Stop Sign Check Point - 8/26/2011
I was just wondering if anyone else got stopped at rush hour for not "stopping" at the intersection of Milwaukee, Clinton and Fulton? I mean, I get it, but it really bothered me given that just a few 100 feet up Fulton bikers are run off the road for turning traffic and the Milwaukee bus stop. (Not to mention all the craziness in the Loop)
The cop also told me that "ideally" bikes should be stopping fully, including putting both feet on the ground at the stop sign. I'm sure cars will totally yield right of way to a cyclist having to start from a dead stop.
Anyways, just curious people's thoughts on this. Thanks!
Views: 1436
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rhea Butcher on
-
I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.
I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie on
-
Dan,
I agree with your argument. But to make this reality you might need to adjust your messaging. This "car bad- bike good" argument is going to be rejected by the majority of people in this country.
Dan Korn said:I stand by my statement as a rebuttal to Jeff's comment about "the bloody mayhem of todays road madness" coming to an end only when "all users of the roads" change their behavior. The bloody mayhem, which I take to mean serious injuries and fatalities, is almost solely caused by motor vehicles. It's (the drivers of) cars and trucks doing the killing, and only they can stop doing it.
Let's deal in some facts: On average, one pedestrian is killed every single week in the city of Chicago, by a motor vehicle. Exactly zero are killed by bicycles, even the ones operated by yahoos who run red lights and ride the wrong way and do all sorts of stupid things.
We can all come up with hypothetical, imagined "Rube Goldberg" scenarios of crashes being caused by errant cyclists. And we can all recite anecdotes about "almost" getting hit by a cyclist, or "nearly" getting killed. But none of those nice stories change the facts.
You can even scour the entire nation to find one specific example of a pedestrian being killed in a crash with a bicycle, and while that's a fact, and a tragedy, it's still anecdotal, and statistically, it's rarer than someone being killed by a bee sting.
Chris B asserts that, "Elderly pedestrians and children are the most vulnerable to some cyclist who is not paying attention." Yet, if we look again at the facts, the number one killer of children and young adults in the United States is motor vehicle crashes. Not just in traffic, but overall. Creating a rhetorical equivalence between the dangers posed by bikes and cars by characterizing them as merely "relative" is misleading at best. That's like saying that the danger posed by jumping off the top of the Willis Tower is "relative" to the danger posed by jumping off a milk crate. So it may be true that if someone is doing something dumb on a bike, it's more dangerous to children and elderly people than it is to other people, but it's certainly true that that danger is statistically insignificant compared to the danger that kids, along with the elderly and just about everyone else, face from cars. If you want to save the lives of children, it's about cars, not about bikes.
So, yes, the absolutism of my statement that "Bad cyclists don't kill anyone" is not literally true. There are lots of ways that people can do stupid things which endanger other people. But far and away, people doing stupid things, and even not-so-stupid things, in cars, is what makes our roads so deadly.
-
Permalink Reply by Joel on
-
If there are other cars at the intersection, you need to stop, or at the very least slow down until they wave you through. If they have already come to a stop before you get there, they have every right to be pulling out into the intersection -- which puts you in danger if you don't stop.
In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely. You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn.
Rhea Butcher said:I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.
I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.
-
Permalink Reply by ad on
-
Not to stir the pot, but what exactly is your point? I don't think anyone on here is working under the false premise that cars are not extremely dangerous when operated in a negligent manner (or even when they're not being negligent), especially in realtion to pedestrians and cyclists on the roads. We all (presumably) ride bikes and understand the dangers cars present.Exactly how does all of that excuse a cyclist's conduct in acting reckless, though? Just because a car is a much more dangerous instrument doesn't give a cyclist a license to act however they want. You're essentially creating this false dichotomy where people can't be concerned about both types of reckless conduct.
True, there needs to be a much greater focus than there is now on catching/educating/preventing reckless autombile drivers who endanger pedestrians and cyclists. There also needs to be a greater focus across the nation on properly prosecuting crash-related crimes when they occur. That said, I'm not going to get upset when the City assigns three or four officers to conduct what amounts to an educational outreach program for cyclists for a few hours a couple times a summer. Based on the sketchy things I've seen both cars and cyclists commit on City streets this summer, I would say there is quite a bit of room for improvement on both sides.
To the extent you're saying we need to redesign laws to take into account the realities of riding a bicycle, I'm fine with that and all for it. Under any system of laws, though, a cyclist is going to at least have to yield the right of way in certain situations. The reckless cyclists I'm concerned about (i.e., the ones cutting lights in busy intersections and running stops when pedestrians and cars in the other direction have the right of way) out there simply aren't doing that, however.
