https://loudounextra.washingtonpost.c...form-cyclists/

Good for them, scofflaw cyclists should be ticketed. It is a shame the fine is so low. I would expect though that motorists would be fined as well for stop sign running.

What part of STOP do the bikes not understand?

Yeah, I especially like the "Another ticketed charity rider, Charles Rothrock of Oakton, said he agrees that safety is paramount but that authorities could have taken better steps to "proactively warn cyclists" to obey road signs."

Which part of "STOP" wasn't clear? LOL

We all know the law in this regard, we can't pretend that we don't. Regardless of the reason (s) for enforcement or the {presumed} ethical integrity of the officers or department, the law is the law. Simple as that. Even if 100 other cyclists or cars roll the sign that doesn't mean that I'm not legally responsible should I do the same thing, they can't reasonably be expected to pull everyone over, nor does it mean that I should be held harmless of breaking a law because others weren't ticketed. Also, this topic is emotionally charged since it was referring to a charity ride on behalf of a hideous disease, that won't hold water in a courtroom either. If cyclists want equal protection under traffic laws then, they must abide by those very laws. Bottom line: if you don't want a ticket, don't break the law.

Most organized rides in our community have police at the intersections who flag you through traffic lights and stop signs. Ride organizers should have worked with the local law authorities when planning the route.

Sounds like a scam to me. Don't buy it that the cops are the do gooders in this. A cyclist doesn't pose a risk to society by running a stop sign a low speeds, unlike cagers in their 3500# vehicles. The cop isn't out to protect and serve, he's holding hands with the safety nannies out there and padding his cities coffins. BS in my book, and someone needs to show me the data that supports the cop in his sworn duty to protect and serve. What is he protecting? How many people have been killed because a cyclist went through a stop sign at very low speeds? Specifically, how many people besides the cyclist who goes through said stop sign have been killed or even hurt?

I'm a fan of the police, but these tickets are not in the publics best interest. I'd fight it if I got one.

Someone in that article said they were pulled over after rolling the stop sign at 1 mph.

If this is so, it is quite obvious what was going on. It's called revenue collection and it is utter bu!!$h!t.

Even in a cage, rolling through a stop sign at less than 5 mph, accomplishes the intent of the sign, which is to see to it that cars/bikes/skateboarders/etc.... don't barrel through from different directions at the same time.

No one should be ticketed for very slowly rolling a stop sign, especially a clipped in biker. And anyone who tries to drag out the tired old argument that there has to be strict enforcement is a moron. 2 mph is not 20 mph or even 10 mph.

I always take a quick glance in my mirror and off to the sides of the road before running (yielding at) stop signs and red lights.

Seriously people, if there's a cop standing 20 feet away, OBEY the law.

+1

Idaho stop law anyone?

I'm for it!

I won't pass judgement. There's another side to that story. But I disagree with the rest of your analogy. Stop is stop. It's not ambigous, and your alternatives would have it be so. I run them, but if I get a ticket it's a chance I take.

The day that every driver who breaks a traffic rule is busted for it, I'll get up in arms about one cyclist rolling through a stop sign.

8 riders out of 700 couldn't figure how to stop for a posted "Stop" sign. And if the officer hadn't of written them I'm sure a bunch more would have run the 'Stop' and somebody would have been ran over. Unless there's a parade permit issued, and officers are assigned to do traffic control, ya still gotta follow the traffic laws. Just common sense..... 150 LBS loses every time against 2 tons!

Its one of the few reasons I like my state.

As long as the sign says "Stop" it means stop, not yield, so if anything other than a complete stop was done, it's a violation.

Not revenue producing if you're the officer who has to clean up the mess caused by someone not following the laws. Unless youre the one on the scene who has to see the accident, then to the morgue for the autopsy, the ER to tell the parents/family/friends, etc about the injury/fatality, or to court to testify about the incident you can't complain about the officer doing their job!

I take it you witnessed an accident caused by someone rolling a stop sign at 2 mph?

bu!!$hit.

