Charles Redell Lays out a Case Against Fixies

Seen on the bumper of a honda civic last week: "One Less Fixie."

I'm a bike commuter, and I'll admit my irritation with arrogant scenester fixie riders. They make the rest of us bikers look bad, and increase bike vs car agro maddness.

Seattle has a lot of super agro bike dudes.

A lot.

lonememe wrote:

"Open and shut case. You didn't yield to oncoming traffic. You had a stop sign, he did not. He had every right to be upset. Your car came out in front of him."

In my original post, I wrote:

"On Sunday, I was driving my Honda Civic and had come to the stop sign at the intersection. I stopped and remember consciously thinking, "Be careful here." I looked left up Gilman, right down Gilman, and then further right down 22nd before looking right and left again. Seeing no one coming, I began to creep forward, knowing full well that a car or a bike could come shooting out from behind the parked cars."

(emphasis added).

I never said he didn't have a right to be upset. I would have been had I been on my bike cause it would have been scary as hell, but I would have been able to stop thanks to my hand brakes.

However, I will not take the blame here as I did come to a full and complete stop, looked all three ways and advanced very slowly and carefully. I did everything I was supposed to and did everything I could to ensure my safety and the safety of others. He did not. This does not mean he should get hit or hit a car, but makes it likely that he will have such an accident.

Maybe your calculations are right lonememe, and his speed did not allow the room to maneuver that I thought it did. Judging from my years of experience as a rider (on that hill even) and from what I saw, I disagree, but if I concede that point, I still don't see how is this my fault considering that I followed all the rules and acted extremely cautiously while he was the one being unsafe.

He was in a known blind spot going faster than he could control without the equipment on his moving vehicle that he needs to operate it safely. At the very least, he should have been in the center of the car lane to make himself more visible but I still stand by my belief that if he is going to operate a moving vehicle on city streets, he needs to be able to operate it safely and have the proper equipment to be able to do that. He did not.

You speak quite a lot above about how it is the choice of the bike rider to ride like a bat out of hell, not wear a safety vest, not have a light, not use brakes, or whatever, if he or she wants. If I concede that point, then it seems to logically follow that the rider who chooses to ride that way must live with the consequences of his or her choices.

Riding in a manner that one knows to be unsafe (no brakes on a long downhill, for example) is likely to lead to an accident and injury for yourself. When it does, if the other person involved acted safely, how can they be to blame? In fact, you said as much: "the onus is on the rider to try not to gravely injure himself on someone’s vehicle." I do not think that anyone deserves to be hit but the fact is, riding like this guy does, he is likely to be hit and really has no place blaming someone else.

We all live in this city. We all have the primary responsibiity to ensure our own safety and the secondary one to ensure that of others. This guy (and other fixie riders on city streets without brakes) do not do that. That is his (and their) choice, but they have to be prepared to live with the consequences of their choices. Freedom ain't free.

I would like to step away from some of the more personal comments here for a moment.

When I read "Not everyone has to ride with two rear lights (like the author) and a neon-yellow safety vest to deserve not to be hit." I was amazed at the complete lack of common sense suggested. I will admit a bit of a bias, I have a long scar on my arm from being hit by an out of control "fixie" bike rider. I was walking, he did not know how to control the bike, and slammed into me from behind. The jerk then rode off, leaving me bleeding on the pavement.

These bikes should not be street legal. It is just too dangerous for any but the most experienced riders. What if that was a child in the intersection instead of an auto?

And by the way- If you are traveling at those speeds on a bike without brakes, you darn well should be wearing a safety vest, and have some lights on the thing. And not the dim pedal powered lights either- buy a damn battery and be seen please!

I agree completely.

I was once almost hit by a guy on his fixie who was coming down Pine and made a right onto Boylston. He was going too fast and almost hit me head on. I was on my bike and was forced to ditch. His response was to yell "Sorry dude," as he rode off and I bled.

