Originally Posted by crhilton (Post 11468175)

And really, many of the most annoying stop signs are just as safe to run at 8mph in my car as they are in my bike. And, not surprisingly, I see motorists running them too ;).

Originally Posted by crhilton (Post 11468566)

You completely missed what I said. Activities that can lead to injury aren't mundane. Although they are routine, and it is not true that humans fail at routine tasks. See: The industrial revolution and mass production.

The impact actually goes beyond that. You have a few main ways to deal with a low traffic stop sign intersection:
1. Come to a complete stop, put your foot down, scan, and go.
2. Slow, scan, and go.
3. Stop, track stand, scan and go.
4. Pretend it's not an intersection and blow through.

Cyclists are likely to do 2 or 3. Excluding the adrenaline junkies that just love to straight up blow the sign and hope for the best, they like #4.

#1 is what you're trained to do in a car for drivers ed. It's nice when stopping requires no more dexterity than putting pressure on a pedal and your regular operating speed is fast enough that scanning the intersection ahead is difficult.

The trouble with putting your foot down, when you've already determined it's safe, is that it's a royal pain in the neck: And that was the level of stop required by Idaho law before this. It's vague elsewhere, and a track stand might stand in court as a stop. The foot down requires:
1. Coming off the saddle to put it down.
2. Putting your foot down
3. Putting the lead pedal back in place.
4. Pushing off and returning to the saddle.
5. Finding the second pedal.
6. Doing the work to get back up to speed.

I think you're right that #6 is pretty much unavoidable for safety. But I can come to the intersection doing 2-8mph, scan it a couple times, and skip steps 1-5 and save myself a few seconds and a fair bit of annoyance. I can especially save myself #7 if I'm in plain clothes:
7. Adjust around until your shorts no longer chafe, like you had them before #1.


Now, #3 follows the law too, but it's harder. I can concentrate on traffic better with a little forward momentum than I can at a full track stand. And if there's traffic coming, okay, foot down and wait. And I have to get out of the saddle, bringing #7 back into play :).


Now this of course all seems silly, pedantic, and minor. But so do the stop signs where this technique helps.

Boise probably isn't good enough for more urban areas. Of course, the stop sign part has nothing to do with the urban areas (where traffic lights rule). I'm no fan of the traffic light rule, and as was stated in the link I posted: It's about traffic loops not seeing cyclists in suburban areas.

And, as I've said before, I don't see the need for cars either. Who cares if they slow to 2mph or stop fully at an empty intersection. If they scanned and went safely I'm happy!

Originally Posted by sggoodri (Post 11468980)

This is why the best practices of traffic engineering strongly discourage 4-way stops on low volume roads - motorist compliance is very low, it breeds contempt for the law and stop signs in general, and it can actually increase accident rates. Traffic engineers' new sweetheart is the mini-roundabout, which I love, since I can usually proceed through them at full speed once I see that there are no cars close by.

Originally Posted by sggoodri (Post 11468980)

This is why the best practices of traffic engineering strongly discourage 4-way stops on low volume roads - motorist compliance is very low, it breeds contempt for the law and stop signs in general, and it can actually increase accident rates. Traffic engineers' new sweetheart is the mini-roundabout, which I love, since I can usually proceed through them at full speed once I see that there are no cars close by.

Originally Posted by noisebeam (Post 11469092)

Eliminate 4-way stops. http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm

Replace stop signs with yield signs at intersections where there are good sight lines for all drivers on approach. Keep stop signs at intersections where a full stop is frequently needed to ensure safe yielding. Do not water down the importance of STOP, but instead eliminate frivolous usage of STOP signs which have over time reduced the importance of stopping.

Originally Posted by sggoodri (Post 11466561)

If an intersection is safe to roll through, why limit it to cyclists?

Originally Posted by chandltp (Post 11467361)

Really? I regularly see bikes blow through stop signs without yielding to traffic that has the right of way.

Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest (Post 11469182)

Because there are myriad cases where it's safe for cyclists to roll through, but not for heavier and faster vehicles to do so.

