That's interesting. I've never known a pedestrian to stop at a stop sign or a red light. Perhaps we're describing two slightly different things: I don't mean someone on foot will continue parading down the street, come hell or high water. I'm saying simply that, if there's no traffic clearly visible, a pedestrian will not pay any mind to the sign or the light. If anything, the light is treated like a yield sign (and there just aren't very many stop signs, around here).

It's fine with me if you'll not vote from discontentment with the poll's choices. Also, I don't believe I discouraged anyone from discussing the issue; I simply stated my point in starting this thread is to see numbers; any conversation that happens to ensue is just fine. I'm not sure what you mean by "how it's working out" for me: this isn't a business from which I'll profit more if more persons vote; besides, so far, ~80 have, which is, to my mind, a healthy number.

As I mentioned in my reply to another poster, just above (in this same post), perhaps I was unclear to what I meant when stating pedestrians disregard stop signs and red lights. They treat them as yield signs: if there's no traffic clearly present, they move — that's how it should be. (And, again, around here, there really aren't any stop signs.)

I'm certainly not suggesting a bicyclist has the right to do what he or she wants on the premise the only harm that could result would be to himself or herself; of course, that premise would be false, as anyone else who happens to be hit could sustain injuries, and even damaging a vehicle from one's own recklessness is unacceptable. My feeling is, however, that bikers — like pedestrians — are far more immediately exposed to their environment (thus, more readily able to perceive, then respond to, it), and generally bear much less momentum, than cars. Accordingly, I think stop signs and red lights ought to be treated by a bicyclist as a yield sign, and not as a regulatory symbol at which she or he must come to a complete stop.

If your position is so staunch, which it does seem to be, what's your feeling on red lights? The signals are run on timers, not in response to the flow of traffic. If a biker hits a red, and there's no impeding traffic, must she or he wait the next several seconds, as would a motorist, for a green light, before proceeding across the street?

Pretty good yerself!

"my own personal idaho"

+1

I hate stop signs and lights. I like roundabouts; has anybody ridden through one on a bicycle? I haven't, yet. I tried and failed to explain to my wife how one outside of Albany, OR worked. I love it: if nobody is coming you don't have to stop!

i rode through hundreds of roundabouts on my LEJOG tour across great britain last month. most were a breeze to navigate across, but there were a handful, like where two or more "A" roads intersected, that were 3 lanes deep and traffic was so constant that it made getting across a little challenging and daunting on a bicycle. taking a deep breath, being aggressive, and not letting automobiles try to push us out of the way helped us get across some of the hairier roundabouts.

I ride through one regularly, I don't really like it because auto traffic is busy switching lanes to get to correct lane and the cyclist can get a little squeezed. I think one problem is that the landscaping in the middle obstructs the motorists' view, they can't see the cyclist approaching.

I do like the general idea, though, the circle calms traffic without stopping flow. I think if there were more of them, it would help make the drivers' more aware.

I've seen movies and pictures of times when there were no stop anything,I vote yes.

This thread needs a cool theme song:

I feel that under certain situations (notably, night time, low traffic times, etc), it's appropriate for motor vehicles to be given the directive to come to a complete stop and then proceed after yield to cross traffic. This means the lights still change red/green, but if you stop at red (actually stop) and there's no cars to be seen anywhere, then why not go? I think a new directive, "Amber/Red," in which yellow and red both light up to indicate this behavior, would be appropriate. I don't suggest this to be mandatory: you may stop on Amber/Red and wait for green, just as you may decline to turn right on red when safe and prudent.

That said, I believe bicycles should be subjected to vehicular law. Stop at stop sign, stop on red, etc. If an Amber/Red law were enacted, you could stop and then yield to any traffic as well.

Some cyclists like to wrong-way, run red lights, ride wrong-way on sidewalk and then run red into a left turn sidewalk-to-street transition, etc. I've almost made speed bumps of these people, both in my car and on my bike.

I was on my bike with green once and some jackass came out from behind an SUV and nearly got railed by me; based on his travel speed and direction, he had been riding high-speed wrong-way on the sidewalk, and had come off the corner and turned left sharply (with no counter steering!) to enter the left lane in the street. He became visible less than 0.25 seconds before crossing my path, while I was accelerating from a low speed after climbing a hill; had I been moving above 8mph or taking off in a car after a full stop, I would have plowed into him before I even saw him... I would have heard/felt it before my brain registered that there was an object in front of me (movement somewhere, yes; analysis of the situation? No; there's "something").

So, yes, bicyclists should stop for stop signs and lights. Those that don't are called "Future speed bumps" and I'll be sure to quote the law in court and point out which parts were broken.

Someone actually told me, while waiting at a light, that I don't have to wait (it was clear and safe to proceed; that light should be a 4 way stop). I summarized the entire vehicular code related to bicycles in about 10 seconds. Bicycles must stop at traffic signals and stop signs; must not exceed posted speed limits; and must ride in the right lane with traffic, as far right as safe* and practical, except when turning left. He said not many people are paying attention to that ... yeah, no kidding; it's still both the law and a good idea (these are not equivalent).

