It's a poll. I know this is an incendiary topic, and I don't much care to read any replies (of course, people are free to post them); I'd like to see the numbers.

What's your opinion? Should bicyclists be required (not "are" they required, but should they be) to come to a complete stop at a stop sign or at a traffic light? For the purpose of this poll, treat the two as identical; by law, they have the same meaning. If you want to opine to whether a biker can resume motion only when the light has turned green, again, feel free to do so, but that's impertinent as far as the poll is concerned.

I would settle for Idaho rules myself.

Idaho rules for the win. I didn't vote in the poll because my answer is yes and no.

Another for Idaho.

I vote yes. I wouldn't run a light/stop sign in my truck, so why would I do it on my bike when I'm much less protected. I will treat a red light like a stop sign if the sensors don't acknowledge my existence though.
I'll have to Google "Idaho rules"

I'd Google.com it, myself, but... I'm lazy — someone tell me what the hell "Idaho rules" are.

+1

I stop at signs if there is traffic that I would impede/confuse etc and if someone has the right of way. I stop at all lights but will go if there is a clear opportunity to do so. I'm a "as the spirit moves you" kind of guy.

Or..."it depends."

I always stop completely at lights, and wait until the light changes. Stop signs, however, I treat much more like a yield sign. I always slow down and do a careful analysis on my need to stop, but usually will only do a rolling stop. My general view is that if I want to be treated with respect in traffic, I need to obey the rules of the road.

Idaho law basically allows cyclists to treat Stop signs as if they were Yield signs - i.e. to proceed with caution if there's no conflicting traffic but to yield to any traffic on the cross street. Idaho also allows cyclists to treat red traffic lights as if they were Stop signs - i.e. come to a complete stop, check for crossing traffic and proceed only when it is safe to do so.

These laws have been in effect in Idaho for a few decades and do not seem to have caused any problems, so I would support their implementation elsewhere. But the poll here doesn't allow the option of such a law so I haven't participated.

This is pretty much exactly the same way I treat them. I always stop at lights, but treat stop lights as yields.

Pretty much what I do except I wait for green unless the loop doesn't sense my bike.

I've never heard of Idaho rules, but that is exactly how I ride...safely. It is safer to go through a red with no oncoming traffic and it's more convenient, just like it is for the 100% of pedestrians who do it.

My reasons for liking Idaho just doubled.

I see; thanks.

Yes, I left out such an option, as, to my knowledge, most places treat stop signs as equal to red lights, in the sense you would come to a complete stop at either. I was unaware of Idaho's policy.

Personally, I treat both stop signs and red lights as yield signs: I slow down, survey my surroundings, and, if safe to do so, pick up speed as I continue to move forward.

+1 and exactly what I was going to say. Stop signs should be treated as a yield, but stop completely at lights. But legally stop signs aren't a yield sign and if you want to be treated with respect, follow the same rules (especially if anyone else is around to see ).

I voted yes, with these caveats:

Stop signs:
There are some 2 way stops where the corners are mostly blind and cross traffic is swift moving. I seldom come to a full stop at these, but I do slow down and check both directions before proceeding. Also, at busy 4 way stops people pretty much go when they feel like it. Typically if I can ride parallel to another car crossing the intersection I'll do so.

Stop lights:
I always stop at stop lights, but sometimes there will be zero cross traffic and the light just stays red. Those I make my way through if I deem it to be safe.

ftfy

Depends on a situation. If there isn't a lot of traffic and it's safe to run a red/stop sign ,then a cyclist should be allowed to do so.

I follow China rules which are basically: If everyone else is going, and nobody is coming on the cross street, I go, regardless of the light's colour.

I would say yes, but... shouldn't motorists stop at stop signs and red lights also? I'll stop at a stop sign the day I witness a motorist stopping at one. My evidence is purely anecdotal, but I swear, only about 10% of all motorists stop at stop signs.

This question needs at least one more option to choose besides "yes" or "no". The Idaho rules would be a great option or a "depends" option. Going across the top of a T intersection is the only time I do not stop at a stop light. Every other stop light I stop. Other than that, I go by the common sense Idaho rules.

My vote is no to stop signs (should be yield for bicycles), but stop lights should be yes, with an exit clause to deal with lights that don't turn, allowing the cyclist to proceed with caution after stopping for some period of time with the light not changing.

IMO, you stop at stop signs is you are driving heavy machinery, like a car, as a matter of caution and safety. You need not stop if you are riding a bike and its all clear.