Dan Korn said:I stand by my statement as a rebuttal to Jeff's comment about "the bloody mayhem of todays road madness" coming to an end only when "all users of the roads" change their behavior. The bloody mayhem, which I take to mean serious injuries and fatalities, is almost solely caused by motor vehicles. It's (the drivers of) cars and trucks doing the killing, and only they can stop doing it.
Let's deal in some facts: On average, one pedestrian is killed every single week in the city of Chicago, by a motor vehicle. Exactly zero are killed by bicycles, even the ones operated by yahoos who run red lights and ride the wrong way and do all sorts of stupid things.
We can all come up with hypothetical, imagined "Rube Goldberg" scenarios of crashes being caused by errant cyclists. And we can all recite anecdotes about "almost" getting hit by a cyclist, or "nearly" getting killed. But none of those nice stories change the facts.
You can even scour the entire nation to find one specific example of a pedestrian being killed in a crash with a bicycle, and while that's a fact, and a tragedy, it's still anecdotal, and statistically, it's rarer than someone being killed by a bee sting.
Chris B asserts that, "Elderly pedestrians and children are the most vulnerable to some cyclist who is not paying attention." Yet, if we look again at the facts, the number one killer of children and young adults in the United States is motor vehicle crashes. Not just in traffic, but overall. Creating a rhetorical equivalence between the dangers posed by bikes and cars by characterizing them as merely "relative" is misleading at best. That's like saying that the danger posed by jumping off the top of the Willis Tower is "relative" to the danger posed by jumping off a milk crate. So it may be true that if someone is doing something dumb on a bike, it's more dangerous to children and elderly people than it is to other people, but it's certainly true that that danger is statistically insignificant compared to the danger that kids, along with the elderly and just about everyone else, face from cars. If you want to save the lives of children, it's about cars, not about bikes.
So, yes, the absolutism of my statement that "Bad cyclists don't kill anyone" is not literally true. There are lots of ways that people can do stupid things which endanger other people. But far and away, people doing stupid things, and even not-so-stupid things, in cars, is what makes our roads so deadly.
-
-
It is my favorite justification for any poor behavior, "My behavior isn't bad because there is someone doing something even worse than me."
ad said:
Exactly how does all of that excuse a cyclist's conduct in acting reckless, though? Just because a car is a much more dangerous instrument doesn't give a cyclist a license to act however they want. You're essentially creating this false dichotomy where people can't be concerned about both types of reckless conduct.
-
-
"In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely. You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn."
-What exactly do you do to "show" you are going to stop? Because in this particular situation, I believe I "showed" I was slowing down by looking in all 5 directions before proceeding. While considerably slowing down. I guess this issue is the issue itself, we either have to follow rules designed for cars or it's a very subjective system. This is why I think intersections should have rules for cars, peds and bikes.
Joel said:If there are other cars at the intersection, you need to stop, or at the very least slow down until they wave you through. If they have already come to a stop before you get there, they have every right to be pulling out into the intersection -- which puts you in danger if you don't stop.
In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely. You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn.
Rhea Butcher said:I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.
I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.
-
-
Slow to less than 3mph, just enough to keep your momentum and not have to restart. Make eye contact with the stopped driver and wait for their signal that you can go through. If there is more than one car at the intersection, stop.
Rhea Butcher said:
"In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely. You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn."
-What exactly do you do to "show" you are going to stop? Because in this particular situation, I believe I "showed" I was slowing down by looking in all 5 directions before proceeding. While considerably slowing down. I guess this issue is the issue itself, we either have to follow rules designed for cars or it's a very subjective system. This is why I think intersections should have rules for cars, peds and bikes.
Joel said:If there are other cars at the intersection, you need to stop, or at the very least slow down until they wave you through. If they have already come to a stop before you get there, they have every right to be pulling out into the intersection -- which puts you in danger if you don't stop.
In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely. You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn.
Rhea Butcher said:I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.
I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.
-
-
Interesting. Maybe my problem is that I wear sunglasses. ;)
-
-
What would you propose as a change in the law for cyclists approaching a four way stop situation where other cars are already present and have the right of way under current law?
No matter how we redesign the laws, there is conceivably going to have to be some type of "right of way" recognition on shared roads on the part of cyclists requiring them to stop on occassion. Even things like the Idaho stop legislation, which itself is hard enough to get passed, requires cyclists to stop and yield the right of way to cars or pedestrians who legally have it by reaching the intersection first.
Rhea Butcher said:"In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely. You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn."
-What exactly do you do to "show" you are going to stop? Because in this particular situation, I believe I "showed" I was slowing down by looking in all 5 directions before proceeding. While considerably slowing down. I guess this issue is the issue itself, we either have to follow rules designed for cars or it's a very subjective system. This is why I think intersections should have rules for cars, peds and bikes.
