It is me or there's no rear brake?
Without suspension at the front, this asks for front flips whenever I touch the brakes too hard..
Have you ever tried braking while going down a steep hill? (e.g. San Fran hills?) You know, to stay at a safe speed? Front brake will flip you over in an instant, I know because I've done it, even at slow speeds, when my rear brake cable snapped. After a couple tries I walked home, since bicycling without a rear brake was clearly suicidal.
And your linked article just talks about the rider flying over the handlebars because the rider isn't "bracing themselves against deceleration" -- whatever that means. I'm talking about the bike itself flipping.
That's because you simply do not know how to ride a bicycle. In such a situation you need to get your weight back behind the saddle and modulate the application of the brake.
O.P. is one hundred percent correct that you do not need a rear brake -- and I speak as someone that rode for several years in without one including in SF.
http://www.bikeforums.net/tandem-cycling/52661-shaving-arai-...
I don't know how your particular weight is distributed on your particular bicycle or what, but you're spreading dangerously wrong ideas.
If you're going downhill and a child runs out in the street from between cars and you need to stop, and you're a normal person on a normal bike, you need a rear brake, end of story.
If you modulate your front brake to not lock up, that simply means you stop far too slowly, and hit the kid. Even at what seems like otherwise a safe speed, things (like children, or soccer balls) can run out in front of you at the last second and you need to stop suddenly.
You absolutely need a rear brake for safety. Just because you could get by without one in most situations doesn't mean you can get by without one in all situations.
"You should always apply the rear brake, and slightly in advance of the front brake, so that a slight skid at the rear will warn you if you get close to the hazard point at which the bike may tip."
"Flat asphalt is one thing, 30 degrees sloped rocky road is another. My hold is that in the second case the back brake is MORE important than the front brake."
"I myself got into the accident once. It happens so fast that you never have time to lean your body backwards and provide more tractions for the rear wheel like other have stated."
"Depending on where your center of mass "hovers" over your bike, you may need a different strategy."
"Having had more than a few over-the-handlebar incidents back in the day, there is no situation in which I would ever even consider using only the front brake again."
"On the road bike you are alot lower and therefore don't go over the front quite as quickly."
"If you learn to move your weight back (ideally behind your saddle) during strong braking then going over the handle bars is nearly impossible (except under very steep hills)." (Note the "steep hills" part, which is my whole point about safety.)
"On mountain bike, the momentum partly transferred to seat and pedal as a result from a more up-right pedalling position. Remember that your body is about 3-5 times the weight of the bicycle, and they are on top of the bike. So the higher you are from the ground, the easier for you to toppled up."
[1] http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/10918/do-skilled...
[2] http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/25856/why-do-we-...
It would be refreshing if you were able to demonstrate a capacity for admitting that perhaps you have something to learn. I would advise taking a mountain bike class and coupling it with something like the U.K.'s Bikeability or the U.S.A.'s League of American Bicyclists equivalent.
I fear, instead, that you will spend your time hectoring internet strangers about the dangers of bicycle riding based on your own incapacities and incapabilities.
Good luck.
If you're going down a hill and you need to do an emergency stop, the back wheel won't do you any good. The rule of thumb I was taught was that the back wheel will only provide 1G of deceleration, under ideal circumstances. If the road is wet, or there are leaves, assume less.
If anything, the rear brake can be used to slightly pump up the front fork, which allows the front wheel to find its own way through mud/leaves/snow. Basically, apply a touch of rear brake when you go through a slippery curve, squeeze the frame between your thighs, and let the bike find its own path.
If you take into account that during braking, and even more so during an emergency brake, all the inertial weight lies on the front wheel, it makes a lot of sense that the rear brake is so useless.
In France, bikers call their passengers "SDS," which stands for "sac de sable" (sandbag). Very useful to increase grip of the back wheel when accelerating strongly. Not when braking.
I've actually faced the "child jumping out from behind a parked car" before, and I passed that test. When I jammed hard on both the front and rear, both tires locked, the rear tire swung around the side until even with the front (at that point it was no longer behind the COG so it rotated down instead of up), and I twisted my back foot to unclip and stomp. I looked at her, she looked at me, then she ran on across the street. Glad I wasn't driving a car!
I'm riding downhill with my bikes, and I can safely do that with front brake only as long as that thing doesn't overhead. Even things like front-only braking on steep stairs is no problem with the correct body position (not over the front wheel) and brake force applied.
I have been riding for 15 years without a rear brake and have never come close to going over the front. Not that I would recommend it to other folks, the redundancy argument is valid, but it is not unsafe at all.
Bike brakes aren't a binary system. You can adjust your touch on the brake levers to apply varying levels of friction against the braking surface to shave off speed.
Bike brakes aren't a binary system. You can adjust your touch on the brake levers to apply varying levels of friction against the braking surface to shave off speed. Hope this helps!
It is more powerful because as the bike rocks forward the wheel is pushed into the ground and has more friction with the surface. The rear brake will loose grip under braking because it rises up from the ground. Aggressive braking in the rear is more dangerous because the wheel can lock up and skid, which can send you over the handlebars. The back brake tends to be setup to be more relaxed to stop people doing this. Maybe that is why people think it is safer.
With a bit of practice you can get much better braking force from a front brake. Try it out on some grass, and see how far you take it before the back wheel starts to rise. You will find that you can stop much faster, which will make you safer. Just try it and see.
Using only one brake also avoids confusion between them, so you won't by accident slam the front one.
(This bike does have a rear brake too, so it's fine)
Edit: About winter biking, cables tend to freeze in the winter if you're not meticulous about maintenance. So automatic gears and coaster rear brake are good for this reason too.
If you slam on the rear brake only or simply much harder than the front brake, the rear wheel locks up before coming to a stop. The bike will continue forward with the front wheel rolling and the rear wheel sliding. If there's slight braking on the front wheel, the rear starts sliding around the front, twisting the cyclist.
The problem is someone who uses the rear brake 99% of the time, then grabs the front brake when someone steps in front of them...
When you use the front brake, you can brake harder because this torque is pushing the front wheel into the ground. Instead, the limit on front wheel braking is the torque required to toss the rider over the handlebars. This is a function of their weight & how far back behind the saddle they can get their backsides:)
(This second limit means that a car can significantly outbrake a cyclist. Bicycles need more stopping distance than cars do if they need to carry out an emergency stop.)