Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David on August 20, 2010 at 1:55am

I'm really curious, for both you and the others in this thread with similar statements, do you truly stop at every stop sign, even the ones on side streets in Chicago where there's one on every block? Or do you just not ride those side streets?

I have read a lot of posts on Chainlink about how we should all follow the stop sign laws, but I have honestly never seen a single rider in the city who actually did it.

Vando said:

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...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on August 20, 2010 at 2:33am

In most circumstances on side streets I stop but am also not traveling very fast on those streets as to make doing so bothersome. I tend to prefer major streets anyway.



David said:

I'm really curious, for both you and the others in this thread with similar statements, do you truly stop at every stop sign, even the ones on side streets in Chicago where there's one on every block? Or do you just not ride those side streets?

I have read a lot of posts on Chainlink about how we should all follow the stop sign laws, but I have honestly never seen a single rider in the city who actually did it.

Vando said:

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...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on August 20, 2010 at 2:57am

To the safety patrol and the law abider,

How do you account for the fact that people violate this aspect of traffic law most of the time, if not, every time they ride. Y'all would agree that this is an indisputable fact right? In the city of Chicago the majority of cyclists treat stop signs like yield signs. It's such an excepted social norm that the Police, unless forced to, won't even consider ticketing cyclists even when there has been a gross violation of the law right in front of them (we've all seen or done this).

How do you account for this? Doesn't this absolute failure of law indicate that the law must be reformed? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to change the law to accommodate and standardize how people actually operate a bicycle? When laws are adjusted according to the needs and socially accepted behaviors of a given society there is almost immediate wide spread adaptation and acceptance of the law. What this would mean in the case of the Rolling Stop is that with harsher penalties those who blow a red light while intersecting oncoming traffic will be singled out and dealt with accordingly. But currently since the law is seen as unessisary or completely invalid those gross violators of the law are given social safe space to behave as they do. And why not? If the law is idiotic and everyone agrees that it is then there is no standard to which one must be held and thus one can behave as one pleases. You see this in the microcosm that is this particular discussion thread.

So with that said. What could be the possible reason to be against a Rolling Stop law? I feel that is must be something more personal rather than rational because the argument from safety just doesn't cut it. Bike accidents in the city primarily have very little to do with the yielding behavior. Though the largest majority of accidents are intersection related they are almost always improper use of lane or blind spot related. The remaining non-intersection collisions included those in which a bicyclist overtook a parked or parking motor vehicle, a motorist opened the door of a parked car into the bicyclist's path, or a motorist or bicyclist changed lanes improperly.

I have emailed a few research bodies and universities to request access to their saftey statistical studies so that I can read them and create a solid argument against the safety meme. But until I have that and put it on chicagoidadhostop.org or whatever I am gonna call it you'll have to read these links for more scattered information.

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/3/7/Origins-of-Idahos...
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/04/idaho_stop_is_a_go_for...
http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/20100422-illinois-bicycle-acci...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on August 20, 2010 at 3:01am

In other words, no, you don't stop at every stop sign.

Which is fine, that just makes you like everybody else here, but it's a little hard to square with the ALL CAPS screaming a few posts back.

Michael Perz said:

In most circumstances on side streets I stop but am also not traveling very fast on those streets as to make doing so bothersome. I tend to prefer major streets anyway.



David said:

I'm really curious, for both you and the others in this thread with similar statements, do you truly stop at every stop sign, even the ones on side streets in Chicago where there's one on every block? Or do you just not ride those side streets?

I have read a lot of posts on Chainlink about how we should all follow the stop sign laws, but I have honestly never seen a single rider in the city who actually did it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 20, 2010 at 3:14am

I do not stop at every sign, or even every red light but I have never said I agree with the law I have just said that love it or hate it that law is what it is and if you choose to disregard it you have to be willing to accept the citation.

I run stops but I acknowledge I am running the risk of being caught by 'the man' and have no right to complain if I am.

David said:

I'm really curious, for both you and the others in this thread with similar statements, do you truly stop at every stop sign, even the ones on side streets in Chicago where there's one on every block? Or do you just not ride those side streets?

I have read a lot of posts on Chainlink about how we should all follow the stop sign laws, but I have honestly never seen a single rider in the city who actually did it.

Vando said:

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...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 20, 2010 at 3:16am

Spencer you really need to read less into stuff...

Acknowledging the law and that you need to obey it or face a penalty is not the same as believing that a law is correct.

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on August 20, 2010 at 3:18am

It's a little bit like the speed limit on the highway. Numerous studies have shown that the average driver goes a little faster than the speed limit, but the law is only enforced for egregious violators or people who are truly causing a harmful situation. I'm not really defending either the speed limit or the bike law here, I'm just saying that it's a relatively common situation in our society that laws are too strict and are selectively enforced based on a judgment call by the police.

If we had the Idaho bike laws, the same subjective enforcement would still apply. Police would still be making judgment calls based on whether a rider passing through a red light was acting in a safe manner or not. And in practice, there would really be no way to challenge that judgment later in court. As the law stands now, nobody can challenge a red light ticket except on grounds of harassment since the action is clearly illegal. If we had the Idaho law, the de facto situation would be identical. More people might *try* to challenge the police officer's judgment, but it's hard to imagine any real success there.

