Alexandria PD Ticketing Cyclists

[worktheweb]

@Crickey7 124797 wrote:

I can’t agree with this forum advocating lawbreaking. Changing the laws, prioritizing enforcement, fine.

I don’t think anyone is advocating breaking the law. I certainly am not. The problem is that the enforcement is discriminatory and negatively impacts the safety of those subject to said enforcement. Enforcement should never be focused on a minority group (or any individual group) and it should never reduce public safety. Ostensibly the laws are there to protect the public, if they end up doing the opposite they should be scrapped in favor of laws that further the public good. There is plenty of data that shows that stop as yield reduces the number of crashes, as our understanding of safety evolves, our laws should evolve as well.

[TwoWheelsDC]

I don’t advocate breaking the law, but I do advocate prioritizing safety over legality, as americancyclo says. My decision tree is basically safety>courtesy>legality>convenience.

[Crickey7]

It’s a stop sign. You stop at it. I’m failing to see the danger this poses. In any event, this is a forum that has associations with both Bike Arlington and WABA. It would behoove us to err on the side of caution when it comes to taking positions that COULD be construed as advocating lawbreaking.

[dasgeh]

@worktheweb 124778 wrote:

Even more frustrating was that WABA had that campaign asking cyclists to stop, further strengthening the local view that we’re scofflaws that need to be convinced to not break the law. We’re not the only violators, and we’re the most likely to incur injury from cars and trucks when they roll through their stops. You don’t see AAA standing around with signs to ask people to stop at stop signs. We’re just shooting ourselves in the foot and justifying our victimization. I’d like to see them advocating for stop as yield in Virginia. It is being considered in the District and elsewhere, the tide may finally be turning, but if we keep blaming ourselves, we won’t see change.

I fully acknowledge that there are cyclists who just blow through stops at full speed failing to yield to traffic already in the intersection, and yeah, they should get tickets. But slowing, looking both ways, and then proceeding through an empty intersection on a bike should not be the subject of enforcement.

THIS. I even called WABA out on the stop sign campaign (or more accurately, suggested there were better efforts to spend their limited resources on) and was personally attacked BY WABA STAFF. It was very disheartening. WABA does a lot for cycling in the region, but as long as their staff is dominantly one type of cyclist…

[americancyclo]

@Crickey7 124797 wrote:

I can’t agree with this forum advocating lawbreaking. Changing the laws, prioritizing enforcement, fine.

I’m advocating lawmaking. The laws don’t prioritize the safety of vulnerable road users. The enforcement doesn’t prioritize the safety of vulnerable road users.

Align the laws with safe behavior, and we’re all good!

[dasgeh]

@Crickey7 124808 wrote:

It’s a stop sign. You stop at it. I’m failing to see the danger this poses. In any event, this is a forum that has associations with both Bike Arlington and WABA. It would behoove us to err on the side of caution when it comes to taking positions that COULD be construed as advocating lawbreaking.

First of all, this is a forum _hosted_ by BikeArlington/WABA, but anyone who doesn’t understand that we are all private citizens speaking with our private voices doesn’t understand how the internet works.

Second of all, I stop at all stop signs and stop lights. I encourage others to do the same, but I absolutely believe that ticketing cyclists at stop signs is a waste of limited Police resources. Every time an officer is taking the time to write a cyclist a ticket, that’s less time for them to ticket behavior that actually endangers other people, that of motorists. Ticketing cyclists makes the transportation network less safe for everyone.

[bobco85]

@Crickey7 124808 wrote:

It’s a stop sign. You stop at it. I’m failing to see the danger this poses. In any event, this is a forum that has associations with both Bike Arlington and WABA. It would behoove us to err on the side of caution when it comes to taking positions that COULD be construed as advocating lawbreaking.

I disagree with the notion that individual users of the forum need to speak in such ways as to properly represent groups like Bike Arlington, WABA, and/or other jurisdictions’ cycling advocacy groups. There is no official position that the forum takes other than its rules of use.

