Scavenger

Proposal: Make bike-roads by using special stop signs which apply only to motorized vehicles.

Every intersection without a traffic light would be a four-way stop for mvs (but not labeled as four-way to avoid the crossing traffic drivers from assuming that the bikes will stop as usual at a four-way stop). On the "bike-road" there would be special stop signs which would exempt bikes from stopping. The practical effect of this would be to greatly discourage mvs from using the bike-road as they would have to stop at every intersection, thereby separating mvs from bikes.

The BIG problem is in the cross traffic direction. There would have to be special warning signs which state that "bikes on the bike-road do NOT stop" and "bikes on the bike-road HAVE the right-of-way". A flashing red signal light should be included on these special warning signs.

The best roads to designate as bike-roads would be secondary roads parallel to main arteries.

Anyone know if this has been tried in Europe or elsewhere?

Sorry about my previous goofed-up thread.

cuda2k

I'd be very weary of believing that a car would stop, and remain stopped, as I approched such an intersection. While in theroy it would help cyclists get from point A to B faster with less stops (clipping out, etc etc) I really don't see much benifit vs the very possible and probable danger of assuming that a motorist is going to follow such signs.

Scavenger

I totally agree with you that mvs could NOT be trusted to yield the right of way, especially at the inception of such a system, resulting in some (lots?) of riders being injured or killed. There is no free lunch here. However, in the long run I think it would provide a MUCH safer system than we now have: getting all mixed up between the cars. I think most riders would be wary as well. It would probably be similar to how many of us ride now: treating stop signs as yield signs? I try to always travel on side streets to minimize having to yield to cars.

I wouldn't hesitate to use a bike-road, keeping an eye out for cars, as I do now.

myates1980

Since my original opinion was deleted for some reason, I'll reitterate. I think that they would be a terrible idea. Bicycles are vehicles, period. They should be operated like vehicles and treated with the same respect as cars, trucks, and motorcycles. I'm also opposed to the "Stop, except right turns" signs...they cause more accidents than they're worth.

catatonic

Sounds bad to me...I just see it as a way of "alienating the cagers".

As much as we don't like the motorists sometimes we do have to try to live beside them, whether they are hostile, dangerously impatient, or just plain not paying attention.

Given a large majority of us already treat stop signs as "yield" signs. I do that myself when in low-traffic residential areas.

PaulH

Since I ride and drive, I don't like the idea of having to follow different laws when on a bike or in a car. It could mess up my habit patterns with possible bad results.

Paul

JamesV

You're right, there is a problem with bikes and stop signs. Why do so many cyclists roll through stops? Is it because they are reckless and careless outlaws? No. We go through stop signs because it is safe to do so. On a bike, the relatively low speed, the rider's excellent unobstructed sight lines, and braking power means that it's possible to judge crossing traffic prior to coming to a complete stop, and proceeding through if it is safe to do so.

While I think you're on the right track, I think giving bicycles full right of way is too much, too soon. Plus, it might lead to carelessness on the part of some cyclists. How many of us have gone through green traffic lights and forgot to check to make sure no cross traffic is threatening to run a red?

I've always admired Idaho's law, which says that bicycles may treat stop signs as yield signs. It doesn't require any change in motorist behavior or expectations. It places all the responsibility on the cyclist to decide to stop or not. I like that.

Longhorn

It wasn't deleted -- it's just that there are two of these threads for some reason: https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/132160-ike-roads-using-bike-exempted-stop-signs.html

myates1980

heh...I totally didn't see that. Thanks.

Scavenger

That Idaho law sounds great! No wonder Boise was voted the best city in the U.S. You wouldn't happen to have a copy of that law handy, would you? The "You are the author of your own misfortune" philosophy strikes a cord with me. Although it would probably cause insurance problems in jurisdictions with "no-fault" insurance laws. After all, it's not fair that a mv driver should be penalized because some idiot on a bike decided to drive under his wheels!

Scavenger

R u suggesting that cyclists be licensed like motorcycle drivers and be required to have insurance and bikes have safety inspections?

I'm sorry about there being two threads. My first one was inadvertently submitted b4 I was finished composing.

Metieval

while a cool thought.

I vote no! and dislike it because I wouldn't want to follow two differant laws depending on if I am on my bike or in my truck.

Longhorn

Just so you know, when that happens, you, as the author, can edit that thread. Just look at the bottom right corner for the "edit" option. We all make mistakes!

2mtr

yes. That's what I do now, and if this was the law I wouldn't feel bad. I could just cuss back at the drivers. Change the law to better suit my mood!

patc

To me your idea sounds too complicated, and ready for accidents.

