So a stop sign makes a motorist smarter?

They still need these signs... http://www.trafficsign.us/100/reg/r10-15.gif

I understand that it isn't rural. I was mostly being snarky... My point was that Boise is not what would meet any definition of a big city. Using it as "proof" that a rolling stop is safe is, in my opinion, faulty reasoning, even when not considering that statistical analysis is never proof of a causal relationship in the first place.

It boils down to what is the reason for such a change? It appears to me, that the actual reason is one of convenience for the cyclists, which is not (again in my opinion) a good reason to change a law that seems to work fine as is...

Awesome :thumb: The traffic engineering student in me likes those. Especially the first. Would be a great way to get rid of four way stops on many intersections 'round these parts.

City of Golden has been putting in roundabouts. I find the easiest for me to navigate to be this one: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...00327&t=k&z=19

Then there is this road: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...,0.013078&z=17

The first and last roundabout are fine. Slows traffic down to 15mph. The middle two are terrible though. There's not enough deflection to discourage people from going the old speed limit of 40mph down this road.

It may not be evidence that this is safe in a big city, but what about the other 70% (I'm guesstimating) of the population that's not living in a big city? Big city's aren't everything, and like I said the way the law is worded it seems unlikely to apply at intersections where much traffic is present.

Of course convenience is a fine reason to change the law. If the law is simply in the way then it's time to try and remove it. You have to weigh safety and convenience against each other, obviously. As well as economics (which I don't believe is at issue here). Sheesh, we do an awful lot to make things convenient for every mode of transportation (some more than others).

Hopefully what you mean is that it's not worth the safety risk. That would be a valid point of view to hold.

If unwarranted 4-ways were removed, certain stop signs turned to yields and traffic law enforcement was done fairly his would not be an issue.

Having cyclist targeted zero tolerance enforcement 'waves' is unfair. Having enforcement that equally targets all types of vehicle drivers using a threshold that targets unsafe or gross violation of stopping law is fair.

[QUOTE=myrridin;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

The metropolitan area is more than half a million strong. Just the city of Boise without its metro area would be the second-largest city in the six states making up New England.

You're having a really hard time with facts. I'm disappointed.

The law was enacted mostly by judges who were tired of seeing already over-stretched judicial resources on something as petty as bikes and stop signs. Cyclists don't have the power or clout to push a law like this through Idaho for their convenience alone.

Cyclists in Idaho are safer thanks to this law, and there are more of them out on bicycles because of it. Despite your own personal misunderstanding and speculation.

And of course this should be tempered by the gross vehicle weight, which is perhaps a 133-to-1 difference. ( 4,000 lbs vs 30 lbs. ) Hindering drivers of one type of vehicle because of the weaknesses of another type is neither "fair" nor "wise."

First of all, that 30lb bicycle sucks ;). Second, you should count the rider.

Why not stop?
 

A question that keeps coming up is why anybody should prefer not to stop. I think that's kind of a silly thing for a cyclist to ask, and I bet that wouldn't be possible with a straight face offline. But it deserves an answer. But the real question is why should we consider changing the law not to require it?

(1) Cyclists in Idaho are safer with this law. ( That's a pretty good reason. )
(2) Cyclists in Idaho are more plentiful thanks to this law. ( That's also a pretty good reason, and one of the main goals of cycling advocacy. )

(3) It's a little bit ridiculous to stop before clearing an obviously empty space. It's often more complicated than that, but sometimes you're the only vehicle in motion for several blocks in any direction. In these cases, stopping is like throwing salt over your shoulder. A requirement to stop for the sound of crickets breeds disrespect for the law, if you take that sort of thing seriously.

Millions of cyclists do this already. They've found plenty of reasons to. And I can't speak for them all. However, I can speculate a bit.

(4) When you're loaded down with 30 pounds of groceries, it takes more than a little effort to get back up to speed. Multiply that by the number of stop signs over a few miles, and it's not a trivial effort. ( This is one reason ridership increased in Idaho. )

(5) It's safer to proceed through a clear intersection at speed. Cyclists are inherently less stable at very slow speeds, unlike cars.
(6) We're also better able to pull off any evasive maneuvers if the need should come up.

(7) Frequent starts can be hard on some peoples' knees. ( I know cycling advocates aren't pushing for cyclists to develop repetitive stress injuries! )

(8) On a one-lane road when the only cars are behind you, it ends the leap-frog cycle. Traffic runs more smoothly as a result.
(9) The law removes many opportunities for a cyclist to be rear-ended.

(11) Bikes are smaller, slower, and have less mass, drastically reducing their ability to cause damage to people and property. We also have greater maneuverability, allowing us to avoid accidents in the first place.

(10) There are more pressing issues for the police and courts to address. Seriously. They could go find the guy who stole my last bike. This law passed in Idaho because judges were tired of having technical violations clog their court rooms.
(11) It's just sensible policy.

Again, I'm not speaking for anyone but myself here. Millions of cyclists go through stop signs and red lights, and they all have their own set of reasons for it.