People could cherry-pick forum comments as to represent all cyclists in the area, but that would be a logical fallacy and intellectually dishonest. I’m not as worried that this will happen (perhaps it already has), but we would need to respond appropriately and quickly if it should.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@bobco85 124814 wrote:

People could cherry-pick forum comments as to represent all cyclists in the area

**cough**Gainesville**cough**

[Crickey7]

There is absolutely room for debate about a wide variety of topics, including the Idaho stop. There’s no room for debate, in my mind, about advising people to break the law here. That’s the line as I see it.

[Terpfan]

@Crickey7 124818 wrote:

There is absolutely room for debate about a wide variety of topics, including the Idaho stop. There’s no room for debate, in my mind, about advising people to break the law here. That’s the line as I see it.

It’s not absolute. Any motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian, should break the law if it involves imminent danger. There is room for debate.

But, I understand your point of legal consistency otherwise.

[chris_s]

@Crickey7 124818 wrote:

There’s no room for debate, in my mind, about advising people to break the law here.

As we all know, if you’re being chased by a murderer and the “Don’t walk” sign is solidly illuminated, you should stop and wait patiently for it to change or lead the cold-blooded killer in circles until a safe and legal time to cross the street is available.

[colleen]

I’ve seen a few comments suggesting the ticketing was just a one time enforcement during the Arts Festival – my husband is unfortunate proof to the contrary. He was ticketed (same $91) a few weeks ago at Royal and Wilkes for rolling through the stop sign on the morning commute. If I was with him that day, which is our usual AM commute routine, the Alexandria PD would have doubled their haul.

[GovernorSilver]

I stand corrected.

I might just ride up Washington to the alternate MVT branch then. That’s my coworker’s preferred route, because he hates stopping at stop signs (and he obeys them more strictly than I do), and sometimes he likes to challenge himself to set a new record in commute time. I thought he was crazy to ride on Washington until he convinced me to ride with him on an evening commute – we just hung out on the left edge rightmost lane, which has lots of parked cars.

[baiskeli]

@bobco85 124814 wrote:

People could cherry-pick forum comments as to represent all cyclists in the area, but that would be a logical fallacy and intellectually dishonest.

True, but a healthy share of people out there have no problem with that. Heck, Donald Trump exists.

[rcannon100]

There’s no room for debate, in my mind, about advising people to break the law here.

True. True.

In our democratic society we have come to learn that obedience to the law, to rules, to whatever the government says, is absolute. One must do it.

If one is at a four way stop sign in the middle of farm country with perfect visibility in all directions, and there is not a single car on the road, and you come to a stop sign…. you must stop. If you do not, Tinky will cry.

Look. That’s just moronic. Absolute obedience to things written in books is idiotic. We dont obey the law because some idiot some point wrote it down. We obey the law because it is just and creates a better society.

At one point the law supported slavery. At one point the law supported segregation. At one point the law supported discrimination against japanese americans. At one point the law forbade melting of ice. At one point the law forbade gay marriage. At one point the law supported killing all the jews. At one point the law sent young boys to their deaths in Vietnam. At one point the law said we should pay Dickey every time we drank a cup of tea or used a stamp.

We dont obey law because its the law. We obey law because of the principles and justice behind the laws.

And while it is inefficient to in each moment to have a democratic discourse about the propriety of each laws – there are also times when it is clear that law has become out of line with reality and justice – and it becomes clear that the only way laws get changed is to change them – to behave differently.

No one – but no one – obeys every law. And if we recognize that, then, in the words of Captain Jack Sparrow, then we are merely discussing appropriate price. If we recognize that not all laws merit obedience, then the discussion rests on the continuum of when disobedience is appropriate and whether you should keep your job as county clerk.

No room for debate about obedience to law? I think that’s what Nuerenberg was about. I wont resort to Godwin’s law… but Dan Aykroyd is right.

[Author]

Posts