You guys are the experts...What do you think?

Personally, I always stop at lights but roll slowly through stop signs.


https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/fli...agotribune.com

My practice is to generally follow the Idaho law anyway. I think there are some political ramifications, despite the reality that it is best for all. Some car driver will scream bloody murder about bicyclists getting preferential treatment. I also take some issue with the thinking that because everyone is doing it we might as well make it legal. That's what has lead to generaly ignoring of speed limits and other traffic laws, IMHO

Stop at all stop lights and stop signs!!! It is the law!!! I am sick of cyclists' whining about having to stop at traffic lights' and stop signs!!! When i was 25yrs.-old, i was working full-time for the u.s. Government, and going to night school four nights a week!!! The teachers' assistant in my class was a few months younger than me!!! One weekend he was proceeding a four-way multi-lane intersection!!!!! When someone blew through the red light hitting the teachers' assistant broad side!!! Killing the teachers' assistant instantly!!!! The teachers' assistant was obeying the law!! The other driver wasn't!!!! But if you want to put a rush on getting to a funeral home in a casket!!!! Then you go right ahead and break the law!!!

It makes sense to me. I'm glad to see this type of "stop" defined and hopefully, made official everywhere.

O MY GOD!!!!!
Someone on a bicycle T-boned the TA and killed him???

Interesting article.
They don't mention another issue: Traffic lights with sensors that don't sense cyclists.
Hell, there is one nearby that won't even sense my motorcycle!
So during times of light traffic, it is either run the red light when it is safe, or wait an indeterminate amount of time until a car shows up to trigger it.

Yeah, in my old neighborhood... there was a light like that... I reported it about once a year, the city always responded, but was never able to fix it. One time I rolled up about the same time as a big motorcycle... we both laughed, neither one of us could trigger it. I dismounted and pushed the walk button.

A couple of us got pulled over yesterday for rolling a stop sign with no cross traffic. The cop was actually rather apologetic and explained he was only doing it because people in the neighborhood kept complaining. We discussed the 'Idaho Rules' a little and he seemed to be in agreement that they would be a good idea - but they aren't currently under consideration here in California. He also mentioned that some of the traffic sensors don't detect his motorcycle so was sympathetic to the unchanging red light issue. After verifying that we had no outstanding warrants he sent us on our way with just a verbal warning.

No, The teacher's assistant was driving his pickup truck. The point is, if a cyclist blows a red light, or stop sign. They could get T-Boned. The only way not to, is if there is no cross traffic. Stop signs don't have cameras'. But red lights do.

Your story was about someone who was not breaking the law who got killed by someone who was breaking the law, so how does this relate to cyclists going through stop signs? A cyclist won't kill anyone if they are the lawbreaker in that scenario.

But we seem to agree that it's safe to blow stop signs with no cross traffic... and I believe that is the intent of the Idaho stop - that cyclists don't have to stop when there is no cross traffic.

Traffic control devices are intended to control traffic. If there is no traffic, I disregard them.

The placement of stop signs and lights is built around the needs of auto traffic. While they apply the same way to bicyclists in 49 states, there's no logic to that.

A cyclist has different sight lines, speed and maneuverability than a motorist, so can be as safe using his eyes and judgement as by blindly following the law. I treat all stop signs as I would treat an unmarked intersection where I were entering the main road from a side road. That means slowing and stopping if necessary, then proceeding when it's safe. Red lights get more attention, but I treat them similarly.

So, I guess that means I favor the Idaho Stop law, which is pretty much the way traffic laws are enforced on bikes where I live. I even have cops ask why I stopped when I pull up alongside them at red lights. My standard answer is that they should take it as a sign of respect that I don't flout the laws right in front of them.

Ease up. The article is about implementing the Idaho Stop, which means treating a stop sign as a yield, not blowing through intersections without regard for traffic.

From the article:

Perversely, in Oregon and many other states, the law is that the speed limit MUST be raised if the motorists are ignoring it and speeding. (Very few exceptions exist, but a clever enlightened traffic engineer can get around it.)

In my graduate traffic engineering class, we were taught that research shows that it is best (in terms of safety) to set the speed limit at the speed that drivers want to drive on the road.

Part of the intent is to also keep cyclist from getting rammed from behind while at a stop sign or red light. That is how most of the lives are saved.

Yet, California jumped right on being first with the right turn on red hazard.

I am coming from my own personal physical health(which a long physical medical history). But also, what the 'Idaho Stop' potentially invites.

This is the title, 'Should bicyclists always halt at stop signs and wait at lights? Study says no'. The only thing the article does, is encourage a trend of disobeying both traffic lights and stop signs. Not just by cyclists. But also by motorists'.

It is common knowledge that there are motorists' who thing bikes don't belong on the road. So, It isn't a far stretch to entertain that if a cyclist blows through a red light/stop sign. That a motorist won't hesitate to the same thing.

Self-driving Uber runs red lights.
Self-Driving Uber Apparently Runs Red Light In San Francisco « CBS San Francisco

Of course. They programmed it to run true to form.

Fake news... go to the article... it specifically states: The news itself is not fake, just the way the story is being pushed. This was not a case of self driving car running a light, it was being piloted by a human.

The talking heads at the link even admit that the car is not self driving and this was likely a case of bias by people who have fear of technology.

So I posted a facetious comment to a fake news post?

So which is fake, the news or your post. Uber seems to imply in the same article, that the car was self-driving and the person monitoring the car failed to prevent it.

And how's that 1970's approach working out in the modern world? In my state, we've had a 50% increase in roadway deaths from 2013-6. Nationally, we're over 4 Million documented injuries annually and rising fast (in spite of mandatory seat belt laws, air bags, crumple zones, etc).

It appears using the word safety and traffic engineering together is inappropriate.

The problem with allowing cyclists to ride thru lights is that many (I've seen it) do it in a way that forces others to yield to them.

I stop at lights, but I do practice the Idaho stop at stop signs, but again this is something many cyclists do wrong. They seem to think that the whole purpose of the law is so you don't have to stop, period. False, if there are other cars there before you, you must stop and allow them thru. You only roll thru if all is clear.

I don't have a problem with bikes going thru stop signs/lights if they did it in a way that does not force others to brake/yield for them, but that's just not the case and that's why you see so much animosity against cyclists in the big cities.

P.S. The only reason I don't have a problem with cyclists running lights (responsibly) is because we are an extreme minority. If the numbers grow, then you must start obeying traffic laws. It'd be havoc otherwise.