Purposed rolling stop law in Portland
 

This would be a good win for cyclists here to have this pass. I believe I've read where other states are looking into this same law such as Idaho and Arkansas.

"Bicyclists - A freshman legislator's bill would let riders cross or turn without stopping as long as they slow to a "safe speed"

We all see this happen all the time and most likely a lot of us do it as well, but I've seen people pulled over for rolling through stop signs so police do take it seriously. This was also covered by our local news channels as well.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/o...350.xml&coll=7

Another vague cycling law - just what everyone needs.

Yeah, who determines what "safe speed" is?

Nothing wrong with that. The cyclist would determine it, and if something bad happens, an authority can deem it unsafe. There's nothing wrong with legislating judgment. The uniform vehicle code already says cyclists must ride as far to the right as is practicable. We decide what's practicable, and sometimes, I decide that it's in the left edge of the lane.

That's my problem though. The cyclist can't determine it. If he could, an officer or a judge would be unable to override them. So now, it's "safe" as determined on a case-by-case basis by someone to-be-determined.

Hell, most people don't even know what practicable means. Most define it as "possible", as in "cyclists should stay as far right as possible".

If you ask ten people interpret a law and you get ten different answers, something's wrong.

It's determined in the same way that "safe following distance" is determined. If there's an accident that you could have avoided by being farther back, then clearly you were following too close. If you get hit right after rolling through a stop sign, then you didn't slow down enough.

I think that's what noglider meant. As long as you feel safe, go for it. If you don't get in anyone's way and no accidents happen, then you're right. If something does happen, then you're wrong. If you want to protect yourself from being second-guessed, then stop.

I understand your logic; however, the problem with following your logic is that the only way to have crisp clear delineations in many laws is to adopt laws that don’t work in many situations. Doing so, you then create a culture that disregards the law.

As for who’s determination is correct; if your interpretation is different than the LEO that cites you, that is where a judge comes into play. That is why we have traffic court.

Let me also add; there is no way this law will pass.

This proposal may be well-intentioned – But it opens up a whole new can of worms for all users of the road, and law enforcement officials, too.

I live in Idaho where we actually have this law… Cyclists do not have to halt at stop signs IF there are no cars present at the intersection. Sounds pretty straightforward, right?

Well, it’s not…

First of all, both cyclists and drivers often have varying interpretations of the concept. Some riders feel that an intersection is empty when opposing, cross, or overtaking traffic is slowing but not yet stopped – so they’ll just blast on through despite the presence of other vehicles… Conversely, some drivers will see a rider approaching an intersection when they themselves are already stopped at the lead line and wait (forever) for the bike to continue through because they (mistakenly) believe the rider has the right-of-way…

Some cyclists are just plain reckless and stupid. The law gives greater license to their antics because it presupposes a level of judgment which they lack. Some drivers are inattentive and misinformed. They turn a 4-way stop with a cyclist present into a circus of waving, honking confusion.

I’m a veteran commuter with many thousands of urban and rural miles under my wheels. Believe me, in a perfect world I’d love to have a law like this one. Unfortunately I just can’t trust the rest of humanity to ALL have enough wisdom to figure it out. However, just about everyone can process the idea that ‘stop’ means STOP if there are no exceptions allowed.

Take it from someone who has lived with this law: There is a dark side lurking in the shallow end of the gene pool. You really don’t want to go there

Well, it may be an ill-considered law, but laws that are subject to interpretation are neither new nor categorically bad.

Revenuers uhhh, I mean law enforcement isn't going to like this much as it will make their racket a bit less efficient.

Who else here has been stopped for rolling slowly through stop signs where there is no traffic and nearly unlimited views. IMO, such stop signs could and should be treated as yield signs. There is one near my home in particular that is a 3 way stop. You can see clearly a half mile or so in each direction. You could roll this stop sign at 45 mph very safely, however I have seen cops use this as a favorite place to ambush motorists rolling through it at 5 mph.

This is nothing more than revenue collection. Traffic safety have nothing to do with it. I don't see towns giving up this very efficient means of collecting $$$$.

purposed?

