Advocacy & Safety - Stop signs: What's the answer?

I consider myself a safety-conscious cyclist. But I cruise through stop signs on a daily basis; carefully, but surely. And there are, or course many others who do likewise.

Some bike safety courses say for bikes to come to a full stop at signs. I say B.S. It's unreasonable to expect cyclists to do that; We can safely cruise through stops.

So, what's the answer? Should cyclists have the legal right to not stop at stop signs? There are the few who would abuse such a law by proceeding without caution. But that will happen anyway, law or no.

I think cyclists should be allowed to pass through stop signs without coming to a full stop. But I don't expect to see that ever made law.

I thought about this a bit on my way home from work today. I was approaching a 4-way stop and there was a car that got there way ahead of me, but he was just sitting there waiting for me until I waved him on. Its possible that he just has no clue how to drive around cyclists and is just being overly cautious to a fault, but my guess is that he's had plenty of cyclists blow through stop signs right in front of him when he had the right of way and he's just covering his ass. My personal view is that we should handle stop signs like yield signs. Slow down as you approach it (especially if visibility is bad around the corner) and stop and wait your turn if there are other cars there, but if no cars are coming, you're probably ok to safely move through it without coming to a complete stop.

I blow by stop signs in full speed!

I accelerate whenever I see a stop sign. My frame is filled with C4 and every day's a good day to take someone with me!!!

I'm a huge advocate of traffic devices in general functioning as yield signs. If I'm coming up to a stop light or a stop sign, I'm definitely cautious and slow making sure I'm not violating somebody else's ROW but I think it's unreasonable to expect cyclists to continually put their foot down. If I've got a good line of sight and can tell that I'm not impeding other drivers by running the traffic control, I'll do so. When I would be impeding traffic by blowing a stop, then I'll try to roll as slow as possible and eventually put my foot down.

As for vehicles that are in CYA mode, if they're far enough away I'll wave them through. If you're close to the intersection though, sometimes it's just best practice to blow it (as long as you know they're yielding ROW to you) being careful, cautious, and with a nice little thank you wave. If you're about to blow it and they decide it's their turn, hit the brakes and wave them through. But there's intersections where cars around here habitually yield to bikes even though the car was there first, and in all fairness I think I do myself and them a favor in not ending up in a "who can be nicer" standoff.

Oh, and +2 for the C4... definitely a must for any serious cyclist.

Good topic.

While we're at it, what do you all think of helmets?

but my guess is that he's had plenty of cyclists blow through stop signs right in front of him when he had the right of way and he's just covering his ass
Maybe some people also just like cyclists.

I saw a person stop their car to let a lady with a stroller jaywalk. I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with other stroller-pushers jumping out into traffic...

Either move to Idaho or work to change the law in your state to match Idaho's.

Either move to Idaho or work to change the law in your state to match Idaho's.

Bear in mind that others in your state may be working against you.

In CA, the legislation to allow Idaho style was squashed by vehicular cyclists.

It's not unreasonable to expect cyclists to put their feet down at a stop. It's the law (most everywhere), and following the law is per se reasonable, i.e. there's a reason to stop: the law.

I agree with the OP, though: cyclists should indeed be allowed to treat stops as yields. Until that law passes, though, we're either going to have to stop or we can treat them as yields and put up with the potential legal, medical, and financial consequences. I know that I waiver between the two, depending largely on the amount of vehicular traffic.

I will sometimes roll through a stop sign on some of the back road routes that I ride and usually do not come to a complete stop at other stop signs. But if traffic is present, then I unclip and come to a complete stop.

Stop lights are another matter. I always stop for a red and will only go through if the light does not cycle.

Yah want vehicle rights, yah gotta follow vehicle rules.

So, what's the answer?

Use the brains (no matter how tiny) the good lord gave ya. Next question?

Spirit of the law. 'nuff said.

It's not unreasonable to expect cyclists to put their feet down at a stop. It's the law (most everywhere), and following the law is per se reasonable, i.e. there's a reason to stop: the law.

I agree with the OP, though: cyclists should indeed be allowed to treat stops as yields. Until that law passes, though, we're either going to have to stop or we can treat them as yields and put up with the potential legal, medical, and financial consequences. I know that I waiver between the two, depending largely on the amount of vehicular traffic.

In what state is it the law that bicyclists must put their foot down at a stop sign? That seems more like something a cop might say (make up) than an actual law.

