Stop-sign sting at Kinzie and Kingsbury this am

Cops writing tickets for rolling the stop signs just east of the river, in the protected lane. You're gonna want to stop :-/. One of the cops told me he was going to "knock me off my bike if I didn't stop". As always, a bunch of sweethearts.

Views: 3789

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on August 24, 2012 at 9:36am

I take the "bikes, stop for peds" signs to mean just that. Stop if there are pedestrians wanting to cross, otherwise, go though.

The protected bike lane on Dearborn will have cycle-specific traffic lights. Hopefully, that will solve a lot of the problems with cyclists not yielding to peds. I agree that bikes and cars should not have the same rules, because they operate so much differently. I generally go by the rule of it's ok to run a stop sign or red if there are no conflicts. I slow down at stop signs and yield to peds if present, and if not, I don't feel the need to come to a full stop. Likewise, at red lights, I come to a full stop, and proceed though the intersection if there is no traffic whatsoever. I would definitely always honor a cycle-specific light, however.

Permalink Reply by bk (aka: Dr. Mambohead) on August 24, 2012 at 10:15am
You'll never take me alive, copper! Me'eahhh!!! Top o'the world Ma!
Permalink Reply by Joe Schmoe on August 24, 2012 at 10:26am

Golly Dragonborn, you sure are good at using them internets!  Yes, we all know that traffic laws apply to us. There used to be laws against black people and white people marrying each other too. People didn't follow those laws all the time, because they were dumb.  Every decision to abide by/break the law is a cost/benefit/morality question.  If I'm at a red light at 2 AM, w/no cross-traffic, There is zero cost to me running the light, lots of benefit, and the only morality issue is breaking the law itself. It's not the same as running a red light, through a crosswalk, endangering pedestrians, drivers (who must take evasive action), and myself.

We're such universalists in America sometimes; there are times when we break the law, and times when we don't.  Context can play a role.  We can't just label anyone who has ever run a red light a ne'er-do-well, and act like they're illegitimate, scofflaw, or "illegal" cyclists. 

Permalink Reply by Jason W on August 24, 2012 at 10:27am

Please look up the definition of irony...

Permalink Reply by bk (aka: Dr. Mambohead) on August 24, 2012 at 10:28am
Again... Cyclists... That pernicious quarry!! CPD.. On the case! Priorities for City resources are crucial... And MUCH safer and easier than Barney Fife tackling the parade of murders we've had this year.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on August 24, 2012 at 10:34am

Sounds like someone should be petitioning City Hall to have the laws changed then.

Zoetrope said:

I don't wan't the same rights or the same rules as cars.  I wan't different rules, because a car is not a bike and vice versa.  This is something that you and the plus one'rs will probably never get, sadly.  Read my other post above the last if you want to know how I feel.  I'm sure you probably have already and chose to reply to the snarky comment though, because it was more convenient for you to attack a stupid post.  Just like it is more convenient to not think too deeply about things.

I don't advocate running stop signs or red lights but I do it all the time, and I will continue to do it despite this short-sighted "crackdown" at this privileged intersection.  If you truly believe that cyclists being more courteous, not rolling stop signs, etc will significantly increase the number of riders in the city and get cyclists more protected lanes, you are living in a fantasy.         



Alkaline said:

^ yes that -2 is so mature. You realize that following the rules actually makes us look better over all and will lead to more support and less ass hattery from crappy columnists. It will also make it easier for us to get more protected lanes and be safer over all.

And not that it makes it better but I am sure the police officer who threatened probably had to deal with too many smug cyclists that think they are above the law when they are not. Is the extra 10 sec you save by not stopping really worth all the trouble it causes and the possible injury of a pedestrian? No.

Permalink Reply by bk (aka: Dr. Mambohead) on August 24, 2012 at 10:34am
Like a Paul Newman and Robert Redford "Sting" or the Jackie Gleason one?... There's a big difference!
Permalink Reply by S on August 24, 2012 at 10:39am

The natural question then arises that if you want different rules and rights then every other vehicle on the road, why should you have the right to use the road on a bike? Adding a different class of vehicle that follows entirely different rules complicates things on the road and that usually results in more accidents.  And if you're not willing to obey the current regulations currently, why would anyone believe that you'd obey the 'special' rules that you want?