These might be directly related.

Maybe. I really don't like saying this law is responsible for either. It's a nice thought, but there are too many variables.

But I don't think this is making things worse, and I see no reason to think that it makes things significantly worse. I also don't think it's worth the political capital that would be necessary to get it through. Idaho got it while redoing their vehicle code. There are some places (cough, Iowa) where I think Bicycles might end up entirely banned if they redid their vehicle code.

I would say that probably 70% + of the time cyclists in my area don't slow down at stop signs. Maybe on busier streets they do, but I tend to bike on back streets, so that's where most of my data comes from. Granted, there aren't many people in my area that view cycling as a primary form of transportation either. Maybe that has something to do with it. It could be that cyclists that are training or people that are just meandering on a ride don't stop for stop signs very often. The meandering type is what I see out on the roads the majority of the time.

[QUOTE=Seattle Forrest;11470671]Check your facts, the law was pushed by a cyclist (who also happened to be a judge), I suspect that the claims that the cases overstretched the court system were typical hyperbole. The link above talks about "judges" who disagreed with the law and didn't want to hand out the fines for a "minor traffic offense." Would you feel the same way about such judges if they instead had felt speeding/speed limits were a "minor traffic offense?"

even counting the 400,000 metropolitan area (does the law cover the state or just the city limits?) that make boise rank 95th. As I said a very small community. It would be the second largest community is 6 low population density states.

On what basis do you claim that the "law" increase cyclists safety? Was a study performed (unlikely). Please explain how, slowly rolling through a stop is safer than actually stopping? This seems to be the same kind of hyperbole as your original claim that it also "increases" cycling... This law seems to serve one purpose, allow cyclists to save a few seconds of time at an intersection, sorry but roads are not racetracks much like motorist need to accept that cyclists may cause a slight slowdown as they navigate around them, cyclists need to accept that a bicycle is a vehicle "subject to the same rights and responsibilities" as other vehicles.


Here is some data on populations...

RANK MSA POP2000 1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA2/ 18,323,002 2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,365,627 3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 9,098,316 4 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE 5,687,147 5 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 5,161,544 6 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 5,007,564 7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD 4,796,183 8 Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX 4,715,407 9 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 4,452,557 10 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 4,391,344 11 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 4,247,981 12 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 4,123,740 13 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 3,254,821 14 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 3,251,876 15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,043,878 16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 2,968,806 17 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 2,813,833 18 St. Louis, MO-IL 2,698,687 19 Baltimore-Towson, MD 2,552,994 20 Pittsburgh, PA 2,431,087

105,386,394
Those 20 communities represent close to 40% of the US population. Your community example, Boise, is 75 cities further down on the list.... The law may not have caused a statistical blip in such a small community, but that is no basis to claim that it wouldn't cause a safety problem in larger, less rural communities and every reason to believe that it would increase accidents in such communities--all in the name of saving a few seconds of time...

Myrridin,

That's not a small community. Geez man, have you ever seen the other half of the country? Small communities are ones you can walk across in 20 minutes with your grandmother. They're the type of place where you might have to drive 20 miles to go to school.

Only having one major metropolitan center, with a state with a fairly low population, does make it hard to determine any small effects this law might have. But it's plenty to find if the sky would be falling.

If they're already doing 10 on a back road with good visibility I wouldn't be surprised if they don't even slow...

Both your first and second points are pure hyperbole. Please take a statistics class to understand that something such as accident rates do not have a causal relationship with the passage of such a law. And are you really saying that the loss of a few seconds at an intersection is going to keep people from riding a bicycle? Come on...

#3 would also apply to a car, yet I don't see you using it as a reason to allow them to roll through stop signs... And remember if it is safe for a bicycle it is safe for other vehicles...
#4 We could argue whether it is trivial, which I tend to believe it is. A commute is not a race and it takes the time it takes.
#5 The issue is determining if the intersection is clear. Stopping helps to insure that the vehicle operator takes the time to make sure the intersection is clear
#6 Again arguable. However, traffic laws are there to prevent the need for evasive maneuvers.
#7 Sorry, but so what... Frequent stops can raise many motorists blood pressure. Neither is a reason to change a traffic code/law
#8 Sorry, but the presence of a car means the intersection is not clear. Such a presence would mean the law would increase the likelihood of right hooks.
#9 Actually it would increase the likelihood. Some cyclists would still stop (though no longer required). Cars would be expecting other vehicles to stop, so such a stop would be expected. However, when the law means that some motorists would come to not expect cyclists to stop and actually stopping would come as a surprise--hence a rear end collision.
#10 Traffic control and the resulting public safety issues is a major concern and reason for the police. Its their job. The law was passed because some cyclists (who happened to be judges) didn't want the rules of the road to apply to them
#11 No it isn't

And millions of motorists speed, also for their own reasons, doesn't make it right nor safe.

What makes it a small community is the fact that the majority of the US population lives in communities larger than Boise.

The problem is that population is increasing and so is density.

To extrapolate any potential effects the law would need to be tested in one of the larger communities I listed.

While I tend to agree that the "rolling stop" the law calls for is not risky (for any type of vehicle) when applied as intended. The problem is that it will not be applied as intended. Vehicle operators will be distracted and not notice cross traffic. They will proceed at speeds that are too high. Accidents will occur that could have been avoided if the vehicles had stopped.

Further, by allowing vehicles to roll through the intersection, it makes the regulation of such behavior much more difficult. A cop is going to have a hard time getting a ticket to stick for a cyclist that "blows" through an intersection.

The mass of the vehicle is irrelevant. If the operation is safe, meaning it does not result in collisions, then it would be safe regardless of the size of the vehicle.

Your showing an indication of several assumptions:

1. If a collision occurred, the bicycle would cause less damage than a car
2. A cyclist is more nimble and able to avoid such a collision.

In both cases you are neglecting the simply fact that a bicycle can cause a much larger vehicle to loose control and hit other people/property in an effort to avoid the cyclists. Hence a bicycle can be as dangerous as a fully loaded 18-wheel truck.

How often do you think this occurs? Can you give any examples of an incident like this, where a scofflaw cyclist has caused a vehicle to lose control and smash into people, buildings or other cars?

This is all wild fantasy on your part.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? I don't think so. The evidence that exists suggests you are wrong.

People may be surprised to learn that about 90% bicyclists in central Denver treat red lights like yield signs. This has been going on for decades. If what you claim were remotely correct, there would be a wealth of incidents relating to bicyclists blowing lights -- dead and injured cyclists, inured pedestrians, cars careening into other cars and so on. But I can't think of a single one. Not one. I can however provide multiple examples of drivers smashing into lawful bicyclists, and lawful bicyclists smashing into jaywalking pedestrians.

It makes sense to validate the behavior of careful bicyclists who ALWAYS YIELD to cross traffic and pedestrians, but who may sometimes not obey the exact letter of the law when it comes to stop signs and red lights. It makes sense to crack down harder on any bicyclists who "blow through" red lights and stop signs without yielding.

I won't claim the Idaho Stop would make anybody safer. But it sure won't cause the end of civilization as you know it.

It caters to the fact that they are not very smart.And those signs don't seem to work. We have a few near where I live. People ignore them.

So can a pedestrian. So why don't we enforce stop signs on them?

Your previous notes about cyclists' ability to process incoming data were completely off the mark. It's not solely about distractions. It is about the exposure of cyclists' senses to the world around them. Cyclists have full 360 degree clear vision, motorists simply do not. Cyclists can hear approaching traffic from every direction, even quieter vehicles such as scooters, other bikes, pedestrians' voices, etc. Meanwhile, motorists (even with the radio off) do not have anywhere near the same audible input about the world around them. It's basic physics.

Cyclists have all of their senses exposed to the world and motorists do not. Distracted or not, cyclists process more data about what is going on around them at every intersection than motorists do.

We have dedicated laws for trucks, buses, pedestrians and cars. We have different laws for different drivers (beginners vs fully licensed drivers for example). So why not for bikes? It is totally within reason to treat different road users with different laws based on both the users' abilities and the specific features and limitations of the vehicle they are controlling.

I encounter just one stop sign per bike commute. I encounter a few more if I take the long route on back streets. At most of these signs, the sight lines are limited making it unsafe to proceed without slowing to a slow walking speed, or the cross traffic is so busy that I usually need to stop anyway.

Overall, I rarely feel inconvenienced by making at least as good a stop as I do in my car. There are a million other things about road infrastructure, user behavior and police activity that I'd much rather see change to improve my cycling experience than change the stop sign law for cyclists. I'd like the four way stop at the bottom of the hill on one of my back road routes be changed to a two way, but that applies regardless of which vehicle I drive.

Sorry, but not fantasy. Even the OP who talks about "rolling" through traffic control later mentions that going through at speed is even safer... That is simple rationalization.

As to your (not mine) claim that such behavior should lead to carnage. Lets look at an even more prevalent violation of traffic laws, motorists speeding. No such carnage exists for that either, in spite of the simple fact that there on 50-100 times as many motorists as cyclists and they travel much greater distances on average. It doesn't exist because accidents are a relatively rare occurrence. And even so, we have a body of law that is designed to make vehicular travel as safe as possible, even knowing such laws make the vast majority of vehicle operators criminals... This is due in part to allow the ability to allocate responsibility for any accidents.

One issue with this law is how to determine what constitutes "blowing through" an intersection. If the law requires a full stop than no "judgment" is required; however, allowing a rolling through movement opens the problem of determining what is a reasonably safe speed through such an intersection. This would make ticketing and enforcement much harder.

And I don't claim that such a law would end civilization, though it does set precedent for other changes to traffic codes to satisfy vehicle operators convenience such as banning cyclists from some or all roads. It does increase risk, which is not justified to allow lazy cyclists to avoid stopping without consequence... As it stands they can do so now, just with a relatively rare consequence (injury or ticket)...

Denver wasn't on his list of places that exist.