So, if my heart continues to beat, and pushes slightly outward on my
chest wall, I'm in violation?
What if I blink?
Even the nonsense about a car rocking forward then back is just that --
nonsense (another eight-letter word comes to mind, but....). Think about
it; at the instance between the forward motion and the backward motion,
the car's motion has ceased. So technically, the driver should be able
to start moving again after that. Or would the fuel sloshing around in
the tank constitute "motion"?
Of course, the electrons in every atom in the vehicle are constantly in
motion. Complete cessation of motion only occurs at the hypothetical
absolute zero temperature (0K).
"Equal" consideration under the law sounds good, indeed. But it's
useless without some sort of sanity check. It's extreme applications of
the law like this that waste taxpayers' money, mess with people's lives
(one lost day to go to court to fight such a "frivolous" charge can cost
someone her/his job), and clog up the works of the system even worse
than they would be otherwise.
I would love to see any "you have to put a foot down to constitute
stopping" enforcement put up against the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On 2012/05/17 13:02, STRAWSER, Charles wrote:
I think the tangent we are on is interesting, but deserves a new subject
line.
------------
Arthur wrote: “Watch motorists approaching a stop sign. Watch their
wheels. Do their wheels completely cease moving if they are not forced
to stop by a flow of traffic…”
-------------
Long ago I heard a law enforcement officer say that even if a motorist’s
wheels were stopped, it could be argued that “motion had not ceased” if
the driver only stopped long enough for the car’s body to rock forward
(over the stopped wheels), then backward (still over stopped wheels),
then took their foot off the brake and allowed the car’s wheels to start
rolling forward before the oscillation of the car’s body over the
stopped wheels had ceased, i.e. COMPLETE cessation of motion (nothing in
the statute Arthur cites mention that the motion that has to cease only
includes “forward” motion).
I personally think that is perhaps too rigid a view of what constitutes
a legal stop for a motorist (or a track standing cyclist), but I’d be
fine with an individual law enforcement officer taking that view as long
as s/he consistently applied such an extremely narrow view of “stop” to
both motorists and bicyclists.
That is, after all, all we are asking for: equal consideration under the
law that is due bicyclists by Wisconsin state statutes.
Chuck Strawser
Pedestrian & Bicycle Transportation Planner
Commuter Solutions
Transportation Services
UW-Madison
Room 124 WARF
610 Walnut St
Madison WI 53726
608-263-2969
www.wisc.edu/trans
*From:*Ross, Arthur
*CHAPTER 340 VEHICLES — GENERAL PROVISIONS*
*340.01 Words and phrases defined. *In s. 23.33 and chs. 340 to 349 and
351, the following words and phrases have the designated meanings unless
a different meaning is expressly provided or the context clearly
indicates a different meaning:
*(62) *“Stop” when required means complete cessation from movement.
Reasonable people can disagree as to just what this means with respect
to what behavior by a bicyclist constitutes a legal stop. Reasonable
people can include a bicyclist, a police officer, a judge, and/or a jury
:- )
Watch motorists approaching a stop sign. Watch their wheels. Do their
wheels completely cease moving if they are not forced to stop by a flow
of traffic on the intersecting street? This not an argument for
bicyclists not stopping, just an interesting study in behavior.
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
--
Paul T. O'Leary
Chronic Nuisance
Madison, WI USA
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
