The law in Idaho says (roughly that) cyclists can treat stops signs as yields signs and roll through them if the way is clear. Montana is now considering such a law. Bill Schneider, of New West Missoula, writes:
Commuting on a bicycle isn’t easy, which is why most people don’t do it, of course. Yet, for many reasons such as promoting preventive health care, saving fossil fuels, and addressing municipal parking and traffic issues, we should encourage bicycle commuting.
Residential neighborhoods, where city officials usually designate “bicycle routes,” are often awash with stops signs. The idea is to keep bicycles off high-traffic thoroughfares, which may or may not be a good idea, but the plethora of stop signs means cyclists must continually unclip and put a foot down instead of keeping some of their hard-earned momentum–or technically violate the law by not coming to a full stop.
When I ride around town, I’m constantly on Red Alert, and I have no doubt that most other experienced cyclists always put safety first. Cyclists do not ride through stop signs without making absolutely sure it’s safe. Most cyclists risk getting traffic violations by slowing to a “reasonable speed,” checking for oncoming traffic and not seeing any, roll through the intersection. Seeing traffic, they make a dead stop and yield to the motorist or cyclist. This common and technically illegal behavior is usually restricted to residential intersections, not intersections with main streets with heavy traffic or stoplights. All cyclists must make complete stops when entering high-traffic streets and at all stoplights.
This law does seem to make sense. I ride very much as Schneider describes above: In residential areas I roll through stop signs after slowing down and making sure the way is clear. If I see a car I will stop because I don’t want a driver seeing me roll through a stop sign. On city streets I obey the letter and spirit of the law.
Here’s the wording of the proposed Montana bill:
“A person operating a bicycle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching another highway close enough to constitute an immediate hazard. After slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way, a person operating a bicycle may proceed through he intersection without stopping.”
But I’m torn. Here’s what bothers me: Under such a law, how do we determine right of way at a 4-way stop? This law seems to be written as if the only kind of stop is the typical 2-way. In Missouri, the determination of right of way is clear. I like clear.
I also question the wisdom of treating bicycles different from cars unless that treatment makes bicycles clearly superior.
Comments 16
Personally, I have pretty much the same policy: If there’s a witness, I’ll do a complete foot-down stop; if there’s no one around, I’ll generally do a semi-trackstand or a very slow roll-thru.
I’m also a bit torn about the stop-sign-as yield. Having the same set of rules for all roadway users seems to make the most sense to me, especially since this one specific cyclist behavior seems to be a pet peeve of many motorists.
The other part of the proposal, treating stop lights as stop signs, is a good idea, I think, since many stop light sensors are poorly designed and won’t trigger for bicycles…
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 11:15 am ¶Interesting. You have a lot of stop signs in the US. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one here (and only saw one or two ever in the UK).
I don’t see any particularly good reason for stop signs. At junctions on minor roads we simply give way to whoever is on the right, and on major intersections there are traffic lights.
As for sensors, I had the same problem with not being detected in the UK, but over here segregation fixes that problem as there can then be detectors set up specifically for bikes. I can’t remember ever not being detected. However, mostly you avoid the lights by bike.
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 12:27 pm ¶David… Yep. Lots of stop signs. I’m not sure there’s a way to change that now. To the average American, an intersection w/o a stop sign means you can drive right through without even looking. We apparently can’t be trusted to be careful. So now we’re entirely dependent upon signs to tell us what to do.
Randy… Yep. Those sensors can be frustrating, especially when riding at a time of day when there are few cars on the road to trip the light for you.
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 12:32 pm ¶First let me say that I always come to a complete stop at any stop sign. I do it even if its 2 am and I know that only god or possibly a government satellite can see me. : ) Its not that difficult to do and it might add a few seconds to my trip. I ride around 5,000 miles per year and I am often pulling a trailer and still do not find it inconvenient to stop.
I have mixed feelings about this law for a couple of reasons.
