Wow, I really had no idea. I blow stops (i mean not blatantly, i always check obviously) downtown in Detroit in front of, or sometimes WITH, police cars, and never had a problem. I'm going to ask a bike cop buddy of mine to get his opinion.

-t.

I know that in the state that I live in (Minnesota) when you go to appeal a traffic violation you go talk to a DA representative before you go before the judge. If you can come to an agreement with the lawyer, you don't even go before the judge. And there's no cost to you (the defendant) for appealing. A lot of times if you don't have any violations on your record they'll waive the fine and give you a "Continuance for Dismissal" (CFD). With a CFD, you get the fine waived and then you can't have any violations for the next 12 months. If you do have a violation during the twelve months that the CFD is in affect, you have to pay the fine for the new violation, plus the one that was waived previously and both go on your record. If the DA representative is feeling particularly generous the day you talk to them, I've heard they may even just waive the violation altogether (with no CFD).

I don't understand why it works this way but it does. In my opinion, if you break the law and are fined for it, you should then be obligated to pay the fine. It's funny because whenever someone (especially a cyclist for some reason) gets cited for a violation; the fines suddenly become "unfair" or in the words of the OP "ridiculous". As though people should just be able to violate traffic ordinances without ever being fined. What's ridiculous to me is the fact that the outcome of an appeal has more to do with the mood of the lawyer (or judge) that makes the decision than it does the defendant's guilt.

Edit: I come from a family of police officers (although I'm not a cop myself). And in contradiction to what another response said; police (at least here in Minnesota) most certainly do get paid for their court appearances. If they're on-duty, it's just considered part of their regular "clocked-in" shift. But if they have to appear when they're off-duty, they "clock-in" for their appearance and they get paid. They even get overtime for it if they go over their regular hours. They're not expected to just show-up out of a "sense of duty" because Joe Schmo is challanging his speeding ticket.

Um, I probably *wouldn't* come in to court and tell the judge the fines are ridiculous.

I don't know on what grounds you'd appeal. There was a stop sign. You didn't stop. Seems pretty clear cut to me. You might beg forgiveness if you can muster some false contrition, that's your best chance. Even then, that assumes the process is worth the slim chance that the judge will waive the fine.

You got busted. Pay your $100.

You aren't nearly the public menace when you run a stop sign on a bike compared to what you are when you're in a car. The circumstances of the traffic and all could come into play, however. So, you could have been dangerous if there were a lot of pedestrians and cars in the area when you broke the law.

I could see the judge reducing the penalty some, which is meant for automobile drivers, assuming you admit fault.

Is it just me, or does every state in the US, and maybe country in the world, call rolling through a stop sign a "xxxxx stop?"

California stops, texas stops, michigan stops, minnesota stops, every single state talks about this like it's unique to them.

If you appeal, when they give you a court date, ask to reschedule. Usually they group all the court dates for a officer on the same day, by rescheduling, you are increasing the chances he won't show and the case will be dismissed. If he is there, you can claim you didn't see it, or claim that you looked both ways, the coast was clear but wanted to save momentum and you if you average out the speed, you were going the same as a car that made a full stop -- neither is an excuse, but they usually minimize fines if you show up. Be polite, courteous, and apologetic.

Get an expert in bicycle law in California to look at the ticket. Gary Brustin come to mind. I had a friend who beat a bicycle speeding ticket because the officer used the code for a motor vehicle and not the specific code for a bicycle. As my pal said to the Judge, "I'm not saying I didn't do what the officer said I did, I didn't do what he cited me for." Case was dismissed.

let me get this straight...a bicycle speeding ticket!? WTF!?!

I'm in Alabama. Police don’t get paid to attend traffic court. All States have there own way of doing things. Alabama happens to be a state with low resources. Only Mississippi is lower on the economic list of states.

That's inaccurate. I do it in front of police fairly often, they have never cared. ddaversa must have found the pickiest cop in the city, because none of them care about traffic regulations at all, except for parking.

I guess I'm not surprised that it varies from state to state. It might even come down to the precinct or department you're working in.

It definitely could've been a cop having a crappy day (or just a general arsehole). It might have to do with the manner in which the OP ran the stop sign too. There's a big difference between slowing down and then cautiously proceeding when it's your turn (but not stopping and putting a foot down) and just blantantly blowing through with an "I'm not stoppining" attitude. Most cops would let the former go but many will give a citation for the latter.

In my book, stopping is over-rated!:eek::eek:

I've got two kids with driver's licenses and have taught them to stop at stop signs, at the end of the driveway, at the exits to businesses, and everywhere they should. When the started out, they would do exactly that. But, you quickly realize that it isn't practical at all. One has my habits now, the other always stops fully. He drives me crazy, but I don't say anything.:o

Rolling stops, at low speeds, save gas, brakes, and time for cars and bikes. In my book, they are appropriate in light traffic. Obviously, you must stop when traffic commands that you do so.

They say 99% of people brake the law daily by speeding. Well, if you really watch drivers and study their stops, I bet you that 99% of drivers don't fully stop when there is little or no traffic.

This is pretty stupid logic. For one, pedestrians can't hear you and it's harder for them to see you than c car. Secondly, while you may be able to dodge around a ped, if a car swerves for you, they might hit something else. Furthermore, you may not see another cyclist or a motorcycle and even if you don't collide, if they swerve to avoid you, they could end up seriously injured if they fall.

You might get through intersections just fine without stopping, but your quick glances may not reveal the hidden dangers of a grey Prius cruisng along at 30mph on batteries, for example.

hmm never heard that term before. maybe it's because i'm from a province? :p

my partner told me the other day that as he rolled past a stop sign a driver called "Stop Sign!" out the window, to which he replied "Smog Day!!". apparently she had nothing to say to that. :D

It's a well know fact that if the Stop Sign has a white border, it is actually optional.


If a motorist had blown the sign, would you have expected the cops to ticket him?

I wasn't using stupid logic, I just wrote that poorly! You just have to read it three or four times and think the way I think. I'll do better next time. :D

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.

But in any case, if you do it, and your caught, pay up :)

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.

It's hard to get a ticket when there is no one around. Unless, of course, like quickbeam says the cop jumped out of the bushes. I wouldn't roll through a stop sign if I saw a cop near by.

What!?! I'm guessing most stop signs have a white border, check out the pictures at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign

And so what? How does that make what I said inaccurate? To repeat: IF you break a traffic law IN FRONT OF A COP, don't bother to appeal. What would your grounds be, for heaven's sake?

*cough*itwasajokeithink*cough*

I'm from Texas, and I've always heard them referred to as a California Stop.

Sorry I was on the phone with an Airline's customer service non-help line at the time, my mistake.

Incidently I know and use the following terms for driver faults:

1. CA roll or stop (which I have never ever heard called anything other than a CA ****).

2. MA left (where the front left turners go when the light turns green without a green arrow)

I have seen both of these performed in front of a Law Officer without any repurcusions multiple times, although the MA left is quite rare outside of New England.

I never heard it called the MA left, I used to always do that. I think as long as you don't spin the tires its legal.

If you go to court please post what happened.