Export the Idaho stop
 

For almost 30 years, cyclists in Idaho have been able to "downgrade" some traffic signals. Red lights are treated as stop signs, and stop signs as yields. People on bikes still have to stop and wait when other traffic has the right of way, and can't "blow through" intersections, but when it's safe to proceed, they can't be ticketed for it, either.

This has apparently made the roads safer, and increased ridership - common goals among bike advocates.

Idaho's law recognizes inescapable facts, like that my 19 pound bike moving at 22 mph is less dangerous than my 2,700 car moving at 45 mph, nor do I have airbags. Cyclists tend to be much more aware of a situation, partly because more data reaches our eyes and ears. We're better at avoiding collisions, thanks in part to our size and agility. ( Short wheel bases are nice! )

Of course, this is the de facto understanding outside of Idaho now. The law there made it onto the books, thanks to judges who didn't want courts clogged with anything so petty. In the other 49 states, police rarely enforce traffic laws for cyclists (or motorists, it seems!). Since there isn't a problem with cyclists being ticketed for this, it hasn't seemed worth anybody's time to advocate for a change in the law. If rolling stops through empty intersections were legal, though, it would the #1 (by a landslide) driver complain about scofflaw cyclists running signs would be null and void.

Several other states have tried to pass similar laws, and failed. I think this is a goal worth advocating for.

Bear in mind that several failures were due to a Same Roads, Same Laws mentality... go figure.

I expect that's the case, unfortunately.

Many assumptions here...

First a bicycle may not have the same damage potential on its own, but if it causes a motor vehicle to vear or collide with itself or something else, than it is as responsible for any damages as if it had caused such damage directly..

To assume that a cyclist is more aware than a motor vehicle operator is by no means assured. Ipods, cycle computers, natural distractions, etc... Given that the operators of cars and bicycles are both human beings, there is no reason to believe there would be any differences in the likelihood that they will get distracted...

Rolling through red lights/stop signs, etc... It is indisputable that it raises the risk of accidents...



Only justification is to facilitate bicycle traffics average speed... Pretty much the same justification motorists have for keeping bikes off the road...

Ah, the "Look what you made me do!!!!!111!!!" defense. Try that one in court sometime and let us know how it works.

You left out 'common sense' 'scientific facts' that are 'obvious' and that 'everyone knows'*. Got any evidence?

*apologies for the scare quotes.

All of these potential distractions are available to car drivers and bike riders. But cyclists have more sensory data coming at them, in a much more salient way. It's absurd to assume that the average cyclist isn't more aware of their surroundings than the average driver. I'll believe otherwise when I see evidence that says as much, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Plus, the sky hasn't fallen in Idaho.

I'd rather see more mini roundabouts, yield signs, and elimination of useless four way stops than a change in the law to treat cyclists differently. If an intersection is safe to roll through, why limit it to cyclists?

I feel a little inconvenienced by a few stop signs, but not much, and I think the political fallout and backlash of giving special rights to cyclists would make such a change a net loss, especially in anti-cycling cultural regions like where I live.

"... The law there made it onto the books, thanks to judges who didn't want courts clogged with anything so petty. ..." seattle forest

Are you sure it was judges that were responsible for the Idaho Stop becoming law in Idaho? I've never run across an explanation of how the exception to the stop sign law for bikes in Idaho came to be; whether it was a legislative action or a vote of the electorate.

A good question to ask might be, 'How do Idahoans in general, actually feel about bikes being excepted from the stop sign law?'. We don't seem to be hearing reports of Idahoans objecting to bikes being excepted from this law, but is that in itself sufficient confirmation that the Idaho Stop is a good road use policy?

Boise has something like 260,000 people. Never been there, have no idea what traffic conditions are like in that city, but it's population number suggests it's quite a large city. Are bikes not legally being required to always stop for stop signs really working out there with general acceptance and satisfaction by road users in this city?

Really? I regularly see bikes blow through stop signs without yielding to traffic that has the right of way. However, the only people I see regularly running red lights are kids and Joe DUI.

It doesn't seem that enough cyclists know the law as it pertains to them, and motorists are unaware of these laws as well. IMO, the last thing that's going to help that is more exceptions that aren't necessary.

Same rules fore everyone; cyclists need to put their foot down and motorists need to turn the engine off.