"I don't have time to respond to lonememe's post right now, but wanted to clarify:

the bike was coming down Gilman. No stop for him, but plenty of room to move. As someone else said, when I come down the street, I am in the middle of the car lane and making myself as big as possible on my bike so I don't get hit.

It may slow me down which is not as fun as screaming down the hill, but at least I'm not dead."

Open and shut case. You didn't yield to oncoming traffic. You had a stop sign, he did not. He had every right to be upset. Your car came out in front of him. As my simple calculation proved, you didn't give him SQUAT to maneuver. 30 mph = 44 feet per second. You said you gave him 25-40 feet of "wiggle" room. If he was "screaming down the hill" as you claim, then he was probably going about that fast.

Per Troy's "reply"

"I preach this all the time, I will treat you like you treat me because your actions examples of how you want to be treated. If you crash into a car and act like a whiny baby, I'll treat you like one. You come up to the side of my bike, cut me off and throw coffee on me, I'm going to flip you off and tell you to pull over and discuss this like an adult."

This world would be a terrible place to live in if everyone acted in this manner.

"All in all, I know that I (and willing to bet the majority of folks) get big headed about the role of my transport. When I'm walking, pedestrians are fucking KINGS. When I'm on a bicycle, all drivers are suspect to being jackasses. When I'm driving, everyone around me is just in my way of getting to A to B really, really fast and looking sexy."

I certainly don't claim to speak to any majority ever, because it's absolutely impossible, but I like to think that I'm a bit more aware of how fragile different forms of transport are. I am not a King on a bike, I am a sack of vulnerable flesh in the realm of steel coffins.

I'm looking at the corner on satellite and street view. It's impossible for any vehicle to see on coming traffic without going out a bit into the road.

That road has a bike lane, and a regular car lane.

One second is enough time for any person who is paying attention and viewing their vantage point. The average human reaction time is someplace in the .75 and 1.5 seconds.

Charles even stated that it was over the next "5 or so seconds" after he stopped that the cyclist crashed into him. Assuming Charles has a piss poor sense of time, let's give cut it in half and give that speeding bicyclist 2.5 seconds of reactionary time. Let's also go ahead and assume that the cyclist was not paying attention to a commonly known blind corner and did not bother to look up the hill to see if a vehicle may need to peek around the corner.

At 44 feet per second, he would have had to given the bicyclist plenty of room, or that cyclist was going around 60 mph.

Bottom line is: you are responsible for you. Keep your eyes up and pay attention. Driving, cycling or walking.

I google mapped this.

I'm unclear which road the bicyclist was coming down and which direction. If he's coming down Gilman, he should have had plenty of time, line of sight, and room to maneuver around. If he's coming down any other street, he has a stop sign.

View Larger Map

I don't have time to respond to lonememe's post right now, but wanted to clarify:

the bike was coming down Gilman. No stop for him, but plenty of room to move. As someone else said, when I come down the street, I am in the middle of the car lane and making myself as big as possible on my bike so I don't get hit.

It may slow me down which is not as fun as screaming down the hill, but at least I'm not dead.

Regardless, it’s their choice, and while they share the same streets as I do, I am not any more moral to demand that they somehow use them differently. Me riding my bike safely is good for me, but not a badge to wear proudly upon my sleeve so I can snub those who don’t.

The debate on requiring brakes on bicycles that use city streets is remarkably similar to those to mandate safety belts in new cars.

I know you claim differently, but how is what you are saying any different from claiming these irresponsible fixed riders have no right to respectful treatment (i.e. do not treat them with respect because they don’t act with respect to others)? I don't like that line of reasoning one bit.

A playground rule was used as an illustrator for a point earlier, so I'll use one to illustrate the argument. My mother always told me to treat others as you wish to be treated. This actually works because I relate with people by observing how they react to the world around them. One ex-girlfriend kept buying me random crap. I deduced she uses random crap as a sign of affection-- so I reciprocated by giving her random crap. Another friend of mine never swears-- goes out of his way not too, so I don't (well, try) swear around him.

