Should cyclists follow the same rules of the road as motorists?

Gordon P

NO! Roads are designed for cars! For example, there is one-way stretch of 4 lane in a residential area, which has absolutely no traffic what so ever, that I travel regularly that has SEVEN or EIGHT 4-way stop signs at EVERY intersection. (Every 30 –50 meters!!!) The only reason why this is is because the area is posh and they want to tame traffic. I just ignore them or if I am really in a crazy mood, I will jump onto the sidewalk and skirt around them. Sometimes I will ride down this stretch the wrong way and still go through the stop signs. This street by the way is part of my city’s cycle route scheme, it is unfortunate that the dolt from the planning department didn’t ride the route on his bike and only looked at a map when creating the bike route. A good solution would be to have two lanes for cars, one lane for parked cars and one lane for bicycles and we will let the pedestrians have the two sidewalks. But hay, I am not a city planner nor do I have a masters in urban planning. I must have a chat with my city councillor and seek help for these outbursts of civil disobedience. Thanks for letting me vent.

lamajo25

Yes, because it's the law and the only way to keep traffic flowing along with cyclists is to keep it that way. There is no excuse for the answer "NO".

PaulH

Absolutely! The law is the law.

A few weeks ago, someone on another bike blew through a stop sign as I was entering an intersection. He crossed about ten feet in front of me.

When you stop at a stop sign, the pause allows you to scan for other traffic approaching the intersection. His failure to stop may well have produced an inadaquate traffic scan.

I think those "types" that run stoplights and stopsigns are a menace to other cyclists. I also suspect that the habit remains when they are driving cars, under which conditions they become an even greater threat.

Paul

LarryJ

I firmly believe that bicycles are vehicles, and that cyclists should obey the law and behave as the drivers of vehicles. The rules of the road are pretty good, and allow for the smooth interaction of different modes moving at different speeds. If cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians obey those rules, traffic and pedestrian movement goes smoothly.

fujibike

I also believe that cyclists should obey traffic laws. To not obey the laws or have other laws pertain would only confuse an already complex traffic control system that is dangerous enough as it is. At least now we're on the same page with motor vehicle operators and our actions (if within the scope of traffic laws) offers a consistency in what everyone on the road should expect. To create laws specific to cyclists would only result in more confusion, injury, and anti-cycling rhetoric or actions.

LittleBigMan

This is the foundation of vehicular cycling as espoused by John Forester and many others, that cyclists behave and are treated as operators of vehicles. Not only does this provide for predictability in traffic situations, and is therefore safer, but identifies bicycles as vehicles, not toys that belong on the playground or sidewalk.

If you were to play a football game according to a different set of rules as the rest who are playing with you, you would only cause confusion.

erraticrider

I posted the following in icerats other thread, I guess I should have posted it here. It is a bit redundant with what others have said:

I think that the question is not whether you can maneuver your bike with greater agility than a car can be maneuvered and with much less frequency of accident. Rather, I think the question is who should be held at fault if you have been hit by a car or a car driver has made a sudden move either to avoid you or as a result of being startled by your movement on the road and an accident has resulted? I reframe your question to highlight the fact that driving is an interactive process, not something that you do by yourself in iscolation. It is not just a question of whether you can avoid being hit, but also whether other users of the road can predict your behavior so that they can avoid hitting you or someone else.

slider

closetbiker

Man, this is just such a basic issue. What is prompting you to ask such a question? You can't believe by not following the rules of the road, you'll be safer do you?

Analysis of bicycling accidents and of cyclist fatalities demonstrate that cyclists are most safe when they operate their bicycles as vehicles.

Read this WHOLE section. You need to.

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/index.htm

slider

Analysis of bicycling accidents and of cyclist fatalities demonstrate that cyclists are most safe when they operate their bicycles as vehicles. To finish the quote from the website

"Analysis of bicycling accidents and of cyclist fatalities demonstrate that cyclists are most safe when they operate their bicycles as vehicles. Motorists scan the highway in front of them and on either side watching for other vehicles. They do not watch as carefully for pedestrians, and they do not anticipate fast-moving bicycles traveling on sidewalks, crosswalks, and shoulders, especially when traveling in the opposite direction from the rest of the traffic."

