General Cycling Discussion - opinion on stop signs?

Do you think you should do a complete stop and put your feet on the ground at each stop sign? My problem is sometimes my shorts get hanged up on the seat when I get back on my bike at a stop sign showing my underwear and but crack. Do tight fitting bike shorts get hanged up on the seat when you get back on it? I dont have bike shorts but the shorts I have are loose and baggy.

When you get back on your bike are you suppose to moved the pedal back till you can put your foot on it then get on the seat from that pedal?

I can stop and put a foot down without getting off the seat, even on a mountain bike with a high bottom bracket and 2.4" tires. Is your bike abnormally high off the ground?

I got 2 inch clearance for standover height so I dont think its "abnormal"

If no one else is at the intersection, I just do a rolling stop (or Idaho stop ( http://urbanvelo.org/bicycle-rolling-stop-animation-idaho-stop-law/)). If there's other traffic at the intersection, then I put a foot down. Just plan ahead and arrange your pedals as you need them. And I wear baggy jeans and baggy shorts exclusively when biking, and never manage to pull my pants down. Maybe practice standing on your forward pedal as you remount, to get your waist clear of your saddle as you lift yourself back onto the bike.

I got 2 inch clearance for standover height so I dont think its "abnormal"

I think you're right, most people ride with a saddle height that is taller than their standing pubic bone height.

I hate to sound all preachy and law-abiding here, but there isn't any question about this. if we're going to scream about being legitimate vehicles and having all the rights of cars, we have to follow the rules they do. Stop at the damn stop sign. Get some shorts that fit. Learn to spell "butt" and figure out the difference between "hanged up" and "hung up." And realize that nobody cares about your crack.

I hate to sound all preachy and law-abiding here, but there isn't any question about this. if we're going to scream about being legitimate vehicles and having all the rights of cars, we have to follow the rules they do. Stop at the damn stop sign. Get some shorts that fit. Learn to spell "butt" and figure out the difference between "hanged up" and "hung up." And realize that nobody cares about your crack.

You may hate to sound preachy, but you sure seem to relish sounding like a pedantic ass. He just asked a question, no need to berate the dude's fashion sense. And good luck with that one man war on proper spelling and grammar. I'm sure that you'll single-handledly make the internet a much more intelligible place.

I got 2 inch clearance for standover height so I dont think its "abnormal"

Ok, try touching the ground with one foot then. Like this:

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff237/mechBgon/iron-on_daytime.jpg

The only time I have to get off the saddle at a stoplight or stop sign, is when I'm test-riding someone else's super-tall bike after completing a repair. Any of my four bikes, I just put my right foot down, as shown.

I can sympathize with your annoyance at the saddle nose snagging your shorts. If you ever shop for a new saddle, and are looking at the mid-to-upper price range, consider a WTB SST, whose shape is designed to minimize shorts snag.

http://wtb.com/files/2009/12/sst-520x500.jpg

Trackstand!:D...It's much easier and less risky if you gear down first, much easier to get rolling if for some reason you begin to lose balance. I stop, no rolling.;)

Ok, try touching the ground with one foot then. Like this:

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff237/mechBgon/iron-on_daytime.jpg

The only time I have to get off the saddle at a stoplight or stop sign, is when I'm test-riding someone else's super-tall bike after completing a repair. Any of my four bikes, I just put my right foot down, as shown.

I can sympathize with your annoyance at the saddle nose snagging your shorts. If you ever shop for a new saddle, and are looking at the mid-to-upper price range, consider a WTB SST, whose shape is designed to minimize shorts snag.

http://wtb.com/files/2009/12/sst-520x500.jpgI can stop like that. I thought you were talking about both feet being flat on the ground when sitting on the saddle. Is that the proper way to stop?

I dont see any videos showing people sitting on the saddle when stopping and going.

time to take up trackstands, bro!

Ill look that up.

You should stop, even if its brief enough so you don't have to put your foot down. If you're on a decline then it's another story, just remember always turn right!

...but what about this, you're riding in a group that comes to a stop, you slow down so that when they start back up you can keep rolling through the stop with them. Does the group stop count as your stop as well even if you don't stop? I'm leaning towards yes on this one.

You may hate to sound preachy, but you sure seem to relish sounding like a pedantic ass. He just asked a question, no need to berate the dude's fashion sense. And good luck with that one man war on proper spelling and grammar. I'm sure that you'll single-handledly make the internet a much more intelligible place.

