Advocacy & Safety - bike-roads with bike-exempted stop signs

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

It wasn't deleted -- it's just that there are two of these threads for some reason: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=132160

It wasn't deleted -- it's just that there are two of these threads for some reason: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=132160

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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! :)

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!

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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?


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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

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.

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.

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.

http://www.nickreynolds.net

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?

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).

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.

The first thing I'm wondering is who is going to pay for all that road-work? It sounds expensive. I can just hear the howls of protest at the city council meeting. I'm proposing perhaps a hundred miles of bike-roads. Not just a couple of intersections.

The double entry at intersections might work in non-snow areas. But around here the plows have to have access to the full width of the road. The separate lane at intersections could only be done with painted islands, which would get covered by snow and slush. Speed bumps would be hard to plow as well.

Regarding blocking off the road, I think that would really antagonize mv drivers. I know when I get "trapped" I'm NOT at all happy. As a cyclist, I wouldn't want to shoot myself in the foot like that. The point is not to ban mvs from the bike-road, only to discourage them. A stop EVERY block would do that.

The great advantage of using signs to make a bike-road, instead of physically changing it to be unfriendly to cars, is that you do not diminish the road's utility for cyclists. I would hope that bike-roads would eventually become bike-highways with huge bike traffic. You'd want a good road for that, not one full of speed bumps and islands.

Hey, I found Idaho's motor vehicle law. Not only does it allow slow coasting through STOPs, the law also allows going through a red light after stopping !



STATE OF IDAHO
TITLE 49 MOTOR VEHICLES CHAPTER 7
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a
bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and,
if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing
to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to
any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving
across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection
without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a
steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection
and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may
proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a
one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to
other traffic.

Wow! I'm moving to Idaho! Seriously, I wish California would adopt this law. In one fell swoop thousands of cyclists would be converted from outlaws into law-abiding citizens.


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.

I don't see it as a flaw. The key is both cyclists must slow down to a reasonable speed before proceeding through... if you're both going 10mph or less you both have plenty of time to brake and/or adjust as needed. Flying through a stop at 20mph is illegal.

The red light law would be great at non-functioning lights on Sunday mornings. Stop at the red, look both way, go through. Of course, at rush hour, it would be nearly impossible to apply the law to cross a busy boulevard... but hey, if there's a long break, go for it!

I'm moving to Idaho. Maybe I'll take up potato farming.

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.

You needn't worry. No one is going to get excited if you decide to stop every block at the "BICYCLES ARE EXEMPTED FROM STOPPING" stop signs. I don't think you would, but you could, in order to act consistently.

So how do you handle the fact that you are not allowed to ride your bike on the freeway?

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

Stop signs are used to give an indication of who has the right of way at an intersection. Attempts to use stop signs as traffic calming devices -- which is what Scavenger is proposing here, though in an interestingly innovative way -- have failed miserably. The overuse of stop signs to calm traffic has led to vehicle operators ignoring stop signs (http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/trafcalm.htm#stop).

Stop signs are used to give an indication of who has the right of way at an intersection. Attempts to use stop signs as traffic calming devices -- which is what Scavenger is proposing here, though in an interestingly innovative way -- have failed miserably. The overuse of stop signs to calm traffic has led to vehicle operators ignoring stop signs (http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/trafcalm.htm#stop).

The local powers that be have never heard of, or ignore, your point that traffic calming stop signs leads to the running of those signs. 4-ways are appearing like weeds. As a cyclist, I LOVE them, because I treat them essentially as 2-ways; I wish ALL the back street intersections were 4-way. It's true that many drivers do rolling stops, but that's all I need to go either before or after them. As a driver,I'm not really bothered by all those 4-ways because I've only got to go through 2 stop signs to get to a main artery.

Locally, all those stop signs on back streets haven't "failed miserably", as you claim, in calming traffic. In fact, they have succeeded by driving traffic off of the back streets onto the main arteries; So, the back streets which would be designated bike-roads ALREADY have very little mv traffic .My proposal would encourage mv drivers even MORE than they are now to use the main arteries.

