Commuting - Number one reason to stop at a stop sign.

Because cars don't.

Seriously, I was rolling up to a stop sign, which I always stop at anyway, and I saw a lady in an SUV pull up, barely come to a stop, if at all, and then barrel right through without so much as a glance left or right for traffic.

Since the SUV-bot was probably only programmed to detect masses of metal more than one ton approaching, it's unlikely she would have even noticed a bicycle that decided to roll through the stop sign.

Good point.

If there is no traffic, my foot doesn't hit the ground. If there is traffic, I get ready to deploy my foot. That seems adequate to me.

Well, for sure, coming from a motorcycle background, my feet rarely touch the ground at a stop if I can help it. I can't do a brakestand, but I'll hover for a bit with both feet on the pedals and can do so for maybe 5-10 seconds. Just long enough to make sure everyone in the intersection is aware you're stopping and giving them the right of way/waiting your turn.

Pot, meet kettle.

Pot, meet kettle.

:rolleyes: Right... Listen, there's a huge difference between coming to a complete stop without your feet touching the ground while looking all ways for any traffic vs. blasting through a stop sign without even a glance either way.

A roll stop is different than blowing through a stop sign. Besides, even if you stop someone will try to run you over eventually when you take your turn.

But it also sounds like the SUV did a roll stop. I don't get it. "I was coming up to a stop when this SUV came up and either barely stopped or slowly rolled through the stop sign in front of me and then went through it." What was it supposed to do? Stop, roll down the window, smile at the bicycle as it rolled up to the stop sign, waive and exchange pleasantries with the cyclist and give up his right of way to the cyclist? That's ridiculous. From the description, it sounds like the SUV had the right of way and took it. What's the problem?

Our cars have a very difficult job. They are protecting us and serving us in a very dangerous and complicated world. I am usually thankful for their service, even when I have been cited for breaking our traffic laws. But I hold cars to a very high standard (higher than standards I set for myself) in a job they have voluntarily undertaken.

I agree with your interpretation, Malloric, whith the one following exception -- soccer mom doesn't appear to have actually looked around before accelerating when she rolled the stop sign. Given the relative invisibility of cyclists to some motorists, it's a real concern.

I wasn't there, so I won't say more lest I make false assumptions. Bottom line, I think Idaho stops are OK, but we should remember that other vehicles already at the intersection have right of way and that we should be vigilant for inattentive drivers since we don't have tons of steel wrapped around us. Best case scenario we're riding on top of 7-8 pounds of steel plus components.

The problem was not a right of way issue. The problem was that the driver made no effort whatsoever to even look for traffic (I always try to make eye contact as I slow up to a stop sign and their eyes were locked straight ahead) and didn't even come close to a complete stop.

Once again, for purposes of semantics that some people seem to struggle with, you CAN come to a COMPLETE stop on two wheels without your feet touching the ground. My method is not a rolling stop, it is a full stop in which my feet don't touch the ground if they don't have to.

However, the PURPOSE of this thread was to encourage other commuters to avoid running through stop signs even in areas they know and are comfortable with. However they chose to execute this stop is entirely up to them.

What if I don't stop, slow down to say, 5-ish mph, can see far enough down the road that no vehicles are approaching and go? Without ever reducing my speed to 0 mph?

And of course, if I do see vehicles approaching, I slow down and stop if that's what it takes to wait for the approaching vehicles to clear?

" What was it supposed to do? Stop, roll down the window, smile at the bicycle as it rolled up to the stop sign, waive and exchange pleasantries with the cyclist and give up his right of way to the cyclist?

Offer him cookies at least :)

Oh, and WalksonTwoWheels, if it doesn't pass the three mississippi test it doesn't count.

As a friend that's a State Trooper says " I have a nightstick. Do you want me to pause when beating you, or stop?"

Pot, meet kettle.


:rolleyes: Right... Listen, there's a huge difference between coming to a complete stop without your feet touching the ground while looking all ways for any traffic vs. blasting through a stop sign without even a glance either way.

Especially when one is comparing tons of metal to mere pounds of metal...

