surreal

Yeah, yeah, read the whole thread.... we've already danced this dance a few times on this one.

Yes, the driver's ed teacher told me that. A cop has told me that. Grannies, co-workers, even my dad----lots of ppl say that. But, yo're right, it's not the letter of the law, least not here in NJ

surreal

Oh, but PS: we still see drivers rolling stop signs and right on reds every day. Like, a zillion times, every day. So, my basic point remains the same: I strongly suspect that many of the same ppl who sniffle and whine about cyclists' behavior at controlled intersections roll stop signs themselves. Not all of'm, obviously, but if there's a venn diagram representing the bike-critic snivelers and the motorized stop sign rollers, there's probably a fairly thick intersecting zone....

Final PS- if cops believe you gotta wait for a 3 count, and they ticket you for rolling the control as a result, what's the difference vis-a-vis the actual law?

kickstart

Pretending that rolling a stop sign, or a right on red is the same as actually running a red through an intersection is a sure way to loose any credibility.
Yes, all 3 are illegal, but the former while violating the letter of the law is still meets its intent which is proceed if safe, the latter is outright flouting of the law which is stop and wait for the green.

TransitBiker

I feel that anyone making transportation less safe needs to be held accountable and not made out as a representative of the rest of their respective group, be it a train engineer, a bus driver, a cyclist, or a motorist.

The sheer number of motorists here blatantly driving unsafely is all most the sole reason for low speed incidents and most of the higher speed incidents. A car in tyler park was on its side because the driver was on her phone & not looking at the road. Thankfully the park was closed and no one else was involved. Do you realize how fast you gotta go through a turn to put a pontiac bonniville on its side? Like 65 mph. So, even if it somehow did manage to negotiate the turn, it was going at least that fast into a 4 way intersection with houses on the opposite side.

People just cannot be bothered to do things the right way, and take no ownership in their presence or residence in communities.

I am thinking of putting together or sourcing a rig that projects a 4 foot laser or LED light onto the ground, so people know how far away they need to pass me (in PA 4 feet). I am also thinking of rigging up a LED sign that says "pass on left only" which i can mount on my rear rack. That is more of a long term thing. In the near term, i'm thinking about a dual gopro camera system for my own legal protection.

No one forced anyone to buy or use an automobile. It is a luxury item, an unsustainable, polluting one at that.

I am a fan of tiered licenses, where the better a driver you are, the larger and more powerful vehicle youre able to own/operate AND bicycle registration (15 dollars flat fee) that goes towards "share the road" signs & transit funding as well as driver & cyclist education. I also think knowledge tests, inspection & emissions test need to be mandatory in all 50 states, as well as a default bloc of pedestrian/cyclist safety questions on the knowledge tests that are required to be correct to pass.

- Andy

icedmocha 

"If the other guy does it, it's ok for me"? I would say from my completely anecdotal evidence that commuters and such obey most laws and only do a slow roll through stop signs "did this today". The problem is that you get groups of roadies who fly through stop signs and will not stop for anything or anyone. I've nearly been hit driving as well as running. SO I would say the issue in the op is usually roadies, particularly in groups, who have a sense of entitlement and general stupidity. Not all roadies mind you, I saw a group ride of 50+ roadies yesterday who were awesome and obeying laws and having fun. Defending people who make the rest of us look bad doesn't do any good. I see no value in discussing what cars do when bad behavior of fellow cyclists is pointed out. Similarly it would be inane for car drivers to justify cutting off cyclists and running through stop signs because bikes do it.

Saving Hawaii

Andy don't do this to me.

I literally save 5 hours each year commuting by bike by simply not having to visit the DMV. Do not make me go to that hellhole. Don't do it!

(The economist in me says that the registration revenue is completely spent on collecting the tax and that you'd be hard-pressed to find a less efficient way to tax cyclists... if you really want to tax cyclists, put a $2 tax on bike chains at the manufacturer level. It's still silly. Every dollar you save by taxing cyclists ends up being $5 spent in Medicaid and Medicare.)

Saving Hawaii

I hate to break this to you but this is a widespread thing. I live in a community with 5% modal share. For the US that's pretty darn good. Amsterdam here we come! Cyclists break lights in ways that motorists would not. It's not for the most part a lack of caution and they've checked both ways and know they're in the clear, but they do run solid reds. Maybe it's a habit you get into when you're tired of stopping for lights that'll never change for you. Maybe it's simply because it costs a lot of energy to come to a complete stop with a foot down. But most cyclists run red lights at least from time to time. Even I run some when traffic isn't present.

But cyclists run reds and I think it's vain to pretend that they don't. Maybe you don't but you are in fact in the minority.

It'd be a positive if traffic laws recognized this and gave cyclists some exemptions rather than pretending that all vehicles benefit from being treated as if they're cars. If you say FRAP I say Idaho stop.

njkayaker

I wasn't talking about cars (nor was Suzuki).

Anyway, many people (cyclists) exaggerate the number of drivers who don't stop (and there could be regional differences).

And, of course, most people (even the ones who "California stop" themselves) object to car drivers not-stopping.

njkayaker

I really doubt it's the law in any state. It's rather odd that those people all said "3 seconds" (which is rather arbitrary). It's very odd that so many people felt the need to tell you that.

officersmith.blogspot.com/2012/01/stopping-slowly.html?m=1

What you said before was wrong.

3 seconds is arbitrary. What are you going to do if the cop imagines that it is 4 seconds or doesn't time it correctly? You should start stopping for 30 seconds to be sure.

curbtender

I've seen bicyclist who's idea of stop is to unclip and put a foot down. I'm going to be more commute friendly if I creep to the limit line and keep some momentum for my turn to cross. I'm thinking the large weekend groups that tend to ride like 'lemmings following the piper' are probably the most noticeable factor in this debate.

surreal

I think the 3-count is one of those pervasive nuggets of conventional "wisdom"--- cops seem to believe it. I think that "complete stop" might be a concept that some neophyte drivers struggle with, so the 3 count become an instructional method that, in time, resulted in the misconception about the law. Some LEOs are well-versed in the law, but a good number of them seem to be winging it. For all we know, some chiefs might be telling the new guys: "write them a ticket if they don't stop for a full 3 seconds"...

genec

While I agree that bike registration or cyclist licensing is simply stupid on so many levels... I gotta ask... where do you get "5 hours a year?" I do own a car... it takes me like 5 minutes to write a check and mail in the registration form. If it is a year requiring a smog check, that takes less than an hour... and I do it at lunch... I drop off the car and pick it up later. I am out maybe 10 minutes at most. My driver's license renewal takes minutes, again, to write a check, and that is done about every 5 years.

While thinking that bike registration or cyclist licensing is silly... hyperbole like "5 hours a year," well, frankly, is just BS.

njkayaker

You are just guessing.

We don't really know how many cops believe it or how "pervasive" it is.

No doubt, it's more pervasive than it should be because people, like yourself, suggest it is the law.

Anyway, if we assume it's something that is necessary to do, you'd, practically, have to wait significantly longer than 3 seconds to be sure.

surreal

OK, here we go...

When you see a post where certain phrases are used, such as "I think...", "...seem to...", "...might be...", "for all we know...", that person is admittedly guessing.

We know that the 3-second "rule" is a concept that is widely believed, as it has obviously been addressed on this forum before, as evidenced by the droves of forumites who pounced on me immediately for repeating it here. It seems to be (yes, I'm guessing again) a pet peeve on the A&S forum. As for how pervasive the misconception is among cops, I can tell you that I had to pay $80 b/c of that 3 second "rule"...which is extremely microlevel, but 100% of the cops with whom I've discussed the topic believe that a 3 second wait is the law. Also, if that cop is to be believed (which he probably shouldn't, as he was demonstrably wrong about the topic in the past), the red light cams are calibrated to snap shots if the car doesn't stop for 3 seconds. It seems likely that he was "guessing"....

I think that we can agree that the 3 second rumor is out there, as many of us have heard it before.....

In closing, I'll remind you that this is an internet forum. This is where conjecture lives! Most of us are guessing, and the rest of us are waxing pedantic while demanding citations.

mr_bill

No, it is not widely believed. There are many rumors out there. Why you continue to spread this one is bizarre.

-mr. bill

unterhausen

if there is a 3 second requirement before a stop is official, it has been years since anyone in this part of pennsylvania actually came to a stop legally. Simply put, it's not a requirement anywhere.

mr_bill

Though I can't think of a more convenient rationalization:

Given motorists don't obey non-existent laws....

-mr. bill

njkayaker

Why even guess?

We don't know that at all. We know it's believed by some people. The fact that "droves of forumites" knew that it was false is some evidence that it's not as "widely believed" as you think it is.

That's an anecdote, by the way.

This, in my opinion, is not reliable.

Anyway, if one had an interested in contesting a ticket, any misunderstanding by the cop would be useful.

And the real point is making sure that people are clear that it's just a rumor.

