Try to remember to stop your bike at 3rd and Treat
AZ Star on The Great 2009 3rd and Treat Bicycle Sting.
It took six comments for somebody to bring up spandex, but, oddly, it took 85 comments before someone reminded us that cars are bigger and heavier than bicycles, and a full 103 comments before we learned that until bicyclists have to license their bikes and pay taxes on them, they are not owed any respect when on the road. So, things are getting better.
I would very much like to see the analysis that shows that bicyclists are more likely to be injured from running a stop sign than they are from getting hit from behind. If TPD even gave out five percent as many tickets for violating the three foot rule, if they spent just one-percent as much time enforcing it as they spend enforcing stop sign violators, I would be delighted.
Bicyclists: remember, if you have been ticketed and you do not contest the ticket, your motorist insurance will likely increase dramatically, especially if you are in your ‘teens or ‘twenties. Your only solution other than bike diversion is to contest the ticket and ask the judge not to forward the conviction on to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
–Erik Ryberg
September 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
And 144 comments before someone suggested killing a cyclist was a positive idea.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Also, if they are hell bent on going after cyclist, let them “educate” the people who are riding the wrong way or on the sidewalks where it is actually more dangerous. That might require more work.
UAPD is also stepping up their “enforcement” on campus. http://wildcat.arizona.edu/news/can-t-we-all-just-get-along-1.473227
September 17th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
I always like when they target cyclists, the comments are all for it, yet one the tide turns on motorists suddenly not so happy about it.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I agree with Michael. I would be excited to see a newspaper article about the police cracking down on people riding bicycles on sidewalks.
OVER THERE:
*Bicyclists suck.
*I hate it when bicyclists run stop signs.
OVER HERE:
*They should enforce the three-foot rule.
*It doesn’t make sense for police to set up stings at four-way stops on bike routes.
NOWHERE:
*Productive discourse between bicyclists, law enforcement, and motorists.
I just don’t feel like I’m learning anything. I’m getting worked up into a lather when I read the comments… but it’s not really helping anything.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Erik, what does it take to get that stop sign, on the busiest bicycle corridor in Tucson, taken down?!
September 17th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
We are having a killing spree up here in the valley.
“This is the 4th cyclist killed in 30 days and over 15 accidents in the last month.”
I think it is more like 5 or 6 killed.
This week in the paper
hit from behind
hit in crosswalk
injured from behind
A baby was just mowed down in a stroller
September 17th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Some of the people commenting on the story also suggested what localmusicfan is suggesting.
It is such a silly place to have a 4 way stop. There is not enough traffic heading north or south on Treat to warrant a 4-way sign. I’d also be curious about the steps that would need to be taken to get it removed.
Of course as nice as that would be, it still won’t change TPD’s mentality. Probably just down 3rd street in Sam Hughes. Is it Bentley that has the stop sign now?
September 17th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I saw this whole circus Wednesday morning, and was as appalled as usual. Not because the cops were there in the first place, but because there was what looked like half the shift – a literal _crowd_ of cops – present within ~20ft of the intersection clearly visible from at least a half a block down 3rd in either direction, watching all approaching cyclists like a pack of hungry wolves… and a completely disturbing percentage of riders were *still* running the stop sign! Not a rolling stop, not “almost” stopping, not “stopping without planting a foot,” but completely blowing off the sign like it (not to mention the “sting” force) wasn’t even there.
Seriously kids – how stupid do you have to be? Even if you really don’t know that the law requires bicyclists to obey stop signs (and I’m not buying for a second that you really don’t know that), why exactly would you think a bunch of cops are there watching bicyclists and pulling over all the ones in front of you that didn’t stop either? I’ve always been under the impression that being accepted to a major research university means that you’re one of the bright ones – but the longer I’m here, the harder it is to continue to cling to that belief.
Btw, the Scott J. in comment #38 isn’t me, but he sure sounds like me, doesn’t he?
September 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Tucson City Council sets speed limits. Stop sign placement is determined by…
Don’t know.
Does anyone know? Zoll? Thivener?
Is it rational, from a cycling perspective, to have the stop signs on 3rd St. (bike route) rather than on Treat?
Kind of wonder what Zoll and Thivener do all day?
As an aside, a lot of this 3rd and Treat nonsense (while ignoring 3 foot rule) started after former TPD Chief Miranda mysteriously elevated to Assistant City Manager.
And how about making your bike route? Divert around 3rd and Treat…
September 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
From the light at 3rd & Campbell to the light at 3rd & Tucson, no stop signs, 3rd & Tucson to 3rd & Country Club (first mile from campus), only one sign. Country Club to Alvernon (second mile) only two more. So not counting the lights at the main thoroughfares, that’s only three whole stop signs in approximately 20 blocks. Yeah – big imposition there. It’s easy to see how cyclists can be inconvenienced by a whole half-minute or so total by all 3rd St stop signs together. C’mon people, just take all the revenue out of it by obeying the law and the cops and tickets all go away and leave us alone.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
But is 3rd St. a bike route or is it not? Again, why not put the stop signs on Treat?
September 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Regarding: C’mon people, just take all the revenue out of it by obeying the law and the cops and tickets all go away and leave us alone.
Consider this, elsewhere in these pages:
http://www.tucsonbikelawyer.com/sigh-2/
September 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Scott, I saw it as well on my way to work. I came to a complete stop, bid the herd of officers a good morning and went merrily on my way. Paying attention is 90% of safely riding a bicycle. I don’t understand how ANYONE could miss that black and white circus.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Third and Treat are both bike routes.
It’s a four-way stop.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
#14 Ben Says:
September 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Third and Treat are both bike routes.
It’s a four-way stop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most of the bike traffic thereabouts is east-west/west-east especially when UA is in session.
Again, why is 3rd St. bike route stop-signed on 3rd St. at Treat (Treat, which runs North-South) as well as at Treat and 3rd? Who sets these signs? Zoll? Thivener?
September 17th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
When cars give me the right-of-way I deserve instead of cutting me off all the time and putting me at risk, I’ll stop riding where I want.
Until then, hell with it, I’ve almost been killed enough times by drivers to take my life seriously and ride how I know I’ll survive.
The cops don’t have a clue, I don’t blame them personally but think they should be required to commute on a bike for a year before writing a ticket to a cyclist, then they’ll know when to write it and when to let it go.
September 17th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Yeah Tom, blowing off stop signs is “survival” riding, and anyone who commutes for a year would understand that. I’ve commuted by bike most of my life and *I* don’t buy that one. Ok, you may be talking about some other traffic infraction other than stop sign running, but that one is the topic of this thread after all.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
The point is, there’s no good reason to stop once you’ve visually confirmed the intersection is clear. This is easily done at most intersections well before entering the intersection. You can often see and hear that the intersection is clear. I make no effort to stop when there are no cars present. When cars are present but low volume and no right of way issues, I will do a cali stop (like most cars do). When high volume I always make a complete stop. No law is going to change my mind and I’m always on the lookout for popo’s trying to turn a quick buck on some neighborhood street hoping to avoid real crime because they’re not paid enough to deal with meth heads all the time.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Tom, in theory I agree that depending on the person it’s not necessarily unsafe behavior for bicycles *or* cars to treat stop signs like yield signs as you describe – in a perfect world devoid of idiots this would suffice.
In reality, our special-interest druthers and what the law requires – mostly due to the above-mentioned idiots and the proliferation of lowest-common-denominator disease, are a yawning chasm apart. That and the exact same justification is commonly given for even grossly unsafe behavior. I’ll bet that all the kids stopped yesterday who couldn’t be bothered to notice even a large mob of eager LEOs – much less any potential cross traffic – are soothing themselves with the exact same excuse.
Oh, and thanks BTW for doing your part to bring the heat down an all of us. :-/ Even when you check to make sure the cops aren’t present before that “cali-stop;” the cops aren’t the ones whose ill-will is being worked up by scofflaw behavior, they’re just reacting to complaints from people watching what you do when the cops aren’t around.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I think a few people found a couple
of good reasons to stop….
$190 or 4-8 hrs. out of their
Saturday.
Tucson’s a safe place to ride…
even safer if you try to skew
the odds in your favor.
