Survey: Should Fixed-Gear Bikes Be Allowed on the Road?

You have GOT to be kidding me. The people that ride fixies are experienced cyclists and besides, these "dangerous" bikes are loads safer than the piss-poor excuses for bikes that come out of mass merchants (Wally World) that are assembled (very poorly) by a guy that just got done bringing in the shopping carts from the parking lot. You are more likely to get hurt riding a mass merchant bike that wasn't properly assembled because something is likely to seize or come loose.

Secondly, what IS dangerous about the bike in that picture is that it doesn't have a headlight and taillight. Not having those items is more likely to get you killed than having to use your legs as brakes.

Finally, if there is anything that should be illegal about riding a bicycle it is riding without a helmet. Riding a fixie might cause you to fall, but riding without a helmet almost guarantees head injury.

even in amsterdam you nead brakes on your bike... in the Netherlands you can be fined if your bike does not have: brakes, lights and a bell...

it is not a question of your own safety.. you can brake your neck if you like.. but it should not endanger other people, and that is what brakeless bikes do... because is you can't stop in time, you might hit that pedestrian, or a small child crossing... or any other object or eprson endangering other people's lives or posessions...

I even find this quite disturbing, and I hardly ever drive with my hands on my steeringwheel (only when I need to brake or shift gear)... but that is something you cannot do without a measure of control over your bike and a large amount of practice, a freewheeling bike you don't have brakes, no matter if you have or lack the conrtol and skill to use it

Regardless of short-term safety, these things are terrible for your knees (apparently). Imagine going at full speed and then using the strength of your legs alone to stop immediately. Ouch!

i agree, at least in part, with Chris. It isn't necesarily a question of the safety of the bike rider - if you want to be so foolish as to kill yourself, go for it - but there is no reason to put others in danger. If you can't stop, and you ram a pedestrian, or, possibly worse, hit a moving vehicle, cause that vehicle to swerve, it hits someone or something else. . . the potential for injury is too great with a bike you can't properly stop.

I ride a fixie to work almost every day(with a geared bike other days) and brakeless. I get through the city and suburbs just fine, and actually feel safer on it than my brake-ed bike. It's dangerous, but so is driving. I think the boom in fixed gear culture is positive because it serves as a banner for simplistic, "quality over quantity" mentality which serves both human and environmental interests. It isn't for everyone, but if it gets more bikes on the street, I'm for it(After all, the US isn't the Netherlands quite yet) Personally, I find it about as dangerous as driving, but much more fun.

Adam=next statistic.

I was recently asked to give a statement about the accident i saw where the fixie ran into the side of a car. No brakes, no brains.

Fixies are fun bikes to ride. Too bad they are kind of dangerous, but I agree that the fact many bikers are not properly equipped with lights and helmets is an equal, if not greater risk. Because fixies are trendy, I worry that people without a good handle on them will put themselves in danger. I wouldn't commit yourself to a trip on one unless you feel totally confident. Remember, too, that cars are not all that nice to bikers, and while bikers need to assert themselves on the road, it probably shouldn't be at the expense of major injury or accident. Every one should ride a fixie at some point in their lives. They're good fun!

I work in the bike industry and am a rider. If someone wants to ride a bike...any bike let them. Riding fixed takes practice and the people who ride them (at least the ones in my area) know what they are doing. Besides even if there in no break cailper there is always stopping pedalling or putting your gloved hand on the front wheel.

Come on people, a bike should have a break. In NYC stories of messengers hitting pedestrian are pretty common. Its like airbags in cars, it saves lives, which increases happiness, and saves money and strain on hospitals and ambulances.

Fixies are fun for sure, but does having brakes really kill the fun? Its not like adding a bunch of gears and a derailer (sp).