It's not unreasonable to expect bicyclists to stop at a stop sign but it does seem a little unneccesary to require them to put a foot down.

Its clear that very few people actually follow the letter of the law regarding stop signs. Watch any 4 way stop (or two way for that matter) for even a short period of time and you will see that cars, which are by far the majority of vehicles on the road, do not stop at stop signs as they are supposed to. So if the majority of the road users don't follow the law, what are your options?

The only logical option to me is that as a cyclist, accept and acknowledge that stop signs are not respected by cars in the vast majority of cases and ride your bike accordingly. Time your speed and approach to the intersection so that you will interfere the least with the orderely flow of vehicles in the intersection. Sometimes this means stopping completely, most of the time it just means slowing down and going through the intersection when its safe.

But the bottom line is do what is safe, don't slavishly adhere to an arbitrary rule that very few people follow just because its there.

Bear in mind that others in your state may be working against you.

In CA, the legislation to allow Idaho style was squashed by vehicular cyclists.

And don't ya know that some of these same "vehicular cyclists" strongly oppose applying the vehicular rules of the road to bicyclists when it comes to things they consider fun, i.e. using racing techniques on public roadways, as in group riding which may involve not stopping for red lights when at the tail of a group that started through on a green.

As the late Art Buchwald once said: I love hypocrisy.

An oxymoron - "I consider myself a safety-conscious cyclist. But I cruise through stop signs on a daily basis; carefully"

Obviously, you are wrong!

An oxymoron - "I consider myself a safety-conscious cyclist. But I cruise through stop signs on a daily basis; carefully"

Obviously, you are wrong!

Of course one has to wonder about the validity of some stop signs. The neighborhood I live in of single family homes was built in 1953. There were no stop signs in the neighborhood until about 4 years ago. The number of homes and families has not increased... yet for some reason, we were doing quite well for some 50 years without the stop signs.

So what has changed?

Nothing. The stop signs are virtually useless... people stop for the intersections as needed depending on cross traffic... no traffic, folks don't stop... the signs don't matter... but there they sit, all octagon and red... a testament to recent urge to add more traffic control... for apparently no reason.

vehicular cyclists in california preventing law change to match idaho

please provide some information about this as I would like to know more
about what group is so unreasonable.

vehicular cyclists in california preventing law change to match idaho

please provide some information about this as I would like to know more
about what group is so unreasonable.

CABO http://www.cabobike.org/index.htm

CABO focuses on ensuring that cyclists have unrestricted rights to the road and that the laws for cyclists and motorists are basically the same. Thus giving cyclists "advantages" would counter their goals.

I had to search my emails to find a statement from them that covered their view on this...


The Idaho experience seems to indicate that their approach can work. I've not heard otherwise at least. My question, as chair of the Legislative Committee for the California Bicycle Coalition, is what problem would this change in law remedy? I know a cyclist who was ticketed for not putting a foot down at a stop sign, but I don't know that such foolishness is wide-spread enough to justify the effort and expense to change the law.

My view is that we need to pick battles that will have a broad effect, and that will contribute to raising the standing of bicyclists in the community. As benign as this change might be, I'm not sure it would do either.

Stephan Vance


This group strongly believes in "Same Roads, Same Rules, Same Responsibilities."

Maybe some people also just like cyclists.

I saw a person stop their car to let a lady with a stroller jaywalk. I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with other stroller-pushers jumping out into traffic...

Well, if they really like cyclists, I would personally prefer they treat me like another vehicle, which means they go when its their turn rather than waiving their right of way to me. If there are other cars at the intersection, this inevitably screws up everyone else and slows down traffic worse than if they just took their turn.

And now that I think about it, I *have* seen mothers with strollers burst out into traffic with little to no warning. There's a few lighted crosswalks with blind entrances in my downtown that it happens at a lot.

An oxymoron - "I consider myself a safety-conscious cyclist. But I cruise through stop signs on a daily basis; carefully"

Obviously, you are wrong!

It's only an oxymoron if the stop sign is there for safety reasons. Stop signs are often used to slow traffic or because the city was to cheap too put a signal.

With no traffic present and good sight lines I too break the law by checking carefully and blowing through stop signs. For me, a change in law allowing that action not be helpful.

At four-ways with traffic present I aim to make the almost-stop and take my turn and do get caught sometimes by "nice" drivers.

I thought about this a bit on my way home from work today. I was approaching a 4-way stop and there was a car that got there way ahead of me, but he was just sitting there waiting for me until I waved him on. Its possible that he just has no clue how to drive around cyclists and is just being overly cautious to a fault, but my guess is that he's had plenty of cyclists blow through stop signs right in front of him when he had the right of way and he's just covering his ass. My personal view is that we should handle stop signs like yield signs. Slow down as you approach it (especially if visibility is bad around the corner) and stop and wait your turn if there are other cars there, but if no cars are coming, you're probably ok to safely move through it without coming to a complete stop.

If the laws changed and people knew that bikes will roll through the stop sign, but still yield right of way, then it would fix the confusion [edit] and traffic will flow better.

If they want us the behave like cars then motorists will be even more inconvenienced because I'll be in the middle of the road while all the traffic is waiting twice as long for me to regain my momentum.

Well, if they really like cyclists, I would personally prefer they treat me like another vehicle, which means they go when its their turn rather than waiving their right of way to me. If there are other cars at the intersection, this inevitably screws up everyone else and slows down traffic worse than if they just took their turn.

I know, you poor thing, and it must be another cyclist's fault....

(seriously, fewer and fewer car drivers know what to do at stop signs with intersections, especially if you throw in cyclists and pedestrians. Even if pedestrians and cyclists held universal secret meetings and agreed to a consistent behavior, do you really think car drivers would pick up on it?

What's at fault here? Ignorance and unfamiliarity. As car drivers learn the laws, and interact more frequently with cyclists, they'll drive with greater confidence. In the meantime, at least their trying to be safe and responsible. Get a grip)

It's only an oxymoron if the stop sign is there for safety reasons. Stop signs are often used to slow traffic or because the city was to cheap too put a signal.


Obviously it's different where you live.

In Illinois, a stop sign means stop. It is against the law here!

I know, you poor thing, and it must be another cyclist's fault....

(seriously, fewer and fewer car drivers know what to do at stop signs with intersections, especially if you throw in cyclists and pedestrians. Even if pedestrians and cyclists held universal secret meetings and agreed to a consistent behavior, do you really think car drivers would pick up on it?

What's at fault here? Ignorance and unfamiliarity. As car drivers learn the laws, and interact more frequently with cyclists, they'll drive with greater confidence. In the meantime, at least their trying to be safe and responsible. Get a grip)

Hey, I'm not whining about it and I'm certainly not going to get angry with a driver when they do something like that. I'm just pointing out that the best combination of safety and traffic throughput is when cars and bikes give each other the right of way when it is appropriate.

If all cyclists would come to a complete stop at every sign, pull out their copy of the state vehicle code and point to the appropriate section, then all the motorists would understand within a week or so. You gotta teach 'em.

Obviously it's different where you live.

In Illinois, a stop sign means stop. It is against the law here!

There's a difference between what is legal and what is safe. Stop signs are often put up to keep traffic in residential areas slow (people don't generally speed up just to stop a few hundred feet later and then repeat the process). Some of these stop signs should be yields but that would give drivers a long stretch of road speed on. Also, stop signs the amount of traffic because drivers prefer faster roads.

So, although some stops signs are for the safety many others are simply for traffic calming. If you know which is which, then you can travel safely and efficiently.

people don't generally speed up just to stop a few hundred feet later and then repeat the process

Actually people do DO this now... modern cars with ridiculous accelerations (0-60 in 4+seconds) have encouraged motorists to drive like sprinters between stops.

It is somewhat ironic to see motorists racing from stop light to stop light due to the lights being there to "control speeds" yet the acceleration of modern cars allows motorists to reach high speeds in a short distance (time).

We don't often see people "cruise" any more...

As a cyclist, I am still into conservation of energy when I drive... I tend to coast to red lights. (my auto brakes tend to last much longer this way too).

Yah want vehicle rights, yah gotta follow vehicle rules.
And that's the right answer!
Cyclists blowing stop signs, or stop lights contribute to the negative attitude of Carnosaurs.

In my city, you will get a ticket for running a stop sign. Even coming out of a cul de sac, onto a lightly travelled neighborhood street. All it takes is a cop to view it.

Where you live may be different. (So far, in my 63 years, I have never seen a stop sign with a "traffic calming" addendum saying you don't really have to stop. And, I've seen a very large share of the US and other foreign countries.)

It never ceases to amaze me, that many cyclists think it's OK to disobey traffic laws themselves, and then harp when another vehicle disobeys those same regulations.......

I really try to ride safely, and do try to obey as many regulations as I can. I view stop signs as practice for trackstands.

Am I perfect? No! But I really try to make a concerted effort to do it right.

Like I said, there's a difference between what's safe and what's legal. I may get a ticket for running a stop sign when going straight on a T intersection even though it was perfectly safe. And yes, the law doesn't differentiate based on the true purpose of the signage but your safety does. Do you take the lane a busy road or take the sidewalk? Legally, you maybe required to stay on the road but the sidewalk maybe safer.

Regardless if there's stop sign, yield, red light, bike lane, or sharrow you have to evaluate your situation and do what's safe.

Yah want vehicle rights, yah gotta follow vehicle rules.

I already have vehicle rights.

And using that logic, if they don't follow the rules, neither should I.

And that's the right answer!
Cyclists blowing stop signs, or stop lights contribute to the negative attitude of Carnosaurs.

But what about us having a negative view of carnosaurs for doing the same thing?

Yesterday, I watched a busy intersection near my place and saw on virtually every single light change in about a 10 minute period a mimimum of two cars run solid reds. I notice the same thing every day when I'm out, whether I'm riding or walking. Heck, the hosts on the popular morning show here last week exclaimed how surprised they were to read that there is a proposed increase in fines for those who don't stop on the amber. "We're supposed to stop when we see the amber light?" the female co-host asked, aghast. It's the pot calling the kettle black. With 650,000+ tickets issued to motorists in this city last year, it's pretty clear they don't know---or consciously flout---the laws at about the same percentage of the time as we do.

When I am clipped in, I am not stopping for a light. But I guess if it's a busy light or a blind corner and I know that, then I may. But my general rule is, if I don't hear a car or see headlights coming on the street, I'll go through.

I just blogged about this :D

http://fixmarketstreet.blogspot.com/

In my city, you will get a ticket for running a stop sign. Even coming out of a cul de sac, onto a lightly travelled neighborhood street. All it takes is a cop to view it.

Where you live may be different. (So far, in my 63 years, I have never seen a stop sign with a "traffic calming" addendum saying you don't really have to stop. And, I've seen a very large share of the US and other foreign countries.)

It never ceases to amaze me, that many cyclists think it's OK to disobey traffic laws themselves, and then harp when another vehicle disobeys those same regulations.......

I really try to ride safely, and do try to obey as many regulations as I can. I view stop signs as practice for trackstands.

Am I perfect? No! But I really try to make a concerted effort to do it right.

Bicyclist don't pose much of a risk of harm to motorists should they miscalculate. I suspect they are willing to take a warranted risk in visually clearing the intersection before they enter it, stop sign notwithstanding. That is probably why they think it is OK.

In my city, you will get a ticket for running a stop sign. Even coming out of a cul de sac, onto a lightly travelled neighborhood street. All it takes is a cop to view it. Where you live may be different. (So far, in my 63 years, I have never seen a stop sign with a "traffic calming" addendum saying you don't really have to stop. And, I've seen a very large share of the US and other foreign countries.) It never ceases to amaze me, that many cyclists think it's OK to disobey traffic laws themselves, and then harp when another vehicle disobeys those same regulations.......

Sounds like the sort of place a pencil-pusher would die for; all bureaucracy and legal technicality, and hardly a glimpse of common sense. I'm glad that you enjoy these sorts of regulations and their asinine application to cyclists. Traffic laws were written for motor vehicles, and the sort of hazards these large, unmaneuverable, and high-speed vehicles pose on the road. When you look at something as maneuverable, light, and low-power as a bicycle, a lot of these regulations don't make nearly as much sense. Stop signs designed to keep a cager's foot off the accelerator in his 2000 pound bowling ball don't make nearly as much sense to a cyclist who can safely and intelligently treat almost any traffic control device as a yield.

By your logic Wanderer, what is appropriate behavior in Idaho (and California soon enough) is dangerous and reckless anywhere else? It may be legal in Idaho and illegal in Illinois but I don't think you can say that it is somehow any more dangerous and reckless in Illinois than it was in Idaho (though I've never been to IL, so I'm basing my assessment on places I have been). You essentially tack on the risk of some overzealous cop deciding to hassle you, and in your mind I guess that makes the difference between right and wrong. That a safe and appropriate behavior is no longer acceptable because a cop could ticket you for it, even though it's a law that doesn't make sense in regards to bicycles. Don't get me wrong, I don't smoke (my job wouldn't hear it), but I take it you're the sort of person who agrees that marijuana is bad because it's illegal and should be illegal because it's bad.

If a STOP sign falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

At a STOP sign on the salt flats (with visibility of at least a mile and no cars in sight), would a motorist need to stop? Would a bicyclist?

What if visibility is only half a mile?

The 'answer' is that a STOP sign isn't always relevant but it's the law. If we believe that law is more relevant than reason, then we must always stop at a STOP sign. If we believe in common sense, then we might find a different answer.

And, of course, reason can be a slippery slope.

Traffic laws were written for motor vehicles

Incorrect. Traffic control signals are just that...traffic control signals. Neither they, nor the laws written to enforce their purpose, are designed with a specific vehicle in mind. If you are operating a legal vehicle on the road, those signals apply to you. Period, end of story.

That said, as someone else mentioned earlier, obey the 'spirit' of the law, and as I mentioned earlier USE YOUR FREAKIN BRAIN. If you can roll up to a stop sign on a bike, slow down enough to check for cross traffic, peds, etc AND give the appropriate right of way to other traffic that has it, without coming to a complete stop and putting your foot down...cool. If you can't, you best stop. When in doubt, obey the law...it's that simple...unless you are one of those mooks who simply can't stand to have anything slow you down or get in your way...like most drivers. :rolleyes:

Laws are a means and not an end. When we forget this, silliness ensues.

In what state is it the law that bicyclists must put their foot down at a stop sign? That seems more like something a cop might say (make up) than an actual law.

It's not unreasonable to expect bicyclists to stop at a stop sign but it does seem a little unneccesary to require them to put a foot down.

I was only referencing what GutterNinja! said above, which I took merely to mean "to stop" at stop signs.

Bear in mind that others in your state may be working against you.

In CA, the legislation to allow Idaho style was squashed by vehicular cyclists.


CABO http://www.cabobike.org/index.htm

CABO focuses on ensuring that cyclists have unrestricted rights to the road and that the laws for cyclists and motorists are basically the same. Thus giving cyclists "advantages" would counter their goals.

I had to search my emails to find a statement from them that covered their view on this...


The Idaho experience seems to indicate that their approach can work. I've not heard otherwise at least. My question, as chair of the Legislative Committee for the California Bicycle Coalition, is what problem would this change in law remedy? I know a cyclist who was ticketed for not putting a foot down at a stop sign, but I don't know that such foolishness is wide-spread enough to justify the effort and expense to change the law.

My view is that we need to pick battles that will have a broad effect, and that will contribute to raising the standing of bicyclists in the community. As benign as this change might be, I'm not sure it would do either.

Stephan Vance

This group strongly believes in "Same Roads, Same Rules, Same Responsibilities."Genec,
You have seriously misrepresented CABO's position of not wasting effort on supporting such a law change. You have wrongly claimed that VCers have actually defeated such a law in CA. Very poor form on your part, sir.

We both know that if the Idaho law was put forward in the CA legislature, it would be CHP that would voice the strongest opposition and would get such a bill defeated. So why do you blame VC?

There's a difference between what is legal and what is safe. Stop signs are often put up to keep traffic in residential areas slow (people don't generally speed up just to stop a few hundred feet later and then repeat the process). Some of these stop signs should be yields but that would give drivers a long stretch of road speed on. Also, stop signs the amount of traffic because drivers prefer faster roads.

So, although some stops signs are for the safety many others are simply for traffic calming. If you know which is which, then you can travel safely and efficiently.You seem to be arguing that traffic calming measure are not safety measures.

You seem to be arguing that traffic calming measure are not safety measures.

Traffic calming = appeasement - why do you love Hitler? :roflmao2:

If I'm approaching a 4-way stop and the only traffic are cars behind me, then it is safer for me and more convenient for motorists if I ride through.

If I'm approaching a 4-way stop and the only traffic are cars behind me, then it is safer for me and more convenient for motorists if I ride through.

correction - it's more convenient for YOU. Motorists are used to stopping behind other vehicles at stop signs...the fact that vehicle is a bike doesn't make it any less convenient for them.

If a STOP sign falls in the forest, does it make a sound?


Yes, but only on bikeforums.