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!

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dan Korn on August 31, 2011 at 1:26pm

ad said:

Not to stir the pot, but what exactly is your point?

My point, which I thought I stated very clearly, was to rebut James's assertion that "the bloody mayhem of todays road madness" is due to "all users of the roads." It's directly relevant to the discussion about whether the stop sign sting, which is the topic of this thread, is a good thing or not.

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.

I don't see any false dichotomy in saying that motor vehicle operators are responsible for almost all of the fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways, and that therefore most, if not all, law enforcement efforts should be focused upon them instead of upon cyclists and pedestrians. There is some value in cyclists and pedestrians following the rules, in terms of keeping things moving smoothly, but my point is that they are not killing anyone (expect in extremely rare, statistically insignificant instances).

As I said before, if there's any rhetorical falsehood being perpetrated in this thread, it's the false equivalence between the deadly consequences of driving and the far more benign consequences of "bad" cycling.

While I think it's a stretch to call the way that most cyclists deal with stop signs "reckless," this isn't about excusing anyone's bad behavior; it's about where the focus of law enforcement should be.

It's fine to be concerned with people cycling badly, or jaywalking, or spitting on the sidewalk, or throwing cigarette butts on the ground. Those are all things without which the world would be a slightly better place. But none of those little annoyances are killing anyone. So I'm far more concerned with what people are doing in cars, and the people enforcing the laws should be too.

If you think that maintaining civility and keeping traffic moving is anywhere near as important as saving lives, then I'm not sure we have any common ground.

James BlackHeron said:

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.

Yes, this is exactly my problem with the stop sign sting. Cracking down on cyclists has two primary negative consequences: One, it takes resources away from enforcing laws for motor vehicle operators, and two, it discourages people from cycling, resulting in fewer cyclists, and therefore more motor vehicles. The intent of the crackdown may be to make be to make our roads safer, but what you really end up with is more cars and less enforcement of them, which actually makes our roads more dangerous.

Every time I see someone doing something stupid on a bike, I think to myself, "Good, I'm glad they're not in a car."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 31, 2011 at 1:43pm

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. Maybe I should cut back on the cheap Merlot if I did.

While most everyone may be breaking the law most of the time I agree with you that for the most part, at least the statistically relevant part, bicycles do very little damage and cause very little mayhem or carnage to anyone but themselves when there is an accident. Sure, there might be the occasional car that swerves around an errant bicycle and causes a larger accident but those cases are rare and not relevant as you said.

If everyone were riding a bike there would not be anything but the barest percentage of the carnage on the road -even if nobody followed ANY rules of the road and bicycle traffic were total chaos. Most of the time when someone messed up they would pay for their mistake themselves and not take out many other people with them.

The same can't be said about cars.

Dan Korn said:

My point, which I thought I stated very clearly, was to rebut James's assertion that "the bloody mayhem of todays road madness" is due to "all users of the roads." It's directly relevant to the discussion about whether the stop sign sting, which is the topic of this thread, is a good thing or not.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Korn on August 31, 2011 at 1:48pm

Duppie said:

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.

And now we get to the metadiscussion (and I've never "metadiscussion" I didn't like, hah!) about tactics and message.

I'm not sure what reality you think I'm trying to create here. I'm just trying to make a point that these kinds of stings to crack down on cyclists are counterproductive. I suppose the only people I should be trying to convince are the folks at City Hall.

But I think there's a real danger when even the pro-cycling crowd here on the bikey forum is drinking the Kool-Aid of the admittedly majority "cars good" mentality. Not that cars are all bad, but there are a lot of bad things that happen when people drive them. More importantly, though, the very idea that cycling is somehow a dangerous activity that needs to be cracked down upon and mitigated with equipment and regulations is toxic and dangerous, because it distracts people from the truth, which is that cars are killing our children. And that might sound like hyperbole, but it's a simple fact. So I guess I'm trying to stop the spread of a dangerous idea.

By the way: I know I'm long-winded, but it is possible to trim replies here on the forum.

Morpheus said:

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. Were you listening to me, Neo, or were you looking at the woman in the red dress?