Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 45
Like Tree40Likes

Thread: APD Ticketing Cyclists

  1. #21
    MoJo Mother Superior fontarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by attaboy View Post
    as for being conscientious, it's truly bad form when car passes then stops ahead of you at stop sign. you then blow thru sign requiring driver to again pass u. it's dangerous and a hassle for driver and that's when i think drivers build resentment.
    I *really* hate when drivers speed up to get around me 50 feet from a stop sign. They pass me then immediately come to a stop. It happens a lot at one specific intersection on my way to work.

  2. #22
    MoJo Friar shotgun jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    132
    If we want drivers to share the road with us, we need to be willing to share the rules of the road with them. It's that simple. Is reality different? Yea. But the general mindset needs to be there.

    Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

  3. #23
    Mojo Slow-poke Austin Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Seat 21B - exit row aisle
    Posts
    16,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Tree magnet View Post
    I remember my first EB when that massive pack of riders would blow through stop signs and sometimes roll stop lights. I couldn't believe it and stopped at every one putting me at the back of the pack by the time we got to the greenbelt. My pace would have put me there anyway so I wasn't upset about it but it did have me wondering. Was it cool because there was a huge pack of riders? Was it okay because it was so early that it was still dark and traffic was super light? I actually thought we had a police escort at one time?!
    Yeah, this one is a tough one. I know because I led the last one. I'll address the Walnut-BCGB section because after we got to the GB the group spreads out and there is no longer a "big group" when they get off the GB.

    Lights were a mandatory stop. No questions. The problem is that some might be short, so 80 of the 150+ make it through. The remainder can wait for another long cycle at 6:45 at an empty intersection or ride through the red. Neither is optimal. Most of the lights (other than 183, burnet and anderson/shoal creek) had zero traffic. After a light where I assumed people were going to get caught, I left the pace slow so that they could catch up.

    Stop signs, however, were typically a slow and look both ways. If there was any cars at all I held the group back and send the cars through. Basically they don't want to get behind 150 bikes. If there were no cars, we called "clear" and kept rolling.

    Again, nothing is optimal for getting that size of a group from WC>BCGB at that time, but I am glad we do it early, before traffic.
    shotgun jeremy and CBaron like this.
    "A person can work up a mean, mean thirst after a hard day of nothing much at all" - Paul Westerberg

    庄富瑞

    Click HERE for all your Austin Biking information


  4. #24
    MoJo Mother Superior notyal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wimberley
    Posts
    1,912
    Quote Originally Posted by shotgun jeremy View Post
    If we want drivers to share the road with us, we need to be willing to share the rules of the road with them. It's that simple. Is reality different? Yea. But the general mindset needs to be there.

    Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
    I hate to sound anti-cyclist (because I am definitely not), but reality is that bikes can legally occupy a lane designed for cars to be traveling at speeds that bikes are unable to achieve. As a driver, it is frustrating when you get behind a cyclist in a spot where it is difficult to pass. How do you get two things that travel at such different speeds to coexist on the same road?
    "living today like it is the first day of the rest of my week"

  5. #25
    MoJo Friar shotgun jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    132
    Personally, I'm a fan of designated bike lanes. I think they are absolutely the solution and wish every city and town would put them in. This way intersections are treated the same, but bikes are out of the way of cars and vice versa. The only time a bike should be fully in a car lane (in my opinion) is if there is no shoulder, or if they are trying to make a left turn.

    Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

  6. #26
    Mojo Prickly Tire brianjo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    187
    The main problem with some of the bike lanes in this town are that they are squeezed onto streets on which the car traffic routinely exceeds 40 mph (S Lamar and Slaughter Ln, eg.). That's pretty unnerving to have cars whizzing by 3 feet away going 2-4 times your speed. I know, i used to commute on part of S. Lamar - never again, had some close calls. On Slaughter, I use the sidewalk.

  7. #27
    MoJo Pope yosmithy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cedar Park
    Posts
    483
    Curious to hear the opinion of those that do ride street about the recent addition of bicycle specific traffic lights in Austin?

    Added safety?
    Added confusion?

  8. #28
    MoJo Priest William_Cannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    53
    I once saw a guy get a ticket at UT for rolling through a stop sign at 6.30 am when there was no traffic on a street that rarely had traffic. The argument with UTPD was pretty comical.

