Breaking Story-- Analyzing The Idaho Stop Sign Law

While on a level I do agree with this proposal, how will you get this information to all motorists? Right now, in Florida, even with the 3 ft clearance when passing in effect, very few motorists know of and comply with it. This will require a massive, if not, impossible re-education effort to get the word out, then motorists will still have the attitude the we (cyclists) feel we are better than them

Hi,

For stop on yield, why single out cyclists? All vehicles use rolling stops for stop signs, and it's pretty much accepted -- you stop until you have right-of-way, but if you can see as you approach that you already have right-of-way, then you roll through. I would be fine with this.

It sounds like the Oregon law turns right-of-way on it's heads, viewing the cyclist as outside of traffic, free to go when they can, but required to yield in the presence of any other traffic. That doesn't sound like progress at all.

And red-as-stop, that's a whole 'nother ball game. I've seen too many dangerous situations created by cyclists jumping the light.

As a cyclist and an insurance professional I beleive this is a bad idea. Why place cyclists in a different category than other vehicles? I think the only thing it will do is advance the perception that cyclists are better than other users of the road. Everyone should have to follow the same rules, regardless if they are on a bicycle or in a motor vehicle.

I'm a scofflaw (daily 15 mile commute over suburban/rural roads), and I think the law is a great idea. While I don't really care what motorists think about cyclists as long as they don't hit me, I'd welcome the protection of the law from overzealous cops. And, yes, I think I'm superior because I choose a bicycle as a method of transportation.

I think cyclists should give up the idea we're somehow going to make motorists more forgiving by either adhering to the letter of traffic laws or through education. It's just not going to happen. We're tolerated; nothing more, and one doesn't have to be an expert in the human condition to understand that's all we'll ever be. There's no test for empathy in order to qualify a 16 year-old for a driver's license.

Traffic control devices are put where they are obstensibly to protect people from the actions of others. If I get hit running a stop sign, I'm going to be the only one hurt, and it's my own responsibility.

MikeonaBike (and some others)--in my opinion, you're creating the wrong distinction. We're talking about exceptions to the rules for cyclists with respect to traffic control devices. The purpose of traffic control devices are to ensure the safe and orderly management of traffic flow. OUr society values safe and orderly traffic flow because the consequence of a fellow motorist not following the same set of rules can be substantial property damage or bodily injury. The reason cyclists should be granted some exception to the rules is not due to any superiority--moral or environmental--but because the consequence to the other road user for us screwing things up is minimal. The reason motor vehicles of any stripe should not have exceptions is because the consequence for their screwups is much larger.

In further support of Michael Brown's statements:
The idea that bicycles deserve special legal distinction with regard stop signs and stop lights (as opposed to regular automobile traffic) is a natural extension of legislation to promote less polluting and less congesting transportation like hov lanes, bike lanes, lane splitting for motorcycles, bus turn only lanes, etc.

I have to agree with John Schroeder that this change in the law would be unsafe for cyclists. Assuming the traffic engineers have done their jobs well (ok, that is a big assumption), the stop sign is there for a reason - due to traffic volume, proximity of a blind hill or intersection, etc.... Why should a cyclist be allowed to treat the intersection any differently than any other road user? I personally know 2 cyclists who were killed when they rolled stop signs (one was hit by a truck coming over a blind hill and the other by a truck that was moving more quickly than the cyclist must have realized). Yes these were personal tragedies, and as Michael Brown points out, these cyclists (and their families) certainly did suffer the consequences of their actions, but they probably would have been avoided if the cyclists had come to a complete stop and fully assessed the traffic situation (as required by the law in the state where these incidents took place).

Perhaps it would serve all of the road users better to re-assess stop sign placement and change unnecessary ones to yields (although I recognize that isn't going to happen anytime soon either).

I just feel there are a lot of other areas we could be putting our energy - educating motorists to our current rights on the road for one.

Quoting John Schroeder: "'Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution.' People are going to get killed with this one."

That is the law in Idaho; the proposed law in Oregon does not contain that provision. Cyclists in Oregon would still be required to stop on red and remain stopped until the light turns green.

As a biker, motorist, believer in law, and person with 25+ years of safety management experience I have the following observations:

1.) Bicycles and cars have different stopping and starting characteristics (Frankly I am more reluctant to not stop at a stop sign than while driving my car than when riding my bike.)

2.) The consequence of an accident are different for a biker than a car.

3.) Not all bike riders have the same abilities (example: kids v experienced adults). Motorists, on the other hand, have presumably past a threshold of knowledge of operating.

4.) Not all necessary actions after a stop sign are the same (eg taking a left is different than going straight or right.).

5.) Common sense is more effective than common law.

I would recommend:

Thought should be given to the placement of signs at intersections with consideration given to the consequence of incidents of both motor vehicles and bikers. When appropriate, two signs could be placed at problematic intersections (ie "Yield" sign for bikers if appropriate).

Dual signage (with opposing colors or size) would reduce interpretation for both classes (motorists and bikers).

Any attempt to change the sign system should be accompanied with REAL bike training, especially for kids AND for the folks that have the task of enforcement. Real training includes motivation, not simply reciting rules.

Laws are only as good if they are obeyed. Adding more laws without auditing them for enforcement will do little good.

The problem with bike safety (and safety in general) is that statistically, one can get away with unsafe behavior MOST of the time. (A friend of mine rode 10,000 miles a year (not a misprint) for years....and unfortunately was killed because of one mistake.)

I wish there was a simple answer, but life isn't simple.

I think all automobile drivers should be required to open their car door and place their foot on the ground at each stop sign. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If a car or bike causes an accident by disobeying a traffic signal, then they should be held financially responsible for the damages incurred. The fact that local right wing talk show hosts hate this idea shows that we are on the right track and demonstrates how much some people in this country hate freedom. I am safer when clipped into my pedals, and only in fascist states does one have to obey every law to the exact letter of that law. Roll on riders.

When we talk about "yielding" instead of stopping, what sort of speed are we assuming?

Do we mean cyclists can go through the intersection at any speed, as long as they don't affect cross traffic?

Or do we mean cyclists must still slow down to maybe a couple MPH, but are not required to make a perfect complete stop?