Ride Safe!

Justifying a "rolling stop" seems like making a mountain out of a mole hill to me.I could not find anything definitive about what the law in Mississippi says about this, but you know it only takes a second to come to a complete stop anyway! I suspect most Miss. LEO's would frown on this behavior. What is the point of a STOP sign or light, if your just going to roll thru it? As for a light that won't trigger, I have run them only if there was NO OTHER TRAFFIC in sight, and I have been sitting there for a while and it is obvious it is not going to change. If I was stopped by a LEO, I would tell him why and hope he was reasonable .

pkpilot said:

Interesting perspective from the CHP officer, but not one shared by all LEOs, myself included. States have different laws on when a motorcycle can proceed if the signal does not detect them. Know the law in your jurisdiction. They are all on the internet and easily searched.

I will not hesitate to stop anyone who cuts through private property to avoid a signal/stop sign. If a motorcyclist stated your rationale, I might consider it, but the burden would be on him to prove it. Most of the traffic signals in our area have been converted from the unground magnetic detectors to a camera based system that does detect motorcycles (overall lower cost of installation and maintenance). If the intersection was equipped with the video system, the person who cut through would definitely get a ticket from me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Not so here, video cameras at least where I ride. At least 60% don't pick up my RT. I looked first on the web, then went to the CHP office. I had two questions there and one was the traffic signal issue. Clearly the CHP officer either didn't know the law, or was essentially admitting it's not been addressed in the law so is up to the discretion of the officer. That's a total crock of BS to leave this to one guy who says, 'Sure, ride thru private property', and the other says he'll cite you unless you can successfully talk your way out of it. Sounds like the real fault is the lack of clarity in the law here leaving motorcyclists and traffic officers unclear about how to respond.

http://https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138217

The other question was in regards to the incessant tailgating during commute hours and why officers don't cite tailgaters. It's actually much worse than this: the CHP all but disappears during commute hours here. Plus, there is no campaign against it whatsoever where I live in Northern Calif, it happens with regular impunity, it's both dangerous to have cars bunched up only 1 or 2 car lengths apart at 60+mph, and it flat out becomes a source of road rage--you're either in someone's way yet they have nowhere to go because of dense traffic, or someone is cutting into your path shrinking interval spacing into half of what it was previously. I don't let anyone get near my tail while riding, but in my car for 20y commuting down the 12m hill to Chico for work it was commonplace to see tailgaters both to and from work to home up the hill in Paradise. For some reason unknown to me, just when driving gets the very worse, commute hours, CHP here all but disappears. But they're out there at 10am when traffic thins, poised to spot the lone speeder. This tells me on no uncertain terms it's way more driven by revenue collection than safety concerns. When I asked that same officer about tailgating he told me they have trouble proving it so they don't enforce it. Great, real safety focused. Connecticut got inspired to do something about their rampant tailgating a few years ago and did a campaign against tailgating w/ PSA's and enforced fines. I never heard where it went but I think it's just stupid to have this sort of recurrent safety issue, and tacitly endorse it thru ignoring it, and that is absolutely the case here.

shortythorne said:

LEO's would frown on this behavior. What is the point of a STOP sign or light, if your just going to roll thru it? As for a light that won't trigger, I have run them only if there was NO OTHER TRAFFIC in sight, and I have been sitting there for a while and it is obvious it is not going to change. If I was stopped by a LEO, I would tell him why and hope he was reasonable .

Click to expand...

There's no frowning here I'm pretty sure it's just illegal. While it only takes a second to stop, it takes far less than that to be rear ended. Further, rolling stops safely executed improve traffic flow, and may as well decrease risk for a dropped heavy bike incident. My wife dropped her CB500X after executing a full stop--but this was just her low experience level. IMO it is probably more technically difficult to stop completely and resume than to not stop and continue rolling slowly forward to initiate a turn. That being said, if there is ANY chance your rolling stop turns into a sudden unexpected need to stop, then all bets are off on that argument. Yes, we both would hope the officer is reasonable, but not all will be, therein is the problem. What really matters for safety's sake, is progressing safely, regardless of the traffic signal status. THAT should be the criteria by which the traffic officer's discretion is based on, and of course that the traffic signal did not reliably detect your presence and change accordingly. If you read the thread one post up you will read testimony where cop and judge looked only at the legality component--hence supports the claim that safety is the secondary concern.

pkpilot said:

Interesting perspective from the CHP officer, but not one shared by all LEOs, myself included. States have different laws on when a motorcycle can proceed if the signal does not detect them. Know the law in your jurisdiction. They are all on the internet and easily searched.