Somebody pass the popcorn! ZING!

I dont see any videos showing people sitting on the saddle when stopping and going.

May not be videos but happens all the time in real life.

The correct thing to do is come to a full stop.

In reality, rolling stops are pretty common just like they are for cars. They're even codified as legal for bicycles in some places.

If you elect not to stop fully, you should at least slow down enough to confirm that there's nobody coming through the intersection, and so you can stop safely if needed.

I try not to take my foot out of the clip unless it's necessary. (which is seconds after a full stop)
I fell like a sitting duck when unclipped.
Can't accelerate with only one leg, can't get much traction with a bike shoe on the road.

With me it's situational.

If there is no other traffic visible I roll through the stop sign.

If there are cars about I attempt a track stand while making eye contact with the other drivers. At least 90% of the time, cross traffic drivers will signal me to pass through the intersection ahead of them. In return, I give them a full five fingered wave.

If there is a line of cars at the stop sign, I unclip and wait my turn in line.

What do you do if the stop sign is at a big hill and its hard to start back?

I hate to sound all preachy and law-abiding here, but there isn't any question about this. if we're going to scream about being legitimate vehicles and having all the rights of cars, we have to follow the rules they do. Stop at the damn stop sign. Get some shorts that fit. Learn to spell "butt" and figure out the difference between "hanged up" and "hung up." And realize that nobody cares about your crack.

Well, that ain't necessarily so. A couple years ago, I was stopped by an officer and given a ticket for not stopping at a stop sign. I thought that I had stopped, but possibly I had just gotten careless and slowed down to 1-2 mph and gone. So I got to wondering..... and I started observing other drivers when they came to a stop sign and there was no other traffic. I did this for a couple of weeks and I saw people slow way down, but not one came to a complete stop. I hear the line all the time that cyclists should always stop at stop signs. Bikes are different than cars. Cyclists are generally higher up and can see better. Also cyclists are approaching the stop sign and can safely yield to cross traffic without coming to a complete stop. And as I just mentioned, you can watch drivers for days and not see a single one come to a stop unless they have to wait for cross traffic.

I can stop like that. I thought you were talking about both feet being flat on the ground when sitting on the saddle.

If I could reach the ground flat-footed from my saddle, my saddle height would be far too low.


Is that the proper way to stop?

As someone else mentioned, it's possible to stop momentarily without putting a foot down, but sometimes you'll have to remain stopped, at which point you need to have Plan B. The way shown in the photo is the "Plan B" method I suggest, if you don't want to get off the saddle, snag your shorts, etc.


What do you do if the stop sign is at a big hill and its hard to start back?

In that case, I just camp there for the night.


...but seriously, what do you think? ;) If you're going uphill and you'll be stopping, downshift before you stop, so you're ready when it's time to roll out again. If I can do it on a mountain bike loaded with 40 pounds of groceries, you can do it too. Man up ;)

Stopping at all stop signs and signals while riding for transportation will make you a stronger, better cyclist. I have been in many road/group rides where we did not stop for signs or lights. I didn't think it was right or wrong, just safe or unsafe. If the leader/fore did not know how to clear an intersection then I would try to avoid riding in that manner with that person again.

It is possible to do safely, just not legally. A group gives some justification of sorts especially if they clear their intersections as a team. Singly, unless it is completely, utterly clear for a hundred yards or more you look like a doosh blowing signs or signals.

Still not right or wrong if done safely, but doochiness is subjective except I refuse to be the subject.

I hate to sound all preachy and law-abiding here, but there isn't any question about this. if we're going to scream about being legitimate vehicles and having all the rights of cars, we have to follow the rules they do. Stop at the damn stop sign.

I live at a corner with a 4-way stop and let me tell ya, plenty of motorized vehicles do one of those "Idaho" stops. When the cops get behind on their ticket quotas they can always make it up by parking in front of my house and tagging the cars that roll right through.

In my area I pretty much follow all of the laws. Exceptions to that include cutting through parking lots occasionally, and I tend to roll through stop signs if there is no traffic around, and will go through a red light if there are no vehicles that will trip the light for me. Whenever I do either of those, though, I always make sure I am not violating the right of way of other vehicles. I've done this in front of cops (not on purpose, mind you), and they've let me slide thus far.