September 18th, 2009 at 12:13 am
@Scott, why should I stop completely when motorists by and large and in greater numbers and percentages perform the same cali stop even in high volume situations where they take the right of way from other vehicles? It’s a double standard. It’s a “one of these things is not like the other” mentality as I see it. Motorists often ignore egregious behavior by other motorists within reason, but for some reason they have a scorn for bicyclists that act in the same manner as their “fellow” motorists. Us vs. them is another way to put it. It’s bullshit.
September 18th, 2009 at 2:16 am
A few days ago I was heading east on Second St. at the University when a girl riding her bike on the sidewalk approached heading west. I told a rider that she really should be riding in the street. Her reply was, “Oh, well. At least I won’t get hurt on the sidewalk!” I went home and got out “the little book” of bike riding in Pima County. I learned that the fine for riding on the sidewalk is $25 and that it is against the law to ride against traffic, as she was doing, even when you’re riding on a sidewalk. Heaven forbid that this overpriveleged white kid should have to follow any laws.
September 18th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Teresa, this is what I see as the real problem with TPD’s enforcement. She thinks she is safer riding on the sidewalk, but the statistics suggest it is far more dangerous to ride on the sidewalk than in the street.
So if TPD’s goal was really to promote cyclist safety (we all know it isn’t) then why don’t they stop people riding on the sidewalk and give them tickets?
It all boils down to being lazy and greedy. Those are the people who really need the education class, but they aren’t getting stopped and forced to go.
September 18th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Teresa,
So all the blacks and hispanics I see riding their Huffys and Magnas against traffic on the sidewalks are simply are a figment of my imagination, right? This isn’t a phenomenon limited to “overpriveleged white kids” (whatever that means.)
The bike salmon and sidewalk riders do what they do because they are scared of riding in the street and scared of being rammed from behind (with good reason, given the attitude and carelessness of most drivers in Tucson.) It’s a fear thing, not a rebellious thing.
Start enforcing the three-foot rule and start punishing dangerous drivers first to make the streets safer for bicyclists. Only then should TPD even consider going after bike salmon/sidewalk riders/Cali stoppers.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I take 3rd to work everyday because it’s a “bikeway”. I don’t understand why all the 4-way stops can’t be changed to let bikes trough more easily. I don’t think drivers would be happy with stop signs on the freeway, so why all the stop signs on a bikeway???
Sometimes I take Broadway across town because it’s quicker due to less stopping. However, I always feel much more endangered riding the bike lane on Broadway, hoping someone won’t swerve into it, right hook me, or speed out of a parking lot and hit me. If the city wanted to improve safety they should be doing things to encourage bikes to take safe bike routes, not discouraging it.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Tom, the only “us vs them” mentality I’m seeing here is from you. Every non-cyclist I know gets just as equally pissed at anyone who refuses to follow the rules of the road regardless of their vehicle. Whether car or bike blows off a stop you’ll still hear them mutter “idiot!” If car or bike endangers others by doing so or pulls out in front of anyone with the right of way, the reaction is still equal but more pointed – i.e. “F*cking Idiot! Where’s the cops when you need them!”
So your solution of course is to try and put out the fire with gasoline and feed into the animosity because – “hey, car drivers do it too” – instead of taking the higher road.
September 18th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
@Scott, You digress from my statement by implying I blow a stop in front of other vehicles (cars or bikes), I do not. Let me summarize again: No vehicles in sight, no stop. Light traffic with no right of way issues, cali stop. High traffic, full stop. This behavior is entirely reasonable and prudent and I highly doubt it’s causing ill will with any vehicle operators.
I have always acted according to what my education and common sense says is reasonable and prudent, not necessarily what the law states. Do I drive 75mph down I-10 in a hail storm? No. Do I drive faster than 75mph when it’s clear as day and low traffic volume? Absolutely. Unfortunately the majority of people don’t have the required knowledge or common sense to abide by “reasonable and prudent”.
As a motorist or bicyclist I have no problems when someone bends the law as long as it’s reasonable and prudent. I don’t mutter “idiot” or anything else when I see someone cali stop when the intersection is dead or there are no right of way issues. It’s not about morality if that is what you are implying by “the higher road”.
