Not on a bike......in an automobile is what I was referring to.

There is no shortage of stupid inconsiderate people. Who is right who is wrong,
people will post as always, OPINIONS based on their bias. Taking a bicycle into a round a bout is a bit NUTS. Taking a group of bicycle riders into a round about is perhaps MIXED NUTS.

As far as bikes and stop signs. All should realize that a bicycle is human powered. If does not start from a stop as a car or a golf cart does. Most drivers, of cars or golf carts, if, honest, admit they do at best a rolling stop at a stop sign. When, on my bike I do the same.

Far as LAW, how many drivers know they are supposed to be three feet away from the side of a bicycle. Clearly not all drivers are good drivers. Just the other day I had a lady not more than three inches from my bike. Was she unaware or did she not care. Truth SHE WAS WRONG.

I expect someone told police to do this. No one wants to get a ticket. Most police are not out to get you. Posters mostly state when I break the law it is justified but they should stop others from. Rules, laws, it is unlikely that all of us have not broken some rule to day. Car stuff you can be ticketed for and probably will not be. Tinted windows, a chip in the glass, worn wiper blades, worn brakes, headlights-improperly aimed, etc etc etc
Ticketing a bicycle for running a stop sign. You do not need to have a driver's license to drive a bike. You do not need to have identification of any kind. Officer, my name is BOB SMITH, my address is 355 Main street.
Most police use common sense.

My dad taught me to drive. Dad passed away years ago but I can still hear what he said, "Expect them to do the stupidest possible thing because that is exactly what they will do."
Same thought perhaps, more polite. You control your vehicle. You do not know the mood of drivers around you, how bright they are, their health etc etc etc.
THE BEST ACCIDENT IS THE ONE THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

I understood they were comparing the difficulty all operators of vehicles - cars, carts, bicycles have in starting and stopping. Sorry you didnt understand it.

Operators of cars and golf carts have difficulty in starting and stopping?

If riding they have the same laws/rules as cars, if walking the bike they are pedestrians.

In Florida yes.

Quite a few states have passed laws that allow bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs.

Nope. Neither do cyclists unless they are morons. They want the bike, learn to ride it properly.

///

///

There is no other way to get to the country club. The country club is in the center of the roundabout. If you want to play golf there, or use the pool there, or get a meal or a drink there, then you /must/ enter the roundabout.

In addition - if you live near the country club and want to visit someone across the way - you can either ride up the couple of blocks to get to that other street - or you can ride a couple of MILES around the back way to get to the same spot.

I had a moment yesterday that was partly my fault and partly a vehicle's fault. We avoided a collision by each being a bit cautious as each of us broke traffic laws.

I was coming off the MMP at a gate (I was coming from the southbound Buena Vista MMP, turning right onto Bailey Trail, heading westbound). Now, as a cart I have a "stop" sign (is it a real stop sign? I mean, the MMP is not really a thoroughfare under the purview and jurisdiction of Florida State Law as I understand it, but local convention is for carts here to give ROW to cars), there was a vehicle approaching a lowered gate arm.

I slowed way down, but did not stop, but I knew the vehicle had to stop to wait for the gate to open. So I rolled slowly through my stop sign, and made the right turn into the cart lane on Bailey.

Now I ask you to consider, while I did not come to a complete stop, is this not how most of us would handle this?

Now here is where it gets interesting. The vehicle did not wait for the gate arm to come up, nor did the vehicle stop or slow down at the gate. The vehicle continued at normal speed AROUND the gate and headed for the right cart lane on Bailey, same lane as I was headed for.

The other vehicle was a crisply moving bike. I treated it like an automobile thinking it would either wait for the gate arm, or at least slow down for me. The rider treated the situation as if the gate arm did not exist, nor the stop sign pointing at him.

We looked at each other. I slowed a bit, and let him go around me, he got in front of me on the cart/bike lane, and immediately I passed him. I couldn't tell if he was glaring at me, or just looking at me carefully. I was startled at the fact that he never even slowed down at the gate.

I am not making this story up as a theoretical situation. This actually happened on my way home from Tierra del Sol yesterday afternoon. The more I think about it, the more I wonder who would have been at fault had he T-boned my cart.

First of all, the important thing is that no one got hurt.

Secondly, it is probably wise to assume that 100% of cyclists will blow through any stop and yield signs since they don't think traffic laws apply to them because they are inconvenient.