It is not referring to following all traffic laws. He even goes on later to talk about laws which don't make any sense such as mandatory helmet laws, laws which require bikes to ride on bike paths and/or to the complete right on roadways.

-s

closetbiker

It is not referring to following all traffic laws.

Where have I mentioned following all traffic laws?

Acting as a vehicle and "rules of the road" generally mean following laws, but laws that are obviously poor could and should be changed.

Ignoring stop signs are far from this. I would follow the law here (as I would 99.9% of the time)

lamajo25

Absolutely! The law is the law.

When you stop at a stop sign, the pause allows you to scan for other traffic approaching the intersection. His failure to stop may well have produced an inadaquate traffic scan.

This is the way to go. This hit it directly on the head of the nail.

Dutchy

Dchiefransom

ACtually, it varies by locality, but barring different rules of the road, yes, we should behave like other vehicles. There are separate rules that are bicycle specific in many areas that we need to follow when they are different from the regular car rules.

Chris L

The only thing that stop cyclists from getting run over, is the road rules. If you follow them, the chances are pretty high you will live to an old age. Disobey them and will could end up eating through a tube.

Agreed. Forget about the whole "it's PC" or "how can we talk about the actions of others" rubbish. The fact is, generally speaking, following the road rules is the safer option -- and to be honest it's really not all that difficult or inconvenient to do.

randya

The 'rules of the road' have evolved as a result of the need to regulate the operation of motor vehicles, which are inherently dangerous when misused. That being said, I still am waiting for a logical explanation as to why the most dangerous and deadly disregard for the rules of the road -- speeding by motorists -- is generally ignored by the police unless the violation is flagrant, and tolerated by society as 'acceptable', while bicyclists are seemingly taken to task by motorists for violations -- real or perceived -- with every turn of the pedal? I therefore only follow the rules that make sense from the perspective of a bicyclist in a motorists' world...

slider

The world is not black and white. I ride first to protect myself, second to be courteous and promote a good image for cyclists and third for efficiency. I ride in SF. If I'm heading up Mission damn right I ride like a car. I take the lane, pass on the left when somebody get's stopped by a double parked car and stop at lights. If I'm cruising in the hills and come to a stop sign that has no cars at it I roll right through, up or down. Why? Because there is nobody at the intersection for me to piss off, I am going at a slow enough speed that I can do so safely and it is a whole lot easier than stopping and starting again. It makes riding through the city fun instead of annoying. Would I expect a car car to do the same? No, they are moving faster, don't have the same visibility or maneuverability and don't have to work to get going again. Would I take responsiblity for being in an accident if I screwed up and got hit while running a stop, of course, with choice comes responsibility.

-s

bigoldbike

Well the PC answer is yes. The raging rule follower answer is "There is no exuse for the answer 'NO'". My answer is "depends".

At an intersection with cars waiting at stop signs I usually stop. If there are no cars around I'll roll through at a reasonable pace that allows me to look for cars, pedestrians and other bikes. If I am travelling up a hill, I'll time it so that I reach the intersection just as the car next to me is pulling away from the stop and move through with them so I don't lose momentum. I think with a little common sense cyclists can ride in an efficient manner without endangeriing themselves or others.

-s
I absolutely agree with you.

You cannot be dogmatic on this issue, like the YES's or the NO's.

If I were to "follow the rules of the road" in every situation I could just as easily end up "eating through a tube" as if I completely ignored them.

The rules of the road are made for cars and trucks. The rules of the road are written by, enforced by, and interpreted by people who drive cars and trucks.

It's essential to know the rules of the road, but not necessary to follow them in every situation.

Self-preservation should be your guiding principle. Sometimes the rules help that principle, sometimes they do not.

I don't know who Ken Kifer is, but there's a big difference between driving like other vehicles and following the rules of the road. If I were to "operate my bicycle like a vehicle" I'd be rolling through more stop signs than I do now on my bike.