    Tapa

  9. #29
    Mr. The Cat Lady clsmyth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    157
    Why is stopping at stop signs or lights or obeying any given traffic law, while on a bike, even a question? If you want to use roads where there are cars, and be granted the legal status of a real vehicle (such as a car) while doing so, what makes you think some laws apply to cars only? I'm talking about laws that are not already explicitly cars-only, like having to keep current registration and inspection, of course.

    -cls
    MrMentallo likes this.

  10. #30
    MoJo Neophyte TheX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Pflugerville
    Posts
    3
    Entitled attitude a lot of people have.

  11. #31
    cmc
    cmc is offline
    MoJo Mother Superior cmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    austin
    Posts
    2,361
    Quote Originally Posted by clsmyth View Post
    Why is stopping at stop signs or lights or obeying any given traffic law, while on a bike, even a question? If you want to use roads where there are cars, and be granted the legal status of a real vehicle (such as a car) while doing so, what makes you think some laws apply to cars only? I'm talking about laws that are not already explicitly cars-only, like having to keep current registration and inspection, of course.
    -cls
    Because bicycles are not cars. The premise, that there is only one legal status--"real vehicle" and "not real vehicle" is flawed.

    Large trucks have some traffic laws that apply only to them (truck speed limits, trucks not being in the left lane, weigh stations, etc.)

    Motorscooters under 50cc are regulated slightly differently from motorcycles.

    Pedestrians have different "traffic" laws that are suited to pedestrians.

    Bicycles are treated in some ways like vehicles, but in other ways like pedestrians. For example, bicycles are allowed to be on sidewalks (except certain parts of downtown); they're allowed to be on the Hike & Bike trail, as well as mixed use dirt trails that we all ride, whereas motorcycles are not.

    Bicycles have some attributes of vehicle, but not all of them.

    With that as the starting point, why would we not design traffic laws that are tailored to the attributes of bicycles and the experience of riding them? Coming to a full stop at an intersection when there is no one else around is something that is not a major inconvenience for drivers of motorized vehicles. It IS an inconvenience for cyclists. All laws balance inconvenience vs. benefit.

    Back in the days when roads were full of horses and carriages, a motorized vehicle was seen as a threat:

    Before the car was king - Chicago Tribune

    "Horseless carriages showed up in Chicago as early as 1892, and the city hosted the nation's first auto race in 1895 – only two of the seven cars even made it to the finish line, with the winner puttering along at 5 mph. Just a handful of wealthy Chicagoans were driving automobiles around 1899, at a time when the streets were filled with horse-drawn vehicles, streetcars, pedestrians and bicycles.

    With the 107th Chicago Auto Show opening on Valentine's Day, it's hard to imagine life in the U.S. before the automobile so dominated the national identity. Today, cars are the unchallenged kings of the road but around the turn of the last century, the debate was how much these newfangled contraptions should use the roads. A bicycle-loving mayor threatened to crack down on the up-and-coming auto.

    Chicago was one of the first big cities to pass laws regulating autos, setting a speed limit of 8 mph in 1899. If you wanted to drive, you had to go in front of the Board of Examiners of Operators of Automobiles. These three city officials decided whether you had sufficient "physical ability, mental qualifications and ... ability to understand the working parts of the mechanism." The same board could revoke your license if you showed "carelessness" or "intemperance" behind the wheel.

    At first, the city did not put an age limit on drivers. Examiners were "astounded" in September 1900 when 13-year-old Jeannette Lindstrom applied for a license. Her father said she'd been driving the family car for three months. The bright North Sider aced the test and got her license. "Chicago has probably the youngest licensed automobile operator in the world," the Tribune observed.

    As motorists drove across the city, they were confronted with a patchwork of jurisdictions. Chicago had three major park districts at the time, each covering a separate portion of the city, and each had its own automobile laws. The city's police monitored the traffic on other streets. One park board tried to ban autos from South Side parks and boulevards in 1899, but motorists drove through them anyway, ringing their gongs as they buzzed past the "sparrow cops," the nickname for the park district's patrolmen.
    "
    AntonioGG likes this.

  12. #32
    Mr. The Cat Lady clsmyth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    157
    That's awesome! So, do any laws currently exist that allow, say, bicycles to run stop signs in ATX whenever and wherever they want to? Or is that just our way of letting everyone know we'd like some new/different laws?

