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: 1461

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Trachea on August 27, 2011 at 4:59pm
I rode on Lincoln morning of the 26th and there was a cop and two people from CDOT on the corner of Lincoln & Diversey. There was a sign up "equal use for all road users." I stopped at the light, so I didn't get the talking to. My guess is they were there to keep cyclist from running the lights.
Permalink Reply by Harry Lee on August 28, 2011 at 5:04am

Were you ticketed?

 

I have no problem with a friendly reminder to stop at stop signs and red lights. And while I know it doesn't happen everyday, just yesterday I was riding in the bike lane on Kedzie, stopped at a stop sign and a car that made it to the intersection and stopped before me actually waved me through. Whether cars do that or not though, cyclists still should be following the law and stopping. 

Permalink Reply by Jeff Markus on August 28, 2011 at 10:41am

VEHICULAR CYCLING...ride according to the rules of the road. You are a vehicle ACT like it.

The list of excuses not to follow the rules that are established to create a smooth and efficient flow of traffic are many but none allow for the simple truth, people that follow the rules of the road, pay attention to the traffic around them and are vigilant to the potential errors of all those in the traffic matrix around them are less likely to be invovled in traffic crashes (they are not accidents they happen for specific reasons) and if invovlved are less likely to be seriously hurt.

Until all users of the roads (autos, trucks, busses, bikes and pedestrians) begin to act as parts of the traffic equation with specific roles and responsibilities we will continue to have the bloody mayhem of todays road madness. One ignored rule presents the rationale for others to be stupid as well leaving us with an idiots maze to travel. One rule obeyed makes the maze that much easier to manuever safely thru.

Scufflaws of all stripes (drivers, walkers and riders) on the road should all be stopped, educated and if un-corrected restricted to means of transport that present less danger to the world around them (Mommy's car, in a belted seat in back...)

Just my opinion but I'm right, I say so...

Jeff

The Chicagoan

Follower of the John Forester traffic philosophy...VC

Permalink Reply by ChristopherMCA on August 28, 2011 at 1:40pm

I think that cyclists should be able to perform rolling stops (if it's their turn to go) at stop signs, just like in Idaho. Cyclists should only have to come to a complete stop if they have to wait for their turn at a multi directional stop like a 4 way stop

Permalink Reply by Allen Wrench on August 28, 2011 at 1:58pm

Vehicular cycling depends on automobile drivers treating bicycles just like other cars. Imagine easing over across several lanes of traffic for a left turn on your bike and the nice ideal of being one equal vehicle among many quickly loses its luster. Bikes aren't cars. Car drivers don't think bikes are cars. The laws that treat cars as the only proper users of the road, and bicycles as toys, are inappropriate for urban bicycling and they need to be changed.

Bicyclists should ride to make everybody's travel safer, which often requires non-vehicular cycling.

Permalink Reply by Night Owl on August 28, 2011 at 2:01pm

I'm nearly positive that the rolling stop law calls for bicyclists to come to complete stop if there is moving car traveling in the direction of a stop sign or light WITHIN sight.  You wouldn't be able to blow a stop sign if a car was stopped at the sign even if it was travelling the opposite direction of you.  The law is also "off" if pedestrians are present.  It's a good bit of legislation, but probably not as inclusive as many people think it is.  

Permalink Reply by ChristopherMCA on August 28, 2011 at 2:25pm
your right I didn't know that part of the rolling stop legislation

tj said:

I'm nearly positive that the rolling stop law calls for bicyclists to come to complete stop if there is moving car traveling in the direction of a stop sign or light WITHIN sight.  You wouldn't be able to blow a stop sign if a car was stopped at the sign even if it was travelling the opposite direction of you.  The law is also "off" if pedestrians are present.  It's a good bit of legislation, but probably not as inclusive as many people think it is.  

Permalink Reply by ChristopherMCA on August 28, 2011 at 2:26pm
+1

Allen Wrench said:

 

...Bicyclists should ride to make everybody's travel safer, which often requires non-vehicular cycling.

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on August 28, 2011 at 4:00pm

 Kinzie/Milwaukee are "sting" operations. I tend to stop because I don't want to get hit. Cops blow us off if we report bad drivers or "almost got hit" incidents and many drivers disrespect or wonder why we stop at the intersection(s). We are modes of transportation but a pedestrian has more rights http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/A-Little-Known-Law-Spurs-Ticke... than a biker as vehicles are required to stop for pedestrians in the roadway but are annoyed and aggressive towards bikers.  "

Weekends and off peak driving times the rules should be based on judgment  such as my ride down Hubbard today, one left turner, 2 cross traffic and 3 cars passed me from Milwaukee to Damen so am I going to stop at EVERY stop sign? No I'll look left then right and when I see no traffic for 3-4 blocks I keep going.


Permalink Reply by Night Owl on August 28, 2011 at 5:06pm
Shouldn't a pedestrian have the most rights?  They are - by far - the most vulnerable and least mobile of any transportation.  Plus everyone is a pedestrian by default whereas bicycling or driving is a choice of convenience, lifestyle, or otherwise.
Permalink Reply by Dan Korn on August 28, 2011 at 6:13pm
Jeff Markus said:
Until all users of the roads (autos, trucks, busses, bikes and pedestrians) begin to act as parts of the traffic equation with specific roles and responsibilities we will continue to have the bloody mayhem of todays road madness.
B.S.!  Bad cyclists don't kill anyone.  Neither do bad pedestrians. Motor vehicle drivers do, and not just the bad ones.
Permalink Reply by Joel on August 29, 2011 at 1:39am
They can cause accidents -- serious ones even -- if they do something stupid.  When a car swerves or slams on the brakes to avoid hitting the person that ran out into traffic without looking, that can cause an accident.  

Dan Korn said:
Jeff Markus said:
Until all users of the roads (autos, trucks, busses, bikes and pedestrians) begin to act as parts of the traffic equation with specific roles and responsibilities we will continue to have the bloody mayhem of todays road madness.
B.S.!  Bad cyclists don't kill anyone.  Neither do bad pedestrians. Motor vehicle drivers do, and not just the bad ones.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service