:35:34 -0700, Sam Rouse <nospamfun@anymore.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Question from the peanut gallery - is there any downside to having caliper
> >brakes on a "fixie" used on city streets, esp. by professional messengers,
> >other
> >than negation of some kind of bicyclist macho? Is it measured in grams?
>
> Makes it rideable by the casual thief ?

Spoils the design.

Non-bike groups trimmed.

--
Kevan Smith
"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision
for the limits of the world." Arthur Schopenhauer
http://cuthulu.blogspot.com

Date: 12 Mar 2007 21:06:24
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Sam Rouse <nospamfun@anymore.com > wrote:

>In article <1173713564.414155.222750@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>
>> > One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
>> > their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
>> > order?
>> >
>> > Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
>> > Honor.
>>
>> More likely it didn't have anything to do
>> with a lack of brakes.
>>
>> Rookie probably had his attention
>> mis-directed.
>
>Question from the peanut gallery - is there any downside to having caliper
>brakes on a "fixie" used on city streets, esp. by professional messengers, other
>than negation of some kind of bicyclist macho? Is it measured in grams?

Apparently there is a sub-culture who view making intelligent
decisions as a bad thing. Stay away from them, run a front brake, and
know that you'll never have to go through life wondering what it's
like to have front teeth. ;-)

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 12 Mar 2007 22:03:14
From: Harold Burton
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <et4v5601o7n@news1.newsguy.com >,
Sam Rouse <nospamfun@anymore.com > wrote:

> In article <1173713564.414155.222750@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> >
> > > One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
> > > their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
> > > order?
> > >
> > > Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
> > > Honor.
> >
> > More likely it didn't have anything to do
> > with a lack of brakes.
> >
> > Rookie probably had his attention
> > mis-directed.
>
> Question from the peanut gallery - is there any downside to having caliper
> brakes on a "fixie" used on city streets, esp. by professional messengers,
> other than negation of some kind of bicyclist macho?

Nope.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 02:47:24
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 11, 11:01 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Paul J. Berg wrote:
> > After losing fourteen fixed-gear bicyclists' appeals in traffic court
> > last year in Portland, Oregon. The first ticket was issued after a bike
> > messenger on a fixie ran into Portland's Mayor Tom Potter. The cyclists
> > were ticketed for a lack of brakes. Bike attorney k Ginsberg has
> > taken his fight for Portland's fixie riders to the state legislature in
> > Salem. Fixie riders say they don't need a hand brake to stop safely,
> > they can stop with their leg power. But the law is clear, and
> > Portland's fixie riders continue to face $75 fines for riding without
> > the extra brake attached. Enter Senate Bill 729, sponsored by State
> > Senator Jason Atkinson, a hipster who happens to ride a fixie. The bill
> > which will clarify Oregon's existing 1975 bicycle brake law, so that
> > fixed-gear bicycles do not require a brake. "We're just updating the law
> > to reflect modern bicycle use," says Ginsberg.
>
> One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
> their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
> order?
>
> Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
> Honor.
>
> Peace and justice,

Ahhh, shoot...you might fight City Hall but PLEASE don't ruin the
guy's Dockers! He doesn't make as much as you probably think and it
took MONTHS to figure out they wanted him in the first place :-(

Date: 11 Mar 2007 18:41:31
From: Paul J. Berg
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

`
After losing fourteen fixed-gear bicyclists' appeals in traffic court
last year in Portland, Oregon. The first ticket was issued after a bike
messenger on a fixie ran into Portland's Mayor Tom Potter. The cyclists
were ticketed for a lack of brakes. Bike attorney k Ginsberg has
taken his fight for Portland's fixie riders to the state legislature in
Salem. Fixie riders say they don't need a hand brake to stop safely,
they can stop with their leg power. But the law is clear, and
Portland's fixie riders continue to face $75 fines for riding without
the extra brake attached. Enter Senate Bill 729, sponsored by State
Senator Jason Atkinson, a hipster who happens to ride a fixie. The bill
which will clarify Oregon's existing 1975 bicycle brake law, so that
fixed-gear bicycles do not require a brake. "We're just updating the law
to reflect modern bicycle use," says Ginsberg.

`

Date: 12 Mar 2007 08:32:33
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Sun, 11 2007 18:41:31 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg)
wrote:

>After losing fourteen fixed-gear bicyclists' appeals in traffic court
>last year in Portland, Oregon. The first ticket was issued after a bike
>messenger on a fixie ran into Portland's Mayor Tom Potter.

It would appear to be less about the technical merits, good or ill,
and more about how popular the mayor of Portland is at the state
level.

Hitting the mayor sort of reminds me of the Farside cartoon, "Bummer
of a birth k" - bummer of a way to start a legal fight.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 11 Mar 2007 23:01:48
From: Bill Shatzer
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Paul J. Berg wrote:

> After losing fourteen fixed-gear bicyclists' appeals in traffic court
> last year in Portland, Oregon. The first ticket was issued after a bike
> messenger on a fixie ran into Portland's Mayor Tom Potter. The cyclists
> were ticketed for a lack of brakes. Bike attorney k Ginsberg has
> taken his fight for Portland's fixie riders to the state legislature in
> Salem. Fixie riders say they don't need a hand brake to stop safely,
> they can stop with their leg power. But the law is clear, and
> Portland's fixie riders continue to face $75 fines for riding without
> the extra brake attached. Enter Senate Bill 729, sponsored by State
> Senator Jason Atkinson, a hipster who happens to ride a fixie. The bill
> which will clarify Oregon's existing 1975 bicycle brake law, so that
> fixed-gear bicycles do not require a brake. "We're just updating the law
> to reflect modern bicycle use," says Ginsberg.

One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
order?

Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
Honor.

Peace and justice,

Date: 12 Mar 2007 22:01:23
From: Harold Burton
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <vsWdnYSvE8JEcWnYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net > wrote:

> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>
>
> > After losing fourteen fixed-gear bicyclists' appeals in traffic court
> > last year in Portland, Oregon. The first ticket was issued after a bike
> > messenger on a fixie ran into Portland's Mayor Tom Potter. The cyclists
> > were ticketed for a lack of brakes. Bike attorney k Ginsberg has
> > taken his fight for Portland's fixie riders to the state legislature in
> > Salem. Fixie riders say they don't need a hand brake to stop safely,
> > they can stop with their leg power. But the law is clear, and
> > Portland's fixie riders continue to face $75 fines for riding without
> > the extra brake attached. Enter Senate Bill 729, sponsored by State
> > Senator Jason Atkinson, a hipster who happens to ride a fixie. The bill
> > which will clarify Oregon's existing 1975 bicycle brake law, so that
> > fixed-gear bicycles do not require a brake. "We're just updating the law
> > to reflect modern bicycle use," says Ginsberg.
>
> One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
> their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
> order?
>
> Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
> Honor.

Gee, how many bikes with perfectly working brakes run into things/people?

How many cars with perfectly working brakes run into things/people?

Try again, fool.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:11:48
From: Bill Shatzer
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Harold Burton wrote:

> In article <vsWdnYSvE8JEcWnYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:

-snip-

>>One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor- on
>>their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might be in
>>order?

>>Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down His
>>Honor.

> Gee, how many bikes with perfectly working brakes run into things/people?

Fewer than do so with defective brakes or no brakes at all.

> How many cars with perfectly working brakes run into things/people?

Fewer than do so with defective brakes or no brakes at all.

> Try again, fool.

No need.

Peace and justice,

Date: 12 Mar 2007 22:56:37
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Harold Burton wrote:

> Gee, how many bikes with perfectly working brakes run into
> things/people?

How many more would with no brakes?

> How many cars with perfectly working brakes run into things/people?

How many more would with no brakes?

Bill "it's really not complicated" S.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 02:09:20
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com > wrote:

> In article <vsWdnYSvE8JEcWnYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>>
>>
>> > After losing fourteen fixed-gear bicyclists' appeals in traffic
>> > court last year in Portland, Oregon. The first ticket was issued
>> > after a bike messenger on a fixie ran into Portland's Mayor Tom
>> > Potter. The cyclists were ticketed for a lack of brakes. Bike
>> > attorney k Ginsberg has taken his fight for Portland's fixie
>> > riders to the state legislature in Salem. Fixie riders say they
>> > don't need a hand brake to stop safely, they can stop with their
>> > leg power. But the law is clear, and Portland's fixie riders
>> > continue to face $75 fines for riding without the extra brake
>> > attached. Enter Senate Bill 729, sponsored by State Senator Jason
>> > Atkinson, a hipster who happens to ride a fixie. The bill which
>> > will clarify Oregon's existing 1975 bicycle brake law, so that
>> > fixed-gear bicycles do not require a brake. "We're just updating
>> > the law to reflect modern bicycle use," says Ginsberg.
>>
>> One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor-
>> on their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might
>> be in order?
>>
>> Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down
>> His Honor.
>
>
> Gee, how many bikes with perfectly working brakes run into
> things/people?
>
> How many cars with perfectly working brakes run into things/people?
>
> Try again, fool.
>

Shatzer would have us put brakes on our tennies.

Date: 12 Mar 2007 22:18:01
From: Harold Burton
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <kJnJh.858$Eg4.158@trnddc03 >,
Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <vsWdnYSvE8JEcWnYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul J. Berg wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > After losing fourteen fixed-gear bicyclists' appeals in traffic
> >> > court last year in Portland, Oregon. The first ticket was issued
> >> > after a bike messenger on a fixie ran into Portland's Mayor Tom
> >> > Potter. The cyclists were ticketed for a lack of brakes. Bike
> >> > attorney k Ginsberg has taken his fight for Portland's fixie
> >> > riders to the state legislature in Salem. Fixie riders say they
> >> > don't need a hand brake to stop safely, they can stop with their
> >> > leg power. But the law is clear, and Portland's fixie riders
> >> > continue to face $75 fines for riding without the extra brake
> >> > attached. Enter Senate Bill 729, sponsored by State Senator Jason
> >> > Atkinson, a hipster who happens to ride a fixie. The bill which
> >> > will clarify Oregon's existing 1975 bicycle brake law, so that
> >> > fixed-gear bicycles do not require a brake. "We're just updating
> >> > the law to reflect modern bicycle use," says Ginsberg.
> >>
> >> One would think that if they managed to run into the freakin' -Mayor-
> >> on their "fixie" bike, something better in the brake department might
> >> be in order?
> >>
> >> Quite obviously he needed -something- or he wouldn't have run down
> >> His Honor.

> > Gee, how many bikes with perfectly working brakes run into
> > things/people?
> >
> > How many cars with perfectly working brakes run into things/people?
> >
> > Try again, fool.

> Shatzer would have us put brakes on our tennies.

Shatzer is an idiot, and he likes to make sure no one forgets it, or at
least he posts that way.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 21:53:46
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On 10, 5:42 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote:
> DougC wrote:
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> >> Therefore, the old "boneshaker" is a "bicycle" even though the rear
> >> wheel is less than 14". As would a ordinary bicycle with training
> >> wheels, assuming at least one of the two tandem wheels is at least 14".
>
> > Just a note--a "boneshaker" most commonly describes a
> > crankless/chainless bicycle with two wheels that are very-near the
> > diameter of modern bicycle wheels.
> >>http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=boneshaker&btnG=Search+Images...
>
> > The type of antique bicycle with the tiny wheel in the rear is
> > most-often referred to as a "penny-farthing":
> >>http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=penny-farthing&btnG=Google+Se...
>
> > ---------
>
> > Other people may disagree with me but keep in mind that they are a
> > filthy wildebeest people, ignorant and set in their ways.
> > ~
>
> Shit.
>
> Okay, a *hobby* *horse* bicycle is crankless.
>
> >http://images.google.com/images?q=hobby+horse+bicycle&btnG=Search&svn...
>
> A boneshaker has cranks on the front wheel.
>
> Yea.
> I think.

At last, something NOT kinky my butt doesn't care for.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 15:23:54
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net >,
pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) writes:
> `
> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.

Just to clarify things, the existing law has not been
repealed, it has just been amended.

While the amendment would exempt fixed-gear bikes from
requiring being equipped with separate, dedicated brake
mechanisms, fixed-gear bikes would still be required to
stop as well as bicycles equipped with separate, dedicated
brake mechanisms. If /any/ bicycle can be stopped within 15
feet from a speed of 10 miles per hour on dry, level, clean
pavement, it would satisfy the amended legislation regardless
of whether or not the bicycle is equipped with dedicated brakes.

http://tinyurl.com/346mrq

(URL in full:)
<http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:GNwdnok99KkJ:www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/meas\
pdf/sb0700.dir/sb0729.intro.pdf+oregon+senate+bill+729&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca\
&ie=UTF-8 >

--------------------------------------------------
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to bicycles; amending ORS 815.280.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ORS 815.280 is amended to read:

...

(a) [A bicycle must be equipped with a brake that enables
the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level,
clean pavement.] A bicycle must be equipped with a brake
that enables the operator of the bicycle to stop the bicycle
within 15 feet from a speed of 10 miles per hour on dry,
level, clean pavement, except that a fixed gear bicycle is
not required to be equipped with a separate brake.
--------------------------------------------------

The proposed amendment is apparently related to a push
by Sen. Jason Atkinson to have a couple of velodromes
built in Oregon:

http://tinyurl.com/2q855a
(URL in full:)
<http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2007/0307/local/stories/velodrome-dj.htm >

cheers, especially to Oregonian trackies,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 10 Mar 2007 05:32:20
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 10, 5:51 am, fiend999 <dontspamfiend...@newsguy.com > wrote:
> In article <45f21252$0$28167$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Gooserider
>
>
>
>
>
> <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > "fiend999" <dontspamfiend...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:080320072302318308%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com...
> > > In article <45f0c66e$0$8989$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Gooserider
> > > <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> > >> "k Hickey" <m...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:vae1v21ibk413sj0lpm053dhhsb8i6jbb3@4ax.com...
> > >> > fiend999 <dontspamfiend...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >>Bill Sornson<a...@ask.me> wrote:>
> > >> >>> fiend999 wrote:
> > >> >>> > Steven <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >>> >>> That's a bad idea.
>
> > >> >>> > Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.
>
> > >> >>> They do on the streets.
>
> > >> >>Very many bike messengers (among others) would beg to differ.
>
> > >> > Quoteable note: "It's a really bad idea to take life advice from bike
> > >> > messengers".
>
> > >> Wait, you mean taking life advice from people who think beer is a
> > >> perfectly
> > >> acceptable breakfast food isn't a good idea? :-)
>
> > > Even more extreme - I live in Pittsburgh where it is insane to be a
> > > messenger to begin with, considering our hills and not very
> > > bike-friendly terrain. That so many of the messengers here seem to
> > > prefer fixed in the city of 45 degree hills, six-way blind
> > > intersections, narrow streets and no mercy for anything smaller than a
> > > bus has always puzzled me, not to mention the risk of knee damage
> > > riding fixed on these hills and all that. But still, I have seen them
> > > stop just fine and see no reason to legislate f-ing bicycles to that
> > > degree. I mean, this is supposedly the most "free" nation in the
> > > world, right? How much protection from our own stupidity do we need?
> > > Kind of like seat belt laws and lawsuits ending up in favor of people
> > > who didn't know hot coffee could burn them - it kind of messes with
> > > evolution if we keep protecting the stupid.
>
> > Bikes are already subject to plenty of laws. Laws are on the books which
> > require reflectors and lights at night. Requiring brakes isn't much
> > different than that.
>
> On unlit roadways, lights are necessary. On a fixed gear bike in
> daylight, brakes are not necessary.
>
> --
> ~~~- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I've got lights, but no battery setup. Have at least seven to
illuminate, you know and the tank is nowhere near set up or watertight
yet. Of course, I've hardly relied on lights at all in 33 years.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:09:58
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9, 6:17 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> Steven wrote:
> > OMG! Feminist abortion rights cyclist with guns!
>
> You forgot werewolf and for Christ.
>
> I saw Randy Weaver Junior riding a track bike through Soho in the
> rain.
>
> ...His hair was perfect...

We don't have Chinese at 2 am.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 17:26:14
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Don Homuth wrote:
> On 9 2007 15:12:56 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Don Homuth wrote:
> >> On 9 2007 13:48:29 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >NO WAY, those plastic streamers were only for G-I-R-L-S.
> >>
> >> The pink and silver ones were. The red, green and blue were not.
> >
> >I don't know what the streamer standards were in North Dakota, BUT in
> >Oregon plastic streamers were only for GIRLS.
>
> OK -- the child culture was more differentiated then than now,
> apparently.
>

As kids, we didn't grow up with the influence of national cable
television advertising telling us what was "cool" and what wasn't.
There also weren't the big national chain stores or the large shopping
mall stores influencing us either.

> >Also, in Oregon, the rule was boys had horns ~ girls had bells.
>
> In Nordakoda, there was no real need for either. We just hollered.
>
> >A large metal wire basket in front was also a must have for boys.
>
> In ND, that was where the girls carried their Stuff. The boys all
> preferred the twin wire baskets over the rear wheel, along with the
> spring-loaded luggage carrier.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 17:33:59
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9 2007 17:26:14 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net wrote:

>
>
>Don Homuth wrote:

>> OK -- the child culture was more differentiated then than now,
>> apparently.
>>
>
>As kids, we didn't grow up with the influence of national cable
>television advertising telling us what was "cool" and what wasn't.
>There also weren't the big national chain stores or the large shopping
>mall stores influencing us either.

Yeah -- that's really a shame. There's a whole bunch of unique stuff
in the Kid Culture that has pretty much disappeared by virtue of the
all-showing eye of teevee, and now video games.

Some of that stuff was pretty cool. Geographic variations on things
as simple as jump-rope chanting, ble games -- just a whole bunch of
stuff. Even inner-city word games, dances, chants and the like.

It all sort of vanished, without even a good record being kept of it.
Too bad.

Ah well -- the tempus it does fugit.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 02:09:59
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote:

> On 9 2007 17:26:14 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Don Homuth wrote:
>
>>> OK -- the child culture was more differentiated then than now,
>>> apparently.
>>>
>>
>>As kids, we didn't grow up with the influence of national cable
>>television advertising telling us what was "cool" and what wasn't.
>>There also weren't the big national chain stores or the large shopping
>>mall stores influencing us either.
>
> Yeah -- that's really a shame. There's a whole bunch of unique stuff
> in the Kid Culture that has pretty much disappeared by virtue of the
> all-showing eye of teevee, and now video games.
>
> Some of that stuff was pretty cool. Geographic variations on things
> as simple as jump-rope chanting, ble games -- just a whole bunch of
> stuff. Even inner-city word games, dances, chants and the like.
>
> It all sort of vanished, without even a good record being kept of it.
> Too bad.
>
> Ah well -- the tempus it does fugit.
>

A lot of the same things are present in gangs today. In fact, we had
'gangs' then, but weapons in those days were limited. The 'nuclear
option' being a switchblade or a zip gun. If you look at children's
culture or gang culture, what you are seeing is pretty mutch Tribal
Culture. Some cultural evolution seems to get re-enacted by the younger
members of a society. And much of cultural evolution is no more than a
skin that is shed in times of stress.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 17:17:20
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Steven wrote:

> OMG! Feminist abortion rights cyclist with guns!

You forgot werewolf and for Christ.

I saw Randy Weaver Junior riding a track bike through Soho in the
rain.

...His hair was perfect...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:32:21
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9, 11:36 am, cor <cor...@exchangenet.net > wrote:
> Doc O'Leary wrote:
> > In article <080320070827012965%dontspamfiend...@newsguy.com>,
> > fiend999 <dontspamfiend...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >> In article <7384-45EF1BAE...@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net>, Paul J.
> >> Berg <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> >>> `
> >>> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> >>> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>
> >> So what? Fixed-gear bikes don't really need brakes.
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-gear_bicycle
> >> "Because there is no freewheel mechanism, fixed gear bicycles cannot
> >> coast. Whenever the rear wheel is turning, the pedals turn in the same
> >> direction. By resisting the forward motion of the pedals, a rider is
> >> able to slow the bike to a stop, without the aid of a brake."
>
> > So, by your wonderful logic, cars don't really *need* brakes either
>
> He means that if you don't turn the pedals the back wheel stops.
> Bicycles meant mostly for racing tracks where the bicyclist is not
> supposed to rest anytime during the trip.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OH! Trick bikes! Hey, whatever but they won't let you BREAKDANCE in
the steet?

Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:30:49
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9, 10:03 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:

> Anyway, as Chalo notes, the mere presence of 'brakes' does not
> mean that those brakes work. Furthermore, some brakeless
> riders could stop themselves faster than someone with
> great brakes who doesn't know the best way to use them.
> Bikes don't stop people. People stop people
>
> In short, keep your laws off my body. You'll take away
> my brakeless fixed wheel bike when you pry it from my
> cold, dead hands.

OMG! Feminist abortion rights cyclist with guns!

ROTLMAO damn near having a choking fit

Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:25:48
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9, 7:16 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Fri, 09 2007 23:17:35 +1100, Aeek <aeeee...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> >so why is a single REAR brake encouraged as the minimum standard ?
>
> Because most children's bikes between 6 or 7 and 15 or so are coaster
> brakes and if you made a front brake standard, you would have to take
> them off the ket.
>
> A coaster brake bike in a hilly area is a failure waiting to happen.
> Perhaps they should be taken off the ket, well before fixies.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

OK, but I break "?aircraft strength?" cables for no apparent reason?

The only times I've had brake failures were all related to bad races
and bearings, and I know the 55 y.o. model on the Rollfast should be
replaced eventually. Still, I've never had a broken coaster brake in
30+ years.