Certainly I am used to exception signs. Downtown Ottawa is full of "no right/left/through except for bikes/buses/HOV/taxi" signs in all sorts of combinations! But a stop sign is always a stop sign. Sure, I roll through my share, but I know full well its illegal to do so.

If the roadway is a major cycling road, why not ask for streets lights biased to that direction of travel?

chephy

I guess the idea is to discourage motorists from using that road. Because the truth is: if there is a nice residential street with no stop signs that parallels the main drag - well, it's going to be used a lot whenever that main drag is backed up.

Scavenger

On further consideration, I see one BIG flaw in a law that permits cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs: When I run an all-way stop sign at, say, half speed, I know I'm safe from cars IF they obey their stop sign. The danger lies in cross-traffic cyclists running stop signs too. If that ever happens there is GOING to be a big crash, and as I don't wear a helmet.... I believe this is why you NEVER see all-way yield signs!

So there has to be some way to differentiate who has the right of way. At the all-way stops in Idaho, has this been done? A special sign (here we go again with the "special" signs) could be placed below the stop sign, BUT, that would confuse some mv drivers. So, how about this: On the bike-road, there would be a regular stop sign, and the cross-traffic would have TWO stop signs, one above the other, on the same pole. THAT would get a lot of drivers attention! And then all you would need would be the "WARNING, BIKE-ROAD CROSSING" sign below that, assuming you had the stop=yield for bikes law. Double stop signs would mean, in law, that cyclists had to yield to the traffic on the bike-road. To be consistent, I think you would have to have the double stop signs at every all-way stop intersection. BUT, even then, that still wouldn't give the cyclists on the bike-road the right-of-way over mvs, which is supposed to be the point of the whole exercise.

eubi

OK, I'm in my car. I come to a complete stop for the stop sign.

I don't see any cyclists (However, they may be hidden due to shrubbery or large vehicles).

I proceed through the intersection.

A bike blows through at full speed, right in front of me. We collide.

I'm at fault?

dwightonabike

This could happen at a regular two-way stop where the cyclist without the stop sign has right-of-way. Even though the cyclist should make sure no one will go, regardless or right-of-way, yes you are at fault. "I didn't see them" is not a good excuse. You must ensure that the intersection is clear before proceeding. If that means waiting extra time to see if something (bicycle, motorcycle, child, mini-cooper) pops out from behind the large vehicles or shrubberies, that's what you should do. Don't worry though, the police will never charge you.

myates1980

No, but they are vehicles as prescribed by the law. I think most states also have a clause that states operating and safety features of the bike that must be in working order and present. I meant that bicycles should never be treated as special or different from motor vehicles except in the realm of safety due to a bicycle's slower speed.

eubi

You are absolutely correct, at a two way stop, I have full responsibility to ensure it's safe for me to proceed. I wasn't very clear.

My senario was for a four way stop.

noisebeam

Is this why so many cars roll thur stop signs and four way stops? When they go slow and are on the look out they can just as easy see and avoid collision, cars can stop faster than bikes. I rarely see cars in my neighborhood stopping at stop signs, actually at the sign at the end of my street I've never seen a car stop (most cars make a right turn). Some neighborhoods are changing stop signs to yield signs.

Agreed there should be no different rules for cyclists vs. motorized vehicle in regard to intersections. Gets too confusing and also poses a problem when more than one cyclist is involved.

Al

patc

If that's the idea, there are other ways of doing that. A pinch-point at intersection with separate entry for bikes; speed bumps that don't reach into the bike lane, etc. In extreme cases block off the road at one end (except for the bike lane) to block through-traffic.

highspeedcycle

I like the idea of being able to ride without stoping, but i don't like the idea of getting plowed into, so i would check for traffic I rarly stop at the signs, i just slow alittle to see if anyones coming, i have upgraded brakes on my walmart special so i can stop very quickly if i must. lol i have chessy bike. but i have fun anyway.

https://www.nickreynolds.net

Scavenger

Assuming you are talking about crossing the bike-road, the "WARNING, BIKE-ROAD CROSSING. BICYCLES ON THE BIKE-ROAD ARE EXEMPTED FROM STOPPING" located immediately below YOUR stop sign would give you plenty of warning as to what was happening. That sign would essentially turn the 4-way stop for mvs into a 2-way stop regarding bikes on the bike-road. In a collision with a bike on the bike-road, the traffic rules would be exactly the same as for a 2-way stop.

The situation you describe is very unlikely anyway. What would be more plausable would be that you would be broadsided by the bike as the cyclist would be going at a high speed and you would be hardly moving, having just stopped. How often do you see that kind of suicidal crash for the cyclist? If a mv starts into the intersection after stopping I automatically assume that he is going to pull right in front of me, so I either go way around in front of the mv if there is room, or around the back of the mv, or I slam on my brakes and stop (mostly when there are other cars around to complicate things).