September 19th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I got a ticket at treat and third on 8/28. Moto cop told me 3rd street was not a bike route. Nice! I didn’t see him because I was looking the other way at the car stopped, he waved me through so I went. I train about 15-25 hrs a week on the road during the racing season and there is no way I can stop for every stop sign (imagine trying to do a run stopping at every stop sign!). It would be one thing if there were stop sign free bike routes to get out of town like Portland, but in Tucson you either have to take your chances with traffic by riding on big roads or roll stop signs on small roads, and I’ve been hit too many times to take my chances on big roads. So, bike safety school here I come! (FYI: you can only take it once per year, so as I see it you basically have one “get out of jail free” card per year)
September 20th, 2009 at 9:17 am
So most of the whiners on this sight don’t think they should be bothered with obeying the law because it’s “too much work” to have to regain lost momentum at every sign; for commuters I can understand the motivation – I still think it’s just a “me first” selfish rationalization, but I can understand wanting to get as much return for as little effort as possible.
But when you’re training for the racing season, why would you you want to get away with as little work as possible? Why blow off the opportunity to develop your fast-twitch muscles as well as your endurance? When I was going through my “racing phase” (though admittedly this was in the late 70s) I used to love training by riding pace with stop-n-go city traffic primarily for what it did for my sprints.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:32 am
And Tom, what I implied is that you (and waaay too many others) blow off stop signs in front of others who see you do it even if there is no cross traffic, and form their opinions of the bicycling community based on your scofflaw actions. I concede that you may very well be one of those who give right of way where it is due (although waaay too many don’t even do that), but your behavior is still the whole reason why the cops are on Treat in the first place. Remember, it was the people in the neighborhood that were complaining. And taking the higher road is stopping this “I’ll stop breaking this law when drivers stop breaking other laws” nonsense.
September 20th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
The notion that bicyclists are scofflaws, while motorists strictly obey stop signs is nonsense. From what I can tell both groups are scofflaws.
http://azbikelaw.org/blog/stop-sign-compliance/
September 21st, 2009 at 9:43 am
Yeah- except nobody’s saying that. My whole point is that is doesn’t matter if motorists engage in the same behavior. Whether or not somebody else “does the right thing” has no legitimate bearing on whether you or I do – we are responsible for our actions, not theirs; and “but they do it too” isn’t even an acceptable excuse for six year olds.
We’re caught in an endless loop of finger-pointing and buck passing – they won’t change because we won’t change, we won’t change because they won’t change. We’re better than that. Take the high road.
September 21st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“they won’t change because we won’t change, we won’t change because they won’t change”
Did you even read the link that Ed posted? Stop sign compliance is, and always has been, low. And it doesn’t have anything to do with this perception of yours that it’s us vs. them.
Nothing you or I or bicyclists or motorists or the government does is going to change stop sign compliance rates.
Except maybe something as draconian as these fancy electronic bollards at every single stop controlled intersection across the country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BRCOV7MczU You’d increase walking and bicycling by tens of percentage points in a very short period of time. This one is even better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZdLjKl0lHc&NR=1
September 21st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Tom, “us vs them” is not my perception, it’s the lame-ass excuse you and others keep giving for ignoring traffic laws. The point which I keep making – the one which you keep dancing around – is that your “us vs them” justification – i.e. “they do it too, so I’ll keep doing it” – is not a legitimate excuse for your selfish behavior that drags public perception of bicycling and all bicyclists by association through the mud. I simply don’t care if stop sign compliance is low among motorists, because that is not the issue.
“Nothing you or I or bicyclists or motorists or the government does is going to change stop sign compliance rates.”
Exactly what I just said directly above and elsewhere. We cannot control the behavior of motorists; we can only control our own behavior. I’m daring to suggest that we do so for the good of the whole community.
Public witness of selfish jackass behavior by bicyclists is the driving force behind the hatred we see pouring out of the comments section of every newspaper story on bicycling, it is the primary reason why police response to a struck bicyclist is to always assume the bicyclist was at fault until proven otherwise (and sometimes not even then), it’s why bicyclists can’t get a break with a civil suit jury… the list of the ways we all lose because of negative public perception goes on and on. I agree completely that it’s not fair that this negative public perception doesn’t extend to all motorists because of motorist scofflaw behavior, but again – we have no control over motorist behavior, we DO control OUR OWN behavior! “Because *they* do it too” is a lame rationalization that isn’t acceptable anywhere but within our own heads. I don’t know how much simpler I can put it.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
WHAT Scott said ! TPD is on our ass all the time, motorists just need a reason to get us, it’s not hard to live by the same laws motorists have to. Arizona Revised Statutes, 28-812, require us to do so, it also gives us all the rights motorists have. WE need to follow the rules. Lets not give TPD an excuse to hound us as they do. BUT always remember ride defensively. NOW , why don’t we all show up at the next city council meeting and bitch to someone who might listen AND do something about it….? “GET RID OF THE EAST/WEST STOP SIGN AT TREAT!”
