The Ultimate Brakeless/Front/Rear/How many brakes? thread

this is the crux of the matter really isnt it?

its akin to drivers saying that most people can handle a car no problem after two pints, its just a few fools who cant, as justification for keeping a high alcohol blood limit.

yes some people might be able to control / skid stop / ride sensible etc (yawn) with no brakes, but inevitably as a result of the lack of a safety feature that was invented for the protection of the rider and others, people will be injured.

if brakeless riders were only a danger to themselves then i'd happily let them smash their heads into the pavement. the problem is that sensible cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists have to share the crowded urban traffic environment with them.

i'm sure this has been said before in this thread, i just cant be bothered reading back through it, and this will be the last contribution i make, its childishly ridiculous that people even defend the practice. if the cops do crack down on brakeless riding in the city, i wont shed any tears.

i don't think that drunk driving and brakeless riding are on a par. and if making this comparison is going to be the agenda of the article that is potentially going to be published then i hope it will contain facts and figures to back it up.

people ride recklessly on all sorts of bikes, some people who have contributed to the anti brakeless sentiment i know have ridden drunk. however tedious and childish it sounds to you someone trying to justify something you consider to be reckless is, unless there is evidence and statistics, [or law] to support your view and say that i am more likely to injure myself, or in particular others when riding a brakeless bike rather than sanctimonious and hypocritical opinion, i will continue to do so.