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

[Serge Issakov]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:58 AM, <JonIsaacs at aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 6/19/2008 7:12:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> serge at issakov.org writes:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Serge:
>
> Thanks for taking the time to share that with me as well as the rest of the
> group.  I will just add that to comply with the law, it does seem that there
> needs to be an absence of forward motion....  :)
>
> Jon
>

Right.  The lack of clarity in the law is not with respect to whether there
needs to be an absence of forward motion, that definitely needs to be there.
  Nor does the case law suggest that putting a foot down is required to
established such an absence of forward motion.   The issue is with respect
to whether putting a foot down is required to "secure undivided attention,
and the substantial, not merely perfunctory, performance of the duty to look
and listen" [Mionske, p. 40, quoting *Robertson v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Company*].

Anyway, my understanding is that the requirement is to fully stop (cease
forward motion), secure undivided attention and seriously look and listen
for other traffic to which you must yield.  Whether you can do that without
putting a foot down is between you, the officer, and the judge.  What *
Robertson* established was that a cyclist cannot meet the requirement of the
stop while riding round and round in circles.

Serge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080619/973d6ebc/attachment.html