The thing is, neither paradigm fits: drive like a vehicle, or follow the rules of the road. Bikes are a different animal, and as the rest of the world slowly realizes that the bicycle is the only viable form of individual transportation the laws and the "rules" will catch up. Until that point, do what you can to save your ass--and don't hit pedestrians either.

Da Tinker

Ladies & Gentlemen,
Back up and check your history. The rules of the road, traffic laws, and traffic signs were enacted for the first popular, fast vehicles on the roads, bicycles.
It is not that cyclists have to follow the same rules as cars, it's that all vehicles, be it bicycles, trucks, motorcycles, mopeds, motorcycles, horse riders (check the codes) are required to follow the same laws. However, those same laws ae written by, enforced by, and biased towards motor vehicles. That is why I do not ride with total, slavish obediance to the traffic laws. If the field is ever leveled, where all vehicles and operators are the same in the laws & the courts, then I will come to a full stop at the signs, not jump lights, and stay on the road all the time.

robertsdvd

Hold up, generally yes to following the road rules. HOWEVER, as a bicyclist I feel I need some advantage sometimes out there. At red lights, I scoot early especially when I need to get left to the left turn lane across multiple lanes because ain't NO ONE around here going to let me switch lanes. I jump to the head of a traffic queue and plant myself in front of a car at lights - I want the advantage of going first and I also don't wish to suck car exhaust right from the tail pipe. I also tend to sometimes disregard some one-way signs esepcially on seldom travelled residential roads and the wide ones... and some "no turn between 8-10am" signs. Somethings I think are judgement calls on the road and sometimes I feel the need for an advantage since otherwise I'll be left in a cold slushy roadside ditch.

LittleBigMan

Following the road rules does provide optimum safety, when coupled with experience. So--

Why do bike lanes and "bike paths" violate the established principles of right-of-way and safety that have governed streets for so many decades? How can they be "safer" if they:

-- don't follow the flow of traffic
-- create more intersecting points with other traffic
-- cross intersections on the wrong side of the road
-- allow right-turning (U.S.) traffic to turn across a lane
-- follow more complicated rules
-- create exceptions to the established rules
-- aren't designed with the bicyclist's safety as first and foremost?

closetbiker

You cannot be dogmatic on this issue, like the YES's or the NO's.

What then would be the gudelines? Should everyone decide for themselves what they think is the best way to ride? On what knowledge (or lack thereof) are these decisions being made?

The rules of the road are made for cars and trucks.

No they're not. They're made for all road users.

I don't know who Ken Kifer is

Well then, you could do yourself well and learn. We usually try to help each other around here by exchanging info, so take advantage and read through the whole section here.
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/index.htm

and in particular read,
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/obey.htm

there is a section of the article that deals with, What Kind of Laws to Protest and, Which Laws Must be Obeyed

Allister

No they're not. They're made for all road users.

Exactly. I'm not sure where this idea that the rules are designed and intended for motor traffic came from. I can only assume the people claiming this haven't actually read them. The rules of the road where I live take cycling into account very well, and if everyone knew and understood them there'd be few if any conflicts.

And there's the problem. It's not the rules that are biased against cycling, it's motorists. They claim to want cyclists to ride legally, but when I do they don't bother to pass with a safe clearance, give way to me when the rules say they should, stay the h3ll out of the bike lane - the list goes on.

There's nothing wrong with the rules of the road for cyclists, at least here in Australia, the problem is that motorists, and indeed cyclists don't bother to learn them.

Da Tinker

Allister, it would seem that you are fortunate to live in a somewhat more enlightened democracy than I do.

The vehicle codes here contain bicycle inferiority clauses, require bikes to abandon the road when there is bike path available, and create bike lanes the require cyclists to turn across traffic, rather than merge across it.

How's the job market there?

Allister

Allister, it would seem that you are fortunate to live in a somewhat more enlightened democracy than I do.

I wouldn't say that. But yes, the rules are ok here. Now, if they could just make the requirements for getting a driving license something ore strenuous than pushing the correct button to make the pellet drop into the feed tray.

The vehicle codes here contain bicycle inferiority clauses, require bikes to abandon the road when there is bike path available, and create bike lanes the require cyclists to turn across traffic, rather than merge across it.

How's the job market there?

That sucks, but may I suggest that you would be better advised to try and make things better at home before trying to move here. Australia hasn't got a very good record at the moment on how we treat refugees. ;)

supcom

I have to agree with Allister. Whether you agree with the laws or not, it is likely that your local traffic laws address bicycles. For example, in my state, bicycles are restricted to riding as far to the right as practicable. However, cyclists are specifically permitted (not required) to ride on any improved shoulder. Better yet, we are neither licensed, insured, registered, nor safety inpected. We pay no excise taxes on tires, no titling taxes, road use taxes, nor (best of all) fuel taxes. If I buy my bike and parts mail order from out-of-state I don't even have to pay sales taxes!

I am permitted to ride on just about any road in my state for FREE. I can even ride on interstate highways in my state, if I so choose.

Such a deal rarely comes along. Let's not spoil it.

closetbiker

I am permitted to ride on just about any road in my state for FREE. I can even ride on interstate highways in my state, if I so choose.

Such a deal rarely comes along. Let's not spoil it.

There is no free ride. You pay for them trough general revenue taxation. You have a right to use them.

bigoldbike

What then would be the gudelines? Should everyone decide for themselves what they think is the best way to ride? On what knowledge (or lack thereof) are these decisions being made?

No they're not. They're made for all road users.

Well then, you could do yourself well and learn. We usually try to help each other around here by exchanging info, so take advantage and read through the whole section here.
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/index.htm

and in particular read,
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/obey.htm

there is a section of the article that deals with, What Kind of Laws to Protest and, Which Laws Must be Obeyed
Of course I know that "the rules" are made for "all road users" in a literal sense. When I say that "the rules" are made for cars I'm speaking a bit more abstractly. Just like the roads were/are built for cars, just like our cities are built for cars, our homes, our armies, our whole damned world.

Bicycles are interlopers. We've snuck onto the car's turf and the car don't like it. (I don't need to hear that the "rules" were originally made for bikes 100 years ago, that's a moot point)

Social and legislative change happens slowly, and is pulled an prodded from many directions. For about 90 years it's been going the car's way. Now that is very very slowly beginning to change, but that change is inexorable. Just like Canada's marijuana laws are beginning to change because everyone is breaking a ridiculous "rule", so the "rules" about traffic/cars/roads etc. will begin to change. But not if cyclists politely bow to the status quo.

Re: Ken Kifer. I glanced at his site and he has some interesting things to say. I bookmarked it and will read more, I'm sure. I'm not an acolyte/disciple, however, and I'm one of those people who "decide for themselves what they think is the best way to ride"

Having said all of this, I probably go through less reds and stop signs than most cars.

Cheers

randya

Why do bike lanes and "bike paths" violate the established principles of right-of-way and safety that have governed streets for so many decades? How can they be "safer" if they:

-- don't follow the flow of traffic
-- create more intersecting points with other traffic
-- cross intersections on the wrong side of the road
-- allow right-turning (U.S.) traffic to turn across a lane
-- follow more complicated rules
-- create exceptions to the established rules
-- aren't designed with the bicyclist's safety as first and foremost?

Most bike lanes are not designed to make the bicycling experience safer, they are designed to segregate bicyclists from the flow of motor vehicle traffic so they don't 'obstruct' 'normal' motor vehicle traffic; they are not necessarily safer for bicyclists and, as you point out, create additional safety hazards by creating additional conflict points with motor vehicles at critical places such as intersections. Most bike lanes suck 'cause they were designed by traffic engineers who were taught to think 'motor vehicles first' -- they don't know the first thing about bicyclist safety, just how to move the maximum number of motor vehicles the greatest distance in the shortest time...

closetbiker

Bicycles are interlopers. We've snuck onto the car's turf and the car don't like it.

No we're not. We've always been part of traffic, and always will be. Problems with traffic interacting are delt with through the ruling jusidiction of the local authority.

