bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 21 Jul 2007 08:16:22 From: Paul J. Berg Subject: Braking the Fixie ~ News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the tickets continue to fly in Portland. Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line up on Burnside. Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops consider equipment violations. The ongoing ticketing highlights the Legislature's recent failure to clear up legal ambiguities around the bikes, which are brought to a stop by the application of back pressure on the pedals instead of more common hand or coaster brakes. The legs of the cyclist, coupled with the bike's gearing, act as a brake. Local bike advocacy lawyer Mark Ginsberg worked with Oregon legislators in the just-concluded session to fix matters with Senate Bill 729. That bill included a provision that said fixed-gear bicycles are "not required to be equipped with a separate brake." "We just spent a lot of time in the Legislature, and we thought we had it clarified," says Ginsberg. But the fixies clause in the larger bill dealing with bikes died in the Judiciary Conference Committee after Sen. Ginny Burdick (D-Southwest Portland) stripped it out. A local bike blog, bikeportland.org, reports that Burdick's daughter lobbied her not to green-light the surge of inexperienced fixie riders. "After it initially went through, I had a lot of reservations," Burdick said in an interview with Jonathan Maus, editor of Bikeportland. "My own daughter (who works at River City Bicycles in Portland) rides fixies on the velodrome. She jumped on me pretty hard and said there were a lot of people on fixies who really don't know what they're doing, so changing the standard across the board would not be a good idea." River City Bicycles sells one type of fixed-gear bicycle without brakes. All its other models come with brakes. Most bike shops in Portland that offer fixies, including Bike Gallery and Bike N' Hike, sell them with brakes. Sleek and simple, fixies have become popular with everyone from couriers to a hipper sect of the bike commuter set. At the same time, some of these cyclists claim police, exploiting a vaguely written fixies provision left untouched by the Legislature, are targeting them. "They're real selective about who they give tickets to," says Matthew Henry, 23, a bike messenger who has been ticketed five times for riding a "brakeless" bike. Citations cost $97 apiece. "They're focusing on the messengers," says Tab Bamford, an independent bike courier. "And they're the ones who actually know how to ride these bikes." Portland police estimate that they give anywhere between four and 10 citations a week for "bicycle equipment violations," the infraction given to fixed-gear bicycles not equipped with a standard brake. But police insist they do not target specific people. "Most of these guys are messengers running from building to building downtown, and that's where I am," says Officer Bret Barnum, a motorcycle cop. "We're not out to target people." Bamford, 30, has been a messenger for over six years and has twice won the North American Cycle Courier Championships, first in 2002 in Houston and then in 2003 in Washington, D.C. While he feels that messengers are being unfairly penalized, he realizes the bikes can be dangerous under the heels of the inexperienced. Without the proper strength, the bikes are hard to stop. Portland police say legs aren't brakes. "In the interest of public safety, you do need a separate mechanism," says Barnum. He and Officer Bill Balzer, another Portland motorcycle cop, hand out over 90 percent of the citations in question. He says the way the law is written "leaves it open for interpretation" and that he reads the law as requiring "an independent mechanism that allows the bike to stop." Not everyone, however, reads it that way. Currently, Oregon Revised Statutes 815.280(2)(a) says a bike "must be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement." On Jan. 1, SB 729 clarified the law a bit. Instead of skidding, cyclists must show they can stop within 15 feet going 10 mph. "What does 'equipped' mean? What does 'brake' mean?" Ginsberg says. "Nowhere does it say you need a mechanical caliper brake." State Sen. Jason Atkinson (R-Central Point), who worked closely with Ginsberg on SB 729 last session, raced bikes professionally for eight years before he "went through a windshield and went into politics." "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. But Barnum disagrees, saying that it's "about safety for everybody." "The silent majority have said, 'Hey, guys, put your brake on and you're good to go,'" he says. "The vocal minority are the same 20, 25 people who refuse to do this." ~   Date: 25 Jul 2007 17:04:43 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie It's going the same way in as in Italy, or Nyssa, Oregon. Seems to me it's a TWO way street for cars and bikes.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 23:20:17 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 24, 4:38 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc Steven <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 10:59 am, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: > >> In rec.bicycles.misc Steven <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > I can still outrun you with one speed at 5' 8" 280 myself. Shall I > >> > drop the glove? > > >> If it makes you happy, though I think your post is a bit of a > >> non-sequitor since I don't see anywhere in the thread where I claim to > >> be fast as greased lightning. > > >> I'm based in Seattle, though I'll be swinging through Philadelphia and > >> Cincinnati next month. I don't know if I'll have access to a bike in > >> Ohio though. > > > Are you cycling over 10 states to get to Oregon? > > http://www.mapmsg.com/games/statetris/usa/ > > -- > Dane Buson - sigd...@unixbigots.org > Somewhere, there was a rich vein of power in OS/2... But no easy way to tap it. > Unix presents you with dozens of rich veins and dozens of different types of > needles to use on it. -- Shal'Nath I don't need the map, you're closer to Cleveland than Burns...:-p   Date: 24 Jul 2007 23:18:43 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 24, 4:17 pm, "Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen" <rev...@the.rectory > wrote: > The kindly Rev. overheard Steven <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> > saying on Tue 24 Jul 2007 06:34:35a: > > > On Jul 24, 5:29 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Why is this even a subject? > > Hey, you broke it, you gotta fix it. Hush. I own two lugged steel 26" cruisers, fully brakeable.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 14:16:12 From: N8N Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 24, 2:16 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > A Muzi wrote: > > Peter Cole wrote: > >> Well then this is just another case of people not following a law that > >> they find unreasonable, something I claim happens all the time. > >> Given that so many (100% by Nate's estimate) of cyclists don't fully > >> comply with ROW laws, I'd say it means that most find them unreasonable. > > > Yes, hence the conflict. I assume you're right. What to do about it? > > Change the laws. > > If speed limits are set to 85% compliance, why not have the same > philosophy with ROW? Either de jure or de facto, I don't care. It's irrelevant, because speed limits are not set to 85% compliance. More like somewhere between zero and 25 percent, depending. Jurisdictions may pay lip service to the 85th percentile rule, but I don't see it actually in effect. nate   Date: 24 Jul 2007 14:14:48 From: N8N Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 24, 10:17 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <TICdnXFUBOB_QzjbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dn...@comcast.com>, > Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Tim McNamara wrote: > > > In article <0PSdnaKToZAUiDjbnZ2dnUVZ_smnn...@comcast.com>, > > > Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > > >>> In article <w_KdndAYCeAuEjnbnZ2dnUVZ_qiin...@comcast.com>, > > >>> Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>> Most people don't follow laws they consider unreasonable, I > > >>>> think that's a good thing. > > >>> That's a rather slippery slope. > > >> Maybe, but I don't think red light running leads to armed robbery. > > > > Probably not, but you didn't restrict your statement to stopping at > > > red lights. Lots of people think it's unreasonable that they can't > > > help themselves to the contents of your house or use your credit > > > card or empty out your bank account. They don't follow those laws > > > and in general I don;t think that's a good thing. > > > But that's a small minority, if it were anything else civilization > > would be hopeless. > > Given that the US has a higher percentage of its population in jail than > any other country, and yet persists in having some of if not the highest > crime rates, an argument could be made that our particular manifestation > of civilization is flawed. > > > When you have a law that the majority don't follow, I think there may > > be something wrong with the law. > > Perhaps. Or something wrong with society's attitude towards its own > laws. > > > > > > > >> An interesting question: What do you think would happen if a day > > >> was declared to be no-penalty for moving & ROW violations? Do you > > >> think everyone would drive differently? Many people? Would you > > >> change the way you drive? I wouldn't and I'd guess most people > > >> wouldn't. That tells me people obey the laws for the most part > > >> because they agree with them. > > > > I'd probably stay home that day. I see way to many numbskull > > > maneuvers on a daily basis, including crossing four lanes in late > > > rush hour traffic at the last possible moment to get to an exit > > > while talking on a cell phone with three children in the car (I saw > > > this about 10 minutes ago). I se such things at least daily. The > > > average level of driving safety has plummeted in the past few years > > > locally. It's actually scary to be on the road pretty often. > > > Highway fatalities/mile driven have been going down for decades. > > Skeptics point out that thus is from safer, better and even larger > > cars, while driving speeds and dangerous behavior have gone up, but > > not enough to offset, so you're perhaps actually a bit safer with > > today's cars even with today's drivers. > > And those safety measures have been fought every step of the way by the > Big Three automakers. > > > It may be that drivers have responded to better cars by pushing the > > envelope. > > There is evidence that this is the case vis-a-vis modern cars handling > better than older cars. I can't remember where I read the study, might > have been Car and Driver several years ago. People are likelier to > drive closer to the limits of cornering traction because there is > virtually no body roll to cue them that they are pushing the envelope. We're getting real OT here, but there's also the factor that cars really do handle (and stop!) better than the ones in common use when traffic engineering became a real field. Remember that a lot of guidelines were laid down when the average vehicle was rolling on 6.70-15 bias plys and had four wheel drum brakes. nate     Date: 25 Jul 2007 01:30:40 From: still me Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:14:48 -0700, N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com > wrote: > Remember that a lot of >guidelines were laid down when the average vehicle was rolling on >6.70-15 bias plys and had four wheel drum brakes. But remember also that most people have been driving 20 feet off the rear bumper of other cars at 70mph on the highway since the bias ply days and still do. In an emergency, that's the difference between dead and deader. While stopping distances and such have decreased, most people don't know, never did, and never will drive within whatever the handling limits of their vehicle are. Most of them don't even understand what a "good handling" car is compared to a "poor handling" car unless you have them drive the two back to back. The only thing better handling and smaller, faster stopping cars have done for the average joe is to help him out when he panics and maybe save his butt with superior performance for a few seconds when it counts - but it has nothing to do with average joe realizing what the car will do.       Date: 24 Jul 2007 19:28:39 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:30:40 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote: >On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:14:48 -0700, N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Remember that a lot of >>guidelines were laid down when the average vehicle was rolling on >>6.70-15 bias plys and had four wheel drum brakes. > >But remember also that most people have been driving 20 feet off the >rear bumper of other cars at 70mph on the highway since the bias ply >days and still do. In an emergency, that's the difference between dead >and deader. > >While stopping distances and such have decreased, most people don't >know, never did, and never will drive within whatever the handling >limits of their vehicle are. Most of them don't even understand what a >"good handling" car is compared to a "poor handling" car unless you >have them drive the two back to back. The only thing better handling >and smaller, faster stopping cars have done for the average joe is to >help him out when he panics and maybe save his butt with superior >performance for a few seconds when it counts - but it has nothing to >do with average joe realizing what the car will do. The average joe counts on his air bags to save his butt these days. "Road Safety" to cagers is all about their own post-crash survival. -- zk   Date: 24 Jul 2007 14:12:53 From: N8N Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 24, 7:36 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > A Muzi wrote: > >>>> Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: > >>>>> (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in > >>>>> my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front > >>>>> of cross traffic.) > > >>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>> Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers > >>>> ignoring the law as do cyclists. > > >> Nate Nagel wrote: > >>> Discounting speed limits, I disagree heartily. 100% of the cyclists > >>> that I see are breaking some law or another (95% of them blow stop > >>> signs, and I don't mean a "california stop" either.) The number of > >>> drivers I see doing things like that is much, much smaller. > >>> If you count the speed limit, of course, then 100% of both groups are > >>> breaking at least one law. > > > Peter Cole wrote: > >> Why wouldn't you count that? > > > Because unlike stop lights, stop signs, etc, speed limits are commonly > > viewed as inappropriate, unreasonable and apparently capriciously > > designated. When a specific limited zone is posted at a reasonable > > speed, that's largely ignored like all the others. > > Well then this is just another case of people not following a law that > they find unreasonable, something I claim happens all the time. > > Given that so many (100% by Nate's estimate) of cyclists don't fully > comply with ROW laws, I'd say it means that most find them unreasonable. But is that because they really are unreasonable, or because they have little respect for the law after racking up a few speeding tickets just for keeping up with the flow of traffic? I don't know what their real thought process is, but at least a token effort to comply with the ROW laws is not only not unreasonable IMHO but a very sensible thing to do. nate   Date: 24 Jul 2007 14:11:18 From: N8N Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 24, 7:22 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > Nate Nagel wrote: > > Peter Cole wrote: > >> Sorry to snip all that, but I think it amounts to a long winded > >> rationalization. You're the one who's adamant about the law being the > >> law, yet you'll give a pass for speeding. > > > I'm not "giving a pass" or even admitting to doing it myself - as I > > posted before, I've become one law-abiding mofo since a particularly > > Draconian law went into effect here. The real question is, though, why > > are speed limits not set at the optimum level for safety for motorists? > > So you don't agree with the law, and presume lots of others don't > either, so you get much less irate about speeding scofflaws than cyclist > ROW scofflaws? Absolutely. They are far less of a threat to me. Sure, in a bike/car incident, if I am in the car, I will "win" but I'll still probably get a ticket, have to live with the memory if injuring another human being, and probably lose my job (due to various stringent internal regulations regarding company vehicles.) > > >> I don't particularly get upset by highway speeding as much as > >> residential speeding, which is at least as common. > > > I don't see that quite so much... certainly literally everyone speeds on > > the highway, while most people tend to keep it down to a reasonable > > velocity in residential neighborhoods, although a lot tend to push it to > > 30 in a 25 or so. > > Yes, but that's equivalent to 78 in a 65 zone, something that would get > you a ticket almost every time. Around here that's called "going with the flow." Assuming you can find a 65 zone. > > >> In view of actual safety statistics and liability downsides I see it > >> as much more socially costly than bicycle ROW scofflaws. > > > Only because of the large numbers of motorists compared to bicyclists. > > Again, I'm not advocating it or admitting to doing it, but I'd feel a > > lot more comfortable safety-wise doing 30 in a 25 in my car than I would > > sailing past a stop sign at full speed on a bicycle. Maybe statistics > > prove me wrong, I don't know, but blowing stops just seems to be > > ludicrously dangerous for little benefit. Yeah, I know, you have to > > work to get up to speed, but isn't exercise one of the benefits of > > riding a bike? > > Well, bottom line is your "hatred" for cyclist scofflaws is very > different than your tolerance for speeders, not based on your respect > for the law but your own sense of priorities -- which are far from > universal. My priorities are based on what I percieve as a threat to me. Speeders generally don't bother me, unless they're the aggressive, traffic-weaver types. Bicyclists that blow stop signs definitely are a threat to me, and I'm always hyper-alert when driving on roads that I know bicyclists frequent as a result. nate   Date: 24 Jul 2007 11:08:08 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 24, 8:31 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <1185247481.418217.186...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jul 23, 6:44 pm, Balanced View <N...@nill.net> wrote: > > > r15...@aol.com wrote: > > > > Fixed gear braking is not nearly the same as coaster brake > > > > braking. > > > > What?????? > > > Stopping a bike with a coaster brake and stopping a bike with a fixed > > gear are two very different actions. > > No, it's actually the same action- push the pedals backwards. Two very different -things- then. For the reasons you mention below. > There are > two problems with braking fixed gear bikes this way compared to a > coaster brake. > > One is that the pedals keep coming forward with quite a bit of force as > long as the bike is moving. You can't stop the pedals unless you break > the traction limit of the tire and skid it, but a skidding tire takes > much longer to stop. > > The other is that your feet are likely to be in a position where you > *can't* apply back pressure when you need to in order to stop or avoid > something unpleasant- you don't have the leverage to overcome the > traction limit of the tire. A coaster brake likewise has some > limitation in leverage- you only get maximum leverage when the crank is > nearly level to the ground- but you don't have to overcome the momentum > of the pedals to push back. > > That's why fixed gear riders have to justify their lack of control by > making themselves believe that they can see into the future and > anticipate what will happen- the "zen" of fixed gear. > > > Might be kind of hard to grasp if you have no experience with fixed > > wheel bikes. > So I notice. Your grasp is certainly a bit tenuous. I have a good bit of experience with fixed wheel bikes. And coaster brake bikes too. Robert   Date: 24 Jul 2007 04:34:35 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 24, 5:29 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: Why is this even a subject?     Date: 24 Jul 2007 22:17:20 From: Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie The kindly Rev. overheard Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > saying on Tue 24 Jul 2007 06:34:35a: > On Jul 24, 5:29 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Why is this even a subject? Hey, you broke it, you gotta fix it. -- Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen revbob at crispen dot org Ex Cathedra weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/ I Wandered Lonely As a Cloud (rewritten as a limerick) There once was a poet named Will Who tramped his way over a hill And was speechless for hours Over some stupid flowers This was years before TV, but still.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 23:46:29 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 11:07 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: Peter Cole wrote: Why wouldn't you count that? Because unlike stop lights, stop signs, etc, speed limits are commonly viewed as inappropriate, unreasonable and apparently capriciously designated. When a specific limited zone is posted at a reasonable speed, that's largely ignored like all the others. Go ahead, YOU die first. G'night, Gracie   Date: 23 Jul 2007 23:44:10 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 10:13 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net > wrote: [1] Though you notice that the religious sacrifice of virgins to the volcano god and such is rather strictly prohibited. If we had that many decent volcanoes this could be changed.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 23:41:44 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 9:53 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote: > On Jul 23, 7:26 pm, Steven <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > ~~ I don't see the slippery slope when it comes to brakes on bikes. I > > wont argue with you about what the > > neocons are up to. That speaks for itself. -- Jay Beattie. > > > If you don't see the slippery slope, you definitely need brakes. > > Hey, since I'm chattering my life away here, let me say that I rode > home this evening through the West Hills and got an unexpected light > rain that turned the roads into sled runs. I hit a steep slope and > basically slid down it. I had some grip with my front wheel, but my > rear wheel was fishtailing. This was riding in a straight line down a > road that is basically a chute. If I were on a fixie with no front > brake, I would have been dead meat. > > Great brakes on that bike (dual pivots and new salmon pads), just zero > traction on a 20+ percent downgrade. I was on 23mm Pro2Races (that I > got for $28 a pop from ProBikekit). I am not totally excited about > the wet traction on those tires. -- Jay Beattie. My Shimano will give me a good skid, IF I really want it. I have a friend who is pretty good with older bikes, that's how he set it.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 20:53:00 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 7:26 pm, Steven <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com > wrote: > ~~ I don't see the slippery slope when it comes to brakes on bikes. I > wont argue with you about what the > neocons are up to. That speaks for itself. -- Jay Beattie. > > If you don't see the slippery slope, you definitely need brakes. Hey, since I'm chattering my life away here, let me say that I rode home this evening through the West Hills and got an unexpected light rain that turned the roads into sled runs. I hit a steep slope and basically slid down it. I had some grip with my front wheel, but my rear wheel was fishtailing. This was riding in a straight line down a road that is basically a chute. If I were on a fixie with no front brake, I would have been dead meat. Great brakes on that bike (dual pivots and new salmon pads), just zero traction on a 20+ percent downgrade. I was on 23mm Pro2Races (that I got for $28 a pop from ProBikekit). I am not totally excited about the wet traction on those tires. -- Jay Beattie.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 03:24:41 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 6:44 pm, Balanced View <N...@nill.net > wrote: > r15...@aol.com wrote: > > Fixed gear braking is not nearly the same as coaster brake braking. > > > Robert > > What?????? Stopping a bike with a coaster brake and stopping a bike with a fixed gear are two very different actions. Might be kind of hard to grasp if you have no experience with fixed wheel bikes. R.     Date: 24 Jul 2007 09:31:23 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <1185247481.418217.186230@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >, christie133@gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 23, 6:44 pm, Balanced View <N...@nill.net> wrote: > > r15...@aol.com wrote: > > > Fixed gear braking is not nearly the same as coaster brake > > > braking. > > > > What?????? > > Stopping a bike with a coaster brake and stopping a bike with a fixed > gear are two very different actions. No, it's actually the same action- push the pedals backwards. There are two problems with braking fixed gear bikes this way compared to a coaster brake. One is that the pedals keep coming forward with quite a bit of force as long as the bike is moving. You can't stop the pedals unless you break the traction limit of the tire and skid it, but a skidding tire takes much longer to stop. The other is that your feet are likely to be in a position where you *can't* apply back pressure when you need to in order to stop or avoid something unpleasant- you don't have the leverage to overcome the traction limit of the tire. A coaster brake likewise has some limitation in leverage- you only get maximum leverage when the crank is nearly level to the ground- but you don't have to overcome the momentum of the pedals to push back. That's why fixed gear riders have to justify their lack of control by making themselves believe that they can see into the future and anticipate what will happen- the "zen" of fixed gear. > Might be kind of hard to grasp if you have no experience with fixed > wheel bikes. So I notice. Your grasp is certainly a bit tenuous.       Date: 24 Jul 2007 20:25:29 From: John Thompson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On 2007-07-24, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: > That's why fixed gear riders have to justify their lack of control by > making themselves believe that they can see into the future and > anticipate what will happen- the "zen" of fixed gear. Replace the phrase "fixed gear" with "brakeless" and I'll be more inclinded to agree with you. -- John (john@os2.dhs.org)   Date: 23 Jul 2007 19:26:42 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie ~~ I don't see the slippery slope when it comes to brakes on bikes. I wont argue with you about what the neocons are up to. That speaks for itself. -- Jay Beattie. If you don't see the slippery slope, you definitely need brakes.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 19:23:30 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 5:49 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <1185233833.467374.169...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 3:50 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > In article <m_-dnXPHSO35izjbnZ2dnUVZ_tykn...@comcast.com>, > > > Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > fred wrote: > > > > > > Personally, I'm tired of other people telling me that they know > > > > > better than I how I should live my life. I've been an adult > > > > > for decades and, frankly, I'm at least as intelligent as most > > > > > of the nosy nates. I neither need nor want them to look after > > > > > me. > > > > > Any time you can demonstrate that your bicycle will be involved > > > > only in single vehicle accidents which will result in injuries > > > > only to yerself and damage only to your property, I'm willing to > > > > sign off on you equipping your bike any way you want. > > > > > The problem with allowing you do so on the public highways and > > > > byways is that there are other folks and other folks' property > > > > out there which are likely to be involved in the resulting mayhem > > > > when your brake-less bike fails to stop. Not to mention the > > > > public cost of sweeping your broken body up off the pavement. > > > > > So long as there's a risk that your choices may adversely affect > > > > other folks and their lives, health, and propery, those other > > > > folks have got a perfect right to tell you how to equip your bike > > > > - if not how to live your life. > > > > That's slippery slope positioning, Bill. You can apply the same > > > logic to operating a motor vehicle, gun ownership, pornography, > > > political speech, what religion you belong to... > > > Not quite because our Constitution recognizes that certain rights > > cannot be abridged by the majority such as free speech, right to bear > > arms, reproductive and privacy rights (among others). > > Ask the NRA and they will tell you that your right to bear arms has been > stomped all over. A recent executive order has the potential to chill > freedom of speech in terms of dissent and criticism of executive policy. > Privacy rights- except for those of public servants who may or may not > be engaged in illegal or unethical activity- are basically no longer > extant in the United States under the Bush Administration. > "Reproductive rights" are increasingly limited. > > It's interesting that you identify the Constitution as protecting these > rights from the majority when the actual threat currently comes from a > minority.- Hide quoted text - I'm not talking about current politics but the structure of the Constitution in general. In any event, we are talking about traffic codes and safety regulations, which are subject only to minimal due process review. We are not talking the fundamental, constitutional rights granted by the bill of rights. I don't see the slippery slope when it comes to brakes on bikes. I wont argue with you about what the neocons are up to. That speaks for itself. -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 24 Jul 2007 09:20:54 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <1185243810.220171.72690@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com >, Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote: > On Jul 23, 5:49 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > In article <1185233833.467374.169...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 3:50 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > > In article <m_-dnXPHSO35izjbnZ2dnUVZ_tykn...@comcast.com>, > > > > Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > fred wrote: > > > > > > > > Personally, I'm tired of other people telling me that they > > > > > > know better than I how I should live my life. I've been an > > > > > > adult for decades and, frankly, I'm at least as intelligent > > > > > > as most of the nosy nates. I neither need nor want them to > > > > > > look after me. > > > > > > > Any time you can demonstrate that your bicycle will be > > > > > involved only in single vehicle accidents which will result > > > > > in injuries only to yerself and damage only to your property, > > > > > I'm willing to sign off on you equipping your bike any way > > > > > you want. > > > > > > > The problem with allowing you do so on the public highways > > > > > and byways is that there are other folks and other folks' > > > > > property out there which are likely to be involved in the > > > > > resulting mayhem when your brake-less bike fails to stop. > > > > > Not to mention the public cost of sweeping your broken body > > > > > up off the pavement. > > > > > > > So long as there's a risk that your choices may adversely > > > > > affect other folks and their lives, health, and propery, > > > > > those other folks have got a perfect right to tell you how to > > > > > equip your bike - if not how to live your life. > > > > > > That's slippery slope positioning, Bill. You can apply the > > > > same logic to operating a motor vehicle, gun ownership, > > > > pornography, political speech, what religion you belong to... > > > > > Not quite because our Constitution recognizes that certain rights > > > cannot be abridged by the majority such as free speech, right to > > > bear arms, reproductive and privacy rights (among others). > > > > Ask the NRA and they will tell you that your right to bear arms has > > been stomped all over. A recent executive order has the potential > > to chill freedom of speech in terms of dissent and criticism of > > executive policy. Privacy rights- except for those of public > > servants who may or may not be engaged in illegal or unethical > > activity- are basically no longer extant in the United States under > > the Bush Administration. "Reproductive rights" are increasingly > > limited. > > > > It's interesting that you identify the Constitution as protecting > > these rights from the majority when the actual threat currently > > comes from a minority.- Hide quoted text - > > I'm not talking about current politics but the structure of the > Constitution in general. In any event, we are talking about traffic > codes and safety regulations, which are subject only to minimal due > process review. We are not talking the fundamental, constitutional > rights granted by the bill of rights. I don't see the slippery slope > when it comes to brakes on bikes. I wont argue with you about what > the neocons are up to. That speaks for itself. -- Jay Beattie. Just for clarification, Jay, if you read my other posts you'll see my opinion about brakes on fixed gear or any other bike. One brake per wheel is necessary for safe operation. Having a brakeless fixed wheel is just dumb unless one is riding on a velodrome- and even there it *feels* dumb a fair amount of the time.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 16:37:13 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 3:50 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <m_-dnXPHSO35izjbnZ2dnUVZ_tykn...@comcast.com>, > Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > fred wrote: > > > > Personally, I'm tired of other people telling me that they know > > > better than I how I should live my life. I've been an adult for > > > decades and, frankly, I'm at least as intelligent as most of the > > > nosy nates. I neither need nor want them to look after me. > > > Any time you can demonstrate that your bicycle will be involved only > > in single vehicle accidents which will result in injuries only to > > yerself and damage only to your property, I'm willing to sign off on > > you equipping your bike any way you want. > > > The problem with allowing you do so on the public highways and byways > > is that there are other folks and other folks' property out there > > which are likely to be involved in the resulting mayhem when your > > brake-less bike fails to stop. Not to mention the public cost of > > sweeping your broken body up off the pavement. > > > So long as there's a risk that your choices may adversely affect > > other folks and their lives, health, and propery, those other folks > > have got a perfect right to tell you how to equip your bike - if not > > how to live your life. > > That's slippery slope positioning, Bill. You can apply the same logic > to operating a motor vehicle, gun ownership, pornography, political > speech, what religion you belong to...- Hide quoted text - Not quite because our Constitution recognizes that certain rights cannot be abridged by the majority such as free speech, right to bear arms, reproductive and privacy rights (among others). There are no such protections for privileges such as the privilege to use a public road. The government can and does place major limitations on driving and riding on public roads. I am with Bill on this. I see no problem requiring a mechanical brake on a fixed gear when ridden on a public road. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes and acreage. -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 24 Jul 2007 07:29:09 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Jay Beattie wrote: > On Jul 23, 3:50 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: >> That's slippery slope positioning, Bill. You can apply the same logic >> to operating a motor vehicle, gun ownership, pornography, political >> speech, what religion you belong to...- Hide quoted text - > > Not quite because our Constitution recognizes that certain rights > cannot be abridged by the majority such as free speech, right to bear > arms, reproductive and privacy rights (among others). There are no > such protections for privileges such as the privilege to use a public > road. The government can and does place major limitations on driving > and riding on public roads. I am with Bill on this. I see no problem > requiring a mechanical brake on a fixed gear when ridden on a public > road. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes > and acreage. -- Jay Beattie. > Yes, but to make that stick, you have to prove that has a social cost, since we all have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If someone's happy with no brakes, we don't have any business interceding unless it poses a risk/cost to other parties. I'm not sold that brakeless fixers are any different than hub brake only bikes, which (I think) have always been legal everywhere.     Date: 23 Jul 2007 19:49:45 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <1185233833.467374.169440@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com >, Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote: > On Jul 23, 3:50 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > In article <m_-dnXPHSO35izjbnZ2dnUVZ_tykn...