While some people may be skilled enough to ride fixies I think the issue is it is now hipster trendy to ride one. Thus plenty of people who don't have the skill to ride them hop on and get in trouble. Living in San Francisco these days it isn't uncommon to see someone on a fixie with both feet on the ground desperately trying to slow their bike down as the petals spin like mad and they slide through an intersection. My buddy saw someone doing this in flip flops for gods sake. I know we have fairly massive hills compared to most other cities, but still it's fairly pathetic people would get these things knowing they can't stop. Maybe we need licensing for bike riding on city streets; lord knows as a cyclist about 80% of other cyclists piss me off for not obeying the law while riding. I know the law tends to suck and be very car oriented but that doesn't mean it isn't the law. If you don't like it then support your local bike activist group to get it changed and/or get more bike lanes / paths.

Adam will not be the next statistic as he sounds like he has his head bolted on right.
Most likely the fixed gear guy mentioned in the comment who hit the car did so because the car did something wrong.

Starting the new year off right -
January 2, 2008 - Some guy in a white Caravan mini-van swings his door open when I was about even with his tail lights. Sent me flying across the street. I was giving a wide space on the right but no wide enough apparently. I keep a flashing headlight on even in the daytime. And I am not the smallest profile. I was on a mountain bike. Luckily I was OK. I am glad law enforcement wasn't around because I would have been hauled away due to the scene I was able to make. I threw my radio at him (no headphones, just a speaker) and used all the deadly curses I could imagine. But rode off OK with a wicked arm full or black + blue (Bergen Street + 3rd Ave Brooklyn NY).

The knees - I ride a Specialized Langster fixed gear sometimes. My knees aren't the greatest and I am 215 pounds at 6ft. I am heavy and I use a gear that is too tall for me (48 front 15 rear) and I keep brakes on it. I know I can't stop it in time in a big emergency so I keep the brakes on it. But that is just me. I know my limits.

God bless the ones who know how to ride them and have a better power to weight ratio.
It's not for me and I know it. I also know I am not going to get in Darwin's way. I am not going to tell someone else who has been doing it for years they are crazy.

Lights - everyone needs lights - day time, nighttime, all the time. And a loug loud bell or horn thing. The megazound 9 volt horn sounds like a police whistle and you can lean on the button as long as you need - for obtuse pedestrians, stupid taxis idling in the bike lanes, delivery cyclists drving the wrong way in bike lanes, etc...

Let those who ride decide. Good Luck!!

vsk

Any kind of cycling is a Good Thing. Even unsafe cycling is better than driving a car. That being said, this is obviously not very safe. I had one as a kid, with an extra front brake, and I never had any problems with it. But without a front brake, I wouldn't be caught dead on one.

Oh, I just have to get this off my chest: cyclists who insist on cycling without lights in the dark should be shamed, fined and flogged. Same to those who feel the need to drive on the wrong side of the road, on the frigging sidewalk or otherwise in the way. Seriously. Bikes are a wonderful form of transport, so DON'T act like a tit on one.

And as far as helmets go, I've never used one in my life. Whether or not you need one obviously depends on how bad the traffic is and on how careful you are. I've been scooped up by a few cars, I've had my chain brake while outrunning a tram and I've cheated death (or worse) a few times. When being hit by a tram, train or truck, I very much doubt that a helmet would save me.

Best thing to improve bicycle safety, is more cycling lanes as far away from motorised traffic as possible. That, and truck drivers who actually use their rear-view mirrors.

The discussion so far ... and all good points ... seems to miss the issue of the bicycle as a vehicle on public roads. There are reasons for laws ... to ensure the safety of the public.

Helmets are an issue for the rider. A personal choice.

Lights aren't necessary to see, but to be seen ... blinkers are great, and reflectors are essential since they're 'activated' by nearby autos. Bells are mandatory for reasons of safety.

Brakes, though, are an essential mechanical component that comprise the machine.

We need cycles (bi/tri) to be acknowledged as practical vehicles and respected on public roads.

State bike laws generally say something to the effect of 'able to skid a tire' - a fixie can do that with about as much training as it takes to learn hand or hub brakes.

There are bikes being sold at sporting stores and K-mart types that have only one brake. Often those bikes are not well prepared before sale, usually they come with no support or instruction. And they have no better stopping power than a fixie with no separate mechanism.

I think the 'should be outlawed' meme is a conflation of issues. It may be the 'no separate mechanism' which gives an impression of no braking power. It may be an issue with image and poor riding style (especially urban).

