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

Just had some...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. lish.

Just like asking why people ride without helmets, there is no reason apart from there is no law that requires me to wear one, and I prefer how I look with a cycling cap on.

Helmets are by choice, i choose to wear glasses as I hate stuff in eyes. I think glasses should be legal.

james not gospel truth, just my opinion, and I believe the correct one, but how many velodromes are there around the place that are easily accessible by track bike. Why the desire to ride them all day er'day, without brakes in an environment that doesn't make it easy for you, when a more pertinent tool for that job is readily available.
Right now track bikes are cool, hence manufacturers making more off the pegs, and more people buying them, and riding them, with and without brakes. Just like BMX's were cool in the 80's and mountainbikes were cool in the 90's.
I'm shrugging my shoulders as I type, track bikes have jumped the shark and will go the same way as any thing that becomes fashionable, they'll be hot for a minute and then be replaced by something else...
And the brakes vs brakeless issue will be forgotten.

Corny, I think lots of people will give up fgss cycling, and return to gears, but a few will remain. Like the people who still write letters, and even still use fountain pens, there will always be some. I think the purity of fgss is what will keep it interesting.

I won't ever join the debate regarding brakeless versus with-brakes, as I feel such an argument is won before even one word is uttered. But people are free to make good or bad choices, as has always been the way.

DJ, when last were you in Jamaica? I've lived in, and gone to school, and rode bikes in Trinidad, Grenada and Barbados, and in none of those places is brakeless cycling deemed as acceptable. Maybe Jamaica is diferent, but I'd like to hear more about it.

Corny, I think lots of people will give up fgss cycling, and return to gears...

They're still riding a bicycle in the end, who care if they ride different bikes every now and then?

They're still riding a bicycle in the end, who care if they ride different bikes every now and then?

There you are Ed, trying to correct me yet again.

Ed, the topic regards brakeless riding. I'm pretty sure this phenomenon concerns track bikes specifically, or at least fg bikes, that people have chosen not to have a front brake on. All geared bikes are sold with brakes, hence why your comment does not apply. Nobody was criticising different bikes that people rode.....as far as I could tell.

there are way more people riding unsafe and badly maintained bikes with two brakes out there on the streets everyday than there are brakeless fixed gear riders. this is something i noticed when working in a busy bike shop, i would often feel anxious letting people leave the shop without basic maintenance being done to their bikes and i think bad maintenance is of greater concern than the current trend of riding brakeless.

one of my bikes is brakeless, i maintain it constantly, i ride it sensibly, i never feel like i am putting myself or others at an enhanced level of risk when i ride it. i do ride differently when riding this brakeless bike, i would say i ride less recklessly than when on a geared road bike with brakes. on my brakeless bike the gear ratio is low, meaning i can only reach a certain speed and can control the bikes acceleration and deceleration very well.

on my road bike can and do reach much higher speeds and tend to race towards junctions and through traffic, if i was to hit a pedestrian or vehicle i would most likely be going much faster and more likely to cause injury to myself or others.

most, but not everyone who i know who also ride brakeless maintain their bikes well, use high quality frames, cranks, chains, bottom brackets, sprockets etc. and ride pretty sensibly when the situation requires it. i think this is an important point about maintenance and safety rather than brakelessness and safety.

most, but not everyone ... rides pretty sensibly when the situation requires it.

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.

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.

I think this is spot on, personally. It's that kind of justification - to ourselves as much as to others - for something we know is dangerous.

The level of potential damage is on a different level though.

Also what about those idiots who ride brakless and drunk?

corny, your statement was very clear "there is no reason apart from..." though i totally agree they are not very appropriate, its just that there are potential other reasons. more just playing devils advocate

ga2g, i assumed the jamaican skid was in reference to people in jamaica skidding without foot retention, though like many of these country specific terms it could be a misnomer

ed, i totally agree, there is a very different level of risk with a bike than a car (much like the rlj issue) the bike user poses a much bigger risk to themselves than other road users, unlike a car driver

But still a risk to others.

n3lson

if you read carefully i did not dispute that point at all, i said a different level of risk

ftfy - this is exactly my concern, that you're going to write an article implying that riding brakeless is more dangerous than riding with a brake

when you don't know that at all - given the complete lack of an evidence base for this I think this would be irresponsible journalism

I think this is spot on, personally. It's that kind of justification - to ourselves as much as to others - for something we believe is dangerous.

n3lson

if you read carefully i did not dispute that point at all, i said a different level of risk

yeah sorry - its early, just having my first cuppa.

ftfy - this is exactly my concern, that you're going to write an article implying that riding brakeless is more dangerous than riding with a brake

when you don't know that at all - given the complete lack of an evidence base for this I think this would be irresponsible journalism

Do you need evidence? It is a fact that a bike with rear braking only (and having to skid at that) is not as effective for stopping as riding a brake with front and rear braking - especially as the front brake is the most effective one!