@comcast.com>, > > Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > fred wrote: > > > > > > Personally, I'm tired of other people telling me that they know > > > > better than I how I should live my life. I've been an adult > > > > for decades and, frankly, I'm at least as intelligent as most > > > > of the nosy nates. I neither need nor want them to look after > > > > me. > > > > > Any time you can demonstrate that your bicycle will be involved > > > only in single vehicle accidents which will result in injuries > > > only to yerself and damage only to your property, I'm willing to > > > sign off on you equipping your bike any way you want. > > > > > The problem with allowing you do so on the public highways and > > > byways is that there are other folks and other folks' property > > > out there which are likely to be involved in the resulting mayhem > > > when your brake-less bike fails to stop. Not to mention the > > > public cost of sweeping your broken body up off the pavement. > > > > > So long as there's a risk that your choices may adversely affect > > > other folks and their lives, health, and propery, those other > > > folks have got a perfect right to tell you how to equip your bike > > > - if not how to live your life. > > > > That's slippery slope positioning, Bill. You can apply the same > > logic to operating a motor vehicle, gun ownership, pornography, > > political speech, what religion you belong to... > > Not quite because our Constitution recognizes that certain rights > cannot be abridged by the majority such as free speech, right to bear > arms, reproductive and privacy rights (among others). Ask the NRA and they will tell you that your right to bear arms has been stomped all over. A recent executive order has the potential to chill freedom of speech in terms of dissent and criticism of executive policy. Privacy rights- except for those of public servants who may or may not be engaged in illegal or unethical activity- are basically no longer extant in the United States under the Bush Administration. "Reproductive rights" are increasingly limited. It's interesting that you identify the Constitution as protecting these rights from the majority when the actual threat currently comes from a minority.       Date: 24 Jul 2007 06:07:32 From: Don Homuth Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:49:45 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >Ask the NRA and they will tell you that your right to bear arms has been >stomped all over.... And immediately thereafter ask you for money -- which is The basic point of the exercise.         Date: 24 Jul 2007 22:24:42 From: Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie The kindly Rev. overheard Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > saying on Tue 24 Jul 2007 08:07:32a: >>Ask the NRA and they will tell you that your right to bear arms >>has been stomped all over.... > > And immediately thereafter ask you for money -- which is The basic > point of the exercise. And to vote Republican. Which isn't the point, but most of their likely victims aren't real good at congnitive dissonance. One of these days somebody like Cheney is gonna tell them, "OK, put your guns in a big pile over here," and they'll line right up going "Uh yup, uh yup." I mean, Jesus, they had this vendetta against Smith and Wesson! And nobody said a goddamn thing! So you know sanity isn't real high on their list of priorities. Kind of a pity. I used to be an NRA Hunter Safety instructor before the NRA turned into a branch of the RNC and became really, really stupid. -- Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen revbob at crispen dot org Ex Cathedra weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/ I Wandered Lonely As a Cloud (rewritten as a limerick) There once was a poet named Will Who tramped his way over a hill And was speechless for hours Over some stupid flowers This was years before TV, but still.           Date: 24 Jul 2007 22:00:02 From: Curt Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen" <revbob@the.rectory > wrote in message > Kind of a pity. I used to be an NRA Hunter Safety instructor before > the NRA turned into a branch of the RNC and became really, really > stupid. Bush The Greater did the same sort of thing back in the 90s -- dumped his life NRA membership. He was mad about their anti-american militia stuff. Curt   Date: 23 Jul 2007 15:02:29 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 3:48 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.tech Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: > >> In rec.bicycles.misc Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> > Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: > > >> >> "On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT" > >> >> (Submitted by Ramiro Estrugo, restr...@fateware.com) > > >> > Sure they do. Ferinstance > > >> > User-Agent: tin/1.8.1-20060215 ("Mealasta") (UNIX) > >> > (Linux/2.6.17-jad1-default (i686)) > > >> Well, given that I'm running a tweaked version of tin, it really just > >> tells you whatever I wanted it to. Admittedly, the User-Agent is > >> accurate currently. Though, now I'm tempted to change it out of pure > >> cussedness. > > > How many of the Window NT users will customize the headers? > > Precious few I'm sure. But are you really complaining about a pedantic > reply to a pedantic reply? If the shit works the stink is a given   Date: 23 Jul 2007 15:00:57 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 10:59 am, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc Steven <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 6:08 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: > >> In rec.bicycles.misc Paul J. Berg <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote: > >> > Lobby Dosser wrote: > >> >> Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: > > >> >> > Personally, I'm so hip I can barely see over my pelvis. > > >> >> I'm so hip I have to use a mirror to see my pelvis. > > >> > I think Dane and Lobby are mistaking a beer belly for a hip. > > >> Heyyyy! I admit I used to resemble that remark. I used to weigh about > >> 280 lbs, instead of my current (fairly reasonable for 6'1") weight of > >> 200 lbs. > > > I can still outrun you with one speed at 5' 8" 280 myself. Shall I > > drop the glove? > > If it makes you happy, though I think your post is a bit of a > non-sequitor since I don't see anywhere in the thread where I claim to > be fast as greased lightning. > > I'm based in Seattle, though I'll be swinging through Philadelphia and > Cincinnati next month. I don't know if I'll have access to a bike in > Ohio though. Are you cycling over 10 states to get to Oregon?     Date: 24 Jul 2007 15:38:10 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In rec.bicycles.misc Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jul 23, 10:59 am, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: >> In rec.bicycles.misc Steven <thisjukeboxplays33...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > I can still outrun you with one speed at 5' 8" 280 myself. Shall I >> > drop the glove? >> >> If it makes you happy, though I think your post is a bit of a >> non-sequitor since I don't see anywhere in the thread where I claim to >> be fast as greased lightning. >> >> I'm based in Seattle, though I'll be swinging through Philadelphia and >> Cincinnati next month. I don't know if I'll have access to a bike in >> Ohio though. > > Are you cycling over 10 states to get to Oregon? http://www.mapmsg.com/games/statetris/usa/ -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org Somewhere, there was a rich vein of power in OS/2... But no easy way to tap it. Unix presents you with dozens of rich veins and dozens of different types of needles to use on it. -- Shal'Nath   Date: 23 Jul 2007 21:40:24 From: Zog The Undeniable Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Paul J. Berg wrote: > ~ > > News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 > > After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the > tickets continue to fly in Portland. UK law has always been that the fixed wheel counts as *one* brake, and bicycles must have two brakes. You don't see many fixies here without at least a front caliper, even the London couriers, who appear to be the most insane and fixie-obsessed in the world, judging from http://www.digave.com/videos/london06-digave_com.mpg If I regularly rode fixed in very hilly terrain, with long descents, I'd have both brakes. The smell of burning front brake pads (you brake LOTS more on fixed, once you've reached your personal cadence limit) makes me wonder about how close the tyre is to popping off the rim. A second brake allows a bit of alternation to allow the heat to dissipate. As it is, I get away with just the front brake - but it does preclude using a freewheel on the other side of the flip-flop hub. The bike would instantly become illegal if I turned the wheel round. At the end of the day, leg-braking is pretty ineffectual in an emergency; at its best, it's only as good as jamming on a rear brake and letting the tyre slide.     Date: 23 Jul 2007 17:54:48 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <f833n7$1fv4$1@energise.enta.net >, Zog The Undeniable <hrothgar19@yahoo.com > wrote: > At the end of the day, leg-braking is pretty ineffectual in an > emergency; at its best, it's only as good as jamming on a rear brake > and letting the tyre slide. For panic stops that's quite true. A coaster brake or caliper brake makes feathering the drag and adjusting your speed easier than is the case with a screwed-on cog, the claims of fixed gear aficionados notwithstanding. I rode fixed for years in the winter for training, putting on thousands of miles coast-less, but I never deluded myself that the fixed wheel gave me greater control over slowing down or stopping. Even worse is the people using the rotafix method sans lockring... and no other brakes.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 13:21:54 From: N8N Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 2:20 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <1185204670.646033.297...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> > , > > N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Because at least on Interstate highways in the general area in which I > > live, speed limits are not set according to engineering principles and/ > > or the MUTCD guidelines, therefore literally everyone on the road is > > breaking them outside of rush hour or other heavy traffic instances. > > I'm not entirely comfortable with this situation for several reasons; > > first, it erodes respect for traffic law in general (if it's > > commonplace to break the speed limit, do I really need to signal my > > turns? come to a full stop at a stop sign? What laws ARE important?) > > and secondly, unless you choose to be the odd man out and actually > > obey the speed limit (putting oneself at increased risk of collision) > > you may be pulled over and ticketed by any officer at any time - > > simply because you were driving with the flow of traffic. > > I had occasion to commute daily on the interstate > highways here. _Never_ got a speeding ticket. _One_ > unsafe lane change, and I was guilty as hell. I drove > with the traffic. Speeding tickets were awarded to > drivers who stood out. Rather than have every minute > regulated, I kind of like behavior on the highways > around here. > > -- > Michael Press I received a ticket for something like 3 over (don't remember exactly) from a local Ohio cop on I-77 once. I saw the cop a long way off; I was the only car on the road. My speedo said I was doing exactly the limit. I don't know what I did to piss the cop off, but it can happen. I agree that MOST OF THE TIME you are correct; it just frosts my cookies that normal, safe behavior can be defined as illegal, and that theoretically you CAN be cited for it, even if in practice you generally aren't. I guess you can tell from the above where I usually fall in the interminable RAD debate on speed limits and proper posting thereof :) nate   Date: 23 Jul 2007 11:52:05 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 11:06 am, Balanced View <N...@nill.net > wrote: > In "Brakeless", are they referring to "No Cable brakes" or " Only > coaster brakes" If they are referring to > coaster brakes I can't see what's the issue, they work, are > indestructible and more maintenance free than > any cable setup. Fixed gear braking is not nearly the same as coaster brake braking. Robert     Date: 23 Jul 2007 20:44:19 From: Balanced View Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Jul 23, 11:06 am, Balanced View <N...@nill.net> wrote: > > >> In "Brakeless", are they referring to "No Cable brakes" or " Only >> coaster brakes" If they are referring to >> coaster brakes I can't see what's the issue, they work, are >> indestructible and more maintenance free than >> any cable setup. >> > > Fixed gear braking is not nearly the same as coaster brake braking. > > Robert > > What??????     Date: 24 Jul 2007 00:08:38 From: Robert Lorenzini Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:52:05 -0700, r15757@aol.com <r15757@aol.com > wrote: > Fixed gear braking is not nearly the same as coaster brake braking. As witnessed by my GF who lost the pedals on her track bike on a steep hill. Bob   Date: 23 Jul 2007 16:45:01 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 2:50 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote: > Man, I don't know what the beef is here. If the problem is unsafe > driving/riding, why not deal with that and not tell folks what > equipment they are or are not qualified to use appropriately? Indeed. How many miles would a no-brakes rider have to ride without incident in crowded traffic before folks realize that using such equipment does not necessarily result in fiery death? 10,000? 30,000? 100,000? Would that prove to the safety nannies that riding brakeless is not 'suicidal?' What we have here, I believe, is the bleeting of one crowd of hipsters, the 'fixie' crowd, feeling their hipster thunder being stolen by another band of hipsters, the no-brakes crowd. In the coffee shop hipster hierarchy, the front braker is sent down the ladder a few rungs as long as there are no-brakers around. Clearly this burns them up. It is comically hypocritical for the typical fixed gear rider to criticize no-brakers for trying to be hip. It is also hypocritical for a fixed gear rider to criticize a no-braker for not using the safest equipment possible -- the 'fixie' rider, even with a brake, is not going to be able to stop as fast as a rider with a freewheel. So aren't they compromising their own safety and the safety of others just to follow a trend? Or are we going to accept their protestations that they prefer riding fixed gears only for the most sober and practical reasons? Yeah, right. Because fixed gears are so wonderful and practical compared to freewheels, right? Give it up, jokers. The jig is up. The only thing worse than a hipster are those, second-tier, trying-too- hard hipsters who self-righteously lash out at other hipsters for doing a better job of being hip than they do. Robert > Last I heard, skateboards and inline skates didn't have any brake as > effective as a fixed wheel. Millions of folks got their first taste > of vehicular cycling on coaster braked bikes that were likely to throw > their chains. Heck, America originally got paved highways to meet the > demands of fixed-gear riders who couldn't brake worth a damn. None of > the above are/were as crazy, reckless, and dangerous as the jackhole > who drives a 7,000 pound Hummer, all by himself, three miles to work-- > regardless of how many brakes he's packing or how circumspectly he > drives. > > As we speak, the neighborhood kids are out fooling around on my adult- > sized Big Wheel trike-- fixed, no brake-- and they are having a whale > of a time. They should not be subject to a $100 fine for that. They > aren't doing anything they wouldn't be doing on two-wheelers with > brakes. And if it's OK for the kids to figure out for themselves what > circumstances are appropriate for them to ride "fixed" in the street, > then why can't adults be trusted with the same judgment call? > > I have directly observed that 29 x 2.35" wheels and tires are safer, > more stable, and more capable on ordinary streets than smaller wheels > and tires. Since that's my preferred choice, maybe I should promote > legislation that sets a minimum tire diameter of 28" and a minimum > tire width of 1.75" as a legal requirement. It is safer, after all. > And it's irresponsible to ride 23mm tires in the street-- I certainly > don't want to be tarred with the bad reputation earned by skinny-tire > riders. Just ban them, I say. > > Chalo     Date: 23 Jul 2007 13:06:54 From: Balanced View Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Jul 21, 2:50 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Man, I don't know what the beef is here. If the problem is unsafe >> driving/riding, why not deal with that and not tell folks what >> equipment they are or are not qualified to use appropriately? >> > > Indeed. How many miles would a no-brakes rider have to ride without > incident in crowded traffic before folks realize that using such > equipment does not necessarily result in fiery death? 10,000? 30,000? > 100,000? Would that prove to the safety nannies that riding brakeless > is not 'suicidal?' > In "Brakeless", are they referring to "No Cable brakes" or " Only coaster brakes" If they are referring to coaster brakes I can't see what's the issue, they work, are indestructible and more maintenance free than any cable setup.       Date: 23 Jul 2007 15:09:34 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <f82n3o$gen$1@aioe.org >, Balanced View <Nill@nill.net> wrote: > r15757@aol.com wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2:50 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Man, I don't know what the beef is here. If the problem is unsafe > >> driving/riding, why not deal with that and not tell folks what > >> equipment they are or are not qualified to use appropriately? > >> > > > > Indeed. How many miles would a no-brakes rider have to ride without > > incident in crowded traffic before folks realize that using such > > equipment does not necessarily result in fiery death? 10,000? > > 30,000? 100,000? Would that prove to the safety nannies that riding > > brakeless is not 'suicidal?' > > > > In "Brakeless", are they referring to "No Cable brakes" or " Only > coaster brakes" If they are referring to coaster brakes I can't see > what's the issue, they work, are indestructible and more maintenance > free than any cable setup. Coaster brakes are useless if the weak link in that system- the chain- breaks. My single speed commuting bike has a coaster brake (if the markings are interpreted correctly, a 1938 Bendix pre-red stripe). A fine and reliable hub. And it's backed up with a front wheel caliper brake that stops me quicker than the coaster brake does.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 08:31:10 From: N8N Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 23, 7:52 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > Nate Nagel wrote: > > Tim McNamara wrote: > >> In article <f7vi7s12...@news2.newsguy.com>, > >> Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: > > >>> (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in > >>> my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front > >>> of cross traffic.) > > >> Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers > >> ignoring the law as do cyclists. > > > Discounting speed limits, I disagree heartily. 100% of the cyclists > > that I see are breaking some law or another (95% of them blow stop > > signs, and I don't mean a "california stop" either.) The number of > > drivers I see doing things like that is much, much smaller. > > > If you count the speed limit, of course, then 100% of both groups are > > breaking at least one law. > > Why wouldn't you count that? Because at least on Interstate highways in the general area in which I live, speed limits are not set according to engineering principles and/ or the MUTCD guidelines, therefore literally everyone on the road is breaking them outside of rush hour or other heavy traffic instances. I'm not entirely comfortable with this situation for several reasons; first, it erodes respect for traffic law in general (if it's commonplace to break the speed limit, do I really need to signal my turns? come to a full stop at a stop sign? What laws ARE important?) and secondly, unless you choose to be the odd man out and actually obey the speed limit (putting oneself at increased risk of collision) you may be pulled over and ticketed by any officer at any time - simply because you were driving with the flow of traffic. To make a complex subject somewhat simplified, it has been shown for years that a) speed limits have little effect on the speeds that drivers will actually travel. Most drivers select what they feel is a safe and reasonable speed and travel at that speed, regardless of the posted limit. b) statistically, the safest speed to travel is at or slightly above the median speed of traffic. c) the "85th percentile" rule has been shown to be the best method to set speed limits on a road with no hazards not obvious to the average, aware motorist. Now the underlying causes of these conclusions, and the proper application of the 85th percentile method is a subject of constant, contentious debate :) This has been discussed ad nauseum over at rec.autos.driving, and is a subject of frequent discussion (some polite, some less so) over there, with no end in sight. For the record, since Virginia has recently passed a law tacking on some pretty Draconian "high risk driver" fees to its usual renewal fees, based on offenses recorded on one's driving record, I have been one spectacularly law-abiding driver. As a result, I am generally the slowest person on the road. This pisses me off that I am forced to take on increased personal risk simply to avoid fees that I can't afford. nate     Date: 23 Jul 2007 16:59:40 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie N8N wrote: > On Jul 23, 7:52 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Nate Nagel wrote: >>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>> In article <f7vi7s12...@news2.newsguy.com>, >>>> Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: >>>>> (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in >>>>> my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front >>>>> of cross traffic.) >>>> Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers >>>> ignoring the law as do cyclists. >>> Discounting speed limits, I disagree heartily. 100% of the cyclists >>> that I see are breaking some law or another (95% of them blow stop >>> signs, and I don't mean a "california stop" either.) The number of >>> drivers I see doing things like that is much, much smaller. >>> If you count the speed limit, of course, then 100% of both groups are >>> breaking at least one law. >> Why wouldn't you count that? > > Because at least on Interstate highways in the general area in which I > live, speed limits are not set according to engineering principles and/ > or the MUTCD guidelines, therefore literally everyone on the road is > breaking them outside of rush hour or other heavy traffic instances. > I'm not entirely comfortable with this situation for several reasons; Sorry to snip all that, but I think it amounts to a long winded rationalization. You're the one who's adamant about the law being the law, yet you'll give a pass for speeding. I don't particularly get upset by highway speeding as much as residential speeding, which is at least as common. In view of actual safety statistics and liability downsides I see it as much more socially costly than bicycle ROW scofflaws.       Date: 23 Jul 2007 19:06:27 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole wrote: > N8N wrote: > >> On Jul 23, 7:52 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Nate Nagel wrote: >>> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <f7vi7s12...@news2.newsguy.com>, >>>>> Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in >>>>>> my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front >>>>>> of cross traffic.) >>>>> >>>>> Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers >>>>> ignoring the law as do cyclists. >>>> >>>> Discounting speed limits, I disagree heartily. 100% of the cyclists >>>> that I see are breaking some law or another (95% of them blow stop >>>> signs, and I don't mean a "california stop" either.) The number of >>>> drivers I see doing things like that is much, much smaller. >>>> If you count the speed limit, of course, then 100% of both groups are >>>> breaking at least one law. >>> >>> Why wouldn't you count that? >> >> >> Because at least on Interstate highways in the general area in which I >> live, speed limits are not set according to engineering principles and/ >> or the MUTCD guidelines, therefore literally everyone on the road is >> breaking them outside of rush hour or other heavy traffic instances. >> I'm not entirely comfortable with this situation for several reasons; > > > Sorry to snip all that, but I think it amounts to a long winded > rationalization. You're the one who's adamant about the law being the > law, yet you'll give a pass for speeding. I'm not "giving a pass" or even admitting to doing it myself - as I posted before, I've become one law-abiding mofo since a particularly Draconian law went into effect here. The real question is, though, why are speed limits not set at the optimum level for safety for motorists? (speaking here mostly of highways where bicycles, pedestrians, etc. are not an issue.) You always hear that "you should obey the speed limit because it's safer" but the truth is that that is often an incorrect statement. To head off the obvious retort that I ought to do something about it, I am a card-carrying member of the NMA, an organization devoted to reforming and rationalizing our motor vehicle laws, although I'm probably not as locally active as I should be. > > I don't particularly get upset by highway speeding as much as > residential speeding, which is at least as common. I don't see that quite so much... certainly literally everyone speeds on the highway, while most people tend to keep it down to a reasonable velocity in residential neighborhoods, although a lot tend to push it to 30 in a 25 or so. > In view of actual > safety statistics and liability downsides I see it as much more socially > costly than bicycle ROW scofflaws. Only because of the large numbers of motorists compared to bicyclists. Again, I'm not advocating it or admitting to doing it, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable safety-wise doing 30 in a 25 in my car than I would sailing past a stop sign at full speed on a bicycle. Maybe statistics prove me wrong, I don't know, but blowing stops just seems to be ludicrously dangerous for little benefit. Yeah, I know, you have to work to get up to speed, but isn't exercise one of the benefits of riding a bike? nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel         Date: 24 Jul 2007 07:22:35 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Nate Nagel wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Sorry to snip all that, but I think it amounts to a long winded >> rationalization. You're the one who's adamant about the law being the >> law, yet you'll give a pass for speeding. > > I'm not "giving a pass" or even admitting to doing it myself - as I > posted before, I've become one law-abiding mofo since a particularly > Draconian law went into effect here. The real question is, though, why > are speed limits not set at the optimum level for safety for motorists? So you don't agree with the law, and presume lots of others don't either, so you get much less irate about speeding scofflaws than cyclist ROW scofflaws? >> I don't particularly get upset by highway speeding as much as >> residential speeding, which is at least as common. > > I don't see that quite so much... certainly literally everyone speeds on > the highway, while most people tend to keep it down to a reasonable > velocity in residential neighborhoods, although a lot tend to push it to > 30 in a 25 or so. Yes, but that's equivalent to 78 in a 65 zone, something that would get you a ticket almost every time. >> In view of actual safety statistics and liability downsides I see it >> as much more socially costly than bicycle ROW scofflaws. > > Only because of the large numbers of motorists compared to bicyclists. > Again, I'm not advocating it or admitting to doing it, but I'd feel a > lot more comfortable safety-wise doing 30 in a 25 in my car than I would > sailing past a stop sign at full speed on a bicycle. Maybe statistics > prove me wrong, I don't know, but blowing stops just seems to be > ludicrously dangerous for little benefit. Yeah, I know, you have to > work to get up to speed, but isn't exercise one of the benefits of > riding a bike? Well, bottom line is your "hatred" for cyclist scofflaws is very different than your tolerance for speeders, not based on your respect for the law but your own sense of priorities -- which are far from universal.     Date: 23 Jul 2007 18:20:11 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <1185204670.646033.297330@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com > , N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com > wrote: > Because at least on Interstate highways in the general area in which I > live, speed limits are not set according to engineering principles and/ > or the MUTCD guidelines, therefore literally everyone on the road is > breaking them outside of rush hour or other heavy traffic instances. > I'm not entirely comfortable with this situation for several reasons; > first, it erodes respect for traffic law in general (if it's > commonplace to break the speed limit, do I really need to signal my > turns? come to a full stop at a stop sign? What laws ARE important?) > and secondly, unless you choose to be the odd man out and actually > obey the speed limit (putting oneself at increased risk of collision) > you may be pulled over and ticketed by any officer at any time - > simply because you were driving with the flow of traffic. I had occasion to commute daily on the interstate highways here. _Never_ got a speeding ticket. _One_ unsafe lane change, and I was guilty as hell. I drove with the traffic. Speeding tickets were awarded to drivers who stood out. Rather than have every minute regulated, I kind of like behavior on the highways around here. -- Michael Press   Date: 22 Jul 2007 22:12:42 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 22, 10:56 pm, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net > wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:03:05 -0400, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> > wrote: > > >Getting off topic, but Ventura always impressed me with his common > >sense, especially so given his background. > > Common Sense doesn't mean you'd be a good gubernator. And JV didn't > display much skill at either. > > What he did do was craft a good sound bite and provide some political > entertainment. He did have Some political background, having been > mayor of a smallish suburb in Northern Minnehopeless. > > But what he did Not do was to put together any sort of political party > or mechanism that would carry forward after his cult of personality > left office. And he really didn't much Like governing anyway. > > >Whatever happened to him, anyway? > > Mostly he now deals with a well-deserved obscurity. He pops up every > now and then acting outrageous, as he did when he was The Body. He's got enough money, I've no worries for him.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 22:11:33 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 22, 6:08 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc Paul J. Berg <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote: > > > Lobby Dosser wrote: > >> Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: > >> > In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > > >> >>> Or are you one of the > >> >>> hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? > > >> >> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? > > >> > Personally, I'm so hip I can barely see over my pelvis. > > >> I'm so hip I have to use a mirror to see my pelvis. > > > I think Dane and Lobby are mistaking a beer belly for a hip. > > Heyyyy! I admit I used to resemble that remark. I used to weigh about > 280 lbs, instead of my current (fairly reasonable for 6'1") weight of > 200 lbs. I can still outrun you with one speed at 5' 8" 280 myself. Shall I drop the glove?     Date: 23 Jul 2007 09:59:01 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In rec.bicycles.misc Steven <thisjukeboxplays33rpm@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jul 22, 6:08 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: >> In rec.bicycles.misc Paul J. Berg <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote: >> > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> >> Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: >> >> >> > Personally, I'm so hip I can barely see over my pelvis. >> >> >> I'm so hip I have to use a mirror to see my pelvis. >> >> > I think Dane and Lobby are mistaking a beer belly for a hip. >> >> Heyyyy! I admit I used to resemble that remark. I used to weigh about >> 280 lbs, instead of my current (fairly reasonable for 6'1") weight of >> 200 lbs. > > I can still outrun you with one speed at 5' 8" 280 myself. Shall I > drop the glove? If it makes you happy, though I think your post is a bit of a non-sequitor since I don't see anywhere in the thread where I claim to be fast as greased lightning. I'm based in Seattle, though I'll be swinging through Philadelphia and Cincinnati next month. I don't know if I'll have access to a bike in Ohio though. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "2) Users don't know what they really want, but they know for certain what they don't want." - Manubay's Laws for Programmers   Date: 23 Jul 2007 02:37:58 From: landotter Subject: Re: Servizio Corsa Tubular Tire (was Braking the Fixie) On Jul 22, 5:53 pm, John Thompson <j...@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote: > On 2007-07-22, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 1:26 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > > >> What more can you do, than to warn someone? > > Beat them with a fabulous Servizio Corsa Tubular Tire. Yes, the best > > value in a tubular is back. Fifty bucks gets you a pair--and a > > correctional device. :-D > > Dare I ask: In silk? > Cotton. mmm, Laura Ingalls.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 17:41:51 From: bryanska Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie > During a charity ride, you can ask local authorities permission to > have a group of strong riders stop and direct traffic so the peloton > stays together. I'm not sure if I agree with that. It sounds to me like we're asking to take over their town. I'd rather get along with all the residents, grumpy Sunday drivers included, by following their rules as guests through their town. Also, I don't know if we can expect the right to a peloton on a charity ride anyway.     Date: 22 Jul 2007 20:59:53 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <1185151311.296730.116760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com >, bryanska <BARRELBACK@HOTMAIL.COM > wrote: > > During a charity ride, you can ask local authorities permission to > > have a group of strong riders stop and direct traffic so the > > peloton stays together. > > I'm not sure if I agree with that. It sounds to me like we're asking > to take over their town. I'd rather get along with all the residents, > grumpy Sunday drivers included, by following their rules as guests > through their town. > > Also, I don't know if we can expect the right to a peloton on a > charity ride anyway. Most municipalities would rather accommodate such rides to get them through and return the roads to normal functioning as quickly as possible, rather than having cyclists trickling through in small clusters. Generally the police are in charge of traffic management not certain riders designated in the group.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 16:24:10 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 22, 2:30 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:41:06 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > > > > > > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Peter Cole wrote: > >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > >>> Peter Cole wrote: > >>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > > >>>>> Hey, that was what I was going to write! > > >>>>> The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. > > >>>> How do you know they're smug? > > >>> These types are smug because they are part of the "in" group that > >>> denigrates outsiders for not "getting it". > > >> & you know this how? Have you been denigrated? > > >I have been around groups like this enough [1] to know that denigration > >of others who don't "get it" is a main topic of conversation. > > >>>> You obviously are. > > >>> [Yawn] Your smugdar is in need of recalibration. > > >> That's what it sounded like above (schadenfreude & all that). > > >When did "schadenfreude" and "smug" become synonyms? > > >[1] They often like to talk loudly so others can "benefit" from their > >superiority. > > The Smug also close their eyes while talking. I saw that on South Park. > > Ron I saw Cartman dress as a Vietnamese hooker for Halloween...two dolla suckee suckee...hey GI Joe~ That was brilliant   Date: 22 Jul 2007 16:22:07 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 22, 11:56 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote: > > > > > > > Peter Cole writes: > > >>>> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? > > >>> I prefer to see a definition of "hip" before believing that. I > >>> sense that it often goes with driving a jacked up shiny black SUV > >>> with 18" chromed wheels with 12" wide low cross section tires, > >>> blackened windows and 4" dual rumble pipes to go with the tish-boom > >>> stereo that shakes most structures (and cars) near the road. > > >>> I don't want to spend time with shallow people who believe they are > >>> what they own (or are in debt for), especially if it is in such bad > >>> taste. Do you drive truck! If you don't, you ain't nowhere. > > >> I think it's a good idea to define "hip". > > >> 1 a : having or showing awareness of or involvement in the newest > >> developments or styles <hip musicians> b : very fashionable : TRENDY > >> <hip clothes> > > >> 2 : aware or appreciative of something -- used with to <got hip to > >> their plan> > > >> I think part of the problem come from the two, somewhat opposite, > >> connotations. Personally, I use it in the second sense, > >> knowledgeable, rather than fashionable. Again, personally, if your > >> idea of style is functional (true of many engineers), as in "form > >> follows function", then the two meanings of the word converge. > > >> I'm a dyed in the wool functionalist, so when it comes to cycling, > >> my idea of a "hip" cyclist is someone whose understanding of > >> function is obvious from their choice of clothing, equipment, > >> demeanor and behavior on a bike -- at least obvious to me. Any > >> alignment with trends is pretty much coincidental. As Coco Chanel > >> said" "Never confuse fad with fashion". Most people equate those two > >> terms, but she had a very different idea. > > >> As for monster trucks, since they are among the most un-functional > >> things on the road, I consider them very un-hip. Ditto for loud > >> pipes, massive subwoofers, black windows, low wall tires on massive > >> rims and all those other non-functional (or even dis-functional) > >> affectations you see on everything from the above trucks to little > >> sport coupes. > > >> Unfortunately, many of these new fads, are discourteous in the most > >> general sense, as are also incessant headphone and cell phone use. I > >> don't think it's too far a reach to suggest they represent a growing > >> level of disregard for others. The knowledge that courtesy is a > >> necessary social lubricant has been recognized for millennia, so > >> these developments are very un-hip by my meaning of the word. > > > All said and done, "hip" seems to be a fad word with vague allusions > > to display of bad taste and disregard for others. It rings of gang > > culture that, in my area, is typified by baggy pants to the extreme, > > chromed chains from one pocket to the other, driving a black low rider > > with all the garish equipment available. > > > I don't believe the term has any place with anything I do or represent. > > "Hip" has always been an exclusionary grouping, with strict rules on > conformance if one wants to be accepted into the "superior" group. It > differs from mainstream culture merely for the sake of setting the > "superior" group "above" and apart. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful The COW is, not you.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 15:34:20 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 7:12 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Chalo Colina writes: > >> If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper at > >> the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the > >> law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two > >> brakes--in that case, a fixed gear may count as one. > > Man, I don't know what the beef is here. If the problem is unsafe > > driving/riding, why not deal with that and not tell folks what > > equipment they are or are not qualified to use appropriately? > > Last I heard, skateboards and in-line skates didn't have any brake > > as effective as a fixed wheel. Millions of folks got their first > > taste of vehicular cycling on coaster braked bikes that were likely > > to throw their chains. Heck, America originally got paved highways > > to meet the demands of fixed-gear riders who couldn't brake worth a > > damn. None of the above are/were as crazy, reckless, and dangerous > > as the jackhole who drives a 7,000 pound Hummer, all by himself, > > three miles to work-- regardless of how many brakes he's packing or > > how circumspectly he drives. > > I haven't seen skateboards and in-line skaters mix with sidewalk or > street traffic at speeds above 10mph in urban locations. Even > distance runners at full speed would be a hazard doing that. In > contrast the no-brake bicyclists engage in their machismo in dense > traffic at speeds above 15mph. It's all how you do it that counts and > these guys are a hazard. > > > As we speak, the neighborhood kids are out fooling around on my > > adult- sized Big Wheel trike-- fixed, no brake-- and they are having > > a whale of a time. They should not be subject to a $100 fine for > > that. They aren't doing anything they wouldn't be doing on > > two-wheelers with brakes. And if it's OK for the kids to figure out > > for themselves what circumstances are appropriate for them to ride > > "fixed" in the street, then why can't adults be trusted with the > > same judgment call? > > Well, when they take a header, you might have more than $100 expenses. > Our local high wheel rider has had a few tilts even though he has a > brake. > > > I have directly observed that 29 x 2.35" wheels and tires are safer, > > more stable, and more capable on ordinary streets than smaller > > wheels and tires. Since that's my preferred choice, maybe I should > > promote legislation that sets a minimum tire diameter of 28" and a > > minimum tire width of 1.75" as a legal requirement. It is safer, > > after all. And it's irresponsible to ride 23mm tires in the > > street-- I certainly don't want to be tarred with the bad reputation > > earned by skinny-tire riders. Just ban them, I say. > > Don't be so coy and ridiculous. That's like the guy that suggested > all bicycles on Sand Hill Road ride against traffic after a rider was > hit "from behind". As it turned out, he was hit from the side as he > attempted a U-turn at the top of Sand Hill as many riders do, but > while looking back first. The reality in Portland, as the article mentions, is that there is a small, vocal minority of fixie riders who have to ride with no brakes. It appears the group is getting somewhat larger lately, which will only lead to serious accidents because downtown is totally torn up (we are putting in more street car tracks -- back to the future!). The pedestrians herded through narrow chutes and ramps around the construction along with cyclists trying to cut around the construction. Also the same amount of car traffic is now on half as many streets and is mixed in with the crazy bus drivers and the existing street cars. And there are just a lot more cyclists riding during the summer, which adds to the traffic. The good part is that our bike messengers are only half as crazy as the ones in N.Y. But there are still some Bohemian, no-brake, fixed- gear riding guys and gals who clearly do not have the leg strength to stop on a dime -- but who think they do. I don't doubt that a large number of the no-brake crowd are pretty good at stopping -- but the cops can't do field strenght tests (like field sobriety tests) to see who can stop and who can't. There are also a fair number of messengers riding seriously expensive track bikes with super short wheel bases, no brakes, no holes for brakes and no room for tires bigger than 21mm -- and certainly no room for fenders. This is like a recipe for disaster during the rainy season, particularly with the slippery brick work in the streets and walks downtown. Also a waste of a good bike. -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 22 Jul 2007 18:35:51 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <1185143660.717541.71740@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote: > The reality in Portland, as the article mentions, is that there is a > small, vocal minority of fixie riders who have to ride with no > brakes. It appears the group is getting somewhat larger lately, > which will only lead to serious accidents because downtown is totally > torn up (we are putting in more street car tracks -- back to the > future!). The pedestrians herded through narrow chutes and ramps > around the construction along with cyclists trying to cut around the > construction. Also the same amount of car traffic is now on half as > many streets and is mixed in with the crazy bus drivers and the > existing street cars. And there are just a lot more cyclists riding > during the summer, which adds to the traffic. > > The good part is that our bike messengers are only half as crazy as > the ones in N.Y. But there are still some Bohemian, no-brake, fixed- > gear riding guys and gals who clearly do not have the leg strength to > stop on a dime -- but who think they do. I don't doubt that a large > number of the no-brake crowd are pretty good at stopping -- but the > cops can't do field strenght tests (like field sobriety tests) to see > who can stop and who can't. > > There are also a fair number of messengers riding seriously expensive > track bikes with super short wheel bases, no brakes, no holes for > brakes and no room for tires bigger than 21mm -- and certainly no > room for fenders. This is like a recipe for disaster during the > rainy season, particularly with the slippery brick work in the > streets and walks downtown. Also a waste of a good bike. -- Jay > Beattie. Some years ago, when Jesse Ventura was running for governor in Minnesota, he was asked what he would do to stop the spate of snowmobilers driving on lakes on too-thin ice (there had been just about no snow statewide that winter and temps had been well above average- in other words just like about every winter in the past decade), crashing through and in several cases drowning. Ventura's reply was "you can't legislate against stupidity."       Date: 22 Jul 2007 22:03:05 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <1185143660.717541.71740@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote: > > >>The reality in Portland, as the article mentions, is that there is a >>small, vocal minority of fixie riders who have to ride with no >>brakes. It appears the group is getting somewhat larger lately, >>which will only lead to serious accidents because downtown is totally >>torn up (we are putting in more street car tracks -- back to the >>future!). The pedestrians herded through narrow chutes and ramps >>around the construction along with cyclists trying to cut around the >>construction. Also the same amount of car traffic is now on half as >>many streets and is mixed in with the crazy bus drivers and the >>existing street cars. And there are just a lot more cyclists riding >>during the summer, which adds to the traffic. >> >>The good part is that our bike messengers are only half as crazy as >>the ones in N.Y. But there are still some Bohemian, no-brake, fixed- >>gear riding guys and gals who clearly do not have the leg strength to >>stop on a dime -- but who think they do. I don't doubt that a large >>number of the no-brake crowd are pretty good at stopping -- but the >>cops can't do field strenght tests (like field sobriety tests) to see >>who can stop and who can't. >> >>There are also a fair number of messengers riding seriously expensive >>track bikes with super short wheel bases, no brakes, no holes for >>brakes and no room for tires bigger than 21mm -- and certainly no >>room for fenders. This is like a recipe for disaster during the >>rainy season, particularly with the slippery brick work in the >>streets and walks downtown. Also a waste of a good bike. -- Jay >>Beattie. > > > Some years ago, when Jesse Ventura was running for governor in > Minnesota, he was asked what he would do to stop the spate of > snowmobilers driving on lakes on too-thin ice (there had been just about > no snow statewide that winter and temps had been well above average- in > other words just like about every winter in the past decade), crashing > through and in several cases drowning. Ventura's reply was "you can't > legislate against stupidity." Getting off topic, but Ventura always impressed me with his common sense, especially so given his background. Whatever happened to him, anyway? nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel         Date: 22 Jul 2007 21:56:53 From: Don Homuth Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:03:05 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote: >Getting off topic, but Ventura always impressed me with his common >sense, especially so given his background. Common Sense doesn't mean you'd be a good gubernator. And JV didn't display much skill at either. What he did do was craft a good sound bite and provide some political entertainment. He did have Some political background, having been mayor of a smallish suburb in Northern Minnehopeless. But what he did Not do was to put together any sort of political party or mechanism that would carry forward after his cult of personality left office. And he really didn't much Like governing anyway. >Whatever happened to him, anyway? Mostly he now deals with a well-deserved obscurity. He pops up every now and then acting outrageous, as he did when he was The Body.         Date: 22 Jul 2007 23:27:32 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <f8128p0h0f@news2.newsguy.com >, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote: > > Some years ago, when Jesse Ventura was running for governor in > > Minnesota, he was asked what he would do to stop the spate of > > snowmobilers driving on lakes on too-thin ice (there had been just > > about no snow statewide that winter and temps had been well above > > average- in other words just like about every winter in the past > > decade), crashing through and in several cases drowning. Ventura's > > reply was "you can't legislate against stupidity." > > Getting off topic, but Ventura always impressed me with his common > sense, especially so given his background. Whatever happened to him, > anyway? He was perhaps more impressive for his common sense from a distance. Ventura was fiscally irresponsible, anti-education at all levels, and generally an embarrassment to the state at a policy level. Of course, we followed him up with Tim Pawlenty who is cut from the same pigheaded, shortsighted cloth- although Ventura at least could be funny. Anyway, Venture pretty much faded from view immediately after leaving office. When he does turn up, he's just weird.           Date: 23 Jul 2007 18:59:13 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <f8128p0h0f@news2.newsguy.com>, > Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote: > > >>>Some years ago, when Jesse Ventura was running for governor in >>>Minnesota, he was asked what he would do to stop the spate of >>>snowmobilers driving on lakes on too-thin ice (there had been just >>>about no snow statewide that winter and temps had been well above >>>average- in other words just like about every winter in the past >>>decade), crashing through and in several cases drowning. Ventura's >>>reply was "you can't legislate against stupidity." >> >>Getting off topic, but Ventura always impressed me with his common >>sense, especially so given his background. Whatever happened to him, >>anyway? > > > He was perhaps more impressive for his common sense from a distance. > Ventura was fiscally irresponsible, anti-education at all levels, and > generally an embarrassment to the state at a policy level. Of course, > we followed him up with Tim Pawlenty who is cut from the same pigheaded, > shortsighted cloth- although Ventura at least could be funny. > > Anyway, Venture pretty much faded from view immediately after leaving > office. When he does turn up, he's just weird. You may be right; I certainly wasn't all that interested in Minnesota politics as I've been moving back and forth between Virginia and Maryland for years. It's quite possibly true that "the grass is greener" when all you get are the good sound bites from the distant candidate and you're presented with the day-to-day annoyance of your local gov't. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel   Date: 22 Jul 2007 19:19:04 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 22, 1:26 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> writes: > >> I agree 100% with your analysis of rear wheel braking. Most of the > >> fixed gear riders who are proponents of going brakeless are riding > >> what I would consider circus gearing. Easy for tricks, skidding > >> etc. and spinning like a mad may get them to 20 mph. > >> A short ride on a more realistically geared bike might make them > >> see the error of their all encompassing conclusions as to the > >> viability of riding a fixed gear on the street brakeless. > >> As to the ease of conversion of a track bike to brakes, if it is a > >> real rather than the common commodity "track bike" or road bike > >> conversion then drilling of the fork crown is probably not a > >> reliable option given their often minimalist nature. A replacement > >> fork with a hole and designed for brake loading is IMO a better > >> option. > >> FWIW Fixed gear riding probably represents ~50% of my time on a > >> bike. I rode a fixed gear downtown this morning for about an hour > >> and used the front brake once when a motorcycle blasted past me, > >> misjudged my speed and made a right turn in front of me. I ended > >> up braking hard and making a right turn inside his line, I may have > >> been able to not use the brake and take other evasive action, but > >> traffic was heavy. One thing is for sure there is no way I could > >> have set up for and skid stopped the 52 x 17 gear I was riding in > >> time. > > Such a nice post from an experienced fixie rider, who has also > > gained maturity. This week, I included a free chromed drilled fork > > with a new NJS frame - we agree drilling beautiful track forks is an > > abortion. More, there aren't any 400 calipers around once you > > defile your crown. > > Most true track forks use round fork blades, because there is no > braking force to bend them at the crown. They are as small as the > minor diameter of steel road forks. Drilling a track fork for a brake > is not good because such forks are not designed to withstand braking > forces. Of course, if it is only an emergency device, then not enough > braking will occur to cause a fatigue failure. > > > I also ride an urban fixed and hardly ever use my front brake. But > > if there is no caliper, one may find skid lengths excessive: > > http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/FACEPLNT.JPG > > > (I sent that photo to his mother. He _still_ has no caliper!) > > What more can you do, than to warn someone? Beat them with a fabulous Servizio Corsa Tubular Tire. Yes, the best value in a tubular is back. Fifty bucks gets you a pair--and a correctional device. :-D     Date: 22 Jul 2007 17:53:42 From: John Thompson Subject: Re: Servizio Corsa Tubular Tire (was Braking the Fixie) On 2007-07-22, landotter <landotter@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 22, 1:26 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >> >> What more can you do, than to warn someone? > Beat them with a fabulous Servizio Corsa Tubular Tire. Yes, the best > value in a tubular is back. Fifty bucks gets you a pair--and a > correctional device. :-D Dare I ask: In silk? -- John (john@os2.dhs.org)   Date: 22 Jul 2007 10:14:42 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 22, 9:30 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <f7vi7s12...@news2.newsguy.com>, > Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote: > > > (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in > > my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front > > of cross traffic.) > > Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers > ignoring the law as do cyclists. The common view in the United states > is that traffic laws are just suggestions and can be broken with > impunity unless you can see a cop. > > What I never see is flagrant, unprovoked violence against car drivers by > bicyclists. I do, however, see flagrant unprovoked violence by car > drivers against each other, against pedestrians and against cyclists on > a daily basis. Driving a car tends to bring out the worst in people. Most people here are considerate. I had a truck stopped and then he clipped my rear. I didn't ask for charges as I figured he was embarrassed enough, and my wheel was toast as well. The police started doing pedestrian sweeps downtown and now there are folks stopping for pedestrians and bikes as well.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 10:08:56 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 22, 7:44 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 22, 7:55 am, "BobT" <RobertLeeTaylor...@THISSuddenLink.net> > wrote: > > > "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1185044094.197455.318140@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...> Considering the thoughtfulness and luxe quality of most of that bike, > > > you've seriously underbelled yourself. Even a single clapper stem > > > mounted Japanese model would be a step up. It's like you've left the > > > plastic studs in the tuxedo shirt. > > > Are these your plastic studs? > > >http://tinyurl.com/2aqe6x > > Cheeky. It's to be replaced. Mind, that's no tuxedo, it's more of a > Dickies coverall bike. Your rear hub costs vastly more than that > entire bike. Still, it's my favorite ride since my -90 Trek 1200. > > The other daily rider indeed has a large red anodized brrrnnng > brrrrinnnng bell. It's an Electra. Came with the NUVO forked kickstand.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 10:06:28 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 22, 6:11 am, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net > wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > > > > > > > "landotter" wrote: > > >> On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > > >>> ~ > > >>> News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 > > >>> After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the > >>> tickets continue to fly in Portland. > > >>> Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon > >>> bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who > >>> just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line > >>> up on Burnside. > > >>> Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all > >>> the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or > >>> "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops > >>> consider equipment violations. > > >> Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper > >> at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the > >> law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in > >> that case, a fixed gear may count as one. > > >> A front brake is far more effective than the most uber skid--and the > >> vast majority of brakeless riders I see around here can't skip stop > >> and otherwise ride like lunatics. If the cops tire of issuing brake > >> citations--I suggest reckless driving tickets. Those should be a few > >> hundred bucks. > > >> I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and > >> then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a > >> group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all > >> cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled > >> at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with > >> a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but > >> taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is > >> just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- > >> good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? > > > Hey, that was what I was going to write! > > > The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. > > > Now all we need is that guy who claimed he could produce deceleration in > > the 0.6 to 0.7g range on a fixie sans front brake to contribute to the > > thread. > > at the REAR WHEEL? One could probably prove fairly easily that it is > not possible, given the center of gravity location of the given > rider/bike combination. On any vehicle, the front wheel(s) do the vast > majority of the braking. > > nate I have a Shimano hub on the 50s Rollfast that wants to kick your ass.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 10:04:52 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 22, 5:37 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > landotter wrote: > > > Actually, in a lot of circles, the new hip is vastly different. > > Nothing wrong with style, nothing wrong with laughter, just don't > > shuffle your shoes and sulk too much. > > I think there's always a new hip, but it's always the same when it comes > to style -- that is, based on the same principles (like Coco Chanel said). > > It's always stimulating to see someone solve the same problems in a new > and original way. There's a huge difference in self-conscious copycats > and those with true elan. The latter are inspiring, the former, > depressing. It can't be faked. > > When I spend any time around fashionistas (AKA trendy consumers), > whether they be motorists or cyclists, I just come away depressed. I > don't think it's a matter of difference in taste, these people are > depressing in an absolute sense. My guess is they depress each other, too. CoCo is dead. Hard to hear dead people.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 10:03:02 From: Steven Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 11:40 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <1185043564.636524.73...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Spread Eagle=AE <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > > > > "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are = and > > > how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. > > > Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are > > far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the > > handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so > > much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if > > that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. > > Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. > > > Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering > > control AND can throw you head over heels. > > So you rode a bicycle in the 50's and this is the best you can do? > You area weak troller or this shapes up to be the Marianas Turkey Shoot. > > -- > Michael Press I have two 50s or before lugged cruisers and when I get wheels on the Monark, I think I'll lash them together for 4 wheel drive. Then get a lift kit and 31" mud tires at Les Schwab. Righteous. Look out kids!   Date: 22 Jul 2007 14:27:56 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 22, 12:08 am, bryanska <BARRELB...@HOTMAIL.COM > wrote: > > A large group of bicycles traveling together in a body impedes > > traffic much less than several smaller groups or individuals doing > > the whole light sequence thing. If there are already bikes in the > > intersection ahead of you and there are bikes coming up from behind - > > > KEEP MOVING! > > -- > > zk > > That will impede the hell out of things when people decide to make > their own rules, and ignore the "whole light sequence thing". > > Not to mention perpetuating the stereotype. > > Besides, who breaks the cycle in a line of 3000 to 5000 charity > riders? And we wonder when governments pass weird bike legislation. During a charity ride, you can ask local authorities permission to have a group of strong riders stop and direct traffic so the peloton stays together. There needs to be a number of them and they need to be strong so they get back up front quickly. Whistles and reflective vests make you look nice and official.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 07:26:52 From: rdclark Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 6:27 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:36:39 -0000, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> Well he must have seen them coming if they were that close, why not stop > >> first & let them by? > > >Because they don't have the right of way. I don't drive much, but if > >I'm at a stop sign and there's a bike coming as if not to slow down, I > >hit the gas, and they better hope their brakes are dialed in. I won't > >deliberately hit someone, but I have no problem letting people scare > >the crap out of themselves. > > Cars don't make people crazy? > > Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike? No, you wouldn't. You might let a cyclist crash into you if you're in a car, as you said in another post, but your wouldn't let a bike (let alone a car) crash into you if you're on a bike. So, by your own admission, your self-righteousness ends where your self-preservation begins. Just like anybody. The difference is that if you're in a car, you feel invulnerable to and superior to bikes, which makes you a cager at heart. r   Date: 22 Jul 2007 13:44:36 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 22, 7:55 am, "BobT" <RobertLeeTaylor...@THISSuddenLink.net > wrote: > "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1185044094.197455.318140@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...> Considering the thoughtfulness and luxe quality of most of that bike, > > you've seriously underbelled yourself. Even a single clapper stem > > mounted Japanese model would be a step up. It's like you've left the > > plastic studs in the tuxedo shirt. > > Are these your plastic studs? > > http://tinyurl.com/2aqe6x Cheeky. It's to be replaced. Mind, that's no tuxedo, it's more of a Dickies coverall bike. Your rear hub costs vastly more than that entire bike. Still, it's my favorite ride since my -90 Trek 1200. The other daily rider indeed has a large red anodized brrrnnng brrrrinnnng bell.     Date: 22 Jul 2007 09:50:22 From: BobT Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1185111876.455816.6210@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > Cheeky. It's to be replaced. Mind, that's no tuxedo, it's more of a > Dickies coverall bike. Your rear hub costs vastly more than that > entire bike. Still, it's my favorite ride since my -90 Trek 1200. > > The other daily rider indeed has a large red anodized brrrnnng > brrrrinnnng bell. > I don't think of mine as a tuxedo either, more like a hazmat suit or full turnout gear for a firefighter: http://tinyurl.com/yv7lwu BobT   Date: 21 Jul 2007 22:08:23 From: bryanska Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie > A large group of bicycles traveling together in a body impedes > traffic much less than several smaller groups or individuals doing > the whole light sequence thing. If there are already bikes in the > intersection ahead of you and there are bikes coming up from behind - > > KEEP MOVING! > -- > zk That will impede the hell out of things when people decide to make their own rules, and ignore the "whole light sequence thing". Not to mention perpetuating the stereotype. Besides, who breaks the cycle in a line of 3000 to 5000 charity riders? And we wonder when governments pass weird bike legislation.   Date: 21 Jul 2007 21:39:00 From: velodancer Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 3:19 pm, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net > wrote: > If they had coaster brakes, they'd have no problem with the law. Interestingly, as the Oregon law was quoted earlier, a front wheel only brake would still be in violation of the law as the law states the brake must be able to skid the wheel on dry pavement. > In point of fact, front and rear caliper brakes can stop a bicycle in > about 2/3rds the distance that a similar bicycle equipped only with a > rear coaster brake can stop. The rear brake is irrelevant in panic stops. Where did you get this 2/3rds distance from, tandems? > In fact, about 70% of the stopping power is provided by the front brake. Again, where did you get this figure from? When I maximally brake a well set up bike with my weight on the saddle (not off the rear) , my rear wheel lifts from the ground. 0% rear stopping force.     Date: 22 Jul 2007 12:19:29 From: Helmut Springer Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie velodancer <commerce48@yahoo.com > wrote: > The rear brake is irrelevant in panic stops. Depends on the ground, it's not always dry asphalt. -- MfG/Best regards helmut springer       Date: 22 Jul 2007 18:07:44 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Helmut Springer writes: >> The rear brake is irrelevant in panic stops. > Depends on the ground, it's not always dry asphalt. I don't think we are talking about unpaved roads or other surfaces. When braking on frozen lakes, one uses only the rear brake while continuing to rotate the pedals as an ABS system. The instant the wheel skids, the pedals stop and the hand releases the rear brake, and immediately resumes the braking process. Try it. It works like a charm. http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Switzerland/Tour_Reports/Ice_Princess_1963/ So what? The front brake on bicycles, like those of cars and motorcycles, is the one that does nearly all the work of reducing speed. Just look at the brake dust on cars the next time you are on the avenue. Jobst Brandt       Date: 22 Jul 2007 07:27:18 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Helmut Springer wrote: > velodancer <commerce48@yahoo.com> wrote: >> The rear brake is irrelevant in panic stops. > > Depends on the ground, it's not always dry asphalt. The human powered vehicle that I have that is best as stopping (deceleration and control) lacks a rear brake. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 22 Jul 2007 03:21:22 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 9:30 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Peter Cole writes: > >>>> [1] They often like to talk loudly so others can "benefit" from > >>>> their superiority. > >>> Ah, you've been "indirectly" denigrated. I take it that was > >>> categorical and not personal? How did you know you were in the > >>> category? > >> Have you been paying attention to how people act? > > No, what did they say about me? > >> Or are you one of the hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? > > I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? > > I prefer to see a definition of "hip" before believing that. I sense > that it often goes with driving a jacked up shiny black SUV with 18" > chromed wheels with 12" wide low cross section tires, blackened > windows and 4" dual rumble pipes to go with the tish-boom stereo that > shakes most structures (and cars) near the road. Actually, in a lot of circles, the new hip is vastly different. My kid cousin's version of hip is like an amalgam between the style of the Kinks, early Stax, and a bit of punk when you reach the shoe. When he visited the States, I took him to a preacher's suit store in Memphis to get a proper outfit. The collision of Swedish (wannabe)intellectual rocker with Memphis soul and gospel style was a success. Everybody was laughing their asses off as we left the store--in a good way. A heavy Swedish accent can be understood in many cities in the US, but in Memphis, I had to translate, which was hilarious for everybody involved. The young man left the shop looking quite fly. Nothing wrong with style, nothing wrong with laughter, just don't shuffle your shoes and sulk too much.     Date: 22 Jul 2007 07:37:42 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie landotter wrote: > > Actually, in a lot of circles, the new hip is vastly different. > Nothing wrong with style, nothing wrong with laughter, just don't > shuffle your shoes and sulk too much. > I think there's always a new hip, but it's always the same when it comes to style -- that is, based on the same principles (like Coco Chanel said). It's always stimulating to see someone solve the same problems in a new and original way. There's a huge difference in self-conscious copycats and those with true elan. The latter are inspiring, the former, depressing. It can't be faked. When I spend any time around fashionistas (AKA trendy consumers), whether they be motorists or cyclists, I just come away depressed. I don't think it's a matter of difference in taste, these people are depressing in an absolute sense. My guess is they depress each other, too.   Date: 22 Jul 2007 02:09:17 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 > > After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the > tickets continue to fly in Portland. This topic is becoming an Apprentice "Self Serve Gasoline".   Date: 21 Jul 2007 18:59:13 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 5:27 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:36:39 -0000, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> Well he must have seen them coming if they were that close, why not stop > >> first & let them by? > > >Because they don't have the right of way. I don't drive much, but if > >I'm at a stop sign and there's a bike coming as if not to slow down, I > >hit the gas, and they better hope their brakes are dialed in. I won't > >deliberately hit someone, but I have no problem letting people scare > >the crap out of themselves. > > Cars don't make people crazy? That's not crazy. If I'm at a four way stop first, I take the right of way. If you want to assume that I'm going to yield to you when you don't have the right of way--that's crazy. I'm not going to drive into you, but if it's a distance where a person can panic brake, I go ahead. My car was paid for 10 years ago, so I welcome people to taco wheels against it. > > Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike? Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in a panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough shit. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of way, but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 23:03:16 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <1185069553.378770.108990@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, landotter <landotter@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 21, 5:27 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:36:39 -0000, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > >> Well he must have seen them coming if they were that close, why > > >> not stop first & let them by? > > > > >Because they don't have the right of way. I don't drive much, but > > >if I'm at a stop sign and there's a bike coming as if not to slow > > >down, I hit the gas, and they better hope their brakes are dialed > > >in. I won't deliberately hit someone, but I have no problem > > >letting people scare the crap out of themselves. > > > > Cars don't make people crazy? > > That's not crazy. If I'm at a four way stop first, I take the right > of way. If you want to assume that I'm going to yield to you when you > don't have the right of way--that's crazy. I'm not going to drive > into you, but if it's a distance where a person can panic brake, I go > ahead. My car was paid for 10 years ago, so I welcome people to taco > wheels against it. Actually, that is crazy. > > Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike? > > Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in a > panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even > thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my > right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough > shit. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of way, > but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here. Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass.       Date: 21 Jul 2007 23:16:29 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <1185069553.378770.108990@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > landotter <landotter@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 21, 5:27 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:36:39 -0000, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Well he must have seen them coming if they were that close, why >>>>> not stop first & let them by? >>>> Because they don't have the right of way. I don't drive much, but >>>> if I'm at a stop sign and there's a bike coming as if not to slow >>>> down, I hit the gas, and they better hope their brakes are dialed >>>> in. I won't deliberately hit someone, but I have no problem >>>> letting people scare the crap out of themselves. >>> Cars don't make people crazy? >> That's not crazy. If I'm at a four way stop first, I take the right >> of way. If you want to assume that I'm going to yield to you when you >> don't have the right of way--that's crazy. I'm not going to drive >> into you, but if it's a distance where a person can panic brake, I go >> ahead. My car was paid for 10 years ago, so I welcome people to taco >> wheels against it. > > Actually, that is crazy. > >>> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike? >> Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in a >> panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even >> thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my >> right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough >> shit. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of way, >> but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here. > > Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass. People that run stop signs when there is other traffic around that has the right-of-way are self-righteous asses. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com         Date: 22 Jul 2007 07:46:03 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: >>>> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike? >>> Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in a >>> panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even >>> thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my >>> right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough >>> shit. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of way, >>> but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here. >> >> Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass. > > People that run stop signs when there is other traffic around that has > the right-of-way are self-righteous asses. Not to be pompous, but the life's lesson I've learned (repeatedly) is that nothing will get you into trouble like self-righteousness. The most deadly part of it is you don't notice it, like carbon monoxide. Escalation is inevitable as both sides succumb to the same disease. We never perfectly tit for every tat, even if we did, it still wouldn't be perceived that way -- "eye for an eye" -- good in theory, bad in practice.           Date: 22 Jul 2007 08:29:51 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > > >>>>> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike? >>>> >>>> Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in a >>>> panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even >>>> thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my >>>> right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough >>>> shit. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of >>>> way, but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here. >>> >>> >>> Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass. >> >> >> People that run stop signs when there is other traffic around that has >> the right-of-way are self-righteous asses. > > > Not to be pompous, but the life's lesson I've learned (repeatedly) is > that nothing will get you into trouble like self-righteousness. The > most deadly part of it is you don't notice it, like carbon monoxide. > Escalation is inevitable as both sides succumb to the same disease. We > never perfectly tit for every tat, even if we did, it still wouldn't be > perceived that way -- "eye for an eye" -- good in theory, bad in practice. I can't tell if you're agreeing with Tom or arguing with him, but based on your views expressed on "that other newsgroup" I'm guessing you're arguing with him. I honestly can't fathom why, ROW laws are in place for a reason. Blowing stop signs in front of vehicular traffic is exactly as stupid as riding a brakeless bike in traffic - sure you might be able to get away with it for a while but it's still stupid and dangerous. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel             Date: 22 Jul 2007 09:38:07 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Nate Nagel wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> >>> Tim McNamara wrote: >> >> >>>>>> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in >>>>> a panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even >>>>> thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my >>>>> right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough >>>>> shit. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of >>>>> way, but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here. >>>> >>>> >>>> Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass. >>> >>> >>> People that run stop signs when there is other traffic around that >>> has the right-of-way are self-righteous asses. >> >> >> Not to be pompous, but the life's lesson I've learned (repeatedly) is >> that nothing will get you into trouble like self-righteousness. The >> most deadly part of it is you don't notice it, like carbon monoxide. >> Escalation is inevitable as both sides succumb to the same disease. We >> never perfectly tit for every tat, even if we did, it still wouldn't >> be perceived that way -- "eye for an eye" -- good in theory, bad in >> practice. > > I can't tell if you're agreeing with Tom or arguing with him, but based > on your views expressed on "that other newsgroup" I'm guessing you're > arguing with him. I honestly can't fathom why, ROW laws are in place > for a reason. Blowing stop signs in front of vehicular traffic is > exactly as stupid as riding a brakeless bike in traffic - sure you might > be able to get away with it for a while but it's still stupid and > dangerous. Sorry, I'll clarify. I don't think playing chicken is a good idea, even if the law, strictly speaking, is on your side. People may resent having to yield to unlawful behavior, but it happens all the time (both ways in car bike interactions). The stakes in personal injury are too high to be petty about it, and aggression begets aggression. On a philosophical level, I don't believe that identical ROW rules for cars and bikes make sense. I also realize those views are far from universally held. I also don't think that fines, for whatever ROW rules are on the books, should be identical. Ditto, for those views. I have tried to explain my beliefs based on what I perceive as the realities of car/bike road sharing and the relative degrees of convenience, safety and liability, attempting to separate those issues where possible. Like many others, I consider bicycling, from a legal point of view, to be more related to pure right of way principles than merely the operation of another type of vehicle, so I tend to see these disagreements as more meaningful than simple safety and courtesy squabbles. Again, I realize these views are not universal, but they are sincere. Philosophy aside, there are two attitudes that I will always be opposed to: deliberately endangering another, even if "the law is on your side" and blaming motorist aggression on the behavior of other cyclists.               Date: 22 Jul 2007 14:20:03 From: Joel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message news:NI6dne-8ZMYmwD7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > Nate Nagel wrote: > > Peter Cole wrote: > >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > >> > >>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike? > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in > >>>>> a panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even > >>>>> thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my > >>>>> right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough > >>>>> shit. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of > >>>>> way, but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass. > >>> > >>> > >>> People that run stop signs when there is other traffic around that > >>> has the right-of-way are self-righteous asses. > >> > >> > >> Not to be pompous, but the life's lesson I've learned (repeatedly) is > >> that nothing will get you into trouble like self-righteousness. The > >> most deadly part of it is you don't notice it, like carbon monoxide. > >> Escalation is inevitable as both sides succumb to the same disease. We > >> never perfectly tit for every tat, even if we did, it still wouldn't > >> be perceived that way -- "eye for an eye" -- good in theory, bad in > >> practice. > > > > I can't tell if you're agreeing with Tom or arguing with him, but based > > on your views expressed on "that other newsgroup" I'm guessing you're > > arguing with him. I honestly can't fathom why, ROW laws are in place > > for a reason. Blowing stop signs in front of vehicular traffic is > > exactly as stupid as riding a brakeless bike in traffic - sure you might > > be able to get away with it for a while but it's still stupid and > > dangerous. > > Sorry, I'll clarify. > > I don't think playing chicken is a good idea, even if the law, strictly > speaking, is on your side. People may resent having to yield to unlawful > behavior, but it happens all the time (both ways in car bike > interactions). The stakes in personal injury are too high to be petty > about it, and aggression begets aggression. > > On a philosophical level, I don't believe that identical ROW rules for > cars and bikes make sense. I also realize those views are far from > universally held. I also don't think that fines, for whatever ROW rules > are on the books, should be identical. Ditto, for those views. > > I have tried to explain my beliefs based on what I perceive as the > realities of car/bike road sharing and the relative degrees of > convenience, safety and liability, attempting to separate those issues > where possible. > > Like many others, I consider bicycling, from a legal point of view, to > be more related to pure right of way principles than merely the > operation of another type of vehicle, so I tend to see these > disagreements as more meaningful than simple safety and courtesy > squabbles. Again, I realize these views are not universal, but they are > sincere. > > Philosophy aside, there are two attitudes that I will always be opposed > to: deliberately endangering another, even if "the law is on your side" > and blaming motorist aggression on the behavior of other cyclists. I agree that you can't blame all motorist aggression on cyclists behavior. But cyclists that blatantly ignore right of way laws when other traffic is present are as immature and self-centered idiots as many vehicle drivers. The roads are potential death traps for everybody, that's why there are laws to govern how traffic proceeds for everybodys safety. As much as I'm for drivers getting tickets and fines for stupid behavior the same goes for cyclists.               Date: 22 Jul 2007 09:51:44 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole wrote: > Nate Nagel wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, and I've caused an idiot to lose some skin when he wrecked in >>>>>> a panic. I rolled up to the stop sign at 5mph, saw a guy not even >>>>>> thinking about braking flying perpendicular to me, so I took my >>>>>> right of way while yelling "YO!" He lost control and fell. Tough >>>>>> shit. He could have modulated his speed and ceded to my right of >>>>>> way, but he decided to take a stupid risk. No sympathy here. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Or maybe you're just a self-righteous ass. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> People that run stop signs when there is other traffic around that >>>> has the right-of-way are self-righteous asses. >>> >>> >>> >>> Not to be pompous, but the life's lesson I've learned (repeatedly) is >>> that nothing will get you into trouble like self-righteousness. The >>> most deadly part of it is you don't notice it, like carbon monoxide. >>> Escalation is inevitable as both sides succumb to the same disease. >>> We never perfectly tit for every tat, even if we did, it still >>> wouldn't be perceived that way -- "eye for an eye" -- good in theory, >>> bad in practice. >> >> >> I can't tell if you're agreeing with Tom or arguing with him, but >> based on your views expressed on "that other newsgroup" I'm guessing >> you're arguing with him. I honestly can't fathom why, ROW laws are in >> place for a reason. Blowing stop signs in front of vehicular traffic >> is exactly as stupid as riding a brakeless bike in traffic - sure you >> might be able to get away with it for a while but it's still stupid >> and dangerous. > > > Sorry, I'll clarify. > > I don't think playing chicken is a good idea, even if the law, strictly > speaking, is on your side. People may resent having to yield to unlawful > behavior, but it happens all the time (both ways in car bike > interactions). The stakes in personal injury are too high to be petty > about it, and aggression begets aggression. certainly, I agree. > > On a philosophical level, I don't believe that identical ROW rules for > cars and bikes make sense. I also realize those views are far from > universally held. I also don't think that fines, for whatever ROW rules > are on the books, should be identical. Ditto, for those views. > There, I disagree. However, if you feel that way, move to have the laws changed so that everyone knows what's going on. Having common practice and the law at odds with each other only causes more problems, such as if an incident occurs and someone is left with the task of sorting out who is liable. The same kind of thing has already happened with automobile speed limits; I certainly wouldn't want the same thing to happen with other laws as well. > I have tried to explain my beliefs based on what I perceive as the > realities of car/bike road sharing and the relative degrees of > convenience, safety and liability, attempting to separate those issues > where possible. > > Like many others, I consider bicycling, from a legal point of view, to > be more related to pure right of way principles than merely the > operation of another type of vehicle, so I tend to see these > disagreements as more meaningful than simple safety and courtesy > squabbles. Again, I realize these views are not universal, but they are > sincere. > > Philosophy aside, there are two attitudes that I will always be opposed > to: deliberately endangering another, even if "the law is on your side" > and blaming motorist aggression on the behavior of other cyclists. When I'm driving, I expect any cyclist I encounter to behave in a semi-predictable yet illegal manner; i.e. blowing stop signs, cutting in front of vehicle traffic, etc. Surely you can't blame these expectations and the resultant irritation on *motorists.* nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel                 Date: 22 Jul 2007 11:12:15 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Nate Nagel wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Philosophy aside, there are two attitudes that I will always be >> opposed to: deliberately endangering another, even if "the law is on >> your side" and blaming motorist aggression on the behavior of other >> cyclists. > > > When I'm driving, I expect any cyclist I encounter to behave in a > semi-predictable yet illegal manner; i.e. blowing stop signs, cutting in > front of vehicle traffic, etc. Surely you can't blame these > expectations and the resultant irritation on *motorists.* No, of course not. On the other hand, unless motorists are very different in your neck of the woods, there's a lot of "playing chicken" the other way, too. Motorists commonly "brush back" cyclists, who they think are impeding them, by passing too close, crowding curbs, creeping out at intersections, etc. This aggression is mutual in my experience. It's human nature to push back if you think you've been pushed around as soon as you have the upper hand. Since cyclists are very much at a disadvantage in these games of chicken, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Tit for tat is stupid, but the playing field is hardly level.                   Date: 22 Jul 2007 19:18:41 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole wrote: > Nate Nagel wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: > > >>> Philosophy aside, there are two attitudes that I will always be >>> opposed to: deliberately endangering another, even if "the law is on >>> your side" and blaming motorist aggression on the behavior of other >>> cyclists. >> >> >> >> When I'm driving, I expect any cyclist I encounter to behave in a >> semi-predictable yet illegal manner; i.e. blowing stop signs, cutting >> in front of vehicle traffic, etc. Surely you can't blame these >> expectations and the resultant irritation on *motorists.* > > > No, of course not. On the other hand, unless motorists are very > different in your neck of the woods, there's a lot of "playing chicken" > the other way, too. Motorists commonly "brush back" cyclists, who they > think are impeding them, by passing too close, crowding curbs, creeping > out at intersections, etc. This aggression is mutual in my experience. > It's human nature to push back if you think you've been pushed around as > soon as you have the upper hand. Since cyclists are very much at a > disadvantage in these games of chicken, I don't know what all the fuss > is about. Tit for tat is stupid, but the playing field is hardly level. I don't know; I haven't ridden enough in this area, but during the little I have I have seen none of that from motorists. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel   Date: 21 Jul 2007 18:56:26 From: Paul J. Berg Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Lobby Dosser wrote: > Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: > > > In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > >> > >>> Or are you one of the > >>> hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? > >> > >> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? > > > > Personally, I'm so hip I can barely see over my pelvis. > > > > I'm so hip I have to use a mirror to see my pelvis. I think Dane and Lobby are mistaking a beer belly for a hip. My 2006 New Year's Resolution was to loose weight. I lost 40 lbs. It is hard, but I have kept the weight off. I am proud to say, I'm able to once again see my belt buckle without the aid of a mirror. `     Date: 22 Jul 2007 17:08:40 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In rec.bicycles.misc Paul J. Berg <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote: > Lobby Dosser wrote: >> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: >> > In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> >> >> >>> Or are you one of the >> >>> hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? >> >> >> >> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? >> > >> > Personally, I'm so hip I can barely see over my pelvis. >> >> I'm so hip I have to use a mirror to see my pelvis. > > I think Dane and Lobby are mistaking a beer belly for a hip. Heyyyy! I admit I used to resemble that remark. I used to weigh about 280 lbs, instead of my current (fairly reasonable for 6'1") weight of 200 lbs. > My 2006 New Year's Resolution was to loose weight. I lost 40 lbs. It > is hard, but I have kept the weight off. I am proud to say, I'm able > to once again see my belt buckle without the aid of a mirror. Excellent. The bike is a great way to lose the weight. More importantly it's a great way to keep it off. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "I changed my headlights the other day. I put in strobe lights instead! Now when I drive at night, it looks like everyone else is standing still ..." -- Steven Wright   Date: 21 Jul 2007 18:24:54 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 4:30 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Paul J. Berg wrote: > > > Spread Eagle=AE wrote: > >> On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > > >>> "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are = and > >>> how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. > > >> Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are > >> far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the > >> handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so > >> much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if > >> that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. > >> Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. > > >> Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering > >> control AND can throw you head over heels. > > > I am an old fart baby boomer too. > > > The bicycles in the 1950's had coaster brakes. The fixie has no > > mechanical brake at all, just the leg strength of rider to stop the > > forward momentum. > > > The first bike I had with dual caliper brakes, I make the mistake once > > of hitting only the front brake, and the bike flipped end over end. > > Luckily, I was thrown onto a grass parking strip, whilst the bike > > tumble down the street. From that point on, I would always carry > > items in my left hand instead of my right. > > See <http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/over-the-bars.html>. > > Note to Ozark Bicycle: Baaaaahhhh! > > Sheep-like behavior noted.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 21:13:29 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Jul 21, 4:30 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Paul J. Berg wrote: >> >>> Spread Eagle® wrote: >>>> On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: >>>>> "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and >>>>> how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. >>>> Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are >>>> far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the >>>> handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so >>>> much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if >>>> that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. >>>> Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. >>>> Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering >>>> control AND can throw you head over heels. >>> I am an old fart baby boomer too. >>> The bicycles in the 1950's had coaster brakes. The fixie has no >>> mechanical brake at all, just the leg strength of rider to stop the >>> forward momentum. >>> The first bike I had with dual caliper brakes, I make the mistake once >>> of hitting only the front brake, and the bike flipped end over end. >>> Luckily, I was thrown onto a grass parking strip, whilst the bike >>> tumble down the street. From that point on, I would always carry >>> items in my left hand instead of my right. >> See <http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/over-the-bars.html>. >> >> Note to Ozark Bicycle: Baaaaahhhh! >> > Sheep-like behavior noted. Put as much useful information on your website as Sheldon has on his, and it too will get cited in rec.bicycles.*. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 21 Jul 2007 17:06:34 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <JpCdnQfsBNqN5D_bnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > writes: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> >>>> Hey, that was what I was going to write! >>>> >>>> The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. >>>> >>> >>> How do you know they're smug? >> >> These types are smug because they are part of the "in" group that >> denigrates outsiders for not "getting it". > > & you know this how? Have you been denigrated? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You ask that of an inveterate & obdurate recumbent rider? cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:21:29 From: bryanska Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie > It's against the law for cyclists to run stop signs at 20mph. It's not > giving a break, it's called encouraging bad behavior. You don't just > blow stop signs at 20mph hoping that everything will be OK--when > there's already a vehicle there with the right of way. I am in total agreement. Right there with you, dude. The law applies to all. Riding in my state's MS150 the last few years, I am amazed how many people blow through several stop signs in a row when we're going through small towns. Last year during the 150 I hit the brakes for a red light and was FLAMED by a handful of guys to my face. Nothing special about them, no certain types of bike or whatever, They just didn't give a shit. I mentioned the law, to hear a dismissive "bah" in my direction. It seems elementary. A hundred years ago, we set up a bunch of rules to take out ambiguity and blind chance from our transportation. This common language was called traffic law, and it's rapidly eroding from lack of enforcement. My current pet peeve is being "waved through" an intersection, on a bike or in a car, when I obviously do NOT have the right of way. I've actually unclipped and dismounted after five long seconds of red-faced frenetic waving on their part. I don't need the damn "favor". It just confuses people. Some people get enormous, throbbing erections from randomly directing traffic this way.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 20:09:59 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie bryanska wrote: > My current pet peeve is being "waved through" an intersection, on a > bike or in a car, when I obviously do NOT have the right of way. I've > actually unclipped and dismounted after five long seconds of red-faced > frenetic waving on their part. I don't need the damn "favor". It just > confuses people. Some people get enormous, throbbing erections from > randomly directing traffic this way. They're just trying to be nice, Mr. Grumpypuss. >       Date: 22 Jul 2007 02:47:16 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole writes: >> My current pet peeve is being "waved through" an intersection, on a >> bike or in a car, when I obviously do NOT have the right of way. >> I've actually unclipped and dismounted after five long seconds of >> red-faced frenetic waving on their part. I don't need the damn >> "favor". It just confuses people. Some people get enormous, >> throbbing erections from randomly directing traffic this way. > They're just trying to be nice, Mr. Grumpypuss. I think you got that wrong. It's a subtle way of saying "You're a stupid bicyclist, dangerous at any speed. Go ahead, get out of here and out of my way, even if you don't have the right-of-way." It's like the guys who won't pass on a slightly curvy mountain road even on straight sections, on a road that has reasonable shoulders beyond the lane edge stripe. Even though bicycling on the shoulder, they won't pass until someone in the car complains, and then make a pass, regardless of visibility, going to the opposite shoulder to emphasize what a hazard the bicyclist is. I have witnessed some near head-on collisions with this routine. Of course it was the bicyclists fault when you hear the incident recounted by such "bike watchers". Jobst Brandt         Date: 22 Jul 2007 07:20:59 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Peter Cole writes: > >>> My current pet peeve is being "waved through" an intersection, on a >>> bike or in a car, when I obviously do NOT have the right of way. >>> I've actually unclipped and dismounted after five long seconds of >>> red-faced frenetic waving on their part. I don't need the damn >>> "favor". It just confuses people. Some people get enormous, >>> throbbing erections from randomly directing traffic this way. > >> They're just trying to be nice, Mr. Grumpypuss. > > I think you got that wrong. It's a subtle way of saying "You're a > stupid bicyclist, dangerous at any speed. Go ahead, get out of here > and out of my way, even if you don't have the right-of-way." > > It's like the guys who won't pass on a slightly curvy mountain road > even on straight sections, on a road that has reasonable shoulders > beyond the lane edge stripe. Even though bicycling on the shoulder, > they won't pass until someone in the car complains, and then make a > pass, regardless of visibility, going to the opposite shoulder to > emphasize what a hazard the bicyclist is. I have witnessed some near > head-on collisions with this routine. Of course it was the bicyclists > fault when you hear the incident recounted by such "bike watchers". I think there are at least two categories here: Those you describe, who see cyclists as a road hazard, and a second group of "overly polite" drivers. It can be hard to distinguish between the two, while their behavior may be nearly identical in some circumstances. Of course the behavior of both groups is based on ignorance rather than hostility. Not knowing what their attitudes are, my tendency is to grant the benefit of the doubt. There's no way I can correct their ignorance. I once was horseback riding with a group when we came upon a group of young scout hikers. They froze and stood like statues. The horses became anxious and a couple of them bolted. The scouts were obviously just (over)doing what they had been told. It was hard to get angry with them.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 19:54:44 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:21:29 -0700, bryanska <BARRELBACK@HOTMAIL.COM > wrote: >Riding in my state's MS150 the last few years, I am amazed how many >people blow through several stop signs in a row when we're going >through small towns. > >Last year during the 150 I hit the brakes for a red light and was >FLAMED by a handful of guys to my face. Nothing special about them, no >certain types of bike or whatever, They just didn't give a shit. I >mentioned the law, to hear a dismissive "bah" in my direction. > >It seems elementary. A hundred years ago, we set up a bunch of rules >to take out ambiguity and blind chance from our transportation. This >common language was called traffic law, and it's rapidly eroding from >lack of enforcement. I don't ride with people who flagrantly disobey the law. Occassionllay treating an empty stop sign like a yield sign, or a red light like a stop sign while on a bike is one thing (both of which I do, particularly on empty roads), just blazing around like the rules dont' apply at all is another. -- JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************     Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:43:25 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:21:29 -0700, bryanska <BARRELBACK@HOTMAIL.COM > wrote: >Last year during the 150 I hit the brakes for a red light and was >FLAMED by a handful of guys to my face. Nothing special about them, no >certain types of bike or whatever, They just didn't give a shit. I >mentioned the law, to hear a dismissive "bah" in my direction. A large group of bicycles traveling together in a body impedes traffic much less than several smaller groups or individuals doing the whole light sequence thing. If there are already bikes in the intersection ahead of you and there are bikes coming up from behind - KEEP MOVING! -- zk   Date: 21 Jul 2007 21:36:39 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 4:27 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > landotter wrote: > > On Jul 21, 3:13 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>> I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and > >>> then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a > >>> group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all > >>> cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled > >>> at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with > >>> a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but > >>> taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is > >>> just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- > >>> good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? > >>> /nomex > >> Geez, I dunno. If I was driving I would have thought it common courtesy > >> not to require 10 other people to stop, especially if they had to > >> accelerate back up with muscles and I just had to wiggle my toe. What's > >> the biggie? > > > You know, the law. He had the right of way. Or do you not think the > > law applies to bicycles? I mean, he was starting to roll forward again > > as this gaggle of cyclists cut him off and he had to slam on the > > brake. What's the biggie? You tell me, smart guy. > > Well he must have seen them coming if they were that close, why not stop > first & let them by? Because they don't have the right of way. I don't drive much, but if I'm at a stop sign and there's a bike coming as if not to slow down, I hit the gas, and they better hope their brakes are dialed in. I won't deliberately hit someone, but I have no problem letting people scare the crap out of themselves. >They were a large group, he was alone (apparently). > Motorists stop all the time to let groups of cyclists go by. It's not > against the law to give people a break (yet). It's against the law for cyclists to run stop signs at 20mph. It's not giving a break, it's called encouraging bad behavior. You don't just blow stop signs at 20mph hoping that everything will be OK--when there's already a vehicle there with the right of way. Your attitude is identical to most of the club riders around here-- completely clueless. There's a reason I'm a solo artist.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:27:49 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:36:39 -0000, landotter <landotter@gmail.com > wrote: >> Well he must have seen them coming if they were that close, why not stop >> first & let them by? > >Because they don't have the right of way. I don't drive much, but if >I'm at a stop sign and there's a bike coming as if not to slow down, I >hit the gas, and they better hope their brakes are dialed in. I won't >deliberately hit someone, but I have no problem letting people scare >the crap out of themselves. Cars don't make people crazy? Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike? Or would you have rolled through the stop sign, adjusted your speed and either gone in front or behind the approaching cyclist without causing them to brake unnecessarily, let alone panic stop. -- zk       Date: 22 Jul 2007 01:49:48 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:36:39 -0000, landotter <landotter@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Well he must have seen them coming if they were that close, why not >>> stop first & let them by? >> >>Because they don't have the right of way. I don't drive much, but if >>I'm at a stop sign and there's a bike coming as if not to slow down, I >>hit the gas, and they better hope their brakes are dialed in. I won't >>deliberately hit someone, but I have no problem letting people scare >>the crap out of themselves. > > Cars don't make people crazy? > > Would you do the same thing if you were on a bike? > > Or would you have rolled through the stop sign, adjusted your speed > and either gone in front or behind the approaching cyclist without > causing them to brake unnecessarily, let alone panic stop. Panic stop? At a visible stop sign? Brake unnecessarily at a stop sign? What you do at stop signs is STOP.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 18:07:49 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie landotter wrote: > On Jul 21, 4:27 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: >> landotter wrote: >>> You know, the law. He had the right of way. Or do you not think the >>> law applies to bicycles? I mean, he was starting to roll forward again >>> as this gaggle of cyclists cut him off and he had to slam on the >>> brake. What's the biggie? You tell me, smart guy. >> Well he must have seen them coming if they were that close, why not stop >> first & let them by? > > Because they don't have the right of way. I don't drive much, but if > I'm at a stop sign and there's a bike coming as if not to slow down, I > hit the gas, and they better hope their brakes are dialed in. I won't > deliberately hit someone, but I have no problem letting people scare > the crap out of themselves. I think you lack a sense of proportion. Even a misdemeanor shouldn't carry a capital punishment. Who makes you judge, jury and executioner (of they should hit you or you them)? >> They were a large group, he was alone (apparently). >> Motorists stop all the time to let groups of cyclists go by. It's not >> against the law to give people a break (yet). > > It's against the law for cyclists to run stop signs at 20mph. It's not > giving a break, it's called encouraging bad behavior. Ah, the "teach them a lesson" principle. Seems to me that aggression begets aggression. > You don't just > blow stop signs at 20mph hoping that everything will be OK--when > there's already a vehicle there with the right of way. You don't, but they do. I very much doubt games of chicken will resolve things. > Your attitude is identical to most of the club riders around here-- > completely clueless. There's a reason I'm a solo artist. What attitude? I've said before, I don't deliberately inconvenience anyone, biking or driving. Cyclists may do that sometimes, but they certainly don't have a monopoly. Everyone I know who bikes also drives. I doubt that they change personalities for the better when they drive. Typically, even on group rides (which I do weekly), I see more rude, dangerous and illegal behavior on the part of motorists. I'm sure the guys who bike like dicks drive like dicks, after all, they're the same dicks. This whole biker vs. driver thing is a false dichotomy, since virtually 100% of bikers are drivers, and most of them drive more hours than they bike.   Date: 21 Jul 2007 21:23:59 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 3:50 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 21, 10:38 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper > > at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the > > law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in > > that case, a fixed gear may count as one. > > Man, I don't know what the beef is here. If the problem is unsafe > driving/riding, why not deal with that and not tell folks what > equipment they are or are not qualified to use appropriately? On Jul 21, 3:50 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote: So we should let stick shift cars on the road since they can engine brake? How far you wanna take this? People may choose from a wide variety of braking devices--but to suggest that requiring them is unfair--is absurd. You some sort of dope smoking libertarian? > > Last I heard, skateboards and inline skates didn't have any brake as > effective as a fixed wheel. Does your locality recognize them as road legal? > Millions of folks got their first taste > of vehicular cycling on coaster braked bikes that were likely to throw > their chains. Point? > Heck, America originally got paved highways to meet the > demands of fixed-gear riders who couldn't brake worth a damn. So the shittiness of old technology justifies the stupid choices of today? >None of > the above are/were as crazy, reckless, and dangerous as the jackhole > who drives a 7,000 pound Hummer, all by himself, three miles to work-- > regardless of how many brakes he's packing or how circumspectly he > drives. > The "Hummer Argument" is up there with Godwin's Law. Most of us that live in urban areas see insane brakeless behavior every single day. I see Hummers every day, but tacky as they are, it's rare that I see one blow an intersection at 30mph. > As we speak, the neighborhood kids are out fooling around on my adult- > sized Big Wheel trike-- fixed, no brake-- and they are having a whale > of a time. They should not be subject to a $100 fine for that. They > aren't doing anything they wouldn't be doing on two-wheelers with > brakes. Are they riding it at 20mph? >And if it's OK for the kids to figure out for themselves what > circumstances are appropriate for them to ride "fixed" in the street, > then why can't adults be trusted with the same judgment call? You're comparing a Big Wheel toy to a proper bike. Bikes are not toys, they are vehicles. > > I have directly observed that 29 x 2.35" wheels and tires are safer, > more stable, and more capable on ordinary streets than smaller wheels > and tires. Since that's my preferred choice, maybe I should promote > legislation that sets a minimum tire diameter of 28" and a minimum > tire width of 1.75" as a legal requirement. It is safer, after all. > And it's irresponsible to ride 23mm tires in the street-- I certainly > don't want to be tarred with the bad reputation earned by skinny-tire > riders. Just ban them, I say. I see several incidents of cringe worthy fixed riding in my neighborhood every day. I've seen guys with two broken femurs because they couldn't stop. I've seen fat guys with Madones and pinch flats. There's a difference.   