|
Fixies
outlawed?
|
|
By John Stevenson
Cyclingnews.com, August 4, 2006
There's been a bit of hoo-ha in various bike forums around the net in
the last few days about a case in Portland, Oregon where a rider was
fined for not having a separate brake on her fixed-gear bike. According
to bikeportland.org, bike messenger Ayla Holland was ticketed on June 1
and charged with violating Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 815.280(2)(a)
which states:
A bicycle must be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to
make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement. strong
enough to skid tire.
Ms Holland's lawyer Mark Ginsberg attempted to argue that a fixie's
transmission constituted a brake. The judge was having none of it, and
in his decision said:
"The brake must be a device separate from the musculature of the rider.
Take me for instance. I don't have leg muscles as strong as a
messenger... how would I stop safely?"
This has led to some rather alarmist talk about the future of fixies.
"Will the cops now feel emboldened to go out and ticket everyone on a
fixed-gear? Are fixed-gears now essentially illegal? Are fixed-gears
truly a public safety hazard?" asks Jonathan Maus in bikeportland.org.
Well, no. The issue here is a badly-written piece of legislation being
interpreted by a judge so that it achieves its aims, rather than what
the absolute letter of the law says.
A fixed-gear bike with no brakes cannot stop in as short a space as one
with a front brake, because only the rear wheel is providing the
braking force. As a vehicle on the road, it's therefore clearly less
safe.
This is a matter of simple physics. In the third edition of Bicycling
Science, David Gordon Wilson demonstrates that the maximum deceleration
of a crouched rider on a standard bike (that is, not a recumbent) on a
dry road is 0.56g. Try to brake any harder than that and you go over
the handlebars, which is the limit condition, as the limit from tyre
adhesion of vehicles that don't pitch over (tandems, recumbents and
cars) is about 0.8g.
If you brake with only the rear wheel, according to Wilson, the limit
is 0.256g, because braking effectively shifts your weight forward,
reducing the load on the rear wheel to the point that it skids at that
deceleration. Once a tyre is skidding, its braking effectiveness is
reduced because you no longer have sticky solid rubber in contact with
the road, but a lubricating layer of molten rubber. (Which incidentally
demonstrates that the Oregon legislation was written by someone with no
clue at all about bike.)
Therefore, however good a fixie rider is, stopping distance is roughly
doubled without a front brake. In practice, it's probably more than
that.
In some jurisdictions, better-written laws make this issue moot. In the
UK, for example, the law requires a bike to have two independent
braking systems. I used to ride a fixie in the winter in the UK, and I
knew quite a few fixie riders who dispensed with a rear brake on the
grounds that the transmission was a braking system, but I never met
anyone daft enough to have just a rear brake.
This judge has clearly decided to ignore the letter of the law in
favour of enforcing its obvious intent, that bikes have at least one
maximally effective brake. That's the sort of thing judges are handy
for: turning legislation written by idiots into rules that make sense
in the real world.
All that fixie riders have to do to conform is slap on a front brake;
hardly rocket surgery, and a long way from fixies being suddenly
illegal. And to fixie riders who are about to reach for the email to
defend riding brakeless fixies, I refer you to Cmdr Montgomery Scott:
"You canna change the laws of physics!"
|
|
