Oops

[irocfan]

PoleDriver said:

Laurel Green said:

KTF said:

This one has a much more interesting outcome. No personal best for them on the way to work that day.

http://youtu.be/CCMVHwyTW_0

That looked like it could be a quite nasty outcome; hope it wasn't as bad as it looked.

Sorry if he did get hurt, but he has nobody to blame but himself!

nope I think you'll find it was the fault of the pick-up wanting to turn right and the bus for going straight on. The cyclist was the innocent party, no fault there... no sireee

[Grumfutock]

irocfan said:

PoleDriver said:

Laurel Green said:

KTF said:

This one has a much more interesting outcome. No personal best for them on the way to work that day.

http://youtu.be/CCMVHwyTW_0

That looked like it could be a quite nasty outcome; hope it wasn't as bad as it looked.

Sorry if he did get hurt, but he has nobody to blame but himself!

nope I think you'll find it was the fault of the pick-up wanting to turn right and the bus for going straight on. The cyclist was the innocent party, no fault there... no sireee

I would also add that all road users and pedestrians should give way to cyclists at all times so now way was he to blame.

[Laurel Green]

Grumfutock said:

irocfan said:

PoleDriver said:

Laurel Green said:

KTF said:

This one has a much more interesting outcome. No personal best for them on the way to work that day.

http://youtu.be/CCMVHwyTW_0

That looked like it could be a quite nasty outcome; hope it wasn't as bad as it looked.

Sorry if he did get hurt, but he has nobody to blame but himself!

nope I think you'll find it was the fault of the pick-up wanting to turn right and the bus for going straight on. The cyclist was the innocent party, no fault there... no sireee

I would also add that all road users and pedestrians should give way to cyclists at all times so now way was he to blame.

...and to add; the bus driver did not pay the congestion charge so had no right to be there. Thus, the accident would not have occurred.

[anonymous-user]

funkyrobot said:

OpulentBob said:

But, style, man. Have you none?

(Also see: Stretched tyres, flesh tunnels, neck tattoos, aircooled VWs, prescription-free glasses, juicers, iWatch)

Don't forget smoked light housings.

[funkyrobot]

OpulentBob said:

I can see that nobody is bothered about calling the fire brigade on that pic. They seem more interested in the horse. Maybe it has had a remap.

[Halb]

I was walking along a road close to that one last night. Not a wide pavement, but a cyclist came blasting along on it and whizzed past me, I made sure that I was not gonna get clipped, I checked and there was a nice big cycle path on the road.

[Du1point8]

cyclist sues learner driver from appearing out of nowhere...

https://www.facebook.com/TwoWheelsOnly.TWO/videos/...

[PoleDriver]

[Mr Will]

Finlandia said:

How can a bike like that be legal to use on public roads? It certainly isn't safe for anyone.

Every road vehicle must have two separate braking systems. A car as the foot brake and the hand brake. Motorbikes have the front brake on a lever and the rear brake on a foot pedal. A fixed gear bike can brake the rear wheel by resisting the pedals, so to be road-legal needs another brake fitted to the front wheel.

All of these are legal and judged to be acceptably safe. Despite that if any of them have their primary brake fail during an emergency stop you are going to be in trouble. Would you be able to stop your car in a hurry using just the handbrake if you stamped on the brakes and the pedal went to the floor?

Of course; the real solution is not to ride/drive like a cock-socket and end up in situations requiring emergency braking in the first place but that's not the fault of the vehicle.

[Mr Will]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

A fixie fitted with a front brake will stop just as fast as any other bike. A fixie without a front brake is illegal to ride on the road.

[Du1point8]

Mr Will said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

A fixie fitted with a front brake will stop just as fast as any other bike. A fixie without a front brake is illegal to ride on the road.

Hmmm... I see lots of kids round near me on these



Im assuming they are illegal on the road with no front brake, so what use are they, or are the trackday equivalent of a bike that must only be used at the BMX park?

[Mr Will]

Du1point8 said:

Hmmm... I see lots of kids round near me on these



Im assuming they are illegal on the road with no front brake, so what use are they, or are the trackday equivalent of a bike that must only be used at the BMX park?

Correct - they aren't road legal. Some don't have any braking mechanism at all - you use your feet on the ground or against the tyre to stop!