Originally Posted by noisebeam (Post 11469222)

When is it safe for a cyclist to go thru an intersection when it is not safe for a motorist? I would expect both need to yield under the same conditions.

Originally Posted by myrridin (Post 11467609)

So your position is that a cyclist running a red light (or stop sign) that results in an accident is always the fault of the automobile? Even though the driver had both the right-of-way and the reasonable expectation that the other "vehicle" would actually stop at such a traffic control device? Yep, that is rational...

Originally Posted by myrridin (Post 11467636)

Idaho, is a rural state with low population and very little congestion, not really a good example... and certainly not statistically significant...

Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest (Post 11469182)

Because there are myriad cases where it's safe for cyclists to roll through, but not for heavier and faster vehicles to do so. This is probably the reason why it's legal for pedestrians to ignore stop signs ( but not red lights ).

Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest (Post 11469367)

What you're describing doesn't change in the least under the law I'm proposing other states adopt. It's a red herring. If there's another vehicle to be crashed by going through a light, then it will still be illegal to proceed.

If Boise were in Oregon, it would be the second largest city in the state. Boise would be the second largest city in all of New England.

A little bit of fact checking never hurt anyone.

Originally Posted by billdsd (Post 11469799)

The basic problem with yield signs and roundabouts is that most drivers have absolutely no clue what a yield sign means.

It actually means yield. Most drivers seem to think it means that they don't have to stop for cross traffic. We've got some roundabouts here in the Bird Rock area. Drivers will enter the roundabout even though there's a car in it headed right for them. The yield signs are up, but few pay attention to them.

I'd like to see the Idaho stop law in my state. I was sad to learn that Oregon rejected it a year or two ago.

Originally Posted by myrridin (Post 11469087)

Humans tend to loose focus on any routine/frequently conducted activity. Even cycling. The purpose of stop signs/lights is to help insure that all involved vehicles behave in a predictable manner. Legally allowing cyclists to roll through stops diminishes the predictability. Further, as the comment I pointed to above indicate, there is a liklihood that even slowing for the traffic control devices would likely not occur for many.

Originally Posted by myrridin (Post 11469452)

The "city" of Boise had a population in 2000 of 185,000 and ranked 105th in city size. Sorry but that is pretty durn rural. Source: http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/T...n-Profile.html



And the simple fact is that the only "reason" for such a change in law is the convenience of cyclists who don't like stopping. Not a very good reason to change a law... Especially when you consider that there are far more voters likely to support a law banning cyclists from the road for their convenience.

Originally Posted by noisebeam (Post 11469222)

When is it safe for a cyclist to go thru an intersection when it is not safe for a motorist? I would expect both need to yield under the same conditions.

Originally Posted by mikeshoup (Post 11469112)

How mini are we talking about?

I'm aware of the British mini roundabout - just a white circle painted in the center of the intersection.

Care to share an example of a mini roundabout in NC? I'm real curious to see what we consider mini here.

Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest (Post 11469196)

Nobody is talking about "blowing through" stop signs or stealing right of way. Idaho's law says that a cyclist can proceed past a stop sign when an intersection is empty, ie when there's no vehicle to yield to. What's with the straw man?

Originally Posted by sggoodri (Post 11470255)

I don't have pictures handy, but what I have in mind is anything from a retrofitted residential street intersection with a planter in the center of it to a busier single lane roundabout whose diameter discourages speeds over 20 mph.

Here's a residential intersection retrofit example about two miles from my home: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=27513&...01305&t=k&z=20

Here's a higher traffic volume design: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=27513&...01305&t=k&z=20

Originally Posted by chandltp (Post 11470322)

I just don't agree that it's the defacto standard outside of Idaho. People may call it the "Idaho stop", but that's not what they're doing whenever I see it. Slowing and yielding is not what I see around here. I'm just saying that your broad generalization doesn't apply everywhere. Why is that a strawman?

As far as stopping when I could slow down and look, yea it sucks.