Stop sign sting

I saw one of the stop sign stings for bikers this morning on Wells Street.  It was pretty obvious as to what it was, but people were still blowing through the stop sign.

 

Anyone here get caught?  Any thoughts on this?

 

One thing that I thought was funny was this girl who passed me while I was stopping, and then was flagged over and still tried to go.  The police stepped in front of her...it looked like she was going to make a break for it, but she ended up stopping.

Views: 523

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on August 19, 2010 at 11:02am
Spencer, I was sincere in my comment and completely stand by it. I am tired of people touting the health benefits of cycling in one breath and then complaining that current traffic structures cause them inconvenience in the next. The sometimes absurd levels of exertion required by cycling are a feature, not a bug! The aversion to "losing efficiency while riding" due to a few stop signs has everything to do with the mentality of people who feel the need to drive everywhere to begin with. It's a weak excuse for not wanting to get on a bike.
Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on August 19, 2010 at 11:21am
I am glad your opinion remains in a minority and does not reflect how people operate while on a bike. I feel that the law should and will be changed to reflect the Idaho stop as more people in America begin using bikes as their chief mode of transportation. Did you watch that video?

Other than personal preference what its your primary objection to rolling stop laws? It's essentially making a stop sign a yield sign for bicycles. It cannot possibly be rooted in public safety because the data suggests no correlation between the two issues.

Michael Perz said:
Spencer, I was sincere in my comment and completely stand by it. I am tired of people touting the health benefits of cycling in one breath and then complaining that current traffic structures cause them inconvenience in the next. The sometimes absurd levels of exertion required by cycling are a feature, not a bug! The aversion to "losing efficiency while riding" due to a few stop signs has everything to do with the mentality of people who feel the need to drive everywhere to begin with. It's a weak excuse for not wanting to get on a bike.
Permalink Reply by Kevin Mulcky on August 19, 2010 at 11:30am
Why don't mods ever close topics when they go off like this?
Permalink Reply by Vondo on August 19, 2010 at 12:07pm
I agree. What if we eliminate stop signs for cars too while we are at it? That way cars don't lose their momentum and don't have to start from 0 mph, and thus, save gas and depend less on Big Oil... sheesh

I am all for the Idaho stop, but until that becomes the law here, I will always be against blowing through stop signs and using efficiency or momentum as an excuse. Cycling requires effort. It sucks to stop, but if "conserving your momentum" is worth gambling your life by running stop signs, there are always electric bikes...

Michael Perz said:
Spencer, I was sincere in my comment and completely stand by it. I am tired of people touting the health benefits of cycling in one breath and then complaining that current traffic structures cause them inconvenience in the next. The sometimes absurd levels of exertion required by cycling are a feature, not a bug! The aversion to "losing efficiency while riding" due to a few stop signs has everything to do with the mentality of people who feel the need to drive everywhere to begin with. It's a weak excuse for not wanting to get on a bike.
Permalink Reply by Vondo on August 19, 2010 at 12:13pm
Also, Spencer has a good point about doing something instead of arguing and nit picking on here. All this will be meaningless this time next year when we are arguing about the same points...
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 19, 2010 at 12:31pm
I'm going to have to agree with this and I think Spencer is taking this to the wrong extreme.

The point that I think is being made here is this:

Cycling is a labor intensive physical activity by nature and when you choose that mode of transport you are making the choice to exert yourself to get where you are going. Therefore if you complain about the extra effort of stopping and starting for signs and lights you have an issue with the whole concept of people powered transport.

I mean is the extra effort REALLY that much of a drain on a rider? I know that it's not a big deal for me but I also ride geared bikes or ones with a very reasonable ratio choice...

There are a lot of reasons to say rolling stops should be legal, physical exertion is not a reasonable one.

Michael Perz said:
Spencer, I was sincere in my comment and completely stand by it. I am tired of people touting the health benefits of cycling in one breath and then complaining that current traffic structures cause them inconvenience in the next. The sometimes absurd levels of exertion required by cycling are a feature, not a bug! The aversion to "losing efficiency while riding" due to a few stop signs has everything to do with the mentality of people who feel the need to drive everywhere to begin with. It's a weak excuse for not wanting to get on a bike.
Permalink Reply by Vondo on August 19, 2010 at 12:38pm
Exactly what I meant to say. For the record, DUG, I've been with you this whole thread. I think you handled yourself well, despite what they might say...

notoriousDUG said:
I'm going to have to agree with this and I think Spencer is taking this to the wrong extreme.

The point that I think is being made here is this:

Cycling is a labor intensive physical activity by nature and when you choose that mode of transport you are making the choice to exert yourself to get where you are going. Therefore if you complain about the extra effort of stopping and starting for signs and lights you have an issue with the whole concept of people powered transport.

I mean is the extra effort REALLY that much of a drain on a rider? I know that it's not a big deal for me but I also ride geared bikes or ones with a very reasonable ratio choice...

There are a lot of reasons to say rolling stops should be legal, physical exertion is not a reasonable one.

Michael Perz said:
Spencer, I was sincere in my comment and completely stand by it. I am tired of people touting the health benefits of cycling in one breath and then complaining that current traffic structures cause them inconvenience in the next. The sometimes absurd levels of exertion required by cycling are a feature, not a bug! The aversion to "losing efficiency while riding" due to a few stop signs has everything to do with the mentality of people who feel the need to drive everywhere to begin with. It's a weak excuse for not wanting to get on a bike.
Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on August 19, 2010 at 12:54pm
Vando said:
I am all for the Idaho stop, but until that becomes the law here, I will always be against blowing through stop signs and using efficiency or momentum as an excuse...

So just because it's the law means that it is correct? Do you apply this to all aspects of your life? Or in other words do you believe that the law reflects moral truth?

If so then that's interesting because there are so few legal moralists in the world and I would like to pick your brain sometime at a Chainlink meet up. (I can't make the one tonight. SAD!) I've known only one other proponent of H.L.A. Hart, even if he didn't know it, and I'm wondering if you would fall into the same category.

Check this out and get back to me sometime, The Hart-Devlin Debate.
Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on August 19, 2010 at 12:57pm
So who wants to help me put the Idaho Stop into the 2011 Legislative Agenda of the Active Trans Alliance or some other similar group? If you're interested start a group or something here on the link and invite people. I'll do it later but the rest of the evening and tomorrow will be busy for me so this'll be my last post for a while.
Permalink Reply by Vondo on August 19, 2010 at 1:07pm
Not exactly, because in a chess game, the game does not allude to anything outside of the game itself. What I mean is that we can go around in circles here, but it is a sort of abstract (for a lack of a better word) discussion on a real life situation that we can affect by action.

I think sometimes you you feel the need to decide which posts are valid and which deserve a "don't participate" response. It is an open, public forum, people can have their say even on the pointlessness of the thread itself.

It would be nice if you could decide who can say and think what, but until that day comes...

H3N3 said:
Some of us like to discuss things on here =and= work for real-life change.
One does not preclude the other. People peruse a forum and social networking site like this for a variety of reasons.
The tactic of declaring an entire discussion bogus and pointless (with or without the ever-so-charming "I'm going to go ride my bike now la la la") is just another form of trying to knock the chess board over because you don't like the way the game is going.
Don't like it? Don't participate.

Vando said:
Also, Spencer has a good point about doing something instead of arguing and nit picking on here. All this will be meaningless this time next year when we are arguing about the same points...
Permalink Reply by Vondo on August 19, 2010 at 1:14pm
So just because it's the law means that it is correct? Do you apply this to all aspects of your life? Or in other words do you believe that the law reflects moral truth?

No, just because it's the law does not make it "correct" it just makes it the law. I don't believe that laws reflect moral truths, because moral truths are relative. I simply believe that in THIS particular case, THIS particular law is for the safety of road users. Like I said, I am all for the Idaho stop, it's those cyclists that don't even bother to slow down that bother me.

I am not a legal moralist, but I do think some of your posts in this site are very interesting even if sometimes my limited grasp of the material precludes me from getting their full effect. I am not familiar with your link, but I will read it when I have more time. Sure, let's have a sit down at one of the meet-ups, you seem to be an interesting intellectual type, I might pick your brain...
Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:
Vando said:
I am all for the Idaho stop, but until that becomes the law here, I will always be against blowing through stop signs and using efficiency or momentum as an excuse...

So just because it's the law means that it is correct? Do you apply this to all aspects of your life? Or in other words do you believe that the law reflects moral truth?

If so then that's interesting because there are so few legal moralists in the world and I would like to pick your brain sometime at a Chainlink meet up. (I can't make the one tonight. SAD!) I've known only one other proponent of H.L.A. Hart, even if he didn't know it, and I'm wondering if you would fall into the same category.

Check this out and get back to me sometime, The Hart-Devlin Debate.
Permalink Reply by Vondo on August 19, 2010 at 9:22pm
No, not at all. H3, when you get caught on some self-righteous BS, you get caught on some self-righteous BS. I agree with most of what you type, but being a mod does not give you moral and political carte blanche.
H3N3 said:
OK, the "don't like it, don't participate" was added as an unfortunate afterthought. I didn't mean it as trying to tell anyone not to speak up and express their views if they feel like it. It was meant in response the the various tactics people roll out when they feel the need to shut down an entire discussion.
Are the edges of your tongue rolling up from all this irony yet?

Vando said:
Not exactly, because in a chess game, the game does not allude to anything outside of the game itself. What I mean is that we can go around in circles here, but it is a sort of abstract (for a lack of a better word) discussion on a real life situation that we can affect by action.

I think sometimes you you feel the need to decide which posts are valid and which deserve a "don't participate" response. It is an open, public forum, people can have their say even on the pointlessness of the thread itself.

It would be nice if you could decide who can say and think what, but until that day comes...

H3N3 said:
Some of us like to discuss things on here =and= work for real-life change.
One does not preclude the other. People peruse a forum and social networking site like this for a variety of reasons.
The tactic of declaring an entire discussion bogus and pointless (with or without the ever-so-charming "I'm going to go ride my bike now la la la") is just another form of trying to knock the chess board over because you don't like the way the game is going.
Don't like it? Don't participate.

Vando said:
Also, Spencer has a good point about doing something instead of arguing and nit picking on here. All this will be meaningless this time next year when we are arguing about the same points...

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service