I will not hesitate to stop anyone who cuts through private property to avoid a signal/stop sign. If a motorcyclist stated your rationale, I might consider it, but the burden would be on him to prove it. Most of the traffic signals in our area have been converted from the unground magnetic detectors to a camera based system that does detect motorcycles (overall lower cost of installation and maintenance). If the intersection was equipped with the video system, the person who cut through would definitely get a ticket from me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

So true.

In Wisconsin (and many states with similar language), when you enter private property to alter your route, all you have to do to be legal, is to momentarily stop for the sidewalk or driveway before re-entering traffic. In that way, you're 'behaving' no different that parking lot traffic.

The MSF does not 'blanket teach' you to just proceed thru lights that don't change. Each state tailors its motorcycle instruction to comply with local laws.

In WI, it's statute 346.37 - you can google it if you wish for the particulars, but it's working well.

Rolling stops that are OK for motorcycles but not OK for cars, trucks, etc.? Unrealistic, and would probably lead to more accidents than it would prevent. Remember - you're trying to prevent a hypothetical accident - not a certain one, and create special privileges.

Using the CHP as a source of 'reliable traffic information' is only barely above an séance. The 'desk officer' responses don't surprise me. As an agency, they've been making up rules as they go for decades. Trying to pass off lane splitting as 'legal,' when Assembly Bill 51 only recently codified that is but one example. Having to withdraw an illegal pamphlet they had distributed 2 years ago, telling motorists how to do it was another.

You and I both know how poorly the law is understood by a driving public that no longer benefits from driver's education in the schools, or poor advice from poorly trained LEO's.

Safety and common sense cannot be completely legislated. You and I know that.

greenwald said:

Rolling stops that are OK for motorcycles but not OK for cars, trucks, etc.? Unrealistic... Safety and common sense cannot be completely legislated. You and I know that.

Click to expand...

I agree, it is unrealistic. It is too much to ask a citing officer to decide if the event was safely executed or not, or if the car behind the moto was a potential threat. Theirs is to issue citations and not think.

You come to a 4-way stop intersection w/ completely unobstructed visibility in all directions. No pedestrians, dogs, bicycles, etc. As you're approaching your intended stop you briefly glance your mirror and see an F-150 is approaching your tail way fast relative to your positions, and the driver seems to be glancing downwards toward their lap and isn't slowing down where you think they should to avoid hitting you. Would you make a full stop anyway, or roll thru the stop threshold to prevent being potentially rear ended? Remember, you haven't been rear ended yet so you would be trying to prevent an accident. Yet, you cross the threshold and not stop and you're in flagrant violation of the law. Will the witnessing officer have mercy, or call 'Flagrant Violation!' and let you deal w/ it? I think if traffic officers adhered to the safety and common sense first rule you would not see people nailed for SAFELY proceeding thru a red light that did not detect their presence and change. But I sense that is not the common response--theirs is to issue the citation, but it's seems it rarely pays off to plead common sense and safety in traffic court--they like the money too much.

ncpbmw1953 said:

I agree, it is unrealistic. It is too much to ask a citing officer to decide if the event was safely executed or not, or if the car behind the moto was a potential threat. Theirs is to issue citations and not think.

You come to a 4-way stop intersection w/ completely unobstructed visibility in all directions. No pedestrians, dogs, bicycles, etc. As you're approaching your intended stop you briefly glance your mirror and see an F-150 is approaching your tail way fast relative to your positions, and the driver seems to be glancing downwards toward their lap and isn't slowing down where you think they should to avoid hitting you. Would you make a full stop anyway, or roll thru the stop threshold to prevent being potentially rear ended? Remember, you haven't been rear ended yet so you would be trying to prevent an accident. Yet, you cross the threshold and not stop and you're in flagrant violation of the law. Will the witnessing officer have mercy, or call 'Flagrant Violation!' and let you deal w/ it? I think if traffic officers adhered to the safety and common sense first rule you would not see people nailed for SAFELY proceeding thru a red light that did not detect their presence and change. But I sense that is not the common response--theirs is to issue the citation, but it's seems it rarely pays off to plead common sense and safety in traffic court--they like the money too much.

Click to expand...

You seem to have a serious issue with authority, given your rant. That's OK.

Just do whatever you think you have to do when you ride to be 'safe.'

But what you describe has nothing to do with what the officer sees, as if there's one at every intersection in the USA, and everything to do with how each motorcyclist wishes to interpret thousands of randomly possible scenarios.

Witnessing the current level of competence of way too many bikers, this does not seem like a good idea.

But I realize you like it.

