What is considered a stop at a stop sign?

[pops62]

:

I just don't agree with the one foot down. What difference would it make if we put one foot, two feet or just balanced as long as we stopped at a sign. When motorcyclists ride on the road we are more cautious and alert than the cage drivers out there, we have to be so we don't get run over by them when they 'stop' at a sign.

We Californians don't use logic when dealing with the CVC or the DMV.

[Beyond The Pale]

Ca Vehicle Code 22450 does not require you to put a foot down or wait for a specified amount of time - it does require that motion cease, as in the wheels stop turning. If you can 'track stand' - come to a complete stop and balance the bike w/o putting your feet down you have met the requirements of the pertinent VC sections.

Brian

Thank you sir.

While it is true that the CA vehicle code only says that you have to stop moving, putting a foot down really helps your case. It's what the cops look for. I always put a foot down, even if I don't completely stop moving. That on a short seated street bike though. I would be more likely to forgo the foot down thing on my XR600 even though I have 2 inches on you. Well that and a whole bunch of shock compressing weight.

[SaPPeR-DRZ]

As an Ex LEO... stop is a stop. If your wheels STOP turning you are at a complete stop. No forward motion. That is in Idaho though. As someone mentioned their state had a 3 second rule. check your states traffic code.

[snaggletooth]

In a California Traffic Court a Police Officer would look like a total fool if he articulated the violation (failing to stop for a clearly posted and un-obstructed stop sign) by saying that his/her observation of the violaton was based only on the fact that the violator failed to place his/her foot on the ground.

The body of the violation is based on:

1) At the time and date of the violation, was the stop sign clearly posted and un-obstructed?

2) Did the vehicle cease forward motion?

3) Did the Officer have a clear and obstructed view of the violation.

#1 and #3 is what get's most cases dismissed.

For #1, cities some times fail to keep their stop signs free of tree branches and other shrubs. Painted markings in the roadway are often in bad repair.

As far as #3 goes, did a truck or van drive by to momentarily blocking the Officers view of the actual stopping of the vehicle. Or, the best excuse given by a violator, "Yes, I stopped but it was a little before the stop sign/limit line. I still had a clear view of the intersection. The Officer was too far back to see me stop. Look your Honor here is a picture of where I stopped. That bush, tree, parked car, etc... Blocked his/her view of me stopping."

Only a rookie would set up on a stop sign in a way that doesnt give him/her ample observation of the area well before the limit line. If all Cop's followed the letter of the law they would stair at the vehicles wheels during a stop. If the wheels did not cease all forward motion/rotation they would have the violation. Then most of would be screwed, at least while driving our cars!

[MesserSchmidt]

I always figure a stop is a complete stop if the vehicle (car or bike) has time to rock back off the front end dive and settle the suspension.

I guess it's just me.

[Justang]

In a California Traffic Court a Police Officer would look like a total fool if he articulated the violation (failing to stop for a clearly posted and un-obstructed stop sign) by saying that his/her observation of the violaton was based only on the fact that the violator failed to place his/her foot on the ground.

The body of the violation is based on:

1) At the time and date of the violation, was the stop sign clearly posted and un-obstructed?

2) Did the vehicle cease forward motion?

3) Did the Officer have a clear and obstructed view of the violation.

#1 and #3 is what get's most cases dismissed.

For #1, cities some times fail to keep their stop signs free of tree branches and other shrubs. Painted markings in the roadway are often in bad repair.

As far as #3 goes, did a truck or van drive by to momentarily blocking the Officers view of the actual stopping of the vehicle. Or, the best excuse given by a violator, "Yes, I stopped but it was a little before the stop sign/limit line. I still had a clear view of the intersection. The Officer was too far back to see me stop. Look your Honor here is a picture of where I stopped. That bush, tree, parked car, etc... Blocked his/her view of me stopping."

Only a rookie would set up on a stop sign in a way that doesnt give him/her ample observation of the area well before the limit line. If all Cop's followed the letter of the law they would stair at the vehicles wheels during a stop. If the wheels did not cease all forward motion/rotation they would have the violation. Then most of would be screwed, at least while driving our cars!

What it comes down to is what the judge decides. If you do a track stand and a cop gives you a ticket you will lose time at work and/or your money. You will have to go to court to fight it, thus lost work time. If you get lucky the cop won't show up. If the cop does show up, and you plead your case for a track stand, you still may be screwed. The cop can simply reply stating you didn't make a full stop. His word against yours, who's the judge going to side with? Most of the time, not you. The cop will tell the judge you didn't put your foot down and that you rolled right through. I have a friends experience on this. He did a track stand, and the cop honestly thought he didn't stop. The cop just stated he didn't put his foot down so there was no way he could have made a complete stop. He lost time at work and was fined. Cops and judges don't always understand motorcycle riding, you can be screwed.

