What Does Everybody Have Against Brakes?

Recently I was riding through a trendy neighborhood in Brooklyn when I saw a guy locking his bike to a post. Naturally I quickly scan and assess any bike that enters my field of vision. This particular bike appeared to be a garden-variety 80s fixie conversion--with no brakes, of course. However, as my eyes made their way to the rear dropouts, I noticed something: a coaster brake, attached to the left chainstay with some metal wire.

Is this what people have come to? Are some people really so desperate to adapt the no-brake fixie look that instead of installing a decent caliper they will adapt perhaps the crudest braking system since the rod-operated spoon brake? Clearly, the rider I saw acknowledges the necessity of having a brake. Why not then simply affix a light, elegant, and powerful modern dual-pivot? I'd have to think a coaster brake-equipped singlespeed would stop even worse than a fixie with no brakes.

(And can somebody please explain to me why fixie riders who do have front brakes still skip-stop or skid in order to slow down? Do they give away free tires in Williamsburg or something?)

This absurd disregard for function and practicality goes beyond the urban fashion victim as well. As a mediocre rider, I have ample opportunity during road races to analyze the equipment choices of other riders, particularly on the rear of the bicycle. As such, I can tell you that roadies, now more than ever, are using their brakes as a way to proudly announce that they have way more money than sense. Sure, roadies will always shave grams and sacrifice quality for light weight, and going for a lighter, crappy single-pivot brake like those Dia Compe/Cane Creek units has always been a quick and dirty way to do so.

But now the lightweight brakes, while still crappy, are astoundingly expensive as well. One popular brake choice lately is the Zero Gravity.

These machined pieces of crap will compromise your braking power and save you the gram equivalent of a bladder's worth of urine for over $400. Their site actually has the audacity to boldly ask you if you've "Upgraded yet?" Yes, I have. To cold-forged dual pivots that were about a fraction of the price.

Even worse is the M5. I've been seeing way more of these hideous banana clips than I should be:

These suckers go for over $500 a pair, and Excelsports says that they are powerful but warns that you should "take a pass if you are more interested in modulation." Yes, I prefer to either be moving fast or lying in a crumpled heap after I've gone flying over my bars. None of that pesky "slowing down" for me. (Oh, by the way, brake pads aren't included. That might explain the modulation issues.)

So what is it? What is so repulsive about the functional brake that people will either sacrifice their tires skid-stopping at every light or spend half a grand on aluminum billet monstrosities in order to do without them? Last time I checked, quality, high-end brakes from the usual suspects were not only lightweight and responsive, but reasonably-priced as well. I suppose that may be it--people do seem averse to those qualities when it comes to bicycle equipment.

I for one am thankful that the mountain-biking world still recognizes the need in cycling for braking systems that offer power and modulation, and that as such some companies are still trying to actually improve brakes. You see, when you ride your bike a lot you actually want brakes that work well. I think that if mountain biking were to disappear the next high-end braking system would be a rubber stopper you affix to the heel of your carbon fiber-soled shoe.