Reply to City council voted today to allow bicyclists to ignore stop signs

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "City council voted today to allow bicyclists to ignore stop signs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A law that is universally ignored shouldn’t be on the books. This was the proper action for DC council to take.

If cars stopped for stop signs and red lights, this wouldn’t be an issue. But cars don’t stop for stop signs or red lights. So why should cyclists have to? [/quote]

Cars do stop (they just don't come to a complete stop.and never have).  Bicylists don't even do that.

The only reason I know this is because my dad was a stickler for it when teaching me to drive.  Despite that neither he nor I nor anybody I have ever seen comes to a complete stop according to the letter of the law so I am not claiming I am better than anyone else in this regard.[/quote]

This is just hysterical. So “stop” is a fluid thing now? Kinda like gender, right? Please consult a dictionary, dear poster. Not to spoil surprise, but I don’t think you can be stopped if you are still moving.

[/quote]

It is reality.  Deny it to your hearts content but that doesn't make it any less real.[/quote]

Go and look it up in a dictionary. I dare you.[/quote]

Because you are a prig (look it up - it's very apt) I did.

Stop - to halt the progress or motion of
Halt - to pause

As you can see there is no requirement to prevent the capability of moving forward and there is also no extended time requirement.  Examples of things that are stops but are not vomplete stops.  Halting one's progress before the line and then inching forward.  Halting one's progress past the line.  Halting one's progress and then taking their foot off the break.  Halting one's progress for a second and then moving forward.  Moving forward directly after halting one's progress because they were waiting their turn.  Halting one's progress but not coming to a complete standstill.  All of those examples are things that meet the definition of stop in common parlance but that do not meet the traffic law definition which requires one to come to a complete standstill at the line for a short but extended period of time.  All of those examples are the ways you, and everyone else, stop.  None of those examples are complete stops.  Stop as a word is broad and open to interpretation.  Complete stop is much more specific and has elements besides the mere pausing of progress.

Complete, as an adjective, modifies the term stop and provides more specificity to the meaning.  All complete stops are stops but not all stops are complete stops.  The use of adjectives in the English language should be a relatively straight forward concept but clearly is something that eludes your ken.

When it comes to safety I am more concerned with the utility of the stop than the technicality of its completeness.  Whether it's a California, Idaho or complete stop does not matter to me unless it is done in an unsafe manner with a disregard to the context of the particular situation.  I am concerned with the spirit and not the letter of the law.  You on the other hand seem obsessed with the letter of the law regardless of context. You are not Diogenes.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics