Bicycle Advoctea working against themselves?

On Tue, 17 May 2016 06:18:20 -0700, sms
wrote:

That's true. It's really only the Stop signs that are an issue. The
Idaho Stop Law, at least the Stop sign part of it, makes a lot of
sense. But in most locales in my area the police already informally
have adopted the Idaho law; you can't fly through a stop sign at
20MPH, but slowing to a few MPH, looking, and yielding, is not going
to get you a ticket.

Which is how people in cars manage stop signs as well. No one comes to
a complete stop at a stop sign unless there's traffic that forces it
(and if they do, someone behind them honks the horn).

The traffic laws as written are very different from how all vehicles are
operated. The funny thing is the finger pointing- if the other person
behaves like you but is operating a different kind of vehicle, then they
are breaking the law and should be stopped. Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is
people...

On 18/05/2016 9:48 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 06:18:20 -0700, sms
wrote:

That's true. It's really only the Stop signs that are an issue. The
Idaho Stop Law, at least the Stop sign part of it, makes a lot of
sense. But in most locales in my area the police already informally
have adopted the Idaho law; you can't fly through a stop sign at
20MPH, but slowing to a few MPH, looking, and yielding, is not going
to get you a ticket.

Which is how people in cars manage stop signs as well. No one comes to
a complete stop at a stop sign unless there's traffic that forces it
(and if they do, someone behind them honks the horn).

The traffic laws as written are very different from how all vehicles are
operated. The funny thing is the finger pointing- if the other person
behaves like you but is operating a different kind of vehicle, then they
are breaking the law and should be stopped. Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is
people...


You'd have an argument with my wife who just got through fighting a
ticket for not doing a complete stop at a stop sign. She won because
the judge gave her a break due to the ice on the road that wasn't
cleared by the city.

On 5/18/2016 7:18 AM, Duane wrote:
On 18/05/2016 9:48 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 06:18:20 -0700, sms
wrote:

That's true. It's really only the Stop signs that are an issue. The
Idaho Stop Law, at least the Stop sign part of it, makes a lot of
sense. But in most locales in my area the police already informally
have adopted the Idaho law; you can't fly through a stop sign at
20MPH, but slowing to a few MPH, looking, and yielding, is not going
to get you a ticket.

Which is how people in cars manage stop signs as well. No one comes to
a complete stop at a stop sign unless there's traffic that forces it
(and if they do, someone behind them honks the horn).

The traffic laws as written are very different from how all vehicles are
operated. The funny thing is the finger pointing- if the other person
behaves like you but is operating a different kind of vehicle, then they
are breaking the law and should be stopped. Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is
people...


You'd have an argument with my wife who just got through fighting a
ticket for not doing a complete stop at a stop sign. She won because
the judge gave her a break due to the ice on the road that wasn't
cleared by the city.

Yes, on icy roads is when I will typically do a rolling stop. Did that a
lot this winter up in Oregon, along with most everyone else.

On 18/05/2016 11:39 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/18/2016 7:18 AM, Duane wrote:
On 18/05/2016 9:48 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 06:18:20 -0700, sms
wrote:

That's true. It's really only the Stop signs that are an issue. The
Idaho Stop Law, at least the Stop sign part of it, makes a lot of
sense. But in most locales in my area the police already informally
have adopted the Idaho law; you can't fly through a stop sign at
20MPH, but slowing to a few MPH, looking, and yielding, is not going
to get you a ticket.

Which is how people in cars manage stop signs as well. No one comes to
a complete stop at a stop sign unless there's traffic that forces it
(and if they do, someone behind them honks the horn).

The traffic laws as written are very different from how all vehicles are
operated. The funny thing is the finger pointing- if the other person
behaves like you but is operating a different kind of vehicle, then they
are breaking the law and should be stopped. Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is
people...


You'd have an argument with my wife who just got through fighting a
ticket for not doing a complete stop at a stop sign. She won because
the judge gave her a break due to the ice on the road that wasn't
cleared by the city.