Swapping lanes with no signals, running redlights, are not fixie problems. Not having clear bikelanes, motorists not knowing bike traffic laws and rights are not fixie problems. Bike riders not being responsible are not fixie problems. Banning fixies won't fix the problem.

As a previous poster said, reflectors, lights.

I don't currently ride a fixed bike, though I have for track and road racing training. I do commute and shop by bike. Needing to stop at traffic lights, etc doesn't need two hand brakes. Needing to watch traffic and pay attention is more important. A bad fixie rider might be just as bad a car driver.

Sigh*

First off, they aren't brakeless. They may not have a traditional pivot brake, but the fixed gear itself is a braking mechanism. The same device used by "Safety Bikes" since the late 1800's.

The misinformation and one-sided stories about fixed gear bikes in the media are giving them a bad name (this post isn't helping). Because people eat up bits and pieces and then spit out a half-hearted thesis based on very little fact.

I own a variety of bikes. My favorite being my fixed gear. It is light, quiet, easy to maintain, quick to lock up, and looks fantastic. I've ridden and commuted in many cities, including San Francisco for a year – hills and all – and I now ride in Chicago. Fixed gears aren't dangerous. Unskilled cyclists who don't obey traffic laws, or dedicate their full attention to what lies ahead are dangerous. Just as cars aren't dangerous, but drivers talking on cellphones and putting on eyeliner are. I have had a lot of incidents on my bike where some ignorant commuter on a hybrid ran a stop sign and almost t-boned me. He had brakes, what was his excuse?

I find myself to be much more aware and a safer rider when I am on my fixed because I am scanning much further ahead, reading traffic and continue to make sure my bike is within my control. Slamming on brakes isn't always the best option anyway, depending on road conditions etc. you may end up just tossing yourself over the bars.

Also, until someone shows statistics of pedestrians being killed or even injured by "brakeless" fixed gear riders running them down...please stick to the facts, not absurd probabilities.

Hey, I ride a fixed gear bike pretty much every day in downtown Atlanta. Granted mine has a front brake, and I wouldn't go without it, but I'm not going to legislate that you've got to have one. I have a road bike and outside the city center that's what I ride. The reason that I favor the fixie in town is that it gives you a lot of control over your balance and allows for better riding in tight traffic. If your knees can handle it and you've got the skill riding brake-less is your prerogative.

while we're on the subject of what, in our infinite wisdom, should we next prevent the lowly public from doing, i suggest we make illegal something else, something with quite a bit more social and personal negative ramfications than riding a fixed gear bike (LOL!). and that wold be...

driving. anything. ever. especially for personal transit.

from this point on, i decree that driving cars for personal transit shall be illegal.

Riding a fixed gear bike is not a dangerous or difficult thing to do. I agree that it is not for everyone however, the break-less bike is not the bad guy. Bikers hit cars and pedestrians all the time. Very rarely is it the bikers fault. If a car suddenly cuts you off, breaks or no breaks you are out of luck. If a pedestrian steps out in front of you, again, breaks or no breaks, your best (and often only bet) is to swerve (not slam on your breaks). Riding a bike with no breaks does not mean that you cannot stop and it does not mean that you cannot stop short. It's a different type of riding that requires a different type of thinking. You are constantly anticipating and preparing yourself for what may happen. Break-less bikers are far more cautious and aware of their surroundings than bikers with breaks. I would wager that the majority of bike accidents involve bikes WITH breaks. And, I would wager that the majority of those accidents were not the fault of the biker.

The article says: "They have no brakes and no freewheel" .. wrong. They have no freewheel. That's it. Whether or not they have brakes is a separate issue.

Riding a fixed wheel bike is no more dangerous than riding an ordinary bike; sure you have to keep pedalling but do you ever forget to move your legs while you're walking? In fact you have a greater feeling for what the back wheel is doing and you have more control. Also they're lighter, simpler, and easier to maintain and keep clean.

