Stop sign sting

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Davo on August 19, 2010 at 10:47am

"In a utopian world, there would be no need for cars or they would run on water and "pollute" with rainbows out the tailpipe, everyone would have a sweet bike and accidents wouldn't happen."

That would be so fn sweet. I wonder how the double rainbow guy would react to that. Probably a heart attack.

As far as the OP. Thanks for the heads up on the sting. IMO this is no different than seat belt stings that you see from time to time. It is not anti-bike it is pro-safety.

I also believe that some of us have to realize that we live in a world with laws you can choose to follow or not to follow them. There are consiquences to either decision. I (like most cyclist) blow through the occasional stop sign/red light and would be pissed if I got busted. However, that is the risk I take and will take responcibility for it if it happens.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on August 19, 2010 at 11:10am

Actually, I do know something about you: you at least seem to be immature and self-centered. Now if it's all a front, I'd recommend growing out of the macho-man BS. People will respect you more if you don't seem like a teenager who doesn't give a crap about anyone else.

"Again, I say f'k the stop signs and the cops who try to enforce them. They can't catch me anyway, HAHA!!"

I think that proves, or at least illustrates, my point about immaturity. FYI, you can't outrun police radio, and Chicago isn't a one-squad-car town (though they probably wouldn't take up the chase unfortunately).

As for beer, I only drink with people I respect.

Eddie said:

That's your opinion, as you know nothing about me. And opinions are like assholes (like you), everyone has one. If you have a gripe with me, then maybe we need to sit down, have a beer or two, and discuss it. Otherwise, I'll still think your an asshole for pointing fingers at me over the safety of the internet

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

Hahaha, what? I didn't realize danger and order were always related in that way. I guess I should install my bottom bracket cups before the bottom bracket. There's no danger there because I won't be going anywhere with an empty bottom bracket shell.

Just admit that you don't give a damn about anyone's time or safety other than your own.

Eddie said:

There would be less stop signs. Bikes are smaller, very easy to manuver, do very little if no damage when crashed. There could be reason to have less order. As danger goes down then so should order (e.g. stop signs, lights, etc).
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

Let's say there were less cars and more bikes. Wouldn't the increase in bike riders still make stop signs necessary?

Eddie said:

Did you even read my message? I think you misunderstood. I choose to break the law when my safety is not compromised. And again, (if you didn't hear it the first time), if there weren't so many cars, we wouldn't have so many stop signs. And personnally, I think that if you drive a car, you should be penalized with more stop signs. If not for the mere fact that you are more dangerous, and you polute.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

As it stands now, yes, Same Road, Same Rights, Same Rules. If you have a problem with it, try to get it changed. Just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean you don't have to follow it. I'm sure all cyclists would be overjoyed if motorists decided to run red lights with abandon, etc. I have a feeling the number of ghost bikes would skyrocket.

Eddie said:

...Not the same speed, weight, and killing power, hence not the same rules. Cars suck, and if there weren't so many, we wouldn't need all these stop signs. F'k the stop signs, and the cops who try to enforce them!! It's my life, and my time, and I choose when to stop, and when not to.
Regards,
A guy who has already been run over by a stupid driver.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

While this should be enforced for all road users, keep in mind that blowing a stop sign carries graver danger for a cyclist than a motorist.

Remember - Same Road, Same Rights, Same Rules.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 19, 2010 at 11:31am

1. Not very many cars have 500hp.

2. You can;t out run the radio.

Eddie said:

I hate to say it but dude, do the math; a 2000lb car with 500hp VS a 20lb bike with 0.5hp? Which needs more rules to keep safe? Which is more dangerous? And what is the incentive for motorists to get on a bike, and out of their cars? If keeping the rules the same for bikes and cars, then that's one less worry for the lazy driver to get off his/her a$$ and be a cleaner, better looking part of society. Again, I say f'k the stop signs and the cops who try to enforce them. They can't catch me anyway, HAHA!!

Vando said:

I have a hard time being convinced that in an all-bike or mostly-bike city, fewer road controls would be needed. IMO, the basic need for traffic control would carry over from cars to bikes; unsafe, irresponsible operators.