Date: 11 Mar 2007 17:20:09
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9 2007 15:25:48 -0800, "Steven"
<thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
>The only times I've had brake failures were all related to bad races
>and bearings, and I know the 55 y.o. model on the Rollfast should be
>replaced eventually. Still, I've never had a broken coaster brake in
>30+ years.

Its not that you 'break' them - its that if they are used over and
over in a hilly to mountainous area, they will simply fade to the
point of failure. So, no, on flat ground you won't have a problem or
it is unlikely. But ride hard (meaning repeated braking on downhills)
on the right terain and you can have failure. Way before any well
maintained rim brakes or, yes, backpedaling on a fixie.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:12:56
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Don Homuth wrote:
> On 9 2007 13:48:29 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Don Homuth wrote:
>
> >> But did you have the flourescent plastic color streamers that were
> >> inserted in the plastic handgrips too?
> >
> >NO WAY, those plastic streamers were only for G-I-R-L-S.
>
> The pink and silver ones were. The red, green and blue were not.

I don't know what the streamer standards were in North Dakota, BUT in
Oregon plastic streamers were only for GIRLS.

Also, in Oregon, the rule was boys had horns ~ girls had bells.

A large metal wire basket in front was also a must have for boys.

Date: 11 Mar 2007 17:15:03
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9 2007 15:12:56 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net wrote:

>Also, in Oregon, the rule was boys had horns ~ girls had bells.

So you never had a bike with the beeper as part of the bike? Schwinn
if I recall correctly had a black and red boy's bike with an integral
beeper that was simply the coolest bike a kid could own. Had a red
button on the frame and the batteries went inside.

We couldn't afford one and so I had to go with the red Schwinn with
big baskets for the newspapers.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:20:11
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9 2007 15:12:56 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net wrote:

>
>
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On 9 2007 13:48:29 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net wrote:
>>

>> >NO WAY, those plastic streamers were only for G-I-R-L-S.
>>
>> The pink and silver ones were. The red, green and blue were not.
>
>I don't know what the streamer standards were in North Dakota, BUT in
>Oregon plastic streamers were only for GIRLS.

OK -- the child culture was more differentiated then than now,
apparently.

>Also, in Oregon, the rule was boys had horns ~ girls had bells.

In Nordakoda, there was no real need for either. We just hollered.

>A large metal wire basket in front was also a must have for boys.

In ND, that was where the girls carried their Stuff. The boys all
preferred the twin wire baskets over the rear wheel, along with the
spring-loaded luggage carrier.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 17:17:46
From: gatt
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote in message
news:iqq3v2lg0h4fa66uo48v12rm8nlctlavlf@4ax.com...
>>Also, in Oregon, the rule was boys had horns ~ girls had bells.
>
> In Nordakoda, there was no real need for either. We just hollered.
>
>>A large metal wire basket in front was also a must have for boys.
>
> In ND, that was where the girls carried their Stuff. The boys all
> preferred the twin wire baskets over the rear wheel, along with the
> spring-loaded luggage carrier.

On the eastsiide the idea was to remove everything that contributed any
unnecessary weight whatsoever; horns, bells, chain-guards, reflectors,
anything nonessential, for the purpose of jumping the dirt ramp out by the
berry field where we used to ride.

My cousin dropped something like $70 on an ultralight bike seat. Turns out
if you bought the $20 one at Fred Meyer and took the cover off, it was
identical to the $70 bike-shop seat...except you got the cover.

Unfortunately, I had one of those beater Huffy's with a heavy-ass shock
absorber, so while my friends where doing all kinds of crap flying off the
ramp, I jumped it rather like a Sherman tank might have.

-c

Date: 09 Mar 2007 13:48:29
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Don Homuth wrote:
> On 9 2007 08:54:13 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >I'm 55 years old, the single speed bikes I rode as a kid had coaster
> >brakes. Those bikes were not "fixies".
>
> Anyone without a New Departure coaster brake was looked down upon.
>
> Only the smallest Little Kid Bikes had direct drive with no coaster
> brake. They were never meant to be ridden at speed.
>
> >BTW, I did have the baseball cards in the spokes and the raccoon tails
> >hanging from the handle bars.
>
> But did you have the flourescent plastic color streamers that were
> inserted in the plastic handgrips too?

NO WAY, those plastic streamers were only for G-I-R-L-S.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 14:40:08
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9 2007 13:48:29 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net wrote:

>
>
>Don Homuth wrote:

>> But did you have the flourescent plastic color streamers that were
>> inserted in the plastic handgrips too?
>
>NO WAY, those plastic streamers were only for G-I-R-L-S.

The pink and silver ones were. The red, green and blue were not.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 13:03:02
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> But if you are going to jump intersections in heavy traffic, a fixie
> in a track stand is the way to go.

I think the road bike is better for that, because you can
speed right up to the edge of a blind intersection and still
stop in time if you have to.

Freewheel bikes allow for more aggressive riding, and
should be outlawed.

Robert

Date: 09 Mar 2007 16:09:00
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9 2007 13:03:02 -0800, r15757@aol.com wrote:

>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
>> But if you are going to jump intersections in heavy traffic, a fixie
>> in a track stand is the way to go.
>
>I think the road bike is better for that, because you can
>speed right up to the edge of a blind intersection and still
>stop in time if you have to.
>
>Freewheel bikes allow for more aggressive riding, and
>should be outlawed.
>
>Robert

Regardless of whether your last comment is right or not, the first
isn't. A track stand on a fixie is the quickest way to enter an
intersection when the light changes (and for many messengers, just as
the light is about to change, based on the light in the other
direction). That lets them beat other traffic into the intersection
and take the line they want. In a place like DC, where you may be
angling across side access roads, that can make a difference.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 22:16:03
From: nash
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:52j3v2dmcol1v8hium92r4slhgp45kpkja@4ax.com...
> On 9 2007 13:03:02 -0800, r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>>
>>> But if you are going to jump intersections in heavy traffic, a fixie
>>> in a track stand is the way to go.
>>
>>I think the road bike is better for that, because you can
>>speed right up to the edge of a blind intersection and still
>>stop in time if you have to.
>>
>>Freewheel bikes allow for more aggressive riding, and
>>should be outlawed.
>>
>>Robert
>
> Regardless of whether your last comment is right or not, the first
> isn't. A track stand on a fixie is the quickest way to enter an
> intersection when the light changes (and for many messengers, just as
> the light is about to change, based on the light in the other
> direction). That lets them beat other traffic into the intersection
> and take the line they want. In a place like DC, where you may be
> angling across side access roads, that can make a difference.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Around here lights are normally 30 sec red to green. Unless posted
otherwise.
I can do that easy on a road or MTB so fixies are not that much better.
Being lower may help when you fall. haha

Date: 09 Mar 2007 09:03:51
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9, 6:09 am, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com > wrote:
> I don't deny they have skills (at least the breathing ones do). ;-)

It's not just 'skills' in the typical sense that makes it possible
for messengers to ride year after year without brakes on city
streets, but situational awareness. Track bike riders ride
a bit more conservatively than their compadres on regular
road bikes. Their accident rates are certainly no worse than
those of other messengers. And the accident rate for messengers
as a whole is certainly better than that for cyclists as a whole.

Anyway, as Chalo notes, the mere presence of 'brakes' does not
mean that those brakes work. Furthermore, some brakeless
riders could stop themselves faster than someone with
great brakes who doesn't know the best way to use them.
Bikes don't stop people. People stop people

In short, keep your laws off my body. You'll take away
my brakeless fixed wheel bike when you pry it from my
cold, dead hands.

> Another way to interpret your statement: "they use the limited
> resources they have effectively". That's not the same as saying "they
> can make a fixie as safe as a bike with brakes", of course.

Many cyclists gravitate to track bikes for the extra
challenge; many, of course, gravitate to track bikes because
of shallow sociological reasons -- rookie messengers and
assorted urban hipsters are some of the most egregious
fashion victims that the world has to offer. Nobody chooses
to go brakeless because they think it's safer. But those who
have ridden these bikes every day for years, decades, in
heavy traffic are much safer riders than your average
brake-equipped commuter.

Robert

Date: 11 Mar 2007 08:26:03
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

r15757@aol.com wrote:

>On 9, 6:09 am, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote:
>> I don't deny they have skills (at least the breathing ones do). ;-)
>
>It's not just 'skills' in the typical sense that makes it possible
>for messengers to ride year after year without brakes on city
>streets, but situational awareness. Track bike riders ride
>a bit more conservatively than their compadres on regular
>road bikes. Their accident rates are certainly no worse than
>those of other messengers. And the accident rate for messengers
>as a whole is certainly better than that for cyclists as a whole.

I'm not sure anyone would actually be able to quantify the accident
rate for messengers, but I'll buy that they ARE more skilled (if only
by virtue of riding so many more miles than most of us). Still, if
keeping their accident rate down requires them to "ride more
conservatively", that essentially supports my point. If they were to
ride a bike with two brakes AND still ride the same as on a fixie,
they'd be even safer, correct?

>Anyway, as Chalo notes, the mere presence of 'brakes' does not
>mean that those brakes work. Furthermore, some brakeless
>riders could stop themselves faster than someone with
>great brakes who doesn't know the best way to use them.
>Bikes don't stop people. People stop people

Yeah, though often that means "a pedestrian"... ;-)

>In short, keep your laws off my body. You'll take away
>my brakeless fixed wheel bike when you pry it from my
>cold, dead hands.

Yikes, you could sprain something jumping to THAT conclusion (that I'm
advocating laws of any type in regards to brakes).

>> Another way to interpret your statement: "they use the limited
>> resources they have effectively". That's not the same as saying "they
>> can make a fixie as safe as a bike with brakes", of course.
>
>Many cyclists gravitate to track bikes for the extra
>challenge; many, of course, gravitate to track bikes because
>of shallow sociological reasons -- rookie messengers and
>assorted urban hipsters are some of the most egregious
>fashion victims that the world has to offer. Nobody chooses
>to go brakeless because they think it's safer. But those who
>have ridden these bikes every day for years, decades, in
>heavy traffic are much safer riders than your average
>brake-equipped commuter.

... who would be even safer if they had a front brake.

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:06:43
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

<r15757@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1173459831.280954.148770@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On 9, 6:09 am, k Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote:
>> I don't deny they have skills (at least the breathing ones do). ;-)
>
> It's not just 'skills' in the typical sense that makes it possible
> for messengers to ride year after year without brakes on city
> streets, but situational awareness. Track bike riders ride
> a bit more conservatively than their compadres on regular
> road bikes. Their accident rates are certainly no worse than
> those of other messengers. And the accident rate for messengers
> as a whole is certainly better than that for cyclists as a whole.
>
> Anyway, as Chalo notes, the mere presence of 'brakes' does not
> mean that those brakes work. Furthermore, some brakeless
> riders could stop themselves faster than someone with
> great brakes who doesn't know the best way to use them.
> Bikes don't stop people. People stop people
>
> In short, keep your laws off my body. You'll take away
> my brakeless fixed wheel bike when you pry it from my
> cold, dead hands.
>
>>

So I take it you also don't agree with other laws regulating bike usage.
Like, say, those requiring reflectors and lights?

Date: 09 Mar 2007 08:54:13
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote:
>
> > `
> > It is fine to allow brakeless fixed gear bikes on the track, in the
> > control of skilled and trained riders. But, out on the roads? I don't
> > think public want brakeless bikes in the control of unskilled riders.
>
> Bullshit Paul! I Know you are old enough to have ridden a fixed gear for
> years when you were a kid. The fixed gear IS THE BRAKE.

I'm 55 years old, the single speed bikes I rode as a kid had coaster
brakes. Those bikes were not "fixies".

BTW, I did have the baseball cards in the spokes and the raccoon tails
hanging from the handle bars.

Growing up in the Taborside area of Portland, Oregon, there were many
streets I could ride down and "get air" without the need of a ramp.
Favorite ride was down Clay Street from 72nd, getting airborne at
75th, landing and then doing the "S" curve between 75th and 76th.
During the last snowstorm in Portland, Clay Street between 72nd and
76th was the last street to be reopened by the city.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 09:22:32
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9 2007 08:54:13 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net wrote:

>I'm 55 years old, the single speed bikes I rode as a kid had coaster
>brakes. Those bikes were not "fixies".

Anyone without a New Departure coaster brake was looked down upon.

Only the smallest Little Kid Bikes had direct drive with no coaster
brake. They were never meant to be ridden at speed.

>BTW, I did have the baseball cards in the spokes and the raccoon tails
>hanging from the handle bars.

But did you have the flourescent plastic color streamers that were
inserted in the plastic handgrips too?

Date: 09 Mar 2007 04:49:20
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> Paul J. Berg wrote:
> >
> > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>
> Now, this is stupid and in violation of a Federal Law.

The Federal law you mention is a product guideline, like the tag on
your pillow that says "do not remove under penalty of law". It's
neither applicable nor binding to the end user of the product.

The same sort of law requires that all bikes be sold with reflectors,
but few high-quality bikes at your local shop can be seen sporting
those-- even before they are sold.

Chalo

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:53:17
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
> `
> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.

Now, this is stupid and in violation of a Federal Law. This won't hack it
and the first time that there is a serious injury it will be corrected. Not
to have at least the front brake would be suicide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4371 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

Date: 09 Mar 2007 09:14:27
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Thu, 8 2007 15:53:17 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
<dhunt@colwestnospam.com > wrote:

>
>Now, this is stupid and in violation of a Federal Law. This won't hack it
>and the first time that there is a serious injury it will be corrected. Not
>to have at least the front brake would be suicide.

No, its not suicide. Not that I think it is a good idea, but bet your
money that the person injured is a ped, not the cyclist.

But as someone else noted, any reasonably adept rider on a fixie can
stop as fast as the old fashioned coaster brake, and can do it over
and over, while the coaster brake fades with heat build up. So until
they outlaw coaster brakes, most of you that don't know diddly about
fixies are blowing smoke. A fixie has as much redundancy (none) as a
coaster brake, with greater efficiency and reliability. Period.

And the fixie does pass the relevant Federal statutes, which are built
around the capability to skid a bike to a stop in a certain distance
from a certain speed.( A couple of 'expert' comments must think that
they stopped selling coaster brake bikes without a front brake.) Lift
the rear wheel and back pedal on a fixie, then drop the tire and it
flat out stops as quick as pretty much anything.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 12:38:46
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:kgq2v2pjoqqti8vg63gmn0a4c2j9gkto6a@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 2007 15:53:17 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
> <dhunt@colwestnospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Now, this is stupid and in violation of a Federal Law. This won't hack it
>>and the first time that there is a serious injury it will be corrected.
>>Not
>>to have at least the front brake would be suicide.
>
> No, its not suicide. Not that I think it is a good idea, but bet your
> money that the person injured is a ped, not the cyclist.
>
> But as someone else noted, any reasonably adept rider on a fixie can
> stop as fast as the old fashioned coaster brake, and can do it over
> and over, while the coaster brake fades with heat build up. So until
> they outlaw coaster brakes, most of you that don't know diddly about
> fixies are blowing smoke. A fixie has as much redundancy (none) as a
> coaster brake, with greater efficiency and reliability. Period.
>
> And the fixie does pass the relevant Federal statutes, which are built
> around the capability to skid a bike to a stop in a certain distance
> from a certain speed.( A couple of 'expert' comments must think that
> they stopped selling coaster brake bikes without a front brake.) Lift
> the rear wheel and back pedal on a fixie, then drop the tire and it
> flat out stops as quick as pretty much anything.

I ride both types and I can assure you that even just a coaster brake beats
the daylights out of no break at all. I am not going to destroy my shoes by
dragging them on the ground when I wish to stop.

One, if I am going 15 mph then it will take forever to stop. Better to just
dump the bike.

Two, just how many pairs of sneakers each month am I going to go through
again?

The good news about this whole thing is, Darwinism does come into play.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4445 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

Date: 09 Mar 2007 23:17:35
From: Aeek
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Thu, 8 2007 15:53:17 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
<dhunt@colwestnospam.com > wrote:

>Now, this is stupid and in violation of a Federal Law. This won't hack it
>and the first time that there is a serious injury it will be corrected. Not
>to have at least the front brake would be suicide.

so why is a single REAR brake encouraged as the minimum standard ?

Date: 09 Mar 2007 12:34:34
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"Aeek" <aeeeeeek@tpg.com.au > wrote in message
news:21k2v2h9gtnb7rdokbjagv4fu1g220sf9d@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 2007 15:53:17 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
> <dhunt@colwestnospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Now, this is stupid and in violation of a Federal Law. This won't hack it
>>and the first time that there is a serious injury it will be corrected.
>>Not
>>to have at least the front brake would be suicide.
>
> so why is a single REAR brake encouraged as the minimum standard ?

That's the minimum. That means, without it, the darwin factor comes into
play.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4445 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

Date: 09 Mar 2007 09:16:03
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Fri, 09 2007 23:17:35 +1100, Aeek <aeeeeeek@tpg.com.au > wrote:

>so why is a single REAR brake encouraged as the minimum standard ?

Because most children's bikes between 6 or 7 and 15 or so are coaster
brakes and if you made a front brake standard, you would have to take
them off the ket.

A coaster brake bike in a hilly area is a failure waiting to happen.
Perhaps they should be taken off the ket, well before fixies.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 02:10:15
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Gooserider wrote:
>
> No fixed gear bike can stop as quickly AND with as much control and
> modulation as a bike with brakes.

Now there's a guy who hasn't had a close look at the seasoned
department store BSOs in his local bike rack.

If a fixie can move forward normally, chances are it can stop as well
as any fixie can. Not so for bikes with mechanical brakes.

Chalo

Date: 08 Mar 2007 23:03:40
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On 8, 4:40 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net >
wrote:
> "Steven" <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 8, 3:17 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote:
> >> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message
>
> >>news:g3a6c4-3cs.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>
> >> > r15...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> >> >>> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
> >> >>> Semi-trailers?
>
> >> >> There may still be a few messengers out there on freewheel bikes
> >> >> with no brakes, using their shoes to stop. Pure Flintstone action.
> >> >> There was one kid in my city who did this for about a week just
> >> >> for fun. He was accompanied everywhere by the smell of molten
> >> >> rubber. Now that's Americana.
>
> >> > Ah, one of those was spotted recently in the U district here a week
> >> > or two ago. I don't think anyone else has spotted him since.
> >> > Perhaps he stopped riding? Either without brakes or at all...
>
> >> Or he could have got dead?
>
> >> > --
> >> > Dane Buson - sigd...@unixbigots.org
> >> > To a Californian, the basic difference between the people and the
> >> > pigeons in New York is that the pigeons don't shit on each other.
> >> > -- From "East vs. West: The War Between the Coasts- Hide quoted
> >> > text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hey! It's 55 degrees if I'm lucky and no rain in sight! I'm going for
> > a spin, and you all can look at it here:
>
> >http://asynchronicityusa.spaces.live.com/
>
> > See A tale of two bicycles or look at my stereo hobby etc elsewhere
> > (just got an Advent fried egg in the mail today for that matter)
> > nothing over PG-13 and no stupid blogging.
>
> You need to have a playing card clipped so it snaps in the rear wheel
> spokes. Furry tails hanging out of the hand grips might be nice.
>
> Thanks for sharing!

You're quite welcome but I have a motorcycle, not Pee-Wee in mind. It
will have a 12V rechargable system with LED lighting, full signals
including I hope a brake sensor, and one of my old Delcos with 2 small
speakers and the fairing will be built around a Wald basket with a
pressboard/etc frame and fiberglass over it, plus a late 40's Ford
spotlight with a real headlight cut out in the back for an LED
assembly and two lowrider lights for signals and a windshield. But for
the batteries, relay, framebuilding/glass fab and powdercoating it's
all there to finish.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:28:02
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On 8, 3:17 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:g3a6c4-3cs.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>
> > r15...@aol.com wrote:
> >> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> >>> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
> >>> Semi-trailers?
>
> >> There may still be a few messengers out there on freewheel bikes with
> >> no brakes, using their shoes to stop. Pure Flintstone action. There
> >> was one kid in my city who did this for about a week just for fun. He
> >> was accompanied everywhere by the smell of molten rubber. Now that's
> >> Americana.
>
> > Ah, one of those was spotted recently in the U district here a week or
> > two ago. I don't think anyone else has spotted him since. Perhaps he
> > stopped riding? Either without brakes or at all...
>
> Or he could have got dead?
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Dane Buson - sigd...@unixbigots.org
> > To a Californian, the basic difference between the people and the pigeons
> > in New York is that the pigeons don't shit on each other.
> > -- From "East vs. West: The War Between the Coasts- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey! It's 55 degrees if I'm lucky and no rain in sight! I'm going for
a spin, and you all can look at it here:

http://asynchronicityusa.spaces.live.com/

See A tale of two bicycles or look at my stereo hobby etc elsewhere
(just got an Advent fried egg in the mail today for that matter)
nothing over PG-13 and no stupid blogging.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 23:40:19
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Steven" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > wrote:

> On 8, 3:17 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote:
>> "Dane Buson" <d...@unseen.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> news:g3a6c4-3cs.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>>
>> > r15...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> >>> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
>> >>> Semi-trailers?
>>
>> >> There may still be a few messengers out there on freewheel bikes
>> >> with no brakes, using their shoes to stop. Pure Flintstone action.
>> >> There was one kid in my city who did this for about a week just
>> >> for fun. He was accompanied everywhere by the smell of molten
>> >> rubber. Now that's Americana.
>>
>> > Ah, one of those was spotted recently in the U district here a week
>> > or two ago. I don't think anyone else has spotted him since.
>> > Perhaps he stopped riding? Either without brakes or at all...
>>
>> Or he could have got dead?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > --
>> > Dane Buson - sigd...@unixbigots.org
>> > To a Californian, the basic difference between the people and the
>> > pigeons in New York is that the pigeons don't shit on each other.
>> > -- From "East vs. West: The War Between the Coasts- Hide quoted
>> > text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Hey! It's 55 degrees if I'm lucky and no rain in sight! I'm going for
> a spin, and you all can look at it here:
>
> http://asynchronicityusa.spaces.live.com/
>
> See A tale of two bicycles or look at my stereo hobby etc elsewhere
> (just got an Advent fried egg in the mail today for that matter)
> nothing over PG-13 and no stupid blogging.
>
>

You need to have a playing card clipped so it snaps in the rear wheel
spokes. Furry tails hanging out of the hand grips might be nice.