    -cls

  13. #33
    Live Medium Bamwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Gnarnia
    Posts
    2,031
    Nevermind
    Last edited by Bamwa; 08-13-2017 at 11:38 AM.
    Grab life by the timbales.

    I live off the land... There's rosemary and guinea hen eggs and coastal oats in my neighborhood!

  14. #34
    Mr. The Cat Lady clsmyth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    157
    What a break for motorcycles at some stoplights! So, do any laws currently exist that allow, say, bicycles to run stop signs in ATX whenever and wherever they want to? Or is that just our way of letting everyone know we'd like some new/different laws?

  15. #35
    cmc
    cmc is offline
    MoJo Mother Superior cmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    austin
    Posts
    2,361
    Quote Originally Posted by clsmyth View Post
    That's awesome! So, do any laws currently exist that allow, say, bicycles to run stop signs in ATX whenever and wherever they want to? Or is that just our way of letting everyone know we'd like some new/different laws?
    -cls
    No, current "Idaho stop" laws do not exist in Austin, and yes, we want some new/different laws.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

    Lawmakers in many states, provinces and cities have attempted to pass similar laws.

    In 2003, HB 2768, which would have allowed cyclists to treat stop signs and flashing red signals as yield signs, passed in the Oregon House by a vote of 46-9, but it never made it out of a Senate Rules Committee. The bill had the support of several bicycle coalitions, but opposition came from local law enforcement and the Department of Transportation.[8]
    In 2008, San Francisco's Metropolitan Transportation Commission's bicycle advisory committee held a hearing on a "stop as yield" proposal with the possibility of recommending that the MTC staff further investigate the idea and bring it before the agency's governing board, so that they could propose state legislation to change the California vehicle code.[29]
    Minnesota legislators introduced a bill similar to Idaho's in 2008, but it never made it out of committee.[30] The same bill was introduced in 2009 and met the same fate.[31]
    In 2009 an Idaho Stop bill was introduced in Oregon, but a lack of support, because many legislators cited constituent opposition to giving cyclists what they viewed as special right, led a key legislator to refuse to schedule a work session on it and it died in committee.
    A stop-as-yield bill died in committee in Arizona in 2009.[32]
    In 2009 in Montana a stop-as-yield bill was opposed by the insurance industry and the Montana Highway Patrol and was voted down in committee.[33]
    In 2010, a stop-as yield bill in Utah passed in the House[34] and the Senate transportation committee but failed to pass on the Senate floor by one vote in an 11-11-7 vote.
    In 2011 a Utah stop-as yield bill again died in the Senate on a tie vote after passing the House[35] That same year a similar bill in Arizona again never made it out of committee.[36]
    In 2011, an Oregon Idaho stop bill was never voted on in committee and failed upon adjournment,[37]
    In 2011, an Arizona stop-as-yield bill was again proposed but never voted on.[38]
    In 2012, the Arizona stop-as-yield bill finally made it out of one house committee,[39] only to fail in another.[40]
    In August, 2015, San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos announced plans to introduce an ordinance that would set a “San Francisco Right-of-Way Policy” that would make citations for bicyclists who safely yield at stop signs the lowest law enforcement priority. Running a stop sign would still be illegal, but the police would be discouraged from enforcing it, making this a proxy for a stop-as-yield law.[41] The bill was passed in an initial vote by the Board of Supervisors on December 16, 2015.[42] However, on January 20, 2016, the Mayor vetoed the bill.[43]
    In September 2015, Washington, DC Councilmember Mary Cheh introduced the "Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2015," which included an Idaho Stop provision.[44] When the bill came out of committee in June 2016, the Idaho Stop provision had been removed.[45]
    In 2015, the city of Montreal recommended that the province of Quebec revise its Highway Safety Code to allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs.[46] And in 2017 they repeated the recommendation.[47]
    In November 2015 New York City Councilman Antonio Reynoso introduced a resolution, Res 0914-2015, asking the state Legislature and Gov. Cuomo for a statewide law that would allow bicyclists to treat stop signs and red lights as yield signs.[48] The resolution was never heard in committee.
    In January 2016 Santa Fe, NM Councilmember Patti Bushee proposed an amendment to the city's uniform traffic ordinance, bill 2016-07, that would allow bicyclists to proceed through a stop sign with caution if the intersection is clear.[49] The bill was postponed in committee despite the local police department being "cautiously supportive."[50] It was not taken up again.
    In January 2016 Oklahoma State Senator David Holt and State Representative Lewis Moore introduced HB 2999 which is an Idaho Stop bill.[51] On February 18th of that year, it passed the House's Public Safety Committee, but died in chamber.
    In September 2016, an Edmonton City Council committee voted to ask provincial officials to consider allowing cyclists to roll through stop signs in their ongoing review of traffic regulations.[52]
    In January 2017, Colorado state legislator Andy Kerr introduced a bill that would legalize the full Idaho Stop statewide.[53] The bill died in committee on a 3-2 party line vote.[54]
    In February 2017, California Assemblymen Jay Obernolte, R-Hesperia, and Phil Ting, D-San Francisco introduced A.B. 1103 a "Stop as Yield" law.[55]
    In February 2017, Arkansas Rep. Brandt Smith introduced H.B. 1520, an Idaho Stop law. It died in Committee on a 7-7 vote.[56]
    In June 2017, the Delaware House and Senate both passed the "Bicycle Friendly Delaware Act” that would allow cyclists to treat some stop signs as yield signs. As of August 2017, it was awaiting Governor Carney's signature
    Last edited by cmc; 08-14-2017 at 09:53 AM.