Joel said:If there are other cars at the intersection, you need to stop, or at the very least slow down until they wave you through. If they have already come to a stop before you get there, they have every right to be pulling out into the intersection -- which puts you in danger if you don't stop.
In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely. You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn.
Rhea Butcher said:I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.
I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.
-
-
When talking about changing laws, I am talking about what constitutes a stop. Apologies for not being clear. I am not advocating blowing through a sign or light when there are clearly cars or peds present, with the right of way.
ad said:What would you propose as a change in the law for cyclists approaching a four way stop situation where other cars are already present and have the right of way under current law?
No matter how we redesign the laws, there is conceivably going to have to be some type of "right of way" recognition on shared roads on the part of cyclists requiring them to stop on occassion. Even things like the Idaho stop legislation, which itself is hard enough to get passed, requires cyclists to stop and yield the right of way to cars or pedestrians who legally have it by reaching the intersection first.
Rhea Butcher said:"In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely. You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn."
-What exactly do you do to "show" you are going to stop? Because in this particular situation, I believe I "showed" I was slowing down by looking in all 5 directions before proceeding. While considerably slowing down. I guess this issue is the issue itself, we either have to follow rules designed for cars or it's a very subjective system. This is why I think intersections should have rules for cars, peds and bikes.
Joel said:If there are other cars at the intersection, you need to stop, or at the very least slow down until they wave you through. If they have already come to a stop before you get there, they have every right to be pulling out into the intersection -- which puts you in danger if you don't stop.
In my experience, if you slow down to show that you are going to stop, drivers will wave you through politely. You just can't assume they aren't going to go when it is legally their turn.
Rhea Butcher said:I did not get a ticket on this particular evening. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating "blowing" lights and stop signs. My opinion is that their needs to be separate (not better or easier) laws/rules for bikes as opposed to cars. We are not cars, therefore the same structure cannot and shouldn't apply. There are different rules for pedestrians, why aren't there different rules for bikes? We don't have a combustion engines or disc brakes at the touch of a button. I highly doubt that if I came to a complete stop that I would be able to get through the intersection in even a timely matter. I have little faith that cars will wait for me to get my bike moving again and get through the large intersection.
I also agree 100% with Dan. I also drive, btw.
-
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on
-
I see this thread still has people trying to pound the square peg of laws meant for cars into the round hole of applying them universally to bicycles -regardless of how poorly they fit.
Most people will say they are all for laws and following them to the letter but if you actually pay attention out on the roads you'll see that the vast majority of the people using them are breaking many of the laws most of the time.
In theory there is no difference between theory and reality. But to anyone actually observing what is going on it is obvious that the system we have is not working -and just expecting everyone to somehow miraculously begin following all these myriad of traffic laws that are almost universally ignored (even if fines are jacked up to crazy levels) is naive at best.
Law were meant to serve people -not the other way around. When they are obviously not working and people are universally ignoring them it's just easier to fix the rules rather than try even harder to jam the square peg in the round hole with a bigger hammer.
-
-
I understand your point Jennifer but I ride nearly every day. I see the reality of the street and in reality 90% of the people riding bicycles in the city are already Idaho stopping.
In fact, while I may seem pretty hard-core online what i see out there on the road is well over half of other riders flaunting the rules much more than I ever do. (people shoaling up through the crosswalks, douchy circles in the middle of the intersection waiting for a spot to dash though the red light, stuff like that that I never do)
While I see a majority of people here on the chainlink claim that we should all be following the rules and practicing vehicular cycling what I see on the road is the exact opposite. Either this site is extremely unrepresentative of the general population of Chicago urban cyclists or people are saying one thing and doing another.
James doesn't roll that way. I'll come right out and tell the truth, I'm a poor liar so I might as well. Perhaps the truth bothers a lot of people but I'm not going to pretend that the world is other than what it is. Everyone is already doing Idaho stop. If the city started cracking down on it I bet people would ride less because it would take a lot longer to get around by bike and take a lot more effort.
Then again most autos are breaking the laws much of the time. Seems like 90% of the cars are speeding -often 10 or more MPH over. They all roll through stop signs and many just "blow" them in residential areas or when there are no other vehicles present (just like us riders). A good 80% or more cars pass us with much less than 3' of clearance. The list goes on an on. People just don't follow the law. The solution isn't a bigger hammer to force that square peg in but fixing the laws so that not only people drive safer but have a little respect for the laws they do have rather than have none for all of them because so many are ridiculous that nobody follows them anyhow. Bad laws make people much more likely to break them -and then more likely to break other laws too. It becomes nothing once they get their feet wet and begin to disregard the ones that everyone else is breaking.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Groups
-
Chicago Ride of Silence
118 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