My local, British Columbia, has a motor vehicle act that states,

Rights and duties of operator of cycle:

183 (1) In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle

so, I'll do so and as so. If cars don't like it, tough. They can try to change the law if they want to.

bigoldbike

No we're not. We've always been part of traffic, and always will be. Problems with traffic interacting are delt with through the ruling jusidiction of the local authority.

My local, British Columbia, has a motor vehicle act that states,

so, I'll do so and as so. If cars don't like it, tough. They can try to change the law if they want to.

I respectfully disagree with you.

The MOTOR vehicle act is, I'm sure, a fine document on paper. It's not the first thing that runs through my mind when I'm avoiding cars on the road.

robertsdvd

When I have a 6-wheeled 5 ton dump truck about to kiss my heels, know that I will be taking the first chance to blast through that red light to open as much distance as possible between him and I.

closetbiker

The first thing that runs through my mind when I'm on the road is order.

Trucks, busses, cars, farm equipment, bikes, pedestrians, even horse and carts all have a place if they all follow predestined order.

If one doesn't want to take their place in this order, they can be ticketed, charged or removed from the road.

It's a simple as, take your turn or get off the road. Police enforce this (not well enough for my liking)

jeff williams

I've got to get more into the hand signaling but- I go for the law- unless it's dangerous or whatever- like i'll jump onto the sidewalk, onto a lawn ect to avoid a parker and a passer and if no space-( love mtb's ) but I find that I have LESS probs when the cars know what i'm doing- following the rules of moving traffic-

iceratt

LarryJ

The emotions on this issue run higher than I thought they would. It seems that some of you think that we are all duty bound to do what the law demands because the law is the law, and we need order in society to make things work well. Others have a "screw the law, I'll do whats right, in the spirit of 1776."

I think that we all are following our conscience, and doing what we think is best for ourselves, other cyclists, and society. I think I proffited from seeing how some of you, with attitudes other than my own, feel.

I hope that we can all respect each other, because we do have common goals. Respectful communication will further this.

Thanks!

Actually I don't have any such notion as obeying the law because it's the law. I favor obeying the traffic law because it represents centuries of refinement of best practice on pubic roadways. There are times when laws are so noxious that civil disobedience is in order, but modern traffic law does not fall into that category. The reason I favor obeying the traffic laws is because they are pretty good, they balance the interests of various road users pretty well, and in general they are a codification of best practice with regard to traffic safety. Running red lights and stop signs is both dangerous and rude to other drivers. Sidewalk riding poses a danger to pedestrians and to the cyclists themselves (I've seen two cycling accidents in the past three years, both were sidewalk cyclists in intersection situations), wrong way riding creates confusion with respect to right of way.

Making up one's own set of rules on public roadways is not a very good way to coexist with other users of the road.

Larry Felton Johnson

randya

slider

closetbiker

Well said. I seem to remember something about throwing stones.

-s

the inference I got from this thread (and certainly the title of the thread) is not weather or not cyclists are being liliywhite

Any bicylist that claims to have made a full foot-down stop at every stop sign they ever encountered, regardless of how isolated the location or the absolute lack of any cross traffic, is probably a liar. And anyone who has actually done this at absolutely every stop sign they have ever come upon, regardless of the circumstances, is probably a mindless drone.

but weather or not cycists should follow the same rules of the road as a motorist.

2 distinctly different positions as far as I can see.

Dchiefransom

Any bicylist that claims to have made a full foot-down stop at every stop sign they ever encountered, regardless of how isolated the location or the absolute lack of any cross traffic, is probably a liar. And anyone who has actually done this at absolutely every stop sign they have ever come upon, regardless of the circumstances, is probably a mindless drone.

Not on our ride today, we slowed almost to the point of falling over. I've actually done it on large organized rides. Not all the time, though. If someone in front of you came to a complete stop, would you verbally (loudly) berate them? I've had that happen, even when a police officer contracted by the organizers was present. I've also been wondering where the "foot down" came from, since I didn't find it in the bicycle section of my state's Motor Vehicle Code. I'm in California, and that's section 21200. Are they bringing this over from the motorcycle rules?

cyclingshane73

randya

Ever hear of a track stand? :p

So, you do a track stand at every stop sign you come to regardless of whether there is any cross traffic??

cyclingshane73

So, you do a track stand at every stop sign you come to regardless of whether there is any cross traffic??