Thanks for sharing!

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:18:57
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On 8, 2:09 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 2007 18:00:10 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net>
> > wrote:
> >>But if the pedals are going too fast you are getting hit on the legs right
> >>like a Tricycle? Sounds like more fun than a barrel of monkeys. : (
> > No, if you can't pedal fast enough, the bike doesn't go fast either.
> > Speculating on what is like is rather futile for someone that hasn't
> > actually done it.
>
> But you can take your feet off the pedals and let 'em free wheel.
>
> Going downhill, one could build up considerable speed. And might find it
> more than difficult to get one's feet back on those rapidly spinning
> pedals were the need to stop arise.
>
> But, the republicans have torpedoed the 'rainy day' fund legislation in
> the state legislature and you folks are moanin' 'bout bicycle brakes?
>
> Peace and justice,

You've had a lot of rainy days, Bill. Party awhile.

Registered Democrat since 6/26/84 (18th) and fucking tired of whiny
ones.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 23:35:26
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Steven" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > wrote:

> On 8, 2:09 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> > On Thu, 08 2007 18:00:10 GMT, "nash"
>> > <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote:
>> >>But if the pedals are going too fast you are getting hit on the
>> >>legs right like a Tricycle? Sounds like more fun than a barrel of
>> >>monkeys. : (
>> > No, if you can't pedal fast enough, the bike doesn't go fast
>> > either. Speculating on what is like is rather futile for someone
>> > that hasn't actually done it.
>>
>> But you can take your feet off the pedals and let 'em free wheel.
>>
>> Going downhill, one could build up considerable speed. And might find
>> it more than difficult to get one's feet back on those rapidly
>> spinning pedals were the need to stop arise.
>>
>> But, the republicans have torpedoed the 'rainy day' fund legislation
>> in the state legislature and you folks are moanin' 'bout bicycle
>> brakes?
>>
>> Peace and justice,
>
> You've had a lot of rainy days, Bill. Party awhile.
>
> Registered Democrat since 6/26/84 (18th) and fucking tired of whiny
> ones.
>
>

You've come to the wrong place, most of 'em here are whiners. :o)

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:17:04
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 8, 1:49 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Jeezus shit!
>
> Another 3 americans were killed today in Iraq, the "surge" has just
> mysteriously picked up another 3,500 troops (in addition to the 21,500
> previously admitted), 160 Iraqis died in a series of bombings, and you
> folks are moaning 'bout brakes on bicycles?
>
> Sheesh!

So shoot me. I'll die riding my bike instead in a some god---- civil
war or flying under the authority of an agency that has a foot fetish
and sex perverts in management.

Jeezus needs a diaper

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:13:16
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On 8, 1:25 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Thu, 08 2007 18:00:10 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net>
> wrote:
>
> >But if the pedals are going too fast you are getting hit on the legs right
> >like a Tricycle? Sounds like more fun than a barrel of monkeys. : (
>
> No, if you can't pedal fast enough, the bike doesn't go fast either.
> Speculating on what is like is rather futile for someone that hasn't
> actually done it.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

I'VE DONE THAT

At nearly 41 I've done nearly everything except make love on a
unicycle.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 01:32:46
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Steven wrote:
> On 8, 1:25 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 2007 18:00:10 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But if the pedals are going too fast you are getting hit on the legs right
>>> like a Tricycle? Sounds like more fun than a barrel of monkeys. : (
>> No, if you can't pedal fast enough, the bike doesn't go fast either.
>> Speculating on what is like is rather futile for someone that hasn't
>> actually done it.
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...
>
> I'VE DONE THAT
>
> At nearly 41 I've done nearly everything except make love on a
> unicycle.
>
Shit,
At 58+ I've managed to have sex while driving a car at 65 MPH.
I damn near hit an oncoming semi doing it though.
Some things are fun but NOT safe.
Bill Baka

Date: 08 Mar 2007 17:40:15
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 01:32:46 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:

>Steven wrote:

>> At nearly 41 I've done nearly everything except make love on a
>> unicycle.
>>
>Shit,
>At 58+ I've managed to have sex while driving a car at 65 MPH.

Formidable'!

Were you in the front seat or the back? I handled that once in the
back, but someone else was driving.

I can tell you, though, that it Cannot be done in either an MGA or a
TR-3. Just can't.

And in a BMW Isetta, you can't get Laid but you can get Sat. If you
open the sunroof.

>I damn near hit an oncoming semi doing it though.

If you got the timing Just Exactly Right, what a way to go.

>Some things are fun but NOT safe.

Sex is Never 100% Safe. All sorts of outcomes Can happen.

Won't stop anyone, though. Which is A Good Thing, as such things go.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 06:19:33
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote:

>On Fri, 09 2007 01:32:46 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Steven wrote:
>
>>> At nearly 41 I've done nearly everything except make love on a
>>> unicycle.

The mind boggles... I suspect that while it's theoretically possible,
it would probably be more trouble than it's worth...

>>At 58+ I've managed to have sex while driving a car at 65 MPH.
>
>Formidable'!
>
>Were you in the front seat or the back? I handled that once in the
>back, but someone else was driving.
>
>I can tell you, though, that it Cannot be done in either an MGA or a
>TR-3. Just can't.

Pshaw... if I got it done in a Fiat X1/9 (a car with a cockpit that
makes an MGA seem huge), it's possible in almost anything that's big
enough to be licensed.

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 09 Mar 2007 08:10:11
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 06:19:33 -0700, k Hickey <k@habcycles.com >
wrote:

>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>

>>I can tell you, though, that it Cannot be done in either an MGA or a
>>TR-3. Just can't.
>
>Pshaw... if I got it done in a Fiat X1/9 (a car with a cockpit that
>makes an MGA seem huge), it's possible in almost anything that's big
>enough to be licensed.

Different cockpit configurations and different size participants might
make the difference. In my case, it was tried assiduously several
times, but in the end the bonnet just worked better overall. No sense
getting a back muscle spasm in the process.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 02:10:58
From: nash
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote in message
news:1je1v2l28ip8is970j5nfdhttbeubt0uln@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 2007 01:32:46 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Steven wrote:
>
>>> At nearly 41 I've done nearly everything except make love on a
>>> unicycle.
>>>
>>Shit,
>>At 58+ I've managed to have sex while driving a car at 65 MPH.
>
> Formidable'!
>
> Were you in the front seat or the back? I handled that once in the
> back, but someone else was driving.
>
> I can tell you, though, that it Cannot be done in either an MGA or a
> TR-3. Just can't.
>
> And in a BMW Isetta, you can't get Laid but you can get Sat. If you
> open the sunroof.
>
>>I damn near hit an oncoming semi doing it though.
>
> If you got the timing Just Exactly Right, what a way to go.
>
>>Some things are fun but NOT safe.
>
> Sex is Never 100% Safe. All sorts of outcomes Can happen.
>
> Won't stop anyone, though. Which is A Good Thing, as such things go.

Could be why Crash was the no.1 movie last year.
Cronenberg also made a movie named something similar. Remember?
They crashed the car on purpose while having sex in the front I believe. It
was what she wanted.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 01:46:34
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Don Homuth wrote:
> On Fri, 09 2007 01:32:46 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Steven wrote:
>
>>> At nearly 41 I've done nearly everything except make love on a
>>> unicycle.
>>>
>> Shit,
>> At 58+ I've managed to have sex while driving a car at 65 MPH.
>
> Formidable'!
>
> Were you in the front seat or the back? I handled that once in the
> back, but someone else was driving.
>
> I can tell you, though, that it Cannot be done in either an MGA or a
> TR-3. Just can't.

Yeah,
But we did it in a Renault R-8 with the lay back seats. We did it many
times with both seats all the way back, which turned the car into a 4
wheeled bedroom.
>
> And in a BMW Isetta, you can't get Laid but you can get Sat. If you
> open the sunroof.
>
>> I damn near hit an oncoming semi doing it though.
>
> If you got the timing Just Exactly Right, what a way to go.

The mortician would have never gotten the smile off my face.
>
>> Some things are fun but NOT safe.
>
> Sex is Never 100% Safe. All sorts of outcomes Can happen.

I had a daughter happen.
>
> Won't stop anyone, though. Which is A Good Thing, as such things go.

I still have to try it on a bike. Maybe the cadence would be a help?
Bill Baka

Date: 08 Mar 2007 17:50:21
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 01:46:34 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:

>Don Homuth wrote:

>> I can tell you, though, that it Cannot be done in either an MGA or a
>> TR-3. Just can't.
>
>Yeah,
>But we did it in a Renault R-8 with the lay back seats. We did it many
>times with both seats all the way back, which turned the car into a 4
>wheeled bedroom.

My 1957 Rambler had those seats, and I modified the release mechanism
so that pulling the lever on one side lowered both the front seats
simultaneously.

But Never while in motion.

>>> I damn near hit an oncoming semi doing it though.
>>
>> If you got the timing Just Exactly Right, what a way to go.
>
>The mortician would have never gotten the smile off my face.

I am reminded of the apparently true story of a pilot who flew his
plane into a cloud full of rocks while getting a blow job. The post
mortem made clear who was doing what to whom at the time. The tip was
found inside the passenger.

>>> Some things are fun but NOT safe.
>>
>> Sex is Never 100% Safe. All sorts of outcomes Can happen.
>
>I had a daughter happen.

If that's what you intended, congratulations. If not, sometimes things
work out OK.

>> Won't stop anyone, though. Which is A Good Thing, as such things go.
>
>I still have to try it on a bike. Maybe the cadence would be a help?

Maybe there's some way to modify a tandem. Have to ask my bicycle
engineering friend. Could be a challenge, but might become the Next
Big Thing in the sport.

Never can tell. Sex sells everything else of late.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 17:19:52
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Thu, 08 2007 17:50:21 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote:

>On Fri, 09 2007 01:46:34 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>

>>I still have to try it on a bike. Maybe the cadence would be a help?
>
>Maybe there's some way to modify a tandem. Have to ask my bicycle
>engineering friend. Could be a challenge, but might become the Next
>Big Thing in the sport.

I did that, and lo there Is a potential approach that neither of us
had considered....

Modifying a recumbent bicycle.

It would require some considerable frame strengthening, and probably
something requiring stirrups. She would probably have to be on top,
given the physical requirements of it. It might also require a
periscope, for directional control.

He's thinking about it. Says it could be fun to come up with some
drawings.

You may have started something here.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 08:52:27
From: Curt
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote in message
news:8p14v25h0cn7ur2o0hl8osbue085ivssac@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 2007 17:50:21 -0800, Don Homuth
> <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 09 2007 01:46:34 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
>
> >>I still have to try it on a bike. Maybe the cadence would be a help?
> >
> >Maybe there's some way to modify a tandem. Have to ask my bicycle
> >engineering friend. Could be a challenge, but might become the Next
> >Big Thing in the sport.
>
> I did that, and lo there Is a potential approach that neither of us
> had considered....
>
> Modifying a recumbent bicycle.

You could use one of those three wheeled ones, like a Catrike (cool
bicycles, by the way).

Curt

Date: 13 Mar 2007 10:01:22
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Tue, 13 2007 08:52:27 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com > wrote:

>
>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
>news:8p14v25h0cn7ur2o0hl8osbue085ivssac@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 08 2007 17:50:21 -0800, Don Homuth
>> <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 09 2007 01:46:34 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >>I still have to try it on a bike. Maybe the cadence would be a help?
>> >
>> >Maybe there's some way to modify a tandem. Have to ask my bicycle
>> >engineering friend. Could be a challenge, but might become the Next
>> >Big Thing in the sport.
>>
>> I did that, and lo there Is a potential approach that neither of us
>> had considered....
>>
>> Modifying a recumbent bicycle.
>
>You could use one of those three wheeled ones, like a Catrike (cool
>bicycles, by the way).

Having such a stable platform would remove the greater part of the
Sport from it, I suspect.

No -- two wheels it is.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 16:35:00
From: Curt
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote in message
news:46mdv2h4sa1f0mvcu4fs7g756j5977qua4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 2007 08:52:27 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:8p14v25h0cn7ur2o0hl8osbue085ivssac@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 08 2007 17:50:21 -0800, Don Homuth
> >> <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 09 2007 01:46:34 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> >>I still have to try it on a bike. Maybe the cadence would be a help?
> >> >
> >> >Maybe there's some way to modify a tandem. Have to ask my bicycle
> >> >engineering friend. Could be a challenge, but might become the Next
> >> >Big Thing in the sport.
> >>
> >> I did that, and lo there Is a potential approach that neither of us
> >> had considered....
> >>
> >> Modifying a recumbent bicycle.
> >
> >You could use one of those three wheeled ones, like a Catrike (cool
> >bicycles, by the way).
>
> Having such a stable platform would remove the greater part of the
> Sport from it, I suspect.
>
> No -- two wheels it is.

Good luck on that one..

Curt

Date: 13 Mar 2007 17:39:02
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Tue, 13 2007 16:35:00 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com > wrote:

>
>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
>news:46mdv2h4sa1f0mvcu4fs7g756j5977qua4@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 2007 08:52:27 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:8p14v25h0cn7ur2o0hl8osbue085ivssac@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 08 2007 17:50:21 -0800, Don Homuth
>> >> <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 09 2007 01:46:34 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >>I still have to try it on a bike. Maybe the cadence would be a help?
>> >> >
>> >> >Maybe there's some way to modify a tandem. Have to ask my bicycle
>> >> >engineering friend. Could be a challenge, but might become the Next
>> >> >Big Thing in the sport.
>> >>
>> >> I did that, and lo there Is a potential approach that neither of us
>> >> had considered....
>> >>
>> >> Modifying a recumbent bicycle.
>> >
>> >You could use one of those three wheeled ones, like a Catrike (cool
>> >bicycles, by the way).
>>
>> Having such a stable platform would remove the greater part of the
>> Sport from it, I suspect.
>>
>> No -- two wheels it is.
>
>Good luck on that one..

No one said it had to be Practical -- only Workable.

Without the challenge, it's hardly worth the effort.

Guy says he's coming along with the drawings, which are hilarious.

It even includes training wheels. And the periscope too.

Date: 14 Mar 2007 09:34:01
From: Curt
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote in message
news:avgev2hfbrq67sro4qjbq8949agtgsasi1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 2007 16:35:00 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:46mdv2h4sa1f0mvcu4fs7g756j5977qua4@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 13 2007 08:52:27 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:8p14v25h0cn7ur2o0hl8osbue085ivssac@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Thu, 08 2007 17:50:21 -0800, Don Homuth
> >> >> <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Fri, 09 2007 01:46:34 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net>
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >>I still have to try it on a bike. Maybe the cadence would be a
help?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Maybe there's some way to modify a tandem. Have to ask my bicycle
> >> >> >engineering friend. Could be a challenge, but might become the
Next
> >> >> >Big Thing in the sport.
> >> >>
> >> >> I did that, and lo there Is a potential approach that neither of us
> >> >> had considered....
> >> >>
> >> >> Modifying a recumbent bicycle.
> >> >
> >> >You could use one of those three wheeled ones, like a Catrike (cool
> >> >bicycles, by the way).
> >>
> >> Having such a stable platform would remove the greater part of the
> >> Sport from it, I suspect.
> >>
> >> No -- two wheels it is.
> >
> >Good luck on that one..
>
> No one said it had to be Practical -- only Workable.
>
> Without the challenge, it's hardly worth the effort.
>
> Guy says he's coming along with the drawings, which are hilarious.
>
> It even includes training wheels. And the periscope too.

Well if you're going to use training wheels, you might as well go with the
Catrike!

Curt

Date: 14 Mar 2007 15:55:06
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Wed, 14 2007 09:34:01 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com > wrote:

>
>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
>news:avgev2hfbrq67sro4qjbq8949agtgsasi1@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 2007 16:35:00 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:46mdv2h4sa1f0mvcu4fs7g756j5977qua4@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 13 2007 08:52:27 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:8p14v25h0cn7ur2o0hl8osbue085ivssac@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Thu, 08 2007 17:50:21 -0800, Don Homuth
>> >> >> <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Fri, 09 2007 01:46:34 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>I still have to try it on a bike. Maybe the cadence would be a
>help?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Maybe there's some way to modify a tandem. Have to ask my bicycle
>> >> >> >engineering friend. Could be a challenge, but might become the
>Next
>> >> >> >Big Thing in the sport.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I did that, and lo there Is a potential approach that neither of us
>> >> >> had considered....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Modifying a recumbent bicycle.
>> >> >
>> >> >You could use one of those three wheeled ones, like a Catrike (cool
>> >> >bicycles, by the way).
>> >>
>> >> Having such a stable platform would remove the greater part of the
>> >> Sport from it, I suspect.
>> >>
>> >> No -- two wheels it is.
>> >
>> >Good luck on that one..
>>
>> No one said it had to be Practical -- only Workable.
>>
>> Without the challenge, it's hardly worth the effort.
>>
>> Guy says he's coming along with the drawings, which are hilarious.
>>
>> It even includes training wheels. And the periscope too.
>
>Well if you're going to use training wheels, you might as well go with the
>Catrike!

Only for the first time or two. Learning Curve and all. The dynamics
would be difficult, just getting the synchronization done properly.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 02:16:17
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Don Homuth wrote:
> On Fri, 09 2007 01:46:34 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>
>>> I can tell you, though, that it Cannot be done in either an MGA or a
>>> TR-3. Just can't.
>> Yeah,
>> But we did it in a Renault R-8 with the lay back seats. We did it many
>> times with both seats all the way back, which turned the car into a 4
>> wheeled bedroom.
>
> My 1957 Rambler had those seats, and I modified the release mechanism
> so that pulling the lever on one side lowered both the front seats
> simultaneously.
>
> But Never while in motion.

Just one more level of excitement.
>
>>>> I damn near hit an oncoming semi doing it though.
>>> If you got the timing Just Exactly Right, what a way to go.
>> The mortician would have never gotten the smile off my face.
>
> I am reminded of the apparently true story of a pilot who flew his
> plane into a cloud full of rocks while getting a blow job. The post
> mortem made clear who was doing what to whom at the time. The tip was
> found inside the passenger.

I heard that one too.
>
>>>> Some things are fun but NOT safe.
>>> Sex is Never 100% Safe. All sorts of outcomes Can happen.
>> I had a daughter happen.
>
> If that's what you intended, congratulations. If not, sometimes things
> work out OK.

She's OK. A bit too intelligent, spoiled, and a st ass, but she does
take after me.
>
>>> Won't stop anyone, though. Which is A Good Thing, as such things go.
>> I still have to try it on a bike. Maybe the cadence would be a help?
>
> Maybe there's some way to modify a tandem. Have to ask my bicycle
> engineering friend. Could be a challenge, but might become the Next
> Big Thing in the sport.
>
> Never can tell. Sex sells everything else of late.

Hey,
If it gets you and your spouse (girlfriend/boyfriend/partner) on a bike
then it is a good thing, right?
Bill Baka

Date: 09 Mar 2007 08:08:50
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 02:16:17 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:

>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 2007 01:46:34 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>

>>> I still have to try it on a bike. Maybe the cadence would be a help?
>>
>> Maybe there's some way to modify a tandem. Have to ask my bicycle
>> engineering friend. Could be a challenge, but might become the Next
>> Big Thing in the sport.
>>
>> Never can tell. Sex sells everything else of late.
>
>Hey,
>If it gets you and your spouse (girlfriend/boyfriend/partner) on a bike
>then it is a good thing, right?

Nah. Comes a point where trying to prove a point is a fool's errand
entirely.

Best I could ever do in proving a point was getting it on in every
single building on my college campus.

Took about four months to accomplish, but to the best of my knowledge
my girlfriend and I were the first to do the entire cycle.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:11:10
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 8, 1:23 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Thu, 08 2007 12:19:02 -0600, Doc O'Leary
>
> <droleary.use...@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
> >Instead of quoting someone's mental masturbation on
> >Wikipedia, why not try to give a sound argument on why a brake is a
> >*bad* thing to have on a vehicle?
>
> A brake adds absolutely nothing to the mix if the rider is truly
> skilled, and that is on the road or on the track.
>
> The problem is that, whether driving or riding a bike, 80% of the
> people involved think they are above average. And, yes, I worry about
> them on a fixed wheel at all, much less without a brake.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

If the crank breaks downhill and you lay it down from the misstep,
YEAH I could agree. It's happened and I had a Schwinn 10 speed frame
break at 15 mph once. The crank housing came down and snagged the
road, stretching it like a drag motorcycle. Fortunately I did not lose
control much, no harm to me but I was dumbfounded (aw, s--- no)!

