kuan

Get to a stop sign, do a 360, and then go through. You've ceased forward motion, in fact, you've actually reversed.

Bikepacker67

As you complete your 360, you are re-approaching the stop sign, and legally have to stop.

kuan

Crap there goes my theory.

Damn having children. Friday night and sitting at home.

Helmet Head

You'd also be moving the wrong direction for that side of the road for at least half of the 360.

Blue Order

There's a case from 1897 in which a cyclist did just that, and then got hit by a train when he crossed. The court ruled that the cyclist did not stop by riding in a circle, and his widow lost her case.

ivegotabike

ummm track stand?

StephenH

Reminds me of an incident long ago. We go out to the beach with my uncle. He stops at a four-way stop, drives through, and discovers the road is blocked immediately beyond by washed-up sand. So he throws it in reverse, and asks the immortal question, "Do you have to stop when you back through a stop sign?"

Helmet Head

And that reminds of an old Cheech and Chong sketch.

(paraphased from memory from like 30+ years ago)

Chong: Oh man, you just ran that stop sign.
Cheech: *****. Oh well, I'll stop twice at the next one.

LittleBigMan

I don't know, my wife doesn't even bother the 360 in the car.

StrangeWill

I'm questioning why there is a 360 maneuver in the first place...

kuan

Because sometimes you know the trackstand just.. isn't... going... toworkout.

RecumbentTriker

Sounds like a double U-turn *grin*

Hobartlemagne 

In many areas, the legal definition of a bike stopping includes putting a foot on the ground
while not in motion.

noisebeam

I've have yet to see any documentation that says this is true for any state or other locality in the US.

Al

Rex G

It may or may not exist in statutes, but some areas seem to enforce it that way. Keep in mind that there are statutes, and then there are court decisions, called case law, that have a bearing on how laws are interpreted. Then, local governments will have on-staff attorneys who review laws, and develop policy based on case law, or their own personal interpretation, in the absence of case law, to guide the enforcement division of that political entity. In the absence of all of that, there is the individual officer's interpretation, which may or may not be supported by the local judge. An appeals court can reverse a local judge. An appeals court decision can become case law, if other judges use it to guide their decisions. And, so goes the circle of life....

noisebeam

Like I said I've never seen any documentation including statutes, case law, AG opinions, anything. I have not even heard of a person who specifically was told they got the ticket because they didn't put a foot down. But I've heard over and over again people repeat that one needs to put a foot down for a legal stop, the majority of which seem to be repeating what they have heard from someone else.

Of course putting a foot down is a great communication tool, both to law enforcement and other drivers. That is why if I want to make it clear I am stopped to other drivers I always put a foot down. If no other drivers are visible from any direction I 'track stand' if the stop needs to only be momentary.

But back OT, I've never tried the 360 approach either. While it is not legal, it would also seem a waste of time and cause unneccessary confusion if other drivers are present.

Al

Blue Order

I have yet to see anything that says "foot down" either.

EDIT: Of course, in the 1897 case I mentioned above, the court did say a cyclist is required to stop and dismount...


You're absolutely right about the value of "foot down."

shumacher

I've had some guy behind me in a pickup try to California stop a stop sign that I was still stopping for. I agree, trackstands don't always convey the message "I'm stopping", especially in locales where bicycle laws are disregarded. The 360 thing would probably baffle everyone involved.

OH306

Gee, to me STOP always meant STOP, not ride in a circle for a while.

LittleBigMan

For my wife, STOP means slowly roll into the intersection, then GO.

She doesn't ride a bike.

gritface

So there you go kuan -- just ride through stop signs with your foot down. It will look like you've come to a complete stop to law enforcement.

Perhaps you could also ride against traffic where the stop sign doesn't 'reach'.

I am curious to determine why you would prefer a 360 over stopping. It would seem to me that a 360 would take more time to execute.

What exactly is the goal?

LittleBigMan

Sounds like a motorist:

"I am curious why you would prefer to ride a bicycle instead of drive a car. It would seem to me that riding a bicycle would take more time to execute."

gritface

Oh, me personally? I stop at stop signs. Just trying to understand why some cyclists don't like to stop.
I just read an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that mentioned some older-aged cyclists are using road bikes as status symbols.. well here's a quote from the article:

Back to my point - Being able to stop and accelerate on a bike repeatedly shows vitality and control!

seeker333

They should apply that rule to motor vehicles too.

Rex G

A cop stopped a bicyclist who did not completely stop for a stop sign. The cyclist was a lawyer, and argued that he had just slowed down enough to amount to the same thing as a stop, and asked the officer to define or demonstrate "stop." So, the officer takes his nightstick, and starts rapidly beating on the lawyer's head. The officer then asks, "Do you want me to just slow down, or do you want me to stop?" Sorry, old joke, recycled.