Either that or put my foot down.

When I drive my car, I always come to a complete stop at stops signs. So I don't see why the same should not apply when I'm riding my bike. As a result of this "care and control" in both situations I have two or three avoided near misses.

Do not make assumptions about what everyone else does to justify what you do or have done. Just becuase some people or even the vast majority do something does not make it right. If you blow stop signs (regardless of whether there is traffic or not) then thats fine, its your neck. I routinely curse when I share the same road with other "cyclists" who blow red lights. If I can catch them (without being careless), I'll tell them straight up that they are an idiot and why. Most people when faced with this dose of reality just look at me like I have two heads.

I always say, "expect the unexpected". Like that officer in the police car that has just turned on to the street behind you and has just watched you cruise on through the stop sign. "Thanks for the ticket Officer, I guess I didn't need those new shoes anyways. Which could also lead into the, "you never know who is watching" scenario. Just because there are no cars on the road, doesn't mean no one saw you do it. And what happens to the opinions of people who see cyclists ride with disregard for the rules of the road? What about kids who see you ride through their neighbourhood? Then little Mikey goes whipping down the street on his bike through the same stop sign because he saw you do it. Except this time there is a car there.

Its like this, we all have a responsibility to ourselves and to each other to respect the rules of the road. We have to be accountable for our actions, and the perception we give the public including motorists when we fail to abide by those rules. Chances are if you are aware rules of and know how to ride in traffic, you won't find yourself in "those" situations. Situations which may force you onto the sidewalks or being crowded by motorists who can't seem to wait a couple of seconds to safely pass.

Aside from the usual morons who drive like they own the road, its nice when the odd motorist actually complements you on your riding ability and skill in traffic. Because you follow the rules and act like a vehicle. So yeh, I use my hand signals, rides with lights at night, never ride on the sidewalk, and always, ALWAYS stops at stop signs.

I wasn't going to get into this tired and old debate, but there is my two cents towards the entire discussion.

So now I'm curious. What am I?

A liar or a mindless drone?

LittleBigMan

Bicycles are interlopers. We've snuck onto the car's turf and the car don't like it. (I don't need to hear that the "rules" were originally made for bikes 100 years ago, that's a moot point)
I understand the gist of what you are saying: the perception by almost everyone, including many cyclists, is that bicycles are "secondary" users of the road, regardless of the situation a century ago, when bicycles we by far more prevelant on the roads than cars. Cars rule, today.

But it's important to point out an historical perspective. Until WWII, bicycles still held an important place for many people's transportation needs. After WWII, a rather aggressive campaign was launched to facilitate a mass migration to motor vehicle transportation. Today, cyclists have to fight even for the little space they have left on the road, and for facilities that don't exclude them from the transportation picture.

If the goal of making transportation fast, safe and convenient applies only to the motoring public, it is short-sighted. Bicycle transportation could easily co-exist with motoring transportation, to the benefit of the entire economy. Instead of wasting money on automobile repairs, parts, gasoline, oil, etc., cyclists spend that money not only on bicycles and cycling accessories, but on other goods and services. More money in the cyclist's pocket means a boost to the economy in a more diverse fashion.

Dchiefransom

I understand the gist of what you are saying: the perception by almost everyone, including many cyclists, is that bicycles are "secondary" users of the road, regardless of the situation a century ago, when bicycles we by far more prevelant on the roads than cars. Cars rule, today.

But it's important to point out an historical perspective. Until WWII, bicycles still held an important place for many people's transportation needs. After WWII, a rather aggressive campaign was launched to facilitate a mass migration to motor vehicle transportation. Today, cyclists have to fight even for the little space they have left on the road, and for facilities that don't exclude them from the transportation picture.

If the goal of making transportation fast, safe and convenient applies only to the motoring public, it is short-sighted. Bicycle transportation could easily co-exist with motoring transportation, to the benefit of the entire economy. Instead of wasting money on automobile repairs, parts, gasoline, oil, etc., cyclists spend that money not only on bicycles and cycling accessories, but on other goods and services. More money in the cyclist's pocket means a boost to the economy in a more diverse fashion.