Date: 21 Jul 2007 14:13:16 From: Paul J. Berg Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Spread Eagle=AE wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > > > "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and > > how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. > > > Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are > far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the > handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so > much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if > that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. > Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. > > Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering > control AND can throw you head over heels. I am an old fart baby boomer too. The bicycles in the 1950's had coaster brakes. The fixie has no mechanical brake at all, just the leg strength of rider to stop the forward momentum. The first bike I had with dual caliper brakes, I make the mistake once of hitting only the front brake, and the bike flipped end over end. Luckily, I was thrown onto a grass parking strip, whilst the bike tumble down the street. From that point on, I would always carry items in my left hand instead of my right. `     Date: 22 Jul 2007 02:16:22 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Paul J. Berg writes: >>> "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there >>> are and how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of >>> the bill. >> Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes >> are far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the >> handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so >> much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if >> that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. >> Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. >> Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Impedes steering >> control AND can throw you head over heels. > I am an old fart baby boomer too. > The bicycles in the 1950's had coaster brakes. The fixie has no > mechanical brake at all, just the leg strength of rider to stop the > forward momentum. > The first bike I had with dual caliper brakes, I make the mistake > once of hitting only the front brake, and the bike flipped end over > end. Luckily, I was thrown onto a grass parking strip, whilst the > bike tumble down the street. From that point on, I would always > carry items in my left hand instead of my right. I wouldn't mention that if I were you. It reeks of ineptness, especially at that age. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/over-the-bars.html Jobst Brandt     Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:30:08 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Paul J. Berg wrote: > > Spread Eagle® wrote: >> On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: >> >>> "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and >>> how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. >> >> Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are >> far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the >> handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so >> much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if >> that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. >> Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. >> >> Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering >> control AND can throw you head over heels. > > I am an old fart baby boomer too. > > The bicycles in the 1950's had coaster brakes. The fixie has no > mechanical brake at all, just the leg strength of rider to stop the > forward momentum. > > The first bike I had with dual caliper brakes, I make the mistake once > of hitting only the front brake, and the bike flipped end over end. > Luckily, I was thrown onto a grass parking strip, whilst the bike > tumble down the street. From that point on, I would always carry > items in my left hand instead of my right. See <http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/over-the-bars.html >. Note to Ozark Bicycle: Baaaaahhhh! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 21 Jul 2007 21:09:48 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 3:13 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > > I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and > > then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a > > group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all > > cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled > > at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with > > a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but > > taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is > > just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- > > good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? > > > /nomex > > Geez, I dunno. If I was driving I would have thought it common courtesy > not to require 10 other people to stop, especially if they had to > accelerate back up with muscles and I just had to wiggle my toe. What's > the biggie? You know, the law. He had the right of way. Or do you not think the law applies to bicycles? I mean, he was starting to roll forward again as this gaggle of cyclists cut him off and he had to slam on the brake. What's the biggie? You tell me, smart guy.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 17:27:32 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie landotter wrote: > On Jul 21, 3:13 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and >>> then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a >>> group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all >>> cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled >>> at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with >>> a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but >>> taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is >>> just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- >>> good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? >>> /nomex >> Geez, I dunno. If I was driving I would have thought it common courtesy >> not to require 10 other people to stop, especially if they had to >> accelerate back up with muscles and I just had to wiggle my toe. What's >> the biggie? > > You know, the law. He had the right of way. Or do you not think the > law applies to bicycles? I mean, he was starting to roll forward again > as this gaggle of cyclists cut him off and he had to slam on the > brake. What's the biggie? You tell me, smart guy. > Well he must have seen them coming if they were that close, why not stop first & let them by? They were a large group, he was alone (apparently). Motorists stop all the time to let groups of cyclists go by. It's not against the law to give people a break (yet).   Date: 21 Jul 2007 20:50:29 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 10:38 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote: > > If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper > at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the > law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in > that case, a fixed gear may count as one. Man, I don't know what the beef is here. If the problem is unsafe driving/riding, why not deal with that and not tell folks what equipment they are or are not qualified to use appropriately? Last I heard, skateboards and inline skates didn't have any brake as effective as a fixed wheel. Millions of folks got their first taste of vehicular cycling on coaster braked bikes that were likely to throw their chains. Heck, America originally got paved highways to meet the demands of fixed-gear riders who couldn't brake worth a damn. None of the above are/were as crazy, reckless, and dangerous as the jackhole who drives a 7,000 pound Hummer, all by himself, three miles to work-- regardless of how many brakes he's packing or how circumspectly he drives. As we speak, the neighborhood kids are out fooling around on my adult- sized Big Wheel trike-- fixed, no brake-- and they are having a whale of a time. They should not be subject to a $100 fine for that. They aren't doing anything they wouldn't be doing on two-wheelers with brakes. And if it's OK for the kids to figure out for themselves what circumstances are appropriate for them to ride "fixed" in the street, then why can't adults be trusted with the same judgment call? I have directly observed that 29 x 2.35" wheels and tires are safer, more stable, and more capable on ordinary streets than smaller wheels and tires. Since that's my preferred choice, maybe I should promote legislation that sets a minimum tire diameter of 28" and a minimum tire width of 1.75" as a legal requirement. It is safer, after all. And it's irresponsible to ride 23mm tires in the street-- I certainly don't want to be tarred with the bad reputation earned by skinny-tire riders. Just ban them, I say. Chalo     Date: 22 Jul 2007 02:12:18 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Chalo Colina writes: >> If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper at >> the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the >> law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two >> brakes--in that case, a fixed gear may count as one. > Man, I don't know what the beef is here. If the problem is unsafe > driving/riding, why not deal with that and not tell folks what > equipment they are or are not qualified to use appropriately? > Last I heard, skateboards and in-line skates didn't have any brake > as effective as a fixed wheel. Millions of folks got their first > taste of vehicular cycling on coaster braked bikes that were likely > to throw their chains. Heck, America originally got paved highways > to meet the demands of fixed-gear riders who couldn't brake worth a > damn. None of the above are/were as crazy, reckless, and dangerous > as the jackhole who drives a 7,000 pound Hummer, all by himself, > three miles to work-- regardless of how many brakes he's packing or > how circumspectly he drives. I haven't seen skateboards and in-line skaters mix with sidewalk or street traffic at speeds above 10mph in urban locations. Even distance runners at full speed would be a hazard doing that. In contrast the no-brake bicyclists engage in their machismo in dense traffic at speeds above 15mph. It's all how you do it that counts and these guys are a hazard. > As we speak, the neighborhood kids are out fooling around on my > adult- sized Big Wheel trike-- fixed, no brake-- and they are having > a whale of a time. They should not be subject to a $100 fine for > that. They aren't doing anything they wouldn't be doing on > two-wheelers with brakes. And if it's OK for the kids to figure out > for themselves what circumstances are appropriate for them to ride > "fixed" in the street, then why can't adults be trusted with the > same judgment call? Well, when they take a header, you might have more than $100 expenses. Our local high wheel rider has had a few tilts even though he has a brake. > I have directly observed that 29 x 2.35" wheels and tires are safer, > more stable, and more capable on ordinary streets than smaller > wheels and tires. Since that's my preferred choice, maybe I should > promote legislation that sets a minimum tire diameter of 28" and a > minimum tire width of 1.75" as a legal requirement. It is safer, > after all. And it's irresponsible to ride 23mm tires in the > street-- I certainly don't want to be tarred with the bad reputation > earned by skinny-tire riders. Just ban them, I say. Don't be so coy and ridiculous. That's like the guy that suggested all bicycles on Sand Hill Road ride against traffic after a rider was hit "from behind". As it turned out, he was hit from the side as he attempted a U-turn at the top of Sand Hill as many riders do, but while looking back first. Jobst Brandt   Date: 21 Jul 2007 19:35:44 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 2:25 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article <YYqoi.135509$1i1.83958@pd7urf3no>, > "Dave Mayer" <dave4...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame a > > while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike - yes, > > with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this project > > perhaps for several years until this fad withers. > > I do not see why. Put the brakes on. Who will notice? > A: the no brake crowd. Consider it a community service. > The NBC won't be able to handle somebody more different > than they are. If you are to be a slave to fashion, > make it your fashion. Anyone else thinking "spoon brake"?   Date: 21 Jul 2007 19:13:50 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 11:13 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > "still me" wrote: [snip] > > > The solution is clear! Arrest the people selling those fixies without > > brakes for causing this problem. I'm sure that right after her > > daughter gets arrested, Sen Burdick will have a change of heart. > > Slap a big old warning sticker "FOR VELODROME USE ONLY" on the fixie > bicycles without front brakes. > Or to paraphrase Tom Waits, hang the sign from a nail in the customer's forehead.   Date: 21 Jul 2007 19:12:25 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 1:59 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > I was on my drop bar utility bicycle in street clothes > with groceries in the panniers. I came up on a red > light at 20 kph and put on the brakes. I hear a shouted > `Oh!' behind me. It is a full kit kiddie who had > silently got up behind and did not expect me to stop. I > said `What do you mean "Oh!" He would not answer, I > kept asking. He never owned up, the jerk, but tried to > abuse me for my pains, the asshole. Just ask them if they think it's OK to tailgate in a car as well. Or my favorite: pass on a blind recreation path corner--something that you'd not think of doing in a car--but when you're on a bike and the Hoff's greatest pop hits are blasting in your ear buds--it makes perfect sense.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:14:51 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "landotter" the Swede wrote: > ...Or > my favorite: pass on a blind recreation path corner--something that > you'd not think of doing in a car--but when you're on a bike and the > Hoff's greatest pop hits are blasting in your ear buds--it makes > perfect sense. Denigrate USian culture all you want, but one of those thing would only happen in Europe. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 21 Jul 2007 19:03:50 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 1:46 pm, Spread Eagle=AE <red...@virtualhosts.net > wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > > > "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and > > how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. > > Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are > far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the > handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so > much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if > that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. > Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. > > Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering > control AND can throw you head over heels. Ranting Grandpap: 2 jiggers prune juice 1 jigger vodka splash of Maalox generous shake of bitters (Angustora, or just point shaker at retirement home) Combine at room temperature, shake, and serve in an Ralph Kramden sippy cup.   Date: 21 Jul 2007 18:54:54 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 1:22 pm, "BobT" <RobertLeeTaylor...@THISSuddenLink.net > wrote: > "Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in messagenews:28096-46A22346-513@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net... > > > Sleek and simple, fixies have become popular with everyone from couriers > > to a hipper sect of the bike commuter set. > > Hipper than who? > > These people discussed in this article in the newspaper of record must think > they are hip:http://tinyurl.com/279hov > > My view is that it doesn't get any hipper than my commuting tank:http://tinyurl.com/2sbmr2 Considering the thoughtfulness and luxe quality of most of that bike, you've seriously underbelled yourself. Even a single clapper stem mounted Japanese model would be a step up. It's like you've left the plastic studs in the tuxedo shirt.     Date: 22 Jul 2007 07:55:02 From: BobT Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1185044094.197455.318140@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Considering the thoughtfulness and luxe quality of most of that bike, > you've seriously underbelled yourself. Even a single clapper stem > mounted Japanese model would be a step up. It's like you've left the > plastic studs in the tuxedo shirt. > Are these your plastic studs? http://tinyurl.com/2aqe6x BobT       Date: 22 Jul 2007 12:01:08 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie BobT wrote: > Are these your plastic studs? > > http://tinyurl.com/2aqe6x As long as they're not these: http://flickr.com/photos/tcmhitchhiker/699629035/ Bill "slow afternoon" S.   Date: 21 Jul 2007 11:46:04 From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Spread_Eagle=AE?= Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and > how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering control AND can throw you head over heels.     Date: 22 Jul 2007 08:19:36 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Spread Eagle® wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > > >>"A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and >>how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. > > > > Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are > far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the > handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so > much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if > that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. > Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. > > Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering > control AND can throw you head over heels. > I think he was referring to a real fixed gear, not a single speed with a coaster brake. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel     Date: 22 Jul 2007 05:40:38 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <1185043564.636524.73420@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Spread Eagle® <redsky@virtualhosts.net > wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > > > "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and > > how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. > > > Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are > far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the > handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so > much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if > that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. > Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. > > Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering > control AND can throw you head over heels. So you rode a bicycle in the 50's and this is the best you can do? You area weak troller or this shapes up to be the Marianas Turkey Shoot. -- Michael Press     Date: 21 Jul 2007 19:37:10 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <1185043564.636524.73420@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Spread Eagle(R) <redsky@virtualhosts.net > wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > > > "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there > > are and how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of > > the bill. > > > Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are > far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the > handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so > much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if > that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. > Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. You obviously haven't used a rim brake since the 50s. Locking up the rear wheel is no problem whatsoever with modern caliper brakes, cantilever brakes, V-brakes or disc brakes. > Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering > control AND can throw you head over heels. Also showing that you haven't used one in a while. On the other hand, with only a coaster brake you have no brakes at all if the chain snaps. Bad plan. The same problem applies to fixed wheels, BTW. You need brakes on both wheels.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:19:49 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Spread Eagle® wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and >>how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. > Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are > far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the > handlebar. So-called "fixies" don't have pedal (coaster) brakes. If they had coaster brakes, they'd have no problem with the law. "Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so > much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if > that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. As if. > Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. Skidding the rear wheel -increases- stopping distance. In point of fact, front and rear caliper brakes can stop a bicycle in about 2/3rds the distance that a similar bicycle equipped only with a rear coaster brake can stop. > Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Imedes steering > control AND can throw you head over heels. Only for folks who don't know how to use one. Used properly, the two wheel caliper brake neither interfers with steering nor initiates a "stoppie". They do, however, stop the bike considerably quicker. In fact, about 70% of the stopping power is provided by the front brake. Which is why caliper brake equipped bikes can stop more quickly than ones equipped only with rear coaster brakes. Although the fact that caliper brakes can be more easily modulated (and thus be applied up to but not past the point of lock-up) contributes as well. Peace and justice,       Date: 21 Jul 2007 18:30:34 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Bill Shatzer wrote: > So-called "fixies" don't have pedal (coaster) brakes. > > If they had coaster brakes, they'd have no problem with the law. Really? Sounds like a bad law then.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:49:49 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "Spread Eagle®" (who?) anonymously wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > >> "A large number of people don't understand how many fixies there are and >> how safe they are," says Atkinson, the original sponsor of the bill. > > > Those of us who learned to ride in the 50s know that pedal brakes are > far better than those flimsy caliper things controlled on the > handlebar. Pedal brakes can flat-out shut down the real wheel, so > much so that you can easily skid and leave rubber on the road if > that's something you want to do. Try that with calipers. It is easy to lock up the rear wheel on a bicycle with properly designed and adjusted caliper, cantilever (including direct pull) and disc (mechanical and hydraulic). Don't generalize crap equipment and/or setup to proper systems. > As if. > Calipers don't have anything like that kind of stopping power. Skidding the rear wheel is NOT stopping power - the maximum deceleration possible is typically less than 0.3g. Compare that to a front brake, which can generate deceleration on the order of 0.6 to 0.7g. > Plus the front wheel caliper brake is dangerous. Im[p]edes steering > control AND can throw you head over heels. No the front brake does not impede steering control, and if the rider goes over the bars, it is due to improper upper body bracing. Don't blame the brake for poor riding technique. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 21 Jul 2007 13:22:19 From: BobT Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net > wrote in message news:28096-46A22346-513@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net... > Sleek and simple, fixies have become popular with everyone from couriers > to a hipper sect of the bike commuter set. Hipper than who? These people discussed in this article in the newspaper of record must think they are hip: http://tinyurl.com/279hov My view is that it doesn't get any hipper than my commuting tank: http://tinyurl.com/2sbmr2 BobT     Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:40:38 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Bob Taylor wrote: > "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:28096-46A22346-513@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net... > >> Sleek and simple, fixies have become popular with everyone from couriers >> to a hipper sect of the bike commuter set. > Hipper than who? > > These people discussed in this article in the newspaper of record must think > they are hip: > http://tinyurl.com/279hov This article can be summed up as "We better than you are, because we are part of the 'in' fixie group, and you're not". -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 21 Jul 2007 17:51:51 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 11:01 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > "landotter" wrote: > > On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > >> ~ > > >> News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 > > >> After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the > >> tickets continue to fly in Portland. > > >> Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon > >> bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who > >> just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line > >> up on Burnside. > > >> Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all > >> the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or > >> "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops > >> consider equipment violations. > > > Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper > > at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the > > law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in > > that case, a fixed gear may count as one. > > > A front brake is far more effective than the most uber skid--and the > > vast majority of brakeless riders I see around here can't skip stop > > and otherwise ride like lunatics. If the cops tire of issuing brake > > citations--I suggest reckless driving tickets. Those should be a few > > hundred bucks. > > > I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and > > then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a > > group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all > > cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled > > at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with > > a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but > > taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is > > just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- > > good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? > > Hey, that was what I was going to write! > > The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. > > Now all we need is that guy who claimed he could produce deceleration in > the 0.6 to 0.7g range on a fixie sans front brake to contribute to the > thread He's over in rec.motorcycles.misc, bragging about how he had to lay his motorcycle down to stop it fast enough. /snort.   Date: 21 Jul 2007 17:49:53 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 12:05 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > > >> News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 > > >> After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the > >> tickets continue to fly in Portland. > > >> Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon > >> bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who > >> just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line > >> up on Burnside. > > >> Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all > >> the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or > >> "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops > >> consider equipment violations. > > > Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper > > at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the > > law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in > > that case, a fixed gear may count as one. > > Personally I feel so strongly about the injustice of the issue, I'm > thinking about stopping by Reload and picking up this shirt: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/taisau/534718117/ > OMG, that's beyond funny! I may have to print out an iron on. :D   Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:22:53 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Paul J. Berg writes: > News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 > After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, > the tickets continue to fly in Portland. > Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday > afternoon bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass > pedestrians who just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop > signs while cars line up on Burnside. > Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with > all the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear > bikes, or "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for > what the cops consider equipment violations. > The ongoing ticketing highlights the Legislature's recent failure to > clear up legal ambiguities around the bikes, which are brought to a > stop by the application of back pressure on the pedals instead of > more common hand or coaster brakes. The legs of the cyclist, coupled > with the bike's gearing, act as a brake. > ... You may think you are in safe control of a fixed gear bicycle without brakes, but you are not. I think you might better understand that If you rode a conventionally equipped road bicycle with front and rear brake and were to dash through city traffic. The only feature would be that the front brake was disabled so you had only a rear brake. The ability to stop a bicycle with a rear brake for aggressive riding is ludicrous. Next time you ride down a mountain road, try doing that using only the rear brake. I've had to do that and it is slow and tedious. Back pedaling is about half as effective as a rear brake (that can skid the rear wheel at any time), because pedal torque approaches zero as the cranks are in their near vertical quadrant, half of the pedal stroke. Jobst Brandt     Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:15:58 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > The ability to stop a bicycle with a rear brake for aggressive riding > is ludicrous. > And yet it was standard issue when we were kids.       Date: 24 Jul 2007 23:03:37 From: G.T. Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole wrote: > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > >> The ability to stop a bicycle with a rear brake for aggressive riding >> is ludicrous. >> > > And yet it was standard issue when we were kids. And how fast did you go on your Stingray in urban traffic? Greg -- The ticketbastard Tax Tracker: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html Dethink to survive - Mclusky       Date: 21 Jul 2007 20:30:03 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole writes: >> The ability to stop a bicycle with a rear brake for aggressive riding >> is ludicrous. > And yet it was standard issue when we were kids. I don't believe you descended any mountain roads or exceeded 15mph in city traffic. Please don't skip the qualifications when making such suggestions. Jobst Brandt         Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:56:49 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Peter Cole writes: > >>> The ability to stop a bicycle with a rear brake for aggressive riding >>> is ludicrous. > >> And yet it was standard issue when we were kids. > > I don't believe you descended any mountain roads or exceeded 15mph in > city traffic. Please don't skip the qualifications when making such > suggestions. I didn't mean to suggest anything, other than perhaps the ludicrous quality of our kids bikes. While we didn't do the things you mention, we did have hills, and we did bump (sometimes literally) into the limits of rear wheel only braking. Of course, even the caliper brakes on the steel rims of that era had issues. The thing I have never been able to understand about the brake-less crowd is how they keep their tire from wearing out, given the skid stopping they favor. The old balloon tires had thick tread, we used to lock them up for fun. I like my fixed gear, but I often use it in snow where having 2 brakes is useful to make best use of the available traction and leg braking works when wet rims don't.           Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:06:18 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:56:49 -0400, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: >The thing I have never been able to understand about the brake-less >crowd is how they keep their tire from wearing out, given the skid >stopping they favor. They calculate the number of skid patches they get with various gear combinations and can sometimes increase that number by moving the tire on the rim. That and carry duct tape. I followed a brakeless fixed rider skidding all the way down a rain slicked pitch and watched as he changed contact patches. He appeared to have his bike under complete control but I still gave him extra room. I don't understand why he just didn't back-pedal for that little slope and save his colour coordinated tires. -- zk             Date: 21 Jul 2007 20:50:58 From: John Thompson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On 2007-07-21, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:56:49 -0400, Peter Cole ><peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >>The thing I have never been able to understand about the brake-less >>crowd is how they keep their tire from wearing out, given the skid >>stopping they favor. > They calculate the number of skid patches they get with various gear > combinations and can sometimes increase that number by moving the > tire on the rim. That and carry duct tape. Use a prime number tooth count on both chainring and cog and you'll spread the wear evenly enough without having to reposition the chain. :-) -- John (john@os2.dhs.org)               Date: 22 Jul 2007 06:21:15 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <slrnfa5dvu.ta1.john@vector.os2.dhs.org >, John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote: > On 2007-07-21, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:56:49 -0400, Peter Cole > ><peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>The thing I have never been able to understand about the brake-less > >>crowd is how they keep their tire from wearing out, given the skid > >>stopping they favor. > > > They calculate the number of skid patches they get with various gear > > combinations and can sometimes increase that number by moving the > > tire on the rim. That and carry duct tape. > > Use a prime number tooth count on both chainring and cog and you'll > spread the wear evenly enough without having to reposition the chain. > :-) Not prime, relatively prime. -- Michael Press             Date: 21 Jul 2007 18:31:14 From: Paul Myron Hobson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Zoot Katz wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:56:49 -0400, Peter Cole > <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> The thing I have never been able to understand about the brake-less >> crowd is how they keep their tire from wearing out, given the skid >> stopping they favor. > > They calculate the number of skid patches they get with various gear > combinations and can sometimes increase that number by moving the > tire on the rim. That and carry duct tape. > > I followed a brakeless fixed rider skidding all the way down a rain > slicked pitch and watched as he changed contact patches. He appeared > to have his bike under complete control but I still gave him extra > room. I don't understand why he just didn't back-pedal for that > little slope and save his colour coordinated tires. It's incredibly easy to skid on wet hills. So much so that it makes back pedaling *w/o* skidding a bit tricky. I wonder if the roads are slick enough when wet to not really noticeably wear the tires while skidding (compared to dry roads). \\paul               Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:29:33 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:31:14 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu > wrote: >> I followed a brakeless fixed rider skidding all the way down a rain >> slicked pitch and watched as he changed contact patches. He appeared >> to have his bike under complete control but I still gave him extra >> room. I don't understand why he just didn't back-pedal for that >> little slope and save his colour coordinated tires. > >It's incredibly easy to skid on wet hills. So much so that it makes >back pedaling *w/o* skidding a bit tricky. Yeah, I guess it would be. My leg braking is assisted by Salmon Pads. > >I wonder if the roads are slick enough when wet to not really noticeably >wear the tires while skidding (compared to dry roads). Ones gut instinct suggests it would be so but maybe wet rubber abrades that much easier. That might be a question for Jobst. -- zk     Date: 21 Jul 2007 14:35:28 From: Marcus Coles Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie I agree 100% with your analysis of rear wheel braking. Most of the fixed gear riders who are proponents of going brakeless are riding what I would consider circus gearing. Easy for tricks, skidding etc. and spinning like a mad may get them to 20 mph. A short ride on a more realistically geared bike might make them see the error of their all encompassing conclusions as to the viability of riding a fixed gear on the street brakeless. As to the ease of conversion of a track bike to brakes, if it is a real rather than the common commodity "track bike" or road bike conversion then drilling of the fork crown is probably not a reliable option given their often minimalist nature. A replacement fork with a hole and designed for brake loading is IMO a better option. FWIW Fixed gear riding probably represents ~50% of my time on a bike. I rode a fixed gear downtown this morning for about an hour and used the front brake once when a motorcycle blasted past me, misjudged my speed and made a right turn in front of me. I ended up braking hard and making a right turn inside his line, I may have been able to not use the brake and take other evasive action, but traffic was heavy. One thing is for sure there is no way I could have set up for and skid stopped the 52 x 17 gear I was riding in time. Marcus       Date: 22 Jul 2007 13:12:40 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Marcus Coles wrote: > I agree 100% with your analysis of rear wheel braking. > Most of the fixed gear riders who are proponents of going brakeless are > riding what I would consider circus gearing. Easy for tricks, skidding > etc. and spinning like a mad may get them to 20 mph. > > A short ride on a more realistically geared bike might make them see the > error of their all encompassing conclusions as to the viability of > riding a fixed gear on the street brakeless. > > As to the ease of conversion of a track bike to brakes, if it is a real > rather than the common commodity "track bike" or road bike conversion > then drilling of the fork crown is probably not a reliable option given > their often minimalist nature. A replacement fork with a hole and > designed for brake loading is IMO a better option. > > FWIW Fixed gear riding probably represents ~50% of my time on a bike. > I rode a fixed gear downtown this morning for about an hour and used the > front brake once when a motorcycle blasted past me, misjudged my speed > and made a right turn in front of me. I ended up braking hard and making > a right turn inside his line, I may have been able to not use the brake > and take other evasive action, but traffic was heavy. > One thing is for sure there is no way I could have set up for and skid > stopped the 52 x 17 gear I was riding in time. Such a nice post from an experienced fixie rider, who has also gained maturity. This week, I included a free chromed drilled fork with a new NJS frame - we agree drilling beautiful track forks is an abortion. More, there aren't any 400 calipers around once you defile your crown. I also ride an urban fixed and hardly ever use my front brake. But if there is no caliper, one may find skid lengths excessive: http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/FACEPLNT.JPG (I sent that photo to his mother. He _still_ has no caliper!) -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971         Date: 22 Jul 2007 18:26:50 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > writes: >> I agree 100% with your analysis of rear wheel braking. Most of the >> fixed gear riders who are proponents of going brakeless are riding >> what I would consider circus gearing. Easy for tricks, skidding >> etc. and spinning like a mad may get them to 20 mph. >> A short ride on a more realistically geared bike might make them >> see the error of their all encompassing conclusions as to the >> viability of riding a fixed gear on the street brakeless. >> As to the ease of conversion of a track bike to brakes, if it is a >> real rather than the common commodity "track bike" or road bike >> conversion then drilling of the fork crown is probably not a >> reliable option given their often minimalist nature. A replacement >> fork with a hole and designed for brake loading is IMO a better >> option. >> FWIW Fixed gear riding probably represents ~50% of my time on a >> bike. I rode a fixed gear downtown this morning for about an hour >> and used the front brake once when a motorcycle blasted past me, >> misjudged my speed and made a right turn in front of me. I ended >> up braking hard and making a right turn inside his line, I may have >> been able to not use the brake and take other evasive action, but >> traffic was heavy. One thing is for sure there is no way I could >> have set up for and skid stopped the 52 x 17 gear I was riding in >> time. > Such a nice post from an experienced fixie rider, who has also > gained maturity. This week, I included a free chromed drilled fork > with a new NJS frame - we agree drilling beautiful track forks is an > abortion. More, there aren't any 400 calipers around once you > defile your crown. Most true track forks use round fork blades, because there is no braking force to bend them at the crown. They are as small as the minor diameter of steel road forks. Drilling a track fork for a brake is not good because such forks are not designed to withstand braking forces. Of course, if it is only an emergency device, then not enough braking will occur to cause a fatigue failure. > I also ride an urban fixed and hardly ever use my front brake. But > if there is no caliper, one may find skid lengths excessive: http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/FACEPLNT.JPG > (I sent that photo to his mother. He _still_ has no caliper!) What more can you do, than to warn someone? Jobst Brandt   Date: 21 Jul 2007 09:01:06 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 10:54 am, Camilo <campasc...