I'm not talking about rolling one at 10 or 15 mph. I am talking rolling one at 1 or 2 mph.

The only exception to this rule is one particular stop sign I pass through on a daily basis that has terrible sight lines in both directions. Infact, you can't see to the right until you are literally with 2 or 3 feet of the intersection. I do stop at this stop sign.

Anyone that would ticket someone for a 1 mph roll with even decent sight lines, is a fool. Well, actually, they may just be doing their "job" which is filling a ticket quota, not safety enforcement.

All we all have is a quote of what he said. Like I said, I won't pass judgement without the other side. He could very well have blown the stop at full speed in front of the cop.

But unless the word stop has been redefined recently and I missed it even 1mph is not stopped. Call it what you want, but even at 1mph then the ticket is justified. Picky? Yeah sure. But diatribe about what it "should be" put aside, the law was broken.

As long as stop means stop there can be no ambiguity. No war as to whether it was 1.3mph or 2.7mph or whatever you wish it was.

When you were a kid and your mom told you to stop, did she accept doing the same as what she told you not to do but just moving slower?

the law is the law.

while the tickets may not have been in the spirit of the law, they were certainly to the letter of it.

and until the law gets rewritten, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

As some of you may know I am a strong proponent for following traffic law and am fine with (and sometimes enourage) cyclists solo and group being ticketed for breaking traffic law. But I feel differently about this situation. It was a large charity ride - one that many participants travel to from other locations where the situation may be different. Every one I've been on has has police stationed at intersections stopping cross traffic if it was present. It was expected to roll thru stops and the police said encouraging words and received thank you's from riders.

There was no up front communication that we were supposed to roll thru, but it was obvious we were as the police were there stopping cross traffic or if there was no cross traffic were being positive or the like.

If I showed up at this local version of the MS ride and saw police at intersections I would have figured it was like any of the other MS rides where the police were there to keep the ride rolling.

Both parties should fix this. The tickets should be dropped for this time and next year the organizers should up front communiate that they either (1) got support from local police for traffic flow control and it is OK to roll thru when clear or that (2) they didn't and the road was under standard traffic control and all laws applied.

that's a good point. but the correct phrase is "padding the city's coffers". unless you meant something completly different than what i'm thinking.

Yepp "The Law is The Law"... actually bicycles are so dangerous to other people (especially rolling through stop signs at slow speeds) that they should be made illegal!

I agree with all of the above. If I were on a charity ride and I saw a cop sitting at an intersection I would assume they were there to ensure our safety by stopping/redirecting motor vehicle traffic. Just this past weekend I had to take a detour because cops had blocked an intersection for a charity walk.

They weren't getting tickets for jaywalking

Really though this is just a symptom of a larger issue. There is an uneasy relationship between cyclists and motorists on the roadways. Address that (not saying it's easy) and you won't see situations like this.

I'll roll stop signs / lights and do so fairly often on my commute. I always slow down, but the exact speed depends upon visibilty, conditions, etc.

And if I get a ticket I pay it. In my mind the whole thing doesn't require a lot of debate.

I read this a lot about bikes running stop signs. It is incorrect.

1. You pose a risk to pedestrians when you run a stop sign on a bike. A bike hitting a ped (especially a child or the elderly) can cause serious injury.
2. You pose a risk to other bikers when you run a stop sign ( I have been hit when biking by a stop sign running cyclist, it is not fun, you do crash and it hurts)
3. You pose a risk to motorcycles/scooters when you run a stop sign. A bike can easily cause a scooter/motorcycle to crash after a low speed impact.
4. And yes, you as a cyclists do cause a danger to 3500 cagers when you run a stop sing. Most of them don't want to hit you, will try to avoid you, and in the process may/likely run into any of the other users of the road.

So yes, a cyclist poses a significant danger to society by running a stop sign at low speeds.

Here's what I learned from all this: look both ways before crossing an intersection, not only
to check for autos, cyclists, and pedestrians, but for also for police officers, who may or may
not be specifically watching for cyclists to break a law.

Right. Make it complicated. Or, you know, just stop at a stop sign. . .