BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Justified? No.

Necessary? Probably.

Right when the camera is out of view is when the fight starts. Looks like the messenger just lost it but who knows what the pedestrian dude does right when we can't see them.

NYC is a stressful city.

Since you can't hear the conversation and you miss the first move of the fight, it is difficult to say what exactly was going on. It did seem to me that the pedestrian kept trying to grab the guys bike. And it only seemed the the cyclist swung with the lock when the pedestrian was coming at him.

Ulock's seem to make good weapons tho.

yeeesh. it's hard to tell what started it.

i have a friend who got jumped on her bike by a huge drunken frat boy in oakland at night, and she got out of the situation with her u lock

Justified? ...doubt it unless that guy had a knife....sorry I don't like seeing crap like this ...and if you are going to mix it up with someone unarmed...go unarmed yourself...hitting someone with a Ulock in the face is not acceptable.

Justified? ...doubt it unless that guy had a knife....sorry I don't like seeing crap like this ...and if you are going to mix it up with someone unarmed...go unarmed yourself...hitting someone with a Ulock in the face is not acceptable.

i disagree in part. maybe it's because i never get into fights, but if the situation escalates to that extent, i want to be the one who walks away, with no regard for fairness. the fairness doctrine makes sense when it's two combatants who agree to throw down, but street fights never work that way. erok's anecdote illustrates this well, i think.

I also add I think the cyclist was really being chicken-you know what....bashing a guy in the face then riding off like that...? my bother ( who lives in NYC) had a problem just today...he is training for the marathon and a guy in a van just clipped him...he hit the van ...guy stops van starts yelling...took a swing at my borther...my brother took a swing..neither really connected (guys glasses fell off) my brother actually felt bad for the guy...finally my brother just yelled at the guy (key is to act nuts) he backed off...no one hurt.

I just can't imagine in that *one* second what this guy did to justify a pistol whipping with a Ulock.

i can't really comment on this guy, but my friend's situation was completely justified in my mind. if anything, the ulock made the fight more fair considering the 100 lb weight difference

Yeah I am not doubting what you are saying about your friend at all....don't get me wrong. I have also been a witness to a bar fight (in a place I was playing in a band at) in which one armed guy wound up unarmed and whipped with his own pistol by another guy when he had it pulled on him (years ago now) ...both guys got cuffed and hauled away in a very ugly scene by something like 8 police officers. That was a life/death thing.

I have a hard time buying it here and you could maim someone doing this...good luck if you go to court later saying you hit a guy with a ULock because he "grabbed my bike"...or "he pushed me". It just seems like overkill...I doubt a Judge would be real cool about it.

I have no problem if someone goes after someone unarmed to just mix it up though...that at least seems fair...and if someone tried to run me over (like I have read with some folks here) ...all bets are off.

This is all just speculation on our part. Biker dude in the video might be a dealer for all we know that just ripped the pedestrian off.

I really don't have a problem with someone using a u-lock to defend themselves in this manner though, as long as the situation warrants it. I won;t speculate if this video is an example of a warranted incidence or not.

The comment says "ran into each other at the intersection". Somebody shouts "Watch Out" right at the beginning of the video. Judging by the lights and the position of the two in the roadway, I'll guess that the cyclist was making a right turn and hit the pedestrian. They each have multiple opportunities to defuse the conflict but they each go on to escalate repeatedly. The critical moment seems to occur when both are out of sight behind the pay phone. At one point, it appears that the pedestrian has both hands on the cyclist, while the cyclist is swinging the ulock. In my mind, if you're swinging a ulock at me, I'm going to instinctively try to block it, but this doesn't look like a blocking move. I think that the pedestrian put his hands on the cyclist first, and first ulock swing is defensive. A second or two later, after striking the pedestrian several times with the U-lock, the cyclist starts to walk away. The pedestrian says something, and the cyclist returns and attacks. Regardless of what transpired beforehand, that attack can't be justified.

"Hey, sorry about that" wouldn't have killed anyone.

that video was taken down.

Seems to be working for me...

