Originally Posted by
Jarery
This is where law overtakes logic. The purpose behind the creation of most traffic laws is to prevent accidents between vehicles and/or accidents between vehicles and pedestrians, and to maintain flow of traffic.
Making a cyclist come to a complete stop at a non busy sidestreet stop sign accomplishes none of the original intent. Same as forcing a car to wait at a red light at an intersection that is empty, and you can see 5 mile in all directions that its clear.
Who said that was the case in this instance? I don't think the OP said that there were no cars in sight for miles and so he or she went through the stop sign; and then a cop suddenly appeared from out of the bushes and cited them for it.
Anytime a cyclist gets busted for running a stop sign; people try to turn the discussion into the ol'
"it makes no sense for cyclists to stop when there's no one around" debate. FWIW I agree! I wouldn't come to a complete stop in that case either. I think most of us take some liberties with coming to a "complete" stop when there are no cars around. And most cops aren't going to cite you for rolling through if no one is around. But if you blatantly run a stop sign when you don't have ROW (because you think it doesn't apply to you when you're on a bike) and then you get popped, don't complain when you have to pay a fine.