I preach this all the time, I will treat you like you treat me because your actions examples of how you want to be treated. If you crash into a car and act like a whiny baby, I'll treat you like one. You come up to the side of my bike, cut me off and throw coffee on me, I'm going to flip you off and tell you to pull over and discuss this like an adult.

This simply isn’t true. Drivers who break the rules and are caught lose their licenses, but there are far more of them that are never caught. The rules are by and large designed around autos, not pedestrians and cyclists.

Traffic laws are nearly evenly distributed between moving vehicles and pedestrians. The general law does not designate between motorized and non-motorized transportation-- outside of where there is a minimal speed limit that non-motorized vehicles cannot meet (e.g. interstate).

All in all, I know that I (and willing to bet the majority of folks) get big headed about the role of my transport. When I'm walking, pedestrians are fucking KINGS. When I'm on a bicycle, all drivers are suspect to being jackasses. When I'm driving, everyone around me is just in my way of getting to A to B really, really fast and looking sexy.

“brakes not breaks. mea culpa. Not sure how I made that idiotic mistake. good thing I earn my living as a writer, eh?”

Again, not the crux of my argument against your article, and I’m not really saying you’re a terrible person for it, or less of a cyclist. Coincidentally, you didn’t capitalize “good”, but it is a good think you earn your living as a writer.

What about that “generous” wiggle room you gave that cyclist? You said you gave him about 25-40ft, and I did a simple calculation that showed that a slowpoke going down a hill at 20mp/h would have about 1-2 seconds of reaction time to maneuver. However, if you’re like me and enjoy going down hills at around 30-35mp/h? Well, fat chance that 25-40ft is going to make much a difference.

“I think it is ridiculous for people who act disrespectfully toward others to demand respect and that is the feeling I get from many bike riders who flaunt the law and also bitch about drivers.”

I know you claim differently, but how is what you are saying any different from claiming these irresponsible fixed riders have no right to respectful treatment (i.e. do not treat them with respect because they don’t act with respect to others)? I don't like that line of reasoning one bit.

“Many irresponsible bike riders I know think they deserve to be treated with respect by drivers and this city but don't signal turns, stop at red lights and the like. How can they expect respect in the form of adequate infrastructure and three feet of space when passing (as examples) from the majority if they don't act respectfully. It's a two-way street. So while I don't advocate disrespect of bike riders who flaunt the law, I don't see how they can expect it as they flaunt the law.”

The same argument applies to drivers then (which I'm not saying is right). How many drivers do you see who flaunt the law and are NEVER punished for it? Would we have not allowed responsible motorists the same right to adequate infrastructure because of the irresponsible motorists that stood out more, what with their frightening of the horses and all?

They deserve adequate infrastructure because all cyclists deserve adequate infrastructure and respect. Just because there are irresponsible users of said infrastructure should not be collective punishment for the rest of the responsible users.

“Safely and with "training wheels" such as hand brakes to use when they are unable to come to a safe stop using pedals alone. Seems like a no brainer to me that if you don't know how to do something, you use a crutch to help you until you learn it.”

Sure, that’s advisable, but I hardly think it should be legislated. Inviting more attention into the “mythical” world of cycling is dangerous for all of us. It’s helpful advice, but it isn’t necessary for the learning of a fixed drive-train system.

“And when I am driving my little red Honda and a guy slams into it and actually does get hurt, will the police see it that way? No. When that irresponsible person on a 20lb road bike hits me on my bike or my mom in a crosswalk and seriously injures on of us are they "endangering only themselves?" Just because you don't get smashed to tiny bits by an SUV doesn't mean you're not fucked if you get hit by a biker going 20. Cracked ribs, broken legs, concussions suck. A bike rider on a 20 lb road bike can cause all of that.”

Absolutely, you’re right. However, keep in mind that I am smart enough to know that while I might “feel” invincible on my bike, I am indeed quite mortal. I know that cars always win, and that ANY accident can cause harm to me or my bike(s), let alone pedestrians, or motorists. To be honest, I would rather my mom not be hit at all, but if I had the choice I’m sure a bike would be preferable. Injuries happen for sure, but the likelihood of death is much slimmer. As such, the onus is on the rider to try not to gravely injure himself on someone’s vehicle.

“No. I'd suggest fixie riders act responsibly and choose to put brakes on their rides. What is the reasoning behind not having brakes as a back-up system? You don't have to use them all the time. Just have 'em so that, when you lose control, you don't have to ditch into me. The answer to every problem in this country does not have to be government regulation. Sometimes it can just be acting like a responsible adult.”

I’ve heard varied reasons behind not having brakes. The original reason is because brakes (unless they’re NJS approved) aren’t allowed on tracks, where the fixed gear/track bikes reign supreme. Now, does your average fixter know this? No. Do they track race? Well, I am going to assume that they probably don’t. Much of it has to do with ascetics and a fad, which is hardly a good excuse, but it’s a personal choice, and it's not incumbent upon anyone else to infringe upon that.

Personally, I agree with you, and that’s why I have them, but I don’t think that those who don’t are any less of adults or somehow inferior or less experienced cyclists than I am. In fact, the ones who use brakeless fixed gear bikes well, are better cyclists than a lot of folks. It is hard to master, but it is certainly attainable.

Regardless, it’s their choice, and while they share the same streets as I do, I am not any more moral to demand that they somehow use them differently. Me riding my bike safely is good for me, but not a badge to wear proudly upon my sleeve so I can snub those who don’t.



“Actually, we are all in the same group. We are all users of the city streets and beholden to the same rules of the road that are meant to keep things at least mostly sane and safe on them. If we want the privilege of using those roads, we should follow the rules of them. Drivers who consistently break the law lose their licenses. Why is it okay for some bike riders to choose to blow through red lights, operate in an unsafe manner or what have you?”

This simply isn’t true. Drivers who break the rules and are caught lose their licenses, but there are far more of them that are never caught. The rules are by and large designed around autos, not pedestrians and cyclists. There should be a complete overhaul and a scrapping of these rules and regulations and a reformulation of every single one of them. Will that happen? No, because the infrastructure is there, so they just try to amend the rules in a way that kind of works, but as we see in this case, doesn’t really.

lonememe:

First of all, yes that intersection is not managed well and I am working on contacting the city about it. That is one piece of fixing this specific problem point for all users. It's pretty hard to see cars coming down that hill and around that corner from my vantage point, let alone bikers. So yes, it does need to be fixed. There are many points like that in the city and fixing them will make all riders and drivers safer and happier. It's more likely, IMO, that the car-head government and general citizenry will be more willing to make things safer for all cyclists in this city if we stop acting as if we have special rights and privileges on the roads.

I don't mean to make life harder for cyclists, just the opposite. I am a regular cyclist and want the same respect on the road drivers get from other drivers and government. But I also want it from other bikers. Fixie riders who can't control their bikes and don't have a break system besides resistance, don't respect the safety of the rest of us. Why should we respect them?

You say, "The fact is that you have a great deal of control over the velocity of your bike simply by resisting backwards."

To this I say: SOME fixie riders "have a great deal of control" but many do not because they are not experienced enough or strong enough to control their bikes. As I said in my post, this is not my first negative experience with a fixie. I have seen many fixie riders when on my bike and most of them can't control themselves the way they need to when riding on city streets. Not to sound too over the top here, but it is a public safety issue when a guy on a bike comes screaming down a hill, hangs a right and almost slams into someone head on because he can't control himself. All that happened to me was a gash in my leg from my pedal. A freind's father ended up with a cracked rib in a similar situation. The guy on Sunday hit my car.

How many times do we need to see an irresponsible bike rider cause an accident until we accept that we bike riders must live up to our end of the bargain by being responsible users of the city streets if we expect to be treated with respect by drivers and government?

I applaud the fact that you have hand brakes on your fixie to use when you need them. I think it makes you more responsible as a rider.

All I want to see is for bike riders of all stripes to take responsibility for their actions and choices. Be as edgy as you want. If a small percentage of the population thinks it's more important to be cool and "edgy" than it is to safeguard their well being, that's fine if all they're doing is putting themselves in jeopardy. But we live in a big city. Irresponsible, incodsiderate, unsafe riders disregard the rights of the rest of us. That's not "edgy." It's being an asshole.

(To be clear: I DO NOT think that irresponsible riders "deserve" to be hit. It's just more likely that they will be hit.)

I'm glad to know that you are taking the larger issue of a dangerous intersection to task, as that is really the more important issue.

"Fixie riders who can't control their bikes and don't have a break system besides resistance, don't respect the safety of the rest of us. Why should we respect them?"

First, and less importantly, did you just type "break system"? I hate to break it to you but they are brakes, and it's a brake system. That is perhaps the most Fred thing ever, but I hope you recall that for next time.

Second, and more importantly, are you suggesting that because you perceive disrespect that you are to return in kind with disrespect? Have you ever learned that two wrongs are still wrong and the second wrong is not more right because of the first wrong? This is playground logic and not the realm of morality.

"To this I say: SOME fixie riders "have a great deal of control" but many do not because they are not experienced enough or strong enough to control their bikes."

Ok, well when you pen an article with a title that is making a "Case Against Fixies", you're not letting the reader know that it is just against "irresponsible" fixies, or "some" fixies.

How are riders in your world able to gain experience if they are not allowed to ride their bikes on the streets? I gain my experience through, well, experiences. The first time I was hit by a car was an experience, and I now know what to look for to avoid that particular situation.

You can't assume that they aren't on their first week of riding a fixed gear bike, because although they may look the part of the PBR drinking fixed rider, the fashion is more important to most, so it's not acceptable to base your judgment of their level of experience from it.

Whatever the case, there will be careless or dangerous people regardless. I am much more willing to have a dangerous person on a 20lbs road bike than driving a massive SUV. They are then endangering themselves, and that is their responsibility, not mine.

What would you suggest? Prohibition on "brakeless" fixed gear bikes? Yes, sign me up for this unnecessary prohibition. Who's going to police it? Who will pay to police it?

This will not happen and it will be highly regrettable if it does.

It isn't fixed gear riders that are a public safety concern, it is irresponsible riders. I have seen many team-kit-clad roadies who are dangerous and irresponsible as well, but I'm not penning an article making a case against all "roadies".

To call for all cyclists to live up to "our" end of the bargain is a joke. We are not all in the same group, and we are all varied and different in almost every aspect of our lives. Just because we ride two wheels doesn't make us of like mind, let alone a collective consciousness.

People have been trying to figure that one out for years. Still though, no one can figure out a way to get us all on the same page.

brakes not breaks. mea culpa. Not sure how I made that idiotic mistake. good thing I earn my living as a writer, eh?

"are you suggesting that because you perceive disrespect that you are to return in kind with disrespect?"

No. I am not suggesting that. But I think it is ridiculous for people who act disrespectfully toward others to demand respect and that is the feeling I get from many bike riders who flaunt the law and also bitch about drivers. Many irresponsible bike riders I know think they deserve to be treated with respect by drivers and this city but don't signal turns, stop at red lights and the like. How can they expect respect in the form of adequate infrastructure and three feet of space when passing (as examples) from the majority if they don't act respectfully. It's a two-way street. So while I don't advocate disrespect of bike riders who flaunt the law, I don't see how they can expect it as they flaunt the law.

