ARE YOU KIDDING ME!??! (Page 5)

Sorry for bumping, but I read the 1st page this afternoon and then saw something relevant in a BikePed list serv. I have not verified this, but its from a neighboring state.

                                  TITLE  49
                                MOTOR VEHICLES
                                  CHAPTER 7
                           PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
    49-720.  STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a
bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and,
if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing
to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to
any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving
across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection
without stopping.
    (2)  A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a
steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection
and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may
proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a
one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to
other traffic.
    (3)  A person riding a bicycle shall comply with the provisions of section
49-643, Idaho Code.
    (4)  A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given during not
less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the bicycle before
turning, provided that a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand
is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle.

I think the cop was a weenie. If he wanted to raise awareness or promote safety he could have warned you. I say haul @$$ his to court on his day off and see how much he enjoys having his day messed up. There I said it. If you feel its not worth your time then pay it.

I don't think "The law is the law" argument holds water since cops use discretion all day long. If our guy was riding courteously and safely then I think the ticket is unjustified. There is no expectation that we should mindlessly accept any violation the police mete out without question or address. That's why the courts exist.

As I cyclist, I do not want want to be treated like a vehicle. I don't want to have to carry insurance on my bike, get a license that must be renewed every few years. I want to be able to trackstand at an intersection or go on a sidewalk or cross a divider if I need to. I want ot be able to use the shoulder and stop even if the sign says "no stopping anytime". I want to be treated like a bicycle. I'll try not to get in your way if you try to not run me over. Some of those traffic rules will get you killed anyway. You will only survive by your wits!

That argument holds up in court just fine. As soon as the judge asks you if you came to a complete stop, and you say "No, but...", you're guilty. Barring a life-or-death situation, there aren't really any extenuating circumstances.

And as far as not wanting to be treated like a vehicle, it's fine I guess to feel that way. But cyclists who do the stuff you apparently do give the rest of us a really bad name. I for one like being treated like a vehicle. It gives me some sway when people in cars tell me I don't belong on the road, because I sure as hell do. But with that privilege comes responsibility. If you want to be treated respectfully, you have to act respectfully.

I don't know about that Jim.  Judges are entrusted to interpret the law and perhaps the judges' intrepretation of the law will be akin to the Idaho law that someone posted.  That is MY interpretation of the 'stop sign law for bicycles'.  :-)   

I agree with what Broompatrol wrote.  I am not a car and don't want to be treated like one.  People follow my truck 20 feet off my arse when I'm doing 40 mph but the dang well better not do that when I'm on my bike!  When I approach an intersection 95% of drivers around here will yield to the bike - even if they have the righ-away.  When a vehicle goes around me, most of the time they will go way over in the other lane and give me a wide berth.  I don't see much difference in being on a bike and being a pedestrian and the pedistrian always has the right-away. 

Certainly my attitude is shapped by where I ride and the courtesy of the drivers around here.  I don't ride in rush hour and almost exclusively on country roads w/o much traffic.  I put myself in the shoes of the vehicles and try to bike like I'd want bikers to bike if I were driving a vehicle.  Maybe it's different riding in the city on crowded streets but I don't see the hostility you must see towards cyclists.  I love my city!

Interesting perspectives in this thread.  I know people have said we're beating a dead horse but I'm enjoyng the various insights and attitudes people have about themselves and their cities.

~Mike

Would you please explain what it is I do that give cyclists a bad name? Is it riding on the shoulder or not wanting to be run over? What part of my post did you interpret as a suggestion to be disrepectful?

I guess when you have laws like the Idaho law, it gives judges the opportunity to exercise judgement, but when they are written like the one in Georgia that says failure to stop is a violation, it's pretty cut and dried--there isn't a lot of room for discretion. Either you stopped or you didn't.

You're of course, free to interpret any way you want, but a judge doesn't have the leeway that you do when the law is writen the way it is.

Maybe that was a little harsh and presumptive. I guess I'm talking about cyclists who routinely disobey traffic laws...jumping curbs onto the sidewalk to cut through crosswalks to avoid red lights, weaving in and out of traffic...that kind of stuff. We get respect when we follow the same rules drivers do. That's my opinion, at least. 

Maybe I should have said judges have the discretion to determine the pudent application of laws.  That's what judges do.   That is why judges have the authority to dismiss a case even when the defendant clearly violated the letter of the law. 

If there is one absolute in the law it is that there are NO absolutes.

~Mike

I'm, of course, not a lawyer or a judge, but it's always been my understanding that in cut-and-dried cases where someone clearly broke the law, judges don't have leeway in determining guilt or innocence. But, they do have leeway in assessing penalties. 

I, of course, could be wrong. 

Not so.  Get a load of this.  A jury can find a defendent guilty as charged and the judge can throw out the jury's vertict and declare NOT GUILTY.  Judges have a great deal of power.  Certainly for a traffic citation they can do whatever they see fit. 

~Mike

Except, not a lot of juries in traffic court.

Mike's point was that a judge under certain circumstances can throw out a jury verdict.  I.e., the judge has a lot of power

And yeah, a judge (more likely a commissioner) can throw out a traffic ticket, all he or she needs to do is say she doesn't believe the cop.

Just doing my part to get this thread to 6 pages

Discretion in sentencing, not in determining guilt or innocence. Again, when the judge asks him if he came to a complete stop and he says "no." And when the judge asks him if he ran the sign because of some life-or-death situation and he says "no", case closed.

The judge can of course, decide to fine him $1. That's where the discretion comes in.

In order to not believe the cop, the OP would have to lie and say he did come to a complete stop.

Anybody advocating perjury here? And yeah...me too.  

Well, if he goes into court telling the truth, he should be prepared to suffer the consequences. 

You are assuming the judge is gonna ask him "did you come to a complete stop".  And even if he does, the defendant can say "No sir, I did not.  I could see there were no cars coming from either direction as I approached the intersection.  I slowed down as much as I could w/o unclipping my biking shoes from the pedals and when I saw it was clear, I prceeded thru the intersection." 

At this point the judge can declare "Case dismissed" or "Pay the fine and get out of my court"

I'm not a judge or a lawyer...but I've spent more than my share of time in court.  {Mike covers his shame and makes a quick exit}