I figure stop signs are "traffic control devices". If there is no traffic, there is no need for control. Ergo, stopping is strictly optional.
LEGAL WARNING: This most useful outlook was developed when I was a practicing attorney, in particular, when I decided that most inconvenient laws didn't apply to me. Life has been so much better ever since. bk

And good luck with that one-man war on proper spelling and grammar. I'm sure that you'll single-handledly make the internet a much more intelligible place.Velo Dog's not the only one fighting the good fight. And thank you; we need your good wishes against all those who think effective communication skills are outdated.

I mostly do sort of a California stop at stop signs (what they call it around here when you don't quite get stopped in a car).

How you work your pedals when you take off is just personal preference, do whatever seems easiest for you.

It's situation based. My theory is always Cross Traffic Wins!

Do you think you should do a complete stop and put your feet on the ground at each stop sign?

Feet on the ground? No.

I can stop and put a foot down without getting off the seat, even on a mountain bike with a high bottom bracket and 2.4" tires. Is your bike abnormally high off the ground?

Looking at the picture you posted, I can see where you are coming from but I've never had a saddle low enough that I could put any part of my foot on the ground while seated. I wonder if you run your saddle lower than normal.


Do you think you should do a complete stop and put your feet on the ground at each stop sign? My problem is sometimes my shorts get hanged up on the seat when I get back on my bike at a stop sign showing my underwear and but crack. Do tight fitting bike shorts get hanged up on the seat when you get back on it? I dont have bike shorts but the shorts I have are loose and baggy.

When you get back on your bike are you suppose to moved the pedal back till you can put your foot on it then get on the seat from that pedal?

Learn how to get on the saddle so that you shorts don't hang up on the saddle. If your shorts are baggy, make sure that you lift high enough to clear the saddle each time you mount the saddle.

Close fitting lycra bike shorts aren't about fashion. If you ever saw me in them, you'd know that:eek::eek:...right after you clawed your eyes out:eek: They are about function. They make transitions from the saddle to standing or from starting to getting into the saddle much easier without having to worry about snagging loose clothing on the saddle. They also happen to be more comfortable in the heat and flap around less in the wind.

As for how you look in them, I've earned my right to wear them;). I've tried hiking shorts that scrubbed delicate tissues raw, wool shorts that were itchy and so baggy that they needed suspenders to preserve my modesty, touring shorts that combined all the bad things about hiking shorts without any of the "good" things about wool shorts, etc. None are as good as even a bad pair of lycra cycling shorts.


Trackstand!:D

That's the ticket. As long as the bike's forward momentum is stopped, you've complied with the law. With practice, you can stand through a stop light cycle or even longer.

Do you think you should do a complete stop and put your feet on the ground at each stop sign? My problem is sometimes my shorts get hanged up on the seat when I get back on my bike at a stop sign showing my underwear and but crack. Do tight fitting bike shorts get hanged up on the seat when you get back on it? I dont have bike shorts but the shorts I have are loose and baggy.
What ever you do or don't do at stop signs, your shorts should not be making the choice for you!


They're even codified as legal for bicycles in some places.
As far as I know, only in Idaho.

What's a stop sign?

Trackstand. Btw, in California at least, stopping is defined as a cessation of forward motion. No requirement to put a foot down.

With me it's situational.

If there is no other traffic visible I roll through the stop sign.

If there are cars about I attempt a track stand while making eye contact with the other drivers. At least 90% of the time, cross traffic drivers will signal me to pass through the intersection ahead of them. In return, I give them a full five fingered wave.

If there is a line of cars at the stop sign, I unclip and wait my turn in line.

+1

Trackstand them all, scan to see if the piggies are around, if they are then you have to put a foot down... which is fair because the car drivers will actually be coming to a full stop also!

edit: some states/provinces require you to put a foot down... check it so you don't get fined!

Trackstand them all, scan to see if the piggies are around, if they are then you have to put a foot down...

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily.

let me edit... it is law up here.

What ever you do or don't do at stop signs, your shorts should not be making the choice for you!

Yeah, if the behavior of your shorts are a consideration, you need new shorts.



As far as I know, only in Idaho.

Idaho has gotta have at least two, three places in it, right? :)

On a serious note, I personally think it's a bit silly to say that this group of vehicles can legally roll through stop signs but others can't.

On a serious note, I personally think it's a bit silly to say that this group of vehicles can legally roll through stop signs but others can't.

