I actually think it's the wrong approach to advocate for equal treatment, as in, treat me just like you treat a motor vehicle. We are different and we should be treated differently. I believe we should be afforded equal access to a safe and efficient infrastructure, but pretending I'm a car is an easy way out. I can't drive down the belt line on my bike and I don't want to-it's unsafe and it would severely impact the motor vehicle traffic. Let's advocate for equal rights, not equal treatment.
In the same way, I shouldn't ever have to come to a complete stop at a stop sign unless the situation truly calls for it. There is absolutely no value in me stopping at a stop sign (as opposed to yielding) except that by not stopping I might make a driver envious. There's actually no value in motor vehicles stopping instead of yielding at the vast majority of posted intersections. The only reason we have so many stop signs is because motor vehicle drivers don't yield very well. Grant On May 17, 2012 1:02 PM, "STRAWSER, Charles" <[email protected]> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