Yes, on icy roads is when I will typically do a rolling stop. Did that a
lot this winter up in Oregon, along with most everyone else.


It's technically not an excuse here but the city did a poor job of
plowing this year so the judge wanted to make a point. Lucky for my
wife. But my point was that you can definitely get ticketed here for
rolling a stop in a car.

On 5/18/2016 6:48 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 06:18:20 -0700, sms
wrote:

That's true. It's really only the Stop signs that are an issue. The
Idaho Stop Law, at least the Stop sign part of it, makes a lot of
sense. But in most locales in my area the police already informally
have adopted the Idaho law; you can't fly through a stop sign at
20MPH, but slowing to a few MPH, looking, and yielding, is not going
to get you a ticket.

Which is how people in cars manage stop signs as well. No one comes to
a complete stop at a stop sign unless there's traffic that forces it
(and if they do, someone behind them honks the horn).

The traffic laws as written are very different from how all vehicles are
operated. The funny thing is the finger pointing- if the other person
behaves like you but is operating a different kind of vehicle, then they
are breaking the law and should be stopped. Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is
people...

In rural San Mateo County, which is a heavily used cycling area, the
county sheriff provides law enforcement for both many of the smaller
cities and for the unincorporated areas. The small towns, which contract
with the sheriff, have apparently told the deputies to target cyclists
that don't come to a complete stop at stop signs. So you have motor
vehicles cruising through the stop signs unmolested, but cyclists get
ticketed.

The famous "Portola Loop" has a right turn from Alpine Road to Portola
road. There's a stop sign there. It's routinely run by cyclists turning
right. It's a favorite place for the sheriff to write tickets for
cyclists.
/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSAkFkSVIrnAp2Fy8_F3_VA!2e0!7i1 3312!8i6656

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 8:39:10 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/18/2016 7:18 AM, Duane wrote:
On 18/05/2016 9:48 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 06:18:20 -0700, sms
wrote:

That's true. It's really only the Stop signs that are an issue. The
Idaho Stop Law, at least the Stop sign part of it, makes a lot of
sense. But in most locales in my area the police already informally
have adopted the Idaho law; you can't fly through a stop sign at
20MPH, but slowing to a few MPH, looking, and yielding, is not going
to get you a ticket.

Which is how people in cars manage stop signs as well. No one comes to
a complete stop at a stop sign unless there's traffic that forces it
(and if they do, someone behind them honks the horn).

The traffic laws as written are very different from how all vehicles are
operated. The funny thing is the finger pointing- if the other person
behaves like you but is operating a different kind of vehicle, then they
are breaking the law and should be stopped. Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is
people...


You'd have an argument with my wife who just got through fighting a
ticket for not doing a complete stop at a stop sign. She won because
the judge gave her a break due to the ice on the road that wasn't
cleared by the city.

Yes, on icy roads is when I will typically do a rolling stop. Did that a
lot this winter up in Oregon, along with most everyone else.

The problem is that you have to stop sometime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCoxOReXlHI

-- Jay Beattie.

On 5/17/2016 3:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

We have sting operations for cyclists who fail to stop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TikyIcoop60 This intersection got a sting, for obvious reasons.

Similar to the Portola loop sting operation. Yet in that video, even the
car did not come to a stop. And a cyclist yielded to the pedestrian
wanting to cross.

Another thing I have noticed about bike advocates, at least here in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area. They push hard for bike lanes and want them
on what are really the worst routes for cycling: very high traffic
roads which are typically also bus routes. They consider getting an
inadequate bike lane on a bad road- which creates a miserable riding
experience- as a victory. Often there is a very nice alternative one or
two blocks away and they fight tooth and nail to prevent that from being
used. The most recent example is the proposed Cleveland Avenue route in
St. Paul MN; the street isn't even wide enough for long stretches to
have two full width motor vehicle lanes and two full width bike lanes,
even when car parking is banned. But 1/4 mile east is a very pleasant
street that goes through to all they places they wanted.