Thirdly, my amateur opinion as to fault under the law----contributory negligence.

I agree with your assessment. on all three points. I was not surprised he went around the gate, and certainly not surprised he didn't stop. I was surprised by the speed at which he did it.

IMO our contributory negligence lead to the possibility of a collision, and our "contributory caution" avoided it, and in reality, we weren't really close to colliding. But if either one of us had been a tad less careful about the other, it could have been ugly.

Oooohhh. Lost all credibility with that statement…especially the “100%” part.

ok, -----99.8%

You would have been at fault because you drove thru a clearly marked stop sign.

The biker did not have a stop sign so he did not have to stop. He had the right-of-way.

??? As described, the bicyclist *did* have a stop sign, in the form of a gate blocking the road, that he ignored by riding around it.

There wouldn't be any question of fault if a car had simply broken through the gate without slowing down so why is it any different with a bicycle?

I’m not defending the bicyclist, but a gate DOES NOT equal a stop sign.

Right. A stop sign is an indicator for what the vehicle operator is supposed to do. A gate, on the other hand, is a physical barrier enforcing a behavior. One can simply ignore a sign but it takes a conscious action to either bust through or drive around a gate.

"I didn't see the sign" is hard to believe but "I didn't notice the gate" is impossible.

Did the cycler have a sign with a STOP on it?

If not, then the cycler did not have a stop sign. QED, as we used to say in class.

Are you asking if the cyclist faced a red, octangular sign with the letters STOP in white or are you asking if there was a clear indication that traffic, including cyclists, should stop?

I don't know about the former (I'm not standing there to look) but I am quite sure a out the latter.

So - the gates at Boone in the historic section have stop signs going in, and out. That's in addition to the gates themselves. Any bicyclist driving around those gates would be violating the law by doing so, if the gates were down at the time they drove around them.

Even when the gate is up (because the attendant has to use the bathroom, or there's bad weather and they remove the gates entirely) - those stop signs exist to instruct people to stop.

I don't know about the gate at Bailey but I'd be surprised if there wasn't similar signage.

If there is no similar signage, then there's no reason for the bicyclist to stop - from a legal standpoint. A barrier preventing cars from getting through - is not going to prevent a bicycle or pedestrian or roller skater or skateboarder or Segway user from getting through. The barrier exists to stop cars, afterall.

In addition, some of the sensors won't trigger if you're just on a bicycle or walking past. The gate at the public road won't come up if you're leaving the area, and there is no red button to /leave/ the neighborhood. Only to enter it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2167621) So - the gates at Boone in the historic section have stop signs going in, and out.

The "IN" gate at Boone does not have a stop sign making that intersection very dangerous. It renders that intersection a three way stop. The gate house sits back from Paradise drive allowing vehicles to get up a little head of speed before entering. The three stopped vehicles assume the entering vehicle is going to stop and BINGO crash. I have witnessed many accidents there over the years. I asked one time about putting a stop sign there and the rationale for not to was it would back up incoming traffic out onto Rt 441.

Yes, it has a stop sign right in front of the guard shack. You have to stop before you pass the gate. Even if the gate is up (due to bathroom break or inclement weather or broken) you are still required to stop before you get to that spot, because of the stop sign outside the shack around 6 feet before the hood of your car gets to the shack door. The stop sign is not at the intersection. It's before the gate.

Once you're past the gate, you don't have to stop. The intersection itself is a 3-way stop, not a 4-way stop. The three stopped vehicles should not assume that the person entering from 441 is going to stop at the intersection, because they ALREADY stopped at the guardhouse - where the stop sign for them is located.

And in conclusion in case anyone missed the point Boone and Paradise is a three way stop. IMHO is one of the most dangerous intersections in The Villages regardless of vehicle type. Where do you think the most dangerous intersection in The Villages is ? Rules - roundabouts excluded !

I don't see accidents there that often. In fact I've only seen, personally, one involving a golf cart coming down Paradise and a car. The golf cart driver didn't stop at their own stop sign, and rolled through, while the car was coming in from 441 and taking a left onto Paradise.

So - that had nothing to do with how many or few stop signs there were. It had to do with someone choosing not to stop at the stop sign they actually had.

It'd probably be a great idea if they added a sign attached to (but below) the stop signs at Boone: "Warning - traffic incoming from the gate does not stop." I don't think it'd prevent people from choosing not to proceed with caution, but it'd at least provide some culpability to the people who make those choices and get hit as a result.