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jul 21, 7:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > ....Matthew > > > Henry, 23, a bike messenger who has been ticketed five times for riding > > a "brakeless" bike. Citations cost $97 apiece.... > > Sounds like a real brainy guy. Yeah.....he works to fund his mis-guided sense of civil disobedience.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 17:00:40 From: Dave Mayer Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message news:1185033666.149759.19070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 21, 10:54 am, Camilo <campasc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jul 21, 7:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: >> ....Matthew >> >> > Henry, 23, a bike messenger who has been ticketed five times for riding >> > a "brakeless" bike. Citations cost $97 apiece.... >> In my 'hood, the single speed/fixtie thing is an epidemic. A number of small shops have sprung up to build up or service these bikes. Any old junk frame that has horizontal dropouts is now worth gold. I could probably make a living from buying yard-sale 10-speed bikes, stripping off all of the components, and then re-flogging them as "fixed-gear" frames. It pains me to see some of the more experienced bike shop guys having to satisfy this market. Guys that have seen all kinds of bike fads come and go, and yet against all reason have to cave in and give customers what they think they want. In the 70's these guys were shoveling cheap 10-speeds out the door to folks whose backs and necks could not handle a road bike. In 2000 everyone was supposed to be tootling around the pavement in their cul-de-sac on a 45 pound full-suspension bike. Now on fixed-gears, folks are blowing lungs and knees climbing hills, and having their bike run away from them on the downhills. I have pals whose wives work in regional hospital emergency wards. Last year, the popular walk-in injuries among the young and stupid was infected (pierced) tongues for girls and arm/wrist injuries for guys (snowboarding and North-Shore bike MTB riding). Now I learn that fixed-gear riders are right up there. This includes experienced couriers who run into fixed objects in the downtown core. The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame a while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike - yes, with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this project perhaps for several years until this fad withers.       Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:19:31 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Dave Mayer wrote: > The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame a > while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike - yes, > with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this project > perhaps for several years until this fad withers. How could anyone tell you didn't have a geared hub? Besides, I don't think SS track bikes, besides being an oxymoron, are part of the fad.       Date: 21 Jul 2007 19:31:21 From: _ Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:00:40 GMT, Dave Mayer wrote: > The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame a > while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike - yes, > with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this project > perhaps for several years until this fad withers. Why? You will not get a ticket.         Date: 22 Jul 2007 00:15:51 From: Dave Mayer Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "_" <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com > wrote in message news:lrd4emjo3frc$.t10iuiilb3mj.dlg@40tude.net... > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:00:40 GMT, Dave Mayer wrote: > >> The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame >> a >> while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike - >> yes, >> with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this >> project >> perhaps for several years until this fad withers. > > Why? > > You will not get a ticket. Why wait on this project? Well, I have too many bikes. But the main reason to delay: because single-speed bikes are a hot 'thing'. But when I eventually do build it up it may have some applications due to its simplicity and light weight. However, the fixed gear 'thing' is both trendy and outright stupid. Riding a bike with no brakes (off track) is plain suicidal. And removing the ability to freewheel kills one of the key pleasures in riding a bike: coasting.           Date: 22 Jul 2007 05:51:15 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <Xkxoi.136467$1i1.56571@pd7urf3no >, "Dave Mayer" <dave4242@hotmail.com > wrote: > "_" <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote in message > news:lrd4emjo3frc$.t10iuiilb3mj.dlg@40tude.net... > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:00:40 GMT, Dave Mayer wrote: > > > >> The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame > >> a > >> while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike - > >> yes, > >> with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this > >> project > >> perhaps for several years until this fad withers. > > > > Why? > > > > You will not get a ticket. > > Why wait on this project? Well, I have too many bikes. Oh, really! > But the main reason > to delay: because single-speed bikes are a hot 'thing'. But when I > eventually do build it up it may have some applications due to its > simplicity and light weight. > > However, the fixed gear 'thing' is both trendy and outright stupid. Riding > a bike with no brakes (off track) is plain suicidal. And removing the > ability to freewheel kills one of the key pleasures in riding a bike: > coasting. Flip-flop hub and brakes. Problem solved. -- Michael Press           Date: 21 Jul 2007 20:47:13 From: John Thompson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On 2007-07-22, Dave Mayer <dave4242@hotmail.com > wrote: > However, the fixed gear 'thing' is both trendy and outright stupid. Riding > a bike with no brakes (off track) is plain suicidal. Fixed gear /= no brakes. My fixed gear bike has brakes. Two of them. One for the front wheel and one for the back. They even say "Dura-Ace" on them! But I seldom use them except for panic stops. > And removing the ability to freewheel kills one of the key pleasures > in riding a bike: coasting. I thought I would miss coasting more than I do. But I live in a fairly flat area -- maximum elevation change is < 200' for virtually all the riding I do. Fixed gear works fine in this terrain. -- John (john@os2.dhs.org)           Date: 21 Jul 2007 20:35:17 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Dave Mayer wrote: > However, the fixed gear 'thing' is both trendy and outright stupid. Riding > a bike with no brakes (off track) is plain suicidal. And removing the > ability to freewheel kills one of the key pleasures in riding a bike: > coasting. So it would seem, but there are a lot of us who greatly prefer fixed to single speed, trends or no.             Date: 22 Jul 2007 02:49:09 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole writes: >> However, the fixed gear 'thing' is both trendy and outright stupid. >> Riding a bike with no brakes (off track) is plain suicidal. And >> removing the ability to freewheel kills one of the key pleasures in >> riding a bike: coasting. > So it would seem, but there are a lot of us who greatly prefer fixed > to single speed, trends or no. I still think you should define "hip". I think that's what it's all about. Jobst Brandt               Date: 22 Jul 2007 06:07:06 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <46a2c5a5$0$14136$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Peter Cole writes: > > >> However, the fixed gear 'thing' is both trendy and outright stupid. > >> Riding a bike with no brakes (off track) is plain suicidal. And > >> removing the ability to freewheel kills one of the key pleasures in > >> riding a bike: coasting. > > > So it would seem, but there are a lot of us who greatly prefer fixed > > to single speed, trends or no. > > I still think you should define "hip". I think that's what it's all > about. I am hip, and so are some other people. -- Michael Press         Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:18:01 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie J. Taylor wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:00:40 GMT, Dave Mayer wrote: > >> The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame a >> while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike - yes, >> with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this project >> perhaps for several years until this fad withers. > > Why? > > You will not get a ticket. I thought the concern was not looking like a crowd follower? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 21 Jul 2007 12:25:43 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <YYqoi.135509$1i1.83958@pd7urf3no >, "Dave Mayer" <dave4242@hotmail.com > wrote: > The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame a > while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike - yes, > with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this project > perhaps for several years until this fad withers. I do not see why. Put the brakes on. Who will notice? A: the no brake crowd. Consider it a community service. The NBC won't be able to handle somebody more different than they are. If you are to be a slave to fashion, make it your fashion. -- Michael Press         Date: 22 Jul 2007 14:53:39 From: Joel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-C46DD5.12254321072007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article <YYqoi.135509$1i1.83958@pd7urf3no>, > "Dave Mayer" <dave4242@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame a > > while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike - yes, > > with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this project > > perhaps for several years until this fad withers. > > I do not see why. Put the brakes on. Who will notice? > A: the no brake crowd. Consider it a community service. > The NBC won't be able to handle somebody more different > than they are. If you are to be a slave to fashion, > make it your fashion. > > -- > Michael Press I live in Chicago and over the past year have noticed a lot of fixed gear "conversions", relying on a converted freewheel hub as your only brake is suicidal. A track hubs locknut has opposite threads, backward pedaling this hub just tightens the cog more. A converted hub depends on a bottom bracket locknut which threads in the same direction as the cog. This potentially can move or work loose especially with the forces involved in a panic stop. I won't even mention those that rely just on loctite alone.         Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:29:17 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Michael Press wrote: > In article <YYqoi.135509$1i1.83958@pd7urf3no>, > "Dave Mayer" <dave4242@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame a >> while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike - yes, >> with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this project >> perhaps for several years until this fad withers. > > I do not see why. Put the brakes on. Who will notice? > A: the no brake crowd. Consider it a community service. > The NBC won't be able to handle somebody more different > than they are. If you are to be a slave to fashion, > make it your fashion. I hate leg braking anyway, it feels like leg breaking (or at least knee). Besides, it's fixers, not fixies, fixies are for girlies. No brake fixers are for people who are bored with living pain free.         Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:16:38 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Michael Press wrote: > In article <YYqoi.135509$1i1.83958@pd7urf3no>, > "Dave Mayer" <dave4242@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> The downside for me is that I had bought a heavily discounted track frame a >> while back with the intention of building up into a single-speed bike - yes, >> with two good hand brakes and a freehub. Now I have to sit on this project >> perhaps for several years until this fad withers. > > I do not see why. Put the brakes on. Who will notice? > A: the no brake crowd. Consider it a community service. > The NBC won't be able to handle somebody more different > than they are. If you are to be a slave to fashion, > make it your fashion. Heck, I would put a sign on the bike - "This bicycle equipped with caliper brakes". -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 21 Jul 2007 08:54:10 From: Camilo Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 7:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: ....Matthew > Henry, 23, a bike messenger who has been ticketed five times for riding > a "brakeless" bike. Citations cost $97 apiece.... Sounds like a real brainy guy.   Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:52:14 From: still me Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:16:22 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: <snip > >"After it initially went through, I had a lot of reservations," Burdick >said in an interview with Jonathan Maus, editor of Bikeportland. "My own >daughter (who works at River City Bicycles in Portland) rides fixies on >the velodrome. She jumped on me pretty hard and said there were a lot of >people on fixies who really don't know what they're doing, so changing >the standard across the board would not be a good idea." >River City Bicycles sells one type of fixed-gear bicycle without brakes. <snip > The solution is clear! Arrest the people selling those fixies without brakes for causing this problem. I'm sure that right after her daughter gets arrested, Sen Burdick will have a change of heart.     Date: 21 Jul 2007 14:06:14 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie still me wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:16:22 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) > wrote: > > > <snip> > >>"After it initially went through, I had a lot of reservations," Burdick >>said in an interview with Jonathan Maus, editor of Bikeportland. "My own >>daughter (who works at River City Bicycles in Portland) rides fixies on >>the velodrome. She jumped on me pretty hard and said there were a lot of >>people on fixies who really don't know what they're doing, so changing >>the standard across the board would not be a good idea." >>River City Bicycles sells one type of fixed-gear bicycle without brakes. > <snip> > The solution is clear! Arrest the people selling those fixies without > brakes for causing this problem. No more than the folks selling motorcross and off-road motorcycles which lack all sorts of things[1] required for legal street operation. [1] mirrors, head lights, turn signals, mufflers, etc. > I'm sure that right after her > daughter gets arrested, Sen Burdick will have a change of heart. Why so? They're perfectly legal to ride at the velodrome. And that's where she rides 'em, apparently. It's only when folks take 'em out on the public highways and byways that there's a problem. Peace and justice,       Date: 23 Jul 2007 11:31:03 From: fred Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Bill Shatzer wrote: > still me wrote: > >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:16:22 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) >> wrote: >> >> >> <snip> >> >>> "After it initially went through, I had a lot of reservations," Burdick >>> said in an interview with Jonathan Maus, editor of Bikeportland. "My own >>> daughter (who works at River City Bicycles in Portland) rides fixies on >>> the velodrome. She jumped on me pretty hard and said there were a lot of >>> people on fixies who really don't know what they're doing, so changing >>> the standard across the board would not be a good idea." > >>> River City Bicycles sells one type of fixed-gear bicycle without brakes. > >> <snip> > >> The solution is clear! Arrest the people selling those fixies without >> brakes for causing this problem. > > No more than the folks selling motorcross and off-road motorcycles which > lack all sorts of things[1] required for legal street operation. > > [1] mirrors, head lights, turn signals, mufflers, etc. > >> I'm sure that right after her >> daughter gets arrested, Sen Burdick will have a change of heart. > > Why so? They're perfectly legal to ride at the velodrome. And that's > where she rides 'em, apparently. > > It's only when folks take 'em out on the public highways and byways that > there's a problem. > > Peace and justice, Well, I'd suggest that you should have worded it "It's only when folks take 'em out on the public highways and byways that there's a PERCEIVED problem. Has anyone provided raw data or statistics that demonstrate that fixies without mechanical brakes are actually a problem? There will always be people who perceive problems. But that doesn't mean the problems actually exist. I've yet to see any stats, let alone raw data, that show a problem actually exists. Personally, I'm tired of other people telling me that they know better than I how I should live my life. I've been an adult for decades and, frankly, I'm at least as intelligent as most of the nosy nates. I neither need nor want them to look after me. Thanks all the same.         Date: 23 Jul 2007 13:58:09 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie fred wrote: > Bill Shatzer wrote: >> still me wrote: -snip- >>> The solution is clear! Arrest the people selling those fixies without >>> brakes for causing this problem. >> No more than the folks selling motorcross and off-road motorcycles >> which lack all sorts of things[1] required for legal street operation. >> [1] mirrors, head lights, turn signals, mufflers, etc. >>> I'm sure that right after her >>> daughter gets arrested, Sen Burdick will have a change of heart. >> Why so? They're perfectly legal to ride at the velodrome. And that's >> where she rides 'em, apparently. >> It's only when folks take 'em out on the public highways and byways >> that there's a problem. > Well, I'd suggest that you should have worded it "It's only when folks > take 'em out on the public highways and byways that there's a > PERCEIVED problem. > Has anyone provided raw data or statistics that demonstrate that fixies > without mechanical brakes are actually a problem? There will always be > people who perceive problems. But that doesn't mean the problems > actually exist. I've yet to see any stats, let alone raw data, that > show a problem actually exists. > Personally, I'm tired of other people telling me that they know better > than I how I should live my life. I've been an adult for decades and, > frankly, I'm at least as intelligent as most of the nosy nates. I > neither need nor want them to look after me. Any time you can demonstrate that your bicycle will be involved only in single vehicle accidents which will result in injuries only to yerself and damage only to your property, I'm willing to sign off on you equipping your bike any way you want. The problem with allowing you do so on the public highways and byways is that there are other folks and other folks' property out there which are likely to be involved in the resulting mayhem when your brake-less bike fails to stop. Not to mention the public cost of sweeping your broken body up off the pavement. So long as there's a risk that your choices may adversely affect other folks and their lives, health, and propery, those other folks have got a perfect right to tell you how to equip your bike - if not how to live your life. Peace and justice,           Date: 24 Jul 2007 06:58:36 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net > wrote: > So long as there's a risk that your choices may adversely affect other > folks and their lives, health, and propery, those other folks have got a > perfect right to tell you how to equip your bike - if not how to live > your life. While playing the "Jackbooted Thuggery Rag". Typical lefty and Bureaucratic Swine             Date: 24 Jul 2007 22:15:39 From: Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie The kindly Rev. overheard Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net > saying on Tue 24 Jul 2007 01:58:36a: >> So long as there's a risk that your choices may adversely affect >> other folks and their lives, health, and propery, those other >> folks have got a perfect right to tell you how to equip your bike >> - if not how to live your life. > > While playing the "Jackbooted Thuggery Rag". > > Typical lefty and Bureaucratic Swine That's actually a little better, Lobby. It's insanely off the mark, but you're putting your words together a little bit better. -- Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen revbob at crispen dot org Ex Cathedra weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/ I Wandered Lonely As a Cloud (rewritten as a limerick) There once was a poet named Will Who tramped his way over a hill And was speechless for hours Over some stupid flowers This was years before TV, but still.           Date: 23 Jul 2007 17:50:01 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <m_-dnXPHSO35izjbnZ2dnUVZ_tyknZ2d@comcast.com >, Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net > wrote: > fred wrote: > > > Personally, I'm tired of other people telling me that they know > > better than I how I should live my life. I've been an adult for > > decades and, frankly, I'm at least as intelligent as most of the > > nosy nates. I neither need nor want them to look after me. > > Any time you can demonstrate that your bicycle will be involved only > in single vehicle accidents which will result in injuries only to > yerself and damage only to your property, I'm willing to sign off on > you equipping your bike any way you want. > > The problem with allowing you do so on the public highways and byways > is that there are other folks and other folks' property out there > which are likely to be involved in the resulting mayhem when your > brake-less bike fails to stop. Not to mention the public cost of > sweeping your broken body up off the pavement. > > So long as there's a risk that your choices may adversely affect > other folks and their lives, health, and propery, those other folks > have got a perfect right to tell you how to equip your bike - if not > how to live your life. That's slippery slope positioning, Bill. You can apply the same logic to operating a motor vehicle, gun ownership, pornography, political speech, what religion you belong to...             Date: 23 Jul 2007 21:13:14 From: Bill Shatzer Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <m_-dnXPHSO35izjbnZ2dnUVZ_tyknZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote: >>fred wrote: >>>Personally, I'm tired of other people telling me that they know >>>better than I how I should live my life. I've been an adult for >>>decades and, frankly, I'm at least as intelligent as most of the >>>nosy nates. I neither need nor want them to look after me. >>Any time you can demonstrate that your bicycle will be involved only >>in single vehicle accidents which will result in injuries only to >>yerself and damage only to your property, I'm willing to sign off on >>you equipping your bike any way you want. >>The problem with allowing you do so on the public highways and byways >>is that there are other folks and other folks' property out there >>which are likely to be involved in the resulting mayhem when your >>brake-less bike fails to stop. Not to mention the public cost of >>sweeping your broken body up off the pavement. >>So long as there's a risk that your choices may adversely affect >>other folks and their lives, health, and propery, those other folks >>have got a perfect right to tell you how to equip your bike - if not >>how to live your life. > That's slippery slope positioning, Bill. You can apply the same logic > to operating a motor vehicle, Indeed you can. Which is why I've no problem with laws which require your automobile as well as your bicycle to have (among other things) brakes when operated on the public rights of way. > gun ownership, And thus we have laws restricting felons, the mentally ill, and children from owning guns as well as restrictions on certain types of firearms and regulations about where and how firearms of all sorts may be discharged. > pornography, political > speech, what religion you belong to... The risk to other folks and their lives and property presented by pornography, political speech, and religious activities[1] doesn't seem to have been demonstrated to the degree that the risk from careening bicycles, brakeless cars, and randomly discharged firearms has been. If and when those risks have been demonstrated, then and only then would it be appropriate to consider regulating those things[2]. [1] Though you notice that the religious sacrifice of virgins to the volcano god and such is rather strictly prohibited. [2] Yes, I'm aware of the constitution restrictions on regulating such things. Presumably, even with a demonstration of substantial risk, such requlation would require a constitutional amendment. Peace and justice,     Date: 21 Jul 2007 11:13:18 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "still me" wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:16:22 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) > wrote: > > > <snip> > >> "After it initially went through, I had a lot of reservations," Burdick >> said in an interview with Jonathan Maus, editor of Bikeportland. "My own >> daughter (who works at River City Bicycles in Portland) rides fixies on >> the velodrome. She jumped on me pretty hard and said there were a lot of >> people on fixies who really don't know what they're doing, so changing >> the standard across the board would not be a good idea." > >> River City Bicycles sells one type of fixed-gear bicycle without brakes. > > <snip> > > The solution is clear! Arrest the people selling those fixies without > brakes for causing this problem. I'm sure that right after her > daughter gets arrested, Sen Burdick will have a change of heart. Slap a big old warning sticker "FOR VELODROME USE ONLY" on the fixie bicycles without front brakes. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:38:45 From: landotter Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > ~ > > News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 > > After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the > tickets continue to fly in Portland. > > Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon > bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who > just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line > up on Burnside. > > Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all > the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or > "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops > consider equipment violations. Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in that case, a fixed gear may count as one. A front brake is far more effective than the most uber skid--and the vast majority of brakeless riders I see around here can't skip stop and otherwise ride like lunatics. If the cops tire of issuing brake citations--I suggest reckless driving tickets. Those should be a few hundred bucks. I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? /nomex     Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:13:08 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie landotter wrote: > On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: >> ~ >> >> News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 >> >> After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the >> tickets continue to fly in Portland. >> >> Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon >> bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who >> just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line >> up on Burnside. >> >> Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all >> the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or >> "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops >> consider equipment violations. > > > Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper > at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the > law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in > that case, a fixed gear may count as one. > > A front brake is far more effective than the most uber skid--and the > vast majority of brakeless riders I see around here can't skip stop > and otherwise ride like lunatics. If the cops tire of issuing brake > citations--I suggest reckless driving tickets. Those should be a few > hundred bucks. > > I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and > then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a > group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all > cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled > at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with > a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but > taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is > just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- > good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? > > /nomex > Geez, I dunno. If I was driving I would have thought it common courtesy not to require 10 other people to stop, especially if they had to accelerate back up with muscles and I just had to wiggle my toe. What's the biggie?       Date: 22 Jul 2007 08:23:23 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole wrote: > landotter wrote: > >> On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: >> >>> ~ >>> >>> News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 >>> >>> After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the >>> tickets continue to fly in Portland. >>> >>> Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon >>> bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who >>> just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line >>> up on Burnside. >>> >>> Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all >>> the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or >>> "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops >>> consider equipment violations. >> >> >> >> Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper >> at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the >> law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in >> that case, a fixed gear may count as one. >> >> A front brake is far more effective than the most uber skid--and the >> vast majority of brakeless riders I see around here can't skip stop >> and otherwise ride like lunatics. If the cops tire of issuing brake >> citations--I suggest reckless driving tickets. Those should be a few >> hundred bucks. >> >> I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and >> then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a >> group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all >> cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled >> at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with >> a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but >> taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is >> just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- >> good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? >> >> /nomex >> > > Geez, I dunno. If I was driving I would have thought it common courtesy > not to require 10 other people to stop, especially if they had to > accelerate back up with muscles and I just had to wiggle my toe. What's > the biggie? you're right, the law doesn't matter, nor does surprising the operator of a 3000lb. vehicle who's going to be expecting you to obey it. nate (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front of cross traffic.) -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel         Date: 22 Jul 2007 10:30:44 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <f7vi7s12c0i@news2.newsguy.com >, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote: > (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in > my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front > of cross traffic.) Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers ignoring the law as do cyclists. The common view in the United states is that traffic laws are just suggestions and can be broken with impunity unless you can see a cop. What I never see is flagrant, unprovoked violence against car drivers by bicyclists. I do, however, see flagrant unprovoked violence by car drivers against each other, against pedestrians and against cyclists on a daily basis. Driving a car tends to bring out the worst in people.           Date: 22 Jul 2007 19:20:48 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <f7vi7s12c0i@news2.newsguy.com>, > Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote: > > >>(shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in >>my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front >>of cross traffic.) > > > Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers > ignoring the law as do cyclists. Discounting speed limits, I disagree heartily. 100% of the cyclists that I see are breaking some law or another (95% of them blow stop signs, and I don't mean a "california stop" either.) The number of drivers I see doing things like that is much, much smaller. If you count the speed limit, of course, then 100% of both groups are breaking at least one law. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel             Date: 23 Jul 2007 07:52:45 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Nate Nagel wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: >> In article <f7vi7s12c0i@news2.newsguy.com>, >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote: >> >> >>> (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in >>> my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front >>> of cross traffic.) >> >> >> Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers >> ignoring the law as do cyclists. > > Discounting speed limits, I disagree heartily. 100% of the cyclists > that I see are breaking some law or another (95% of them blow stop > signs, and I don't mean a "california stop" either.) The number of > drivers I see doing things like that is much, much smaller. > > If you count the speed limit, of course, then 100% of both groups are > breaking at least one law. Why wouldn't you count that?               Date: 24 Jul 2007 00:07:28 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie >>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote: >>>> (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in >>>> my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front >>>> of cross traffic.) >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers >>> ignoring the law as do cyclists. > Nate Nagel wrote: >> Discounting speed limits, I disagree heartily. 100% of the cyclists >> that I see are breaking some law or another (95% of them blow stop >> signs, and I don't mean a "california stop" either.) The number of >> drivers I see doing things like that is much, much smaller. >> If you count the speed limit, of course, then 100% of both groups are >> breaking at least one law. Peter Cole wrote: > Why wouldn't you count that? Because unlike stop lights, stop signs, etc, speed limits are commonly viewed as inappropriate, unreasonable and apparently capriciously designated. When a specific limited zone is posted at a reasonable speed, that's largely ignored like all the others. