Picture this: Rolling up to a stopsign at a T intersection. Visibility is such that if you don't see a car in either direction, given your speed you can make either a left or a right turn with no chance of getting hit. Instead of slowing down for the stop, you maintain your momentum, swerve slightly to your right and make a very sharp left - so sharp, that your wheels are parallel to the line for the stop.

The rules for cars have no concept of the ability of a bike to be this manuverable (reason #1007 why car rules shouldn't apply to cyclists). I say that is a legal stop. What do you say and why? But, please, spare me the "engendering the goodwill of cagers" crapola. When I am on a bike, my safety is the priority not being an ambassador to cagers.

Now, if you agree that having my wheels parallel to the stop line makes it a legal stop, what if it is one degree off? What about 10 degrees? Where would you draw the line?

A legal stop is defined as stopping all foreward momentum regardless of the direction you are pointed, foreward is relative to both the angle of the bike/vehicle and general direction of travel. You can not define a legal stop as doing a u-turn loop-de-loop at the designated stopping point. On a motorcycle I often do stops without putting a foot down at stop signs, I also sometimes do rolling stops where I do drop a foot but maintain some foreward momentum, primarily where there is traffic and I don't feel like eyeball-debating with cagers who should go first.

If your wheels have stopped rotating and if your momentum has ceased movement, then you have stopped. If you have simply turned pendicular to the intended direction of travel without stopping then you have not stopped, you have simply turned.

Besides, if you are now running perpendicular to the previous direction of travel along the stop line then you are now riding the wrong way on the wrong side of the street most likely.

Picture this: Rolling up to a stopsign at a T intersection. Visibility is such that if you don't see a car in either direction, given your speed you can make either a left or a right turn with no chance of getting hit. Instead of slowing down for the stop, you maintain your momentum, swerve slightly to your right and make a very sharp left - so sharp, that your wheels are parallel to the line for the stop.

The rules for cars have no concept of the ability of a bike to be this manuverable (reason #1007 why car rules shouldn't apply to cyclists). I say that is a legal stop. What do you say and why? But, please, spare me the "engendering the goodwill of cagers" crapola. When I am on a bike, my safety is the priority not being an ambassador to cagers.

Now, if you agree that having my wheels parallel to the stop line makes it a legal stop, what if it is one degree off? What about 10 degrees? Where would you draw the line?

okay. now what? I don't get it. why would you do that, instead of just stopping or going through?

In California, we have limit lines, which are lines painted before the crosswalk or intersection boundary. You have to stop before the limit line before proceeding. (That rarely happens, since most people pull all of the way into the crosswalk, blocking it, but that's another issue). Whatever direction you happen to be pointed, as long as you stop before the limit line before proceeding through the intersection, that's a legal stop. Oh, and stop means stop, not move in some other direction.

monitoring stops on one of our local MUT's. I quit pedaling, sat up, broke my momentum down to where a complete stop would have been easy. I probably never went under 8 MPH. The cop waved and said "good rolling stop". Somehow wonder if I would have gotten a ticket on a different day. But on this occasion that was a "legal stop". No??? :)

okay. now what? I don't get it. why would you do that, instead of just stopping or going through?
.

Well, stopping increases my chance of getting hit because I have no momentum and thus will spend X amount of time going through the intersection instead of x/3. The less time I spend in an intersection = less chance of getting hit.

I'm not sure I understand the scenario here. You come down the road toward a stop sign. Accompanying the stop sign is something like a stop line--either a white line painted on the roadway itself or an imaginary line, across the lane, perpendicular to the direction of travel in the lane governed by the stop sign. You make a sharp left turn, such that your wheels are parallel to the stop line before having crossed the line. Then what? A u-turn? A traverse of the opposite lane?

It seems to me that you probably haven't broken whatever code provision your jurisdiction has regarding the "running" of stop signs until you cross that painted or imaginary line. When in doubt about the particular rule in your jurisdiction, read the code. Cross the line without coming to a full stop and you likely have a problem. Are you suggesting that you can finesse the line by making a quick, flat "S" right up at that line, so that your wheels are parallel to the stop line briefly while behind the line but then turned again to continue your forward progress through the turn while you are still in your initial lane of travel? Off the cuff I'd say that that's impossible at any significant speed, even with the enhanced maneuverability of bikes that you're touting.