I agree with your point that stop signs should be used to indicate who has the right of way. So, if the cyclists are exempt from stopping then they would HAVE the right-of-way!

Hey, I found Idaho's motor vehicle law. Not only does it allow slow coasting through STOPs, the law also allows going through a red light after stopping !

(Snip)

Wow! I'm moving to Idaho! Seriously, I wish California would adopt this law. In one fell swoop thousands of cyclists would be converted from outlaws into law-abiding citizens.



I don't see it as a flaw. The key is both cyclists must slow down to a reasonable speed before proceeding through... if you're both going 10mph or less you both have plenty of time to brake and/or adjust as needed. Flying through a stop at 20mph is illegal.

The red light law would be great at non-functioning lights on Sunday mornings. Stop at the red, look both way, go through. Of course, at rush hour, it would be nearly impossible to apply the law to cross a busy boulevard... but hey, if there's a long break, go for it!

I'm moving to Idaho. Maybe I'll take up potato farming.

Thanks for that GREAT piece of research. I REALLY like the red-light provision.

To have truely efficient bike transportation, the bike-road cyclists should have the right of way. On the other hand, I sure wouldn't vote "no" if the Idaho law ever made it to the ballot here!

Instead of a right-of-way disaster by allowing cyclists to proceed, throwing caution to the wind, make four way stops YIELDS for bicyclists. This idea would be perfect for residential roads, where stop signs' main purpose is to slow traffic. Bicycles travel at a safe speed and therefore should not be "slowed" by incessant stop signs.

Attempts to use stop signs as traffic calming devices -- have failed miserably. The overuse of stop signs to calm traffic has led to vehicle operators ignoring stop signs (http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/trafcalm.htm#stop).
My city web pages even make note of this:

http://www.tempe.gov/traffic/q&a.htm

See second paragraph, which also notes that cars tend to speed faster between stop signs (which is also my observation with speed bumps, which is why I dispise them)

Al

Instead of a right-of-way disaster by allowing cyclists to proceed, throwing caution to the wind, make four way stops YIELDS for bicyclists. This idea would be perfect for residential roads, where stop signs' main purpose is to slow traffic. Bicycles travel at a safe speed and therefore should not be "slowed" by incessant stop signs.

OK, I expect to get slammed for this, but fair is fair.

And I'm not picking on LV2TNDM specifically...we read this over and over in this forum.

We, as cyclists, get angry at those cagers who don't like to be delayed a couple of seconds by bicyclists.

However we, as cyclists, don't like to be delayed by stop signs?

I view every stop sign as a chance to practice my track stand.

I view every stop sign as a chance to practice my track stand.
I totally agree. For me its not practicing a trackstand, but instead the opportunity to get some standing start sprints in - after every light/stop I try to get up to cruising speed as fast as possible.

I don't see traffic control as hinderances, but instead as part of the commuting landscape aka obstical course. I follow all traffic laws, not primarily because I'm a stickler for the law, but instead because for me its the rule book for my commute which I time and track. Once I start breaking one rule, why not another and then how can I compare my best commute times if they are not based on following the same set of rules? One could argue that my 'obstical course' varies due to light timing, traffic conditions, etc. but these are outside variables I have no control over and I've found that over time they average out very well.

Al

The local powers that be have never heard of, or ignore, your point that traffic calming stop signs leads to the running of those signs.
The placement of stop signs should be considered in the context of the overall transportation network. If they're doing what they seem to be intended to do (move traffic from residential streets onto collectors and arterials) then it sounds like they may have been placed correctly.



