Rolling stop... on a bicycle | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Rolling stop... on a bicycle

daught said:
On the same trail, https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6440...FkfWJ5ykoGspyi7aXUEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en Would I have to stop at the red light? No because I have specific signage https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6357...bQ!2e0!5s20160501T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en If I have to respect the street signs and lights, why would they put a bike specific stop light on the same type of path one street east?

BTW I totally understand you stance and I appreciate your feedback. I'm trying to work on a defense.
Click to expand...

The bicycle specific light, at that point, is to permit cyclists to proceed while holding cars back, for reasons of safety. Where specificity does not exist cyclists must obey the road signage as they are, in fact, vehicles under the HTA. The lack of specific signage or signals does not imply that bicycles are treated differently. Quite the opposite in fact. Even pedestrians are required to obey things like traffic lights, so setting a part of the road aside doesn't invalidate the control of vehicles. You'll need to find another angle.
 
Like someone else said, I'd get your story straight and keep to it if you take it to court.

I've only been bumped twice while stopping at a stop sign on a bicycle in Toronto, once by a car and once by another bike. Both times it was on that side street down near the Island airport, on the Martin Goodman Trail.

If you don't have your full M, the 3 points will net you a letter from the Ministry and another offense could have your license suspended.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/understanding-demerit-points
 
GreyGhost said:
It's been a while since I was down there. The last time I was there, the bike path was on the north side of the street (and I ran the stop sign daily as there was no cross traffic to cause problems).

I would take some pictures from further back to show the car stop sign as well. It looks like you should beat the ticket by arguing that the stop sign on the right side of the street was for cars and the slow sign on the left applies to bicycles.
Click to expand...

You could try to argue that the stop sign to the right of the screen was for cars.... However if the picture was taken from farther back, you can't really ignore the even bigger road markings of "STOP".

kpMRdIP.jpg



FWIW, I don't have an issue with bicyclists performing a "rolling stop" at a stop sign as long as they adhere to the right of way of other road users. As we all know, many bicyclists don't.
 
Last edited:
PLau said:
You could try to argue that the stop sign to the right of the screen was for cars.... However if the picture was taken from farther back, you can't really ignore the even bigger road markings of "STOP".

kpMRdIP.jpg

.
Click to expand...

Interesting. From that picture it is pretty obvious that bikes are supposed to stop and the yellow sign seems aimed at pedestrians (or bikes) on the sidewalk.

IIRC painted markings aren't legally enforceable without a sign. Is it written anywhere how close the associated sign needs to be? I don't know why they dropped the trail to that side of the street, that messed everything up. Now you have traffic flowing in the opposite direction between you and the stop sign.
 
Last edited:
GreyGhost said:
Interesting. From that picture it is pretty obvious that bikes are supposed to stop and the yellow sign seems aimed at pedestrians (or bikes) on the sidewalk.

IIRC painted markings aren't legally enforceable without a sign. Is it written anywhere how close the associated sign needs to be? I don't know why they dropped the trail to that side of the street, that messed everything up. Now you have traffic flowing in the opposite direction between you and the stop sign.
Click to expand...

I would say that it's not aimed at cyclists on the sidewalk because, except for kids, it's a $60.00 fine to be riding on it.

*EDIT* Oh, and it's a $85.00 HTA fine to ride in the crosswalk.
 
I think that the yellow sign is a cautionary but the red stop sign takes precedence.

I pass this stop sign every day; has a no-stopping (certain times) sign attached:

stop_zpskv43seux.jpg
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I would say that it's not aimed at cyclists on the sidewalk because, except for kids, it's a $60.00 fine to be riding on it.

*EDIT* Oh, and it's a $85.00 HTA fine to ride in the crosswalk.
Click to expand...

It is just a very interesting choice of words if it was intended for pedestrians. You don't normally tell people walking to slow down. Maybe roller blades? The bikes in the lane are supposed to be stopping, so they don't need to be told to go slow either.
 
I'm thinking you're going to have a hard time convincing a JP that the stop sign, for some reason, doesn't apply to bicycles.

