Riding in primary or not?

[jimboalee]

Jim, we're not talking about emergency stops. What is under consideration is this:




Why are you so reluctant to explain yourself? As I've said, I roughly know my braking distances with both brakes, but not the rear only when I'm descending (which puts more weight over the front wheel). I was hoping you would enlighten me, why so coy?

I don't understand.
Do you have trouble controlling your bike while riding with one hand making signals?

In an urban environment, hand signals are necessary. Agree?
When faced with a descending stretch of road where signalling is necessary, do you let the bike freewheel to a speed without knowing whether it will stop when only one brake in utilised?

I wouldn't.

Do you not test the effectiveness of your brakes when you've done maintenance on them?

I do.

If you honestly don't know whether your bike will stop under rear brake application only down a hill, I suggest you use this nice sunny weather and empty road conditions ( footy on telly ) and FIND OUT.

Then, when you next roll down a hill and need to signal with EITHER hand, you will know your bike will stop with one brake only.

If your bike doesn't stop with only one brake applied, you'll know you can't roll down a hill of that gradient at that speed because your bike won't stop when you ask it to. Crash, bang, wollop!


Jeez. There are some on this forum who call themselves cyclists,,,

 

[blockend]

Not many bikes can be brought to an emergency stop on back brake only. The hydraulics on my MTB won't, neither my Campag or Shimano dual pivots and on the cantilevers I'd still be squeezing as I was put in the ambulance.

The old saw that says rear is for slowing, front is for stopping is close to the money. Riders generally give a clear signal then use both hands for the tricky stuff. In fact hard breaking using only the rear is a receipe for trouble.

 

[Origamist]

I don't understand.
Do you have trouble controlling your bike while riding with one hand making signals?

In an urban environment, hand signals are necessary. Agree?
When faced with a descending stretch of road where signalling is necessary, do you let the bike freewheel to a speed without knowing whether it will stop when only one brake in utilised?

I wouldn't.

Do you not test the effectiveness of your brakes when you've done maintenance on them?

I do.

If you honestly don't know whether your bike will stop under rear brake application only down a hill, I suggest you use this nice sunny weather and empty road conditions ( footy on telly ) and FIND OUT.

Then, when you next roll down a hill and need to signal with EITHER hand, you will know your bike will stop with one brake only.

If your bike doesn't stop with only one brake applied, you'll know you can't roll down a hill of that gradient at that speed because your bike won't stop when you ask it to. Crash, bang, wollop!


Jeez. There are some on this forum who call themselves cyclists,,,

I've helpfully highlighted the only flash of lucidity in the above post. The rest of your remarks are characterised by irrelevance, twaddle, strawmen and eccentricity. It's amusing for a while, but your protestations are becoming increasingly vacuous.

I'd advise no one to follow Jim's rear brake guidance when descending if there is a busy side road at the bottom of the hill.

 

[gaz]

indicate with the leg?

 

[GrasB]

jimboalee, the problem with the rear brake is that it's effectiveness is heavily dependent on where your body weight is, so it's fine for feathering speed on a descent but certainly is NOT the brake of choice when coming to a stop. This is the very reason I have my front brake on my left hand. I can signal right, which is a much more important signal than the indication of turning left, & have a consistently performing brake to stop with. I've yet to have a problem with going over the handlebars when braking heavily with the front brake but a rear lockup & thus loss of direction/stability is a much more pressing issue.

 

[jimboalee]

I've helpfully highlighted the only flash of lucidity in the above post. The rest of your remarks are characterised by irrelevance, twaddle, strawmen and eccentricity. It's amusing for a while, but your protestations are becoming increasingly vacuous.

I'd advise no one to follow Jim's rear brake guidance when descending if there is a busy side road at the bottom of the hill.

Here's a guy who can speak chapter and verse on Road safety and legislation; and quote merrily from Franklin's 'Cyclecraft', but he openly admits he does not know the full capability of the brakes on his own bike.

He might be riding a 'death trap'. He doesn't know, he's never tested it.

I'd advise no one to follow Origamist's roadcraft advice. He sits at his computer instructing us all the 'safest way' to ride a bicycle on the road, when he rides round on an 'unknown quantity'.

This is what could be described as an 'Armchair cyclist'.


And for what it's worth before you all start shouting "I never use only one brake, I always use both".
There might be a time when ( I'm temped to say 'I hope' ) the front brake cable fails on YOUR bike.

 

[davidg]

I would be on the pavement...is that tertiary?

 

[jimboalee]

Jim

Perhaps you could list the braking distances of your bikes, using either and both brakes, in a wide variety of conditions? One decimal place will do.

What is the point of that?

You don't ride my bikes and you're probably a lot heavier than me,,,

 

[jimboalee]

I can do the standing 1/4 mile in 34 seconds, if that helps?

 

[jimboalee]

Don't you know?

No. What IS the point of it?

 

[Origamist]

Jim, I’m sure you’ve convinced many cyclists and armchair cyclists who read this forum of the merits of your rear-brake, arm-waving descent strategy when approaching a busy side road; sadly, I’m not one of them.

A few things:

1. I check my brakes (and adjust them if need be) before every ride.

2. I’d hazard I have quoted from Cyclecraft approx 3 times out of nearly
3000 posts. Whereas you regale us with shaggy dog stories every other post.

3. Admitting you do not know something is not a sign of weakness, Jim. It’s why I was hoping you’d be able to give us more detail on your peculiar bike handling advice. It may have had merit, but you’ve diverted us into the realm of “armchair cyclists”, “death traps”, and general whimsy.

I could go on, but it would only contribute further to the downward trajectory of this thread. I'm outta here.

 

[Bollo]

I would be on the pavement...is that tertiary?

In the ensuing handbags, I feel this didn't get the recognition it deserved, so.......

 

[Riding in Circles]

What's a rear brake?

 

[dondare]

Here's a guy who can speak chapter and verse on Road safety and legislation; and quote merrily from Franklin's 'Cyclecraft', but he openly admits he does not know the full capability of the brakes on his own bike.

He might be riding a 'death trap'. He doesn't know, he's never tested it.

I'd advise no one to follow Origamist's roadcraft advice. He sits at his computer instructing us all the 'safest way' to ride a bicycle on the road, when he rides round on an 'unknown quantity'.

This is what could be described as an 'Armchair cyclist'.


And for what it's worth before you all start shouting "I never use only one brake, I always use both".
There might be a time when ( I'm temped to say 'I hope' ) the front brake cable fails on YOUR bike.

I tried being an armchair cyclist but fell foul of forum rules. So it's back to being an old duffer.

 

[BentMikey]

What's a rear brake?

'kin dangerous on your tricycle!!