Ticket warning

[Terpfan]

@Certifried 33338 wrote:

http://fabb-bikes.blogspot.com/2012/10/falls-church-police-ticketing-w-cyclists.html

be safe (and legal!)

be a P.A.L.

The quote about the fellow cyclist hindering the “investigation” cracked me up. I have heard that line before. If only he had filmed it, they probably would have arrested him. Your tax dollars hard at work. Sure folks shouldn’t be running stopsigns, but this is like the police writing jaywalking tickets–little behavioral change value and wasting people’s time.

[mstone]

@Terpfan 33341 wrote:

Sure folks shouldn’t be running stopsigns

Don’t encourage them. There is no reason to stop for the illegal sign in the situation described (other than to avoid getting a ticket). Characterizing it as “running the stop sign” is either applying a negative connotation or further muddying an imprecise term. Should both of these behaviors be described as “running the stop sign”: 1) without looking or slowing, proceed at a high rate of speed through a stop sign on a busy road 2) after slowing and making eye contact with a stopped motorist, proceed through a marked crosswalk as a pedestrian. If you’re describing #2 and an irate motorist is describing #1, the imprecision of the term is only going to make the discussion go downhill faster.

[KLizotte]

The cyclist was in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. If he’d stopped and put his foot down before proceeding thru the intersection, the drivers would have been outraged that he made them wait an additional five seconds.

[Terpfan]

@mstone 33349 wrote:

Don’t encourage them. There is no reason to stop for the illegal sign in the situation described (other than to avoid getting a ticket). Characterizing it as “running the stop sign” is either applying a negative connotation or further muddying an imprecise term. Should both of these behaviors be described as “running the stop sign”: 1) without looking or slowing, proceed at a high rate of speed through a stop sign on a busy road 2) after slowing and making eye contact with a stopped motorist, proceed through a marked crosswalk as a pedestrian. If you’re describing #2 and an irate motorist is describing #1, the imprecision of the term is only going to make the discussion go downhill faster.

The legality of a traffic sign doesn’t change the vehicular duty to obey it. I don’t think running a stop sign is necessarily a negative connotation unless the individual did so in an utterly unsafe method, but that opens up the whole Idaho stop belief. I have zero room to lecture on it given the “stop sign” located at the bottom of 14th St Bridge on VA side before MVT.

[pfunkallstar]

All, please review the classic court case of Friendly Hand Wave Through v. Guy Sorta Nodding His Head Like He Acknowledged Me

[mstone]

@Terpfan 33441 wrote:

The legality of a traffic sign doesn’t change the vehicular duty to obey it.[/quote]

Of course it does. If you walk through a mall and pass a stop smoking display with the familiar red sign, you have no duty to stop and see if there is anyone to whom you must yield the right of way. Similarly, if my kids are playing out side and leave a familiar red toy at the side of the road, you have no duty to obey it. If a vandal rips down a stop sign and throws it on the sidewalk, pedestrians may blithely walk over it. You are only legally required to respect a stop sign created and installed in accordance with some governing legislation. In the absence of any legislation specifying your response to the sign, it’s just a pretty piece of pop art.

Quote:

I don’t think running a stop sign is necessarily a negative connotation unless the individual did so in an utterly unsafe method

Well, it may not have a negative connotation for you, but others use the term to describe the entirely unsafe behavior. Using ambiguous terms makes it very hard to have a reasonable discussion because people end up talking past each other. E.g., if you say that you run red lights on occasion when it’s safe, someone else may assume you’re nuts as it’s never safe to blow through an intersection without looking.

[arlrider]

I once got a “warning” from ACPD at Wilson + Lynn. The officer said I had “run the stop light” at Ft. Myer Drive. COINCIDENTALLY, a few minutes before, the same officer had made a traffic stop up by Summers and was blocking the bike lane with his parked car – even though there was a full parking lane right there at the top of the dangerous hill. I suggested to him as I rode by that perhaps he could not block the bike lane. But the same officer coming down right after and intimidating me for something I didn’t do, well of course I am sure that was a COINCIDENCE.

[rcannon100]

Could be a violation of your constitutional rights (retribution for exercise of free speech – 42 USC 1983). I have had a ACPD police officer try this once – actually twice. Once I reported to the police IG – and got results. The second time – I went from talking to the police officer (eye contact), to looking at his name badge. In this situation, the officer was clearly abusing his position; when I looked at his name badge (as in I am recording your name in order to file a complaint with the police IG), he *immediately* backed off.

Police can have bad days, no issues with that. But you have rights. You can file a report with the IG; you can also consider hiring a constititional attorney, if it comes to that. You may also simply want to approach the Arlington Sheriff, who is an elected official (altho I dont believe the election is ever contested)

Yeah, come to think of it – both instances were ACPD engaged in traffic violations.

[mstone]

Yet another good reason to automate enforcement

[Terpfan]

@mstone 33453 wrote:

Of course it does. If you walk through a mall and pass a stop smoking display with the familiar red sign, you have no duty to stop and see if there is anyone to whom you must yield the right of way. Similarly, if my kids are playing out side and leave a familiar red toy at the side of the road, you have no duty to obey it. If a vandal rips down a stop sign and throws it on the sidewalk, pedestrians may blithely walk over it. You are only legally required to respect a stop sign created and installed in accordance with some governing legislation. In the absence of any legislation specifying your response to the sign, it’s just a pretty piece of pop art.

Well, it may not have a negative connotation for you, but others use the term to describe the entirely unsafe behavior. Using ambiguous terms makes it very hard to have a reasonable discussion because people end up talking past each other. E.g., if you say that you run red lights on occasion when it’s safe, someone else may assume you’re nuts as it’s never safe to blow through an intersection without looking.

The difference in your analogy is that I’m walking rather than riding. Like it or not, the law in most states treat as vehicles when we are mounted on our bicycles and moving. Their laws and regulations may be ambigious, but that doesn’t mean you will win. Even the torn down stop sign is a bad example. Pleading ignorance to a law because of not seeing a sign has never been a valid defense; it can be used as a factor in the determination of the outcome in the judicial proceeding.

[Author]

Posts