Portland != Oregon

I'm looking forward to the day law catches-up with reality in NYC. That's how we roll in NYC anyway (and by we I mean "most cyclists I see"). I wonder why? Maybe because it makes more sense than having traffic signals designed for cars apply the same way to bicycles? Get out! :D

There's no move afoot just yet to provide this same sort of "Idaho Stop" law in Arkansas... at least not until we get another chance in 2011 or so.

The only place where it's actually on the statute books is Idaho. They've had it in place since 1982, and most report no problems with it. Arizona defeated a bill like this early last week, and it looks like the Oregon bill will be stalled in committee for some time to come.

I'd feel a little more sympathetic toward the law if I saw even a few more of our riders actually stop, or even slow down for red lights and stop signs in the first place. I do stop for stop signs and red lights, and it's not that much of a hassle. Just remember to gear down for a quick, easier acceleration off the stop line, and even with cars, I usually catch them at the next light ;-)

So, why don't American States just move away from stop signs? Let's admit that most stop signs--particularly 4-way, are a waste of braking, forcing people to stop when a rolling stop and yield would suffice. I know that when I first moved to Krakow, I feared these things, and wondered why they didn't put in stop signs, but i quickly learned the beauty of the yield sign. Yielding of the right of way is clearly delineated already, so this shouldn't be an issue, just change the signs. Only keep the stop signs where visibility is poor, and potentially where there is enough traffic where stopping becomes the norm anyway. Them's my thoughts.

-Jon

Stop signs reduce pedestrian fatalities.

Hm. Interesting because I can guarantee that we have far more pedestrians here in Krakow than I've ever seen in the States. Maybe it's a matter of expectations. Here, drivers must always be alert for pedestrians, bikes, horses, buses, trams, etc. Whereas, for some reason, in America, drivers only expect to see other cars.... In any case, the argument may be for pedestrian fatalities, but it's not one I buy in reality.

-Jon

I'd have to agree with Jon. Most of the places I've been overseas (Europe and Asia) have had a significantly more pedestrians than the U.S. and I rarely see stop signs. Changing most of these to yield signs would probably reduce gas consumption by a large factor.

I'd look at the way Idaho phrased it (it's they who have the sweet "stop = yield" law, right?) It's commonly said that over there cyclists can treat stop signs as yields. That seems like a good way to introduce this kind of change: since behaviour at yield signs has already been defined by the traffic code, there is no need for more definitions.

The all-way stop signs are there to discourage drivers from taking shortcuts through residential streets when the arterials are jammed. They deliberately make travel on those streets as inefficient and inconvenient as possible. (And then they encourage cyclists to stick mostly to those streets so as to avoid inconveniencing motorists on arterials... and chastise them for not stopping for stop signs. Nice, eh?)

Stop 4-way stop abuse. It is a faulty traffic calming method.

http://www.troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm

Al

Thank you for that link - I am in the process of battling my HOA and the county who want to install 4-way stops for exactly the reasons mentioned in the paper.

If only I could. If it were up to me, at least 95% of all-way stop signs would be gone from the streets tomorrow.

A residential neighborhood I commute through actually put in at least four of those 4 way stop signs where there were 2 ways. They had them up while the nearby main road was under contruction and took them down a month or so after. That change saved/costed me 10 minutes each way as all the fences/walls made it impossible to see the cops waiting for me to roll one.

I live at a main intersection in my little town that has a 3 way stop with an offset 4th way single lane stop. We even have a nice complete stops free, rolling stop $$$ sign under the sign and I watch people roll it or blast through it all day both bikes and cars with the exception of school zone times. Enough people complain and the cops will go on a ticket blitz and then go back to sleep. Regarding using them for to slow speeds my town actually tried putting portable speed bumps between some very closely placed stop signs but drivers were going into peoples lawns to avoid them or the person who was stopping to go over them so that didn't last.

I'd like to see some case studies. I'm not at all convinced.

What does a stop sign do that a yield sign wouldn't?