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Wouldn’t it be cool to have the Tuesday night ride show up at city hall !
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Just to clarify, I don’t encourage breaking the law. I supported changing the law as was proposed last legislative session
http://azbikelaw.org/blog/why-i-support-bikes-safe-at-stop-signs/
I don’t think doing slow rolls through stop signs are why (some) motorists hate bicyclists. The real reason revolves around impeding motorists — which is almost always *legal* for the cyclist to do. Here is an actual comment (my emphasis added) “Not only do you look ridiculous in your silly helmets, spandex and prayer-rug riding style, you raise the ire of motorists WHO HAVE TO DECELERATE and swing wide around you”. By the way, this was NOT an anonymous comment, it was a signed and published letter to the editor.
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Oh my gosh…cyclists annoy
motorists to no end.
By impeding them; by making
them have to look to see us;
just our presence causes them
to have to do something..like
pay attention or whatever. And
even if they’ve just seen five
cars roll through a stop sign,
when the cyclists does it, it’s
like, “Well look at that! Something
must be done!” Even residents in a
neighborhhod get annoyed when
cyclists roll though one of their
Holy four-way-stop intersections.
And so the cops throw a party and
put in some overtime and collect
a lot of money from those annoying
cyclists. End of story? I’m afraid
not. Just another chapter.
Hardly a platinum attitude, is it.
And that’s what that level of rating
should be about.
The next platinum rating in North
America should go to Montreal.
It’s close enough to the U.S.
to qualify and there motorists
and cyclists actually like each
other. They don’t seem to have
the time to be so annoyed with
behaviors that aren’t exactly
like their own.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Can we get in a helmet/ no helmet argument while we’re at it?
Everyone knows that you get a $190 ticket when you run a stop sign, but everyone takes the risk anyway because they know they’ll probably not get caught. It’s like motorists crying about the new speed cameras set up because all of a sudden they’re enforcing a law that everyone knew about in the first place. Or like bitching about the RIAA when you get caught downloading MP3’s.
The fact of the matter is that there are laws in place, which people constantly ignore because they are not enforced. The lack of enforcement does not by any means make the law itself right or wrong, it just makes it less likely for one to get caught.
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:34 pm
All this and I still have just one sentiment: “F*&k the Police”. Why not fight some real crime? Murder, rape, robbery, burglary, meth… We have plenty of the real stuff to keep all these pigs whose salaries we pay busy. I resent the fact that there were 7!!!!! f’n cops at that sign last week. Thats not a good expendature of tax dollars. I’s so obviously a revenue scheme. Protect and serve my ass…
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I love this thread!
We’re really talking about
something now because you can’t
go a day without breaking a law
of some sort. Selective enforcement
is the law enforcement officer’s
only choice. And then it becomes
something else, doesn’t it. Like
the camera stuff…is that really
enforcement? The group of officers
at Third and Treat could only ticket
some….so what’s the point of
ticketing any? I remember when they
would ticket some of a bunch of
student jaywakers on Speedway at
Olive and Cherry…oh, what a time
they had! But what was the outcome?
The U. built underpasses. This whole
business is just a way to circumvent
communication about what is really
needed. I’d believe it’s all a part
of the process if so many didn’t
make so much money off all of it.
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Jeez louise! This comment thread is becoming a waste of my time. Final post: As I already stated I do what I do because it’s reasonable and prudent, NOT because “motorists do it too”.
November 7th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
[...] spilling over to pro-car/anti-cyclist bias. For example, the Tucson Police Department routinely run stings at stop signs to ticket cyclists who roll through. At the same time, police rarely (a total of 3 over an 18month [...]