Let me know when a cyclist can cause near the harm and damage as a full SUV.

Peripheral vision. Unless it's an intersection the size of the Mississippi I can see the intersection perfectly fine without turning my head. Do I turn my head? Yes, but I'm not looking for cars at the intersection. I'm looking for the cars that are 100 feet away. I'm absolutely religious about that on a bike or motorcycle. If I can't make it comfortably through the intersection if the approaching car does not stop, I'll just sit there and wait. In a car I'm less anal about it.

In an ideal world, I'd drive as carefully in a car as I do on two wheels, but I get lazy in a cage. I still turn my head and look, I think, but I'm honestly on autopilot most of the time in a car, so maybe I don't. Point is, if a bicyclists plows through the stop sign into an SUV that's doing the bare minimum, or slightly below by rolling through, the bicyclist is at fault, not the SUV. The SUV driver has no obligation to lookout for people blasting through the stop sign. They can legally assume that other road users will obey the law and stop. Using that as a reason to at least slow down and look and not blast through stop signs isn't a good reason. Not riding negligently solely because you don't feel confident in everyone else being extra careful to avoid you is beyond stupid. Not saying that's the OP as he clearly did stop, but I don't see what the fuss is about.

Number one reason to stop at a stop sign.

Because cars don't.


What if the car is behind you?

When I was learning to drive, my mother instilled one piece of advice to me which I have always remembered.

She said, "Drive like everyone around you is an idiot and is trying to hit you."

Obviously it's a bit of an exageration, but the point is to drive defensively and to always be on you toes. I have found that lesson to be just as important while biking as it is while driving.

I stop at most stop signs especially when there is other traffic present. I do shoal to the front of line of cars and take my turn from there accordingly. When I approach a stop sign with no traffic, I slow down almost to a complete stop, stand on my pedals and do an exaggerate check of the intersection by looking vigorously left and right before proceeding. Technically I did not come to a complete stop, but if a hidden cop gets me, I will plead that I checked the intersection before proceeding through. I emphasize that is when no other traffic is present. I do not blow past stop signs without slowing down.

99% of the cyclists around here don't turn their heads to look for traffic while pedaling through a stop sign (they don't even stop pedaling). The most egregious stop sign running car I've seen did it at no more than 5mph. Personally, I doubt a pedestrian hit by a car going 5mph is going to be any more hurt than if they were struck by a cyclist doing 20mph.

Oh, and WalksonTwoWheels, if it doesn't pass the three mississippi test it doesn't count.

Is that actually in your local laws? I suspect not. Ceasing all forward motion, no matter how briefly, is a stop, and is legal.

Number one reason to stop at a stop sign.

Because it's the law? Remember, cars and bikes are legally considered to be vehicles on the road and need to follow those laws.

99% of the cyclists around here don't turn their heads to look for traffic while pedaling through a stop sign (they don't even stop pedaling). The most egregious stop sign running car I've seen did it at no more than 5mph. Personally, I doubt a pedestrian hit by a car going 5mph is going to be any more hurt than if they were struck by a cyclist doing 20mph.

Bicycle with rider = 100 KG
Small car weighs 1500 KG

The bike could be doing 50 MPH and I STILL don't think it contains the total force as the car doing 5MPH (if I remember my HS physics).

Obviously, that isn't the end of the story, but cars doing 5 MPH hitting pedestrians do cause plenty of serious injuries and fatalities.

I figure if I stop, that's one more thing I'm doing right that no one can complain about.

If there is no traffic, my foot doesn't hit the ground. If there is traffic, I get ready to deploy my foot. That seems adequate to me.

I entirely agree.

Bicycle with rider = 100 KG
Small car weighs 1500 KG

The bike could be doing 50 MPH and I STILL don't think it contains the total force as the car doing 5MPH (if I remember my HS physics).

Obviously, that isn't the end of the story, but cars doing 5 MPH hitting pedestrians do cause plenty of serious injuries and fatalities.
F = ma. They would both carry the same force if they're at a constant velocity. (That's zero newtons)

Kinetic Energy otoh, is a 100kg cyclist travelling 50mph carries a substantial more amount of kinetic energy than a 1500kg car travelling 5mph.

