Condorita

Velo Dog's not the only one fighting the good fight. And thank you; we need your good wishes against all those who think effective communication skills are outdated.

StephenH

I mostly do sort of a California stop at stop signs (what they call it around here when you don't quite get stopped in a car).

How you work your pedals when you take off is just personal preference, do whatever seems easiest for you.

BigDaddyPete

It's situation based. My theory is always Cross Traffic Wins!

umd

Feet on the ground? No.

cyccommute 

Looking at the picture you posted, I can see where you are coming from but I've never had a saddle low enough that I could put any part of my foot on the ground while seated. I wonder if you run your saddle lower than normal.

Learn how to get on the saddle so that you shorts don't hang up on the saddle. If your shorts are baggy, make sure that you lift high enough to clear the saddle each time you mount the saddle.

Close fitting lycra bike shorts aren't about fashion. If you ever saw me in them, you'd know that...right after you clawed your eyes out They are about function. They make transitions from the saddle to standing or from starting to getting into the saddle much easier without having to worry about snagging loose clothing on the saddle. They also happen to be more comfortable in the heat and flap around less in the wind.

As for how you look in them, I've earned my right to wear them. I've tried hiking shorts that scrubbed delicate tissues raw, wool shorts that were itchy and so baggy that they needed suspenders to preserve my modesty, touring shorts that combined all the bad things about hiking shorts without any of the "good" things about wool shorts, etc. None are as good as even a bad pair of lycra cycling shorts.

That's the ticket. As long as the bike's forward momentum is stopped, you've complied with the law. With practice, you can stand through a stop light cycle or even longer.

njkayaker

What ever you do or don't do at stop signs, your shorts should not be making the choice for you!

As far as I know, only in Idaho.

wunderkind

What's a stop sign?

caloso

Trackstand. Btw, in California at least, stopping is defined as a cessation of forward motion. No requirement to put a foot down.

Kenbone

+1

electrik

Trackstand them all, scan to see if the piggies are around, if they are then you have to put a foot down... which is fair because the car drivers will actually be coming to a full stop also!

edit: some states/provinces require you to put a foot down... check it so you don't get fined!

umd

Not necessarily.

electrik

let me edit... it is law up here.

Arcanum

Yeah, if the behavior of your shorts are a consideration, you need new shorts.


Idaho has gotta have at least two, three places in it, right?

On a serious note, I personally think it's a bit silly to say that this group of vehicles can legally roll through stop signs but others can't.

umd

Yeah, really silly to treat 200lb vehicles differently than 4,000lb vehicles.

Loose Chain

Maybe get some shorts that are not hanging off your rear end with your undies sticking out like some gangsta on a stolen bike. Maybe even consider a, uh, belt. Those are generally quite effective at holding pants up so your "crack" does not show.

As to stop signs, you should do what you have to for your safety and the safety of those who intersect your path, including shielding their eyes from your, uh, "crack" if at all possible. Heck, you might get rear ended.

njkayaker

I think there are things that are sufficiently different for bicycles (speed/viewpoint) that make it not unreasonable, if it's done carefully/correctly. The law should be what is reasonable and works. The Idaho stop law doesn't appear to have increased cyclist collisions.

electrik

Well, you just wait for that train to stop for you at the crossing then. Since all vehicles are the same, why should trains just get their own private crossings.

njkayaker

??? This fails to make any sense.

Trains have stop signs at crossings? Trucks are big too, maybe they shouldn't have to stop? Or motorcycles are light and, maybe, they shouldn't have to stop?

electrik

I don't even think i was trying to talk to you...

let me explain... why do drivers always have to STOP for trains, it is like... so unfair aonnd stuff. Trains just blow right through the intersection, half the people on them don't even pay taxes.

Why, yes, it is silly to think a train, 18wheeler, car, motorcycle and bike are all the same when it comes to stop signs.