I wish I could remember where I read it, maybe on the League of American Bicyclists website, but someone asked a bicycle law question about a court case in Illinois. The reference and quote was given, which was a bit scary. The judge wrote in his/her opinion that bicycling was a "permitted" use of the roadways. I don't see that as being far from legislating bicycling as "not permitted", unless motor vehicles in that state are also a "permitted" use. This is the state that had the article by Mrs Morrison about bicycles being a nuisance on the roads, and many people responding actually included the thought that we don't wear seatbelts. Not many people actually have the most remote understanding of bicycling. Combine this with the other thread about Peak Oil Production, and many in this country are in for a big awakening.

Avalanche325

Instead of wasting money on automobile repairs, parts, gasoline, oil, etc., cyclists spend that money not only on bicycles and cycling accessories, but on other goods and services. More money in the cyclist's pocket means a boost to the economy in a more diverse fashion.

So then, the entire automotive industry and the petrolium industry is not part of the economy? How does spending $10 at Starbucks fuel the economy more than spending $10 at Auto Zone?

closetbiker

So then, the entire automotive industry and the petrolium industry is not part of the economy? How does spending $10 at Starbucks fuel the economy more than spending $10 at Auto Zone?

This is straying away from cycling advocacy and towards market economy.

That said, $10 spent any outlet benefits the reciptient the same. Everyone is just fighting for the same peice of the pie.

randya

Blah Blah Blah...So now I'm curious. What am I? A liar or a mindless drone?

I guess it makes you the world's most perfect cyclist.

All kidding and sarcasm aside, though, the Idaho statute allows bicyclists to treat a stop sign like a yield sign (49-720(1)), and a stop light as a stop sign (49-720(2)), which seems perfectly logical to me. If we can make allowances for motorists to turn right on red, why can't we make similar adjustments in the law for cyclists to proceed with caution through a stop sign or stop light without stopping if there is no cross traffic? Cyclists generally are traveling slower, have better visibility, can stop in shorter distances, and do less harm in the event of a collision than motor vehicles, so it seem logical that a reasonable approach would be to allow cyclists *under the law* to respond differently than motorists to certain traffic control devices like stop signs.

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 signal shall stop before entering the intersection, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn without stopping or may cautiously make a left-hand turn onto a one-way highway without stopping.

(3) A person riding a bicycle shall comply with the provisions of section 49-643, Idaho Code.

(4) A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given during not less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the bicycle before turning, provided that a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle.

(emphasis added)

http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=490070020.K

Dchiefransom

I guess it makes you the world's most perfect cyclist.

All kidding and sarcasm aside, though, the Idaho statute allows bicyclists to treat a stop sign like a yield sign (49-720(1)), and a stop light as a stop sign (49-720(2)), which seems perfectly logical to me. If we can make allowances for motorists to turn right on red, why can't we make similar adjustments in the law for cyclists to proceed with caution through a stop sign or stop light without stopping if there is no cross traffic? Cyclists generally are traveling slower, have better visibility, can stop in shorter distances, and do less harm in the event of a collision than motor vehicles, so it seem logical that a reasonable approach would be to allow cyclists *under the law* to respond differently than motorists to certain traffic control devices like stop signs.

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 signal shall stop before entering the intersection, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn without stopping or may cautiously make a left-hand turn onto a one-way highway without stopping.

(3) A person riding a bicycle shall comply with the provisions of section 49-643, Idaho Code.

(4) A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given during not less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the bicycle before turning, provided that a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle.

(emphasis added)

http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=490070020.K

That Idaho statute says you have to stop if going straight through the intersection at a stop light. You can slow down when making a right turn on red, or a left turn on red onto a one way higway(street?). I think the reasoning is that we go from using the right side of the lane on one street, to the right side of the lane on the other. Some places with wide lanes/bike lanes we don't even interact with the flow of traffic on a right turn. Idaho seems to be looking at a common sense approach to riding.