SB959, Stop Signs on the W&OD Trail…

[KLizotte]

SB959, Stop Signs on the W&OD Trail…
by BudVye on January 16, 2013

…was passed late in the session, after being amended to reduce the maximum fine to $100 and lower the speed on the cross streets to 35 mph.

The Loudon Sheriffs Dept. spoke strongly for the need for the bill, citing a number of accidents and even deaths in the crosswalks.

Paul Gilbert of the Regional Park Authority spoke against it, primarily worrying that there would be differing enforcement in different jurisdictions along the trail.

After the meeting Sen. Marsden, who is on the committee, and who rides on the trail, suggested that we get an amendment ready for when it crosses over, requiring all of the jurisdictions along the trail to pass ordinances, so that enforcement would be uniform along the 45 miles of trail.

Topic

[Mark Blacknell]

Hi, all. We’ve got some action on Senate Bills today. You should see a WABA alert shortly (and I’ll post it here for those who aren’t – gasp! – WABA members yet).

[mstone]

@oif_vet 41365 wrote:

If the current measure of enforcement is motorists at stop signs, I don’t think we have much to worry about.

Unfortunately, it isn’t. Certain jurisdictions are responding to people who simply don’t like cyclists, and want to find ways to drive them out (IMO). I am willing to be convinced by evidence that the amount of stop sign enforcement for cyclists is proportional to the number of cyclists and the number of deaths caused by cyclists not stopping, but I haven’t seen any such evidence. And the end result of this is more motorists driving around thinking “I don’t have to stop at the crosswalk, everyone else is supposed to” rather than “I’d better be ready to stop at that crosswalk so I don’t hit someone”.

[baiskeli]

@oif_vet 41365 wrote:

What I really want to know is, what constitutes a complete stop for horse riders?

All four hooves on the ground?

[baiskeli]

@mstone 41445 wrote:

And the end result of this is more motorists driving around thinking “I don’t have to stop at the crosswalk, everyone else is supposed to” rather than “I’d better be ready to stop at that crosswalk so I don’t hit someone”.

Yes. And what’s worse, this introduces different requirements at different intersections, further confusing motorists and cyclists alike.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 41449 wrote:

Yes. And what’s worse, this introduces different requirements at different intersections, further confusing motorists and cyclists alike.

And you can be darn sure that Loudon Sheriffs will be illegally applying the law where the signs aren’t valid, since that’s what they do now. The silver lining to this is that since they’re clearly on record as acknowledging that the signs have no basis in law, there may be grounds for a suit if this bill doesn’t become law and they continue enforcement.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 41451 wrote:

The silver lining to this is that since they’re clearly on record as acknowledging that the signs have no basis in law, there may be grounds for a suit if this bill doesn’t become law and they continue enforcement.

Good point.

[Author]

Replies