Unresolved conversation...

[scumdog]

Common misconception, but nope.

The limit lines mean nothing.

Yup, already said that.

[vifferman]

I think you need to come to a stop at a point where you can see 'clearly' both ways.

Correct.
That's the guts of the matter - coming to a complete stop at a point where you can see clearly, and precoeeding when the way is clear. If that menas you are second in the queue, and can see clearly from there, then you've satisfied the require ments for stopping, from a legal (and safety) perspective.

[LBD]

And a defination of a stop when on a bike, includes a foot on the ground, as it was explained to me when I got booked...

Regarding the clear view either way...If you can move of from the stopped position without needing to recheck for on comming trafic then fine. If you move off from a stop, are rolling and then need to recheck for on comming traffic before moving on to the intersection, then you have not stopped in accordence with the law.

[peasea]

A Stop sign? - Ya STOP and check the way is clear.

Doesn't have to be right on the line but you do have to stop - not do a 'Texas rolling stop' kinda stop.

"But I almost stopped, what's the difference"

"If I was whalin' the tar outa yore hide with my ba-ton which is different, almost stopping or actually stoppin?"
'That's the difference.'

That's what the R/C says. Stop means stop.

Just like when you're havin' the time of of your life on top o' your cousin and she's screamin' "oh, no, no, no, no" she really means "put the kettle on".

It's pretty simple.

[Max Preload]

And a defination of a stop when on a bike, includes a foot on the ground, as it was explained to me when I got booked...

Hope you fought that, because it's bullshit. I frequently stop at lights and stop signs without putting a foot down.

Yup, already said that.

Yeah, but it didn't seem to be sinking in judging by "my understanding" comment so I thought I'd quote the actual regulations to alleviate confusion. I do hope you don't mind.

[cowboyz]

I have recieved a warning for "balancing" at a stop sign instead of putting a foot on the ground. It is in the book of knowledge somewhere that putting a foot on the ground is part of the stopping procedure.

[Slyer]

That's dumb.
Maybe we should require that car drivers put a foot down too?

[peasea]

Back to TV1 draag racing.

Excellent final in T/A, wot?

[peasea]

That's dumb.
Maybe we should require that car drivers put a foot down too?

Not the right one I hope?

[CookMySock]

I think you need to come to a stop at a point where you can see 'clearly' both ways.

Yes. The law clearly states YOU must come to a complete halt where you can clearly see in both directions, and proceed if the way is clear. Other vehicles in front of you are not related, or relevant.

The law does not say you must stop at the lines. If you can see clearly both ways from where you are stopped, then you satisfy the intent and the rule of the law, and you may proceed through the intersection, but you MUST have come to a complete halt at some stage in that process. This can be used as a loophole to get out of a "failed to stop" ticket. If the issuing officers' view of you when you were back from the intersection is obscured, you may be able to persuade him that you did indeed stop where he couldn't see you, and that you could indeed clearly see both ways, and then you proceeded through the intersection.

But generally I think you should stop at stop signs. I do.


Steve

[Ocean1]

a stop on a bike means that the bike stops moving and at least one foot touches the ground. It is not acceptable to stop while balancing the bike and then carrying on without putting your foot on the road.

And a defination of a stop when on a bike, includes a foot on the ground, as it was explained to me when I got booked...

I have recieved a warning for "balancing" at a stop sign instead of putting a foot on the ground. It is in the book of knowledge somewhere that putting a foot on the ground is part of the stopping procedure.

Yup, was pinged for that bloody years ago. I even asked for chapter and verse at the time, wasn't supplied.

Often wondered if it's legally defined 'cause I still occasionally do it, just for the practice.

[peasea]

I have recieved a warning for "balancing" at a stop sign instead of putting a foot on the ground. It is in the book of knowledge somewhere that putting a foot on the ground is part of the stopping procedure.

True, and you were lucky to get a warning. Lucky me has had a ticket for "failing to come to a complete stop at a compulsory stop sign" but I am adamant I did, even though my feet didn't touch the ground. The stop was for a nanosecond, but I DID stop. Try and tell that to a judge. (Fuckers.)

[LBD]

Hope you fought that, because it's bullshit. I frequently stop at lights and stop signs without putting a foot down.

I will leave that for you to do one day....

[Max Preload]

I will leave that for you to do one day....

I would relish the opportunity.

[Swoop]

Having personal experience with getting off a ticket for supposedly not stopping for a compulsory STOP sign, I can offer this: you do not have to be the vehicle closest to the limit line when you stop and the limit line is there only for a guide.

As I was taught many moons ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth... A nice policeman explained that so long as you come to a complete halt and ascertain that the way is clear, it doesn't matter if you are second in the queue.