That's no reason at all to let people rumors that are plainly wrong promote them as "true".

cellery

I never disputed that a significant portion of cyclists run reds or stops. Of course we all see people doing it. My point was that there is a double standard where cyclists who make up a significantly lower modal-share are more thoroughly scrutinized by non-cyclists for running reds than are drivers who run reds. They see a few doing it, and project that image onto all cyclists. I don't see Suzuki saying "I saw a a couple cars run red lights last week - therefore most drivers are scofflaws that need to follow the law better". But he should if he wants to be taken seriously by an advocacy movement - you have to address all relevant stakeholders without singling out one group for such an argument to be effective. He could have made the same argument about contraflow joggers that cross on reds and it would have been equally irrelevant; I see that all the time too yet no one is calling on joggers to wait for the signal. What it boils down to is that we have to share the road - and that means drivers will single out a few cyclists for doing the same thing that cars do in far greater numbers at far greater risk to other people, because they are two disparate groups sharing the same territory. So I don't see Suzuki's argument as particularly relevant. The two groups are not equal. This is not an argument for giving scofflaw cyclists a pass. It is simply the recognition that a group is singled out for being a minority when the same standards are not being applied to the majority - something I believe would be a more effective argument. Again, I said I am for self policing - as any advocacy group should necessarily keep its own house clean. But this article seemed very one-sided against cyclists and that is where I take issue. I do agree with your last statement.

cellery

I know it feels nice to feel correct by using the language "we know" and then elevating it by saying "I think" means someone is guessing. But you haven't posted anything citing proof. So you are still just guessing. Post a link or something - then we will know.

noisebeam

It is false. There is no US state with a law that a stop must be at least 3sec to be legal and/or requires a foot down.

genec

True... but someone forgot to tell cops.

surreal

One thing I know for sure: I have conceded, on this very thread, a few pages up and weeks ago, that the 3 second rule is not law. I'm not "spreading rumors"; I've typed that this is a misconception several times in THIS VERY THREAD ALREADY, and it's completely absurd for anyone to suggest otherwise.

"Cite proof"? Of what, exactly? That ppl have spoken to me in the past about their belief in a law re: 3 seconds being the minimum for an official "complete stop"? I'm sorry; I didn't film it or otherwise record it, and I'm pretty sure there's no online source I can link y'all to that will provide details of brief and insignificant conversations I've had with cops, driver's ed teachers, friends, family, and acquaintances. All I can think to do is offer you this little played-out gem from yesteryear: Let me google that for you It is, indeed, a common misconception.

I don't think my tale about the unjustified red light camera right-on-red ticket and the cop who told me that you have to stop for 3 seconds qualifies as an "anecdote", b/c it's not amusing or interesting, it isn't hearsay as far as I'm concerned b/c I lived it, and at this point-- almost a year after the violation and WEEKS after I tried to stop discussing it here-- it's become a long story that's somehow still being told.

#mr_bill Cute. If you'll read what I'd actually written in my first post on this thread, as well as the subsequent ones, you'll realize that I am talking about motorists rolling and/or blowing thru controlled intersections. Regardless of the ill-informed detail about the 3 seconds, my statement does still pertain to existent laws that many motorists fail to obey.

I'm not sure when, exactly, BFs was taken over by pseudo-academics who wish to provide a source for every assertion, and demand the same from others. Perhaps some of you miss your time in the classroom, and perhaps others are trying to make up for a lack of time spent on education. Maybe I'm just "old school", but I think that internet forums are made (in part) for users to come and share their beliefs, thoughts, and experiences about a relevant topic, no source needed. Yes, I was wrong when I mentioned that motorists should be stopping for a full 3 seconds. I was not wrong, however, when I stated that they must stop at or behind the line, come to a complete stop, and proceed only after the roadway is clear of other road users with right-of-way. (Anyone who doubts the veracity of all that can look it up themselves.) My point was, many motorists routinely break the law at controlled intersections, but we don't hear folks whining about that on talk radio or in the op-ed section of newspapers, nor was that addressed in Suzuki's editorial. His focus on cyclists' wrong-doing at intersections without mentioning motorists who behave similarly, or pedestrians who cross against the light, et cetera, strikes me as off-putting.

njkayaker

1- you should have known it wasn't the law (since it would clearly be a nonsensical law).

2- if you thought it was the law, you should have looked it up. That's what you should have cited, obviously.

3- you should google "anecdotal evidence".

4- pointing out that something somebody said is wrong is also "sharing thoughts". People have asked for sources in the earliest forums (it's not anything "new").

5- what people were saying you were wrong about was the "3 second" nonsense. Nothing else. That you were "right" about something everybody already knows is irrelevant.

6- it is bizarre to suggest other people lack "education" when you keep demonstrating that lack in yourself.

7- if you are in a hole, stop digging.

Paul Barnard

Of what legitimate use is anecdotal evidence in the scientific community? Does it have value?