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                 Date: 24 Jul 2007 07:36:43 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie A Muzi wrote: >>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote: >>>>> (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in >>>>> my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front >>>>> of cross traffic.) > >>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>> Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers >>>> ignoring the law as do cyclists. > >> Nate Nagel wrote: >>> Discounting speed limits, I disagree heartily. 100% of the cyclists >>> that I see are breaking some law or another (95% of them blow stop >>> signs, and I don't mean a "california stop" either.) The number of >>> drivers I see doing things like that is much, much smaller. >>> If you count the speed limit, of course, then 100% of both groups are >>> breaking at least one law. > > Peter Cole wrote: >> Why wouldn't you count that? > > Because unlike stop lights, stop signs, etc, speed limits are commonly > viewed as inappropriate, unreasonable and apparently capriciously > designated. When a specific limited zone is posted at a reasonable > speed, that's largely ignored like all the others. Well then this is just another case of people not following a law that they find unreasonable, something I claim happens all the time. Given that so many (100% by Nate's estimate) of cyclists don't fully comply with ROW laws, I'd say it means that most find them unreasonable.                   Date: 24 Jul 2007 11:30:16 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie >>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote: >>>>>> (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists >>>>>> in my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in >>>>>> front of cross traffic.) >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>> Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers >>>>> ignoring the law as do cyclists. >>> Nate Nagel wrote: >>>> Discounting speed limits, I disagree heartily. 100% of the cyclists >>>> that I see are breaking some law or another (95% of them blow stop >>>> signs, and I don't mean a "california stop" either.) The number of >>>> drivers I see doing things like that is much, much smaller. >>>> If you count the speed limit, of course, then 100% of both groups >>>> are breaking at least one law. >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> Why wouldn't you count that? > A Muzi wrote: >> Because unlike stop lights, stop signs, etc, speed limits are commonly >> viewed as inappropriate, unreasonable and apparently capriciously >> designated. When a specific limited zone is posted at a reasonable >> speed, that's largely ignored like all the others. Peter Cole wrote: > Well then this is just another case of people not following a law that > they find unreasonable, something I claim happens all the time. > Given that so many (100% by Nate's estimate) of cyclists don't fully > comply with ROW laws, I'd say it means that most find them unreasonable. Yes, hence the conflict. I assume you're right. What to do about it? I merely reported above, didn't advocate. My conflict with rescinding unpopular laws _because_ of unpopularity alone is that the slippery slope leads to to situations such as having to allow murder/mayhem as 'OK' among Iraqis since it's prevalent... Do we want to end there? Tangential to this, did you see today's paper about the German traffic signs? Apparently there is so much minutiae clearly posted in their thorough Teutonic manner that it's difficult to comprehend them all while driving and views are blocked by their profusion. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                     Date: 24 Jul 2007 14:16:16 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie A Muzi wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Well then this is just another case of people not following a law that >> they find unreasonable, something I claim happens all the time. >> Given that so many (100% by Nate's estimate) of cyclists don't fully >> comply with ROW laws, I'd say it means that most find them unreasonable. > > Yes, hence the conflict. I assume you're right. What to do about it? Change the laws. If speed limits are set to 85% compliance, why not have the same philosophy with ROW? Either de jure or de facto, I don't care. > I merely reported above, didn't advocate. My conflict with rescinding > unpopular laws _because_ of unpopularity alone is that the slippery > slope leads to to situations such as having to allow murder/mayhem as > 'OK' among Iraqis since it's prevalent... Do we want to end there? Oh no, you're not dragging me into Iraq. Well, OK, a little bit -- I don't see how you can prevent people killing each other if they're really determined to do it. Once you unleash the dogs of war it's anyone's guess where they go.             Date: 22 Jul 2007 20:26:03 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In rec.bicycles.misc Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: >> >> Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers >> ignoring the law as do cyclists. > > Discounting speed limits, I disagree heartily. 100% of the cyclists > that I see are breaking some law or another (95% of them blow stop > signs, and I don't mean a "california stop" either.) The number of > drivers I see doing things like that is much, much smaller. Even with ignoring speed violations, I still see many more drivers breaking traffic laws than cyclists. Blowing red lights [1], tailgating, running stops, passing in no passing zones, etc. Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data. So this doesn't really mean anything. [1] There's a couple intersections on the way to work that I am *very* careful at. Someone blatantly runs the red light there at least a couple times a week. Be a little too quick off the line at a green and you'd be dogfood. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org We should have a Vollyballocracy. We elect a six-pack of presidents. Each one serves until they screw up, at which point they rotate. -- Dennis Miller             Date: 22 Jul 2007 18:38:29 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <f80oog29g1@news2.newsguy.com >, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <f7vi7s12c0i@news2.newsguy.com>, > > Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote: > > > > > >>(shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in > >>my area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front > >>of cross traffic.) > > > > > > Some do. But I see, on a percentage basis, just as many drivers > > ignoring the law as do cyclists. > > Discounting speed limits, I disagree heartily. 100% of the cyclists > that I see are breaking some law or another (95% of them blow stop > signs, and I don't mean a "california stop" either.) The number of > drivers I see doing things like that is much, much smaller. Then you're not looking. Or- like most people- you're interpreting what you see in a prejudicial manner. You're overestimating both the compliance of drivers and the lawbreaking of cyclists. > If you count the speed limit, of course, then 100% of both groups are > breaking at least one law. A traffic law is a traffic law.         Date: 22 Jul 2007 10:45:31 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Nate Nagel wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> landotter wrote: >> >>> On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: >>> >>>> ~ >>>> >>>> News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 >>>> >>>> After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the >>>> tickets continue to fly in Portland. >>>> >>>> Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon >>>> bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who >>>> just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line >>>> up on Burnside. >>>> >>>> Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all >>>> the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or >>>> "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops >>>> consider equipment violations. >>> >>> >>> >>> Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper >>> at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the >>> law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in >>> that case, a fixed gear may count as one. >>> >>> A front brake is far more effective than the most uber skid--and the >>> vast majority of brakeless riders I see around here can't skip stop >>> and otherwise ride like lunatics. If the cops tire of issuing brake >>> citations--I suggest reckless driving tickets. Those should be a few >>> hundred bucks. >>> >>> I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and >>> then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a >>> group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all >>> cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled >>> at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with >>> a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but >>> taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is >>> just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- >>> good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? >>> >>> /nomex >>> >> >> Geez, I dunno. If I was driving I would have thought it common >> courtesy not to require 10 other people to stop, especially if they >> had to accelerate back up with muscles and I just had to wiggle my >> toe. What's the biggie? > > you're right, the law doesn't matter, nor does surprising the operator > of a 3000lb. vehicle who's going to be expecting you to obey it. > > nate > > (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in my > area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front of > cross traffic.) > Well, let's look at what happened. The group of cyclists were playing "chicken" with the motorist. They gambled that they could bluff the guy into stopping, and they succeeded. This sort of thing goes on all the time. The motorist had the option of calling the bluff, but that might have likely caused injury to some of the riders. I don't think the punishment would have fit the crime. Like it or not, the driver was faced with two unpalatable choices, I think he took the smart one. When the riders were yelled at, they (some) responded with hostility. Your response to the story was to express your own hostility. So we have mutual hostility. You would like to control behavior, I would prefer to eliminate hostility and presume behavior would improve. You conclude that that kind of cyclist behavior is the result of self-indulgence and selfishness on their part and you "hate" them for that. These cyclists either: have no respect for the law at all; have no respect for the laws pertaining to cyclists; or are ignorant of the law. If they're truly lawless, then they shouldn't be judged in a cycling context. If they're ignorant, hostility isn't the solution, education is. If they don't respect only the cycling laws, then perhaps those laws should be reviewed. If "most of the cyclists" in your area aren't respecting the cycling laws, and you don't live in a center for anarchy, and the locals are reasonably educated, I think the laws need to be looked at. I guess it ultimately comes down to your view on human nature. If you think people are inherently selfish then you must conclude that behavior has to be controlled. If you think that people are basically reasonable then you conclude that it should be negotiated fairly. In this case, if you take the "law is the law is the law" POV, the cyclists didn't have a leg to stand on. If you think outside the law box, you might think in terms of accommodating the group over the individual. Could that be law? Sure, why not? Something like "motorists must yield right of way to groups of cyclists greater than x members". Laws aren't absolute, written in stone, they are negotiated compromises. As for "hating" or "teaching a lesson" to scofflaws, *perhaps* that might be appropriate if they were only selfish brats, but if they really disagree with the laws, civil disobedience is an honored tradition (among some, anyway) in this society. How do you discriminate between the two? By "you" I mean you personally, obviously cops don't and shouldn't.           Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:25:59 From: N8N Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 25, 2:04 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 24, 10:28 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:30:40 GMT, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > >On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:14:48 -0700, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Remember that a lot of > > >>guidelines were laid down when the average vehicle was rolling on > > >>6.70-15 bias plys and had four wheel drum brakes. > > > >But remember also that most people have been driving 20 feet off the > > >rear bumper of other cars at 70mph on the highway since the bias ply > > >days and still do. In an emergency, that's the difference between dead > > >and deader. > > > >While stopping distances and such have decreased, most people don't > > >know, never did, and never will drive within whatever the handling > > >limits of their vehicle are. Most of them don't even understand what a > > >"good handling" car is compared to a "poor handling" car unless you > > >have them drive the two back to back. The only thing better handling > > >and smaller, faster stopping cars have done for the average joe is to > > >help him out when he panics and maybe save his butt with superior > > >performance for a few seconds when it counts - but it has nothing to > > >do with average joe realizing what the car will do. > > > The average joe counts on his air bags to save his butt these days. > > > "Road Safety" to cagers is all about their own post-crash survival. > > -- > > zk > > I agree with that statement 100%. (see, I don't always bust your > balls.) I shake my head at people who look at my little 944 and ask > me how I can drive such an "unsafe" vehicle when it likely handles and > brakes (but accelerate, eh, not so much) orders of magnitude better > than whatever they drive. I don't know and don't really care how it > would fare in a crash, because I'd rather avoid it altogether. > > However, a simple survey of radio, TV, and/or print ads touting the > safety features of various new cars will show that passive safety is > what is being pushed (and presumably what the majority of consumers > are looking for) while only a few manufacturers are touting active > safety features, Subaru being one that immediately comes to mind. > > nate Forgot to add, the best active safety device is still the nut behind the wheel. I'd feel safer in a clapped out pickup truck with Vic Elford driving than I would with the average DC-area motorist driving a new Volvo. Eyes, ears, reflexes, and most importantly grey matter are the most important safety devices there are - something that a lot of people don't understand. nate             Date: 25 Jul 2007 18:31:30 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie >>>> N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Remember that a lot of >>>>> guidelines were laid down when the average vehicle was rolling on >>>>> 6.70-15 bias plys and had four wheel drum brakes. >>> still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> But remember also that most people have been driving 20 feet off the >>>> rear bumper of other cars at 70mph on the highway since the bias ply >>>> days and still do. In an emergency, that's the difference between dead >>>> and deader. >>>> While stopping distances and such have decreased, most people don't >>>> know, never did, and never will drive within whatever the handling >>>> limits of their vehicle are. Most of them don't even understand what a >>>> "good handling" car is compared to a "poor handling" car unless you >>>> have them drive the two back to back. The only thing better handling >>>> and smaller, faster stopping cars have done for the average joe is to >>>> help him out when he panics and maybe save his butt with superior >>>> performance for a few seconds when it counts - but it has nothing to >>>> do with average joe realizing what the car will do. >> Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote: >>> The average joe counts on his air bags to save his butt these days. >>> "Road Safety" to cagers is all about their own post-crash survival. N8N wrote: >> I agree with that statement 100%. (see, I don't always bust your >> balls.) I shake my head at people who look at my little 944 and ask >> me how I can drive such an "unsafe" vehicle when it likely handles and >> brakes (but accelerate, eh, not so much) orders of magnitude better >> than whatever they drive. I don't know and don't really care how it >> would fare in a crash, because I'd rather avoid it altogether. >> However, a simple survey of radio, TV, and/or print ads touting the >> safety features of various new cars will show that passive safety is >> what is being pushed (and presumably what the majority of consumers >> are looking for) while only a few manufacturers are touting active >> safety features, Subaru being one that immediately comes to mind. N8N moreover wrote: > Forgot to add, the best active safety device is still the nut behind > the wheel. I'd feel safer in a clapped out pickup truck with Vic > Elford driving than I would with the average DC-area motorist driving > a new Volvo. Eyes, ears, reflexes, and most importantly grey matter > are the most important safety devices there are - something that a lot > of people don't understand. All my near-misses this year have been by cel-phone-impaired idiots. So far I haven't been killed. Only by dumb luck. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971           Date: 25 Jul 2007 11:04:04 From: N8N Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Jul 24, 10:28 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:30:40 GMT, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:14:48 -0700, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Remember that a lot of > >>guidelines were laid down when the average vehicle was rolling on > >>6.70-15 bias plys and had four wheel drum brakes. > > >But remember also that most people have been driving 20 feet off the > >rear bumper of other cars at 70mph on the highway since the bias ply > >days and still do. In an emergency, that's the difference between dead > >and deader. > > >While stopping distances and such have decreased, most people don't > >know, never did, and never will drive within whatever the handling > >limits of their vehicle are. Most of them don't even understand what a > >"good handling" car is compared to a "poor handling" car unless you > >have them drive the two back to back. The only thing better handling > >and smaller, faster stopping cars have done for the average joe is to > >help him out when he panics and maybe save his butt with superior > >performance for a few seconds when it counts - but it has nothing to > >do with average joe realizing what the car will do. > > The average joe counts on his air bags to save his butt these days. > > "Road Safety" to cagers is all about their own post-crash survival. > -- > zk I agree with that statement 100%. (see, I don't always bust your balls.) I shake my head at people who look at my little 944 and ask me how I can drive such an "unsafe" vehicle when it likely handles and brakes (but accelerate, eh, not so much) orders of magnitude better than whatever they drive. I don't know and don't really care how it would fare in a crash, because I'd rather avoid it altogether. However, a simple survey of radio, TV, and/or print ads touting the safety features of various new cars will show that passive safety is what is being pushed (and presumably what the majority of consumers are looking for) while only a few manufacturers are touting active safety features, Subaru being one that immediately comes to mind. nate           Date: 22 Jul 2007 19:17:05 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole wrote: > Nate Nagel wrote: > >> Peter Cole wrote: >> >>> landotter wrote: >>> >>>> On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: >>>> >>>>> ~ >>>>> >>>>> News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 >>>>> >>>>> After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the >>>>> tickets continue to fly in Portland. >>>>> >>>>> Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday >>>>> afternoon >>>>> bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who >>>>> just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars >>>>> line >>>>> up on Burnside. >>>>> >>>>> Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with >>>>> all >>>>> the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or >>>>> "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops >>>>> consider equipment violations. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper >>>> at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the >>>> law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in >>>> that case, a fixed gear may count as one. >>>> >>>> A front brake is far more effective than the most uber skid--and the >>>> vast majority of brakeless riders I see around here can't skip stop >>>> and otherwise ride like lunatics. If the cops tire of issuing brake >>>> citations--I suggest reckless driving tickets. Those should be a few >>>> hundred bucks. >>>> >>>> I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and >>>> then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a >>>> group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all >>>> cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled >>>> at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with >>>> a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but >>>> taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is >>>> just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- >>>> good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? >>>> >>>> /nomex >>>> >>> >>> Geez, I dunno. If I was driving I would have thought it common >>> courtesy not to require 10 other people to stop, especially if they >>> had to accelerate back up with muscles and I just had to wiggle my >>> toe. What's the biggie? >> >> >> you're right, the law doesn't matter, nor does surprising the operator >> of a 3000lb. vehicle who's going to be expecting you to obey it. >> >> nate >> >> (shrugs and gives up. I've learned to hate most of the cyclists in my >> area because of their habit of blowing stop signs right in front of >> cross traffic.) >> > > Well, let's look at what happened. The group of cyclists were playing > "chicken" with the motorist. They gambled that they could bluff the guy > into stopping, and they succeeded. This sort of thing goes on all the > time. The motorist had the option of calling the bluff, but that might > have likely caused injury to some of the riders. I don't think the > punishment would have fit the crime. Like it or not, the driver was > faced with two unpalatable choices, I think he took the smart one. > > When the riders were yelled at, they (some) responded with hostility. > > Your response to the story was to express your own hostility. > > So we have mutual hostility. > > You would like to control behavior, I would prefer to eliminate > hostility and presume behavior would improve. What kind of touchy-feely bullshit is this? The cyclists were breaking the law. The hostility was understandable and warranted. Eliminate the hostility (good luck with that; it's hard to train people not to at least have feelings of hostility toward arrogant a-holes that cut in line) and you just have more bicyclists thinking that the laws don't apply to them. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel             Date: 23 Jul 2007 07:23:35 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Nate Nagel wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> When the riders were yelled at, they (some) responded with hostility. >> >> Your response to the story was to express your own hostility. >> >> So we have mutual hostility. >> >> You would like to control behavior, I would prefer to eliminate >> hostility and presume behavior would improve. > > What kind of touchy-feely bullshit is this? It's called tolerance (apparently a foreign concept). > The cyclists were breaking > the law. The hostility was understandable and warranted. There are always two sides to every story. > Eliminate the > hostility (good luck with that; it's hard to train people not to at > least have feelings of hostility toward arrogant a-holes that cut in > line) and you just have more bicyclists thinking that the laws don't > apply to them. People are people, most cyclists are drivers, not that that really matters, but it does show the futility of categorizing. Most people don't follow laws they consider unreasonable, I think that's a good thing.               Date: 23 Jul 2007 09:27:04 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <w_KdndAYCeAuEjnbnZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Most people don't follow laws they consider unreasonable, I think > that's a good thing. That's a rather slippery slope.                 Date: 23 Jul 2007 16:54:36 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <w_KdndAYCeAuEjnbnZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@comcast.com>, > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Most people don't follow laws they consider unreasonable, I think >> that's a good thing. > > That's a rather slippery slope. Maybe, but I don't think red light running leads to armed robbery. An interesting question: What do you think would happen if a day was declared to be no-penalty for moving & ROW violations? Do you think everyone would drive differently? Many people? Would you change the way you drive? I wouldn't and I'd guess most people wouldn't. That tells me people obey the laws for the most part because they agree with them.                   Date: 23 Jul 2007 18:02:26 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <0PSdnaKToZAUiDjbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <w_KdndAYCeAuEjnbnZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Most people don't follow laws they consider unreasonable, I think > >> that's a good thing. > > > > That's a rather slippery slope. > > Maybe, but I don't think red light running leads to armed robbery. Probably not, but you didn't restrict your statement to stopping at red lights. Lots of people think it's unreasonable that they can't help themselves to the contents of your house or use your credit card or empty out your bank account. They don't follow those laws and in general I don;t think that's a good thing. > An interesting question: What do you think would happen if a day was > declared to be no-penalty for moving & ROW violations? Do you think > everyone would drive differently? Many people? Would you change the > way you drive? I wouldn't and I'd guess most people wouldn't. That > tells me people obey the laws for the most part because they agree > with them. I'd probably stay home that day. I see way to many numbskull maneuvers on a daily basis, including crossing four lanes in late rush hour traffic at the last possible moment to get to an exit while talking on a cell phone with three children in the car (I saw this about 10 minutes ago). I se such things at least daily. The average level of driving safety has plummeted in the past few years locally. It's actually scary to be on the road pretty often.                     Date: 24 Jul 2007 07:13:45 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <0PSdnaKToZAUiDjbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <w_KdndAYCeAuEjnbnZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@comcast.com>, >>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Most people don't follow laws they consider unreasonable, I think >>>> that's a good thing. >>> That's a rather slippery slope. >> Maybe, but I don't think red light running leads to armed robbery. > > Probably not, but you didn't restrict your statement to stopping at red > lights. Lots of people think it's unreasonable that they can't help > themselves to the contents of your house or use your credit card or > empty out your bank account. They don't follow those laws and in > general I don;t think that's a good thing. But that's a small minority, if it were anything else civilization would be hopeless. When you have a law that the majority don't follow, I think there may be something wrong with the law. >> An interesting question: What do you think would happen if a day was >> declared to be no-penalty for moving & ROW violations? Do you think >> everyone would drive differently? Many people? Would you change the >> way you drive? I wouldn't and I'd guess most people wouldn't. That >> tells me people obey the laws for the most part because they agree >> with them. > > I'd probably stay home that day. I see way to many numbskull maneuvers > on a daily basis, including crossing four lanes in late rush hour > traffic at the last possible moment to get to an exit while talking on a > cell phone with three children in the car (I saw this about 10 minutes > ago). I se such things at least daily. The average level of driving > safety has plummeted in the past few years locally. It's actually scary > to be on the road pretty often. Highway fatalities/mile driven have been going down for decades. Skeptics point out that thus is from safer, better and even larger cars, while driving speeds and dangerous behavior have gone up, but not enough to offset, so you're perhaps actually a bit safer with today's cars even with today's drivers. It may be that drivers have responded to better cars by pushing the envelope. Anyway, you ducked the question.                       Date: 24 Jul 2007 09:17:32 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <TICdnXFUBOB_QzjbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <0PSdnaKToZAUiDjbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <w_KdndAYCeAuEjnbnZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@comcast.com>, > >>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Most people don't follow laws they consider unreasonable, I > >>>> think that's a good thing. > >>> That's a rather slippery slope. > >> Maybe, but I don't think red light running leads to armed robbery. > > > > Probably not, but you didn't restrict your statement to stopping at > > red lights. Lots of people think it's unreasonable that they can't > > help themselves to the contents of your house or use your credit > > card or empty out your bank account. They don't follow those laws > > and in general I don;t think that's a good thing. > > But that's a small minority, if it were anything else civilization > would be hopeless. Given that the US has a higher percentage of its population in jail than any other country, and yet persists in having some of if not the highest crime rates, an argument could be made that our particular manifestation of civilization is flawed. > When you have a law that the majority don't follow, I think there may > be something wrong with the law. Perhaps. Or something wrong with society's attitude towards its own laws. > >> An interesting question: What do you think would happen if a day > >> was declared to be no-penalty for moving & ROW violations? Do you > >> think everyone would drive differently? Many people? Would you > >> change the way you drive? I wouldn't and I'd guess most people > >> wouldn't. That tells me people obey the laws for the most part > >> because they agree with them. > > > > I'd probably stay home that day. I see way to many numbskull > > maneuvers on a daily basis, including crossing four lanes in late > > rush hour traffic at the last possible moment to get to an exit > > while talking on a cell phone with three children in the car (I saw > > this about 10 minutes ago). I se such things at least daily. The > > average level of driving safety has plummeted in the past few years > > locally. It's actually scary to be on the road pretty often. > > Highway fatalities/mile driven have been going down for decades. > Skeptics point out that thus is from safer, better and even larger > cars, while driving speeds and dangerous behavior have gone up, but > not enough to offset, so you're perhaps actually a bit safer with > today's cars even with today's drivers. And those safety measures have been fought every step of the way by the Big Three automakers. > It may be that drivers have responded to better cars by pushing the > envelope. There is evidence that this is the case vis-a-vis modern cars handling better than older cars. I can't remember where I read the study, might have been Car and Driver several years ago. People are likelier to drive closer to the limits of cornering traction because there is virtually no body roll to cue them that they are pushing the envelope. > Anyway, you ducked the question. If you say so. I thought it was clearly if indirectly answered. I'll spell it out for you, since you insist. I think that if you suspended traffic laws for a day, the highways would be filled with carnage. That's why I'd stay home that day. I wouldn't drive, I wouldn't ride my bike, I'd stay the hell off the roads. The standard skill set of the average American driver is so pathetically low that they can barely control their cars when they do feel inhibited by laws. Incompetence behind the wheel is the norm. Being distracted while driving by the cell phone, text messaging, eating, reading, etc. is considered acceptable. Driving under the influence is endemic. Driver's education is a cursory introduction to driving at best. Driver's licenses are given out to people who are far too young and the standards for obtaining one are laughably low. Incompetent driving costs thousands of lives, millions of injuries and billions of dollars every year.                         Date: 24 Jul 2007 15:43:07 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In rec.bicycles.misc Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: > > If you say so. I thought it was clearly if indirectly answered. > I'll spell it out for you, since you insist. I think that if you > suspended traffic laws for a day, the highways would be filled with > carnage. That's why I'd stay home that day. I wouldn't drive, I > wouldn't ride my bike, I'd stay the hell off the roads. The standard > skill set of the average American driver is so pathetically low that > they can barely control their cars when they do feel inhibited by > laws. I don't have quite as pessimistic a vision as you. But I admit I might be tempted to stay home with my Lil' Abner BB gun and mutant repellent to keep me safe. > Incompetence behind the wheel is the norm. Being distracted while > driving by the cell phone, text messaging, eating, reading, etc. is > considered acceptable. Driving under the influence is endemic. > Driver's education is a cursory introduction to driving at best. > Driver's licenses are given out to people who are far too young and > the standards for obtaining one are laughably low. Incompetent > driving costs thousands of lives, millions of injuries and billions of > dollars every year. Hear hear. That pretty much echoes my feelings that better testing and education would help everyone. Yes, that includes car drivers. Wouldn't it be nice if the bottom 2% were forced to actually become competent at driving before they were allowed to have their license back? -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org My uncle was the town drunk -- and we lived in Chicago. -- George Gobel                           Date: 24 Jul 2007 19:59:34 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Dane Buson wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >>If you say so. I thought it was clearly if indirectly answered. >>I'll spell it out for you, since you insist. I think that if you >>suspended traffic laws for a day, the highways would be filled with >>carnage. That's why I'd stay home that day. I wouldn't drive, I >>wouldn't ride my bike, I'd stay the hell off the roads. The standard >>skill set of the average American driver is so pathetically low that >>they can barely control their cars when they do feel inhibited by >>laws. > > > I don't have quite as pessimistic a vision as you. But I admit I might > be tempted to stay home with my Lil' Abner BB gun and mutant repellent > to keep me safe. > > >>Incompetence behind the wheel is the norm. Being distracted while >>driving by the cell phone, text messaging, eating, reading, etc. is >>considered acceptable. Driving under the influence is endemic. >>Driver's education is a cursory introduction to driving at best. >>Driver's licenses are given out to people who are far too young and >>the standards for obtaining one are laughably low. Incompetent >>driving costs thousands of lives, millions of injuries and billions of >>dollars every year. > > > Hear hear. > > That pretty much echoes my feelings that better testing and education > would help everyone. Yes, that includes car drivers. Wouldn't it be > nice if the bottom 2% were forced to actually become competent at > driving before they were allowed to have their license back? > 2 percent hell, how about 20 percent? for a start at least. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel                             Date: 25 Jul 2007 10:58:49 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In rec.bicycles.misc Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote: > Dane Buson wrote: >> >> That pretty much echoes my feelings that better testing and education >> would help everyone. Yes, that includes car drivers. Wouldn't it be >> nice if the bottom 2% were forced to actually become competent at >> driving before they were allowed to have their license back? >> > > 2 percent hell, how about 20 percent? for a start at least. Well, you have to start somewhere. I think if you restricted the bottom 2% or 5% they would have a disproportionate (positive impact). I'm guessing that the poorest drivers get in and cause the most accidents. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org When we jumped into Sicily, the units became separated, and I couldn't find anyone. Eventually I stumbled across two colonels, a major, three captains, two lieutenants, and one rifleman, and we secured the bridge. Never in the history of war have so few been led by so many. -- General James Gavin                           Date: 24 Jul 2007 16:23:35 From: Zoot Katz Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:43:07 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote: >Wouldn't it be >nice if the bottom 2% were forced to actually become competent at >driving before they were allowed to have their license back? Coastal Cascadian drivers are probably all equally inept at driving on snow given they don't get as much experience as drivers living in harsher climates. Drivers moving here from the snowbelt become angry and frustrated with the others who figure "all season" tires are adequate under "real" winter conditions that happen infrequently. When it snows here it just makes drivers' incompetence more visible. I try to never forget that they are exactly that incompetent all the rest of the year too. -- zk                             Date: 25 Jul 2007 10:57:30 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In rec.bicycles.misc Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:43:07 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> > wrote: > >>Wouldn't it be >>nice if the bottom 2% were forced to actually become competent at >>driving before they were allowed to have their license back? > > Coastal Cascadian drivers are probably all equally inept at driving > on snow given they don't get as much experience as drivers living in > harsher climates. Completely true. > Drivers moving here from the snowbelt become angry and frustrated with the > others who figure "all season" tires are adequate under "real" winter > conditions that happen infrequently. I took the bus for a couple days when we actually had snow and ice on the ground. I was flabbergasted by the people I saw out driving. A few of them had chains, but some of them were sliding all over the road. If you don't have the right equipment for the conditions, stay the hell home! Don't put other people in danger because you're an idiot. > When it snows here it just makes drivers' incompetence more visible. I try > to never forget that they are exactly that incompetent all the rest of the > year too. *eep* Well, at least they're slower and less aggressive than other places I've lived. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish. The wicked sometimes rest." -Alexandre Dumas     Date: 21 Jul 2007 11:59:07 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <1185032325.457977.21410@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com >, landotter <landotter@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: > > ~ > > > > News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 > > > > After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the > > tickets continue to fly in Portland. > > > > Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon > > bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who > > just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line > > up on Burnside. > > > > Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all > > the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or > > "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops > > consider equipment violations. > > > Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper > at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the > law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in > that case, a fixed gear may count as one. > > A front brake is far more effective than the most uber skid--and the > vast majority of brakeless riders I see around here can't skip stop > and otherwise ride like lunatics. If the cops tire of issuing brake > citations--I suggest reckless driving tickets. Those should be a few > hundred bucks. > > I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and > then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a > group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all > cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled > at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with > a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but > taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is > just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- > good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? Amen. I was not put on this earth to eat the resentment those shitheels call down on me. I was on my drop bar utility bicycle in street clothes with groceries in the panniers. I came up on a red light at 20 kph and put on the brakes. I hear a shouted `Oh!' behind me. It is a full kit kiddie who had silently got up behind and did not expect me to stop. I said `What do you mean "Oh!" He would not answer, I kept asking. He never owned up, the jerk, but tried to abuse me for my pains, the asshole. -- Michael Press       Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:25:43 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Michael Press wrote: > I was on my drop bar utility bicycle in street clothes > with groceries in the panniers. I came up on a red > light at 20 kph and put on the brakes. I hear a shouted > `Oh!' behind me. It is a full kit kiddie who had > silently got up behind and did not expect me to stop. I > said `What do you mean "Oh!" He would not answer, I > kept asking. He never owned up, the jerk, but tried to > abuse me for my pains, the asshole. My favorite was the guy I found drafting me in the dark because he had no light -- I mean if he had asked... Is was dark so I could see how he was dressed, wasn't sure how superior I was supposed to feel, bummer. >       Date: 21 Jul 2007 12:08:50 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Michael Press wrote: > In article > <1185032325.457977.21410@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > landotter <landotter@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: >>> ~ >>> >>> News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 >>> >>> After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, >>> the tickets continue to fly in Portland. >>> >>> Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday >>> afternoon bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass >>> pedestrians who just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop >>> signs while cars line up on Burnside. >>> >>> Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with >>> all the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear >>> bikes, or "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for >>> what the cops consider equipment violations. >> >> >> Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper >> at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the >> law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in >> that case, a fixed gear may count as one. >> >> A front brake is far more effective than the most uber skid--and the >> vast majority of brakeless riders I see around here can't skip stop >> and otherwise ride like lunatics. If the cops tire of issuing brake >> citations--I suggest reckless driving tickets. Those should be a few >> hundred bucks. >> >> I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and >> then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a >> group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies >> all cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I >> yelled at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They >> returned with a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of >> them--but taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at >> intersections is just downright stupid. Good thing they all had >> expensive h******s on-- good to be able to have an open casket >> funeral, eh? > > Amen. I was not put on this earth to eat the resentment > those shitheels call down on me. > > I was on my drop bar utility bicycle in street clothes > with groceries in the panniers. I came up on a red > light at 20 kph and put on the brakes. I hear a shouted > `Oh!' behind me. It is a full kit kiddie who had > silently got up behind and did not expect me to stop. I > said `What do you mean "Oh!" He would not answer, I > kept asking. He never owned up, the jerk, but tried to > abuse me for my pains, the asshole. No issues there! LOL         Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:10:58 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Bill Sornson wrote: > Michael Press wrote: >> ... >> I was on my drop bar utility bicycle in street clothes >> with groceries in the panniers. I came up on a red >> light at 20 kph and put on the brakes. I hear a shouted >> `Oh!' behind me. It is a full kit kiddie who had >> silently got up behind and did not expect me to stop. I >> said `What do you mean "Oh!" He would not answer, I >> kept asking. He never owned up, the jerk, but tried to >> abuse me for my pains, the asshole. > > No issues there! LOL Er, Bill, that is NOT what Peter meant. Family newsgroup, you know. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 21 Jul 2007 10:05:22 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In rec.bicycles.misc landotter <landotter@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: >> >> News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 >> >> After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the >> tickets continue to fly in Portland. >> >> Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon >> bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who >> just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line >> up on Burnside. >> >> Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all >> the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or >> "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops >> consider equipment violations. > > > Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper > at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the > law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in > that case, a fixed gear may count as one. Personally I feel so strongly about the injustice of the issue, I'm thinking about stopping by Reload and picking up this shirt: http://www.flickr.com/photos/taisau/534718117/ -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT" (Submitted by Ramiro Estrugo, restrugo@fateware.com)       Date: 21 Jul 2007 12:20:33 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <ivq9n4-a1s.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org >, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote: > "On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT" > (Submitted by Ramiro Estrugo, restrugo@fateware.com) Sure they do. Ferinstance User-Agent: tin/1.8.1-20060215 ("Mealasta") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.17-jad1-default (i686)) -- Michael Press         Date: 22 Jul 2007 19:46:06 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In rec.bicycles.misc Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <ivq9n4-a1s.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>, > Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: > >> "On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT" >> (Submitted by Ramiro Estrugo, restrugo@fateware.com) > > Sure they do. Ferinstance > > User-Agent: tin/1.8.1-20060215 ("Mealasta") (UNIX) > (Linux/2.6.17-jad1-default (i686)) Well, given that I'm running a tweaked version of tin, it really just tells you whatever I wanted it to. Admittedly, the User-Agent is accurate currently. Though, now I'm tempted to change it out of pure cussedness. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "Two wrongs don't make a right--three lefts do."           Date: 23 Jul 2007 18:24:34 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <echdn4-ct3.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org >, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > > In article > > <ivq9n4-a1s.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>, > > Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: > > > >> "On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT" > >> (Submitted by Ramiro Estrugo, restrugo@fateware.com) > > > > Sure they do. Ferinstance > > > > User-Agent: tin/1.8.1-20060215 ("Mealasta") (UNIX) > > (Linux/2.6.17-jad1-default (i686)) > > Well, given that I'm running a tweaked version of tin, it really just > tells you whatever I wanted it to. Admittedly, the User-Agent is > accurate currently. Though, now I'm tempted to change it out of pure > cussedness. How many of the Window NT users will customize the headers? -- Michael Press             Date: 23 Jul 2007 14:48:54 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In rec.bicycles.tech Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote: > Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: >> In rec.bicycles.misc Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >> > Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: >> > >> >> "On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT" >> >> (Submitted by Ramiro Estrugo, restrugo@fateware.com) >> > >> > Sure they do. Ferinstance >> > >> > User-Agent: tin/1.8.1-20060215 ("Mealasta") (UNIX) >> > (Linux/2.6.17-jad1-default (i686)) >> >> Well, given that I'm running a tweaked version of tin, it really just >> tells you whatever I wanted it to. Admittedly, the User-Agent is >> accurate currently. Though, now I'm tempted to change it out of pure >> cussedness. > > How many of the Window NT users will customize the headers? Precious few I'm sure. But are you really complaining about a pedantic reply to a pedantic reply? -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org life, n.: Learning about people the hard way -- by being one.               Date: 23 Jul 2007 16:43:06 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In article <6bkfn4-nn8.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org >, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.tech Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > > Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: > >> In rec.bicycles.misc Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> > Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT" > >> >> (Submitted by Ramiro Estrugo, restrugo@fateware.com) > >> > > >> > Sure they do. Ferinstance > >> > > >> > User-Agent: tin/1.8.1-20060215 ("Mealasta") (UNIX) > >> > (Linux/2.6.17-jad1-default (i686)) > >> > >> Well, given that I'm running a tweaked version of tin, it really just > >> tells you whatever I wanted it to. Admittedly, the User-Agent is > >> accurate currently. Though, now I'm tempted to change it out of pure > >> cussedness. > > > > How many of the Window NT users will customize the headers? > > Precious few I'm sure. But are you really complaining about a pedantic > reply to a pedantic reply? I am not complaining. I dispute the assertion "On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT" This is not pedantry. -- Michael Press     Date: 21 Jul 2007 11:01:12 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "landotter" wrote: > On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: >> ~ >> >> News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 >> >> After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the >> tickets continue to fly in Portland. >> >> Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon >> bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who >> just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line >> up on Burnside. >> >> Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all >> the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or >> "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops >> consider equipment violations. > > > Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper > at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the > law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in > that case, a fixed gear may count as one. > > A front brake is far more effective than the most uber skid--and the > vast majority of brakeless riders I see around here can't skip stop > and otherwise ride like lunatics. If the cops tire of issuing brake > citations--I suggest reckless driving tickets. Those should be a few > hundred bucks. > > I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and > then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a > group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all > cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled > at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with > a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but > taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is > just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- > good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? Hey, that was what I was going to write! The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. Now all we need is that guy who claimed he could produce deceleration in the 0.6 to 0.7g range on a fixie sans front brake to contribute to the thread. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com       Date: 22 Jul 2007 08:11:22 From: Nate Nagel Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > "landotter" wrote: > >> On Jul 21, 10:16 am, pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote: >> >>> ~ >>> >>> News article from Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) - July 11, 2007 >>> >>> After the 2007 Oregon Legislature failed to fix the "fixies" law, the >>> tickets continue to fly in Portland. >>> >>> Like in a Richard Scarry book, downtown Portland on a weekday afternoon >>> bustles with many forms of transportation. Buses pass pedestrians who >>> just got off the MAX, and taxis roll through stop signs while cars line >>> up on Burnside. >>> >>> Unlike a children's book utopia, however, not everyone's happy with all >>> the ways to get around. Zipping through traffic, fixed-gear bikes, or >>> "fixies," continue to be ticketed by Portland police for what the cops >>> consider equipment violations. >> >> >> >> Good. If you're so hip to not be able to install a $10 front caliper >> at the co-op--you get what's coming to ya. I hope they strengthen the >> law. IMHO all adult bikes should be required to have two brakes--in >> that case, a fixed gear may count as one. >> >> A front brake is far more effective than the most uber skid--and the >> vast majority of brakeless riders I see around here can't skip stop >> and otherwise ride like lunatics. If the cops tire of issuing brake >> citations--I suggest reckless driving tickets. Those should be a few >> hundred bucks. >> >> I'm sick to death of the riders that give all cyclists a bad rep--and >> then act all indignant and righteous about it. Just yesterday I saw a >> group of 10 thirtysomethings on their fleet of hybrids and roadies all >> cut off a driver at a 4-way stop. No slowing down, nothing. I yelled >> at them, "You didn't have the right of way, guys!" They returned with >> a smug, "fuck you." I California roll with the best of them--but >> taking the right of way, or even lane splitting at intersections is >> just downright stupid. Good thing they all had expensive h******s on-- >> good to be able to have an open casket funeral, eh? > > > Hey, that was what I was going to write! > > The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. > > Now all we need is that guy who claimed he could produce deceleration in > the 0.6 to 0.7g range on a fixie sans front brake to contribute to the > thread. > at the REAR WHEEL? One could probably prove fairly easily that it is not possible, given the center of gravity location of the given rider/bike combination. On any vehicle, the front wheel(s) do the vast majority of the braking. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel       Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:14:24 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Hey, that was what I was going to write! > > The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. > How do you know they're smug? You obviously are.         Date: 21 Jul 2007 15:53:30 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > >> Hey, that was what I was going to write! >> >> The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. >> > > How do you know they're smug? These types are smug because they are part of the "in" group that denigrates outsiders for not "getting it". > You obviously are. [Yawn] Your smugdar is in need of recalibration. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com           Date: 21 Jul 2007 17:22:26 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> >>> Hey, that was what I was going to write! >>> >>> The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. >>> >> >> How do you know they're smug? > > These types are smug because they are part of the "in" group that > denigrates outsiders for not "getting it". & you know this how? Have you been denigrated? > >> You obviously are. > > [Yawn] Your smugdar is in need of recalibration. That's what it sounded like above (schadenfreude & all that).             Date: 21 Jul 2007 16:41:06 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> >>>> Hey, that was what I was going to write! >>>> >>>> The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. >>>> >>> >>> How do you know they're smug? >> >> These types are smug because they are part of the "in" group that >> denigrates outsiders for not "getting it". > > & you know this how? Have you been denigrated? I have been around groups like this enough [1] to know that denigration of others who don't "get it" is a main topic of conversation. >>> You obviously are. >> >> [Yawn] Your smugdar is in need of recalibration. > > That's what it sounded like above (schadenfreude & all that). When did "schadenfreude” and "smug" become synonyms? [1] They often like to talk loudly so others can "benefit" from their superiority. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com               Date: 22 Jul 2007 16:30:29 From: RonSonic Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:41:06 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: >Peter Cole wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey, that was what I was going to write! >>>>> >>>>> The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How do you know they're smug? >>> >>> These types are smug because they are part of the "in" group that >>> denigrates outsiders for not "getting it". >> >> & you know this how? Have you been denigrated? > >I have been around groups like this enough [1] to know that denigration >of others who don't "get it" is a main topic of conversation. > >>>> You obviously are. >>> >>> [Yawn] Your smugdar is in need of recalibration. >> >> That's what it sounded like above (schadenfreude & all that). > >When did "schadenfreude” and "smug" become synonyms? > >[1] They often like to talk loudly so others can "benefit" from their >superiority. The Smug also close their eyes while talking. I saw that on South Park. Ron               Date: 21 Jul 2007 18:12:54 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey, that was what I was going to write! >>>>> >>>>> The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How do you know they're smug? >>> >>> These types are smug because they are part of the "in" group that >>> denigrates outsiders for not "getting it". >> >> & you know this how? Have you been denigrated? > > I have been around groups like this enough [1] to know that denigration > of others who don't "get it" is a main topic of conversation. > >>>> You obviously are. >>> >>> [Yawn] Your smugdar is in need of recalibration. >> >> That's what it sounded like above (schadenfreude & all that). > > When did "schadenfreude” and "smug" become synonyms? They're not, your schadenfreude betrays your smugness, one might say. > [1] They often like to talk loudly so others can "benefit" from their > superiority. Ah, you've been "indirectly" denigrated. I take it that was categorical and not personal? How did you know you were in the category?                 Date: 21 Jul 2007 17:36:29 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hey, that was what I was going to write! >>>>>> >>>>>> The smugness of the "hip" makes one happy to see them ticketed. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How do you know they're smug? >>>> >>>> These types are smug because they are part of the "in" group that >>>> denigrates outsiders for not "getting it". >>> >>> & you know this how? Have you been denigrated? >> >> I have been around groups like this enough [1] to know that >> denigration of others who don't "get it" is a main topic of conversation. >> >>>>> You obviously are. >>>> >>>> [Yawn] Your smugdar is in need of recalibration. >>> >>> That's what it sounded like above (schadenfreude & all that). >> >> When did "schadenfreude” and "smug" become synonyms? > > They're not, your schadenfreude betrays your smugness, one might say. > > >> [1] They often like to talk loudly so others can "benefit" from their >> superiority. > > Ah, you've been "indirectly" denigrated. I take it that was categorical > and not personal? How did you know you were in the category? Have you been paying attention to how people act? Or are you one of the hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                   Date: 21 Jul 2007 18:54:17 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Peter Cole wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> [1] They often like to talk loudly so others can "benefit" from their >>> superiority. >> >> Ah, you've been "indirectly" denigrated. I take it that was >> categorical and not personal? How did you know you were in the category? > > Have you been paying attention to how people act? No, what did they say about me? > Or are you one of the > hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody?                     Date: 22 Jul 2007 02:30:45 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole writes: >>>> [1] They often like to talk loudly so others can "benefit" from >>>> their superiority. >>> Ah, you've been "indirectly" denigrated. I take it that was >>> categorical and not personal? How did you know you were in the >>> category? >> Have you been paying attention to how people act? > No, what did they say about me? >> Or are you one of the hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? > I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? I prefer to see a definition of "hip" before believing that. I sense that it often goes with driving a jacked up shiny black SUV with 18" chromed wheels with 12" wide low cross section tires, blackened windows and 4" dual rumble pipes to go with the tish-boom stereo that shakes most structures (and cars) near the road. I don't want to spend time with shallow people who believe they are what they own (or are in debt for), especially if it is in such bad taste. Do you drive truck! If you don't, you ain't nowhere. Jobst Brandt                       Date: 22 Jul 2007 07:07:03 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Peter Cole writes: >> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? > > I prefer to see a definition of "hip" before believing that. I sense > that it often goes with driving a jacked up shiny black SUV with 18" > chromed wheels with 12" wide low cross section tires, blackened > windows and 4" dual rumble pipes to go with the tish-boom stereo that > shakes most structures (and cars) near the road. > > I don't want to spend time with shallow people who believe they are > what they own (or are in debt for), especially if it is in such bad > taste. Do you drive truck! If you don't, you ain't nowhere. I think it's a good idea to define "hip". 1 a : having or showing awareness of or involvement in the newest developments or styles <hip musicians > b : very fashionable : TRENDY <hip clothes > 2 : aware or appreciative of something -- used with to <got hip to their plan > I think part of the problem come from the two, somewhat opposite, connotations. Personally, I use it in the second sense, knowledgeable, rather than fashionable. Again, personally, if your idea of style is functional (true of many engineers), as in "form follows function", then the two meanings of the word converge. I'm a dyed in the wool functionalist, so when it comes to cycling, my idea of a "hip" cyclist is someone whose understanding of function is obvious from their choice of clothing, equipment, demeanor and behavior on a bike -- at least obvious to me. Any alignment with trends is pretty much coincidental. As Coco Chanel said" "Never confuse fad with fashion". Most people equate those two terms, but she had a very different idea. As for monster trucks, since they are among the most un-functional things on the road, I consider them very un-hip. Ditto for loud pipes, massive subwoofers, black windows, low wall tires on massive rims and all those other non-functional (or even dis-functional) affectations you see on everything from the above trucks to little sport coupes. Unfortunately, many of these new fads, are discourteous in the most general sense, as are also incessant headphone and cellphone use. I don't think it's too far a reach to suggest they represent a growing level of disregard for others. The knowledge that courtesy is a necessary social lubricant has been recognized for millennia, so these developments are very un-hip by my meaning of the word.                         Date: 23 Jul 2007 09:10:59 From: Joel Mayes Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On 2007-07-22, Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >> Peter Cole writes: > >>> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? >> >> I prefer to see a definition of "hip" before believing that. I sense >> that it often goes with driving a jacked up shiny black SUV with 18" >> chromed wheels with 12" wide low cross section tires, blackened >> windows and 4" dual rumble pipes to go with the tish-boom stereo that >> shakes most structures (and cars) near the road. >> >> I don't want to spend time with shallow people who believe they are >> what they own (or are in debt for), especially if it is in such bad >> taste. Do you drive truck! If you don't, you ain't nowhere. > > I think it's a good idea to define "hip". By defining `hip' are you showing that your are not `hip'? -- Human Powered Cycles                         Date: 22 Jul 2007 17:35:45 From: Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole writes: >>> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? >> I prefer to see a definition of "hip" before believing that. I >> sense that it often goes with driving a jacked up shiny black SUV >> with 18" chromed wheels with 12" wide low cross section tires, >> blackened windows and 4" dual rumble pipes to go with the tish-boom >> stereo that shakes most structures (and cars) near the road. >> I don't want to spend time with shallow people who believe they are >> what they own (or are in debt for), especially if it is in such bad >> taste. Do you drive truck! If you don't, you ain't nowhere. > I think it's a good idea to define "hip". > 1 a : having or showing awareness of or involvement in the newest > developments or styles <hip musicians> b : very fashionable : TRENDY > <hip clothes> > 2 : aware or appreciative of something -- used with to <got hip to > their plan> > I think part of the problem come from the two, somewhat opposite, > connotations. Personally, I use it in the second sense, > knowledgeable, rather than fashionable. Again, personally, if your > idea of style is functional (true of many engineers), as in "form > follows function", then the two meanings of the word converge. > I'm a dyed in the wool functionalist, so when it comes to cycling, > my idea of a "hip" cyclist is someone whose understanding of > function is obvious from their choice of clothing, equipment, > demeanor and behavior on a bike -- at least obvious to me. Any > alignment with trends is pretty much coincidental. As Coco Chanel > said" "Never confuse fad with fashion". Most people equate those two > terms, but she had a very different idea. > As for monster trucks, since they are among the most un-functional > things on the road, I consider them very un-hip. Ditto for loud > pipes, massive subwoofers, black windows, low wall tires on massive > rims and all those other non-functional (or even dis-functional) > affectations you see on everything from the above trucks to little > sport coupes. > Unfortunately, many of these new fads, are discourteous in the most > general sense, as are also incessant headphone and cell phone use. I > don't think it's too far a reach to suggest they represent a growing > level of disregard for others. The knowledge that courtesy is a > necessary social lubricant has been recognized for millennia, so > these developments are very un-hip by my meaning of the word. All said and done, "hip" seems to be a fad word with vague allusions to display of bad taste and disregard for others. It rings of gang culture that, in my area, is typified by baggy pants to the extreme, chromed chains from one pocket to the other, driving a black low rider with all the garish equipment available. I don't believe the term has any place with anything I do or represent. Jobst Brandt                           Date: 22 Jul 2007 12:56:14 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote: > Peter Cole writes: > >>>> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? > >>> I prefer to see a definition of "hip" before believing that. I >>> sense that it often goes with driving a jacked up shiny black SUV >>> with 18" chromed wheels with 12" wide low cross section tires, >>> blackened windows and 4" dual rumble pipes to go with the tish-boom >>> stereo that shakes most structures (and cars) near the road. > >>> I don't want to spend time with shallow people who believe they are >>> what they own (or are in debt for), especially if it is in such bad >>> taste. Do you drive truck! If you don't, you ain't nowhere. > >> I think it's a good idea to define "hip". > >> 1 a : having or showing awareness of or involvement in the newest >> developments or styles <hip musicians> b : very fashionable : TRENDY >> <hip clothes> > >> 2 : aware or appreciative of something -- used with to <got hip to >> their plan> > >> I think part of the problem come from the two, somewhat opposite, >> connotations. Personally, I use it in the second sense, >> knowledgeable, rather than fashionable. Again, personally, if your >> idea of style is functional (true of many engineers), as in "form >> follows function", then the two meanings of the word converge. > >> I'm a dyed in the wool functionalist, so when it comes to cycling, >> my idea of a "hip" cyclist is someone whose understanding of >> function is obvious from their choice of clothing, equipment, >> demeanor and behavior on a bike -- at least obvious to me. Any >> alignment with trends is pretty much coincidental. As Coco Chanel >> said" "Never confuse fad with fashion". Most people equate those two >> terms, but she had a very different idea. > >> As for monster trucks, since they are among the most un-functional >> things on the road, I consider them very un-hip. Ditto for loud >> pipes, massive subwoofers, black windows, low wall tires on massive >> rims and all those other non-functional (or even dis-functional) >> affectations you see on everything from the above trucks to little >> sport coupes. > >> Unfortunately, many of these new fads, are discourteous in the most >> general sense, as are also incessant headphone and cell phone use. I >> don't think it's too far a reach to suggest they represent a growing >> level of disregard for others. The knowledge that courtesy is a >> necessary social lubricant has been recognized for millennia, so >> these developments are very un-hip by my meaning of the word. > > All said and done, "hip" seems to be a fad word with vague allusions > to display of bad taste and disregard for others. It rings of gang > culture that, in my area, is typified by baggy pants to the extreme, > chromed chains from one pocket to the other, driving a black low rider > with all the garish equipment available. > > I don't believe the term has any place with anything I do or represent. "Hip" has always been an exclusionary grouping, with strict rules on conformance if one wants to be accepted into the "superior" group. It differs from mainstream culture merely for the sake of setting the "superior" group "above" and apart. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                             Date: 22 Jul 2007 16:24:36 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote: >> All said and done, "hip" seems to be a fad word with vague allusions >> to display of bad taste and disregard for others. It rings of gang >> culture that, in my area, is typified by baggy pants to the extreme, >> chromed chains from one pocket to the other, driving a black low rider >> with all the garish equipment available. >> >> I don't believe the term has any place with anything I do or represent. > > "Hip" has always been an exclusionary grouping, with strict rules on > conformance if one wants to be accepted into the "superior" group. It > differs from mainstream culture merely for the sake of setting the > "superior" group "above" and apart. Faddish behavior has been around since history has been recorded, seems like part of the human condition. Probably rooted deep in our biology. Of course it's "exclusionary", that's the whole idea. When the mainstream catches up, it's time for a new fad -- & on & on it goes.                     Date: 21 Jul 2007 17:57:10 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > >> Or are you one of the >> hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? > > I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? Personally, I'm so hip I can barely see over my pelvis. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "Never draw fire; it irritates the people around you."                       Date: 22 Jul 2007 01:39:45 From: Lobby Dosser Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> >>> Or are you one of the >>> hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? >> >> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? > > Personally, I'm so hip I can barely see over my pelvis. > I'm so hip I have to use a mirror to see my pelvis.                       Date: 21 Jul 2007 21:14:55 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:57:10 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote: >In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> >>> Or are you one of the >>> hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? >> >> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? > >Personally, I'm so hip I can barely see over my pelvis. LOL -- JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************                     Date: 21 Jul 2007 17:58:39 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie Peter Cole wrote: > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> Peter Cole wrote: >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > >>>> [1] They often like to talk loudly so others can "benefit" from >>>> their superiority. >>> >>> Ah, you've been "indirectly" denigrated. I take it that was >>> categorical and not personal? How did you know you were in the category? >> >> Have you been paying attention to how people act? > > No, what did they say about me? > >> Or are you one of the hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? > > I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? No. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                       Date: 21 Jul 2007 13:38:45 From: aeiouy Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:46a282fe$0$16390$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > Peter Cole wrote: >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >>> Peter Cole wrote: >>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: >> >>>>> [1] They often like to talk loudly so others can "benefit" from their >>>>> superiority. >>>> >>>> Ah, you've been "indirectly" denigrated. I take it that was categorical >>>> and not personal? How did you know you were in the category? >>> >>> Have you been paying attention to how people act? >> >> No, what did they say about me? >> >>> Or are you one of the hip & smug crowd, so you never noticed? >> >> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? > > No. I'm hip to that > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >                       Date: 21 Jul 2007 23:29:25 From: still me Subject: Re: Braking the Fixie On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:58:39 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: >> I like to think I'm hip, doesn't everybody? > >No. Think he's hip? I think he's way cool. I think a lot of folks are not thinking out of the box here. By virtue of this law, they've made Big Wheels illegal. The howl from the 4 year olds is going to be deafening!