*I think the law's redundant when it says "except when avoiding an obstacle" etc etc... of course you can avoid obstacles! That's what "safe" means!

commando303 (I have a vision of wwII commando with a short stock 303 enfield..... but I digress)
My feeling on red lights is: The rules are simple, Red light means stop, for all crossing the light controlled intersection. Doesn't matter if there is no apparent cross traffic.

why: multiple reasons
safety is first, the second you start making a red light stop conditional based on personal decision you increase the likelhood of bad decisions, which result in accidents. T

Safey in consistency: People are used to the binary Red = stop and Green = go. When people have the green they are not really expecting someone to run the red....so may not react as fast, may over react,.....all in all increase in accidents. People just don't see what they are not expecting see.

Rights to the Road: at risk of sounding like a strict vehicular guy, which I am not, the more you try to make exceptions for bikes, the more the argument will be to remove bikes from the road.

Bottom line: If it is not ok for a car do do, it should not be ok for a bike to do.


ps the only place I have lived where pedestrians routinely "ran" red lights was NYC, otherwise people are pretty compliant here. I did see a women almost hit because she crossed the street against a red.... I am guessing she misestimated the speed or did not see an approaching car. she saved maybe 10 sec of time before the light turned to green for her.

Round-abouts are horribly dangerous, but modern round-abouts address all such dangers through engineering and policy. Still, the big problem is you're not to enter if there's a car in any lane: near lane is clear, far lane has a car, wait for that car to pass. That's hard to get through to people, who figure it's easy to wedge in since the lane you're entering is clear ... but that far-lane driver can't see you enter, doesn't know if the right lane is clear, may be trying to move into the right lane (already or just after passing), etc. A normal intersection has some 28 points of conflict, while a round-about has 16; if you enter while there's traffic in the inner lane, you create several more points of conflict just because of the potential for an inner-lane driver to be switching to the outer lane at several points.

They're safer, they keep traffic more organized, and improve traffic flow. Miniatures help too, and I'd love to see more turbo-roundabouts: giant, high-speed 50-80mph round-abouts constructed such that if you enter and don't exit, you can't go all the way around. You always get forced off onto the same street you entered from going the opposite direction, by virtue of there not being a physical road connecting back into the round-about. The use of more minis would be much appreciated as well.

Would be good to have more options. I'd vote for red lights meaning stop and stop signs meaning yield right of way.

didn't touch me not my fault state law lalala not stopping for this!

Not good enough. Everywhere isn't Arizona; there's a lot of stop signs and stop lights here where, if you don't stop, by the time you see the other car/bike/whatever it's too late to stop. If you're not both within 2-3 meters of the intersection, you're not going to see each other, end of story. Why do you think I come inches from clobbering so many idiot cyclists that think red means cars stop but they don't? They really just appear right there.

Whenever I approach an intersection I can't see around, my foot comes a bit off the accelerator, or I touch my brake a bit to actively drop speed; I'm watching for something that tells me to stop. It might not be enough, but you gotta choose your risks; I'm not going to play paranoid, but spacing out while traveling full speed at a blind intersection with the mind "GREEN MEANS GOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!" is a risk I'm not willing to take.

I'm new to cycling as an adult and coming back to it after years of being a driver in the city I want to #1 not be like 99% of the cyclists I see who have a chip on their shoulder the size of a redwood and think the road is their's alone and that laws are arbitrary and #2 not get killed by the recklessness and stupidity of other motorists. That being said I do not act exactly like a car on the roads. I have found the "Idaho rules" to be what I've come to find natural with the caveat that if I can't see down the street I wait at the light no matter what until it goes green.

It's funny how everyone else calls it a Idaho stop, when we call it a California stop :) I voted no obviously the legally not stopping a stop signs and stop and go at lights has worked well for me

Yield at stop, stop at red. I'll go after a few seconds of waiting on red if it's all clear.

Similar to before: Yield at stop, stop at red.. if there is NO traffic and no hope of setting off the sensor (ie no cars stopped) I will go...

Terrified one day I am going to get a violation (Very "uppity" suburb in Chicago... )

That is amusing. Lends to question: is there any other state (or country, locale, whatever) that has law written the same as the Idaho-stop?
At same time, even though it's illegal to do so, just about every cyclists I've ever seen operates at though it's legal. I've never been ticketed or even warned even though plenty of law enforcement has witnessed.
Kinda like every ped jaywalks and every motorist speeds, that's just the way it is.

Traffic tickets bring in money; they don't cost money. And while I don't think that you should have special enforcement of traffic laws, if a cop sees a biker run a red light (or a pedestrian jaywalking), I'm not sure why they shouldn't give them a ticket. Or a warning. (And there are places in the US where pedestrians are routinely ticketed for jaywalking).

This may come from my hyper paranoia about not becoming a nuisance/target to drivers but I kind of feel like I'm doing them (the cars traveling in the same direction as myself) a favor by going through a red after I've stopped as I'm not in their way when the light turns green. I feel more seamless in traffic when they can pass me when I'm in motion then if they have to potentially wait for me to get going before they can get around me after a stop. That may also have to do with me feeling more stable on the bike at speed than starting from a stop.

I don't run traffic lights, but I definitely get the impression I'm annoying motorists when I stop for stop signs. There is a stop sign near me that almost nobody other than me stops for and I've almost been rear-ended a couple of times there in my car.

Funny you should say that... — :D. (Referring to what I've bolded in my quotation of your post.)

Sure why not? A motorist could get ticketed for not stoping at a stop sign and I've seen jaywalkers ticketed. Of course it should be at officer discretion but being on a bike shouldn't absolve you from having to follow the law. If you don't like the law then contact your state legislature.