I'm sure many of us here have witnessed cyclists at bike-centric events like CCM and Bike the Drive operating their bikes irresponsibly and unsafely. There are always those who choose to ride their own personal TT, weave unpredictably, pass too close or without warning etc. Without the threat of potentially colliding with an automobile, I can only imagine these types of riders pushing it even more.

Also I think it is a weak argument to say bikes do less damage. Break a leg or an arm or sustain a head injury in a bike on bike collision, and you might be sidelined for weeks or worse. How, in an all-bike city, would you conduct your business with a broken limb and no busses or cars to get around on?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 19, 2010 at 11:33am

How is discussing it over the internet any different beyond there being a record of it for others to see?

How does the internet imply safety and how is having a discussion a dangerous activity?

Eddie said:

That's your opinion, as you know nothing about me. And opinions are like assholes (like you), everyone has one. If you have a gripe with me, then maybe we need to sit down, have a beer or two, and discuss it. Otherwise, I'll still think your an asshole for pointing fingers at me over the safety of the internet

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

Hahaha, what? I didn't realize danger and order were always related in that way. I guess I should install my bottom bracket cups before the bottom bracket. There's no danger there because I won't be going anywhere with an empty bottom bracket shell.

Just admit that you don't give a damn about anyone's time or safety other than your own.

Eddie said:

There would be less stop signs. Bikes are smaller, very easy to manuver, do very little if no damage when crashed. There could be reason to have less order. As danger goes down then so should order (e.g. stop signs, lights, etc).
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

Let's say there were less cars and more bikes. Wouldn't the increase in bike riders still make stop signs necessary?

Eddie said:

Did you even read my message? I think you misunderstood. I choose to break the law when my safety is not compromised. And again, (if you didn't hear it the first time), if there weren't so many cars, we wouldn't have so many stop signs. And personnally, I think that if you drive a car, you should be penalized with more stop signs. If not for the mere fact that you are more dangerous, and you polute.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

As it stands now, yes, Same Road, Same Rights, Same Rules. If you have a problem with it, try to get it changed. Just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean you don't have to follow it. I'm sure all cyclists would be overjoyed if motorists decided to run red lights with abandon, etc. I have a feeling the number of ghost bikes would skyrocket.

Eddie said:

...Not the same speed, weight, and killing power, hence not the same rules. Cars suck, and if there weren't so many, we wouldn't need all these stop signs. F'k the stop signs, and the cops who try to enforce them!! It's my life, and my time, and I choose when to stop, and when not to.
Regards,
A guy who has already been run over by a stupid driver.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

While this should be enforced for all road users, keep in mind that blowing a stop sign carries graver danger for a cyclist than a motorist.

Remember - Same Road, Same Rights, Same Rules.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 19, 2010 at 11:36am

This proves one of my points; even without stop signs you still need to have enforced rules regarding the right of way at intersections and that is just another form of traffic control.

Duppie said:

You are on to something.
I did grow up in a town of about 6000 people in the Netherlands and the general lack of traffic signs is enlightening. Last time I visited the town I do not remember seeing a single stop sign.
To put this in perspective: This town is nothing like Amsterdam, Copenhagen, or any of the other big European cities that often get mentioned (and often are held up as a beacon, but in reality are so far above Chicago that striving to emulate them is naive at best). I think (no real proof here) that cycling rates are well below 20%. There is not a single bike specific piece of traffic infrastructure in the entire town.

So to say that high cycling rates caused the decline in stop signs is not necessarily correct. Western European countries have been able to remove stop signs by a consistently applying right of way laws. If you come from the right, you do get the right of way, whether you are a car, a bike or pretty much any other mode of transportation. So if no traffic is coming from the right, a car can move through the intersection at 30 mph (the max speed in most residential areas in the Netherlands) Couple that with:
• rigid enforcement (In the Netherlands drivers do get ticketed for moving violations on average once a year. Even as bicyclists you didn’t ignore red lights, since the risk is too high),
• a traffic style that I think is a lot more aggressive than in Chicago (you have the right of way? You take it, damn it, even if that means cutting of the other traffic),
• and a much better drivers education system that here in the US (I had to take the theoretical test twice and the practical exam three times, and I was about average),
• road design that channels car traffic onto major streets, thereby making residential areas low traffic areas
and it leads to a traffic situation that is a lot more predictable and better flowing