KE = 0.5mv^2

KE bike = 0.5*100kg*(50mi/hr)^2 = 125000 kg*(mi/hr)^2 (which is the strangest unit for energy ever, but valid none the less)
KE car = 0.5*1500kg*(5mi/hr)^2 = 18750 kg*(mi/hr)^2

KE bike / KE car = 6.67.

The bike carries 6.67 times more kinetic energy than the car.

Its okay, high school physics was a long time ago for me as well.

It's not just a matter of kinetic energy - another factor is that the entire kinetic energy of the cyclist is going into the collision, whereas most of the car's kinetic energy will (hopefully) be dissipated by its brakes.

Bottom line, I think Idaho stops are OK, but we should remember that other vehicles already at the intersection have right of way and that we should be vigilant for inattentive drivers since we don't have tons of steel wrapped around us. Best case scenario we're riding on top of 7-8 pounds of steel plus components.

Exactly ... and it sounds like this has more to do with staying aware of your situation, than anything else.

The impact damage is different from Kinetic energy.
F = mv/t

So bicycle can't do that much damage to the car.

If you want to play, pay. Everybody should observe traffic rules.

This ******bag really gave us cyclist a black stain. Thanks Mr. Mayor for solidifying the perception of us by motorists!

http://www.theprovince.com/business/Vancouver+mayor+close+encounter+with+after+running+light/3325537/story.html

What if I don't stop, slow down to say, 5-ish mph, can see far enough down the road that no vehicles are approaching and go? Without ever reducing my speed to 0 mph?

And of course, if I do see vehicles approaching, I slow down and stop if that's what it takes to wait for the approaching vehicles to clear?


This is what I do. I think it is very reasonable. The spirit of the law is to ensure that the intersection is observed and that people take turns crossing the intersection if there is more than one person stopping.

F = ma. They would both carry the same force if they're at a constant velocity. (That's zero newtons)

Kinetic Energy otoh, is a 100kg cyclist travelling 50mph carries a substantial more amount of kinetic energy than a 1500kg car travelling 5mph.

KE = 0.5mv^2

KE bike = 0.5*100kg*(50mi/hr)^2 = 125000 kg*(mi/hr)^2 (which is the strangest unit for energy ever, but valid none the less)
KE car = 0.5*1500kg*(5mi/hr)^2 = 18750 kg*(mi/hr)^2

KE bike / KE car = 6.67.

The bike carries 6.67 times more kinetic energy than the car.

Its okay, high school physics was a long time ago for me as well.
While the bike would have most of the energy, the force of the collision will be the same on both the cyclist and the car (Newton's third law), and you could get a (really) rough estimate by doing the change in the rider's momentum over the very small time period. The difference is that the driver is protected by a ****-ton of metal, and the rider is, at most, protected by an inch of styrofoam on his or her head.

I figure if I stop, that's one more thing I'm doing right that no one can complain about.

+1
I'm with you on this one. Most of the time on my commute in the morning I'll 'touch toe' at a stop sign. I do come to a complete stop but it's really only for a second (if that). I do it mainly because of the lurking police hidden in shadows watching. I'm about it as far as traffic at 4:30am...except for the police.

And yes...they do complain. I hear it every day.

Jerry H

the fact that cagers routinely drive like morons is all the more reason to NOT stop at a stop sign.

if you stop and drop a foot, you are susceptible to being steamrolled from behind. also, and more importantly, the longer you are in the intersection, the longer you are at risk. there is also the fact that it may take a few seconds to get clipped back in and your attention will be diverted at this time.

most intersections have good enough site lines that you can roll them at 5-10 mph and still have ample time to stop if you realize someone else has the right of way or may blow through without stopping and crush you.

joeybrooks gives a better explanation of why blowing through stop signs/lights is safer than stopping. i highly recommend his videos to anyone that has to deal with traffic on a bike.