  16. #36
    Mr. The Cat Lady clsmyth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by clsmyth View Post
    ...Or is that just our way of letting everyone know we'd like some new/different laws?
    Quote Originally Posted by cmc View Post
    No, we want some new/different laws.
    Huh?

    -cls

  17. #37
    MoJo Mother Superior AntonioGG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, tX
    Posts
    637
    I'm assuming your sticklers are not the kind that race to a 4-way stop, not come to a complete stop and pretend to be the first one there right?
    Because I've never seen any cars do that...no, all 100% of cars fully do the stop as required by law at stop signs. Yessir.

    The way I see it, if you're a cop, and you see me running a stop sign on a bike or on a car, I deserve the ticket (and people DO get ticketed on cars or bikes). I'll pay the fine or do the defensive driving. If you're not a cop, then just keep it to yourself. As long as you're not affected (i.e. it's not a failure to yield issue), then worry about yourself following the laws, drive defensively. Failure-to-yield is to me a completely different issue altogether. If I'm not mistaken, you could get both a failure to stop and failure to yield ticket. I see failure to yield as a much higher offense.

  18. #38
    Mr. The Cat Lady clsmyth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioGG View Post
    I'm assuming your sticklers are not the kind that race to a 4-way stop, not come to a complete stop and pretend to be the first one there right?
    Because I've never seen any cars do that...no, all 100% of cars fully do the stop as required by law at stop signs. Yessir.

    The way I see it, if you're a cop, and you see me running a stop sign on a bike or on a car, I deserve the ticket (and people DO get ticketed on cars or bikes). I'll pay the fine or do the defensive driving. If you're not a cop, then just keep it to yourself. As long as you're not affected (i.e. it's not a failure to yield issue), then worry about yourself following the laws, drive defensively. Failure-to-yield is to me a completely different issue altogether. If I'm not mistaken, you could get both a failure to stop and failure to yield ticket. I see failure to yield as a much higher offense.
    No cop no stop, huh? Haven't heard that one in a minute.

    I shall go a little further out on this limb and say cyclists should not run stop signs or lights, regardless of whether anyone will see it.

    -cls
    shotgun jeremy and FJsnoozer like this.

  19. #39
    MoJo Mother Superior AntonioGG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, tX
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by clsmyth View Post
    No cop no stop, huh? Haven't heard that one in a minute.
    -cls
    That's not at all what I said. Read it again please.

  20. #40
    Mr. The Cat Lady clsmyth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    157
    Apologies for that @AntonioGG. So if you run a stop sign you deserve a ticket, but not a tongue-lashing. And failure to yield is worse than failure to stop, at least from a safety/practicality standpoint.

    I'm curious as to whether you actually run stop signs on your bike.

    My attitude towards speeding is similar. It's why I shall never buy a radar detector. If I get caught for speeding, I deserve the ticket. If I wish to not get a ticket, I should simply not speed as opposed to trying to become more difficult to catch.

    -cls

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Remove Ads

Search tags for this page (caching method: table)

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •