View Single Post
Old 08-25-13, 06:03 PM
  #11  
JohnJ80
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 4,673

Bikes: N+1=5

Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 875 Post(s)
Liked 244 Times in 181 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton
It boils down to two questions for me: Does anyone get cited for "stop as yield" rolling through stops, and do more than a small minority of cyclists come to complete stops at all stop signs?


There is no doubt in my mind that I'd be every bit as safe slowing, checking for traffic and only stopping as necessary on a bike. That's not anything unique, because I've seen 4-way stops with lines of cars in all directions, no one ever stopping and yet it goes like clockwork. There would be frequent accidents if drivers couldn't handle it, but there aren't. So it's mainly about enforcement and expectations. If something is rarely if ever enforced then the literal law doesn't hold much authority. Secondly, if very few cyclists do complete stops at signs then rolling through is generally expected, so stopping every time would feel kind of dense and pointless (other than making a point). If the situation is more grey - half do and half don't, and typically cited when LEO is in the mood - then that's a different story.

So what's your take on the two questions?
Some states have this as a law - that a stop sign or a red light can be treated by a cyclist as a yield (some conditions attached to that usage). I believe the study I saw said that there was no change in the accident rate after ratification.

J.
JohnJ80 is offline