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:05:13
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On 8, 12:57 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
> > I just can't see a totally unskilled bike noob
> > walking into a shop and saying, "Gimme a bike
> > that can't coast and doesn't have a bunch of
> > gears." Especially in hilly Oregon.
>
> > cheers,
> > Tom
>
> Just wait until Wal-t finds out how much cheaper a bicycle without
> gears, brakes and a freewheel is....
> ~

They already have the cheapest bearings on Earth. Why do you think I
bought a 55 year old bike?

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:03:44
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On 8, 12:46 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

> I just can't see a totally unskilled bike noob
> walking into a shop and saying, "Gimme a bike
> that can't coast and doesn't have a bunch of
> gears." Especially in hilly Oregon.
> cheers,
> Tom

I think somebody just wanted their name in the roll call.

Personally, I hate gears and caliper brakes as I break cables
routinely for no good reason and the derailleur tries to shift itself
eventually. I have a postwar lugged Rollfast and since I weigh 280 no
gears is a great thing anyway. Better than weights.

Hey, the "troll' is right sometimes whether the Canadian likes it or
not.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 13:56:50
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

In article <sqOdnfF3Y6mu4W3YnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> In article <oUZHh.50$Tq2.43@newsfe06.lga>,
>> DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> writes:
>
>>>Tom Keats wrote:
>
>>>>I just can't see a totally unskilled bike noob
>>>>walking into a shop and saying, "Gimme a bike
>>>>that can't coast and doesn't have a bunch of
>>>>gears." Especially in hilly Oregon.
>
>>>Just wait until Wal-t finds out how much cheaper a bicycle without
>>>gears, brakes and a freewheel is....
>
>> No worries. Number of gears is a selling point to them and
>> their clientele, same as suspension -- no matter how cheesy
>> it is.
>
>> But your scenario does pose the question of which is worse:
>> a bike newbie on a cheap-o *-t bike with bendy stamped
>> metal brake calipers and probably maladjusted brakes, or an
>> experienced rider on a fixed-gear bike?
>
> Ah well, let's then have licensing and testing for bicylist to ensure
> that only "experienced riders" are propelling these gearless, brakeless
> bikes over the public roads.

Nah, we've already got more than enough
nanny-state officiousness and tangled webs
of legislation & red tape to deal with.
I mean, what's next? Gov't inspections
of shoddily assembled *-t bikes?

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 08 Mar 2007 12:31:58
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

In article <oUZHh.50$Tq2.43@newsfe06.lga >,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>> I just can't see a totally unskilled bike noob
>> walking into a shop and saying, "Gimme a bike
>> that can't coast and doesn't have a bunch of
>> gears." Especially in hilly Oregon.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>
> Just wait until Wal-t finds out how much cheaper a bicycle without
> gears, brakes and a freewheel is....
> ~

No worries. Number of gears is a selling point to them and
their clientele, same as suspension -- no matter how cheesy
it is.

But your scenario does pose the question of which is worse:
a bike newbie on a cheap-o *-t bike with bendy stamped
metal brake calipers and probably maladjusted brakes, or an
experienced rider on a fixed-gear bike?

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 08 Mar 2007 13:12:16
From: Bill Shatzer
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <oUZHh.50$Tq2.43@newsfe06.lga>,
> DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com> writes:

>>Tom Keats wrote:

>>>I just can't see a totally unskilled bike noob
>>>walking into a shop and saying, "Gimme a bike
>>>that can't coast and doesn't have a bunch of
>>>gears." Especially in hilly Oregon.

>>Just wait until Wal-t finds out how much cheaper a bicycle without
>>gears, brakes and a freewheel is....

> No worries. Number of gears is a selling point to them and
> their clientele, same as suspension -- no matter how cheesy
> it is.

> But your scenario does pose the question of which is worse:
> a bike newbie on a cheap-o *-t bike with bendy stamped
> metal brake calipers and probably maladjusted brakes, or an
> experienced rider on a fixed-gear bike?

Ah well, let's then have licensing and testing for bicylist to ensure
that only "experienced riders" are propelling these gearless, brakeless
bikes over the public roads.

Peace and justice,

Date: 08 Mar 2007 11:51:47
From: Paul J. Berg
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

`
When it comes to motor vehicles, the Oregon law requires drivers to have
a particular class and/or endorsement of licensing, depending on the
type of motor vehicle they're operating on the public roadways. I think
most people would agree as a matter of public safety this is a wise and
good thing.

When it comes to bicycles, Oregon law does not require any licensing in
order to ride on the public roadways.

From what I have heard here so far, riding a fixed gear bicycle safely
requires a certain amount of skill and experience that your average
everyday cyclist may not have.

Oregon Senate Bill 729, which would exempt fixed gear bicycles from the
brake requirement, does not have any requirement for cyclists to show
their skill in the safe operation of a fixed gear bicycle. So, until
there is some type of licensing requirement for fixed gear cyclists, I
can not endorse a change in the law requiring brakes on all bicycles.
.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 11:46:09
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

In article <9940v25tfdlrootqq8qi8vml9jcinog12r@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > writes:
> On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
> <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?
>
> I don't agree with the law, for much narrower reasons and opinions,

At this point, it's more of an un-law. At least it's
not forbidding having brakes on fixed-gear bikes.

> but they are targeting priily fixed gear bikes based on track bikes
> or very close (they now build them from the ground up for the road),
> that are used largely by messengers nowadays in city riding. Some bike
> racers will train on fixed gear track bikes, but most that I have seen
> (as was mine) have a front brake added.

The '07 Surly Steamroller (c/w front brake)
looks pretty hot to trot. Too bad they
didn't come up with a better name for it.

> I object not that the bikes are unsafe in themselves - a fixed gear
> brakeless bike of the track type can be stopped PDQ by a skilled rider
> - but that the riders are too often not as skilled as they think they
> are. And an unskilled cyclist trying to use track braking skills on
> the road can be a dangerous individual.

I'm not so sure a fixed-gear tyro is going to
immediately challenge the streets, traffic &
hills, armed with over-confidence. I expect
the bike itself would point out the rider's
initial skill limitations quite quickly.

Folks who gravitate toward fixed-gear bikes
already have a bunch of freewheel riding under
their belts, and are quite aware of the fact
that there are all kinds of ways to kill one's
self on a bike. These people will naturally
take a cautious skill-developing approach, as
they have done all through their cycling careers.

I just can't see a totally unskilled bike noob
walking into a shop and saying, "Gimme a bike
that can't coast and doesn't have a bunch of
gears." Especially in hilly Oregon.

Tallbikes present an interesting point:
our local legislation (as in many other parts)
requires bicycles to be fitted with sufficient
braking capability to cause a rear wheel skid
on clean, dry, level pavement. That's all.
You can put such a brake on a tallbike to
satisfy the law, but the rider can't put his
foot down to stop anyways.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:30:05
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Thu, 8 2007 11:46:09 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>
>I'm not so sure a fixed-gear tyro is going to
>immediately challenge the streets, traffic &
>hills, armed with over-confidence.

I've seen somewhat skilled fixed gear bike riders get crossed up in
their first real emergency. OTOH, I've seen the same level of rider on
a track bike with a brake go pedals over kettle in the same first or
second emergency, when their reflexes were hit their brakes, but their
legs kept pumping (not that it ever happened to me, mind you...)

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Mar 2007 13:57:19
From: DougC
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Tom Keats wrote:
>
> I just can't see a totally unskilled bike noob
> walking into a shop and saying, "Gimme a bike
> that can't coast and doesn't have a bunch of
> gears." Especially in hilly Oregon.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>

Just wait until Wal-t finds out how much cheaper a bicycle without
gears, brakes and a freewheel is....
~

Date: 08 Mar 2007 08:13:10
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Paul J. Berg wrote:
> `
> It is fine to allow brakeless fixed gear bikes on the track, in the
> control of skilled and trained riders. But, out on the roads? I don't
> think public want brakeless bikes in the control of unskilled riders.

Many many messengers have used brakeless bikes, for
decades, without the general public noticing much or
caring. It's only in recent years, with an explosion of
ersatz messengers/urban hipsters on track bikes, that
the public suddenly notices. We may ask is this interest
because of some spike in accidents/incidents, or for
some other reason?

> If the Oregon Legislature thinks this is such a great idea, why not
> allow sixteen year olds to drive NASCAR and Indy race vehicles on the
> public roads also.

You gotta be kiddin me. Sixteen-year-olds in fast vehicles
that they don't have the skills/sts/experience to drive
is pretty much our national war cry, isn't it?

Robert

Date: 08 Mar 2007 17:36:14
From: nash
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

<r15757@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1173370390.072444.119230@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>> `
>> It is fine to allow brakeless fixed gear bikes on the track, in the
>> control of skilled and trained riders. But, out on the roads? I don't
>> think public want brakeless bikes in the control of unskilled riders.
>
> Many many messengers have used brakeless bikes, for
> decades, without the general public noticing much or
> caring. It's only in recent years, with an explosion of
> ersatz messengers/urban hipsters on track bikes, that
> the public suddenly notices. We may ask is this interest
> because of some spike in accidents/incidents, or for
> some other reason?
>
>
>> If the Oregon Legislature thinks this is such a great idea, why not
>> allow sixteen year olds to drive NASCAR and Indy race vehicles on the
>> public roads also.
>
> You gotta be kiddin me. Sixteen-year-olds in fast vehicles
> that they don't have the skills/sts/experience to drive
> is pretty much our national war cry, isn't it?
>
> Robert

So fixies use coaster brakes? why would you have a problem with that.
It is a brake. My CCM worked on the road. I guess I might not be clear on
this fixie brake thing. :)

Date: 08 Mar 2007 12:49:01
From: Bill Shatzer
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Jeezus shit!

Another 3 americans were killed today in Iraq, the "surge" has just
mysteriously picked up another 3,500 troops (in addition to the 21,500
previously admitted), 160 Iraqis died in a series of bombings, and you
folks are moaning 'bout brakes on bicycles?

Sheesh!

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:54:17
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Thu, 08 2007 12:49:01 -0800, Bill Shatzer
<bshatzerNO@comcast.net > wrote:

>Another 3 americans were killed today in Iraq, the "surge" has just
>mysteriously picked up another 3,500 troops (in addition to the 21,500
>previously admitted), 160 Iraqis died in a series of bombings, and you
>folks are moaning 'bout brakes on bicycles?

And you spend all of your time talking about the war in Iraq? Your
wife ever mention that monomania gets tiresome? Just wondering.

Actually, I've spent about five minutes on this topic. How slow do you
read and type anyway?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Mar 2007 06:32:43
From: Paul J. Berg
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

`
It is fine to allow brakeless fixed gear bikes on the track, in the
control of skilled and trained riders. But, out on the roads? I don't
think public want brakeless bikes in the control of unskilled riders.

If the Oregon Legislature thinks this is such a great idea, why not
allow sixteen year olds to drive NASCAR and Indy race vehicles on the
public roads also.

`

Date: 08 Mar 2007 23:24:44
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote:

> `
> It is fine to allow brakeless fixed gear bikes on the track, in the
> control of skilled and trained riders. But, out on the roads? I don't
> think public want brakeless bikes in the control of unskilled riders.

Bullshit Paul! I Know you are old enough to have ridden a fixed gear for
years when you were a kid. The fixed gear IS THE BRAKE.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 16:34:39
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Thu, 8 2007 06:32:43 -0800, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg)
wrote:

>`
>It is fine to allow brakeless fixed gear bikes on the track, in the
>control of skilled and trained riders. But, out on the roads? I don't
>think public want brakeless bikes in the control of unskilled riders.
>
>If the Oregon Legislature thinks this is such a great idea, why not
>allow sixteen year olds to drive NASCAR and Indy race vehicles on the
>public roads also.
>
>

I was unaware of legislation limiting the maximum speed _capability_
of motor vehicles - how forward thinking of the Oregon legislature to
have enacted such.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 08:27:01
From: fiend999
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net >, Paul J.
Berg <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote:

> `
> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>

So what? Fixed-gear bikes don't really need brakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-gear_bicycle
"Because there is no freewheel mechanism, fixed gear bicycles cannot
coast. Whenever the rear wheel is turning, the pedals turn in the same
direction. By resisting the forward motion of the pedals, a rider is
able to slow the bike to a stop, without the aid of a brake."

--
~~~

Date: 08 Mar 2007 12:19:02
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <080320070827012965%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com >,
fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com > wrote:

> In article <7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net>, Paul J.
> Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > `
> > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
> >
>
> So what? Fixed-gear bikes don't really need brakes.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-gear_bicycle
> "Because there is no freewheel mechanism, fixed gear bicycles cannot
> coast. Whenever the rear wheel is turning, the pedals turn in the same
> direction. By resisting the forward motion of the pedals, a rider is
> able to slow the bike to a stop, without the aid of a brake."

So, by your wonderful logic, cars don't really *need* brakes either
because they can always shift down and engine brake and/or be put in
reverse until the vehicle stops all forward motion. That obviously
doesn't mean having a brake isn't still a good idea. Plus, it's not
like anyone is oh so "emasculated" by being forced to *use* a brake on
their fixie. Instead of quoting someone's mental masturbation on
Wikipedia, why not try to give a sound argument on why a brake is a
*bad* thing to have on a vehicle?

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

Date: 09 Mar 2007 10:36:01
From: cor
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <080320070827012965%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com>,
> fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net>, Paul J.
>> Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>>> `
>>> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
>>> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>>>
>> So what? Fixed-gear bikes don't really need brakes.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-gear_bicycle
>> "Because there is no freewheel mechanism, fixed gear bicycles cannot
>> coast. Whenever the rear wheel is turning, the pedals turn in the same
>> direction. By resisting the forward motion of the pedals, a rider is
>> able to slow the bike to a stop, without the aid of a brake."
>
> So, by your wonderful logic, cars don't really *need* brakes either
>

He means that if you don't turn the pedals the back wheel stops.
Bicycles meant mostly for racing tracks where the bicyclist is not
supposed to rest anytime during the trip.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 14:00:57
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Fri, 09 2007 10:36:01 -0800, cor <corDEL@exchangenet.net >
wrote:

>He means that if you don't turn the pedals the back wheel stops.
>Bicycles meant mostly for racing tracks where the bicyclist is not
>supposed to rest anytime during the trip.

Interestingly, much of the advantage to a messenger comes from the
ability to stop and stay stopped with both feet snapped into the
pedals - just as what happens in the sprint events in track racing.
The lack of freewheeling means that you can move the wheels in either
direction, which is necessary to do a long track stand at any point
(you can do a decent track stand with a freewheel/cassette if the
terrain lets the bike rock backwards). Being snapped in and ready to
move lets the messengers jump traffic through an intersection.

Track stands have been done for hours, so the bikes definitely can be
at rest for some time.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Mar 2007 19:42:56
From: fiend999
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article
<droleary.usenet-D5046D.12190208032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:

> In article <080320070827012965%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com>,
> fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net>, Paul J.
> > Berg <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote:
> >
> > > `
> > > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> > > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
> > >
> >
> > So what? Fixed-gear bikes don't really need brakes.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-gear_bicycle
> > "Because there is no freewheel mechanism, fixed gear bicycles cannot
> > coast. Whenever the rear wheel is turning, the pedals turn in the same
> > direction. By resisting the forward motion of the pedals, a rider is
> > able to slow the bike to a stop, without the aid of a brake."
>
> So, by your wonderful logic, cars don't really *need* brakes either
> because they can always shift down and engine brake and/or be put in
> reverse until the vehicle stops all forward motion. That obviously
> doesn't mean having a brake isn't still a good idea. Plus, it's not
> like anyone is oh so "emasculated" by being forced to *use* a brake on
> their fixie. Instead of quoting someone's mental masturbation on
> Wikipedia, why not try to give a sound argument on why a brake is a
> *bad* thing to have on a vehicle?

A motor vehicle and a fixed-gear bicycle are very different.
Apparently you have little experience with one or the other.
I didn't say it was a bad thing, just that it is not completely
necessary on a fixed-gear bike. Why is it any of your business whether
or not someone chooses to have the extra protection of a brake?

BTW, I used wikipedia because I expected it to have a good dumbed down
explanation of what a fixed-gear bike is since the original poster
didn't seem to know what one is.

And what is with your talk of emasculation? Sounds like you have some
issues with your own self-esteem.

--
~~~

Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:30:27
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <080320071942569783%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com >,
fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com > wrote:

> A motor vehicle and a fixed-gear bicycle are very different.

Well thank you for that tidbit of info, Dr. Duh! My point is that just
because a vehicle can be brought to a stop many different ways doesn't
mean there is a good reason to eliminate the one that will most easily
save someone's ass in an an emergency situation.

> Apparently you have little experience with one or the other.
> I didn't say it was a bad thing, just that it is not completely
> necessary on a fixed-gear bike. Why is it any of your business whether
> or not someone chooses to have the extra protection of a brake?

If you're willing to sign a medial waver that you'll refuse treatment in
the case of an avoidable accident, I have no problem with it. Until
then, you'll have to give a reasonable argument why bikes should be
exempted from general vehicle laws.

> And what is with your talk of emasculation? Sounds like you have some
> issues with your own self-esteem.

No, quite the opposite. I'm not the one who practically screams "My
bike *can't* have a brake on it and be manly!", but there sure are a
hell of a lot of fixie guys who seem to have that phobia.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

Date: 10 Mar 2007 07:47:54
From: fiend999
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article
<droleary.usenet-0024B2.15302709032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:

> In article <080320071942569783%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com>,
> fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > A motor vehicle and a fixed-gear bicycle are very different.
>
> Well thank you for that tidbit of info, Dr. Duh! My point is that just
> because a vehicle can be brought to a stop many different ways doesn't
> mean there is a good reason to eliminate the one that will most easily
> save someone's ass in an an emergency situation.

You were comparing apples and oranges. That qualifies for "Duh" status
much more than someone pointing out your fallacy.
>
> > Apparently you have little experience with one or the other.
> > I didn't say it was a bad thing, just that it is not completely
> > necessary on a fixed-gear bike. Why is it any of your business whether
> > or not someone chooses to have the extra protection of a brake?
>
> If you're willing to sign a medial waver that you'll refuse treatment in
> the case of an avoidable accident, I have no problem with it.

If I need treatment I can pay for it, so again - what business is it of
yours? Do you require the same waiver from someone who has an
avoidable accident in a car, I their home or at work?
> Until
> then, you'll have to give a reasonable argument why bikes should be
> exempted from general vehicle laws.

Sorry, laws in the US are not supposed to work that way. You need to
provide a good reason why something should be illegal, not why the
government should allow something. See that's the thing - rights are
supposedly something we have, not something the government gives us.
>
> > And what is with your talk of emasculation? Sounds like you have some
> > issues with your own self-esteem.
>
> No, quite the opposite. I'm not the one who practically screams "My
> bike *can't* have a brake on it and be manly!",

I said nothing of the sort, so why did you bring it up inthe first
place?
Why do you care about my manhood or anyone else's?

> but there sure are a
> hell of a lot of fixie guys who seem to have that phobia.

Why do you say that? Do they call you names and make you feel less
manly or something?