The trackday comparison is a good one, these are specialist bikes designed for doing tricks on a skatepark or similar. In that scenario you're never going fast, there is nothing much to crash in to and brakes just get in the way. You're also expecting to fall off on a regular basis!

[IroningMan]

Google fixie hipster dhead.

[TheInternet]

Mr Will said:

A fixed gear bike can brake the rear wheel by resisting the pedals

People who think that's an adequate substitute for a proper brake deserve to crash into the side of buses. The funny thing is that of all people you'd expect fixie riders to be experts on retardation.

[IroningMan]

TheInternet said:

People who think that's an adequate substitute for a proper brake deserve to crash into the side of buses. The funny thing is that of all people you'd expect fixie riders to be experts on retardation.

[Mr Will]

TheInternet said:

Mr Will said:

A fixed gear bike can brake the rear wheel by resisting the pedals

People who think that's an adequate substitute for a proper brake deserve to crash into the side of buses. The funny thing is that of all people you'd expect fixie riders to be experts on retardation.

Is the handbrake in your car an adequate substitute for the regular brakes? No, it's a backup - just like the rear brake on a bicycle.

On tarmac a bike with only a front brake will still stop in the same distance as one with two brakes, even if the second one was some super-hydro-power-disc jobby. The limiting factor is the point at which the rider goes over the handlebars and the rear brake makes zero difference to that.

[Finlandia]

Mr Will said:

Finlandia said:

How can a bike like that be legal to use on public roads? It certainly isn't safe for anyone.

Every road vehicle must have two separate braking systems. A car as the foot brake and the hand brake. Motorbikes have the front brake on a lever and the rear brake on a foot pedal. A fixed gear bike can brake the rear wheel by resisting the pedals, so to be road-legal needs another brake fitted to the front wheel.

All of these are legal and judged to be acceptably safe. Despite that if any of them have their primary brake fail during an emergency stop you are going to be in trouble. Would you be able to stop your car in a hurry using just the handbrake if you stamped on the brakes and the pedal went to the floor?

Of course; the real solution is not to ride/drive like a cock-socket and end up in situations requiring emergency braking in the first place but that's not the fault of the vehicle.

Why didn't the chap in the video use the "brake" on the rear then, maybe because you risk leg injury from the momentum of the pedals? A fixie does not belong on the busy roads of a city.

Also the need of two separate brakes, there are plenty of bikes with only pedal brakes on the rear.

Stopping a car in a hurry when brakes fail can be done in a few different ways, handbrake as you mentioned, put it in a low gear or even reverse or turn the engine off while in gear.

Totally agree on the last bit though

[Mr Will]

Finlandia said:

Why didn't the chap in the video use the "brake" on the rear then, maybe because you risk leg injury from the momentum of the pedals? A fixie does not belong on the busy roads of a city.

Also the need of two separate brakes, there are plenty of bikes with only pedal brakes on the rear.

Stopping a car in a hurry when brakes fail can be done in a few different ways, handbrake as you mentioned, put it in a low gear or even reverse or turn the engine off while in gear.

Totally agree on the last bit though

The leg injury thing is nonsense. It'll throw you off the bike before it does any damage to your legs. The rear brake (on any bike) will never stop you as fast as the front one though. It's like comparing a cars handbrake to it's main brakes - there just isn't enough traction without the front wheel(s) involved. For all we know he was slowing down as fast as he could.

Bikes with pedal brakes only? Maybe in Finland but not in the UK - they are illegal here.

[Bodo]

Most civilised countries ask for two seperate brakes in vehicles that participate in traffic. For cars, this usually is a brake system with two circuits (NOT the handbrake).

Engine braking is legally not considered a brake - the same is true for a fixed-gear bike. Definition: A brake is a mechanical device which inhibits motion, slowing or stopping a moving object or preventing its motion.

[Finlandia]

Mr Will said:

The leg injury thing is nonsense. It'll throw you off the bike before it does any damage to your legs. The rear brake (on any bike) will never stop you as fast as the front one though. It's like comparing a cars handbrake to it's main brakes - there just isn't enough traction without the front wheel(s) involved. For all we know he was slowing down as fast as he could.

Bikes with pedal brakes only? Maybe in Finland but not in the UK - they are illegal here.

Clearly he didn't have enough braking power. Why didn't he lock up the rear, if there is no risk of leg injury?

There are plenty of bikes with only rear brakes on the pedals in Finland and Sweden, most new bikes have front brakes too, but not all.