I'd suggest an early resolution meeting with a goal of pleading guilty to a by-law offence. Happens in Hamilton all the time. The by-law won't show up on your abstract and insurance won't see it. Pay your fine, nothing more.
 
daught said:
That intersection is really poorly designed for for an intersection that IS part of a multi use trail(signs and the map at the end confirm it's part of the trail).
On page 50 there is a somewhat similar intersection where the bikes have the SLOW sign I posted and an optional yield. There is no requirement for bikes to actually stop on any of the example intersections. I did not blow by, I slowed and made sure no car was in the intersection. If there were pedestrians or cars I would have stopped where it was indicated, but the intersection was empty with no car in sight.
Click to expand...

So if your on your motorcycle or in your cage, do you take a similar stance that you need not stop, if nothing else is visible to you? Of course you wouldn't so why, when on a roadway does your bicycle magically become a vehicle which does not need to adhere to the same level of obedience to the traffic laws?

Having said that, I believe there are a few avenues of defense which make your ticket winnable, one of which you have already stated. But if your not going to offer a proper defense, to the crown, then your next best option, is to ask if they would consider a bylaw infraction of disobey sign, (not stop), or if not a bylaw then an HTA of infraction for disobey sign. The HTA, will still carry potential insurance ramifications, whereas a bylaw infraction wouldn't.
 
daught said:
That intersection is really poorly designed for for an intersection that IS part of a multi use trail(signs and the map at the end confirm it's part of the trail).
On page 50 there is a somewhat similar intersection where the bikes have the SLOW sign I posted and an optional yield. There is no requirement for bikes to actually stop on any of the example intersections. I did not blow by, I slowed and made sure no car was in the intersection. If there were pedestrians or cars I would have stopped where it was indicated, but the intersection was empty with no car in sight.
Click to expand...

Hold up. If no one was around, you wouldn't have gotten a ticket...
 
48Connor said:
Hold up. If no one was around, you wouldn't have gotten a ticket...
Click to expand...

I am NOT changing my story. NO ONE WAS AROUND. They must have used a helicopter and called the cop.

I confirmed with MTO, bicycle offences do not go on record. It can happens due to some filing error, MTO can fix it.
 
daught said:
I am NOT changing my story. NO ONE WAS AROUND. They must have used a helicopter and called the cop.

I confirmed with MTO, bicycle offences do not go on record. It can happens due to some filing error, MTO can fix it.
Click to expand...

Can't tell if you're serious now...

So did the cop ticket you at the intersection, or find you and point out that you ran a stop sign a couple blocks away?

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

If a bicyclist rolls through a stop sign, and no one is around to see it, does he get a ticket?
 
daught said:
I am NOT changing my story. NO ONE WAS AROUND. They must have used a helicopter and called the cop.

I confirmed with MTO, bicycle offences do not go on record. It can happens due to some filing error, MTO can fix it.
Click to expand...

Not that I don't believe you, I just have a hard time believing they are using a helicopter to ticket cyclists running stop signs.
 
I was just kidding. He was probably parked with the other cars on the side of the road.
 
With no vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic at the intersection I am sure 95% of cyclists would have gone through, albeit slowly and carefully, looking in both directions before proceeding. It is still illegal. Rolling stops are much more dangerous when done by cars, when vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic are all present. I think it is one of those laws that we break on a daily basis, given there is no traffic at the intersection. I say just pay the fine and carry on with life. Sometimes logic does not win.

If you speed through a school zone at 2:00am early, early morning, with no kids in sight, is it still illegal to travel over 40kph? it is still illegal, but the risk is by far less.
 
I've never witnessed a bicycle stop at a stop sign ever. So you're lucky you only got the one ticket out of the 1000 stop signs you've ran. lol jp
 
defeater905 said:
I've never witnessed a bicycle stop at a stop sign ever. So you're lucky you only got the one ticket out of the 1000 stop signs you've ran. lol jp
Click to expand...

Never been behind me then. I've been bumped twice by people who didn't expect it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom