I grew up in an era with few stop signs. Yield signs were common, and most intersections were uncontrolled, with rules about slowing enough to identify other traffic, yielding to the first car to reach the intersection, and establishing priority for vehicles reaching the intersection simultaneously. Now, many areas have stop signs every couple blocks, because there are simply too many collisions when we rely on driver attention and reliable rule-based behavior.

For cyclists, this introduces some new problems and exacerbates some old ones:
1. low-traffic streets that would otherwise appeal to cyclists have unusually frequent stop signs.
2. cyclists on low-traffic streets trying to cross high-traffic streets (where most of the vehicles are driving) may not find big enough gaps between cars to allow safe crossing.
3. a cyclist who comes to a full stop will enter the intersection with less stability than one who rolls through the sign (more likely to tip, unless riding a trike).
4. a cyclist who puts a foot down is subject to problems clipping in, just when the danger is highest.
5. after stopping, a cyclist takes time to build momentum and requires more time in the intersection than someone who hasn't had to stop.

The requirement that cyclists stop and put a foot down at all stop signs adds some risks. I do stop, but I keep myself safer by using a recumbent or a trike, which at least deals with the stability issues. I've thought about using electric assist just to zip across intersections (but probably won't). Unless some traffic engineer can figure out how to make stopping safer for cyclists, we'll continue to have cyclists ignoring stop signs.

From a commuter's perspective

2) This is where we leave/arrive work at a time when there aren't that much traffic on the road. I am at work by 7am and I leave work at 4pm, thereby beating most traffic on the roads. In winter, I'll even leave early to prepare for slower riding and less cars on slippery roads.

3) Unless you can trackstand.

4) Even if you can't trackstand or put a foot down, you can easily leave the other foot clipped in. I do, then getting going again is easier and less chance of slippage.

5) True, remember to shift down when stopping, but cars have this problem too, we each need to know our acceleration..

I would still chose the back roads with a lot of stop signs, simply because it's usually more scenic rather than sticking to highways or more heavily trafficed main roads...

jay

For cyclists, this introduces some new problems and exacerbates some old ones:
1. low-traffic streets that would otherwise appeal to cyclists have unusually frequent stop signs.
2. cyclists on low-traffic streets trying to cross high-traffic streets (where most of the vehicles are driving) may not find big enough gaps between cars to allow safe crossing.
3. a cyclist who comes to a full stop will enter the intersection with less stability than one who rolls through the sign (more likely to tip, unless riding a trike).
4. a cyclist who puts a foot down is subject to problems clipping in, just when the danger is highest.
5. after stopping, a cyclist takes time to build momentum and requires more time in the intersection than someone who hasn't had to stop.

The requirement that cyclists stop and put a foot down at all stop signs adds some risks. I do stop, but I keep myself safer by using a recumbent or a trike, which at least deals with the stability issues. I've thought about using electric assist just to zip across intersections (but probably won't). Unless some traffic engineer can figure out how to make stopping safer for cyclists, we'll continue to have cyclists ignoring stop signs.

1 Don't stop signs slow down motorists, too? With a stop sign every few blocks, car travel slows to the same speed as bicycle travel. Arn't stop signs/lights just a price we all pay for operating in a high density area.

2 That's a valid point. On the other hand, it is a penalty for cars as well. Frankly, I prefer traffic lights to stop signs if the cross street is a high-traffic one. I don't like "Yield" signs. They increase the chances that the cager will just blunder through the intersection without an adaquate scan. When I grew up, they did not exist. I'd just as soon they stayed that way.

3 This one makes no sense to me at all. I've never felt I was about to tip while leaving a stopline.

4 Only a minority of cyclists use foot attachments. The "danger" faced by those who do use them is that they may fail to clip out and fall over after stopping. The "danger" is only to their pride. I'm happy with platforms.

5 When I am alongside a car at an intersection and the light turns green, I am usually ahead of the car until at least half way across the intersection. When I stop, I am much better able to scan and spot crossing traffic than when I am in motion.

In my experience, recumbents and trikes are slow to accelerate. I always drop them from a standing start. If poor acceleration means danger, than these are less safe than upright bikes.

I feel that cyclists run stop signs for the same reasons cagers do -- impatience, poor judgement, failure of the police to effectively enforce. I fail to see why stopping is unsave for cyclists (or any other road users), although uncontrolled intersections can pose risks for all.

Paul

Sometimes I will run stop signs (but still slow) when at a 4-way stop and the car on my left (travelling parallel to me) is just starting to go forward. I guess I am running the stop sign, but I also time it so that I have the car act as a "blocker" car on my left going through the intersection at the same time.

Stop signs are not very common where I live. Most intersections (99%) have give-way signs. So it really isn't a problem. However if I had stop sign on every corner I imagine I would do a rolling stop (<5kph) and keep going.

CHEERS.

Mark

Only a minority of cyclists use foot attachments. The "danger" faced by those who do use them is that they may fail to clip out and fall over after stopping. The "danger" is only to their pride...

"Only a minority," perhaps, but a very large minority, which includes every serious cyclist I know.

I feel that cyclists run stop signs for the same reasons cagers do -- impatience, poor judgement, failure of the police to effectively enforce. I fail to see why stopping is unsave for cyclists (or any other road users), although uncontrolled intersections can pose risks for all.

Legally, there is a much bigger difference between stopping completely and gently rolling a stop sign through at <5kph/3mph than there is between 5kph rolling and blasting through at >15kph/10mph. In practical real-world safety terms, however, it makes little or no difference whether one stops completely or rolls slowly past the sign. The purpose of stop signs is to regulate traffic speed, to give pedestrians safe passage across the street, to establish right-of-way, and to encourage motorists to select freeways over local streets. Bicyclists who acknowledge and respect these objectives by following the spirit of the law should not be penalized over the technicality of whether or not their wheels came to a full stop. Part of the problem is that not all law enforcement officials (or judges) realize that many/most cyclists can indeed trackstand, and should therefore not be required to put one foot down for a legal stop.

If I approach an intersection when someone else has the right-of-way, I come to a full stop and pull my left foot out of the toeclip as soon as I overtax my very modest trackstanding abilities. If I have the right-of-way, I slow to less than 5kph and cautiously proceed through.

Well, the thing that has not been raised is there is a difference between a motorist running a stop sign and a cyclist running a stop sign.

The case of the motorist. The motorist approaches the stop sign at a fairly high speed. Most stop signs I know have limited sight lines which means you can not tell whether there is no traffic until you are pretty close. That means a motorist who runs a stop sign has an excellent chance of not seeing approaching traffic and causing an accident which with the size of his vehicle could have fatal consequences. Now, some motorists slow waaay down and roll through the stop sign. In that case, they may have fulfilled the obligation of checking for oncoming traffic, they merely did not obey the letter of the law.

Now cyclist's approach stop signs at a slower rate of speed then vehicles. A cyclist can often tell there is no through traffic. Cyclists have better fields of vision then motorists and they can hear vehicles approaching. So in this case, if the cyclist "blows" through the stop sign, he has complied with the obligation just as the motorist who comes to a near stop has. Now, even if a cyclist blows through and causes an accident, he is pretty small and is very unlikely to cause anyone harm but himself. Cyclists are different then motorists in two ways, their slower speed means they usually can check an intersection out without coming to a stop and even if they hit someone, they are almost certainly going to injure just themselves. Of course, running the stop sign is still against the law, so cyclists who do so are knowing taking the risk of a traffic violation.

Lets not forget, there may be a cyclist crossing through the intersection, or perhaps a kid on a bike that will be much more difficult to detect on a "quick" rolling scan of the intersection. A crash in this case could result in serious injury to both parties. To completely stop and put your foot down is to draw your full, and undivided attention to the intersection so you are less likely to miss crossing traffic of any type. Better safe than sorry.

Happy Holidays!

Lets not forget, there may be a cyclist crossing through the intersection, or perhaps a kid on a bike that will be much more difficult to detect on a "quick" rolling scan of the intersection. ... To completely stop and put your foot down is to draw your full, and undivided attention to the intersection so you are less likely to miss crossing traffic of any type. ... Happy Holidays!

I concur with everything except the "put your foot down" part; trackstanding is far less distracting than unclipping and reclipping.

I concur with everything except the "put your foot down" part; trackstanding is far less distracting than unclipping and reclipping.

Oh sure. Sorry, I ride platforms so I didn't even think of that. Nor can I speak to that process. Thanks for pointing out that process as well. :)