"when you pen an article with a title that is making a "Case Against Fixies", you're not letting the reader know that it is just against "irresponsible" fixies, or "some" fixies."

You're right. Editors write headlines to catch the reader's eye. In this case, implying that I want all fixies gone probably increased readership. But I also don't clearly state that I don't advocate removing fixies from the streets (mea culpa X2). What I do advocate is all of them have brakes as a backup and all riders being, in general, more responsible.

"How are riders in your world able to gain experience if they are not allowed to ride their bikes on the streets?"

Safely and with "training wheels" such as hand brakes to use when they are unable to come to a safe stop using pedals alone. Seems like a no brainer to me that if you don't know how to do something, you use a crutch to help you until you learn it.

"I am much more willing to have a dangerous person on a 20lbs road bike than driving a massive SUV. They are then endangering themselves, and that is their responsibility, not mine."

And when I am driving my little red Honda and a guy slams into it and actually does get hurt, will the police see it that way? No. When that irresponsible person on a 20lb road bike hits me on my bike or my mom in a crosswalk and seriously injures on of us are they "endangering only themselves?" Just because you don't get smashed to tiny bits by an SUV doesn't mean you're not fucked if you get hit by a biker going 20. Cracked ribs, broken legs, concussions suck. A bike rider on a 20 lb road bike can cause all of that.

"What would you suggest? Prohibition on "brakeless" fixed gear bikes?"

No. I'd suggest fixie riders act responsibly and choose to put brakes on their rides. What is the reasoning behind not having brakes as a back-up system? You don't have to use them all the time. Just have 'em so that, when you lose control, you don't have to ditch into me. The answer to every problem in this country does not have to be government regulation. Sometimes it can just be acting like a responsible adult.

"To call for all cyclists to live up to "our" end of the bargain is a joke. We are not all in the same group, and we are all varied and different in almost every aspect of our lives. Just because we ride two wheels doesn't make us of like mind, let alone a collective consciousness."

Actually, we are all in the same group. We are all users of the city streets and beholden to the same rules of the road that are meant to keep things at least mostly sane and safe on them. If we want the privilege of using those roads, we should follow the rules of them. Drivers who consistently break the law lose their licenses. Why is it okay for some bike riders to choose to blow through red lights, operate in an unsafe manner or what have you?

@lonememe: I have to take responsibility for the headline. I went with "a" case rather than "the" case for precisely the reason you mention.

I don't see any reason why brakeless bikes can't be outlawed for road use on the basis of safety. I don't expect a Flying Fixie Squad, just as I don't expect police to nab every single cell phone-using driver I see. It's just about making it clear what the expectations are for safe, legal use of the road.

Ah, you must be too cool for bad humor. Sorry. I forgot Seattle takes itself so seriously.

I'm so serious.

Holy crap, really?

Tear down this 11t cog wall! =p

I just wanted to blast his "edginess." I got the tongue and cheek, and actually found it amusing. Building, not tearing down.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I say "edgier" tongue-in-cheek, and I don't think the rider ripping off a windshield wiper was a noble one.

However, this was assuming he was going 20mp/h, which is waaaaay slower than I go down massive hills, regardless of which bike I was on.

But way to take the weakest part of my argument and not addressing the more important parts.

I'm not saying we should alienate, but how edgier are you when you cry like a baby because you're edgy but not skilled enough to maneuver around that with 40 feet of wiggle room?

Even at a second, it's enough to avoid and flip off.

This is another silly, alienating article that isn't helping cyclists. There's math involved in my refutation.

The author talks about how the intersection is known to be hazardous regardless of the perilous fixed gear riders. It sounds more like a problem with that intersection's management of traffic, rather than people on a particular kind of bike. What if it was a recumbent rider who was invisible because they sit lower to the ground? Would we be crying foul over the injustice of lower-sitting bike weirdos (as we should, those guys are weird). When a recumbent rider slams on his brakes, it causes the bike, for the most part, to lose control pretty quickly and quite differently than a "normal" upright bike.

