spare_wheel

Legally Speaking with Bob Mionske: The Idaho stop - VeloNews.com

And...YES...I know this is the 185th time we've discussed the Idaho Stop but I think that a well-known bike columnist (and bike lawyer) arguing that the the Idaho Stop is SAFER is a new development.

dynodonn 

If a cyclist slows to near a walking pace speed when performing an Idaho stop, I'm fine with that, but many cyclists, that I have observed locally, barely apply their brakes, and travel past a stop sign at 15 to 20 mph.

gear64

+1 - Another move I've seen lately is the right on red, u turn after about 20 ft, right on green to circumvent a red light.

B. Carfree

If they can see far enough at 15 to 20 mph to be safe, then why would it matter if they choose to cross at that speed?

Even Oregon changed its law to allow cyclists who are crossing in a crosswalk to travel at a safe speed; previously they were required to ride at a walking pace.

dynodonn 

Brakes on many bicycles at 15 to 20 mph are not nearly as effective as at or near walking speed, best to err towards the side of caution, and traveling at a safe speed does not necessarily mean at 15 to 20 mph, especially when there is an intersection with a stop sign being involved.

lostarchitect 

I suspect you're estimating those speeds very high.

dynodonn 

Not really, I've followed many of those cyclists with either with my car or bicycle, both have speedometers.

welshTerrier2

I'm not buying this at all. First of all, why is everyone in such a hurry? If an intersection warrants a stop sign, then just stop.

We already have enough highway deaths every year. Most bike-car crashes occur at intersections and now we're going to make it worse? There are way too many intersections where you can't see far enough left or right to just roll through safely. I'd rather set a hard and fast stopping rule and then allow a little flexibility in enforcement. I mean, if you're rolling through a stop sign at like 3 feet per second, that's usually fine. But when you start programming into people's heads that the priority is to maintain momentum so that they can pad their stats, you're asking for more accidents. The priority should be to come to a complete stop or very, very close to one. The argument that maintaining momentum makes you safer is only true if there's a vehicle coming from a cross street and you're going to race it through the intersection. If that's the case, it's safer to stop and wait.

And where does the "if it's safe" argument end? Why not allow cars the same flexibility? If it's ok for a cyclist to buzz through a stop sign, if they think it's safe, why not allow the same for cars? In fact, why not allow cars to buzz through at 40 mph if they can see left and right clearly and decide there's no danger?

Just because some cyclists may be skilled enough to make split-second judgments at intersections doesn't mean most cyclists can do so safely. The law should be designed for the safety of all road users and not just some of the so-above-average cyclists we have here on BF.

Chris516

spare_wheel

The Idaho stop allows cyclists to circumvent red lights legally.

spare_wheel

If 40 years of evidence in Idaho (and multiple years in Colorado cities) is not enough then I suspect you are simply ideologically opposed to what is the de facto practice of most cyclists -- rolling stop signs.

spare_wheel

It always amuses to see people equate a multi-ton ICE-powered machine that people DRIVE to a light-weight human-powered accessory that human beings RIDE. Moreover, as Idaho, multiple cities in Colorado, and large swathes of France show the Idaho Stop is demonstrably safe and does not result in discernable issues for motorists or law enforcement.

genec

it has been noted by several visitors to the US from the UK that we tend to overdo the stop sign thing... thus, a particular intersection may not actually "warrant a stop." But along those lines of thinking... if a stop is "warranted" why is it that we permit wide motor vehicles to make a choice to then proceed to make a right turn from said stops?
And yes... a slow rolling stop is the ideal situation... and even that preserves momentum.

If they can see clearly right and left far enough down the road to make such decisions... then why does a stop exist there? Certainly cyclists are rarely traveling at those speeds... and in fact the mass of a cyclist and bike is so low that said cyclist and bike is almost guaranteed to be at the poor end of any vehicle/bike collision... thus a cyclist is vastly more motivated to ensure their way is clear. The mass of a car however is such that they become a hazard to anything they hit, including other cars.

genec

You are still required to stop for a stop light... you then proceed through at your own judgement. Stop signs become yield signs.

willtf

When did this happen? I've been following the walking-speed rule. And I can't find anything that corroborates that.
From Pedal Power (2012):
ORS 814.410 (ORS 814.410 - Unsafe operation of bicycle on sidewalk - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes):
More on the topic of this thread: what's the interaction between a stop sign and a yield sign at an intersection? If the Idaho stop law is in effect, and you are approaching a four-way stop with three cars coming, do you get your same "turn"? Or do you have to wait for everyone to clear out before continuing?

As for blasting through yield signs...you can do that in a car too, as long as you have good line-of-sight. I would think the law requires slowing down at yield signs until you can confirm the way is clear.

CB HI

How many of THOSE cyclist did you also observe getting hit?

My guess is ZERO.

AlmostTrick

Makes complete sense to me. I wonder why more (all) states have not adopted the I-stop laws. It's certainly not on the grounds of being unsafe.

RoadTire 

Let's classify the 15 mph "stop" as California Stop. Any votes?

CB HI

States certainly jumped on the right turn on red pretty fast for motorist convenience, even though it made it less safe for pedestrians and cyclist. The Idaho Stop does little for motorist convenience, so why bother?

dynodonn 

One, but I'm thankful that more motorist do not take up the same practice.

Looigi

The safe speed to proceed through a stop depends on the visibility down the crossing road when approaching the corner and the amount of traffic. If you can see a half mile down the crossing road in each direction a half mile before you get to the intersection it's a lot different than being only able so see 50 yards in each direction 50' from the intersection. Just use reasonable judgement to avoid getting hit. Even if you come to a full stop at the sign you still need to judge when it's safe to proceed and can still get hit if you misjudge it.

CB HI

I see very few motorist come to a complete stop at stop signs. Motorist stop about as often as cyclist do.
And some cops expect cyclist to do more than a complete stop, they expect cyclist to put a foot on the ground to prove a complete stop. Maybe the same should apply to motorist; open the door, put a foot down, then you can proceed.

kickstart

Right on red was enacted in the 70's to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, and is now federally governed as part of each states energy conservation plan required to receive federal assistance. I wasn't driving age in the 70's, but I do remember there was resistance to it.
Idaho stops are a "convenience" that reflects the reality that cyclists are not motorists or pedestrians.

mr_bill

People blowing through right on red? Never happens.


-mr. bill

Ed.

Many years ago I was pulled over for failure to stop for a stop sign on my motorcycle. "How do you know I didn't stop?" "You didn't put a foot down." I then proceeded to demonstrate that I could balance the bike, motionless, for a fair bit of time (The sign benefits of track-stand practice.) I didn't get a ticket.

I confess to a situational approach. I usually stop for stop lights, 'track-stand' for stop signs, but today I pretty much blew thru a stop light. Visibility was excellent, and cars were nil.