In Wisconsin, the 3 heaviest rush hour areas are Milwaukee, Fox Valley and Madison.
As I work construction, I have had to travel these areas at different times.
The statement of police not being seen also applies here. I do not believe it is a revenue issue.
My thoughts are it is to help the flow of traffic. When a squad is parked slightly out of sight, some drivers reaction, when spotting the squad, is to step on the brakes, some times hard, causing chain reaction braking and sometimes accidents. So they stay far enough out of sight so as not to cause this reaction, but near enough that when something is spotted on cameras monitoring the roads, they can be dispatched in a timely manor.

Here is Wisconsin's version. Other states vary. Some describe malfunctioning signals, etc.

" Notwithstanding subd. 1., a motorcycle, moped, motor bicycle, or bicycle facing a red signal at an intersection may, after stopping as required under subd. 1. for not less than 45 seconds, proceed cautiously through the intersection before the signal turns green if no other vehicles are present at the intersection to actuate the signal and the operator of the motorcycle, moped, motor bicycle, or bicycle reasonably believes the signal is vehicle actuated. The operator of a motorcycle, moped, motor bicycle, or bicycle proceeding through a red signal under this subdivision shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicular traffic, pedestrian, personal delivery device, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device proceeding through a green signal at the intersection or lawfully within a crosswalk or using the intersection. This subdivision does not affect any authorization for a bicyclist under subd. 2.
(d) Green arrow."

If a traffic signal won't trip for a motorcycle contact the DOT or municipal authority that maintains that traffic signal and put in a complaint. Traffic signals don't trip because the technician did not set the detector correctly. A signal can be adjusted to pick up the presence of motorcycles.

PGlaves said:

Here is Wisconsin's version. Other states vary. Some describe malfunctioning signals, etc.

" Notwithstanding subd. 1., a motorcycle, moped, motor bicycle, or bicycle facing a red signal at an intersection may, after stopping as required under subd. 1. for not less than 45 seconds, proceed cautiously through the intersection before the signal turns green if no other vehicles are present at the intersection to actuate the signal and the operator of the motorcycle, moped, motor bicycle, or bicycle reasonably believes the signal is vehicle actuated. The operator of a motorcycle, moped, motor bicycle, or bicycle proceeding through a red signal under this subdivision shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicular traffic, pedestrian, personal delivery device, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device proceeding through a green signal at the intersection or lawfully within a crosswalk or using the intersection. This subdivision does not affect any authorization for a bicyclist under subd. 2.
(d) Green arrow."

Click to expand...

Well this is the voice of reason and California is not always real good with that! I haven't been able to find something about this yet for here but hopefully some day it will happen.

franko said:

So they stay far enough out of sight so as not to cause this reaction, but near enough that when something is spotted on cameras monitoring the roads, they can be dispatched in a timely manor.

Click to expand...

i know all of the hiding places and that's not it here, but I have thought perhaps they are simply turning a blind eye to it as you are thinking to allow traffic to move. That, AFAIC, is total BS. What they should do is indeed be a presence on the road so that people don't tailgate, don't speed, pay attention. Disappearing from sight only tacitly encourages it, and indeed that is what is happening here. If they did simply be presence on the main connector down the hill people might actually get ready to leave a few minutes earlier!

greenwald said:

You seem to have a serious issue with authority, given your rant. That's OK.

Just do whatever you think you have to do when you ride to be 'safe.'

Click to expand...

Well there's good authority and not so good authority, right? How about Nazi SS, they were authority, and we'd both have a serious issue w/ that abuse of power. i have a serious issue when that authority is based on nothing except the badge: no common sense, no judgement, doesn't really care about safety, just wants you to obey, that's it. They have a very tough job I appreciate, so I don't argue w/ police, but that is in part because I've only been pulled over 4x in 50y of driving and riding! Only one of those times was riding--I was cited for exceeding the speed limit by 10mph going down the connector road to Chico, called 'The Skyway', which is about 12m long. That cop was absolutely enraged because I didn't pull over quick enough for his liking. I told him I was not comfortable pulling over immediately because there was a very unstable shoulder surface where his lights went on so I went along another 1/3 of a mile to get to something that looked safer to negotiate. That didn't help, he did not want to hear anything beyond me bowing down and saying, Yes Sir, anything you say Sir. That's BS, and you're right, can't stand it!

Yes, I do everything I think I have to do to ride safe. In fact, above all other considerations my only agenda is: to return home unscathed every single time out. I could write my own book about it, and I do things I don't see others ever do that are safety-driven. I really enjoy the challenge of it. These forums and several books on riding have been a big help on many things including safety considerations.