Riding in traffic without any brakes is nuts (sorry to people I know and like who ride brakeless) and is illegal in the UK. The law here is you need two independent braking systems. On a fixed gear your legs count as one, and in the hands of a good rider, this is as good as a back brake - you can lock it up and skid. Routine stops for lights etc are easily accomplished without using the brake - it's just a matter of thinking ahead and actually it encourages you to be aware and not rush about like an idiot. But if something jumps out in front of you or the car in front slams his brakes on, a front brake will make all the difference. So ultimately, the front brake is for things which are out of your control.

Whether or not its 'cooler' to ride brakeless ... I can see where this idea might come from, but honestly, amongst the riders I know, it's generally accepted that using brakes (like using a helmet, or running red lights) is up to you - we don't bother arguing about it and there's no pressure to ride brakeless just to be 'cool'. I realise that this might be different in other peer groups.

Anyway, in my experience the majority of fixed wheel riders do have a front brake. The whole tenor of this thread is misleading: it's not about fixies vs everyone else. It's just about brakes, and riding brakeless is already illegal. Don't tar the rest of us with the same brush.

ps. resisting is not bad for your knees, but can cause muscle damage if you overdo it before building up some strength, in just the same way that you get sore the day after you do 50 press-ups for the first time in six months.

I must say, there seems to be very very little logic in the argument that it's easier to stop a bike with your FINGERS as opposed to you LEGS.

And i doubt i was the only kid to be thrown off the front of his bike when he was going too fast downhill and the front brakes caught. Had i had my fixed gear at the time, i don't see how that would've happened.

Oh, and what's with this attitude of retarding personal liberty(the right to ride whatever you want, use whatever bulb you wish) in favour of the environment? It's like the Americans giving up freedom for security.

And finally, i have to disagree with the tone of the article. One person should never be responsible for the impressions of a third party.

Helmets and bike lanes are overrated. Helmets cause car drivers to exercise less caution around you as a driver. Bike lanes, indirectly, do the same. What we need is shared space, and some degree of education for biking (every kid should get biking lessons, including a diploma, in school).

Bike lanes, insofar as they are dedicated, should always be on the road. Segregating traffic does not work in the city as it inevitably meets again, at intersections, on and off ramps, where most serious accidents occur due to 'right and left hooks'.

So, if there weren't any cars running over cyclists, would these bikes be dangerous, or is it the cars and their drivers that are dangerous?

No, I won't be the next statistic (at least not in the way ruben insinuated) as I do not, nor have I ever ridden a fixie (I don't even ride a single speed...I spend most of my time on a triple 9 speed 'cross bike with cantilever brakes on both ends and never go out w/o a helmet).

In response to the Anonymous poster that said helmets are personal choice - true, but the same can be said for wearing a seatbelt in your car. You not wearing a seatbelt harms no one else, but because of the cost to society by you getting smashed up in a wreck, the law says you should wear one. Same should be true of a bike helmet (for cyclists and motorcyclists, IMO).

BTW, I know for a fact that in Austin, TX there is a law stating that every bicycle must have braking capabilities which allow the bike, as Robert said, to skid a tire. This includes fixies, and the Bicycle & Pedestrian Program Coordinator for the city rides to work on a fixie.

The "no brakes" descriptor is misleading: the rear wheel functions as a brake just the same as a coaster brake does. Stop legs -- stop wheels. Braking requires a skosh more effort than your standard handbrake, but no able-bodied cyclist should encounter an issue and so I fail to see where there is a safety hazard.

I like the idea of fixies, but they need to at least have a front brake.

Both this survey and the article are being phrased badly.

This issue isn't the fixed gear bike. It's the lack of brakes, which is an entirely different issue.

The school of thought, and it's a bad one, is that you can get away without running any brakes because you can skid by using your legs to lock up the rear wheel like a coaster brake. Which you can.

Why is it bad? You've got crap stopping power. Rear wheel braking only slows you at best. For actual stopping power you need a front brake.

I ride fixie with a front brake. I'd argue I have more control of my bike than most people do with two brakes on "traditional" freewheel bikes. This is due to knowing exactly what my rear wheel is doing, if it's actually gripping the road or if it has lost traction due to water, gravel, ice, whatever. And if I have my front brake so I can actually emergency stop.

I learned to ride on a fixie. And it stopped there.

