The poor old horse. Dug up from the grave, and the beatings continue.
:deadhorse2:


Idaho +1.

I stop for red lights. Light doesn't change, I go through it. Stop signs, I slow down to single-digit speeds and only stop if traffic is approaching. Then again, I do pretty much the same thing in my motor vehicle. :D

I don't think cars really need to either. I think it's silly at night for a car driver to have to sit there at a red light when there is no one around. Really except for major thoroughfares all red lights should turn to blinking lights at low traffic times.

I also don't really see a problem with car drivers rolling through stop signs when there is no one around. The only real danger is that there IS someone around and they don't see them. But this same danger is there for me when I'm on my bike, and I know I have missed pedestrians or cars when I swore there was no one there a second ago. I could seriously hurt a pedestrian on my bike if I don't see them.

On my bike I go through reds, since I don't want to be there when the light turns green and the car drivers are flooring it and swerving and jockeying for position to try to be first out of the intersection. It's far more dangerous for me to wait for the green than to just go. the only problem is, as above, once in awhile I don't see that someone is crossing.

The big issue is not "should they" but should we pass a law making it so. We have to consider how will this influence behavior. Since a subset of people will always go beyond the law. If stops signs are treated at yield signs, then will the people who stop now start yielding, and will the people who already treat it as a yield just blow right through? I guess we'd need to look at Idaho and see how it's working there.

Stop for Stop lights. Stop for stop signs (although, I like the idaho law for stop signs, not stop lights). Follow the rules of the road. Simple, easy, predicatable. Encourage enforcement of the rules for cars, bikes, pedestrians uniformly

Like it or or not bikes are not a special protected group that can do any thing the operator chooses to. There are implications of not following the rules, including collisions and injury either caused directly by cyclists not stoping at stop lights (especially) and stops signs.

Idaho has a lot fewer cars than where most of you live and very few cyclists who aren't mountain bikers.

You can do what you want but don't complain when you get hit by a car.

If everyone on this board road like they post then there wouldn't be much of an issue. Bottom line is that some cyclists blow through stop signs and lights all the time and they don't "slow down to single digits" or "make sure it is safe". They roll through like the world owes them something and create havoc behind them. Seriously, what's the issue with stopping? You're not racing and what makes you think you don't have to stop because you have to use your own muscles to get moving again. YOU NEED THE EXERCISE! Stop and then pedal.

I ride and I drive. My riding makes me a much more aware and cautious driver because I know how exposed a cyclist is on the road. I stop at signs and lights. Period.

The Netherlands , where 40% of the transportation on any given day is on bicycles ,
has a separate set of stoplights , on their bike paths where it crosses the Motor traffic ways.

4 way stops should always be at least a yield. 2 way stops are always a full stop (because cross traffic won't stop for you). Lights are always a stop.

This is a commute forum. Mind you, I don't see any other commuters when I am doing mine. I kind of have to make my own choices sans role models. Idaho rules for me but, this might be instructive: my main commute is between city A and city C going right through the center of city B. Not a lot of stop lights but there are some, even fewer stop signs. Seven miles door to door. Takes 40 minutes moderate effort. I can also take the farm roads and avoid the main highway. Cleaner air and nicer scenery but no shoulder and only two lane blacktop. No stoplights at all and just a few stop signs. Ten miles door to door. The two trips take the exact same amount of time! The difference is the stops that must be made on the straight shot route, I am already blowing off the stops that are 'optional', so, if I want to observe the letter of the law I can add even more minutes to my commute, being noble and a good cycling ambassador or I can be somewhat more pragmatic and have a little more time to change clothes, etc.That's the choice I make. YMMV.

H

Exactly. I wish the cops would start cracking down on bicyclists here when they decide to pick and choose their own laws.

Hard to boil down to yes or no, especially if you're treating stop signs and red lights the same. Had I bothered to read your caveat before I voted, I'd have said yes, they should.

Truly though I think they should be treated differently. I'm a fan of the Idaho stop rules as I understand them -- cyclists can treat stop signs as yield signs, and treat red lights as stop signs.

yep .. this is proof that potatoes can raise IQ

Do you really want your tax dollars to go to police enforcement of cyclists who "idaho-stop" through stop signs?

How about all those motorists speeding? And all those jaywalkers?

I think that if every state adopted Idaho rules that I would support a crackdown on cyclists that violated them. As it is, there are too many traffic control devices, and an under-use of yield signs. And red lights don't recognize cyclists.

around here, and in most places I've been recently, the motorists are following Idaho bike rules for stop signs. If there were only cars on the road, this would usually work ok. But that leaves out cyclists, and to a lesser degree, pedestrians. The thing that really is dangerous is the way motorists treat right turn on red. This is a real danger to pedestrians, and I'm almost positive there was at least one fatality in this area due to a motorist failing to stop before they turned right. The police around here do treat pedestrian safety as a priority, although it's a tough job and they also like to harass cyclists.

