Comments on: Careful when you glide through that stop sign, it may cost you over $150

By: APD continues the “There is no crackdown” crackdown on cyclists | Austin On Two Wheels

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:13:14 +0000

[...] It appears these orders are being given verbally (although an officer earlier this summer said an e-mail had gone out to officers.) I guess were are back to the unverifiable double [...]

By: ChipSeal

ChipSeal — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:23:31 +0000

So they want to crack down on scofflaw bicyclists to reduce injury and death, huh? And they target cyclists who don’t come to a complete stop at stop signs? Give me a break!

APD should be directed to give citations to the ninjas, the salmon and the sidewalk scofflaws that result in the majority of injuries/deaths.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:27:11 +0000

While I’m being cranky, what’s up with those drivers who won’t take their turn once I come to a stop? Lots of times they are over there, trying to direct traffic behind their opaque tinted windows. Sheesh. I’ve already given up my energy to stop, so getting to proceed in front of some lethal weapon doesn’t seem like such a wonderful option to me.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:18:01 +0000

The overall truth is that driving in austin, with the level of traffic we have, is very frustrating. Motorists cannot take out this frustration on other motorists, so they take it out on cyclists. The liberties that bicyclists take, even when perfectly safe, are very irritating to them. Witness that talk about registration fees, insurance, etc. for bicycles.

Jess: don’t worry so much about killing that cyclist, its not even a ticketing offense in Austin. They deserved it, they all run those stop signs.

By: Jess

Jess — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:40:03 +0000

I drive a car and I ride a bike. I follow the laws while using both. I don’t understand why it is so difficult for some people to follow rules. If you choose to drive a car it is your responsibility to know and follow the laws. If you choose to ride a bike it is your responsibility to know and follow the laws. I can’t tell you how many times I have almost run over cyclists because they were not following the law…and all I can think is who is going to feel horrible for killing that person, who will have the fingers pointed at them, and who will get the punishment from the law–probably me in the car. People in cars need to respect cyclist and cyclist need to respect people in cars–plain and simple, but to do this people must also follow the law and use common sense. Common sense tells me that if I am riding a bike I am no match for a 2 ton car and I would probably lose that battle so I should really do things like stop at stop signs. That is what they are called after all.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:01:41 +0000

“mike”, as a matter of fact, I see ‘cyclists’ going through stop signs at a full cruising speed on a regular basis.

If cyclists came to the same rolling stop as motorists do, nobody would complain – but they don’t; those of us who both cycle commuted and car commuted know there’s a real difference – and it’s not just the juvenile anarchist brigade either; the brightly-plumaged-and-helmeted folk using Shoal Creek do it too.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:43:15 +0000

After re-reading some of these comments, what seems most obvious to me is that there is obviously an us versus them mentality on both sides and also a lack of understanding (in my opinion) of the non-cyclists out there. I don’t know a single cyclist that thinks it’s OK to just blow through a stop sign at 15 mph. We’re the ones that get smeared on the pavement in the case of an accident. As pointed out by someone else here, the problem, if any, with slowing to a near stop and coasting through a stop sign while on a bike is a perceived lack of predictability. Thus the use of the law requiring all to come to a “complete stop.” I challenge even the most law abiding citizen out there, however, to tell me with a straight face that you come to a *complete* stop at every stop sign, every time, at all hours. It is so rare (to do so unfailingly), that it really is silly to chose to enforce the same restrictions on a cyclist, especially since it is the cyclist that risks paying the price not only monetarily, but also physically. And for that matter what is defined as a stop? What about those that can balance on their bikes without moving or putting down a foot? Is this still a fine able offense? This is the absurdity of the “a law is a law” argument. It is really a question of what is the correct law that makes sense and is safe for everyone? I personally do not understand why we cannot amend the law for cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. This is just commons sense, but unfortunately I feel commons sense is one of the first things to go when discussing even the simplest of matters.

By: james

james — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:22:49 +0000

I can’t say i’m totally against this. I’ve always said that mutual respect of drivers and cyclists would be increased if they were treated on a somewhat equal level, as towards rightful use of the roads. This might begin with cyclists yielding to cars at stop signs where they should. I don’t know how many people it pisses off when they see a cyclist disregarding the laws. It gives them (us) a bad name, and one of the ways we can work to resolve it is by moving predictably, and that means following the rules.

That is not to say that I am in favor of the aforementioned “idaho-type” law…

I also have to say that I was the victim of a car on bike accident, where the car basically made a right hand turn in front of me, where he actually said he SAW me. I’m sure that he “thought” he passed me, but didn’t realize that bikes can (and do) actually travel at speed.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:18:35 +0000

Does anybody know what the cause/situation around the “recent bicycle deaths” were?

I must confess I am a bit pissed by the attention given to the stop sign thing, as if this is really making things safer for bicyclists, as if motorists and etc. give a flip about the safety of cyclists in the first place.

You don’t see that concern when they are passing you with 1/2″ clearance, or when they execute a right turn into you, or a left turn into you, or pull out into you. Those are the most frequent accidents, and nobody gives a flip about ‘em.

Sure, when some cyclist takes the right of way when it is clearly not theirs, or shoots thru an intersection without regard for the vehicles already waiting their turn… those people are not so much cyclists as idiots, and very similar to their counterparts in cars.

The typical cyclist may not stop completely at a stop sign, but you can bet they are going to follow the spirit of the situation and take their turn as per law, otherwise they will be “the bug on the windshield” as some put it.

By: elliott

elliott — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:32:54 +0000

To respond to the “it’s the law” argument everyone is throwing up, I think the problem here is two fold. First, there are no required bicycle traffic safety classes and bicycle law is barely touched on in driver’s Ed and defensive driving. Pair that with inconsistent enforcement and police officers who flat out don’t know the law, and you are asking for trouble.

Lot’s of people ride bikes because the barrier to entry is hundreds of time less than a car. Many of those people (children, working poor) don’t even have a driver’s license. If we really want things to be safer, we have to educate the public which APD has chosen not to do (unless you consider ticketing people education which is a pretty haphazard method at best.)

I do think the Idaho way, which allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, is something we should seriously consider and would effectively recognize what nearly every cyclist, including I’m betting most of the people here, does at least once in a while.