Yeah, really silly to treat 200lb vehicles differently than 4,000lb vehicles. :rolleyes:

Maybe get some shorts that are not hanging off your rear end with your undies sticking out like some gangsta on a stolen bike. Maybe even consider a, uh, belt. Those are generally quite effective at holding pants up so your "crack" does not show.

As to stop signs, you should do what you have to for your safety and the safety of those who intersect your path, including shielding their eyes from your, uh, "crack" if at all possible. Heck, you might get rear ended.

On a serious note, I personally think it's a bit silly to say that this group of vehicles can legally roll through stop signs but others can't.
I think there are things that are sufficiently different for bicycles (speed/viewpoint) that make it not unreasonable, if it's done carefully/correctly. The law should be what is reasonable and works. The Idaho stop law doesn't appear to have increased cyclist collisions.

On a serious note, I personally think it's a bit silly to say that this group of vehicles can legally roll through stop signs but others can't.

Well, you just wait for that train to stop for you at the crossing then. Since all vehicles are the same, why should trains just get their own private crossings.

Well, you just wait for that train to stop for you at the crossing then. Since all vehicles are the same, why should trains just get their own private crossings.

??? This fails to make any sense.

Trains have stop signs at crossings? Trucks are big too, maybe they shouldn't have to stop? Or motorcycles are light and, maybe, they shouldn't have to stop?

??? This fails to make any sense.

Trains have stop signs at crossings? Trucks are big too, maybe they shouldn't have to stop? Or motorcycles are light and, maybe, they shouldn't have to stop?

I don't even think i was trying to talk to you...

let me explain... why do drivers always have to STOP for trains, it is like... so unfair aonnd stuff. Trains just blow right through the intersection, half the people on them don't even pay taxes.

Why, yes, it is silly to think a train, 18wheeler, car, motorcycle and bike are all the same when it comes to stop signs.

??? This fails to make any sense.

Trains have stop signs at crossings? Trucks are big too, maybe they shouldn't have to stop? Or motorcycles are light and, maybe, they shouldn't have to stop?

He's observing that it's ridiculous to expect all vehicles, regardless of size, to act the same way at intersections. Trains are both too heavy and too long to be required to stop and then resume travel at every intersection. Bicycles are so light that they stop on a dime when traveling at rolling stop speed, so they can safely treat stop signs as yield signs. Cars, trucks, and motorcycles fall in between the two, and as such need to continue to treat stop signs as stop signs.

He's observing that it's ridiculous to expect all vehicles, regardless of size, to act the same way at intersections.
Actually, it makes a fair amount of sense to make all vehicles behave the same way, since drivers don't have to have complicated rules to figure out whether a vehicle is going to stop at a stop sign or not. That is, part of the reason for having every vehicle stop is predictability.

Cyclists are typically legally required to stop, regardless of whether or not it make sense. Cars, too, have to stop even in the middle of the night at an empty intersection. Why should they have to?


Trains are both too heavy and too long to be required to stop and then resume travel at every intersection. Bicycles are so light that they stop on a dime when traveling at rolling stop speed, so they can safely treat stop signs as yield signs. Cars, trucks, and motorcycles fall in between the to, and as such need to continue to treat stop signs as stop signs.
Trains are irrelevant. And they are acting legally.

Cars "at rolling stop speed" (what ever that is) can stop nearly "on a dime". Motorcycles even more so.


let me explain... why do drivers always have to STOP for trains, it is like... so unfair aonnd stuff. Trains just blow right through the intersection, half the people on them don't even pay taxes.
They are not "blowing right through intersections". They have the legal right of way. This isn't really any different than cars on the freeway having the right of way over cars entering the freeway.


Why, yes, it is silly to think a train, 18wheeler, car, motorcycle and bike are all the same when it comes to stop signs.
This still doesn't make any sense. The particular issue is why it is reasonable (if not legal) for bicycles not to stop. We aren't really talking about trains.

Cyclists are typically legally required to stop, regardless of whether or not it make sense. Cars, too, have to stop even in the middle of the night at an empty intersection.

Trains are irrelevant. And they are acting legally.

Cars "at rolling stop speed" (what ever they are) can stop nearly "on a dime". Motorcycles even more so.

I didn't say that bikes weren't required to stop, I was just stating that bikes can safely treat stop signs as yield signs. Idaho's stop as yield law has been on the books for almost 30 years, and has proved as much. Bikes have a lot less mass than even motorcycles, and as such carry drastically less momentum at low speeds than cars and motorcycles.

