RubeRad

First of all, how can I have been active in this forum for years and never heard of the "Idaho Rolling Stop" (Except as a joke that every state says about their own drivers)? Apparently since 1982 it's been the law in Idaho that bicyclists are allowed to exercise judgment whether it is safe to roll straight through a stop sign or if it is safer to stop.

A law is in the works now that would bring the same rule to CA.

Some choice quotes (with my bolding):

So what do you think? "same road, same rights, same rules"? Or does data from Idaho indicate that a differentiated rule would benefit both safety and traffic flow?

mcours2006

There was a something like a protest a while ago in San Francisco. The issue involved escapes my memory at the moment, but basically cycling advocates organized themselves at a certain intersection, a four-way stop intersection, and each one of the hundreds of riders came to a complete stop, as required by law. You can imagine the gridlock this caused. Anyway, I'm sure someone will post a link to this story at some point.

Not quite sure how I feel about the 'same rule..." thing. I'll have to let this stew for some time and get back.

Darth Lefty 

Well, it might pass.

RubeRad

I'd love to see a link about that San Francisco event. Reminds me of a time when truck drivers in London staged a protest by slow-rolling the entire city; clogging up all the streets driving 5mph. (I think their issue was more labor/union/pay related though)

I'm also conflicted about the SameRRR concept. I mean already it's not really the same; bikes can ride in 'car' lanes (they're not actually 'car'-only lanes), but cars can't drive in bike lanes (except for right-turns, near intersections, when no bikes are present).

alan s 

With the number of Californians relocating to Idaho, it's no wonder California is finally relenting. We're likely to see that trend reverse now.

RubeRad

Is Idaho the new Oregon? I remember a few years back people in Portland would get uptight about all the CA license plates moving into their neighborhoods. "Stop Californicating our state!"

RubeRad

Well for that, I think the more logical change is to swap out most stop signs for yield signs. For intersections with limited visibility or other special circumstances, leave them as 4-way stops, or 2-way stops.

England does well I think by using traffic circles more often than stop-signed intersections. By definition, incoming traffic yields to anybody already in the circle.

mcours2006

Roundabouts are becoming more common here in new developments, but people don't have much experience on what to do with them so confusion often ensues when there is more than one car approaching the intersection.

Making it legal for cars to roll through an intersection is not a good idea. High probability of a collision when more than one vehicle is there at the same time, especially if you toss a cyclist into the mix.

The dilemma seems to be that we (cyclists) want to be treated like regular cars, but we also want special treatment when it suits us. At least that's the way this idea of a legal rolling through is going to be perceived by motorists.

wilfried

Clearly this person has never been to New York.

mcours2006

Okay, here's the story I mentioned earlier:
This Is What Happened When Bicyclists Obeyed Traffic Laws Along The Wiggle Yesterday | The Snitch

skidder

In my opinion its a bad idea. I'm in the 'same road, same rights, same rules' camp; its easier for everyone using the roadway if everyone has to obey the same rules of the roadway. A stop sign means stop, so just stop. And will this lead to motorcyclists wanting their own set o rules? And whtabout cops who have to enforce this - when is an intersection too busy to allow this rule to be used?? Its just not a good idea. YMMV

RubeRad

That's really interesting, but a little bit of "the cyclist doth protest too much". The law doesn't require cyclists to wait one at a time at the stop sign (does it?). In a realistic situation, the bikes could be 4-6 abreast in the lane, and stop fully at the signs, and proceed through together, and traffic would not be disrupted.

canklecat

Drivers are expected to learn and heed exceptions to conventional policies that are designed for optimal public safety. Some drivers are ignorant of those exceptions. Some deliberately violate them. That's a problem with driver education, beginning with the notion that drivers always have precedence over everyone and everything not in a motor vehicle.

There are many exceptions that drivers are expected to learn: where it's legal to turn right (or left, in a few places) on red and where it isn't legal; that right on red for the second person in line doesn't mean the person at the front of the line *must* turn right on red when it's an option lane; that drivers are expected to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks (routinely ignored by drivers in our area at schools and hospitals); that disabled people in wheelchairs are permitted to use street lanes in residential areas (most of ours lack sidewalks, or the sidewalks are in bad shape and impossible to navigate); and the list goes on and on.

Yet drivers seem perfectly capable of knowing they are permitted park in most bike lanes in our area, even though this isn't marked anywhere.