GriddleCakes

He's observing that it's ridiculous to expect all vehicles, regardless of size, to act the same way at intersections. Trains are both too heavy and too long to be required to stop and then resume travel at every intersection. Bicycles are so light that they stop on a dime when traveling at rolling stop speed, so they can safely treat stop signs as yield signs. Cars, trucks, and motorcycles fall in between the two, and as such need to continue to treat stop signs as stop signs.

njkayaker

Actually, it makes a fair amount of sense to make all vehicles behave the same way, since drivers don't have to have complicated rules to figure out whether a vehicle is going to stop at a stop sign or not. That is, part of the reason for having every vehicle stop is predictability.

Cyclists are typically legally required to stop, regardless of whether or not it make sense. Cars, too, have to stop even in the middle of the night at an empty intersection. Why should they have to?

Trains are irrelevant. And they are acting legally.

Cars "at rolling stop speed" (what ever that is) can stop nearly "on a dime". Motorcycles even more so.

They are not "blowing right through intersections". They have the legal right of way. This isn't really any different than cars on the freeway having the right of way over cars entering the freeway.

This still doesn't make any sense. The particular issue is why it is reasonable (if not legal) for bicycles not to stop. We aren't really talking about trains.

GriddleCakes

I didn't say that bikes weren't required to stop, I was just stating that bikes can safely treat stop signs as yield signs. Idaho's stop as yield law has been on the books for almost 30 years, and has proved as much. Bikes have a lot less mass than even motorcycles, and as such carry drastically less momentum at low speeds than cars and motorcycles.

I think that electrik used the train analogy to illustrate how different vehicles obey the laws of physics, not the road laws.

njkayaker

I pointed that out already. I don't think that the "stop on a dime" thing entirely explains why the Idaho stop law (appears to) work.

But motorcycles have much better brakes. Cars and motorcycles can certainly yield just fine. There is even an argument that many stop signs should be yields instead! Bicyclists can even fail to yield without much difficulty.

So what? Trains are really big. And they are obeying the "road laws". Why does the "laws of physics" make Idaho stops reasonable? Electrik didn't make that argument.

It would be a better argument to point out why cyclists can do this (the Idaho stop) safely.

electrik

Cars and trains are dangerous, trains have the right of way and cars do not. If a train could stop it would give the right of way. Cars aren't trains aren't bikes aren't trucks. Cars are just as dangerous, they can stop and must because any mistake on their behalf is dangerous. Bicycles aren't dangerous, they can stop, but don't have to if the way is clear, if the operator makes an error it is his ass in a sling.


... what are WE talking about? I think you are purposely reading the wrong thing into what i've written but, then you did butt your way into somebody elses conversation! Oh well.

Attempts to homogenize traffic are silly... it just allows people to get lazy and complacent, then accidents rates go up because the reality is that traffic is NOT homogeneous.

It doesn't make sense for every vehicle to follow an absolute law since they are all different, your prophecy of traffic chaos caused because cyclists Idaho stopping a stop sign is mere fantasy. Unless there is an apocalypse unfolding in idaho that i am unaware of... there isn't is there?

GriddleCakes

I suppose that Idaho drivers just assume that vehicles at side streets, be they bicycle or automobile, aren't going to impede upon their right of way? This is just my assumption, and it's based only on my understanding of the stop-as-yield law and my understanding that Idaho does not have a greater than average bicycle/auto collision rate, nor did the rate jump after the law was enacted. There's a decent breakdown of the history of the law here. It certainly isn't universally accepted, but personal anecdotal evidence has sold me.

Yeah, I'm down with that. Wouldn't change how people drive around here, anyway.

Again, electrik was using trains as an example of vehicles that share our transportation space and have a different set of rules. They have a different set of rules and infrastructure because they operate differently. If his argument is that bicycles deserve a separate set of rules because they operate differently, then I don't see why trains are a terrible analogy. The laws of physics come into play because they describe how different vehicles will operate.