--
~~~

Date: 10 Mar 2007 14:04:20
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <100320070747542801%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com >,
fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com > wrote:

> In article
> <droleary.usenet-0024B2.15302709032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <080320071942569783%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com>,
> > fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> > > A motor vehicle and a fixed-gear bicycle are very different.
> >
> > Well thank you for that tidbit of info, Dr. Duh! My point is that just
> > because a vehicle can be brought to a stop many different ways doesn't
> > mean there is a good reason to eliminate the one that will most easily
> > save someone's ass in an an emergency situation.
>
> You were comparing apples and oranges. That qualifies for "Duh" status
> much more than someone pointing out your fallacy.

Hardly. Your argument is essentially that engine braking is sufficient
to stop a vehicle. If you actually believe that, attempt to enact a
corresponding law that applies to all vehicles rather than trying to
adopt and "edgy, outsider fixie biker" attitude.

> If I need treatment I can pay for it, so again - what business is it of
> yours? Do you require the same waiver from someone who has an
> avoidable accident in a car, I their home or at work?

Suddenly apples are now oranges for you? Your thinking seems really
muddled. And, yes, if some jackass driver wanted to ride on public
roads in a car that only did engine braking, I would definitely expect
their insurance rates to skyrocket even if they did sign a waiver
against personal injury.

> > Until
> > then, you'll have to give a reasonable argument why bikes should be
> > exempted from general vehicle laws.
>
> Sorry, laws in the US are not supposed to work that way. You need to
> provide a good reason why something should be illegal, not why the
> government should allow something. See that's the thing - rights are
> supposedly something we have, not something the government gives us.

Your right to throw a punch stops at my face. Your right to
"alternative" braking stops at my vehicle. Again, since you're sharing
the road with other vehicles, the burden is on you to explain why this
law should be different for your vehicle.

> >
> > > And what is with your talk of emasculation? Sounds like you have some
> > > issues with your own self-esteem.
> >
> > No, quite the opposite. I'm not the one who practically screams "My
> > bike *can't* have a brake on it and be manly!",
>
> I said nothing of the sort, so why did you bring it up inthe first
> place?
> Why do you care about my manhood or anyone else's?

I care about your unsound argument. Often times an excuse to do
something stupid is because it is "the manly thing to do", and I've seen
more than my share of that from the fixie crowd. So while you may
*claim* that's not who you are, you still have yet to explain why such a
bike absolutely *cannot* have a brake on it.

> > but there sure are a
> > hell of a lot of fixie guys who seem to have that phobia.
>
> Why do you say that? Do they call you names and make you feel less
> manly or something?

No, they rather make me laugh. I say that because it has been my
experience. Nothing in this thread has given me reason to believe that
anyone has a sound reason why a bike should not have a brake.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

Date: 11 Mar 2007 17:10:55
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Sat, 10 2007 14:04:20 -0600, Doc O'Leary
<droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:

>Hardly. Your argument is essentially that engine braking is sufficient
>to stop a vehicle. If you actually believe that, attempt to enact a
>corresponding law that applies to all vehicles rather than trying to
>adopt and "edgy, outsider fixie biker" attitude.

Engine braking is sufficient to stop a car with a manual transmission
- it will just take longer than would be safe. However, engine braking
is certainly done all the time. It is not the same, however, as
braking using back pressure on pedals on a fixie. You are, as always,
the obstinate one - you've tried at most one of the two and feel
confident to tell those that have done both what the 'facts' are - in
your case, facts generally appear to be whatever you think they are,
unadjusted by reality or experience.

You and nash should start your own usegroup. At the bottom, you are
one and the same.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 11 Mar 2007 17:03:57
From: Jack A. Lopes
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article
<droleary.usenet-3FB25F.14042010032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:

> In article <100320070747542801%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com>,
> fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <droleary.usenet-0024B2.15302709032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <080320071942569783%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com>,
> > > fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A motor vehicle and a fixed-gear bicycle are very different.
> > >
> > > Well thank you for that tidbit of info, Dr. Duh! My point is that just
> > > because a vehicle can be brought to a stop many different ways doesn't
> > > mean there is a good reason to eliminate the one that will most easily
> > > save someone's ass in an an emergency situation.
> >
> > You were comparing apples and oranges. That qualifies for "Duh" status
> > much more than someone pointing out your fallacy.
>
> Hardly. Your argument is essentially that engine braking is sufficient
> to stop a vehicle.
He was talking about bikes. You brought vehicles powered by the
internal combustion engine into the discussion. If you can't tell the
difference, go back to school "doc".

--
1+1+1+1...

Date: 12 Mar 2007 16:00:45
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <110320071703578334%hunk@burninglove.com >,
"Jack A. Lopes" <hunk@burninglove.com > wrote:

> He was talking about bikes. You brought vehicles powered by the
> internal combustion engine into the discussion. If you can't tell the
> difference, go back to school "doc".

Listen, do you want to bike with traffic or not? Because every little
law like this you try to pass in the name of "fixie freedoms" turns you
more and more into a different classification of vehicle. How keen will
you be with your brakeless bike when you can only ride it on a path?
You are the one who is short-sighted and in need of further education.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:23:19
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Thu, 08 2007 12:19:02 -0600, Doc O'Leary
<droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:

>Instead of quoting someone's mental masturbation on
>Wikipedia, why not try to give a sound argument on why a brake is a
>*bad* thing to have on a vehicle?

A brake adds absolutely nothing to the mix if the rider is truly
skilled, and that is on the road or on the track.

The problem is that, whether driving or riding a bike, 80% of the
people involved think they are above average. And, yes, I worry about
them on a fixed wheel at all, much less without a brake.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Mar 2007 18:36:51
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

>On Thu, 08 2007 12:19:02 -0600, Doc O'Leary
><droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
>
>>Instead of quoting someone's mental masturbation on
>>Wikipedia, why not try to give a sound argument on why a brake is a
>>*bad* thing to have on a vehicle?
>
>A brake adds absolutely nothing to the mix if the rider is truly
>skilled, and that is on the road or on the track.

Tell you what. How about a demonstration? We'll line up side by
side, and pedal up to about 20mph, straight at a concrete wall. You
promise not to start slowing down before I do. Of course I'll have
two working brakes. The only other proviso is that I get to take out
an insurance clause on you first... ;-)

k "this is gonna hurt" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 09 Mar 2007 09:06:21
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Thu, 08 2007 18:36:51 -0700, k Hickey <k@habcycles.com >
wrote:

>Tell you what. How about a demonstration? We'll line up side by
>side, and pedal up to about 20mph, straight at a concrete wall. You
>promise not to start slowing down before I do. Of course I'll have
>two working brakes. The only other proviso is that I get to take out
>an insurance clause on you first... ;-)

Now challenge Carl to the same contest...

No, I'm not taking you up on your offer. Old reflexes alone would get
me killed.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 01:07:26
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 08 2007 12:19:02 -0600, Doc O'Leary
> <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
>
>> Instead of quoting someone's mental masturbation on
>> Wikipedia, why not try to give a sound argument on why a brake is a
>> *bad* thing to have on a vehicle?
>
> A brake adds absolutely nothing to the mix if the rider is truly
> skilled, and that is on the road or on the track.
>
> The problem is that, whether driving or riding a bike, 80% of the
> people involved think they are above average. And, yes, I worry about
> them on a fixed wheel at all, much less without a brake.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

While you guys are arguing about brakes, might I mention my emergency
stop method, since I have had total brake failure before.
I just jammed the sole of my shoe against the rear tire hard enough to
lock it up or until I smelled my shoe burning.
It was a total spur of the moment but since I was going downhill and had
no real way to stop before cars crossing my path I got inventive real quick.
Bill Baka

Date: 09 Mar 2007 09:05:21
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Fri, 09 2007 01:07:26 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:

>While you guys are arguing about brakes, might I mention my emergency
>stop method, since I have had total brake failure before.
>I just jammed the sole of my shoe against the rear tire hard enough to
>lock it up or until I smelled my shoe burning.

I don't expect to have total brake failure. I've been riding for fifty
years and the closest was when I substituted cheap brake blocks on a
training ride around Spyglass and they melted. Completely, or at least
until the remains popped loose. OTOH, the only time I rode with one
brake was the fixie and I could use the pedals. Having both brakes
fail on a regular bike is IMO shoddy maintenance. Really don't expect
that to ever happen.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Mar 2007 23:23:11
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Date: 09 Mar 2007 08:58:07
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Thu, 08 2007 23:23:11 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote:

>You don't need 'skilled' riders. Everybody rode the damn things when I
>was a kid.

I rather doubt that, once you get past 5 mph tricycles. I worked at
three bike shops growing up and while racing, and I don't remember any
fixie for children. Later they had some trick Mongooses and such when
my son was growing up, but they were a small, small group targeting
kids that had moved past the rotating headset bikes and wanted to be
able to ride forwards and backwards. Hardly 'everybody'.

A single speed is not necessarily, in fact, is rarely a fixie.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 22:53:55
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> On Thu, 08 2007 23:23:11 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>You don't need 'skilled' riders. Everybody rode the damn things when I
>>was a kid.
>
> I rather doubt that, once you get past 5 mph tricycles.

Two wheels. Back pedal and it stops. I practiced laying it down and had
to do that a couple times on wet pavement.

> I worked at
> three bike shops growing up and while racing, and I don't remember any
> fixie for children.

1955?

> Later they had some trick Mongooses and such when
> my son was growing up, but they were a small, small group targeting
> kids that had moved past the rotating headset bikes and wanted to be
> able to ride forwards and backwards. Hardly 'everybody'.
>
> A single speed is not necessarily, in fact, is rarely a fixie.

'Splain?

>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
>

Date: 11 Mar 2007 17:06:39
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Fri, 09 2007 22:53:55 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote:

>> I rather doubt that, once you get past 5 mph tricycles.
>
>Two wheels. Back pedal and it stops. I practiced laying it down and had
>to do that a couple times on wet pavement.
>
>> I worked at
>> three bike shops growing up and while racing, and I don't remember any
>> fixie for children.
>
>1955?
>

In 1955 almost all children's bkes were coaster brake bicycles. In
fact, almost all bikes sold in the U.S. of any kind were coaster brake
bicycles. These do not have a fixed gear, they have a single gear.

In the same period, almost all of the remaining bikes were the old
'English Racers' - three speed bikes, more or less, with a variety of
brakes ranging from roller brakes to rim brakes.

And this had been true for some time. It is simply a fact - something
you can look up. Murray, Higgins, Schwinn, they sold coaster brake
bikes, which are bikes that are single speed, but not fixed gear.

>> Later they had some trick Mongooses and such when
>> my son was growing up, but they were a small, small group targeting
>> kids that had moved past the rotating headset bikes and wanted to be
>> able to ride forwards and backwards. Hardly 'everybody'.
>>
>> A single speed is not necessarily, in fact, is rarely a fixie.
>
>'Splain?

As stated above, almost every bike sold with a single gear worldwide
has a variant of the coaster brake (the Chinese bikes alone make this
a fact, but the same is true of U.S. manufacturers). That means that
you can hold the pedals still in one place as the wheels/tires roll
forward. With a fixed gear bike, that does not happen - if the wheels
move, so do the pedals and crank.

You can revise history all you want, but the history of bicycles since
the 1870s is very well documented. As they say, you can look it up.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 11 Mar 2007 22:48:06
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> You can revise history all you want, but the history of bicycles since
> the 1870s is very well documented. As they say, you can look it up.
>
>

Well, I Do know what I rode.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 05:14:00
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On 7, 5:54 pm, "gatt" <LiveFromTheClockto...@gfy.com > wrote:
> "DougC" <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
>
> news:TAIHh.42$ST2.39@newsfe05.lga...
>
> > Paul J. Berg wrote:
> >> `
> >> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> >> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>
> Is a "fixed-gear" bike basically a one-speed? That's sort of like
> requiring brakes on a tricycle or a Big Wheel, right?

NO, fixed gear ala track bike, no coasting. Single spped technically a
single speed freewheel, coasting possible, brakes essential. Not
really with a fixie altho at least one brake st, IMO.
>
> "We clocked your kid at two miles an hour! In a frickin' school zone!"
>
> -c

Date: 08 Mar 2007 04:25:07
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 8, 3:45 am, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> "Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in messagenews:7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>
> > `
> > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>
> > `
>
> That's a bad idea.

I didn't require 20 posts to think so either.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 08:27:55
From: fiend999
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <1173356707.142811.210170@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com >,
Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > wrote:

> On 8, 3:45 am, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > "Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in
> > messagenews:7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
> >
> > > `
> > > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> > > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
> >
> > > `
> >
> > That's a bad idea.

Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.

--
~~~

Date: 08 Mar 2007 19:03:55
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"fiend999" <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com > wrote in message
news:080320070827556228%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com...
> In article <1173356707.142811.210170@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8, 3:45 am, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> > "Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in
>> > messagenews:7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>> >
>> > > `
>> > > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
>> > > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>> >
>> > > `
>> >
>> > That's a bad idea.
>
> Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.
>
No fixed gear bike can stop as quickly AND with as much control and
modulation as a bike with brakes.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 22:52:51
From: fiend999
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <45f0a463$0$25371$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Gooserider
<Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:

> "fiend999" <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:080320070827556228%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com...
> > In article <1173356707.142811.210170@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> > Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8, 3:45 am, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >> > "Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in
> >> > messagenews:7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
> >> >
> >> > > `
> >> > > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> >> > > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
> >> >
> >> > > `
> >> >
> >> > That's a bad idea.
> >
> > Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.
> >
> No fixed gear bike can stop as quickly AND with as much control and
> modulation as a bike with brakes.
>

Still, why bother with a law to protect those who choose to take that
chance?
And have you taken a look at your average toy store/walt bike
lately? They aren't stopping any faster than a fixed-gear bike, if
they are stopping at all. Now THOSE should be better regulated since
the people riding them often have no clue what a death trap they are.
Fixed gear riders usually know what is going on, I would say.

--
~~~

Date: 08 Mar 2007 09:15:52
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

fiend999 wrote:
> In article <1173356707.142811.210170@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8, 3:45 am, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> "Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in
>>> messagenews:7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>>>
>>>> `
>>>> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
>>>> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>>>
>>>> `
>>>
>>> That's a bad idea.
>
> Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.

They do on the streets.

Date: 11 Mar 2007 21:34:19
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> Only that you can do a track stand in almost any location. A
> freewheel/cassette requires at least a ginally favorable spot to
> pick to get the rollback that provides enough balance to stand through
> a 30-60 second light change.
>
> A fixed gear bike can do the same and better as long as the terrain
> under the wheels isn't just plain terrible as the balance is provided
> by actually moving the wheels back and forth while balancing.

Balance is also affected by the bike's lateral
movements, by turning the front wheel back
and forth, by any body movement, and by
back-pedaling motion if you're on a road bike.
This makes it possible to track stand on a
road bike pointed downhill, with the front
brake clamped.

>With a
> fixie, you should be able to balance and get a favorable pedal
> location at light change with no real problem.

I once did a track stand on a road
bike for almost 40 minutes with my front
tire planted in a one-foot-by-one-foot
square on level ground; good enough
for second place and $100 at a track
stand contest about 12 years ago.
The winner was also on a road bike, iirc.
That was before these wacky contests
added the no-hands and one-foot phases
to speed things up, effectively eliminating
road bikes from contention.

Robert

Date: 08 Mar 2007 19:44:27
From: fiend999
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <45f044cc$0$24764$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Bill Sornson
<askme@ask.me > wrote:

> fiend999 wrote:
> > In article <1173356707.142811.210170@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> > Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8, 3:45 am, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >>> "Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in
> >>> messagenews:7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
> >>>
> >>>> `
> >>>> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> >>>> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
> >>>
> >>>> `
> >>>
> >>> That's a bad idea.
> >
> > Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.
>
> They do on the streets.

Very many bike messengers (among others) would beg to differ.

--
~~~

Date: 08 Mar 2007 18:34:29
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com > wrote:

>Bill Sornson<askme@ask.me> wrote:>
>> fiend999 wrote:
>> > Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >>> That's a bad idea.
>> >
>> > Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.
>>
>> They do on the streets.
>
>Very many bike messengers (among others) would beg to differ.

Quoteable note: "It's a really bad idea to take life advice from bike
messengers".

k "physics isn't usually their strong suit" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 08 Mar 2007 22:54:18
From: fiend999
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <vae1v21ibk413sj0lpm053dhhsb8i6jbb3@4ax.com >, k Hickey
<k@habcycles.com > wrote:

> fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >Bill Sornson<askme@ask.me> wrote:>
> >> fiend999 wrote:
> >> > Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> That's a bad idea.
> >> >
> >> > Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.
> >>
> >> They do on the streets.
> >
> >Very many bike messengers (among others) would beg to differ.
>
> Quoteable note: "It's a really bad idea to take life advice from bike
> messengers".

Good point, but they do know their bikes and how to ride (and stop)
them.

--
~~~

Date: 09 Mar 2007 06:09:56
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com > wrote:

>In article <vae1v21ibk413sj0lpm053dhhsb8i6jbb3@4ax.com>, k Hickey
><k@habcycles.com> wrote:
>
>> fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Sornson<askme@ask.me> wrote:>
>> >> fiend999 wrote:
>> >> > Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> That's a bad idea.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.
>> >>
>> >> They do on the streets.
>> >
>> >Very many bike messengers (among others) would beg to differ.
>>
>> Quoteable note: "It's a really bad idea to take life advice from bike
>> messengers".
>
>Good point, but they do know their bikes and how to ride (and stop)
>them.

I don't deny they have skills (at least the breathing ones do). ;-)

Another way to interpret your statement: "they use the limited
resources they have effectively". That's not the same as saying "they
can make a fixie as safe as a bike with brakes", of course.

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 09 Mar 2007 08:52:44
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Fri, 09 2007 06:09:56 -0700, k Hickey <k@habcycles.com >
wrote:

>Another way to interpret your statement: "they use the limited
>resources they have effectively". That's not the same as saying "they
>can make a fixie as safe as a bike with brakes",

But if you are going to jump intersections in heavy traffic, a fixie
in a track stand is the way to go. Not that I recommend that as a long
term life methodology, but it is what they do, at least in DC.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Mar 2007 21:29:01
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message
news:vae1v21ibk413sj0lpm053dhhsb8i6jbb3@4ax.com...
> fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson<askme@ask.me> wrote:>
>>> fiend999 wrote:
>>> > Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> >>> That's a bad idea.
>>> >
>>> > Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.
>>>
>>> They do on the streets.
>>
>>Very many bike messengers (among others) would beg to differ.
>
> Quoteable note: "It's a really bad idea to take life advice from bike
> messengers".
>

Wait, you mean taking life advice from people who think beer is a perfectly
acceptable breakfast food isn't a good idea? :-)

Date: 09 Mar 2007 08:50:36
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On Thu, 8 2007 21:29:01 -0500, "Gooserider"
<Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:

>
>Wait, you mean taking life advice from people who think beer is a perfectly
>acceptable breakfast food isn't a good idea? :-)

These groups overlap - lets not start arguing that beer can't be a
perfectly good breakfast food. It goes well with the pizza left on the
coffee table.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Mar 2007 23:02:31
From: fiend999
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <45f0c66e$0$8989$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Gooserider
<Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:

> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> news:vae1v21ibk413sj0lpm053dhhsb8i6jbb3@4ax.com...
> > fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Bill Sornson<askme@ask.me> wrote:>
> >>> fiend999 wrote:
> >>> > Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> >>> That's a bad idea.
> >>> >
> >>> > Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.
> >>>
> >>> They do on the streets.
> >>
> >>Very many bike messengers (among others) would beg to differ.
> >
> > Quoteable note: "It's a really bad idea to take life advice from bike
> > messengers".
> >
>
> Wait, you mean taking life advice from people who think beer is a perfectly
> acceptable breakfast food isn't a good idea? :-)
>

Even more extreme - I live in Pittsburgh where it is insane to be a
messenger to begin with, considering our hills and not very
bike-friendly terrain. That so many of the messengers here seem to
prefer fixed in the city of 45 degree hills, six-way blind
intersections, narrow streets and no mercy for anything smaller than a
bus has always puzzled me, not to mention the risk of knee damage
riding fixed on these hills and all that. But still, I have seen them
stop just fine and see no reason to legislate f-ing bicycles to that
degree. I mean, this is supposedly the most "free" nation in the
world, right? How much protection from our own stupidity do we need?
Kind of like seat belt laws and lawsuits ending up in favor of people
who didn't know hot coffee could burn them - it kind of messes with
evolution if we keep protecting the stupid.

--
~~~

Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:05:06
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"fiend999" <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com > wrote in message
news:080320072302318308%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com...
> In article <45f0c66e$0$8989$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Gooserider
> <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message
>> news:vae1v21ibk413sj0lpm053dhhsb8i6jbb3@4ax.com...
>> > fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Bill Sornson<askme@ask.me> wrote:>
>> >>> fiend999 wrote:
>> >>> > Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> >>> That's a bad idea.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.
>> >>>
>> >>> They do on the streets.
>> >>
>> >>Very many bike messengers (among others) would beg to differ.
>> >
>> > Quoteable note: "It's a really bad idea to take life advice from bike
>> > messengers".
>> >
>>
>> Wait, you mean taking life advice from people who think beer is a
>> perfectly
>> acceptable breakfast food isn't a good idea? :-)
>>
>
> Even more extreme - I live in Pittsburgh where it is insane to be a
> messenger to begin with, considering our hills and not very
> bike-friendly terrain. That so many of the messengers here seem to
> prefer fixed in the city of 45 degree hills, six-way blind
> intersections, narrow streets and no mercy for anything smaller than a
> bus has always puzzled me, not to mention the risk of knee damage
> riding fixed on these hills and all that. But still, I have seen them
> stop just fine and see no reason to legislate f-ing bicycles to that
> degree. I mean, this is supposedly the most "free" nation in the
> world, right? How much protection from our own stupidity do we need?
> Kind of like seat belt laws and lawsuits ending up in favor of people
> who didn't know hot coffee could burn them - it kind of messes with
> evolution if we keep protecting the stupid.

Bikes are already subject to plenty of laws. Laws are on the books which
require reflectors and lights at night. Requiring brakes isn't much
different than that.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 07:51:14
From: fiend999
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <45f21252$0$28167$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Gooserider
<Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:

> "fiend999" <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:080320072302318308%dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com...
> > In article <45f0c66e$0$8989$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Gooserider
> > <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vae1v21ibk413sj0lpm053dhhsb8i6jbb3@4ax.com...
> >> > fiend999 <dontspamfiend999@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Bill Sornson<askme@ask.me> wrote:>
> >> >>> fiend999 wrote:
> >> >>> > Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> >>> That's a bad idea.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Why? Fixed-gear bikes don't need brakes.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> They do on the streets.
> >> >>
> >> >>Very many bike messengers (among others) would beg to differ.
> >> >
> >> > Quoteable note: "It's a really bad idea to take life advice from bike
> >> > messengers".
> >> >
> >>
> >> Wait, you mean taking life advice from people who think beer is a
> >> perfectly
> >> acceptable breakfast food isn't a good idea? :-)
> >>
> >
> > Even more extreme - I live in Pittsburgh where it is insane to be a
> > messenger to begin with, considering our hills and not very
> > bike-friendly terrain. That so many of the messengers here seem to
> > prefer fixed in the city of 45 degree hills, six-way blind
> > intersections, narrow streets and no mercy for anything smaller than a
> > bus has always puzzled me, not to mention the risk of knee damage
> > riding fixed on these hills and all that. But still, I have seen them
> > stop just fine and see no reason to legislate f-ing bicycles to that
> > degree. I mean, this is supposedly the most "free" nation in the
> > world, right? How much protection from our own stupidity do we need?
> > Kind of like seat belt laws and lawsuits ending up in favor of people
> > who didn't know hot coffee could burn them - it kind of messes with
> > evolution if we keep protecting the stupid.
>
>
> Bikes are already subject to plenty of laws. Laws are on the books which
> require reflectors and lights at night. Requiring brakes isn't much
> different than that.

On unlit roadways, lights are necessary. On a fixed gear bike in
daylight, brakes are not necessary.