I think that electrik used the train analogy to illustrate how different vehicles obey the laws of physics, not the road laws.

I was just stating that bikes can safely treat stop signs as yield signs. Idaho's stop as yield law has been on the books for almost 30 years, and has proved as much.
I pointed that out already. I don't think that the "stop on a dime" thing entirely explains why the Idaho stop law (appears to) work.


Bikes have a lot less mass than even motorcycles, and as such carry drastically less momentum at low speeds than cars and motorcycles.
But motorcycles have much better brakes. Cars and motorcycles can certainly yield just fine. There is even an argument that many stop signs should be yields instead! Bicyclists can even fail to yield without much difficulty.


I think that electrik used the train analogy to illustrate how different vehicles obey the laws of physics, not the road laws.
So what? Trains are really big. And they are obeying the "road laws". Why does the "laws of physics" make Idaho stops reasonable? Electrik didn't make that argument.

It would be a better argument to point out why cyclists can do this (the Idaho stop) safely.

Actually, it makes a fair amount of sense to make all vehicles behave the same way, since drivers don't have to have complicated rules to figure out whether a vehicle is going to stop at a stop sign or not. That is, part of the reason for having every vehicle stop is predictability.

Cyclists are typically legally required to stop, regardless of whether or not it make sense. Cars, too, have to stop even in the middle of the night at an empty intersection. Why should they have to?

Cars and trains are dangerous, trains have the right of way and cars do not. If a train could stop it would give the right of way. Cars aren't trains aren't bikes aren't trucks. Cars are just as dangerous, they can stop and must because any mistake on their behalf is dangerous. Bicycles aren't dangerous, they can stop, but don't have to if the way is clear, if the operator makes an error it is his ass in a sling.





Trains are irrelevant. And they are acting legally.

Cars "at rolling stop speed" (what ever that is) can stop nearly "on a dime". Motorcycles even more so.


They are not "blowing right through intersections". They have the legal right of way. This isn't really any different than cars on the freeway having the right of way over cars entering the freeway.


This still doesn't make any sense. The particular issue is why it is reasonable (if not legal) for bicycles not to stop. We aren't really talking about trains.


:lol: ... what are WE talking about? I think you are purposely reading the wrong thing into what i've written but, then you did butt your way into somebody elses conversation! Oh well.

Attempts to homogenize traffic are silly... it just allows people to get lazy and complacent, then accidents rates go up because the reality is that traffic is NOT homogeneous.

It doesn't make sense for every vehicle to follow an absolute law since they are all different, your prophecy of traffic chaos caused because cyclists Idaho stopping a stop sign is mere fantasy. Unless there is an apocalypse unfolding in idaho that i am unaware of... there isn't is there?

Actually, it makes a fair amount of sense to make all vehicles behave the same way, since drivers don't have to have complicated rules to figure out whether a vehicle is going to stop at a stop sign or not. That is, part of the reason for having every vehicle stop is predictability.

I suppose that Idaho drivers just assume that vehicles at side streets, be they bicycle or automobile, aren't going to impede upon their right of way? This is just my assumption, and it's based only on my understanding of the stop-as-yield law and my understanding that Idaho does not have a greater than average bicycle/auto collision rate, nor did the rate jump after the law was enacted. There's a decent breakdown of the history of the law here (http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/3/7/Origins-of-Idahos-Stop-as-Yield-Law). It certainly isn't universally accepted, but personal anecdotal evidence has sold me.


But motorcycles have much better brakes. Cars and motorcycles can certainly yield just fine. There is even an argument that many stop signs should be yields instead! Bicyclists can even fail to yield without much difficulty.

Yeah, I'm down with that. Wouldn't change how people drive around here, anyway.


So what? Trains are really big. And they are obeying the "road laws". Why does the "laws of physics" make Idaho stops reasonable? Electrik didn't make that argument.

It would be a better argument to point out why cyclists can do this (the Idaho stop) safely.

Again, electrik was using trains as an example of vehicles that share our transportation space and have a different set of rules. They have a different set of rules and infrastructure because they operate differently. If his argument is that bicycles deserve a separate set of rules because they operate differently, then I don't see why trains are a terrible analogy. The laws of physics come into play because they describe how different vehicles will operate.