Fixed gear bikes are a scourge on the streets of New York. They threaten pedestrians with their inability to stop and thereby engender resentment among pedestrians, bicyclists’ natural allies. It can be assumed that their popularity will wane as the novice and fashion-motivated riders who buy them lose interest in cycling or discover the many ways in which they are inferior to geared, fly-wheel bikes. But if we want to speed up the process of their abandonment, we would do well to focus on secure bike parking.
One of the few good arguments in favor of fixed gears, and to a lesser extent single speed bikes, is that they minimize the potential for theft. There are no derailleurs to worry about, and there need not be brakes. The back wheel is commonly affixed to the frame by a second set of screws to allow for precise tightening of the chain. If the front wheel and frame are locked up, all that is exposed are the handle bars and seat, two items that are not especially tempting to thieves.
In most other ways fixed gears are considerably inferior to traditional fly-wheel geared bikes. While they speed up quickly, they can’t go very fast because one can only swing ones legs so fast. While they are well suited to some inclines, the necessity of choosing one gear ratio means that they are not ideally suited to most. They complicate going over bumps because the rider has to time where there legs will be to slightly lift themselves out of the saddle.
The proper function of fixed gears is to train competitive cyclists to get used to pedaling continuously at a fast cadence. Watching riders in New York it is slightly humorous to see how far their popular use differs from this ideal. Currently, the least able to ride bikes are riding the hardest to ride bikes, and causing all kinds of trouble along the way. By addressing the problem of secure bicycle parking, we could neutralize fix gear riders’ one rational argument for doing so, and make it sure that the fad rested fully upon its one flimsy central motivation – fashion.
February 17, 2008 at 2:21 am
You really should do some research into the subject. Most fixed-gear bikes in the city have breaks. If you wanna talk about the crazy ones, those are track bikes, made for tracks with no brakes and ridden in the cities (mostly by messengers). As for geared bikes they are no safer than fixed unless the brakes are removed (from the fixed). Your problem seems not to be with fixies but with the crazies with no brakes. As far as fixed-gears being inferior. I have to say that it is very much the other way around. I can’t think of one thing about a geared bike that is better, except for touring. But we are talking about city riding in a relatively flat city right? Geared bikes have more to steal, more to break, more to fix and more to pay for. They are heavier, harder to fix, over built, and not really as nice to look at (like someone with to many piercing in their face). Lazy or old people use geared bikes because they don’t wanna stand their fat asses up and take a hill! So before you go dissing an entire sub culture, you might wanna do a little research into the subject matter so you at least sound like you know what you are talking about. To review: Track bikes… no brakes. Fixed Gear… brakes optional. Single-Free… must have breaks. Geared bikes (with freewheel)… for people over 45. Also, the fashion of the bike may get someone into the fixed, but once they realize they never needed the gears in the first place, why they go back? Its just a better ride. Breaks or no.
February 17, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I hope I didn’t give the wrong impression in my blog; I appreciate fixed gear riders – every bicyclist out on the road makes it safer for every other bicyclist in that they make cars look for us, and they are as non-polluting as any other bike. Some people very dear to me ride fixed gears, and I used to and still do when I am visiting my parents. I think the commenter makes a valid point that fixed gears have more advantages than I listed. There is less to break, they are easier to carry up flights of stairs, New York does have the relatively flat terrain best suited to fixed gears, and there is something miraculous about making a sub-20lb bike out of ancient parts for less than a hundred dollars. But I stand by my point that, on balance, fixed gears are about fashion not practicality, and if the threat of theft was addressed then the balance would be even more pronounced. I think the commenter’s point that fixed gears can (and usually do) have at least one brake is both insincere and besides the point because even if fixed gear riders are technically able to stop, being effectively pushed by the bike to keep going is quite enough motivation for most riders to barrel through lights and threaten pedestrians in their way. I personally benefit from this on a daily basis, as pedestrians are quicker to get out of my way, but I feel a little dirty taking advantage of their fear, and I think in the long term it is not a good idea to stoke resentment towards bicyclists in heart of every pedestrian, and especially, every parent walking their kid. Parents are political force to be reckoned with. Two final points: fixed gears are about as much of a sub-culture now as mountain bikes were in the early nineties. Recumbents – now there is a subculture! Secondly, I am not really worried about the “crazies” as the commenter calls them – anyone who rides aggressively on a fixed gear probably knows what they are doing; I am worried about the incompetent majority of fixed gear riders, who are a danger to themselves, to pedestrians, and in the long term to other bicyclists. Thanks for reading and commenting, though! This made my day.