--
~~~

Date: 10 Mar 2007 08:36:37
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

fiend999 wrote:
{SNIPPAGE! TRY IT SOMETIME!}

> On unlit roadways, lights are necessary. On a fixed gear bike in
> daylight, brakes are not necessary.

What does daylight have to do with anything?

Date: 08 Mar 2007 05:45:25
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Date: 11 Mar 2007 21:53:00
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 11, 9:46 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
> > They would require a more conservative style to be ridden safely on the
> > street. But the evidence is far from suggesting that most of those who
> > ride brakeless fixed gear bikes are actually more conservative.
>
> What evidence.
>
> > Not really. Rear brakes are essential (IMO) on freewheel bikes as a
> > backup in case something goes wrong with the front brake. Fixies have
> > the alternative of braking with their feet in that case.
>
> You miss the point, which is that a bike with a front
> and rear brake will in practice be capable of shorter
> stops than a bike with just one brake. So why not
> require two brakes?
>
> > Wouldn't
> > > all these fashionista fixed riders with their little
> > > front brakes be able to stop faster with
> > > freewheels?
>
> > No. What about a freewheel allows someone to stop faster?
>
> Are you joking? Go out and try some 20mph
> panic stops with a road bike, and then some
> on your fixed gear, and tell us if you notice
> a difference.
>
> Robert

Panic usually implies fear of hitting someone and possibly injuries or
even death...no Comparos will be done here, senor.

Date: 11 Mar 2007 21:46:40
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

David L. Johnson wrote:

> They would require a more conservative style to be ridden safely on the
> street. But the evidence is far from suggesting that most of those who
> ride brakeless fixed gear bikes are actually more conservative.

What evidence.

> Not really. Rear brakes are essential (IMO) on freewheel bikes as a
> backup in case something goes wrong with the front brake. Fixies have
> the alternative of braking with their feet in that case.

You miss the point, which is that a bike with a front
and rear brake will in practice be capable of shorter
stops than a bike with just one brake. So why not
require two brakes?

> Wouldn't
> > all these fashionista fixed riders with their little
> > front brakes be able to stop faster with
> > freewheels?
>
> No. What about a freewheel allows someone to stop faster?

Are you joking? Go out and try some 20mph
panic stops with a road bike, and then some
on your fixed gear, and tell us if you notice
a difference.

Robert

Date: 11 Mar 2007 10:06:19
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

k Hickey wrote:

> I'm not sure anyone would actually be able to quantify the accident
> rate for messengers, but I'll buy that they ARE more skilled (if only
> by virtue of riding so many more miles than most of us). Still, if
> keeping their accident rate down requires them to "ride more
> conservatively", that essentially supports my point. If they were to
> ride a bike with two brakes AND still ride the same as on a fixie,
> they'd be even safer, correct?

I guess, but it's really not that simple. Track riders
generally understand exactly what they can and can't
do, and ride accordingly. With constant consideration
for the special parameters dictated by no-brakes,
riders on track bikes may be more consistently
'in the game' than casual coasters on road bikes.
Any notion that one's safety comes from equipment,
whether it be brakes or bikes, or helmets -- anything
other than the rider himself/herself -- should be
vigorously crushed.

Yes, track bikes require a more conservative
style. The converse is that road bikes enable more
aggressive riding.

Of course there are no statistics
whatsoever indicating that riding a brakeless bike is any
more dangerous than riding any other type of
bike. That doesn't mean it's not.

> >In short, keep your laws off my body. You'll take away
> >my brakeless fixed wheel bike when you pry it from my
> >cold, dead hands.
>
> Yikes, you could sprain something jumping to THAT conclusion (that I'm
> advocating laws of any type in regards to brakes).

True, you didn't, but many on these forums do think
brakeless riding should be outlawed. I have yet to
come across one who has actually done it however.

> >> Another way to interpret your statement: "they use the limited
> >> resources they have effectively". That's not the same as saying "they
> >> can make a fixie as safe as a bike with brakes", of course.
> >
> >Many cyclists gravitate to track bikes for the extra
> >challenge; many, of course, gravitate to track bikes because
> >of shallow sociological reasons -- rookie messengers and
> >assorted urban hipsters are some of the most egregious
> >fashion victims that the world has to offer. Nobody chooses
> >to go brakeless because they think it's safer. But those who
> >have ridden these bikes every day for years, decades, in
> >heavy traffic are much safer riders than your average
> >brake-equipped commuter.
>
> ... who would be even safer if they had a front brake.

Maybe. Why stop there. Wouldn't all fixed riders
be safer with a front AND a rear brake? Wouldn't
all these fashionista fixed riders with their little
front brakes be able to stop faster with
freewheels?

Think of the pedestrians!!!!

Robert

Date: 12 Mar 2007 00:01:25
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

r15757@aol.com wrote:

> I guess, but it's really not that simple. Track riders
> generally understand exactly what they can and can't
> do, and ride accordingly.

Track riders are separate from those who ride fixed gear bikes without
brakes on city streets. A track is flat, there are no cars, and
everyone is going the same way. A fixed gear is superior for a quick
speed adjustment in a pack, but not for stopping to keep from getting
right-hooked by the joker who just passed you in an SUV.

> Yes, track bikes require a more conservative
> style. The converse is that road bikes enable more
> aggressive riding.

They would require a more conservative style to be ridden safely on the
street. But the evidence is far from suggesting that most of those who
ride brakeless fixed gear bikes are actually more conservative.

>> ... who would be even safer if they had a front brake.
>
> Maybe. Why stop there. Wouldn't all fixed riders
> be safer with a front AND a rear brake?

Not really. Rear brakes are essential (IMO) on freewheel bikes as a
backup in case something goes wrong with the front brake. Fixies have
the alternative of braking with their feet in that case.

Wouldn't
> all these fashionista fixed riders with their little
> front brakes be able to stop faster with
> freewheels?

No. What about a freewheel allows someone to stop faster?

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

Date: 11 Mar 2007 17:36:41
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

r15757@aol.com wrote:

>k Hickey wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure anyone would actually be able to quantify the accident
>> rate for messengers, but I'll buy that they ARE more skilled (if only
>> by virtue of riding so many more miles than most of us). Still, if
>> keeping their accident rate down requires them to "ride more
>> conservatively", that essentially supports my point. If they were to
>> ride a bike with two brakes AND still ride the same as on a fixie,
>> they'd be even safer, correct?
>
>I guess, but it's really not that simple. Track riders
>generally understand exactly what they can and can't
>do, and ride accordingly. With constant consideration
>for the special parameters dictated by no-brakes,
>riders on track bikes may be more consistently
>'in the game' than casual coasters on road bikes.
>Any notion that one's safety comes from equipment,
>whether it be brakes or bikes, or helmets -- anything
>other than the rider himself/herself -- should be
>vigorously crushed.

I think we've hit on an endless loop argument. We do seem to both
agree that, all things being equal, a bike with brakes is safer.
That's my main (and pretty much only) point.

The discussion could traipse down any number of "but the rider could
then offset the safety of the extra braking by <insert dumb behavior
here >, but what's the point? I could disconnect the brakes on my car,
paint the windshield black and I'm sure I'd learn how to drive it
withing reasonable safety limits... but why would I want to?

I guess the converse of the argument is: "If having a front brake will
allow me to ride faster without increasing my exposure beyond that of
riding slower on my brakeless fixie, why WOULDN'T I want to have a
front brake?".

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 09 Mar 2007 13:59:50
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> ... A track stand on a fixie is the quickest way to enter an
> intersection when the light changes (and for many messengers, just as
> the light is about to change, based on the light in the other
> direction). That lets them beat other traffic into the intersection
> and take the line they want. In a place like DC, where you may be
> angling across side access roads, that can make a difference.

Okay, I thought by 'jump intersections' you
meant run the light if possible. In such a case
you do not always have to stop, or even slow
down (I'm talking messenger-style here); in
such a case the road bike rider will exit the
intersection at a higher speed, because he/she
will have been able to carry a higher safe speed up
to the intersection (because of the shorter stopping
distance). This is really one of the only
clear advantages of a road bike over a track
bike for messenger work, imo; another is
downhill speed. There is no doubt that road bikes
can enable more aggressive riding.

How is a 'track stand on a fixie' any more
effective than a track stand on a road bike?

Robert

Date: 11 Mar 2007 16:57:38
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 9 2007 13:59:50 -0800, r15757@aol.com wrote:

>How is a 'track stand on a fixie' any more
>effective than a track stand on a road bike?

Only that you can do a track stand in almost any location. A
freewheel/cassette requires at least a ginally favorable spot to
pick to get the rollback that provides enough balance to stand through
a 30-60 second light change.

A fixed gear bike can do the same and better as long as the terrain
under the wheels isn't just plain terrible as the balance is provided
by actually moving the wheels back and forth while balancing. With a
fixie, you should be able to balance and get a favorable pedal
location at light change with no real problem.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Mar 2007 16:19:36
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
news:45efe93b$0$28132$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
> > `
> > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
> >
> > `
>
> That's a bad idea.
>
Let's require roller skates have brakes!

Date: 08 Mar 2007 21:27:31
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:12v1bbfqlmue894@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:45efe93b$0$28132$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>> > `
>> > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
>> > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>> >
>> > `
>>
>> That's a bad idea.
>>
> Let's require roller skates have brakes!
>
>

They DO, except hockey skates. Try again.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 08:19:19
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
news:45f0c609$0$24716$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:12v1bbfqlmue894@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> > news:45efe93b$0$28132$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >>
> >> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >> news:7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
> >> > `
> >> > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> >> > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
> >> >
> >> > `
> >>
> >> That's a bad idea.
> >>
> > Let's require roller skates have brakes!
>
> They DO, except hockey skates. Try again.
>
They do in the same way that Fixies have brakes.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:07:39
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:12v328c1it03n09@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:45f0c609$0$24716$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:12v1bbfqlmue894@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>> > news:45efe93b$0$28132$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:7384-45EF1BAE-79@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>> >> > `
>> >> > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
>> >> > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>> >> >
>> >> > `
>> >>
>> >> That's a bad idea.
>> >>
>> > Let's require roller skates have brakes!
>>
>> They DO, except hockey skates. Try again.
>>
> They do in the same way that Fixies have brakes.
>

My Rollerblades have actual brakes. I move my skate forward and the brake
activates.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 23:03:51
From: Paul J. Berg
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Don Homuth wrote:
> > On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
> > <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?
>
> > To make legal what is presently not - operating a bicycle with no
> > manual brake on streets.
>
> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
> Semi-trailers?
>

What would fixed gear cyclists have to say, if the law didn't required
motor vehicles to have working brake lights or turn signals?

Date: 08 Mar 2007 07:57:12
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote:

>
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>> > On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
>> > <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?
>>
>> > To make legal what is presently not - operating a bicycle with no
>> > manual brake on streets.
>>
>> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
>> Semi-trailers?
>>
>
> What would fixed gear cyclists have to say, if the law didn't required
> motor vehicles to have working brake lights or turn signals?
>
>

MMMFFFFFFF!!

Date: 07 Mar 2007 20:37:28
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Don Homuth wrote:
> > On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
> > <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?
>
> > To make legal what is presently not - operating a bicycle with no
> > manual brake on streets.
>
> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
> Semi-trailers?
>
> Bill "FOOT FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE" S.

There may still be a few messengers out
there on freewheel bikes with no brakes,
using their shoes to stop. Pure Flintstone
action. There was one kid in my city who
did this for about a week just for fun. He
was accompanied everywhere by the smell
of molten rubber. Now that's Americana.

Robert

Date: 08 Mar 2007 13:00:00
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

r15757@aol.com wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
>> Semi-trailers?
>
> There may still be a few messengers out there on freewheel bikes with
> no brakes, using their shoes to stop. Pure Flintstone action. There
> was one kid in my city who did this for about a week just for fun. He
> was accompanied everywhere by the smell of molten rubber. Now that's
> Americana.

Ah, one of those was spotted recently in the U district here a week or
two ago. I don't think anyone else has spotted him since. Perhaps he
stopped riding? Either without brakes or at all...

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
To a Californian, the basic difference between the people and the pigeons
in New York is that the pigeons don't shit on each other.
-- From "East vs. West: The War Between the Coasts

Date: 08 Mar 2007 22:17:06
From: nash
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message
news:g3a6c4-3cs.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
>>> Semi-trailers?
>>
>> There may still be a few messengers out there on freewheel bikes with
>> no brakes, using their shoes to stop. Pure Flintstone action. There
>> was one kid in my city who did this for about a week just for fun. He
>> was accompanied everywhere by the smell of molten rubber. Now that's
>> Americana.
>
> Ah, one of those was spotted recently in the U district here a week or
> two ago. I don't think anyone else has spotted him since. Perhaps he
> stopped riding? Either without brakes or at all...

Or he could have got dead?
>
> --
> Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
> To a Californian, the basic difference between the people and the pigeons
> in New York is that the pigeons don't shit on each other.
> -- From "East vs. West: The War Between the Coasts

Date: 07 Mar 2007 17:07:45
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On 7, 5:54 pm, "gatt" <LiveFromTheClockto...@gfy.com > wrote:
> "DougC" <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
>
> news:TAIHh.42$ST2.39@newsfe05.lga...
>
> > Paul J. Berg wrote:
> >> `
> >> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> >> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>
> Is a "fixed-gear" bike basically a one-speed? That's sort of like
> requiring brakes on a tricycle or a Big Wheel, right?
>
> "We clocked your kid at two miles an hour! In a frickin' school zone!"
>
> -c

A 26 inch cruiser is a one speed bike, so it is a banana seat bike in
basic form. Disconnecting the coaster is easy, but why?

Either of those will hit 20 mph going downhill. It's likely there will
be a street intersecting the road at the bottom of that hill and
little to see around on either side.

BAM!

Look Ma...no life.

So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?

Date: 08 Mar 2007 08:43:30
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
<thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > wrote:

>A 26 inch cruiser is a one speed bike, so it is a banana seat bike in
>basic form. Disconnecting the coaster is easy, but why?
>
>Either of those will hit 20 mph going downhill. It's likely there will
>be a street intersecting the road at the bottom of that hill and
>little to see around on either side.
>
>BAM!
>
>Look Ma...no life.
>
>So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?

I don't agree with the law, for much narrower reasons and opinions,
but they are targeting priily fixed gear bikes based on track bikes
or very close (they now build them from the ground up for the road),
that are used largely by messengers nowadays in city riding. Some bike
racers will train on fixed gear track bikes, but most that I have seen
(as was mine) have a front brake added.

I object not that the bikes are unsafe in themselves - a fixed gear
brakeless bike of the track type can be stopped PDQ by a skilled rider
- but that the riders are too often not as skilled as they think they
are. And an unskilled cyclist trying to use track braking skills on
the road can be a dangerous individual.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 07 Mar 2007 17:50:28
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
<thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > wrote:

>A 26 inch cruiser is a one speed bike, so it is a banana seat bike in
>basic form. Disconnecting the coaster is easy, but why?

Because a group of folks is making it into a Freedom issue, and
requesting relief from (dread) Gubmint Regulation.

>So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?

To make legal what is presently not - operating a bicycle with no
manual brake on streets.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 20:27:40
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Don Homuth wrote:
> On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
> <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?

> To make legal what is presently not - operating a bicycle with no
> manual brake on streets.

Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
Semi-trailers?

Bill "FOOT FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE" S.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 16:54:28
From: Ermine Todd III
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:45ef90c0$0$5239$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Don Homuth wrote:
>> On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
>> <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?
>
>> To make legal what is presently not - operating a bicycle with no
>> manual brake on streets.
>
> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
> Semi-trailers?
>
> Bill "FOOT FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE" S.

The particular type of bike in question doesn't coast. Either the pedals
are moving forward or the person is applying force against the forward
motion by actively pushing against the forward motion thereby stopping the
wheel rotation.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 23:11:33
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Ermine Todd III" <anonymous@anonymous.com > wrote:

> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:45ef90c0$0$5239$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
>>> <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?
>>
>>> To make legal what is presently not - operating a bicycle with no
>>> manual brake on streets.
>>
>> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
>> Semi-trailers?
>>
>> Bill "FOOT FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE" S.
>
> The particular type of bike in question doesn't coast. Either the
> pedals are moving forward or the person is applying force against the
> forward motion by actively pushing against the forward motion thereby
> stopping the wheel rotation.
>

Thereby BRAKING the bike.
Sheeesh!!

Date: 08 Mar 2007 18:00:10
From: nash
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Ermine Todd III" <anonymous@anonymous.com > wrote in message
news:8dXHh.11601$ig.2908@trndny01...
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:45ef90c0$0$5239$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
>>> <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?
>>
>>> To make legal what is presently not - operating a bicycle with no
>>> manual brake on streets.
>>
>> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
>> Semi-trailers?
>>
>> Bill "FOOT FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE" S.
>
> The particular type of bike in question doesn't coast. Either the pedals
> are moving forward or the person is applying force against the forward
> motion by actively pushing against the forward motion thereby stopping the
> wheel rotation.

But if the pedals are going too fast you are getting hit on the legs right
like a Tricycle? Sounds like more fun than a barrel of monkeys. : (

Date: 08 Mar 2007 23:12:19
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:

>
> "Ermine Todd III" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
> news:8dXHh.11601$ig.2908@trndny01...
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
>> news:45ef90c0$0$5239$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>>> On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
>>>> <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?
>>>
>>>> To make legal what is presently not - operating a bicycle with no
>>>> manual brake on streets.
>>>
>>> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
>>> Semi-trailers?
>>>
>>> Bill "FOOT FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE" S.
>>
>> The particular type of bike in question doesn't coast. Either the
>> pedals are moving forward or the person is applying force against the
>> forward motion by actively pushing against the forward motion thereby
>> stopping the wheel rotation.
>
> But if the pedals are going too fast you are getting hit on the legs
> right like a Tricycle? Sounds like more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
> : (

At one time it was pretty much all there was.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:25:35
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Thu, 08 2007 18:00:10 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:

>But if the pedals are going too fast you are getting hit on the legs right
>like a Tricycle? Sounds like more fun than a barrel of monkeys. : (

No, if you can't pedal fast enough, the bike doesn't go fast either.
Speculating on what is like is rather futile for someone that hasn't
actually done it.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 01:29:37
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 08 2007 18:00:10 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> wrote:
>
>> But if the pedals are going too fast you are getting hit on the legs right
>> like a Tricycle? Sounds like more fun than a barrel of monkeys. : (
>
> No, if you can't pedal fast enough, the bike doesn't go fast either.
> Speculating on what is like is rather futile for someone that hasn't
> actually done it.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Damn it,
Now I have to mention my 50+ years ago tricycle downhill speeding
adventure. At the 20 MPH I probably got to I had to take my feet off the
pedals and just hold them out over the pedals or get the backs of my
legs black and blue. Same for a total fixie if you get going downhill
fast enough.
Bill Baka

Date: 08 Mar 2007 13:09:40
From: Bill Shatzer
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> On Thu, 08 2007 18:00:10 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> wrote:

>>But if the pedals are going too fast you are getting hit on the legs right
>>like a Tricycle? Sounds like more fun than a barrel of monkeys. : (

> No, if you can't pedal fast enough, the bike doesn't go fast either.
> Speculating on what is like is rather futile for someone that hasn't
> actually done it.

But you can take your feet off the pedals and let 'em free wheel.

Going downhill, one could build up considerable speed. And might find it
more than difficult to get one's feet back on those rapidly spinning
pedals were the need to stop arise.

But, the republicans have torpedoed the 'rainy day' fund legislation in
the state legislature and you folks are moanin' 'bout bicycle brakes?

Peace and justice,

Date: 08 Mar 2007 16:59:38
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Thu, 08 2007 13:09:40 -0800, Bill Shatzer
<bshatzerNO@comcast.net > wrote:

>But you can take your feet off the pedals and let 'em free wheel.
>
>Going downhill, one could build up considerable speed. And might find it
>more than difficult to get one's feet back on those rapidly spinning
>pedals were the need to stop arise.
>
>But, the republicans have torpedoed the 'rainy day' fund legislation in
>the state legislature and you folks are moanin' 'bout bicycle brakes?

The OP posted to more than one group and the one I'm on is a bicycle
group. What I do with the rest of my time is my business. I've been in
DC for Darfur and more recently for another protest, but I don't live
my life in one mode. Get over it.

If you are talking about a track bike (not some equivalent to a
child's tricycle), it is most likely to have clip pedals. You do not
unsnap your feet from the pedals unless you have a clear road, a known
surface and a long run-out at the end. You are not going to get your
feet back into the pedals until you are moving at best around 20 mph.
If you hit 40 or so, your pedals will be about 150-180 rpms (just a
guess, based on likely gearing) and getting your shoes on the pedals,
much less snapping back in, is not very likely - period.

You can let your feet move in circles on the pedals, keep it under
control, without unclipping. Unclipping is hardly necessary. And, yes,
if you are just riding the pedals, 150-180 rpm is more than doable.
Some sprinters come close under power.

Yes, there was a time that people took their feet off the pedals on
penny farthings and coasted. The roads were somewhat self limiting in
speed and they didn't use clips, so getting their feet back on the
pedals was easier. I don't know anyone that does it today, except in
the specific situation described above. Or maybe - maybe- the two or
three people I know that ride penny farthings. I'l have to ask them.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Mar 2007 23:16:08
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> On Thu, 08 2007 13:09:40 -0800, Bill Shatzer
> <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>But you can take your feet off the pedals and let 'em free wheel.
>>
>>Going downhill, one could build up considerable speed. And might find
>>it more than difficult to get one's feet back on those rapidly
>>spinning pedals were the need to stop arise.
>>
>>But, the republicans have torpedoed the 'rainy day' fund legislation
>>in the state legislature and you folks are moanin' 'bout bicycle
>>brakes?
>
> The OP posted to more than one group and the one I'm on is a bicycle
> group. What I do with the rest of my time is my business. I've been in
> DC for Darfur and more recently for another protest, but I don't live
> my life in one mode. Get over it.
>
> If you are talking about a track bike (not some equivalent to a
> child's tricycle), it is most likely to have clip pedals. You do not
> unsnap your feet from the pedals unless you have a clear road, a known
> surface and a long run-out at the end. You are not going to get your
> feet back into the pedals until you are moving at best around 20 mph.
> If you hit 40 or so, your pedals will be about 150-180 rpms (just a
> guess, based on likely gearing) and getting your shoes on the pedals,
> much less snapping back in, is not very likely - period.
>
> You can let your feet move in circles on the pedals, keep it under
> control, without unclipping. Unclipping is hardly necessary. And, yes,
> if you are just riding the pedals, 150-180 rpm is more than doable.
> Some sprinters come close under power.
>
> Yes, there was a time that people took their feet off the pedals on
> penny farthings and coasted. The roads were somewhat self limiting in
> speed and they didn't use clips, so getting their feet back on the
> pedals was easier. I don't know anyone that does it today, except in
> the specific situation described above. Or maybe - maybe- the two or
> three people I know that ride penny farthings. I'l have to ask them.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
>

Son, in the 40s and 50s about all most of us could afford were bikes with
those whirring pedals. And NO CLIPS. I never saw clips until about 1963.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 09:36:27
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Thu, 08 2007 23:16:08 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > wrote:

>Son, in the 40s and 50s about all most of us could afford were bikes with
>those whirring pedals. And NO CLIPS. I never saw clips until about 1963.

Fixed gear bikes for kids over the age of about 6 or 7 haven't been
common since the Schwinn Newsboys (which are not fixed gear and use
coaster brakes), and that type was prevalent even in the 40s. By the
1950s in the U.S. practically all bicycles sold in the U.S. fell into
two general categories, single speed coaster brakes (not fixies) and
three speed bicycles with a variety of braking styles (many built for
all-weather and not touching clothing, rather than for efficiency).
Industry sales records focus almost entirely on these two types. Ten
speeds (actually, eight speeds at the beginning of the period) were
also negligible and were dominated in the U.S. by the small shop
office of Schwinn Paramount. That changed over the 1950s.

And if you are talking about old style clips and straps, they were
around well before 1963 - as in since the 1890s. Way, way before 1963.
Current clip pedals (they should have been called snap-in IMO) weren't
around in 1963. They (at least the modern version) came out in 1986.

I WAS around in the 1950s. My dad was an non-com in the Army and even
we could afford c oaster brake bikes for all the kids...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Mar 2007 09:13:59
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Ermine Todd III wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:45ef90c0$0$5239$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On 7 2007 17:07:45 -0800, "Steven"
>>> <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> So WHAT is the purpose of the bill, REALLY?
>>
>>> To make legal what is presently not - operating a bicycle with no
>>> manual brake on streets.
>>
>> Why stop there? How about motorcycles without brakes? Cars?
>> Semi-trailers?
>>
>> Bill "FOOT FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE" S.
>
> The particular type of bike in question doesn't coast. Either the
> pedals are moving forward or the person is applying force against the
> forward motion by actively pushing against the forward motion thereby
> stopping the wheel rotation.

I'm sure the pedestrian who gets creamed will appreciate that distinction.

Bill "and thanks for telling me what a fixed gear bike is" S.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 16:47:18
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 7, 5:15 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote:
> Paul J. Berg wrote:
> > `
> > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>
> > `
>
> Yea but does what Oregon say even matter? According to the C.P.S.C.
> website,
>
> CFR title 16 1512.5 Requirements for braking system.
> (a) Braking system. Bicycles shall be equipped with front- and
> rear-wheel brakes or rear-wheel brakes only.
>
> Are the CPSC regulations on goods sold, or on what may be used?
> ~

Consumer Public Safety Commission regulations cover goods sold in the
US but not second-hand. This gives them the authority to initiate or
suggest recalls, which are often done by the mfg. without an action
from anybody. Yes, they set the requirement for how goods may be sold
and what types of equipment are allowed, imported or "domestic" (from
any source). They are not really that exact (hazardous substances on
children's item are one thing that is recalled often) and they seem to
leave it to the supplier/mfg to correct it.

Still, need I ask if even a drug addict or even severly mentally
impaired person would want to use a brakeless bicycle?

What is the law for then? There must be something else.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 16:36:07
From: Steven
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Date: 08 Mar 2007 03:27:05
From: fluffy bunny
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

In article <1173314166.954267.307480@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Steven" <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > wrote:

> On 7, 5:15 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
> > Paul J. Berg wrote:
> > > `
> > > Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> > > requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
> >
> > > `
> >
> > Yea but does what Oregon say even matter? According to the C.P.S.C.
> > website,
> >
> > CFR title 16 1512.5 Requirements for braking system.
> > (a) Braking system. Bicycles shall be equipped with front- and
> > rear-wheel brakes or rear-wheel brakes only.
> >
> > Are the CPSC regulations on goods sold, or on what may be used?
> > ~
>
> Why do you not want a brake unless you own a unicycle? Somebody's
> sneaking some stuff in with it, take a better look?

My unicycle has a brake on it. Well, the big one does, anyway.

.max

Date: 07 Mar 2007 18:15:56
From: DougC
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

Paul J. Berg wrote:
> `
> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>
> `
>

Yea but does what Oregon say even matter? According to the C.P.S.C.
website,

CFR title 16 1512.5 Requirements for braking system.
(a) Braking system. Bicycles shall be equipped with front- and
rear-wheel brakes or rear-wheel brakes only.

Are the CPSC regulations on goods sold, or on what may be used?
~

Date: 07 Mar 2007 16:54:55
From: gatt
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message
news:TAIHh.42$ST2.39@newsfe05.lga...
> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>> `
>> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
>> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.

Is a "fixed-gear" bike basically a one-speed? That's sort of like
requiring brakes on a tricycle or a Big Wheel, right?

"We clocked your kid at two miles an hour! In a frickin' school zone!"

-c

Date: 08 Mar 2007 13:15:12
From: DougC
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

gatt wrote:
>
> Is a "fixed-gear" bike basically a one-speed? That's sort of like
> requiring brakes on a tricycle or a Big Wheel, right?
>

-Yes, but tricycles and Big Wheels are not considered bicycles at all,
and can only be operated on *sidewalks*....
~

Date: 08 Mar 2007 20:09:32
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Thu, 08 2007 13:15:12 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com >
wrote:

>gatt wrote:
>>
>> Is a "fixed-gear" bike basically a one-speed? That's sort of like
>> requiring brakes on a tricycle or a Big Wheel, right?
>>
>
>-Yes, but tricycles and Big Wheels are not considered bicycles at all,
>and can only be operated on *sidewalks*....
>~

This must be _very_ jurisdiction-dependent.

Can you supply the legislative basis for the prohibition of
three-wheeled vehicles on the public roads where you live?

Date: 09 Mar 2007 06:20:47
From: DougC
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> -Yes, but tricycles and Big Wheels are not considered bicycles at all,
>> and can only be operated on *sidewalks*....
>> ~
>
> This must be _very_ jurisdiction-dependent.
>
> Can you supply the legislative basis for the prohibition of
> three-wheeled vehicles on the public roads where you live?

Well,,,, since you mentioned "tricycles" and "big wheels" in the same
sentence, I assumed you were referring to the {young children's toys},
which are not classified as bicycles at all.

from
http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/regsumbicycles.pdf

,,,,
> A bicycle has two wheels. The rear wheel drives the
> bicycle, using only the power of the rider. The bicycle
> requirements cover two different types of bicycles.
> Those with a seat that is more than 25 inches above the
> ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position
> must meet all of the requirements. Sidewalk bicycles �
> those with a seat height of 25 inches or less � are
> exempt from some of the requirements or have other
> alternative requirements.
[continues]

Also we note--someone on Bentrider Online complained that a Florida
police officer issued him a ticket, because the seat of his lowracer
recumbent was obviously less than 24 inches high, and he was riding it
in the street.....

As to if a trike is legal, I'd assume this was just a reasonable
extension of the [US] definition for motorcycles, which says they must
have less than four wheels. Tho' most recumbent trikes wouldn't make the
24-inch seat height requirement either, I suppose.
~~~~~