If you're just looking for a creative way to do a rolling stop at slow speeds, then by all means: tell it to the judge. "Your honor, I have no idea what's actually written in the law, but it seems to me that by making my bike wheels briefly perpendicular to the direction of travel I had come to a complete stop, even though I'll admit that the officer's correct that I was moving the whole time." Depending on the judge, this may not be entirely persuasive. Appeal away.

Well, stopping increases my chance of getting hit because I have no momentum and thus will spend X amount of time going through the intersection instead of x/3. The less time I spend in an intersection = less chance of getting hit.

So, with that reasoning, I assume you blow through every controlled intersection at 25 mph? I guess the same thing applies to cars -- the less time spent in the intersection, the less likely a collision, so maybe cars also should be blowing through at 60 mph, maybe even 100 mph?

A legal stop is defined as stopping all foreward momentum .

Thanks for that quote. For some intersections, I usually move back on the bike at slow speed before the line, and brake to stop the wheels, but let my body float forward maintaining momentum. An instant of wheels not turning to satisfy the stop requirement and I thought I was legal enough.

monitoring stops on one of our local MUT's. I quit pedaling, sat up, broke my momentum down to where a complete stop would have been easy. I probably never went under 8 MPH. The cop waved and said "good rolling stop". Somehow wonder if I would have gotten a ticket on a different day. But on this occasion that was a "legal stop". No??? :)

I think that's just called "discretion". He chose not to ticket you, but could have, assuming it was an enforceable stop sign. If the stop sign is on private property, it's possible it is "just there," and not legally enforceable.

I think your reasoning is slightly misguided. Why would you turn intersections into a numbers game when you can stop (or slow enough that you can see traffic coming) and all but eliminate the risks? I find no reason to come to a complete stop at stop signs, but I do think it's necessary to allow traffic to flow as intended. At a four-way stop, I'll usually come to a very slow pace that allows the cars that were there before me to go as they should. At other stop signs, I'll slow enough that I can see any traffic coming, then proceed if it's safe, and stop if I need to. I find these methods, while not always legal, usually are most effective in maintaining safety and normal traffic flow. Like the traffic cop on the MUT, he's just making sure cyclists aren't going top speed into traffic--a safety hazard for all involved.

All that matters is what the law says, and how the judge interprets it if you get busted.

I use a common-sense approach that basically consists of these components:

1. At intersections with stop signs, I always slow down enough that I can come to a complete stop should suddenly-changing circumstances require me to do so. This applies even on county backroads where I can see a half-mile in every direction and know good and well I'm the only moving vehicle out there ... I'll slow down to maybe 5 mph, look both ways, and go on through. Technically it's a rolling stop but I'm endangering no one, and I'm not doing anything any different than most motorists do.

2. At intersections with flashing reds, which are typically medium-busy four-way-stops, I always come to a complete stop. Whether or not I'll unclip and put a foot down depends on how much traffic there is. If it's me and one other car, I'll try to time my arrival such that I can stop, do a very brief trackstand, and continue on my way. Two or more cars, I'll usually unclip.

3. At intersections with red-yellow-green traffic lights, I obey the traffic light. Always. Even if there's no other traffic. I never run a steady red light. Never.

4. At any and all intersections, if I see a cop car, I stop. Even on those backroad stop signs. If there's some deputy sherriff out there having a bad day, just looking for an excuse to ticket someone, he's going to have to write it to someone besides me.

So, with that reasoning, I assume you blow through every controlled intersection at 25 mph? I guess the same thing applies to cars -- the less time spent in the intersection, the less likely a collision, so maybe cars also should be blowing through at 60 mph, maybe even 100 mph?

No, your assumption is too wide - I blow through every controlled intersection WHERE THERE IS NO CHANCE THAT A CAR CAN HIT ME at the maximum speed that I can. This is safer than arbitrarily following rules that were not designed with my vehicle in mind on roads that were not designed (or maintained) with my vehicle in mind. Where do the majority of bike/car accidents occur? In intersections. Thus, I power through all intersections WHERE IT IS SAFE FOR ME TO DO SO - in the process, I am constantly breaking the law. The negative impact of this is fairly minor - I accept that I may get stopped by a cop and I may have to pay some stupid fine. My anger over this idiocy is far worse than the damage of a fine, but, being a cyclist, I have to learn to swallow anger at idiocy every ride - no big deal.

3. At intersections with red-yellow-green traffic lights, I obey the traffic light. Always. Even if there's no other traffic. I never run a steady red light. Never.

I'm going to disagree with this one. It may work for you and yes, is completely legal, but I know that my AL S-Works ain't gonna trip lights. When I KNOW that there's nothing coming up behind me to trip the light for me, I'll roll thru.

The rest of your points are in line with what I do as well. Especially the cop one!

M

All that matters is what the law says, and how the judge interprets it if you get busted.

I use a common-sense approach that basically consists of these components:

1. At intersections with stop signs, I always slow down enough that I can come to a complete stop should suddenly-changing circumstances require me to do so. This applies even on county backroads where I can see a half-mile in every direction and know good and well I'm the only moving vehicle out there ... I'll slow down to maybe 5 mph, look both ways, and go on through. Technically it's a rolling stop but I'm endangering no one, and I'm not doing anything any different than most motorists do.

2. At intersections with flashing reds, which are typically medium-busy four-way-stops, I always come to a complete stop. Whether or not I'll unclip and put a foot down depends on how much traffic there is. If it's me and one other car, I'll try to time my arrival such that I can stop, do a very brief trackstand, and continue on my way. Two or more cars, I'll usually unclip.

3. At intersections with red-yellow-green traffic lights, I obey the traffic light. Always. Even if there's no other traffic. I never run a steady red light. Never.

4. At any and all intersections, if I see a cop car, I stop. Even on those backroad stop signs. If there's some deputy sherriff out there having a bad day, just looking for an excuse to ticket someone, he's going to have to write it to someone besides me.

Hear, hear! Bravo! I wholeheartedly agree. In fact this logic also describes how typical motorists approach stop signs, lights, and etc. too. Basically, motorists and bicyclists take some discretions on "rolling through" stop signs based on what they can safely get away with. That's natural. Traffic laws are primarily defined with safety in mind. So, I simply don't believe that blatently ignoring them makes you any safer.

Now there is a real problem in that many motorists simply do not understand traffic laws that specifically apply to bicycles on the roads. Thus, we need to ride "defensively". But this stuff about blowing through lights and signs to get away from cars is simply BS. You want to do something about it? Then promote safer conditions instead. This means following the existing rules and getting involved in developing safer riding environments. Sure there are extreme environments that bring "defensive" riding to acute levels, but for 95% of us the existing laws work just fine.

I do as described above, and it doesn't crimp my riding experience at all. In 25 years of road riding I've never had a significant incident with a motorist.

I blow through every controlled intersection WHERE THERE IS NO CHANCE THAT A CAR CAN HIT ME at the maximum speed that I can.

If there is no chance a car can hit you, then why worry about it at all? I agree with the principle to obey the law always, unless it's unreasonably unsafe under the circumstances. However, you seem to have arbitrarily concluded that blowing through intersections ('WHERE IS IS NO CHANCE THAT A CAR CAN HIT ME") is necessary for safety, right? It doesn't seem to add up.

This sounds more like a rationalization for getting through your rides faster with less energy and attention expended.

no message....

Here in NYC it is another world. If you follow the rules of the road, you often actually impede traffic and put yourself at greater risk than if you follow the rules.

Case in point: Only motor vehicles adhere to red lights. All human-powered traffic (peds, bikes, skateboards, bladers, etc.) ignores them and will cross an intersection when there is no traffic coming from the perpendicular street--whether or not the light is red. If a cyclist comes to a red light and stops, he literally risks being rear-ended by another cyclist, blader, etc., who figured the street was clear and safe to cross.

Case in point: Lane lines are almost completely ignored by motor vehicles. MVs commonly drive straddling lane lines and turn onto perpendicular streets from inside lanes (i.e. not closest to the curb). If a cyclist tries to hold his lane, he risks being squished between motor vehicles, so weaving in and out of lanes is necessary. I've even been "forced" onto the sidewalk by drivers cutting into my lane.

If there is no chance a car can hit you, then why worry about it at all? I agree with the principle to obey the law always, unless it's unreasonably unsafe under the circumstances. However, you seem to have arbitrarily concluded that blowing through intersections ('WHERE IS IS NO CHANCE THAT A CAR CAN HIT ME") is necessary for safety, right? It doesn't seem to add up.

This sounds more like a rationalization for getting through your rides faster with less energy and attention expended.

You are right - there is no reason to "worry" about it if there is no chance that a car can hit me - I am just trying to have a discussion about it with fellow cyclists. My principal is different than yours: ride in such a way that resonably maximizes my safety - if laws get in the way of that then I ignore them (unless there is an obvious cop).

Where I live and ride (New England, where road cycling is more like mountain biking), there are intersections that are plain dangerous to enter from a complete stop due to limited visibility, speeding drivers, sand and shoulders of death. With enough momentum, your visibility is adequate for a left hand turn, but from a complete stop, it is a roll of the dice. If it is clear when I come to it with speed, I am 100% sure that I can make the turn - if it is not clear, then I will turn right at the intersection and make a hasty U-turn (also illegal as I am crossing double-yellows) when I am at a point of good visibility.

What this means is that every time I make that left - no matter how I do it, I am breaking the law. But it is safer than following the law!

I'm going to disagree with this one. It may work for you and yes, is completely legal, but I know that my AL S-Works ain't gonna trip lights. When I KNOW that there's nothing coming up behind me to trip the light for me, I'll roll thru.
Okay, I'll have to make a liar of myself. I've done this, too, and will do so again if I have to. My steel-framed bike usually triggers the sensor but if it doesn't, I'll wait a reasonable length of time and then carefully proceed on through the intersection when traffic permits. It ain't my fault if the street department installs electronic doo-dads that don't accomodate ALL the vehicles on the road, bicycles included.

...proceede through a red light, after stopping, when safe.

IF it fails to change (sense your vehicle) within a reasonable period of time.

Yes, reasonable is an ambigious term here but that is what courts & judges are for.

monitoring stops on one of our local MUT's. I quit pedaling, sat up, broke my momentum down to where a complete stop would have been easy. I probably never went under 8 MPH. The cop waved and said "good rolling stop". Somehow wonder if I would have gotten a ticket on a different day. But on this occasion that was a "legal stop". No??? :)

I had a similar situation, except I signaled a right turn, stood, did a momentary "fake" trackstand while looking left & right, then turned. I did this because a cop was sitting to my right in a parking lot. I never go to these extremes. I did everything right, I thought, but the cop rolled up beside me later and shouted, "That stop applies to you too, you know!" I was surprised, and answered meekly, "Ok." He barked, "Do you need a ticket?" I said no sir, and he accelerated past me. Afterward, I realized what a jackass he was to ask a rhetorical question like that, just baiting me to pop off and get ticketed. Heck, I came to a complete stop.
I asked around later and some other cyclists said that cops have been hassling them for not putting a foot on the ground when stopping. Apparently, this is the law for motorcycles in the state but not bicycles. Who knows what the boys in blue are up to.

I have a friend who is a bike cop in Davis California. By the letter of the law in california, to be considered a stop, the rider must cease all forward movement and put a foot down at the stop. Putting the foot down is the key to making a stop. This is straight from his mouth, no interpetations. He also said you are not allowed to run the red light if it fails to change while you are waiting.

There are lots of hate posts here from people who are frustrated with drivers for being rude. Running stop signs because you can beat the traffic or disregarding red lights because it is safe to procede only makes the rift between bikes and cars that much greater. We are seen as people with blatant disregard for the law. If a driver see's just one person doing this, then we are all condemned.

Okay, I'll have to make a liar of myself. I've done this, too, and will do so again if I have to. My steel-framed bike usually triggers the sensor but if it doesn't, I'll wait a reasonable length of time and then carefully proceed on through the intersection when traffic permits. It ain't my fault if the street department installs electronic doo-dads that don't accomodate ALL the vehicles on the road, bicycles included.


Hey, thanks for playing, but I think it is the timer or something else that triggered the light, not your bike. your bike simply has too little mass to create magnetic anamoly large enough to trigger the light.( Or if you wanna confess you have a 50lb Cr-mo bike....:))

It is legal in CA for a cyclist to procede thru a red light at his.her own discretion, provided the cyclist has FULLY stopped in front of the red light. And i do that all the time. The main consideration is BE RESPONSIBLE. If you dont create hazardous situation for others, I dont care if you ride on a freeway carpool lane.