Apparently making bicyclists suffer to teach drivers a lesson is
progress. Or something.

On 5/19/2016 11:10 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Another thing I have noticed about bike advocates, at least here in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area. They push hard for bike lanes and want them
on what are really the worst routes for cycling: very high traffic
roads which are typically also bus routes. They consider getting an
inadequate bike lane on a bad road- which creates a miserable riding
experience- as a victory. Often there is a very nice alternative one or
two blocks away and they fight tooth and nail to prevent that from being
used. The most recent example is the proposed Cleveland Avenue route in
St. Paul MN; the street isn't even wide enough for long stretches to
have two full width motor vehicle lanes and two full width bike lanes,
even when car parking is banned. But 1/4 mile east is a very pleasant
street that goes through to all they places they wanted.

Apparently making bicyclists suffer to teach drivers a lesson is
progress. Or something.

I was at a Planning Commission meeting for my city a week ago. A
developer was presenting their case for approval of a plan to demolish a
342 unit apartment complex and to replace it with a 942 unit apartment
complex. Since a major concern of the community about their project is
traffic impact, they must have mentioned bicycles 100 times in their
presentation.

They do not want to provide adequate parking for the apartments and they
claim that the residents will be commuting by bicycle (highly unlikely).
They are planning to put in a little plaza for cyclists, including
non-residents, with some bicycle repair stands and some air compressors
to encourage cycling, and a coffee and juice bar. They kept talking
about how cyclists would be stopping at the plaza to repair their
bicycles and to have a coffee or juice.

The apartment complex is on the one N-S route in my town that cyclists
avoid like the plague. It's got high-speed on and off-ramps to I-280,
that require lane veering in both the northbound and southbound
directions. Traffic on the road will be getting much worse as soon as
Apple opens their new campus. Steve Jobs tried to buy this apartment
complex, which occupies the southwest corner of the parcel, and demolish
it but the owner would not sell.
,1010m/data=!3m1!1e3

See the helmet-less cyclists on the right in
http://www.hamptonscupertino.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/dog-park-people-at-table-reclaimed-h2o-bike-commuter-montage-1440x407.jpg
and then see the statement "Stay safe and please remember to always wear
a helmet when riding a bike."

The developer's idea is that Apple employees will be anxious to rent
these apartments, which will probably rent for $4500 for a 2BR. But
Apple employees don't like living in Cupertino, they like living in
cities where the sidewalks aren't rolled up a 9:00 p.m., and Apple
provides free transportation from more desirable areas. If Apple
employees do end up renting there, they won't be cycling to work they'll
be walking.

On 2016-05-18 08:39, sms wrote:
On 5/18/2016 7:18 AM, Duane wrote:
On 18/05/2016 9:48 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 06:18:20 -0700, sms
wrote:

That's true. It's really only the Stop signs that are an issue. The
Idaho Stop Law, at least the Stop sign part of it, makes a lot of
sense. But in most locales in my area the police already informally
have adopted the Idaho law; you can't fly through a stop sign at
20MPH, but slowing to a few MPH, looking, and yielding, is not going
to get you a ticket.

Which is how people in cars manage stop signs as well. No one comes to
a complete stop at a stop sign unless there's traffic that forces it
(and if they do, someone behind them honks the horn).

The traffic laws as written are very different from how all vehicles are
operated. The funny thing is the finger pointing- if the other person
behaves like you but is operating a different kind of vehicle, then they
are breaking the law and should be stopped. Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is
people...


You'd have an argument with my wife who just got through fighting a
ticket for not doing a complete stop at a stop sign. She won because
the judge gave her a break due to the ice on the road that wasn't
cleared by the city.

Yes, on icy roads is when I will typically do a rolling stop. Did that a
lot this winter up in Oregon, along with most everyone else.


In Grants Pass (OR) they told me not to do that because of the
California plates on my car.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/