I don't understand the point of these. Gears make riding so much easier, why not have them?

Very little logic xns? It uses a lever and it magnifies the force of your hands.

I think calling a fixed gear wheel a brake is stretching the term. It can be used as a brake certainly but it's not a purpose-built brake. It's a poor brake in fact and talking about safety technology from 100 years ago is irrelevant. The road is a different place today & no car driver would expect to get by with 100 year old standards.

FWIW, I ride a fixie, with a brake.

Dear Lifehacker,
I used to think that YOU were cool. Then you started slinging this one-side propaganda!

"They are also dangerous and in many places, illegal."

The same can be said for cycling on many of our busy roads. Does it make the rider less of a good person? I guess that since fixies are illegal, only criminals would ride a fixie.

"you stop by fighting with the pedals or doing a skid stop."

And as others have pointed out, this is just ignorant. If the vehicle has a mechanism for stopping; then it has a break! Couriers have shown that they can stop in the legal required distance.

So why all the hate? A better use of a post would be if you actually took the time to try a fixie out. But, watch out - you might just change your tune after a quick spin around the block.

Sincerely,

A Treehugger question that could be asked is how many more tires get replaced each year on bikes because of skid stops. That would be an environmental question to ask about fixed gear bikes. Then we'd need to have the cost benefit analysis of tires vs. brake shoes... Maybe brakes are better for the environment?

Here, instead, I find a public safety discussion being waged by 30 commentators whom I think fall into two camps: 1) people who've ride fixies and support them 2) people who haven't riden a fixie and condemn them without really knowing what they're talking about.

Fixed gear bikes used to be ridden by experienced, dedicated, serious bike riders. By people who used to take old bikes and slap a track cog on a flip flop hub and strip off the rusted junked gears giving that old bike new life.

With the number of brand new fixies you can buy in the store today being sold to hipsters (now in addition to the Bianchis you can get 'em stock from SE, I think I saw a Felt the other day, etc.,.) I tend to think there are people riding fixies today that don't really have any business being on fixed gear bikes with no brakes. I would love it if those ridiculously overpriced hipster mobiles came with brakes. For @ $700 they ought to.

But for the most part I trust people who ride fixies without brakes to know what they're doing. For example, I ride a fixie, but I have a front brake. I know my limitations.

Here's a video for people to contemplate. What good would brakes have done this kid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbzL0t-0aFs

Wow, look at all the comments on this issue. I feel it is 'reaching' for this to be valuable content for an article though. Nobody is going to ban these period. We all know that. Are they safe? Are they in danger of going mainstream and contributing to accidents? Seems like that is what you are getting at. I completely see the appeal for simplicity that they offer. Here is an alternative...I have a single speed track bike (freewheel). I recently damaged that back wheel and decided to replace it with a 700c coaster brake, and have now removed my hand brakes. It now has an extremely simple streamlined look, but also is very safe, and certainly simple to ride...no learning curve. Some people ask how you can ride distances on a singlespeed, it works great and the gearing seems just right on the SE Draft I have. www.sebikes.com if you want to check it out.

@Gabriel: What does this have to do with LifeHacker?

As several folks have said here, the issue is not about the bike being fixed gear!! The issue is a disagreement over the legal legitimacy of back-pedaling as the only braking mechanism.

Riding a fixie has many advantages... one of them being that you get a greater workout for a shorter distance, which makes it a good training tool for the winter. They are also lightweight and easy to maintain. They are usually built from older frames, which means that good materials are being recycled in a way, and also that the bike will probably not look very shiny... so it is a good theft deterrent.

I ride a fixie every day of my life. I keep a front brake on it for emergencies, but I find that I have become strong enough that I don't need it for normal, anticipated braking. IT IS STILL CALLED A FIXED-GEAR WHEN IT HAS A HAND BRAKE.

I think people that don't know anything about it should keep their mouth shut, or get on a bike and experience the joy for themselves.

@commuterrider

A coaster brake alone is still nowhere as good as a front brake.