Sure, fixies have less control, but they are not entirely brakeless. I'm not a fixie only rider myself, but on my fixed gear bike I do have two brakes. I don't use them much, as it provides a very good training workout, but they are there when I need them.

In the sense that "brakeless" fixies have no pad to rim/disc mechanism to stop them, yes they are brakeless. However, the fact is that you have a great deal of control over the velocity of your bike simply by resisting backwards. Sure, it's no disc brake, but it's better than nothing.

Here's the kicker. The author says the rider was coming off of a huge hill, but that he was "generous" enough to give him a 25-40 foot maneuvering gap. Here's the math

20 mp/h = 29.3333333 feet per second

So, even if that fixie rider had been going SLOW for coming down a hill (I'm sure we've all bombed hills at twice that mp/h), or not even coming down a hill, then 25-40 feet is eaten up in WAY less than the average human reaction time.

Let's all calm down and not alienate a group of cyclists because they're slightly "edgier" than the rest of us. Not everyone has to ride with two rear lights (like the author) and a neon-yellow safety vest to deserve not to be hit. Well, at least if they're not on rollerblades.

> the whole event ... took less than a minute total. The guy booked it.

Of course he booked it, he didn't want you to call the police and possibly make him pay for the damage he did tearing off your windshield wiper and maybe body panel or paint damage. ;) There's no excuse for road rage like tearing off someone's windshield wiper.

By the way, fixie bikes *can* come with hand brakes (both front+rear), though many fixie riders choose not to get them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-gear_bicycle

He may have had them though (unless you checked and noticed he didn't have them). Reaction time can add a lot to braking distance sometimes, especially when you're not focusing 100%. Also that spot on Gilman St is an extended downhill - I often reach 20 to 30 mph on my bike there. But he should have ridden in the center of the car lane if he was going 20+ mph. That improves visibility and gives more options for evasive maneuvers.

bmessina:

the reason I "took so much flak" from him is that A) I was terrified he was hurt and B) know full well how I would react had I been on the bike. I would have been pissed (after I had stopped well short of the car) and yelled vociferously at the driver. So I was trying to defuse his anger because, honestly, I felt it was misplaced and hoped he would see it that way too, if he could calm down. Apologizing seemed to me to be the only way to try and get him there.

Remember, the whole event, from seeing him to getting back in my car after he left took less than a minute total. The guy booked it.

If you can't stop your fixie within the same constraints as a regular geared bike then you shouldn't be riding it. It's not like it's that hard to do a skid stop if you have the proper foot retention.

This guy just sounds like an asshole.

Sounds like a simple case of douchebaggery, to me. I'm kind of amazed the author took that much flak off the guy, considering (regardless of the kind of bike he was riding) he had plenty of room to maneuver.

D-bags, they're everywhere. Bikes, cars, planes, trains... I cannot escape them.

"You have no idea how many times this has happened to me!" kinda seals the deal for me. As a cyclist myself, I completely appreciate an angry "You nearly killed me!" outburst, but come on--if shit keeps happening to you over and over again, maybe there's something *you* can do about it. Or, conversely, maybe *we* can just decide that fixies and Seattle hills don't mix and do something about that.

Hear-hear!

I have steel wheels, so I always apply the fuck out of my brakes going down hill, especially in the rain. It's just common sense. Whether I have an inflated sense of self-righteousness, the fact of the matter is, it'll never be enough to cushion getting smashed under a tractor trailer.

On the flip side, I was on the 43 going up Olive yesterday when this beat up pick-up truck being driven by an aging hipster was tailing (within half a foot or less) a bicyclist making his way up (and against the right parking shoulder, something I never do for fear a dimwit will try to pass and smash his side into me-- again. He kept revving his engine and looked as though he was serious about mowing the guy down.

Unfortunately, the dipshit didn't realize the entire lane to his left was free and clear and good to go into.