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

I live in a theoretical bubble.

...

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

....

^ the single most ridiculous comment I have read in this whole thread.

I know, assuming your comment is indeed ironic, it's like reasoning with a load of Daily Fail readers.

I rode fixed brakeless for years and was a very competent brakeless rider (if I do say so!)

However, I would never argue that I could stop as quickly or effectively as if I had a front brake.

Same rider, same bike, same circumstances and only difference was a front brake.

I call time-out on this argument.

Untill a brakeless rider comes on here and actually says they can stop quicker and are safer without brakes we're going round in circles.

backwards, at a traffic light

that must be really dangerous too, because I think it is

also if someone comes on here and provides evidence that it is more dangerous

oh and we don't need them to say they can stop quicker and more safely, just as safely.

can anyone find a news article about an accident caused by riding brakeless?

Untill a brakeless rider comes on here and actually says they can stop quicker and are safer without brakes we're going round in circles.

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.

Get your own evidence. Do a series of brake tests (down hill, emergency stop, slowing for car/corner etc,.) with your current setup and then remove the front brake and do them again.

If you cannot stop as quickly and effectively without the front brake then you have your evidence. Whether any increased stopping distance would cause you to actually have an accident is irrelevant, but the potential for accident would be higher, therefore it is more dangerous.

no keep it going, it has to go on, because the discussion of what some people find acceptable is rooted in our brains, and your risk thermometer is set different from mine, start with articles like this
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713670205

Lust.

That wouldn't be evidence.

The sample would be 1. Me.

That would not be statistically significant. All your test would prove is I stop better with a brake. I know this, that's why I use one.

Evidence fail. If you did it with 2000 people, that would be more like it, but I'm not a statistician so I couldn't give you the actual figure.

Get your own evidence. Do a series of brake tests (down hill, emergency stop, slowing for car/corner etc,.) with your current setup and then remove the front brake and do them again.

If you cannot stop as quickly and effectively without the front brake then you have your evidence. Whether any increased stopping distance would cause you to actually have an accident is irrelevant, but the potential for accident would be higher, therefore it is more dangerous.

Yes but surely as this is very personal decision **you **need to do your own test and see if you would be in more danger by riding brakeless. For some people brakeless would be/is 'safe' (whatever that means) but for others it would be totally idiotic due to lack of braking/handling/other bike skills

Not very objective though. People always (this is proven in some proper sciency tests) over-rate their own ability.

Well I've effectively already done one - I rode brakeless for six weeks, didn't really like it, went back to riding with a brake. I only did it because the bike I had at the time had brucy's famous 'bastard' forks and I couldn't fit a front brake and didn't want to shell out for a clamp on rear brake.

I completely agree it's a personal decision, that's why there is no need to enforce it any further or legislate against it, unless there is proof otherwise.

If anyone cares:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_policy

Don't let the bit about being associated with the Blair Government put you off, much of the current Goverment's policies are based on 'because they think it's right', which is the very reason they are wrong.

LFGSS: from brakless to bashing governments in three easy sentences.

Well it's a good example to be honest, this gimp's policies are based on what he thinks is right (e.g. the three Rs, uniforms) when the evidence suggests he is totally wrong:

...that's why there is no need to enforce it any further or legislate against it, unless there is proof otherwise.

It is already illegal to ride without a front brake with a fixed gear, and illegal to ride without front and rear brakes on single speed and geared bikes

How much further could you legislate against it??

It is already illegal to ride without a front brake with a fixed gear, and illegal to ride without front and rear brakes on single speed and geared bikes

How much further could you legislate against it??

I'd like to see the citation for that.

IIRC - Illegal to sell a bike at retail without a front brake without the disclaimer. All bikes must have one brake (legs for braking not tested in courts AFAIK). What you do with user modified bikes are not covered by legislation.

I live in a theoretical bubble.

YouTube- Paul Simon- The Boy In The Bubble

I've wanted to post that for ages

I'd like to see the citation for that.

IIRC - Illegal to sell a bike without a front brake without the disclaimer. All bikes must have one brake (legs for braking not tested in courts AFAIK). What you do with homebuilt bikes are not covered by legislation.

Isn't illegal to sell a complete assembled bike without a raft of stuff, hence selling a bike that you have to attach pedals so the bike is not complete.

I find it incredible that despite a fairly detailed discussion of risk and how people manage risk a great number of people have failed to even read or understand it.

I think some people here just want to wade into the argument without actually wishing to read what has been posted already or to actually engage with the subject matter.

My "daily mail" reactive response is that riding brakeless is not a clever thing to do. However if you consider how people risk manage then it is probably the case that brakeless riders will not tend to cycle as fast but by goin more slowly they have more observation time, greater braking time etc.

I am willing to accept that line of argument, though given the fact that chains can and do fail I personally would like the backup of another braking system.

I started out with a front brake on my fixed gear, then got new wheels (700c to replace the dated 27's) and the front brake no longer fitted. Having ridden for sometime going brakeless felt right and I started out riding slower than normal to ensure I had sufficient bike control etc.
I now feel significantly more comfortable riding without the front brake, knowing that my emergancy stop is a rear wheel skid makes me feel more comfortable than a paniced grab at the front brake. I think it has also benefitted my riding and awareness on the bike and I now feel a lot more responsive and reactive to the environment around me.
Saying this I also believe it is a 100% personal decision, people should ride with whatever they feel most comfortable with whether its one, two or no brakes.

@ lynx - choon

I find it incredible that despite a fairly detailed discussion of risk and how people manage risk a great number of people have failed to even read or understand it.

I think some people here just want to wade into the argument without actually wishing to read what has been posted already or to actually engage with the subject matter.

My "daily mail" reactive response is that riding brakeless is not a clever thing to do. However if you consider how people risk manage then it is probably the case that brakeless riders will not tend to cycle as fast but by goin more slowly they have more observation time, greater braking time etc.

I am willing to accept that line of argument, though given the fact that chains can and do fail I personally would like the backup of another braking system.

I agree with your risk compensation discussion.