Locally, all those stop signs on back streets haven't "failed miserably", as you claim, in calming traffic.
The claim isn't mine. I'm not a traffic engineer, but I have attended a couple of workshops presented by pro-pedestrian traffic engineers and planners. Google for Dan Burden, Reid Ewing, and Nazir Lalani and read their material and research for some interesting information that I think you'll find very helpful. Look also at this article about "Second Generation Traffic Calming" at http://www.lesstraffic.com/Articles/Traffic/SGTC.htm

RFM

I totally agree. For me its not practicing a trackstand, but instead the opportunity to get some standing start sprints in - after every light/stop I try to get up to cruising speed as fast as possible.

I don't see traffic control as hinderances, but instead as part of the commuting landscape aka obstical course. I follow all traffic laws, not primarily because I'm a stickler for the law, but instead because for me its the rule book for my commute which I time and track. Once I start breaking one rule, why not another and then how can I compare my best commute times if they are not based on following the same set of rules? One could argue that my 'obstical course' varies due to light timing, traffic conditions, etc. but these are outside variables I have no control over and I've found that over time they average out very well.

Al

Al, do you stop at stop signs out in the country when there's absolutely no one around? I ask because that's 95% of my commute and so far, I only stop if there's a car anywhere in the vicinity. But that's pretty rare -- these are basically deserted country roads. Thanks!

Al, do you stop at stop signs out in the country when there's absolutely no one around? I ask because that's 95% of my commute and so far, I only stop if there's a car anywhere in the vicinity. But that's pretty rare -- these are basically deserted country roads. Thanks!
I don't ride in the country on my commute, so I am not faced with this dillema. Its up to you what rule book you want to follow - for me the one that was already written was easiest. ;)

I would get tired of stopping at a 4 way stop when I could see no traffic approaching from 'miles' away. Sounds like a wonderful commute route.

Al

I don't ride in the country on my commute, so I am not faced with this dillema. Its up to you what rule book you want to follow - for me the one that was already written was easiest. ;)

I would get tired of stopping at a 4 way stop when I could see no traffic approaching from 'miles' away. Sounds like a wonderful commute route.

Al

Thanks, Al! There are only three drawbacks to my commute: 1) lots of hills; 2) heat; 3) lots of hills. :)

Actually, I'm going to learn to love these hills and it WILL cool down eventually. Hey, it's only 90 now at noon and yesterday, it was already 95! :)

Thanks, Al! There are only three drawbacks to my commute: 1) lots of hills; 2) heat; 3) lots of hills. :)

Actually, I'm going to learn to love these hills and it WILL cool down eventually. Hey, it's only 90 now at noon and yesterday, it was already 95! :)
What a great place to cycle (I just noticed your in Dripping Springs) I was married in Wimberley area. As to the hills, it adds variety. I have pure flats on my commute and this means you always have to pedal and its always the same.

Al

Instead of a right-of-way disaster by allowing cyclists to proceed, throwing caution to the wind, make four way stops YIELDS for bicyclists. This idea would be perfect for residential roads, where stop signs' main purpose is to slow traffic. Bicycles travel at a safe speed and therefore should not be "slowed" by incessant stop signs.

You may have something there, along with JamesV. I could live with bike-roads with 4-ways at every intersection, if I could treat the stop as a yield. Having a "WARNING, BIKE-ROAD CROSSING" sign below the cross-traffic stop signs would alert mvs AND cyclists that something was up and they would be more likely to yield the right-of-way to the bike-road cyclists, even though they wouldn't have to. So, I guess the next step is to try and get the Idaho bike law (stop=yield and red=yield after stopping) adopted here in Ontario.

[QUOTE=JamesV]Hey, I found Idaho's motor vehicle law. Not only does it allow slow coasting through STOPs, the law also allows going through a red light after stopping !



STATE OF IDAHO
TITLE 49 MOTOR VEHICLES CHAPTER 7
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a
bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and,
if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing
to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to
any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving
across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection
without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a
steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection
and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may
proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a
person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if
required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a
one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to
other traffic.

Wow! I'm moving to Idaho! Seriously, I wish California would adopt this law. In one fell swoop thousands of cyclists would be converted from outlaws into law-abiding citizens.

(Snip)


Why don't you try a petition to get the Idaho law on the ballot? You are lucky in California that you can do that. Most people can't.

The first thing I'm wondering is who is going to pay for all that road-work? It sounds expensive. I can just hear the howls of protest at the city council meeting. I'm proposing perhaps a hundred miles of bike-roads. Not just a couple of intersections.

Guess that depends on the area. I haven't seen to many protests about expenses related to bike facilities here. The new Alta Vista corridor will have bike lanes and a side-path, for example.


The double entry at intersections might work in non-snow areas. But around here the plows have to have access to the full width of the road. The separate lane at intersections could only be done with painted islands, which would get covered by snow and slush. Speed bumps would be hard to plow as well.

We are in a heavy snow area, and several downtown streets have double-entries (they want to avoid non-local car traffic). I'm not sure how they do the snow removal, perhaps the same plow that does the sidewalks. We certainly plow speed bumps all over the city.


Regarding blocking off the road, I think that would really antagonize mv drivers. I know when I get "trapped" I'm NOT at all happy. As a cyclist, I wouldn't want to shoot myself in the foot like that. The point is not to ban mvs from the bike-road, only to discourage them. A stop EVERY block would do that.

Creating a dead-end for cars (but nor for bikes) can be met with praise from local homeowners who don't want high-speed traffic running from one highway to another through their peaceful neighbourhood. I can also think of at least one instance in Ottawa that allows through traffic for bikes and buses, but not cars.



The great advantage of using signs to make a bike-road, instead of physically changing it to be unfriendly to cars, is that you do not diminish the road's utility for cyclists. I would hope that bike-roads would eventually become bike-highways with huge bike traffic. You'd want a good road for that, not one full of speed bumps and islands.

Inlands don't make the road any less good for cyclists, and speed bumps don't extend to bike lanes or to the edge of a WOL.

I agree that all of the above issues have to be considered, and I am not generally an advicate of making roads less car-friendly as such, but they all work to some extent. There are plenty of other methods too, of course, I only listed what I am used to seeing locally.

Creating a dead-end for cars (but nor for bikes) can be met with praise from local homeowners who don't want high-speed traffic running from one highway to another through their peaceful neighbourhood. I can also think of at least one instance in Ottawa that allows through traffic for bikes and buses, but not cars.

Then again, when my city was reviewing plans for completing a ped/bike bridge over the freeway to complete a NS bike corridor there was huge push back from the neighborhood activist on each side as they believed it would bring more crime to their 'quiet' neighborhood. You know, lowlife theifs ride bikes, etc.

Al

Inlands don't make the road any less good for cyclists, and speed bumps don't extend to bike lanes or to the edge of a WOL.

There are at least (and a few more) two kinds of speed 'bumps'. There are those that are about a foot wide and are officially (as my city engineer explained to me) called 'bumps' These are quite jarring and are good for controlling speeds below 15mph - often found in school zones. There are also what are known as 'humps' which are more like 3ft wide and can be traveled over at about 25mph. These are (around here) used very frequently on residential streets. These 'humps' are very comfortable to fly over on a bike even over 25mph.
I bring this up as 'humps' should always extend across the full width of the road, even across a bike lane if it exists. Otherwise (I deal with this sometimes) drivers will very often, at least more than half of them swerve their car right into the bike lane, which can has lead to close calls for me (which is one reason I don't ride in BL on those streets). Fortunately most of these 'humps' extend the full width of the pavement.
'Bumps' on the other hand are painful to go over on a bike over ~10mph. BUT - 'bumps' should only be used in special cases (i.e. 15mph school zones) and not on normal slow flow streets. And on any street that is posted at such a low speed (i.e. 15mph) it should not have a BL anyway. A solution I've proposed to city is to make a 12"-18" wide cut in the bump in the middle of the travel lane so a cyclist can pass thru while keeping up with 15mph traffic flow, that way the 'bump' can extend all the way to the curb and prevent cars from swerving sideways against curb to avoid half of bump.

Al