Ticketed for running stop signs

[ny biker]

http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.c...form-cyclists/

Apparently the sheriffs were out ticketing cyclists who ran stop signs this weekend, including some who were doing the MS150 ride.

Personally I'm embarrassed by cyclists' comments like "we should have been warned." You know what a stop sign means, you make the decision to run it, so accept the consequences.

But I do have a related question for Kenyonchris, and anyone else out there with specific knowledge - what is required for a legally acceptable stop by a cyclist at a stop sign or red light? Is it okay to trackstand if you are at a complete stop, or are you required to unclip and put a foot down? And what about people who ride in small circles while at a red light and consider that "stopped"?

[Thorn]

I believe Bob Mionske (the bicycling lawyer who used to have a column on VeloNews and now is on Bicycling magazine and wrote that wonderful book on bicycle legalities) says it is a gray area.

There was a case where someone did a track stand and was ticketed. They brought their bike to court and did a track stand for the judge and got the ticket waved. I don't believe that one is an urban legend, but I love the story either way.

ETA...oh I am a firm follower of the Idaho stop. But, since I don't live in Idaho I fully expect to get a ticket some day. It is the price I pay. I never run a stop with traffic and I come to a full stop with creep if the view is obstructed. Red lights are stops (although in Wisconsin if I can count to 45 and I have no cars to trigger the signal, I can and will roll through the light). But someday a cop will write me a ticket and I will say thank you and pay the fine...and probably still follow the Idaho law.

[MartianDestiny]

I know some places (notably San Francisco, California) where they make it a point that a cyclist MUST touch a foot down to be stopped. And cyclists do get ticketed for trackstanding at stop signs or red lights. I don't know if this is written clearly into the laws or if it has been the interpretation thereof though.

Personally I find this ridiculous (do drivers have to open their car doors and put their foot down to prove they aren't moving?).

I've never had a problem doing short trackstands when the intersection is clear. I'm not good enough yet to trackstand when there is traffic so I just throw a foot down anyway. Of course after 2 years in California I do tend to throw a foot down flat if I see a cop before I stop, just to be sure.

Heck, I've had cops try to wave me through stop signs that I have not completely stopped for yet! I didn't fall for that one, trap or not. I had no desire for a federal jurisdiction ticket (it was a military base).

[hipmama]

I put a foot down and count to three for a stop sign. Traffic light, foot down and wait for green. If I'm turning right at a stop, I have been known to slow coast, pause, and roll right- if it's a wide bike lane that I'm rolling into.

[OakLeaf]

what about people who ride in small circles while at a red light and consider that "stopped"?

They're obeying the traffic control device as long as they aren't entering the intersection. There's no law against timing red lights - motorists do it all the time. But "riding in small circles," besides just being super dangerous and stupid, is at least an illegal U-turn and likely a marked lanes violation too.

As for a track stand, obviously the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove you didn't stop, but as a practical matter, if a cop doesn't see you coming to a complete stop, you should get a ticket. Who wants to waste a day in court because they didn't want to unclip?

Let's not re-hash the same discussion we've had a million times about whether California stops are safer than full stops and ought to be legal for all two-wheelers. Yakking about it here doesn't make it any more legal - go to your state's bicycle advocacy coalition or DOT bicycle safety director if you want to change things.

[MartianDestiny]

As for a track stand, obviously the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove you didn't stop, but as a practical matter, if a cop doesn't see you coming to a complete stop, you should get a ticket. Who wants to waste a day in court because they didn't want to unclip?

Many bikers can trackstand indefinitely, so they can CLEARLY be stopped without their foot down for well more than the 3 to 5 seconds required. Sorry, but someone would have to be blind to "not see you coming to a complete stop" if you where in a trackstand for 3+ seconds.

That's like saying you can't tell that a car stopped for the required amount of time unless the driver's foot is on the asphalt for that amount of time, and not the same thing as rolling through a sign or doing a split second stop and then continuing.

The issue then becomes what exactly defines a complete stop for a cyclist. Does the definition require a foot down (if so why), or does it follow the physical definition of stop which is applied to all other vehicles.

I've yet to hear a compelling argument for why a cyclist should be required to put a foot down (not just obey the traffic signs and stop for the required amount of time). In fact I haven't really heard a non-compelling argument either.

Of course this is moot for us mortals that can't hold a trackstand anyway, but I'm working on it, and yes, when I get it I fully intend to use it rather than unclipping.

[smilingcat]

The case Thorn is talking about happened in San Diego. about two degrees of separation from me. So its a third hand information.

Whether or not you get citation and pay a fine is dependent on the officer. Is he determined to issue a citation or not. and the judge who is willing to dismiss the citation or not because you were track standing.

and hmm... intent of the law --what it is supposed to do
and the mechanics of the law --which tells when its a violation or what you have do so that you are in compliance.

The intent here is that everyone must come to a complete stop. the mechanic here is that you put your foot down for three seconds... Their are plenty of lawyers here who can explain all this in very clear detail and how you could use the separation of the intent and the mechanics to "beat" the citation. I'm not a lawyer so I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[PscyclePath]

Stop signs require you to do two things... First stop, which is generally defined as ceasing any forward motion. You can track-stand, or better yet, put a foot down. Next, you're required to yield right-of-way to any crossing traffic, and not proceed through the intersection until the coast is clear.

Red lights are different. A redlight means to stop (again cease any forward motion), and not to proceed any farther until the light turns green, whether there's any traffic or not.

Tom

[OakLeaf]

I haven't really heard a non-compelling argument either.

Not that I can hold a track stand anyway, but not wanting to waste a day in court is plenty compelling for me. And I wouldn't even have to take a day off work to do it.

[msincredible]

I can put a foot down and still keep moving. I can stop without putting a foot down.

I usually do the former for stop signs (if there is any traffic I do actually stop).

[Cataboo]

If there's a car anywhere near a stop sign in any direction that I'm coming up on - I stop, foot down. I prefer having the car go away.

If I'm coming up on a stop sign and it's completely clear of cars in all directions, I'll slow, but I do just go through it.

[MartianDestiny]

Not that I can hold a track stand anyway, but not wanting to waste a day in court is plenty compelling for me. And I wouldn't even have to take a day off work to do it.

I meant for stop=foot on the ground being the interpretation of the law at all.

Not that, given that your local authorities have taken the interpretation that stop=put foot on the ground, that you should or should not then put your foot down.

I made quite a bit more of a scene about my foot being on pavement when there was a cop around too when I was in Cali (I don't particularly want my ride ruined and I generally have to put a foot down anyway as I'm not good at trackstanding).

But I still have not heard an argument about WHY stop=foot down is the interpretation of the law in the first place.

[MartianDestiny]

I can put a foot down and still keep moving. I can stop without putting a foot down.

I usually do the former for stop signs (if there is any traffic I do actually stop).

hehehe, I can too. Yet another reason why I don't get the whole "foot must be on the ground" thing. I'd say over half my bike club does that when going through stop signs: slow down, drag your foot for two to three seconds, and continue through with the rest of the group.

I'm not claiming I feel this should pass as legal stopping, but hey why not, their foot was on the ground for 3 seconds!!!

[HillSlugger]

At my Tour de Cure ride this Sunday we were told that a cyclist got ticketed for speeding: doing 42 in a 35. I figure he'd think of it as a badge of honor.

[MartianDestiny]

At my Tour de Cure ride this Sunday we were told that a cyclist got ticketed for speeding: doing 42 in a 35. I figure he'd think of it as a badge of honor.

That would definitely be a ticket I'd gladly pay and frame! Unfortunately (or fortunately) the cops never seem to be around when I manage to pull it off.