Date: 09 Mar 2007 12:27:37
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 06:20:47 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com >
wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>> -Yes, but tricycles and Big Wheels are not considered bicycles at all,
>>> and can only be operated on *sidewalks*....
>>> ~
>>
>> This must be _very_ jurisdiction-dependent.
>>
>> Can you supply the legislative basis for the prohibition of
>> three-wheeled vehicles on the public roads where you live?
>
>Well,,,, since you mentioned "tricycles" and "big wheels" in the same
>sentence, I assumed you were referring to the {young children's toys},
>which are not classified as bicycles at all.
>
>from
>http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/regsumbicycles.pdf
>
>,,,,
>> A bicycle has two wheels. The rear wheel drives the
>> bicycle, using only the power of the rider. The bicycle
>> requirements cover two different types of bicycles.
>> Those with a seat that is more than 25 inches above the
>> ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position
>> must meet all of the requirements. Sidewalk bicycles �
>> those with a seat height of 25 inches or less � are
>> exempt from some of the requirements or have other
>> alternative requirements.
>[continues]
>

But where does it say that are three-wheeled machines are _not_
permitted on the roads?

>Also we note--someone on Bentrider Online complained that a Florida
>police officer issued him a ticket, because the seat of his lowracer
>recumbent was obviously less than 24 inches high, and he was riding it
>in the street.....
>
>As to if a trike is legal, I'd assume this was just a reasonable
>extension of the [US] definition for motorcycles, which says they must
>have less than four wheels. Tho' most recumbent trikes wouldn't make the
>24-inch seat height requirement either, I suppose.
>~~~~~

Date: 09 Mar 2007 13:07:31
From: DougC
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>
> But where does it say that are three-wheeled machines are _not_
> permitted on the roads?
>
>

I don't know where the three-wheeled business got started here, but--
1) if the tricycle is a children's toy, then it isn't a bicycle and
cannot legally be ridden in the street at all (like a Big Wheel is not a
bicycle)
2) if the seat is not at least 24 inches off the ground.

If you happen to be the owner of a fixie /tricycle/ I wish you the best,
but you may have a bit of a struggle to organize much of any advocacy
group, I fear.
~

Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:06:03
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 13:07:31 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com >
wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>
>> But where does it say that are three-wheeled machines are _not_
>> permitted on the roads?
>>
>>
>
>I don't know where the three-wheeled business got started here, but--
>1) if the tricycle is a children's toy, then it isn't a bicycle and
>cannot legally be ridden in the street at all (like a Big Wheel is not a
>bicycle)
>2) if the seat is not at least 24 inches off the ground.
>

Can we have a cite please, rather than just an "I say so"?

Date: 09 Mar 2007 16:25:25
From: DougC
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>
> Can we have a cite please, rather than just an "I say so"?

I already gave that, in the PDF linked to.
The first paragraph says:

> This regulation increases the safety of bicycles by
> establishing, among other things, requirements for
> assembly, braking, protrusions, structural integrity and
> reflectors. Bicycles that fail any of the requirements
> are banned under the Federal Hazardous Substances
> Act.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 01:57:50
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 16:25:25 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com >
wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>
>> Can we have a cite please, rather than just an "I say so"?
>
>I already gave that, in the PDF linked to.
>The first paragraph says:
>
>> This regulation increases the safety of bicycles by
>> establishing, among other things, requirements for
>> assembly, braking, protrusions, structural integrity and
>> reflectors. Bicycles that fail any of the requirements
>> are banned under the Federal Hazardous Substances
>> Act.

Yes, but where does it say that three-wheeled machines may NOT be
ridden on the roads?

Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:36:19
From: DougC
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Fri, 09 2007 16:25:25 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com>
> wrote:
>
>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>> Can we have a cite please, rather than just an "I say so"?
>> I already gave that, in the PDF linked to.
>> The first paragraph says:
>>
>>> This regulation increases the safety of bicycles by
>>> establishing, among other things, requirements for
>>> assembly, braking, protrusions, structural integrity and
>>> reflectors. Bicycles that fail any of the requirements
>>> are banned under the Federal Hazardous Substances
>>> Act.
>
> Yes, but where does it say that three-wheeled machines may NOT be
> ridden on the roads?

Which three-wheelers?

According to CSPC there's two different classes: sidewalk bicycles, and
regular bicycles. If a three-wheeler fails to otherwise qualify on the
bicycle requirements (such as a recumbent trike with a seat too low)
then it is banned, and if used on public roadways, may be ticketed as an
"unsafe vehicle". Much like a bicycle with no brakes can be.
~

Date: 11 Mar 2007 17:43:31
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 21:36:19 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com >
wrote:

>According to CSPC there's two different classes: sidewalk bicycles, and
>regular bicycles. If a three-wheeler fails to otherwise qualify on the
>bicycle requirements (such as a recumbent trike with a seat too low)
>then it is banned, and if used on public roadways, may be ticketed as an
>"unsafe vehicle". Much like a bicycle with no brakes can be.

It is unclear whether you are including the CPSC definition as part of
the legal definition of a bicycle as it pertains to road use,
especially in Oregon. Since the Oregon statutes do not appear at any
place to refer to the CPSC regulations that regulate the sale of
bicycles for most of the bicycle manufacturing industry, the CPSC regs
have nothing to do with the use of bikes (or trikes) on roadways in
the Oregon situation. Nor does the CPSC have much to do with traffic
regulations anywhere and their main impact on traffic use has been in
the area where their definition of a 'safe bike' has been part of
court cases, usually used by the bike manufacturer to avoid liability.

Most states do not incorporate the CPSC regs for bicycle use, if any,
when it comes to traffic regulations. Most references in this area are
to either safety equipment or bike helmets, not to the definition of a
street legal bike.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 13 Mar 2007 15:05:23
From: DougC
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 09 2007 21:36:19 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com>
> wrote:
>
>> According to CSPC there's two different classes: sidewalk bicycles, and
>> regular bicycles. If a three-wheeler fails to otherwise qualify on the
>> bicycle requirements (such as a recumbent trike with a seat too low)
>> then it is banned, and if used on public roadways, may be ticketed as an
>> "unsafe vehicle". Much like a bicycle with no brakes can be.
>
> It is unclear whether you are including the CPSC definition as part of
> the legal definition of a bicycle as it pertains to road use,
> especially in Oregon. Since the Oregon statutes do not appear at any
> place to refer to the CPSC regulations that regulate the sale of
> bicycles for most of the bicycle manufacturing industry, the CPSC regs
> have nothing to do with the use of bikes (or trikes) on roadways in
> the Oregon situation. Nor does the CPSC have much to do with traffic
> regulations anywhere and their main impact on traffic use has been in
> the area where their definition of a 'safe bike' has been part of
> court cases, usually used by the bike manufacturer to avoid liability.
>
> Most states do not incorporate the CPSC regs for bicycle use, if any,
> when it comes to traffic regulations. Most references in this area are
> to either safety equipment or bike helmets, not to the definition of a
> street legal bike.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

The CSPC is *federal* law, and it regulates what is legal to sell in the
whole United States. Does that matter in Oregon? I'd bet it do.

But it is true--that states make up their own defs of bicycles, there
being essentially no enforced federal standardization.
~

Date: 14 Mar 2007 08:47:23
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Tue, 13 2007 15:05:23 -0500, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com >
wrote:

>The CSPC is *federal* law, and it regulates what is legal to sell in the
>whole United States. Does that matter in Oregon? I'd bet it do.

Not exactly. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) chooses its
battles and is, in fact, not permited to rule in areas where there are
specific industry standards set already. They often defer to other
governmental bodies or rule in narrowly defined areas. Furthermore,
industry subsets are often exempt/not covered by the CPSC and once
they are sold, the product usually moves beyond CPSC perview.

Many custom bikes, especially track bikes, are not covered by CPSC
regs. And you can pretty much do what you want to the bike once it is
in your possession, from removing the stupid little reflectors in the
wheels (easily the most useless item on a bike - they are outside of
the headlight range of the autos most likely to hit you until too
late) to removing both brakes and coasting downhill to test randomness
in accidents...

Where the CPSC becomes pernicious in my view is not in the standards
at the point of sale - at worst a temporary issue and often a positive
influence - but because they are cited to establish de facto minimum
standards in actual use. So an industry negotiated standard that
serves to get a moderately safe bike out the door is used for
circumstances never intended.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 13 Mar 2007 20:13:05
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Tue, 13 2007 15:05:23 -0500, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com >
wrote:

>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 2007 21:36:19 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> According to CSPC there's two different classes: sidewalk bicycles, and
>>> regular bicycles. If a three-wheeler fails to otherwise qualify on the
>>> bicycle requirements (such as a recumbent trike with a seat too low)
>>> then it is banned, and if used on public roadways, may be ticketed as an
>>> "unsafe vehicle". Much like a bicycle with no brakes can be.
>>
>> It is unclear whether you are including the CPSC definition as part of
>> the legal definition of a bicycle as it pertains to road use,
>> especially in Oregon. Since the Oregon statutes do not appear at any
>> place to refer to the CPSC regulations that regulate the sale of
>> bicycles for most of the bicycle manufacturing industry, the CPSC regs
>> have nothing to do with the use of bikes (or trikes) on roadways in
>> the Oregon situation. Nor does the CPSC have much to do with traffic
>> regulations anywhere and their main impact on traffic use has been in
>> the area where their definition of a 'safe bike' has been part of
>> court cases, usually used by the bike manufacturer to avoid liability.
>>
>> Most states do not incorporate the CPSC regs for bicycle use, if any,
>> when it comes to traffic regulations. Most references in this area are
>> to either safety equipment or bike helmets, not to the definition of a
>> street legal bike.
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...
>
>The CSPC is *federal* law, and it regulates what is legal to sell in the
>whole United States. Does that matter in Oregon? I'd bet it do.
>

But whether it is legal to sell is different from the question of
whether it is legal to use; the origial poster who brought this up
stated that tricycles were illegal to use on the roads - does the CSPC
make this so?

Date: 09 Mar 2007 14:01:29
From: Bill Shatzer
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:

> On Fri, 09 2007 13:07:31 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com>
> wrote:

>>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:

>>>But where does it say that are three-wheeled machines are _not_
>>>permitted on the roads?

>>I don't know where the three-wheeled business got started here, but--
>>1) if the tricycle is a children's toy, then it isn't a bicycle and
>>cannot legally be ridden in the street at all (like a Big Wheel is not a
>>bicycle)
>>2) if the seat is not at least 24 inches off the ground.

> Can we have a cite please, rather than just an "I say so"?

The Oregon Statutes don't address seat height at all.

Rather, I think that Big Wheels and the like aren't "bicycles" because
the definition of "bicycle" requires either:

a) All wheels more than 14" in diameter, or,
b) Two tandem wheels, at least one of which is more than 14" in diameter.

See ORS 801.150.

801.150 �Bicycle.� �Bicycle� means a vehicle that:
(1) Is designed to be operated on the ground on wheels;
(2) Has a seat or saddle for use of the rider;
(3) Is designed to travel with not more than three wheels in
contact with the ground;
(4) Is propelled exclusively by human power; and
(5) Has every wheel more than 14 inches in diameter or two tandem
wheels either of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.

Peace and justice,

Date: 10 Mar 2007 01:56:22
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 14:01:29 -0800, Bill Shatzer
<bshatzerNO@comcast.net > wrote:

>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 2007 13:07:31 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>
>>>>But where does it say that are three-wheeled machines are _not_
>>>>permitted on the roads?
>
>>>I don't know where the three-wheeled business got started here, but--
>>>1) if the tricycle is a children's toy, then it isn't a bicycle and
>>>cannot legally be ridden in the street at all (like a Big Wheel is not a
>>>bicycle)
>>>2) if the seat is not at least 24 inches off the ground.
>
>> Can we have a cite please, rather than just an "I say so"?
>
>The Oregon Statutes don't address seat height at all.
>
>Rather, I think that Big Wheels and the like aren't "bicycles" because
>the definition of "bicycle" requires either:
>
>a) All wheels more than 14" in diameter, or,
>b) Two tandem wheels, at least one of which is more than 14" in diameter.
>
>See ORS 801.150.
>
>801.150 �Bicycle.� �Bicycle� means a vehicle that:
> (1) Is designed to be operated on the ground on wheels;
> (2) Has a seat or saddle for use of the rider;
> (3) Is designed to travel with not more than three wheels in
> contact with the ground;
> (4) Is propelled exclusively by human power; and
> (5) Has every wheel more than 14 inches in diameter or two tandem
> wheels either of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.
>
>Peace and justice,

Yes, yes, yes - but where does it state that three-wheeled machines
are NOT permitted on the roads?

Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:03:05
From: Bill Shatzer
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On Fri, 09 2007 14:01:29 -0800, Bill Shatzer
> <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:

>>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:

>>>On Fri, 09 2007 13:07:31 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com>
>>>wrote:

>>>>jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:

>>>>>But where does it say that are three-wheeled machines are _not_
>>>>>permitted on the roads?

>>>>I don't know where the three-wheeled business got started here, but--
>>>>1) if the tricycle is a children's toy, then it isn't a bicycle and
>>>>cannot legally be ridden in the street at all (like a Big Wheel is not a
>>>>bicycle)
>>>>2) if the seat is not at least 24 inches off the ground.

>>>Can we have a cite please, rather than just an "I say so"?

>>The Oregon Statutes don't address seat height at all.

>>Rather, I think that Big Wheels and the like aren't "bicycles" because
>>the definition of "bicycle" requires either:

>>a) All wheels more than 14" in diameter, or,
>>b) Two tandem wheels, at least one of which is more than 14" in diameter.

>>See ORS 801.150.

>>801.150 �Bicycle.� �Bicycle� means a vehicle that:
>> (1) Is designed to be operated on the ground on wheels;
>> (2) Has a seat or saddle for use of the rider;
>> (3) Is designed to travel with not more than three wheels in
>> contact with the ground;
>> (4) Is propelled exclusively by human power; and
>> (5) Has every wheel more than 14 inches in diameter or two tandem
>> wheels either of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.

> Yes, yes, yes - but where does it state that three-wheeled machines
> are NOT permitted on the roads?

No place. Clearly three-wheeled "machines" -are- permited on the public
roads.

They are, however, required to comply with the rules applicable to bicycles.

Unless they're motorized - in which case they're subject to motorcycle
rules.[1]

[1] Exception - electrically assisted "bicycles" (whether of the two
wheel or three wheel variety) are subject to bicycle rules.

Peace and justice,

Date: 09 Mar 2007 22:22:34
From: nash
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Peace and justice,

What do they call electric bikes then according to #4

plus I donot understand what a tandem wheel is. Front and back or side by
side? Isn't that redundant to saying every wheel?

Date: 09 Mar 2007 16:54:44
From: Bill Shatzer
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

nash wrote:

> Peace and justice,

> What do they call electric bikes then according to #4

> plus I donot understand what a tandem wheel is. Front and back or side by
> side? Isn't that redundant to saying every wheel?

Tandem = in a row, one behind the other. Think "tandem bicycle" for
instance which has two riders in a row.

A tricycle doesn't have tandem wheels. It's a "bicycle" if and only if
all wheels are 14"

A conventional bicycle arrangement has tandem wheels.

Therefore, the old "boneshaker" is a "bicycle" even though the rear
wheel is less than 14". As would a ordinary bicycle with training
wheels, assuming at least one of the two tandem wheels is at least 14".

A tricycle lacks tandem wheels and is a "bicycle" only if all wheels are
14" or larger.

Peace and justice,

Date: 10 Mar 2007 18:39:32
From: DougC
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> Therefore, the old "boneshaker" is a "bicycle" even though the rear
> wheel is less than 14". As would a ordinary bicycle with training
> wheels, assuming at least one of the two tandem wheels is at least 14".
>

Just a note--a "boneshaker" most commonly describes a
crankless/chainless bicycle with two wheels that are very-near the
diameter of modern bicycle wheels.
> http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=boneshaker&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

The type of antique bicycle with the tiny wheel in the rear is
most-often referred to as a "penny-farthing":
> http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=penny-farthing&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

---------

Other people may disagree with me but keep in mind that they are a
filthy wildebeest people, ignorant and set in their ways.
~

Date: 10 Mar 2007 18:42:44
From: DougC
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

DougC wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>
>> Therefore, the old "boneshaker" is a "bicycle" even though the rear
>> wheel is less than 14". As would a ordinary bicycle with training
>> wheels, assuming at least one of the two tandem wheels is at least 14".
>>
>
> Just a note--a "boneshaker" most commonly describes a
> crankless/chainless bicycle with two wheels that are very-near the
> diameter of modern bicycle wheels.
>> http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=boneshaker&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2
>>
>
> The type of antique bicycle with the tiny wheel in the rear is
> most-often referred to as a "penny-farthing":
>> http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=penny-farthing&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
>>
>
> ---------
>
> Other people may disagree with me but keep in mind that they are a
> filthy wildebeest people, ignorant and set in their ways.
> ~

Shit.

Okay, a *hobby* *horse* bicycle is crankless.
> http://images.google.com/images?q=hobby+horse+bicycle&btnG=Search&svnum=30&hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1

A boneshaker has cranks on the front wheel.

Yea.
I think.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 17:02:55
From: Ockham's Razor
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

In article <gpOdndY5VrZHnG_YnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net > wrote:

> A tricycle doesn't have tandem wheels. It's a "bicycle" if and only if
> all wheels are 14"

A TRI cycle has three wheels no matter what the size and a BI cycle has
two wheels no matter what the size.

TRI (meaning three) v. BI (meaning two).

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

Date: 09 Mar 2007 17:22:35
From: Don Homuth
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 17:02:55 -0800, Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net >
wrote:

>In article <gpOdndY5VrZHnG_YnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> A tricycle doesn't have tandem wheels. It's a "bicycle" if and only if
>> all wheels are 14"
>
>A TRI cycle has three wheels no matter what the size and a BI cycle has
>two wheels no matter what the size.
>
>TRI (meaning three) v. BI (meaning two).

For dictionary purposes, that's correct.

For statutory purposes, it need not be. If the Bi and the Tri are to
be regulated with the same statute, then defining them together works
out just fine.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 17:15:27
From: Bill Shatzer
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Ockham's Razor wrote:

> In article <gpOdndY5VrZHnG_YnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:

>>A tricycle doesn't have tandem wheels. It's a "bicycle" if and only if
>>all wheels are 14"

> A TRI cycle has three wheels no matter what the size and a BI cycle has
> two wheels no matter what the size.

> TRI (meaning three) v. BI (meaning two).

Not for the purposes of the Oregon Motor Vehicle Code and specifically
ORS 801.150. A "bicycle" has, as it sez, "no more than three wheels in
contact with the ground".

A tricycle -is- a bicycle if its wheels are at least 14" in diameter.

Peace and justice,

Date: 09 Mar 2007 19:44:52
From: Ockham's Razor
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

In article <dp6dnX29ot4om2_YnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net > wrote:

> Ockham's Razor wrote:
>
> > In article <gpOdndY5VrZHnG_YnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>A tricycle doesn't have tandem wheels. It's a "bicycle" if and only if
> >>all wheels are 14"
>
> > A TRI cycle has three wheels no matter what the size and a BI cycle has
> > two wheels no matter what the size.
>
> > TRI (meaning three) v. BI (meaning two).
>
> Not for the purposes of the Oregon Motor Vehicle Code and specifically
> ORS 801.150. A "bicycle" has, as it sez, "no more than three wheels in
> contact with the ground".
>
> A tricycle -is- a bicycle if its wheels are at least 14" in diameter.

No wonder the USA is behind in basic education.

What's next 2 plus two equals twenty two.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

Date: 09 Mar 2007 14:39:12
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 13:07:31 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com >
wrote:

>
>I don't know where the three-wheeled business got started here, but--
>1) if the tricycle is a children's toy, then it isn't a bicycle and
>cannot legally be ridden in the street at all (like a Big Wheel is not a
>bicycle)
>2) if the seat is not at least 24 inches off the ground.

These are local regulations, not Federal. First of all, a tricycle is
never a bicycle, and a state code calling it a bicycle may as well
call a dog's tail a leg. Its still a tail...

Second, what constitutes a vehicle and/or a legal user of the road or
roadway is set by the state. Generally it is by default and the issue
is whether or not the vehicle you are riding fails to meet safety
requirements. Since these safety requirements can range from having a
bell on the handlebars to specific braking requirements, and vary in
some states from city to city, citing one standard is meaningless.

FWIW, in most areas in the U.S. an adult trike with a low seat (as in
a recumbent) is completely legal anywhere an adult bike is legal. Also
in general, the height standards are usually an issue for sidewalk
riding, where there is a maximum height in either seat or tire to
eliminate adult bikes. Quite often, recumbents will qualify for either
(having usually low seats and often using 16"-20" tires, at least on
the front).

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:10:50
From:
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

On Fri, 09 2007 14:39:12 -0500, Curtis L. Russell
<curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

>On Fri, 09 2007 13:07:31 -0600, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I don't know where the three-wheeled business got started here, but--
>>1) if the tricycle is a children's toy, then it isn't a bicycle and
>>cannot legally be ridden in the street at all (like a Big Wheel is not a
>>bicycle)
>>2) if the seat is not at least 24 inches off the ground.
>
>These are local regulations, not Federal. First of all, a tricycle is
>never a bicycle, and a state code calling it a bicycle may as well
>call a dog's tail a leg. Its still a tail...
>
>Second, what constitutes a vehicle and/or a legal user of the road or
>roadway is set by the state. Generally it is by default and the issue
>is whether or not the vehicle you are riding fails to meet safety
>requirements. Since these safety requirements can range from having a
>bell on the handlebars to specific braking requirements, and vary in
>some states from city to city, citing one standard is meaningless.
>

Laws passed can call anything anything, and if they happen to state
that (to give one example) a bicycle is any machine having one or more
wheels powered by a human, then they can, in law, apply any and all
"bicycle" laws to such machines.

The above is the reason that British Columbia, for instance, prohibits
fixed gear cycles, ordinaries, and unicyclists from being ridden on
the public roads...

Date: 07 Mar 2007 17:30:33
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

gatt wrote:
> "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
> news:TAIHh.42$ST2.39@newsfe05.lga...
>> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>>> `
>>> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
>>> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>
> Is a "fixed-gear" bike basically a one-speed? That's sort of like
> requiring brakes on a tricycle or a Big Wheel, right?
>
> "We clocked your kid at two miles an hour! In a frickin' school
> zone!"

You've obviously never heard The Legend of Little Billy Baka! (He did 65
mph on a trike...twice!)

Bill "got a ticket that proves it, too (save for that pesky producing it
part)" S.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 02:53:00
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Bill Sornson wrote:
> gatt wrote:
>> "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
>> news:TAIHh.42$ST2.39@newsfe05.lga...
>>> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>>>> `
>>>> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
>>>> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>> Is a "fixed-gear" bike basically a one-speed? That's sort of like
>> requiring brakes on a tricycle or a Big Wheel, right?
>>
>> "We clocked your kid at two miles an hour! In a frickin' school
>> zone!"
>
> You've obviously never heard The Legend of Little Billy Baka! (He did 65
> mph on a trike...twice!)
>
> Bill "got a ticket that proves it, too (save for that pesky producing it
> part)" S.
>
>
I am getting so tired of hearing that. I coasted that hill with a car
and barely hit 25 MPH, so maybe 20 on a trike. Whatever the few die hard
idiots think, I did it at 4, or maybe at best 5 years old. Did you do
anything exciting at 4 or 5? Probably not. The small town cops knew me
well enough to know where to take me home.
And the 160-170++ on a motorcycle is real, but I learned not to sit up
at those speeds, because the wind made me pull back on the bars so hard
I had no steering.
Live life, don't rag on me for having had the nards to actually do it.
Wimps.
Bill Baka

Date: 07 Mar 2007 20:30:56
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Bill Baka wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> gatt wrote:
>>> "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
>>> news:TAIHh.42$ST2.39@newsfe05.lga...
>>>> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>>>>> `
>>>>> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
>>>>> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>>> Is a "fixed-gear" bike basically a one-speed? That's sort of like
>>> requiring brakes on a tricycle or a Big Wheel, right?
>>>
>>> "We clocked your kid at two miles an hour! In a frickin' school
>>> zone!"
>>
>> You've obviously never heard The Legend of Little Billy Baka! (He
>> did 65 mph on a trike...twice!)
>>
>> Bill "got a ticket that proves it, too (save for that pesky
>> producing it part)" S.
>>
>>
> I am getting so tired of hearing that. I coasted that hill with a car
> and barely hit 25 MPH, so maybe 20 on a trike. Whatever the few die
> hard idiots think, I did it at 4, or maybe at best 5 years old. Did
> you do anything exciting at 4 or 5? Probably not. The small town cops
> knew me well enough to know where to take me home.
> And the 160-170++ on a motorcycle is real, but I learned not to sit up
> at those speeds, because the wind made me pull back on the bars so
> hard I had no steering.
> Live life, don't rag on me for having had the nards to actually do it.
> Wimps.
> Bill Baka

I literally have tears rolling down my cheeks. YOU'RE THE BEST, IRON
BILL!!!

Bill "deep thanks" S.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 16:18:20
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> gatt wrote:
>>>> "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:TAIHh.42$ST2.39@newsfe05.lga...
>>>>> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>>>>>> `
>>>>>> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
>>>>>> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>>>> Is a "fixed-gear" bike basically a one-speed? That's sort of like
>>>> requiring brakes on a tricycle or a Big Wheel, right?
>>>>
>>>> "We clocked your kid at two miles an hour! In a frickin' school
>>>> zone!"
>>> You've obviously never heard The Legend of Little Billy Baka! (He
>>> did 65 mph on a trike...twice!)
>>>
>>> Bill "got a ticket that proves it, too (save for that pesky
>>> producing it part)" S.
>>>
>>>
>> I am getting so tired of hearing that. I coasted that hill with a car
>> and barely hit 25 MPH, so maybe 20 on a trike. Whatever the few die
>> hard idiots think, I did it at 4, or maybe at best 5 years old. Did
>> you do anything exciting at 4 or 5? Probably not. The small town cops
>> knew me well enough to know where to take me home.
>> And the 160-170++ on a motorcycle is real, but I learned not to sit up
>> at those speeds, because the wind made me pull back on the bars so
>> hard I had no steering.
>> Live life, don't rag on me for having had the nards to actually do it.
>> Wimps.
>> Bill Baka
>
> I literally have tears rolling down my cheeks. YOU'RE THE BEST, IRON
> BILL!!!
>
> Bill "deep thanks" S.
>
>
Life is for living, not hiding in bed.
I'll live for both of us and you can cower under the covers.
Bill Baka

Date: 08 Mar 2007 17:58:25
From: nash
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:gHWHh.305$Qw.149@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> gatt wrote:
>>>>> "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:TAIHh.42$ST2.39@newsfe05.lga...
>>>>>> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>>>>>>> `
>>>>>>> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
>>>>>>> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>>>>> Is a "fixed-gear" bike basically a one-speed? That's sort of like
>>>>> requiring brakes on a tricycle or a Big Wheel, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> "We clocked your kid at two miles an hour! In a frickin' school
>>>>> zone!"
>>>> You've obviously never heard The Legend of Little Billy Baka! (He
>>>> did 65 mph on a trike...twice!)
>>>>
>>>> Bill "got a ticket that proves it, too (save for that pesky
>>>> producing it part)" S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am getting so tired of hearing that. I coasted that hill with a car
>>> and barely hit 25 MPH, so maybe 20 on a trike. Whatever the few die
>>> hard idiots think, I did it at 4, or maybe at best 5 years old. Did
>>> you do anything exciting at 4 or 5? Probably not. The small town cops
>>> knew me well enough to know where to take me home.
>>> And the 160-170++ on a motorcycle is real, but I learned not to sit up
>>> at those speeds, because the wind made me pull back on the bars so
>>> hard I had no steering.
>>> Live life, don't rag on me for having had the nards to actually do it.
>>> Wimps.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> I literally have tears rolling down my cheeks. YOU'RE THE BEST, IRON
>> BILL!!!
>>
>> Bill "deep thanks" S.
> Life is for living, not hiding in bed.
> I'll live for both of us and you can cower under the covers.
> Bill Baka

Hey Bill you really must see Anthony Hopkins in the Fastest Indian. It
could have been you man. Fantastic show. I can email it to you BTW.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 01:40:59
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

nash wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:gHWHh.305$Qw.149@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> I literally have tears rolling down my cheeks. YOU'RE THE BEST, IRON
>>> BILL!!!
>>>
>>> Bill "deep thanks" S.
>> Life is for living, not hiding in bed.
>> I'll live for both of us and you can cower under the covers.
>> Bill Baka

I no longer know who wrote what besides my own comments so the above
snip may be inaccurate.
>
> Hey Bill you really must see Anthony Hopkins in the Fastest Indian. It
> could have been you man. Fantastic show. I can email it to you BTW.
>
>
I don't know if my mailbox is that big. There was a guy back in the 40's
who was a test rider for Vincent motorcycles. They wanted to advertise
that it would do 150 MPH and he couldn't get it above about 145-146.
This guy, who makes me look sane (no small trick) took off all his
protective gear and wore only his pants (tight) and shoes, with no shirt
at all. He rode the bike up to about 120 and then took his feet off the
foot rests and let his legs go straight behind him for minimum wind
resistance. He was lying prone on the bike and got it to 151 MPH average
for a two way run. No helmet either. My hero!
Bill Baka

Date: 09 Mar 2007 02:18:27
From: nash
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:LW2Ih.1360$FG1.119@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> nash wrote:
>> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:gHWHh.305$Qw.149@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> I literally have tears rolling down my cheeks. YOU'RE THE BEST, IRON
>>>> BILL!!!
>>>>
>>>> Bill "deep thanks" S.
>>> Life is for living, not hiding in bed.
>>> I'll live for both of us and you can cower under the covers.
>>> Bill Baka
>
> I no longer know who wrote what besides my own comments so the above snip
> may be inaccurate.
>>
>> Hey Bill you really must see Anthony Hopkins in the Fastest Indian. It
>> could have been you man. Fantastic show. I can email it to you BTW.
> I don't know if my mailbox is that big. There was a guy back in the 40's
> who was a test rider for Vincent motorcycles. They wanted to advertise
> that it would do 150 MPH and he couldn't get it above about 145-146.
> This guy, who makes me look sane (no small trick) took off all his
> protective gear and wore only his pants (tight) and shoes, with no shirt
> at all. He rode the bike up to about 120 and then took his feet off the
> foot rests and let his legs go straight behind him for minimum wind
> resistance. He was lying prone on the bike and got it to 151 MPH average
> for a two way run. No helmet either. My hero!
> Bill Baka

and actually he holds the record for motorcycles to this day I think is what
the movie said. He did it back in the 40's 50's. the movie is a classic
Foldershare can share big files but I do not know how fast they are.
I would buy it if I were you. Over 200mph I am pretty sure.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 02:33:56
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

nash wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:LW2Ih.1360$FG1.119@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> nash wrote:
>>> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gHWHh.305$Qw.149@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>> I literally have tears rolling down my cheeks. YOU'RE THE BEST, IRON
>>>>> BILL!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill "deep thanks" S.
>>>> Life is for living, not hiding in bed.
>>>> I'll live for both of us and you can cower under the covers.
>>>> Bill Baka
>> I no longer know who wrote what besides my own comments so the above snip
>> may be inaccurate.
>>> Hey Bill you really must see Anthony Hopkins in the Fastest Indian. It
>>> could have been you man. Fantastic show. I can email it to you BTW.
>> I don't know if my mailbox is that big. There was a guy back in the 40's
>> who was a test rider for Vincent motorcycles. They wanted to advertise
>> that it would do 150 MPH and he couldn't get it above about 145-146.
>> This guy, who makes me look sane (no small trick) took off all his
>> protective gear and wore only his pants (tight) and shoes, with no shirt
>> at all. He rode the bike up to about 120 and then took his feet off the
>> foot rests and let his legs go straight behind him for minimum wind
>> resistance. He was lying prone on the bike and got it to 151 MPH average
>> for a two way run. No helmet either. My hero!
>> Bill Baka
>
> and actually he holds the record for motorcycles to this day I think is what
> the movie said. He did it back in the 40's 50's. the movie is a classic
> Foldershare can share big files but I do not know how fast they are.
> I would buy it if I were you. Over 200mph I am pretty sure.
>
>
I did get my Kawasaki 750 (very modified) somewhere past 170 outrunning
a California highway patrol back around 1972-73. It ran about 2,800 RPM
at 60 and after putting the 160 MPH speedo on the peg (about 170) it
went past 8400 (180 MPH) and kept climbing until I saw the town and stop
sign ahead. I may not have hit 200 but I was close enough not to worry
the small stuff. I had to drive with my head between the tach and speedo
or the blast of air wanted to rip my head off. That was my adrenalin for
the year. I had the bike in the back of a coffee shop wedged into a
corner behind the dumpster and was inside ordering coffee when the CHP
went screaming through town. Like he thought he had a prayer of catching
me. I drank coffee for about 3 hours then got back on the road when I
felt safe from a HUGE ticket. 5 miles later the bike stopped running.
All that high speed had worked the front chain sprocket loose and it ate
my ignition wires.
That was one memorable day.
Bill Baka

Date: 09 Mar 2007 02:40:27
From: nash
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

I may not have hit 200 but I was close enough not to worry
4444444444444444444444444$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4

Yup, on the salt flats you would have dunher.
The movie guy had the same problem with the helmut. I think he lost it in
the ride. But watch the movie. really good.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 18:46:47
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

nash wrote:
> I may not have hit 200 but I was close enough not to worry
> 4444444444444444444444444$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4
>
> Yup, on the salt flats you would have dunher.
> The movie guy had the same problem with the helmut. I think he lost it in
> the ride. But watch the movie. really good.
>
>
At least at 200 on the salt all you have to worry about is hooooge
amounts of road rash and getting salt rubbed in the wound, literally.
Bill Baka
Got a movie to watch.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 02:14:31
From: nash
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Date: 09 Mar 2007 02:23:34
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Teef!"

Date: 07 Mar 2007 15:32:46
From: landotter
Subject: Re: "Look Ma!, No Brakes"

On 7, 2:08 pm, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote:
> `
> Oregon Senate Bill 729 would exempt fixed-gear bikes from a law
> requiring that bicycles on public roads have brakes.
>
> `

The needs of hipsters are gravely important. This contrasted with MHLs
is almost worthy of a Zippy panel.