That pedestrian looks pretty old/weak to me.. Might have been best to call it a day and just ride off.

As commenters said above, no idea who/what started it, but based solely on what transpired in the video I think the cyclist was justified. Keep in mind, if he mounts his bike with that guy anywhere near him, he puts himself at a real disadvantage. He tries to put some distance between himself and the pedestrian, but the guy follows him.

This leaves the cyclist in the awkward situation of trying to hold onto his bike with one hand and use only the other to fight off a guy who, older or not, looks like he's taller and significantly outweighs the cyclist.

The cyclist isn't going to outrun the guy if he also has to carry his bike, and he's not going to win a "fair" (i.e. fists-only) fight with the guy when he's only got one fist to use, is wearing a backpack, and his mobility is limited by the bike he's carrying.

Finally guys, I'm sorry, but if you get in a fight there's no ancient samurai code of honor, you're fighting because reason and morality aren't working. When someone is trying to punch you in the face, fairness goes out the window. The pedestrian isn't going to crouch to compensate for his height advantage or give the cyclist a couple minutes to put down his bike and take off his backpack, why should the cyclist refrain from using the only effective weapon at his disposal?

In short, the cyclist was at a disadvantage, the u-lock seemed like his only promising exit strategy, and despite what the idealists say, the only "rule" that applies in a fight is "get them before they get you." (Sorry if that makes me sound like a fan of Jean Claude Van Damme movies, but it's absolutely true).

That said, it does seem like after the first couple hits the cyclist had a decent opportunity to get away, but given that the pedestrian was still yelling at him, he might have reasonably assumed the pedestrian was going to continue to follow him and that he'd better hit him again while he had an opening.

It's not nice when people hit other people in the face with heavy things, but I don't know that I would have acted any differently in the cyclist's situation.

If you start a fight with me, I'm going to everything in my power to end it. It may mean running away or talking someone down, but it may also mean using a ulock, a bullet, eye-gouging, fish hooking, groin shots etc (none of which is considered "fair" by most standards). I don't want to fight anyone for any reason and will do everything I can to end a given situation with the least harm to myself.

If you want a fair fight, go find a boxing ring.

If the situation is what it looks like and the cyclist hit the pedestrian in a crosswalk and the pedestrian got mad, the cyclist's an asshole. Plenty of bikers in that neighborhood don't treat crosswalks with any respect, and more than once I've had cyclists around there blowing whistles or yelling "EXCUSE ME" so they can fly through crowded crosswalks against the right of way.

That said, there's not enough of the provocation here for a complete evaluation.

Bike Snob gives his take on the cyclist in the video:

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2009/07/highlighting-inadequacy-casting-first-u.html

and there ya have it...apprently this blogger feels like I do...sorry folks...the more I think about it...no excuse for what this punk did...sorry. I view it like this...if someone swings a freaking ULock at my head they better knock me out...same as if someone points a gun at me...you better kill me...because I think I will have to retailiate and it won't be nice...all the self defense stuff is fantasyland macho crap.

the more I have seen of this video the LESS I feel the kid was justified...the more I think he should have just pedaled away.

Don't be surprised if somehow the older guy eventually see this and they use it to identify this kid to the cops.

Stupid...stupid stupid.

In my experience with NYC everyone is just waiting to pop at any moment.

i got sandwiched by two taxis in nyc, half my fault probably, i apologized... the one taxi was irate and the other one just said "careful dude, some of these guys will kill ya"... probably a good estimation of how these things turn out... some people feel like they own the road, some people are just out there sharing it... when two people who feel like they own the road hit each other it turns into a duel.

dude shoulda just rolled away when he had the chance.

erok...agree...and can I add some other notes about this 'cyclist' (coming from someone who has biked NYC)....

1. riding with no helmet in NYC??...strike one

2. riding single speed in NYC traffic??...strike two

3. riding with what looks like...no brakes??...in NYC...strike three....