This would be a hard thing to pull off in the US and in Chicago specifically, since generally our traffic design isn’t based on right-has-the-right-of-way. On top of that we as bicyclists would have to stop acting as the outlaws that we pretend to be, and give that car coming from the right the right of way. That last part might be hard


payton said:

America's traffic death rates are three to four times higher than in Denmark or the Netherlands, and urban cycling rates there are 30 or 40 times higher -- but stop signs are incredibly rare in both countries. Stoplights, in my experience, are comparatively rare and yield signs are commonplace. I described cycling across Copenhagen recently as "an effortless revelation" since you really don't think all that much about stopping. The big streets are timed for bike travel, and there isn't very much car traffic to yield for since everyone's on a bike and taking that much less space. The mass transit network is plush but not at all frequent and kind of underutilized.
This has nothing to do with having exceptionally law-abiding and polite societies, either; per capita, more total crimes are actually reported to the police in either country than in the USA. Nor are these theoretical constructs: they're functioning places (Danes are the world's happiest people!) that are just about as rich as us, it's just that they're much less likely to violently die. Why do Americans continue to put up with this bloodshed?
Vando said:

I have a hard time being convinced that in an all-bike or mostly-bike city, fewer road controls would be needed. IMO, the basic need for traffic control would carry over from cars to bikes; unsafe, irresponsible operators.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 19, 2010 at 11:39am

Strong words and insults do not equal hate and never have.

Duppie said:

That's a good point you make there, Dug. It's too bad that you don't apply this mantra too yourself. I've repeatedly seen posts from you that are so full of profanity and personal attacks that hate doesn't even begin to describe it.

If you really think that the hate needs to stop on this forum, maybe you can start by setting the good example that others can follow?

notoriousDUG said:

It seems out of place coming from me but if people stopped being so full of hate and were willing to give a little ground, compromise and have realistic expectations of what changes can actually be made right now it would be easier to enact change.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on August 19, 2010 at 11:47am

I agree that folks often seem to be a little over the top with the labels on this forum (e.g. any disagreement becomes "hate") although I do think we have a bona-fide "flame war" in this thread-- hopefully one of the players will be big enough to walk away.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack on August 19, 2010 at 11:57am

Eddy, I would like to say what most people on here are trying to (somewhat) nicely say:

Quit being a *edit* jerk.

Eddie said:

And you should get the point of hp ratio between cars and bikes. Your an idiot if you don't...pussyDIV>

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on August 19, 2010 at 12:15pm

I don't think this is true. The right-has-right-of-way principle was beaten into my head vigorously as I came of driving age and I've since held it as SOP.

Duppie said:

This would be a hard thing to pull off in the US and in Chicago specifically, since generally our traffic design isn’t based on right-has-the-right-of-way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on August 19, 2010 at 12:17pm

Huh? Is this supposed to help?

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on August 19, 2010 at 12:57pm

Hey, let's try something just for fun. Suppose I'm walking to wherever it is I'm walking to and am about to cross a controlled intersection at the clearly marked pedestrian crosswalk. I step off the curb and suddenly find myself sprawled out on the pavement with multiple lacerations, and broken nose and what appear to be two new places where my arm hadn't been able to bend before after being clobbered by somebody that couldn't be bothered to put their foot down for a precious few seconds. Should I hope that they were thoughtful enough to take out basic liability coverage on that shiny new Madone? Does something like that even exist? Come to think of it, should that be a requirement?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 19, 2010 at 2:01pm

It is a well known fact I am a tiny, tiny man.

Take that as you will.

H3N3 said:

I agree that folks often seem to be a little over the top with the labels on this forum (e.g. any disagreement becomes "hate") although I do think we have a bona-fide "flame war" in this thread-- hopefully one of the players will be big enough to walk away.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 14
• Next ›
• Page