Personally, I'd like to see the Idaho bike laws here. I think these kinds of unenforced laws are very destructive in the long run. But since a change in the law probably wouldn't have a very large effect on anyone, it's hard to get people worked up over it enough to make a serious lobbying effort (it's easy to get people worked up enough to post on the Internet, though).

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:

To the safety patrol and the law abider,
How do you account for the fact that people violate this aspect of traffic law most of the time, if not, every time they ride. Y'all would agree that this is an indisputable fact right? In the city of Chicago the majority of cyclists treat stop signs like yield signs. It's such an excepted social norm that the Police, unless forced to, won't even consider ticketing cyclists even when there has been a gross violation of the law right in front of them (we've all seen or done this).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on August 20, 2010 at 4:02am

David,

Selective enforcement is a problem with every law. It's not exactly a good reason for people to nay say something like the Idaho Stop. Rather than limiting Police it has been proven over the 20 years of it's existence to increase public safety by creating a reasonable standard of operation. There seems to be some misperceptions about the rolling stop law in Idaho, namely, this law DOES NOT allow cyclists to blow through controlled intersections without looking and giving right of way to through traffic. In fact it goes further, in Idaho Statute Title 49 Chapter 7 Section 720 specifically defines and regulates what to do at stop signs and controlled intersections.

Idaho Statute Title 49 Chapter 7 Section 720

49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing
to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to
any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving
across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection
without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a
steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection
and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may
proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a
one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to
other traffic.
(3) A person riding a bicycle shall comply with the provisions of section
49-643, Idaho Code.
(4) A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given during not
less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the bicycle before
turning, provided that a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand
is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle.

This is already how things work, all this would do is create a standard by which everyone is held to account. It gives Police a more specific type of violation to look for rather than the broad reaching, anyone who doesn't stop at every light and sign, which is effectively unenforceable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on August 20, 2010 at 4:18am

My "all caps screaming", which was done to emphasize an obvious point about the nature of cycling, had nothing to do with my own behavior or attitude toward the law. You're tilting at windmills.

The law as it currently stands in regards to stop signs doesn't bother me one bit. If you want the law changed, however, knock yourself out. I have absolutely no reservations about you doing but please mount a better argument than simply "cycling is hard" because it smacks of bitchy self-entitlement.


David said:

In other words, no, you don't stop at every stop sign.
Which is fine, that just makes you like everybody else here, but it's a little hard to square with the ALL CAPS screaming a few posts back. Michael Perz said:

In most circumstances on side streets I stop but am also not traveling very fast on those streets as to make doing so bothersome. I tend to prefer major streets anyway.
David said:

I'm really curious, for both you and the others in this thread with similar statements, do you truly stop at every stop sign, even the ones on side streets in Chicago where there's one on every block? Or do you just not ride those side streets?

I have read a lot of posts on Chainlink about how we should all follow the stop sign laws, but I have honestly never seen a single rider in the city who actually did it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on August 20, 2010 at 4:25am

Spencer you really need to read less into stuff...

Hmm... Really? Apparently my problem is that I seem to take y'all too seriously and assume that because you are using malicious and venomous language you're very passionate about a given issue. But it seems that those who have been responsible for shouting and degrading the quality of the discussion are also violators of the stop sign laws and don't really have a problem with something like the Idaho Stop. Seriously? Pfft. Then why the hell all the fussiness? What are the 10 pages of mostly crap really about? I am left to assume that all the vile rhetoric was more to do with personality conflicts than a reasoned and impassioned stance on the subject. I respect people who get angry when arguing over something they believe in but find people with personal issue they are trying to work out online to be nothing short of the worst kind of boring.

But at least I've gotten what I needed from this thread; an opportunity to flesh out my argument for the Rolling Stop in the here in the city. Even if I was more or less just talking to myself it was still quite useful. I'm un-following this discussion now and have no interest any further debate with any of you. If you feel you have a truly challenging point, question regarding the proposal or you have discovered some conflict in reasoning please feel free to private message me.

In the future when I see the usual suspects trolling around the discussion boards I'll simply ignore them. It's too bad y'all have to be this way but I guess my expectations to find well reasoned cogent and challenging debate on a message board about biking is too high. I'll stick to topics about mechanics and activity from here on out.

Cordially in your face-
but still cordially,

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer!

PS. If any of you are interested in assisting me in pressuring the ATA to put the Rolling Stop into their 2011 Legislative Agenda please email me at me [at] spencerthayer.com or private message me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on August 20, 2010 at 4:40am

It's actually nothing like the speed limit on the highway since that was enacted for a reason that had nothing to do with public safety. Prior to the national speed limit police still had the authority to prosecute reckless driving including driving too fast for conditions.

David said:

It's a little bit like the speed limit on the highway.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Davo on August 20, 2010 at 5:18am

I think that the Idaho stop is a good idea and see that having this law on the books would be a great idea.
That being said, I am sure that there a numerous laws that are on the books that are severly outdated and silly. (Anyone ever played the dumb laws board game?) I just don't see how having this law will change anything. Most drivers didn't know about the 3 feet rule for some time after the law took effect.
I'm not saying that anyone should not try to get this law on the books, more power to you if you do. I'm just saying that I wont be worried about getting busted for running a stop sign or red light untill I hear about people (a decient amount) get ticketed or if I personally get ticketed. I think that most people in this forum like the Idaho stop so Im not sure who you are trying to pesuade. Anyway keep fighting the good fight.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• …
• 12
• Next ›
• Page