Kid appears to be an idiot...he is outta there.

i have to admit, riding single speed or fixed in nyc rules. you have phenomenal speed control on a fixed gear, and it really does come in handy there. and it's so damn flat.

the no brakes, no helmet thing...well, let those who ride decide. i think the majority of ny cyclists don't wear helmets.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against single speeds with no brakes...on a track...in a park...but all these issues combined lead me to believe this kid is not that concerned with 'safety' for himself or others...he probably ran into the guy in the first place provoking the entire situation...then he beats the guy and takes off? I can't defend it...and there were a bunch of alternatives to what actually transpired. Surprised too that no tone person...not one ...including the camera man did anything to settle it down ...or see if the guy was ok.....? Seriously, what is wrong with people?

yeah that is kinda nuts. but then again, it's nyc and people don't get in other people's business, and i'm not sure if i'd try to break up a fight with a guy swinging a weapon like a madman

He was on a fixie with no brakes. If you had no brakes on a single speed you would never be able to stop without wearing holes in your shoes.

riding in a flat city like nyc on a single speed bike is arguably smarter (and definately trendier)... the lack of helmet is stupid, the lack of brakes is a choice, not a safe one, but not an unreasonable one

The lack of a helmet only hurts the rider but riding with no brakes has the potential to end badly for someone other than the rider. What happens when the chain breaks or slips off ?

details...details...

PEACE IN THE STREETS

I'm not sure what the legal requirement is for brakes in NYC. It might be the old "can skid the rear wheel" requirement, in which case the guy is legal (the lack of a bell not being a problem since he appears to be white).

In PA, the requirement is "can stop in 15 feet from 15 mph". *I* can't do that on a fixie, but maybe someone else with more skilz can get sideways for 15 ft. Stopping is overrated anyway.

Berlin banned brakeless bikes.

--In PA, the requirement is "can stop in 15 feet from 15 mph". *I* can't do that on a fixie, but maybe someone else with more skilz can get sideways for 15 ft. Stopping is overrated anyway.

It also says a "braking system" is required. And while I guess with a fixie it would technically be braking, I do wonder whether or not that would stand up in court as "Braking System".

riding a fixid gear bike without brakes is no more dangerous than every bike that has coaster brakes without handbrakes... and every bike that only has one handbrake (my singlespeed bike only has one handbrake right now... you wouldn't complain about that if you saw it in a video)... some people choose to do it for whatever reason, its not that much more dangerous, try it sometime. that being said i think that all fixed gear bikes should have brakes, and everyone should wear helmets, and that riding in nyc is awesome.

I usually don't care to involve myself in brakes vs no brakes debates, but I guess I will, because there are some falsehoods up in here.

First, a braking system that allows modulation right up to the point of a skid will always out-stop a braking system that does not. In other words, a quality coaster brake will stop shorter than a fixed wheel. A skid is a terribly inefficient way to stop.

Second, the location of a brake has a lot to do with how quickly you can stop. A brake on the front wheel will be able to apply more force before locking up, decreasing stopping distance vs a bike with brake only on the rear wheel.

Now whether or not all this will prevent you from getting wrecked out on the streets of NYC is an entirely different topic that I will not get into.

It's been a while since we've had the old hand brakes / drivetrain brakes debate around here. Carry on.

I always wonder how much riding experience (& to some very very small degree reaction time) matters more than brake choice. Of course if you're routinely hitting pedestrians you should probably put a front brake on. I mean that Bianchi Pista fork is drilled anyway.

Personal disclosure: several bikes but mostly fixie + hand--aka "going down Negley"--brake.

PS: on topic, you shouldn't hit people with your lock. I don't know what happened in that video but I didn't feel sympathetic for that cyclist.

It's been a while since we've had the old hand brakes / drivetrain brakes debate around here. Carry on.

Funny, I was thinking just this afternoon that we were about due for a helmet discussion.

"I play my Australian Whole-Population Study card!"

"I counter with Snell Institute Propaganda!"

"I summon the demon Risk Compensation!"

"I cast Psychology Skepticism!"

"I cast aspersions on your intelligence!"

"I insult your mother!"

I seem to remember someone that talked about redundancy in braking systems when it came to brakes on a fixed bike.

Where'd he go?

I kid, I kid.

Also my wife's got a headache going on 3 days from a blow to the head from a mini ulock wielded by my 2 year old. Anybody make a trigger lock for these things?

your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries.

i bet he'll take the 'bents are unsafe and should be off the roads to the grave too, dan... especially fixed gear brakeless 'bents... i would like to try that out.

My view as a cyclist and someone who will be an old Asian some day: The cyclist didn't really try hard to get away until he swung the lock a few times--that's a poor argument for self defense in my book.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that if you honestly feel like your life is being threatened, you need to do whatever you can to live--actively trying to get away first, u-lock swinging later.

I agree with ndanger. I can't remember the last time that I had to stop in a real emergency. It's more that knowing how quickly I can stop allows me to follow cars more (too?) closely, descend faster, and ride harder right up to a stop light. There's your "Risk Compensation".

I once saw a chart comparing the stopping distance of different vehicles: cars, trucks, motorcycles, bikes. Wish I could find it now. Nutshell: cars stop best, loaded trucks stop worst. But that assumed two brakes on the bike.

Reminds me I need to go adjust my front caliper now.

"I seem to remember someone that talked about redundancy in braking systems when it came to brakes on a fixed bike."

I remember those days too. And then I tried it. It's not for everyone and it's not for every situation or every bicycle, but given the right equipment and the right rider I think the past few years have proven that it's as safe as any other city cycling. There simply isn't an overwhelming number of drivetrain brake bikes running into the backs of cars and pedestrians as many people (myself included) predicted when the fixed gear bandwagon left the yard.

There are certainly instances of people without brakes running into things, just as there are instances of people with two disc brakes running into things. If the lack of handbrakes on a track bike causes every crash they are involved in, they it follows that the caliper brakes on a conventional road bike must be responsible for every crash they are involved with.

"... have proven that it's as safe ..."

I can't agree that it's proven, as I don't think we have good data. Most bike injuries go unreported. I just hear rumors, secondhand. If there was total carnage, yeah, we'd probably hear about it.

All things considered, the risk of riding brakeless is completely insignificant compared to riding after dark with no headlight and a half-dead red blinky pointed at the moon.

Brad, no need for an explanation, jut a bit of good natured ribbing.

I agree, most riding in the city is easily accomplished with a brakeless fixed bike. Honestly the 50's cruiser I used to ride around was probably harder to stop than most track bikes. Way over geared, heavy, short crank arms, and a coaster brake that either barely slowed the bike, or was locked up.

"....the risk of riding brakeless is completely insignificant compared to riding after dark with no headlight and a half-dead red blinky pointed at the moon."

Agreed. Heck I ride with my Lights on during the day when im commuting. My blaze headlight especially makes a big difference in visibility, even during the day. I was a bit shocked the first day I rode with it on. It was pretty light out, like 9am.. and cars actually let me into traffic. Maybe the driver just had a seizure from the strobe, but I was impressed.

I have been riding in the AM with my lights on but not blinking lately.

I figure if its bright enough for me to see the path, then I dont need the light on constant. The blinking makes me more visible to others.. Just my thoughts anyway.

I saw a couple of people riding in the bus lane with strobing headlights the other day, and while they were clearly visible, it was hard for me to figure out how fast they were moving or where they were going. It was a good idea, but I think maybe the lights were actually TOO bright.

Motorcycles have gizmos that make the light pulse for visibility, but it doesn't go between dark and bright.

Hah.. That was probably us. I guess I can appreciate the speed judgement thing. Al these questions I feel sure have been in answered in some study done by some insurance company or university. The only thing I can remember offhand applied to cars, but it was the same basic concept. Even during daylight hours, a car with its headlights on was visible and recognizable from more that twice the distance of a car with no headlights on.

As for other people being able to judge speed, it seems most cars way underestimate how fast a road cyclist is going anyway.. lights or no lights. But having heard your observations, it is definitely something I will keep in mind.