Adam, c'mon. For the tragically hip over here on this side of the river, only those flat-top quasi-military caps, or lightweight fedoras will do. Like, dude!
People claiming that riding without brakes is "safer" and that they've never collided with anyone or anything riding brake-less because their ego somehow overcomes the laws of physics in 3....2....1..
Come on, Adam. They're not proposing a ban on fixed-gear bikes. They're proposing a ban on bikes without brakes. Which is odd because Massachusetts law already requires that every bike operated on public roads have brakes.
(As for me, I like having gears on my bike, and I really like having brakes.)
I know that criticizing something the Cambridge City Council is considering as foolish is like shooting fish in a barrel, but here goes:
"WHEREAS:
Brakeless bikes are an extreme public safety hazard;"
I feel like just about every bike accident in the metro area gets posted here. If some alpaca-hatted hipster wiped out on his fixie and took a granny with him, it would surely end up with 500 comments. Has there been a hidden epidemic of fixie accidents I have somehow missed? I'm not talking about the idea that fixies are obviously dangerous because I don't know how to ride one - but the proven hazard of lots of accidents. Is there a fact around somewhere?
Secondly, I'm not sure it can really be said that any fixie lacks brakes. If you just slow down pedaling, it slows the bike, no? Isn't the drive system itself also the brake?
Thirdly, it seems logical that the next thing they'll come after is coaster brakes. Some kids have (yeah, still, I know) bikes with no hand brakes and just coaster brakes (activated with your legs by pedaling backwards). Are these, in the theory of the Cambridge City Council, less dangerous or more dangerous than fixed-gear bikes with no hand brakes? And how about those little wooden bikes that have no pedals or brakes? Ban those too? And scooters too?
There have been some spectacularly grisly brakeless fixie fatalities ... in Portland and SanFranciso. All involved extreme grades and noob riders who vastly overestimated their ability to control their descent.
They killed only themselves.
So, of course, this is absolutely going to happen in Cambridge (facepalm). And, it is a much more critical issue than trucks killing people walking and cycling with the lights. (facepalm)
Heaven forbid we actually crack down Being Outside while Masshole and start actively ticketing the jerk cabbies who plug the bike lanes, the idiot cyclists and drivers running lights, the tour buses blocking bus stops and bike lanes, and the arrogant and stupid pedestrians alike.
These bikes aren't necessarily dangerous, but the operators often make foolish choices in general regarding bicycle safety, like riding with ear buds, no helmet, on sidewalks, or side by side on the street. Ban these fools.
First off that is a horrible set of stereotypes and generalizations. Also most people who ride fixed gear bikes are professional riders, and even still the level of animosity by people towards the hipster crowd is just sad. Young people act like young people and only the curmudgeons forget how they themselves acted.
Secondly what non-fixed gear riders fail to realize is that you do have the ability to stop a fixed gear bike in or nearly in the exact same distance as a normal bike. And in wet or snow you can often stop in much shorter distances than a normal bike. Water and snow and ice are very detrimental towards the effectiveness of brake pads, derailers, cables etc.
Look up "leg lock" or "track slide" sometime. You can even slalom down hills, do power slides around corners, and 180s with enough skill and practice.
The above is with no front brake present or not applying a front brake. Many people with fixed gear bikes do use a front brake as well as track slides to stop. Really the primary reason though for having a front brake on a fixed gear is it acts as an emergency brake should a chain break or derailment occur. This is not an infrequent issue which is why many riders will often upgrade their bike chain to a moped chain which has higher tolerances against both stretching out (becoming loose) and breaking.
Do hipsters actually refer to themselves as hipsters, or is this a derogatory term applied to them by people who notice what appear to be the pretentious ways this genre of people sometimes employ?
Your lengthy diatribe against me is rather pointless, because I clearly stated that the bikes can be handled safely. When they are dangerous, I blame operator error. In no way did I imply that nobody rides fixed gear bikes safely.
And Swirly? Do you honestly think we shouldn't go after reckless behavior?
Sorry if you felt it was mistargeted but it seems to be you were stereotyping certain subculture groups by attributing behaviors to the group as a whole.
The rest of my post re stopping distances was directed at the post as a whole, which has countless people posting who don't understand that no mechanical brakes does not mean that you can not "brake" just as well.
