46.61.050
Failure to obey traffic control device-Bicycle

I didn't put my foot down at that sign on BGT near Uvillage that SPD is watching with binoculars from the bushes.

Has anyone got one of these bullshit tickets and successfully fought it?

I did the I am slowing down so I don't get hit, look both ways no cars in sight kinda stop.

I seriously doubt officer A.C. Stewart's ability to differentiate types of stopping.

You can totally fight that, I would think. It seems like his only argument would be that you didn't put your foot down, and I think we all know that's ridiculous.

My suggestion: wipe your ass with the ticket and mail it back to them.

Sounds to me like you didn't stop at a stop sign.

That's fine, i do it all the time, but you know what a stop sign means. You chose to ignore it. Pay the $100 and go on with your life.

STOPPING IS HAAAAARD!

Sounds to me like you didn't stop at a stop sign.

That's fine, i do it all the time, but you know what a stop sign means. You chose to ignore it. Pay the $100 and go on with your life.

it's different if you get a ticket for ignoring a "trail closed" sign though.

RCW does not require a foot down, but rather 'a complete cessation of movement'.

http://www.cascade.org/Community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=13&threadid=6733


If the officer says you didn't stop because you didn't put a foot down, I'd contest, since that isn't the law.

Hm. Maybe we can get some physicists to testify that "complete cessation of movement" is impossible.

Do they want us to supercool our bicycles to 0 K at all stop signs or what? I guess that would be a 'best effort' attempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

As Einstein showed, any frame of reference is valid. From the frame of reference of your bicycle, you aren't moving, the pavement and the world around you is moving. Ergo, given the proper frame of reference, you are always stopped.

I wonder if you'd get a ticket for leaping off, cross style, shoulder your bike as you run across the crosswalk, and on the other side leap back on and pedal off.

See, that's a good point. Bikes in crosswalks get all the privileges of pedestrians. Pedestrians don't have to stop at stop signs.

I really don't know what a stop sign positioned before a crosswalk means if you're on a bike.

Haven't people been killed, or at least seriously hurt by cars at some of those road/trail intersections? The stop sign is there for a reason, even if you only to take as it warning to pay attention. Bikes are faster than peds, so cars have less time to notice them coming out of the bushes on the trail. Sometimes when I drive across the BGT onto the UW campus, I almost forget it is there.

I'm with Henry on this one. Sure, maybe bikes Can safely blow past stop signs/lights if it's clear. Hell, if it's Really clear, cars could too. But how the hell would you like the law to read? The simplest way to enforce traffic laws is to have everyone follow the same simple rules. Stop at stop signs, stop at red lights, etc. Yellow lights, if I remember correctly require people to "stop if it is safe to do so," leaving it to people's subjective judgment of "safe", and you know how that works with some drivers... and it wouldn't be much better with some cyclists either.

Of course, foot down definition of a stop Is rather lame.

I wonder if you'd get a ticket for leaping off, cross style, shoulder your bike as you run across the crosswalk, and on the other side leap back on and pedal off.

Yes.

Also, yes, I am speaking from experience here. I did this in DC near The Mall, where all bicycles must come to a complete stop and walk through the anti-car bomb concrete barriers.

Good news: National Park Service rarely defends contested tickets in court since they don't have the resources.