|
|
 |
« on: June 18, 2008, 10:49:25 PM » |
|
http://www.examiner.com/a-1446921~Proposal_would_change_rules_for_bicyclists_at_stop_signs.htmlExcerpt: Bicyclists, who often raise the ire of drivers and pedestrians for their loose interpretation of traffic laws, could be allowed to roll through stop signs and travel through red lights after halting.
The “stop and roll” proposal is patterned after a state law in Idaho in which bicyclists are legally able to treat stop signs as yield signs, and interpret red stoplights as stop signs. Currently, California bicyclists must stop and put one foot on the ground at stop signs, and follow the same stoplight rules as drivers.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s bicycle advisory committee will be discussing the proposal Thursday. If the group recommends the plan, the MTC staff will further investigate the idea and possibly bring it before the agency’s governing board, which could eventually propose state legislation to change the California vehicle code, said Sean Co, MTC’s bicycling coordinator.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2008, 11:50:00 PM » |
|
personally, i think this proposal is a terrible idea.
the only reason it works in idaho is because idaho is in the middle of f-ing nowhere. if you told cyclists in the 3rd largest city in the country, as well as all of the other large cities in this state, that they technically 'don't have to stop at stop signs', they'll take it as a free pass to do stupid shit. we'll all see the number of cyclists in accidents increase, and then someone's widow will go on a campaign to have it overturned and we'll all be back to where we are now. i think the real question is: should we make the interpretation of traffic laws even more ambiguous for a vehicle 99% of the population has no clue how to deal with?
cry about your freedom, but the law in this state was drafted for the good of the public, not individuals who think they're experienced enough to not obey it. and if you are indeed above the law, don't be dumb enough to break it in front of a cop and it won't be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2008, 12:25:00 AM » |
|
For it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2008, 01:02:50 AM » |
|
For it in residential areas where the speed limit is 25mph.
On larger higher limit roads with 4 way stops where the city's too cheap to install a stoplight, this is a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2008, 10:20:34 AM » |
|
the only reason it works in idaho is because idaho is in the middle of f-ing nowhere. if you told cyclists in the 3rd largest city in the country, as well as all of the other large cities in this state, that they technically 'don't have to stop at stop signs', they'll take it as a free pass to do stupid shit. we'll all see the number of cyclists in accidents increase, and then someone's widow will go on a campaign to have it overturned and we'll all be back to where we are now. i think the real question is: should we make the interpretation of traffic laws even more ambiguous for a vehicle 99% of the population has no clue how to deal with?
All this really does is to change the law to reflect reality. Yield signs & stop signs work for cars, and exist for obvious reasons. There's no reason why it wouldn't work for cyclists unless you believe that cyclists are dumber or more inept in traffic than the population in general. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2008, 04:39:09 PM » |
|
i believe the population in general is dumb and inept in traffic. i feel this way because it is my job to drive 500-1000 miles a week around all of southern california. my mentality while driving is the same as it is while cycling, ergo don't give the population any excuse to make a dangerous mistake no matter what their method of transportation is.
also, there is no legal precedent for cycling, whether it be age or ability, and white jesus knows if that was the law when i was a kid, i probably would've killed myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mihai
Member
Fixed tandem tricycle with a blind navigation monkey
Karma: +10/-9
Posts: 262
hungry hip hop junkie in the city
|
|
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2008, 09:25:38 AM » |
|
If you remove the cars out of the equation, this all of a sudden starts to make sense. Cross-town bike-only pathways with no stop signs, just yield signs. That would be futuristic. I would try to beat my personal PR every day on my commute to work.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2008, 06:40:54 AM » |
|
I'm for it. For the simple reason that when it's 3 am, and I can't see any single car running, I don't want to stop at a stop sign. Especially if there are 3 on every block I'm passing through. Not one car. I look. I don't like having to do the courtesy look and stop.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2008, 11:20:16 AM » |
|
I'm for it. For the simple reason that when it's 3 am, and I can't see any single car running, I don't want to stop at a stop sign. Especially if there are 3 on every block I'm passing through. Not one car. I look. I don't like having to do the courtesy look and stop.
well who would stop in that situaion? why does there need to be litigation over something like that? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2008, 06:32:07 PM » |
|
Because I got a super duper fucking ticket for allegedly doing it. haha.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2008, 07:21:58 PM » |
|
damn, forgot about that one. my bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
