New Moto Guzzi Door Mats Available Now
Actually the proposal is not to make it legal but rather make it a low priority for police to ticket people. In my opinion, it's a good thing since it allows police to stop someone if they see them doing something stupid and ignore the responsible bicyclists who are not causing any problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJw4xIcZDU
You have to be an idiot to believe that treating it as a yield makes sense...
The only time it makes sense to blow thru stop signs is when it's obvious there is no traffic, a situation which NEVER occurs in San Francisco unless it's maybe 3 am...bloody idiots these city council/planner folks making this proposal.
A bicycle going 25 mph can't stop on a dime and better than anything else, in other words they can't, there are people run over by bicyclists to prove it.How is blowing through stop signs the same as lane splitting. As it stands, one is legal (lane splitting) the other is not. A proposal is not the same as a passed law.As for helmets, its your head.
30-sum responses to what should be a spontaneously combusting topic and it's boring.A stew here with no spice. Todd.
What is the big deal with stopping at a stop sign?SF has a lot of visitors. When they see a stop sign they take it to mean someone coming up to it is going to stop. Now they are supposed to figure it really doesn't mean stop for bicycles only?Go visit there sometime and see what goes on with bicyclists, those that don't obey most traffic laws and courtesy on the road. It isn't the exception, it is a lot.
Hate to burst your bubble , but even out here in flyover country we don't expect bicycles , tricycles, cars , or even pedestrians to stop at stop signs . Doubt if tourists to San Francisco are surprised by bicyclists rolling through stop signs . Dusty
Rolling through would be like coasting through, ready to brake, looking around and yielding to other traffic
Keep reading this "rolling" thing. Rolling through would be like coasting through, ready to brake, looking around and yielding to other traffic since you rolled though and if a ped entered the crosswalk, giving them right of way.Not even close.
My bicycle with me on it can stop on a dime, no I've never hit anyone
this exactly what every sensible bike group is advocating for.
OK, 4 way stop sign. In SF they have them on steep hills. Picture yourself in your favorite Guzzi. You get to the stop sign headed north (steep downhill) and you are going to turn west. Right after you stopped a car being driven by an ultimate driver stops at the west side stop sign. All is good.
OK, 4 way stop sign. In SF they have them on steep hills. Picture yourself in your favorite Guzzi. You get to the stop sign headed north (steep downhill) and you are going to turn west. Right after you stopped a car being driven by an ultimate driver stops at the west side stop sign. All is good.According to the rules of the road, you now have right of way even if you both arrived and stopped at the same time. Happens all the time, everyone understands how it works and it does work most of the time.Ultimate driver gives you right of way. Then as you get ready to make your left turn, some bicyclist does the "sensible" thing and passes you on the left and not stopping, goes through the stop sign.You've committed, clutch is feathering out and because you are on a very steep downhill your choices are limited. You no linger have right of way according to the ultimate driver, he waited and the next vehicle on his right was the bicycle, not you, even though you were supposed to be next. Ultimate driver takes his turn and because things happen PDQ in traffic yours is the a$$ is ODF because some bicyclist doesn't need to stop at stop signs and the way reality works, bicyclists almost always take the advantage to move on, right, wrong or indifferent.What matters though is that you, on your favorite Guzzi, are about to leave the gate when from behind and in the left part of your lane, the bicycle breezed through and scewed up the normal order of traffic.It all happens fast, if it didn't, there would be few collisions.Like many traffic laws and rules, people fudge a little, posts here prove that. If most bicyclists would follow the proposed rule that would be one thing but they wouldn't. Yield quickly turns into no stopping at all and then into taking the right of way when it isn't supposed to be.
Hey all. San Franciscan here. Perhaps I can add a little context to this discussion. Though similar rule changes have been a priority for bicyclists for a while here in the city, the current push is playing out against the back drop of a fairly ham-fisted crack down on cyclists by the police captain of a central San Francisco neighborhood. This neighborhood contains perhaps the essential east-west bike route here in the city. If you live in the primarily residential neighborhoods on the west half of the city and commute to the main commercial/business districts or transportation hubs on the east half of the city, you almost certainly take this route. This seven block long zig-zagging route, known as "the wiggle," hits a stop sign at every intersection on primarily quiet back streets. Over the summer the captain announced he was going to be making enforcing full stops on bicyclists a priority, and he made good on that promise. In the months since, there has as often as not been one and often times more officers stationed on or near the wiggle stopping and ticketing bicyclists for failing to come to complete three second stop with one foot on the ground. Many of the people swept up in this dragnet approach are generally safe, sane, and conscientious cyclists conforming to a common and logical practice. Are there reckless bicyclists? Certainly. But they are far and away a minority, and this approach is having a suppressing effect on bicycling in general, not on dangerous behavior or at the most problematic intersections. All of this is taking place in a city that has rising property and violent crime rates, but dropping arrest rates. As a cyclist, I'm irked by what strikes me as a wrong headed and disproportionate approach to traffic safety. As a general road user (pedestrian, bicyclist, motorcyclist public transit passenger and driver) I'm irritated by city policy that can only serve to discourage people from bicycling which-we need much more of-and encourage people to take cars instead. As a citizen and three time victim of theft this year alone, I am incensed that resources are being devoted to this pet project instead of where they are needed.The proposal doesn't even implement the "Idaho Stop," the common name for allowing cyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs and stop lights like stop signs. For what it's worth, I support full implementation. It encourages bicycling, which we sorely need more of, by legalizing safe and sensible behavior. But that isn't even the case here. The ordinance in question would simply make enforcing rules against safe behavior a low priority.
. Over the summer the captain announced he was going to be making enforcing full stops on bicyclists a priority, and he made good on that promise. In the months since, there has as often as not been one and often times more officers stationed on or near the wiggle stopping and ticketing bicyclists for failing to come to complete three second stop with one foot on the ground.
Dude no need for a whole soliloquy, just say you think bikes are stupid, it's ok really