Hey, thanks for playing, but I think it is the timer or something else that triggered the light, not your bike. your bike simply has too little mass to create magnetic anamoly large enough to trigger the light.( Or if you wanna confess you have a 50lb Cr-mo bike....:))Maybe it's a different kind of sensor loop, because my bike is definitely triggering it. The lights at the downtown side streets were on timers until a few years ago. Then they put in loops and, while I've not actually sat there and watched them for hours at a time, AFAIK they will NEVER change unless a vehicle crosses the sensor loop. As I said, now and then I'll run into a stubborn one but most of the time, the light will cycle about thirty or forty seconds after I ride across the loop.

EDIT: Forgot to add that my bike weighs about 22.25 lbs. And no steel plates in my head, at least that I know of ... :D :D :D

There are lots of hate posts here from people who are frustrated with drivers for being rude. Running stop signs because you can beat the traffic or disregarding red lights because it is safe to procede only makes the rift between bikes and cars that much greater. We are seen as people with blatant disregard for the law. If a driver see's just one person doing this, then we are all condemned.BRAVO. As Dr Phil says, "You either get it, or you don't" -- and you, sir, clearly "get it." Well said.

I have a friend who is a bike cop in Davis California. By the letter of the law in california, to be considered a stop, the rider must cease all forward movement and put a foot down at the stop. Putting the foot down is the key to making a stop. This is straight from his mouth, no interpetations. He also said you are not allowed to run the red light if it fails to change while you are waiting.
If this is true - then the "letter of the law" increases my risks at an intersection. This means it becomes a low priority, somewhere above being an ambassador of goodwill to cagers.


There are lots of hate posts here from people who are frustrated with drivers for being rude. Running stop signs because you can beat the traffic or disregarding red lights because it is safe to procede only makes the rift between bikes and cars that much greater. We are seen as people with blatant disregard for the law. If a driver see's just one person doing this, then we are all condemned.
Why should I risk my safety one bit to prevent ticking off a cager? You think that it is going to prevent some driver from being rude to you? I think that there are drivers out there who are azzholes and some cyclist breaking the "law" is not a causal relationship to their azzhole behavior. Frankly, cagers should have respect for the dangers inherent to my cycling on roads with them and thus should not question me when I break the "law."

If this is true - then the "letter of the law" increases my risks at an intersection. This means it becomes a low priority, somewhere above being an ambassador of goodwill to cagers.I don't think anyone here is disputing that the traffic laws which were written almost entirely with motor vehicles in mind are not always a perfect fit for bicycles. What we are saying is that with 99% of the traffic on the public roadways being motor vehicles being driven by people who genuinely don't understand how bicycles fit into the system, it does none of us any good in the long run to selectively choose which laws to obey.

When a driver sees a cyclist run a red light, he doesn't think, "Oh, he's just doing that because it's safer for him." Instead he thinks, "Look at that !@#$%! punk on the bicycle, running that red light like it doesn't apply to him! Those things shouldn't be allowed on the roads!"

The issue of your concerns about safety aside, surely you can see that what you are doing does not help our cause ...?

I have a friend who is a bike cop in Davis California. By the letter of the law in california, to be considered a stop, the rider must cease all forward movement and put a foot down at the stop. Putting the foot down is the key to making a stop. This is straight from his mouth, no interpetations. He also said you are not allowed to run the red light if it fails to change while you are waiting.

Being in California, a lawyer, a cycling enthusiast, and anal about rules, I have read the vehicle code pertaining to cycling at least 50 times. I have found nothing there about putting a foot down. Just isn't there. I know full well that I can stop, even if momentarily, and not put a foot down. I think this might be an "urban myth."

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21200-21212

Being in California, a lawyer, a cycling enthusiast, and anal about rules, I have read the vehicle code pertaining to cycling at least 50 times. I have found nothing there about putting a foot down. Just isn't there. I know full well that I can stop, even if momentarily, and not put a foot down. I think this might be an "urban myth."

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21200-21212

I know lots of people who freak around cops and clip out, but not me. I've had cops directly behind me or next to me when I come to a stop, and I never put my foot down.

I think the most important thing the cop is looking for is that you cease forward motion for a second or so, and look both ways. Do that and you are home free. Most riders can do a partial trackstand that will qualify.

Only an a-hole cop having a bad day would write you up for not having your foot down, and you would easily win in court by asking the officer to show you where in the VC it says you have to do that.