Zoetrope said:

I don't wan't the same rights or the same rules as cars.  I wan't different rules, because a car is not a bike and vice versa.  This is something that you and the plus one'rs will probably never get, sadly.  Read my other post above the last if you want to know how I feel.  I'm sure you probably have already and chose to reply to the snarky comment though, because it was more convenient for you to attack a stupid post.  Just like it is more convenient to not think too deeply about things.

I don't advocate running stop signs or red lights but I do it all the time, and I will continue to do it despite this short-sighted "crackdown" at this privileged intersection.  If you truly believe that cyclists being more courteous, not rolling stop signs, etc will significantly increase the number of riders in the city and get cyclists more protected lanes, you are living in a fantasy.         

Permalink Reply by Dragonborn on August 24, 2012 at 10:44am

Joe, all I was saying was what he wrote was contradictory to me. He said he would always honor a cycle-specific light, yet a red light applies to cyclists according to the law. That's all I was pointing out.

If he rode up next to me while I was waiting at a red light and then he proceeded to go through the intersection while the light was still red, I would do nothing and I would not care. I wasn't trying to place a label on him. I've broken traffic laws myself while driving (speeding) and riding (rolling through stop signs). I'm no angel.



Joe Schmoe said:

Golly Dragonborn, you sure are good at using them internets!  Yes, we all know that traffic laws apply to us. There used to be laws against black people and white people marrying each other too. People didn't follow those laws all the time, because they were dumb.  Every decision to abide by/break the law is a cost/benefit/morality question.  If I'm at a red light at 2 AM, w/no cross-traffic, There is zero cost to me running the light, lots of benefit, and the only morality issue is breaking the law itself. It's not the same as running a red light, through a crosswalk, endangering pedestrians, drivers (who must take evasive action), and myself.

We're such universalists in America sometimes; there are times when we break the law, and times when we don't.  Context can play a role.  We can't just label anyone who has ever run a red light a ne'er-do-well, and act like they're illegitimate, scofflaw, or "illegal" cyclists.

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on August 24, 2012 at 10:56am

I understand fully what the law states. I disagree with parts of it, but if I get caught, then I am willing to pay the price. I hold a cycle-specific light in higher standards because it shows that the city is honoring cyclists by installing it, and I'd be disrespectful if I took it for granted and ignored it. When riding a bike in Chicago, I am most concerned about my safety and the safety of others around me; anything else takes a back seat, including what the law states.

Permalink Reply by Don on August 24, 2012 at 11:33am


I get what you're saying, but there are separate rules for trucks and cars (for example different speed limits, roads they can/can't drive on, etc.).  Tweaks to existing laws could make cycling safer...actually traffic lights that gave bicycles a few seconds head start and were timed better for cyclists (longer yellows for example) would be great.  


S said:

The natural question then arises that if you want different rules and rights then every other vehicle on the road, why should you have the right to use the road on a bike? Adding a different class of vehicle that follows entirely different rules complicates things on the road and that usually results in more accidents.  And if you're not willing to obey the current regulations currently, why would anyone believe that you'd obey the 'special' rules that you want?


Zoetrope said:

I don't wan't the same rights or the same rules as cars.  I wan't different rules, because a car is not a bike and vice versa.  This is something that you and the plus one'rs will probably never get, sadly.  Read my other post above the last if you want to know how I feel.  I'm sure you probably have already and chose to reply to the snarky comment though, because it was more convenient for you to attack a stupid post.  Just like it is more convenient to not think too deeply about things.

I don't advocate running stop signs or red lights but I do it all the time, and I will continue to do it despite this short-sighted "crackdown" at this privileged intersection.  If you truly believe that cyclists being more courteous, not rolling stop signs, etc will significantly increase the number of riders in the city and get cyclists more protected lanes, you are living in a fantasy.         

Permalink Reply by Don on August 28, 2012 at 3:34am

They were at it again this morning.  Not sure if they were there yesterday, as I had to take CTA since my allergies were killing me.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service