Originally Posted by JamesV
You're right, there is a problem with bikes and stop signs. Why do so many cyclists roll through stops? Is it because they are reckless and careless outlaws? No. We go through stop signs because it is safe to do so. On a bike, the relatively low speed, the rider's excellent unobstructed sight lines, and braking power means that it's possible to judge crossing traffic prior to coming to a complete stop, and proceeding through if it is safe to do so.
While I think you're on the right track, I think giving bicycles full right of way is too much, too soon. Plus, it might lead to carelessness on the part of some cyclists. How many of us have gone through green traffic lights and forgot to check to make sure no cross traffic is threatening to run a red?
I've always admired Idaho's law, which says that bicycles may treat stop signs as yield signs. It doesn't require any change in motorist behavior or expectations. It places all the responsibility on the cyclist to decide to stop or not. I like that.
On further consideration, I see one BIG flaw in a law that permits cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs: When I run an all-way stop sign at, say, half speed, I know I'm safe from cars IF they obey their stop sign. The danger lies in cross-traffic cyclists running stop signs too. If that ever happens there is GOING to be a big crash, and as I don't wear a helmet.... I believe this is why you NEVER see all-way yield signs!
So there has to be some way to differentiate who has the right of way. At the all-way stops in Idaho, has this been done? A special sign (here we go again with the "special" signs) could be placed below the stop sign, BUT, that would confuse some mv drivers. So, how about this: On the bike-road, there would be a regular stop sign, and the cross-traffic would have TWO stop signs, one above the other, on the same pole. THAT would get a lot of drivers attention! And then all you would need would be the "WARNING, BIKE-ROAD CROSSING" sign below that, assuming you had the stop=yield for bikes law. Double stop signs would mean, in law, that cyclists had to yield to the traffic on the bike-road. To be consistent, I think you would have to have the double stop signs at every all-way stop intersection. BUT, even then, that still wouldn't give the cyclists on the bike-road the right-of-way over mvs, which is supposed to be the point of the whole exercise.