You just can not stop anywhere near as fast as using a front brake with any sort of rear braking.

this is a pretty half assed survey. if you're gonna start stirring things up with topics like this, you really ought to put a little more effort into it. I don't get the feeling Lloyd Alter has much idea what a fixed gear is.
"I saw a news reel on the television about these darn kids riding some kind of new fangled velocipede without the normal doo-dads. I looked it up on the cyberweb and turns out these things are dangerous! my cyber buddy says they started with them damn couriers. Kevin Bacon and the lot! bunch a hooligans if you ask me!"

ok ok, so I know that a lot of messengers ride them, and they have become a bit of a trend. There should probably be some sort of regulation about riding track bikes on the street where you have to have a front brake (they make attachments for non drilled forks). but this article/survey is just poorly written and hardly thought out. maybe Lloyd Alter should learn to do a little research before he invests his presious time on this kinda stuff.

The idea and image of fixed gear bikes are dangerous so we should ban them to protect the image of cyclists in general?

What the Fu.....

I think people in spandex look ridiculous and also hurt the image of cyclists....should we ban geared road bikes?

Fixed Gear bikes are no more dangerous than any other bike. It just so happens stylish people ride them prematurely without the proper practice and a subsection of bike messengers are careless and would get hit on any bike , fixed or otherwise, but they happen to ride fixed so it gets associated.

The chain is the break on a fixed gear bike, they are not brake less. If that fails you can use your feet.

If the existing law only requires one brake, I don't see an issue.

If you ride fixed gear bikes with brakes you could argue its 1.5 to 3x as safe as a standard bike with 1 or two lever brakes. If your front brake fails you have a rear brake, if your rear fails you have the chain.

I think this falls under the category of "Don't be a dick." Which means riding a bike beyond your experience or riding a bike, regardless of the bikes brake system, like a dick.

"So why all the hate";

"maybe Lloyd Alter should learn to do a little research before he invests his presious time on this kinda stuff."

"I think people that don't know anything about it should keep their mouth shut, or get on a bike and experience the joy for themselves."

I am a proud member of the year-round bike community and spend much time on this site promoting bikes have never had as much personal abuse in comments as I have from this. Why the language? Why do you think I made it a survey? because I didn't know the answer and wanted to hear from readers, not get accused of being an idiot. sheesh.

how about these new poll topics?
1) "should pre-schoolers really be allowed to drive?"
2) "Lloyd Alter is gonna tell you about the taste of paint"
3) "I saw part of a news show about these new bikes, and I want to make a fuss about it"
4) "My name is Lloyd Alter, welcome to the information super duper!"
5) "do drum circles really have a positive effect?"
6) "how's your chakra brah?"
7) "Dreads, you're blond hair finally did it! but what now?"
8) "what doth life?"
9) "shoes without brakes, should joggers be allowed on the streets?"
10) "Baby, you been robbin' a bakery? cause you sure got sweet ____"

heh. I misspelled precious.

I resent the fact that there is more than a metric ton of articles/posts and stuff about fixed gears that lack any real research.

the second line of your paragraph says that they have no brake. while this is often true, it is not absolute by any means. I used to be a courier, I rode a roadie, but most of the messengers who rode fixed, had a brake. you can often buy fixed gear bikes with a front brake already installed, it doesn't have to be an "addition"

I also resent the generalization of fixed gear riders as "hip" or "crazy" or "daredevil" I own three bikes. one light race bike, one older bike with fenders (for the rain) and one brakeless track bike. I have a lot of fun riding the track bike, but given that it doesn't have a brake, I tend to use a lot of caution when riding it anywhere but the velodrome.

having been a courier, I've seen a lot of cyclist/traffic/pedestrian mishaps. I've seen more problems with inexperience or stupidity on the part of geared commuters than anyone on a track bike. of course, this says nothing about the safety of a brakeless bike, but it brings up a point, that it's more about watching what's going on around you than what you use to stop your bike.

the worst and most dangerous cyclists I've seen are almost unanimously commuters on cheap "mountain" bikes who are not paying a bit of attention to what's going on around them. (note, I am not reffering to actual mountain bikers who are often very experienced riders)

um, treehuggers, should the question be more focused on how do we decrease the number of cars and trucks on the road so that you can safely ride any type of bicycle?