§ 11-162. Stop.
"Stop" means:
(1) Where used in a mandatory sense, the complete cessation from movement;

I'd feel a little more enthusiastic about advocating for this change if I saw more cyclists actually trying to comply with the current law.

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...

Availability of sensory data isn't an issue... A cyclists may have an advantage, but the issue is distractions, not information. A cyclists is as subject to the distractions mentioned, not to mention simply letting their mind wander, as a driver... Unless you are trying to claim that all cyclists are supermen capable of complete concentration while riding, but not while driving...


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

I think that's what is missing from the advocacy. They're not the same roads. Cyclists are likely to ride secondary roads much more often and so they see a lot more stop signs with no traffic in sight.

Same roads same rights would make my routes look like the ones I drive: Leave neighborhood for collector, drive on collectors to destination. Instead I find back routes wherever possible and use collectors occasionally to make connections that are missing. And *most* cyclists in my city ride the same way.

No one should be surprised that they don't make legal stops at all 12 abandoned stop signs on their 30 minute ride.



We may have the same rights to the same roads, but we use them differently. And that's part of the beauty of cycling. Those side streets are actually useful on my bike. In my car they're just in the way.

That's a very good point. The political backlash would be huge. The law, in some places, would likely to be accompanied with flag and clothing requirements.

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 ;).

Cyclists have a bit more incentive to pay attention in these intersections. A collision between two low speed motor vehicles is just expensive and might mean whiplash. The same collision involving two cyclists, or a cyclist and a car is likely to result in injury and maybe death for the cyclist.

Congestion is a moot issue. If there's congestion at the intersection the law is meaningless: There will be someone to yield to. This is an issue on low traffic streets that are often littered with needless stop signs that cyclists ride to avoid the collectors.

I don't think the Idaho data suggest that's true.

Everything, in science, is disputable. Calling something indisputable is religion, that goes in a different forum.

When considering this issue, people have two options. One is to be like myrridin and just let one's mind run wild with speculation. This is somewhat understandable in cases where there is no scientific data available and all we can do is speculate. But in this case, we have the second option available to us: look at the real world and see how this has worked and what the real reality has been! No need for crazy sky-is-falling speculation.

Infotastic:
http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index...p-as-Yield-Law

Again, incentive has little to do with it. There is a natural human tendency to loose focus when performing routine/mundane activities. Add in external distractions and you have a recipe for collisions.

The bottom line is that allowing cyclists to proceed through stop lights/stop signs has no benefit beyond a small increase in average speed (since they would only need to slow down). Allowing such a small increase is no reason to change a law that is designed to regulate safe flow of all vehicles... And using such a benefit as a reason is a slippery slope, since that is essentially the same argument motorists make for removing cyclists from the very same roads. The rules and regulations are not their for the convenience of the road users but for their (collective) safety.

Also, accident data in Idaho is neither statistically valid nor causative when trying to extrapolate the effect of such a law in more urbanized areas of the country. Further, since local communities/officers have discretion they can continue to overlook cyclists violations of the existing law when it is clear to them that no compromise of safety has occurred.

There is a comment below that article that helps illustrate the problem..

"Interesting read. This law rocks. Especially when you weigh 250+ lbs, as I do. It takes a lot of energy to get me back up to cruising speed."

Even under the Idaho law, the cyclist is expected to slow down. It is not a blanket authorization to blast through stop signs...

I agree wholeheartedly.

http://www.industrializedcyclist.com...daho_Stop.html

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!

I forgot my other major irritation. When I'm wearing road shoes (look cleats). Putting a foot down in those things is obnoxious because, even after a season of using them, getting back in takes as long as sprinting back up to speed. I'm often across the intersection before I can get my foot back into the pedal.

Riders of fixed gears using toe clips probably have a similar complaint. The one time I tried a bike setup that way I spent about 2 minutes finding that second pedal...

Seeing as motorists don't properly do that now... and apparently even require these signs:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/...s/image012.jpg

How about if we DON"T extend the Idaho laws to operators of 2000 lb+ vehicles, that can easily crush humans, even at low speeds.

How about instead, if we give "special privileges" to non polluting, quiet, human forms of transportation... IE pedestrians and cyclists; and quit giving motorists carte blanche... with such things as Right Turn on Red.