That's just one example of highly selective attention to detail, and proves that drivers are capable of coping with exceptions -- as long as it benefits them rather than pedestrians and cyclists.

Again, it's because driver's ed in the U.S. fails to emphasize personal responsibility and duty to community.

Fortunately law enforcement in my area unofficially ignore cyclists practicing the Idaho Stop. Good thing because I'd use that self protection technique anyway for my own safety.

As a commuter and recreational cyclist and motorcyclist since the mid-1970s almost every time I've been hit by a vehicle it was from behind at a traffic stop -- either a sign or light. That's even happened when I was in a motor vehicle. Always at slow speed, and every offending driver was sooo apologetic and claimed they "didn't see me." Even when I was driving a car or truck. What they meant is "I was so intent on watching other traffic so I could make my own move that I overlooked the obvious person right under my nose."

That isn't an accident. That's negligence.

So, yes, when I approach a stop sign, and there's a vehicle approaching from behind, and the other roads are clear, I'm rolling through. I do slow down and look all ways very carefully -- usually at least twice.

I also do the full stop and then go maneuver at red lights that don't change for cyclists. Partly for the same reason -- inattentive drivers behind me, like the Domino's delivery guy who barely missed me a few months ago who was impatient because it took me too long to get back up to speed turning left after the light turned green. If I'd done what I usually do at that intersection -- stop, look and go -- I'd have been out of the way before he even got there.

And in some areas it isn't prudent to stop and wait. Bad neighborhoods or tunnel traps.

RubeRad

Too true. We all know somebody. My wife's car was hit at a stop; a friend was plowed into on his Harley and badly injured

fietsbob

Rolling Pauses, without fully stopping, were called 'California Stops', long ago..

RubeRad

I did not stay on top of this, here's an article describing how the bill was 'spiked' by the proposers in Jan 2018 due to obviously having no chance to pass a vote, even after rolling back to merely establishing 3 pilot cities to test the law initially.

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...-signs-spiked/

Seems like maybe a slight modification could go a long way; on an intersection-by-intersection basis, hang a triangle below the stop sign that says "Bicycles Yield". Without that sign, bicyclists must fully observe the stop sign. And I guess this can only be used for all-way stop-signed intersections, so that drivers and cyclists approaching from all directions get the same message.

In fact, what's to prevent any local transportation authority from adding "Bicycles Yield" signs to whatever stop signs it wants, even without a change in the law? "Yield" is an established principle in traffic law. In principle it's no different than conditional signage like "No left turns weekdays 7-9am" or "No trucks over X tons" or "HOV lane, 2+ occupants, motorcycles, transit vehicles, or FlexPass only".

Keiffith

I don't stop at 4 ways. Because I don't want to get hit.

The purpose, to me, of rules is to determine who is at fault in a collision.

​​​​I'm in control of my bike. It's not society that pays the price if I'm injured, but me. So how I navigate the road is my decision, not society's.

​

RubeRad

You also have to factor into that the potential of paying for tickets if cops see you run stop signs. Although, there's no license they can take away, so if the long term financial cost is ok, I guess it doesn't matter.

bigbenaugust 

We were always told as kids not to say too loudly where we were from when visiting family in OR.

Of course, having abandoned the state myself now, well, I still don't.

PaulH

Sorry. I can't understand why having to negate habit patterns from 60 years of cycling and 55 years of driving makes me safer.

RubeRad

What others here seem to be saying is, rolling stops for bicycles will result in fewer cars running into cyclists stopped at signs. Cyclists rolling through stop signs will also slightly speed up traffic through those intersections, since (sometimes) cars will not have to wait for bikes to get up to speed again after stopping.

Your driving habits likely wouldn't change, as a cyclist, you are probably aware of cyclists already, and share the road with them safely.

DrIsotope

I live in California, but I ride like I'm in Idaho. Always have, always will. The letter-of-the-law of the matter does not concern me.

The "same roads, same rights, same rules" notion is absurd. A bicycle is a vehicle, but it is most certainly not a car. Well, unless your bike weighs 3,000lbs and you can pedal it up to 60mph in 10 seconds. Then you should probably follow the rules for cars.

tyrion

I've been rolling through stop signs since...ever. Only 1 ticket in 50 years, so it has a good performance/price ratio.

jon c. 

Drivers in my area would be annoyed if I came to a full stop at stop signs. It would hold up everyone. A law like this would legalize what already happens. And that's always a good thing.

Rollfast

That was a mighty long ride.