[SDCBC] Fwd: MTC to study Idaho "stop-and-roll" law

[Serge Issakov]

In addition to the books "Effective Cycling" by John Forester and
"Cyclecraft" by John Franklin, I highly recommend Bob Mionske's "Bicycling
and the Law".   On pp 39-41 Mionske has a section called "What constitutes a
stop?"   I'm about to quote the salient sections, but I should warn you that
this is an excellent example of one of the main themes of the book: that
"the law" is not only what is written in the statutes, but also comes from
case law, and is not exactly black and white.  This issue is clearly no
exception.

"The legal requirements for a stop depend, however, on case law.  For
roadway vehicles, 'stopping' at a traffic control device has two components:
coming to  a halt and looking for, and yielding to, vehicles with a superior
right-of-way.  ...

"Thus merely meeting the technical formality of stopping is legally
inadequate.  The stop must be sufficient to allow the cyclist to appraise
the right-of-way conditions and make a safe judgment.  This argument cuts
both ways, however.  Even a brief trackstand is adequate if it gives the
cyclist enough opportunity to observe and make a decision. ...

"Many municipal officials believe that to 'stop,' a cyclist is required to
put at least one foot on the ground  I have tracked model traffic codes back
to their origins and can find no such provision.  However, it is possible
that this belief came out of a judge's decision in the 1897 case 'Robertson
v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company' ...

"Therefore, the 'Robertson Rule' may have both historical interest as well
as precedential value in determining what cyclists must do to comply with
the law.  First, 'Robertson' instructs as to where the rule that you must
'dismount' -- or at least put a foot down -- comes from.   Second, because
'Robertson' is the seminal case that defines what it means for a cyclist to
stop, it may be persuasive evidence in a traffic case to show that the law
does not require a dismount as long as the stop is a full stop and as long
as it is effective in meeting the duty to look and listen."

That's how he ends the section, but I'll end with something from the middle
of the section that I believe is the most important part:

If you want to fight an unfair "stop means dismount" argument, this is the
logic to use: *I did stop, and the stop was of sufficient duration under the
circumstances that any reasonable cyclist of my level of experience could
safely and courteously observe and appraise the need to yield or proceed*."

Good luck!
Serge



On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:48 AM,  <JonIsaacs at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 6/19/2008 5:11:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> j.eldon at sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> I certainly do not want overzealous or revenue-starved law enforcement
> officers emulating Oceanside police and ticketing bicyclists who
trackstand
> at stop signs instead of putting a foot down.
>
> Hi:
>
> It is my understanding that the foot down stop does not apply to
bicyclists
> but rather to motorcyclists.  Maybe someone like Jim can clarify this for
> us.
>
> As far as rolling vs stopping, maybe...  But the way I look at it, a stop
is
> a stop.  A slow roll is a bad habit that soon becomes a worse habit, a
> faster roll at a speed that is too fast to react to the unexpected.  One
> stops because of the unexpected.   There are definitely situations when a
> stop is necessary.  Planning on a slow roll, well, it may be too late when
> it becomes clear that the stop was necessary...
>
> But also, stopping at stop signs is good road manners, it is the courteous
> act of a vehicle operator.
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used
cars.



-- 
NOTE: Any opinions expressed above are mine and not necessarily shared by
any organization in which I am involved.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080619/449fc4d1/attachment.html