The overwhelming majority of bicyclists I've seen recklessly blast through red lights have been people on brakeless bikes. Maybe they "have the ability to stop a fixed gear bike in or nearly in the exact same distance as a normal bike" but so many of them are unwilling to do so. And I say this as a bicyclist who routinely, but never recklessly, goes through red lights (think "Idaho stop"). I really want to punch those twerps, first because when I'm a pedestrian they risk hitting me, and second because they make all cyclists look bad. Of course this proposed law isn't going to stop them, after all they're already flouting existing laws with no regard to their own safety or the safety of others, I'm just sick of hearing how skillfully they can stop.
So your complaint here is that they brake the law about red lights differently than you do? How about everyone just follows the actual laws currently in place. Then we can all get there in one piece.
I'm a little shocked by the outrage here... usually the comments on this site tend toward pure hatred toward fixies due to their close association with hipsters. On that note, I'd like to know, just what type of bikes do avid cyclists 'approve of' and which style of dress is considered 'acceptable' to the oh so superior avid cyclists commenting here? Such a judgemental bunch!
I don't care how people dress or what equipment they select. My demand is that people use the equipment with an eye toward best practices. Safe behavior is more important than style.
Just to bend the stereotype a bit, I'm an over-40 Dad who regularly bike commutes on a Bianchi Pista. I've been doing it in Boston for about 8 years and switched from a road bike because I like the ride of the fixie better and feel like I have more control and more sense of my surroundings. When I lived in the burbs, I rode a longer distance and did the whole Lycra team kit thing for attire; yesterday I was happy to commute from Rozzie in jeans.
Bikes are a vehicle and are expected to follow the rules of the road. I bicycle and I drive and only a dimwit would go out onto the streets with a bike without brakes. It's not "a freedom thing" either. You can't drive a car without brakes and for good reason and all the same reasons apply to cyclists on city streets. Sure, the damage caused by a bike running into something or someone is obviously far less than a car but it can also easily result in someone's death.
There is a difference between bikes without brakes [that are fixed gear] and cars without brakes. Bikes without brakes just means they lack mechanical brakes. There remains muscular brakes in the form of leg locking aka "track slide". Cars without brakes means they don't stop.
There is a distinction between the bike and behavior as well. Yes some people will bomb through red lights on a fixed gear bike. But that is not because they lack the ability to stop, they lack the will to. They would do the same on a road or mountain bike.
And there is also a difference between amateurs and professionals. If a bike messenger bombs through multiple red lights and such it is likely that they are being paid to deliberately do so. That is their job [and they "mostly" are competent enough to do so safely even if it doesn't look like it to outsiders]. If you don't like it then the only way to stop it is to tell lawyers and courts to stop being so fixed on deadlines for filings. Amateurs doing it for no reason are another story.
I ride a fixed gear bike as I have for some 20 years. When I was a courier and needed to blast lights I certainly did so. I don't now, but it's simply because I have no financial or career-based incentive to do so. I don't need to hurry at the moment.
It is not your job to break laws any more than it is the "job" of a cab driver to idle in a bike lane "because I'm waiting for a fare" or run red lights "because my fare is in a hurry".
Any more than it is the job of a trucker to blast through an intersection and kill and maim pedestrians and cyclists because his "client" expects a "rush" delivery by 5pm.
The ends do NOT justify the means. If they need your service, if you are the fastest way they could get anything there, then don't guarantee delivery if you don't have the item in hand in time to make it to your destination lawfully.
It is really that simple.
Dominoes Pizza was sued by its victims when they had a guaranteed delivery time that meant drivers were speeding and driving recklessly. Oh, they were "professionals" too and I'm sure they could do it with their eyes closed blah blah and all that, oh yeah. You are NOT given an excuse just because you think your employer demands it or because you are in an extra super special privileged hurry.
Your responsibility to follow the law has nothing to do with "well go tell it to blah blah blah because wahhhhhhh blahh wahhh". "Professional" lawbreaking is still lawbreaking is still dangerous and anti social and stupid. Period. Your self assessment of your superspecial powers of privilege doesn't matter.
Understand?
Because, if you don't, I may just have to come chain you in my basement and force you to work for me. My job is really important, see, and I have deadlines to meet and somebody has to do the laundry and cooking. I'm sure that it would be okay since I'm a professional and I'm in a hurry because of my employer. Same "logic".
There are lots of motorists in a hurry to get to daycare pickups and get to work on time or get to a doctor's appointment who might find your reasoning appealing. Lets hope they don't consider it a license to kill you or me next time.
"If a bike messenger bombs through multiple red lights and such it is likely that they are being paid to deliberately do so. That is their job"
What kind of absurd logic is this? Hit men are paid to kill people too. It's their job. Does that make it right? Or legal? Bike messengers are a singularly unsavory lot. Ever see them congregated around Winthrop Square? Not exactly a pretty sight.
I, for one, enjoy the view - at least the older ones. Younger ones look too much like my nieces, nephews, and son ... but not "unsavory" just "different".
It's a good idea to require brakes, but vehicle equipment laws should not be made at the city level. If each city and town were allowed to require specific equipment on cars and bikes, there would be no way to keep track of it all.
(And as was pointed out above, state law already requires brakes on bicycles.)
up
Voting closed 0
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
WOW!
When I read this on Twitter, I came over her to see if you posted it so I could say "PBR is next". Holy hivemind!
A hipster reference is a terrible thing to waste
Fixies, PBR, skinny jeans, irony and maybe those Peruvian ear-flap hats. What more do you need? :-).
$200 iPhone every year or so.
$200 iPhone every year or so.
Anyone want to sign my petition?
To ban ironic T-shirts, lumberjack shirts and facial hair?
Ya gotta start somewhere.
Peruvian Ear Flao Hats?
Adam, c'mon. For the tragically hip over here on this side of the river, only those flat-top quasi-military caps, or lightweight fedoras will do. Like, dude!
People claiming that riding
People claiming that riding without brakes is "safer" and that they've never collided with anyone or anything riding brake-less because their ego somehow overcomes the laws of physics in 3....2....1..
Come on, Adam. They're not
Come on, Adam. They're not proposing a ban on fixed-gear bikes. They're proposing a ban on bikes without brakes. Which is odd because Massachusetts law already requires that every bike operated on public roads have brakes.
(As for me, I like having gears on my bike, and I really like having brakes.)
Headline changed
Thanks.
Some fixies have front brakes
so your headline is somewhat inaccurate.
Raises questions
I know that criticizing something the Cambridge City Council is considering as foolish is like shooting fish in a barrel, but here goes:
"WHEREAS:
Brakeless bikes are an extreme public safety hazard;"
I feel like just about every bike accident in the metro area gets posted here. If some alpaca-hatted hipster wiped out on his fixie and took a granny with him, it would surely end up with 500 comments. Has there been a hidden epidemic of fixie accidents I have somehow missed? I'm not talking about the idea that fixies are obviously dangerous because I don't know how to ride one - but the proven hazard of lots of accidents. Is there a fact around somewhere?
Secondly, I'm not sure it can really be said that any fixie lacks brakes. If you just slow down pedaling, it slows the bike, no? Isn't the drive system itself also the brake?
Thirdly, it seems logical that the next thing they'll come after is coaster brakes. Some kids have (yeah, still, I know) bikes with no hand brakes and just coaster brakes (activated with your legs by pedaling backwards). Are these, in the theory of the Cambridge City Council, less dangerous or more dangerous than fixed-gear bikes with no hand brakes? And how about those little wooden bikes that have no pedals or brakes? Ban those too? And scooters too?
Where the Fixie Accidents have been
There have been some spectacularly grisly brakeless fixie fatalities ... in Portland and SanFranciso. All involved extreme grades and noob riders who vastly overestimated their ability to control their descent.
They killed only themselves.
So, of course, this is absolutely going to happen in Cambridge (facepalm). And, it is a much more critical issue than trucks killing people walking and cycling with the lights. (facepalm)
Heaven forbid we actually crack down Being Outside while Masshole and start actively ticketing the jerk cabbies who plug the bike lanes, the idiot cyclists and drivers running lights, the tour buses blocking bus stops and bike lanes, and the arrogant and stupid pedestrians alike.
A-freaking-men. Ticket them
A-freaking-men. Ticket them all, please.
More nannystate BS from
More nannystate BS from Cambridge. Like we need another law.
You cannot legislate stupidity.
But...
...you can elect it!
Ban the fools who ride them
These bikes aren't necessarily dangerous, but the operators often make foolish choices in general regarding bicycle safety, like riding with ear buds, no helmet, on sidewalks, or side by side on the street. Ban these fools.
Yeah - make them drive cars
Where they will do the same stupid, aggressive and boneheaded things.
Or walk, where they will do stupid, aggressive and boneheaded things.
Or take the T, where they will do stupid, aggressive and boneheaded things.
It's Super Effective.
Ban you
First off that is a horrible set of stereotypes and generalizations. Also most people who ride fixed gear bikes are professional riders, and even still the level of animosity by people towards the hipster crowd is just sad. Young people act like young people and only the curmudgeons forget how they themselves acted.
Secondly what non-fixed gear riders fail to realize is that you do have the ability to stop a fixed gear bike in or nearly in the exact same distance as a normal bike. And in wet or snow you can often stop in much shorter distances than a normal bike. Water and snow and ice are very detrimental towards the effectiveness of brake pads, derailers, cables etc.
Look up "leg lock" or "track slide" sometime. You can even slalom down hills, do power slides around corners, and 180s with enough skill and practice.
The above is with no front brake present or not applying a front brake. Many people with fixed gear bikes do use a front brake as well as track slides to stop. Really the primary reason though for having a front brake on a fixed gear is it acts as an emergency brake should a chain break or derailment occur. This is not an infrequent issue which is why many riders will often upgrade their bike chain to a moped chain which has higher tolerances against both stretching out (becoming loose) and breaking.
Question
Do hipsters actually refer to themselves as hipsters, or is this a derogatory term applied to them by people who notice what appear to be the pretentious ways this genre of people sometimes employ?
Reading comprehension, not your strong suit
Your lengthy diatribe against me is rather pointless, because I clearly stated that the bikes can be handled safely. When they are dangerous, I blame operator error. In no way did I imply that nobody rides fixed gear bikes safely.
And Swirly? Do you honestly think we shouldn't go after reckless behavior?
Go after reckless behavior
Just remember that it comes in all modes and types and has to do with the PERSON not the GEAR.
This can be done using existing laws, save for the jaywalking laws needing modernization.
Sorry if you felt it was
Sorry if you felt it was mistargeted but it seems to be you were stereotyping certain subculture groups by attributing behaviors to the group as a whole.
The rest of my post re stopping distances was directed at the post as a whole, which has countless people posting who don't understand that no mechanical brakes does not mean that you can not "brake" just as well.
Able but not willing
The overwhelming majority of bicyclists I've seen recklessly blast through red lights have been people on brakeless bikes. Maybe they "have the ability to stop a fixed gear bike in or nearly in the exact same distance as a normal bike" but so many of them are unwilling to do so. And I say this as a bicyclist who routinely, but never recklessly, goes through red lights (think "Idaho stop"). I really want to punch those twerps, first because when I'm a pedestrian they risk hitting me, and second because they make all cyclists look bad. Of course this proposed law isn't going to stop them, after all they're already flouting existing laws with no regard to their own safety or the safety of others, I'm just sick of hearing how skillfully they can stop.
pot meet kettle
So your complaint here is that they brake the law about red lights differently than you do? How about everyone just follows the actual laws currently in place. Then we can all get there in one piece.
I'm a little shocked by the
I'm a little shocked by the outrage here... usually the comments on this site tend toward pure hatred toward fixies due to their close association with hipsters. On that note, I'd like to know, just what type of bikes do avid cyclists 'approve of' and which style of dress is considered 'acceptable' to the oh so superior avid cyclists commenting here? Such a judgemental bunch!
Only behavior matters
I don't care how people dress or what equipment they select. My demand is that people use the equipment with an eye toward best practices. Safe behavior is more important than style.
I ride a fixie with a front brake
Just to bend the stereotype a bit, I'm an over-40 Dad who regularly bike commutes on a Bianchi Pista. I've been doing it in Boston for about 8 years and switched from a road bike because I like the ride of the fixie better and feel like I have more control and more sense of my surroundings. When I lived in the burbs, I rode a longer distance and did the whole Lycra team kit thing for attire; yesterday I was happy to commute from Rozzie in jeans.
Can I clone your knees?
I could use them! Then I could ride a fixie again, too!
Bike brakes.
Bikes are a vehicle and are expected to follow the rules of the road. I bicycle and I drive and only a dimwit would go out onto the streets with a bike without brakes. It's not "a freedom thing" either. You can't drive a car without brakes and for good reason and all the same reasons apply to cyclists on city streets. Sure, the damage caused by a bike running into something or someone is obviously far less than a car but it can also easily result in someone's death.
There is a difference between
There is a difference between bikes without brakes [that are fixed gear] and cars without brakes. Bikes without brakes just means they lack mechanical brakes. There remains muscular brakes in the form of leg locking aka "track slide". Cars without brakes means they don't stop.
There is a distinction between the bike and behavior as well. Yes some people will bomb through red lights on a fixed gear bike. But that is not because they lack the ability to stop, they lack the will to. They would do the same on a road or mountain bike.
And there is also a difference between amateurs and professionals. If a bike messenger bombs through multiple red lights and such it is likely that they are being paid to deliberately do so. That is their job [and they "mostly" are competent enough to do so safely even if it doesn't look like it to outsiders]. If you don't like it then the only way to stop it is to tell lawyers and courts to stop being so fixed on deadlines for filings. Amateurs doing it for no reason are another story.
I ride a fixed gear bike as I have for some 20 years. When I was a courier and needed to blast lights I certainly did so. I don't now, but it's simply because I have no financial or career-based incentive to do so. I don't need to hurry at the moment.
No Special "Get Out Of Laws Free" Pass for Couriers
It is not your job to break laws any more than it is the "job" of a cab driver to idle in a bike lane "because I'm waiting for a fare" or run red lights "because my fare is in a hurry".
Any more than it is the job of a trucker to blast through an intersection and kill and maim pedestrians and cyclists because his "client" expects a "rush" delivery by 5pm.
The ends do NOT justify the means. If they need your service, if you are the fastest way they could get anything there, then don't guarantee delivery if you don't have the item in hand in time to make it to your destination lawfully.
It is really that simple.
Dominoes Pizza was sued by its victims when they had a guaranteed delivery time that meant drivers were speeding and driving recklessly. Oh, they were "professionals" too and I'm sure they could do it with their eyes closed blah blah and all that, oh yeah. You are NOT given an excuse just because you think your employer demands it or because you are in an extra super special privileged hurry.
Your responsibility to follow the law has nothing to do with "well go tell it to blah blah blah because wahhhhhhh blahh wahhh". "Professional" lawbreaking is still lawbreaking is still dangerous and anti social and stupid. Period. Your self assessment of your superspecial powers of privilege doesn't matter.
Understand?
Because, if you don't, I may just have to come chain you in my basement and force you to work for me. My job is really important, see, and I have deadlines to meet and somebody has to do the laundry and cooking. I'm sure that it would be okay since I'm a professional and I'm in a hurry because of my employer. Same "logic".
There are lots of motorists in a hurry to get to daycare pickups and get to work on time or get to a doctor's appointment who might find your reasoning appealing. Lets hope they don't consider it a license to kill you or me next time.
I agree with Swirly re: lack of exemption for couriers
n/t
Absurd logic
"If a bike messenger bombs through multiple red lights and such it is likely that they are being paid to deliberately do so. That is their job"
What kind of absurd logic is this? Hit men are paid to kill people too. It's their job. Does that make it right? Or legal? Bike messengers are a singularly unsavory lot. Ever see them congregated around Winthrop Square? Not exactly a pretty sight.
Nice legs, though.
I, for one, enjoy the view - at least the older ones. Younger ones look too much like my nieces, nephews, and son ... but not "unsavory" just "different".
It isn't about looks - it is about behavior.
It's a good idea to require
It's a good idea to require brakes, but vehicle equipment laws should not be made at the city level. If each city and town were allowed to require specific equipment on cars and bikes, there would be no way to keep track of it all.
(And as was pointed out above, state law already requires brakes on bicycles.)