So, if it's worth your time/money to go to court over it, live on the edge you rebels. If not, make sure you make a complete stop and touch your foot down... honestly, how lazy are we that we can't put a foot down? I'm 5'7" and ride a WR450, it's tall, I'm not. I can still put a foot down.

[snaggletooth]

Good words of wisdom Justang!

[DigDug]

Like NVR_FNSH said above, CVC 22450 tells you what to do when you approach a stop sign:

22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the

entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line,

if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side

of the intersection.

If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at

the entrance to the intersecting roadway.

(? The driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign at a railroad

grade crossing shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise

before crossing the first track or entrance to the railroad grade

crossing.

© Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local authority

may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution providing

for the placement of a stop sign at any location on a highway under

its jurisdiction where the stop sign would enhance traffic safety.

The term "STOP" is defined by CVC section 587:

587. "Stop or stopping" when prohibited shall mean any cessation of

movement of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when

necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with

the direction of a police officer or official traffic control device

or signal.

Although this talks specifically about when stopping is prohibited (when can the cop give you a ticket in a "no stopping zone" for example), it's the only definition I found for "stop" in the CVC.

Here's a pretty good reference site for California Codes:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

You can click on the box next to "Vehicle Code" then search for your keywords. Pretty slick site....

[DigDug]

The cop just stated he didn't put his foot down so there was no way he could have made a complete stop.

What if your friend had shown the judge a video of himself doing a "track stand" while the bike wasn't moving? In this case, the cop based his "the guy didn't stop" argument on not putting a foot down. If this guy can prove to the judge that he can stop without putting a foot down, the cop's only argument doesn't hold water.

I'm not saying your friend would have gotten out of the ticket (depending on the judge involved), but the cop essentially said "he didn't put a foot down, so he couldn't have stopped".

It's all moot for me, cause I don't have that good of balance!!! ?

Hey Zeke, it's California for crying out loud! Who comes to a complete stop anyways??? ?

[Justang]

What if your friend had shown the judge a video of himself doing a "track stand" while the bike wasn't moving? In this case, the cop based his "the guy didn't stop" argument on not putting a foot down. If this guy can prove to the judge that he can stop without putting a foot down, the cop's only argument doesn't hold water.

I'm not saying your friend would have gotten out of the ticket (depending on the judge involved), but the cop essentially said "he didn't put a foot down, so he couldn't have stopped".

It's all moot for me, cause I don't have that good of balance!!! ?

Hey Zeke, it's California for crying out loud! Who comes to a complete stop anyways??? ?

A lot of things he could have done. But when it came down to it, it was just a quick traffic hearing. The point of the story is the judge will listen to the cop. And you do have lying cops... even if you do show a vid of a track stand, the cop could still say he didn't see you stop. YMMV.

[chris142]

Ca Vehicle Code 22450 does not require you to put a foot down or wait for a specified amount of time - it does require that motion cease, as in the wheels stop turning. If you can 'track stand' - come to a complete stop and balance the bike w/o putting your feet down you have met the requirements of the pertinent VC sections.

Brian

I want to see someone do that during the ride test!?

[ZEKEDAWG]

Hey Zeke, it's California for crying out loud! Who comes to a complete stop anyways??? ?

Well, with the newly badged LEO's running around, some of them get a hard on for what they might THINK is a dirt bike. I am 100% legal, but anything I can do so they have no reason to pull me over is a good thing. If I saw a cop and they were watching me, i would definitely stop and put a foot down. But if they are being sneaky, yet I stop(track stand) then take off, I want to know if it was a legal move.

[DigDug]

Well, with the newly badged LEO's running around, some of them get a hard on for what they might THINK is a dirt bike. I am 100% legal, but anything I can do so they have no reason to pull me over is a good thing. If I saw a cop and they were watching me, i would definitely stop and put a foot down. But if they are being sneaky, yet I stop(track stand) then take off, I want to know if it was a legal move.

I'd say you were good - but who knows what BS the cop will come up with in court if you fight it...

Heck, on the other side of the coin, putting a foot down doesn't necessarily mean you came to a complete stop either. You can put your foot down and still be rolling - do you think the judge would let us off if we said "but your honor, I put my foot down so I must have been stopped"...

I'm in northern San Diego County and nobody, I mean NOBODY, comes to a complete stop at signs around here. Just for fun, I've started coming to a complete stop (both on my bike and in the truck) - not for 3 seconds or anything crazy, just stop, then go right away. It really boggles peoples' minds!!! I've had people on the side of 4-way stops wave me on like "go! it's your turn! go so I can!", and people behind me have to slam on the breaks harder than normal cause they thought I was going to roll through like everyone else. It's kinda fun!!! (I don't know why I enjoy pissing people off so much...)