Therefore it is more dangerous riding a brakeless fixed bike than a bike with two brakes. Whether that causes more accidents who knows but the potential is higher.
It is also more dangerous to ride a poorly maintained two braked bike but again there will be no 'evidence' to hand but again the potential for accident is higher

I'd just like to query this idea that brakeless riders are always safe riders with some inherant skill.

I've seen brakeless riders cycling slowly and methodically thru the City, but I've also seen a few rippin' it up thru traffic... which given blind spots, the general distractions driving in London and just plane old human error, doesn't really seem to tie in with safe riding.

Obviously that doesn't mean they're less safe than some M3-style-driver on a specialized with disc brakes. Just sayin'.

Yes - or rather I would if I was going to write an article for a national paper that could result in increased police interest in these riders.

It is a fact, but it is also an incredibly simplistic way of looking at it.

It's already been mentioned that brakeless riders tend to ride slower, partly as a function of lower gearing I'd imagine but also (at least in my experience) because not having a front brake makes you ride more slowly and carefully.

Maybe this offsets the reducing braking power, meaning the net result is brakeless is no more dangerous?

I'd take issue with your statement that 'Therefore it is more dangerous riding a brakeless fixed bike than a bike with two brakes' - if my mum rode through central London on a bike with two brakes she would be much more at risk than me riding brakeless.

As this whole thread proves, there are lots of variables. It is simplistic to say 'riding brakeless is more dangerous because it must be' when we have no evidence.

I'm not advocating censorship, but putting this debate further out into the public sphere could affect policy on this (i.e. the law could be changed, there could be a crackdown on 'dangerous fixie skidderz') but without evidence this would be wrong.

We're talking about public policy, and this should be based on firm evidence, not hearsay.

Otherwise we get policy on the hoof based on hysteria, and there are lots of examples that show this just doesn't work.

Do you need evidence? It is a fact that a bike with rear braking only (and having to skid at that) is not as effective for stopping as riding a brake with front and rear braking - especially as the front brake is the most effective one!

Therefore it is more dangerous riding a brakeless fixed bike than a bike with two brakes. Whether that causes more accidents who knows but the potential is higher.
It is also more dangerous to ride a poorly maintained two braked bike but again there will be no 'evidence' to hand but again the potential for accident is higher

I have seen a proper brakeless rider in the uk, a nackered geared mountain bike with both brakes unhooked going round of allplaces elephant and castle... Anyway.

This comparision with drink driving is bogus... It's no where near as dangerous. It's as dangerous as people who drive classic cars which have worse brakes and less safety systems than modern cars...

I'd take issue with your statement that 'Therefore it is more dangerous riding a brakeless fixed bike than a bike with two brakes' - if my mum rode through central London on a bike with two brakes she would be much more at risk than me riding brakeless.

If your mum, or you, rode through the city twice, on a bike with brakes and then a brakeless bike, on which journey do you think she/you would be most at risk?

Sparky ive got some academic papers that explain why people like to engage with risk for the positive benefits, they are about adventure sports, but you can apply them to this argument if thats the angle you want.
Overall Corny is spot on IMO though.

I think I'd be most at risk on the bike with two brakes, because I'm used to a fixed bike with a front brake and never ride with a freewheel at the moment. My first instinctive braking movement is with my legs - 'acceleration is the first form of braking', as my driving instructor taught me. I would definitely feel safest on the set up I'm used to.

I think my mum would be most at risk riding fixed, because she's never ridden fixed and would be petrified riding through central London in the first place, never mind fixed.

Edit: you said brakeless though, I wouldn't ride brakeless and I'm not advocating it, I'm just making the point that there is no evidence. You're asking me to make a judgement and I think I know the answer, but I have no proof.

If your mum, or you, rode through the city twice, on a bike with brakes and then a brakeless bike, on which journey do you think she/you would be most at risk?

Exactly. None of the arguments make sense. You cannot compare two different riders - it would need to be the same rider.
You also cannot say it is safer because the brakeless rider rides more slowly as the braked rider could also ride more slowly. You cannot say because you are too used to fixed etc,. etc,.

When comparing brakeless versus braked with all other factors being the same then brakeless is more dangerous. It really is that simple.

yeah, with all other factors being the same!

they're not.

we're not talking about some theoretical bubble, we're talking about the real world!

yeah, with all other factors being the same!

they're not!

They are if you are comparing the two to say which is more dangerous.