I guess it your view of this will depend on where you live. I'm in a relatively rural area, and I get to stop for a lot of red lights when there is no oncoming traffic. And there are a lot of lights that don't change for cyclists. Similarly, for stop signs, there are lots of stop signs in the middle of nowhere. I have to admit, no witnesses, no stop, just like all the other traffic.

Idaho rules, which are not legal here.

Which is why I abuse the pedestrian cross walk buttons, especially the ones for the blind at 6:30 AM on weekends, or 11:30 PM depending on the circumstances.

Idaho rules rule! :D

In my experience, the vast majority of motorists do respect stop signs, even if it's only by performing what's casually called a "rolling stop" (slow to a creep, then speed up and continue, if safe).

I deliberately wished the poll's options to be limiting. "Depends" isn't a choice that belongs in this sort of survey; it's something persons can discuss in the thread, as they're doing.

To my choosing not to distinguish (in the poll) between red lights and stop signs, I did so because the law tends to (as I said, I'd never heard of Idaho's policy).

That's insane. Pedestrians do not stop at stop signs or at red lights; neither should they. Given a pedestrian's relatively small momentum, ease of ability to quickly stop, and comfortable exposure to the environment, it's perfectly right for him or her to treat such traffic regulations differently from how a driver ought to. Likewise, a bicyclist is not a pedestrian, but she or he is not a motorist, either; the law (I feel) thus should be applied differently to a biker from how it is to a driver.

When out riding, I come to a complete stop at stop lights and stop signs

Really? Not where I live. Pedestrians are extremely law abiding. As they should be. Even in areas known for pedestrian impudence the majority of peds aren't stupid. They stop for red lights and they'd better stop at stop signs because its a fair bet the motorists won't. In areas like NYC the cars roll right past the stop sign till their front bumper is even with the curb and they watch for other cars to determine when its safe to cross. Peds are completely left out of their calculations. Not here in Oregon, most drivers are prepared to stop at the crosswalk and pedesetirans wait at the red light for the walk signal. And, I didn't vote in your poll because I think you are wrong, you do need more choices than yes/no to have a valid poll. That and the fact that you never heard of Idaho biking statutes makes this poll specious, hence the total disregard of your request to abstain from verbal commentary and also the low voter turnout. How is that working for you?

H

What in the world are you talking about? Pedestrians stop at stop lights all the time, as they should. If you are arguing about pedestrians stopping at stop signs, in general pedestrians are required to stop and ensure the way is clear before crossing a street....de facto having stops signes even where there are none.

Take a red light as an example....what are the consequences of "running it" whether your are are a driver, pedestrian, or cyclist? First is you hit and injure someone else. Very common for cars running red lights, not at all uncommon for bicylists running red lights and pretty rare for a pedestrians. Second is you get hit and injured.....pretty common for all. Third, and this is where a lot of people do not thin the consequences through, you cause an accident that does not involve yourself..... a car or bikes stops suddenly or swerves to avoid another car/bike/pedestrian, and then hits something else. And the argument that "I'm a cylist, so what if I take a chance and get killed, I'm only hurting my self" doesn't fly either. So you run a red light, and get killed....what about the psychological impact on the driver who through not fault of their own just killed someone.....or the kids in the car who saw it?

Bottom line is that the majority arguments against following traffic laws are based on a self centered, I'm better than everyone else, I'm a cyclist attitude

Haiku ftw!

I stop for people
whose right of way I honor
but not for no one

nice .......

I approach the red
There is nobody coming
My mind is at ease

Bikes and cars are massively different in terms of the liability it can cause and how easy it is to view the road. I note for Idaho laws as well.

I went through a red yesterday across the top of a T intersection as you say. A car coming into the intersection and turning left, in the direction of my travel, saw me and yielded to me. He didn't encroach the bike lane, and he didn't really have to yield if he held to his lane, but he must have been concerned for my safety. I'll probably give way next time, but I had a good go on and didn't want to slow down. My daughter says I should obey all traffic laws (not Idaho) for my safety.

This is what I do except if there is a LEO anywhere within eyesight. I don't want to put them in a position to misinterpret my actions as 'showing them up'. Also, while not putting my foot down I try to come to as complete a stop as possible w/o actually stopping.

Sounds good to me. Ticket all of those law-breakers.