#1. Motorists #1 complaint about bicyclists is the fact that they do not obey traffic laws. I’ve gathered this opinion after giving presentations to groups of motorists for the last couple of years. If this law did pass how could we ensure that most motorists hear about it? So does this law reward bicyclists and encourage bicycling? I doubt that anyone is currently NOT riding because stopping at a stop sign is sapping too much of their energy.
#2. Many bicyclists in Columbia are completely incompetent. They often approach a 4 way intersection, go through it at 20 mph even when there were clearly other vehicles already at the intersection. I really want those bicyclists to be pulled over and ticketed. While this law would not allow that type of behavior it is going to be vague enough that the typical officer is not going to want to argue with the bicyclist over if they rolled through according to the law or not. Its been my experience that many bicyclists DO NOT have the judgement to know when to stop and when not to. In fact I’m convinced that many consider themselves to be “fast pedestrians” who have the right of way anytime and anywhere.
One of the things that I am most proud of in Columbia is the opportunity I had to train all 150 Columbia Police Officers on bicycle laws. Before this basically bicyclists were ignored. If an officer saw a bicyclist riding at 1 am without lights they would just drive right on by. The month after our training they made 150 stops on bicyclists. Even months later I still hear from bike shop employees how people are coming in, talking about getting pulled over, and buying lights for their bicycles! Its really been great and I have only heard one bicyclist complain while the rest have thought it was great.
If we are going to turn the corner in the United States then three groups of citizens need to start thinking of bicycles as vehicles.
Motorists.
Public Safety Officers.
Bicyclists.
To me its impossible to stand on a mountain top screaming that you are a vehicle operator and then blow a stop sign.
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 1:51 pm ¶100 stops and not 150.
I do not want to exaggerate. I wrote 150 thinking of the # of officers.
-RJ
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 1:53 pm ¶As for the traffic sensors I have found that if I stop right over where the lines come together than 95% of them in all cities will register a bicycle.
If you stop to the right side of the lane than they will not and you will be setting yourself up for a right hook anyway.
If you put your wheels right where the lines in the pavement are then most work. They can be adjusted by the crew taking out a bicycle wheel and adjusting the sensitivity at the box. That has been done here in Columbia and if anyone is interested I could send someones contact info to you for more information about that.
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 1:57 pm ¶Robert… It would be best if we all came to a foot-down stop at all stop signs. And I agree there is a lot of behaviors going on out there that deserve tickets.
I’m particularly interested in the nuanced point of the first argument you make, re: how could we ensure that most motorists hear about it? It properly points out that such a law could make matters worse.
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 2:49 pm ¶What’s so hard about commuting on a bike? If you love riding, it should be easy. It’s a joy, not a chore. You lost me in the first sentence. There’s nothing hard about it.
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 8:39 pm ¶I may be understanding this law wrong. But it seems to rest on the implicit assumption that bicyclists have better judgment than drivers who must stop even if it’s clearly safe to proceed.
I had my first ever angry experience with a bicyclist today. In rush hour traffic downtown I was clipping along with the traffic at 40 mph and a cyclist shot out onto this thrufare from a side street moving into the center of the lane. I paniced and stomped my breaks to avoid rear ending the car in front of me, who was apparrently concerned he was going to run over this young man.
Now this is the only experience I’ve had like this and it’s clearly an isolated case of bad judgment about merging with traffic. But I think a law like this will stand out and blend with these unpleasant experiences to create hard feelings.
I think creating a special class is a real mistake. We compell walkers to stop and motorcyclists. Bikes should stop as well. There is no reason to assume a superior sense of judgment.
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 10:00 pm ¶I think the improper overuse of stop signs is an issue we should address first. As you said, Americans are so dumbed-down by it that they don’t know what to do without one. They’ve forgotten the rules of the road: yield to traffic on higher-priority roads; otherwise first come, first served; when there is a question, yield to the traffic on your right.
We should replace most of the stop signs in this country with yield signs… or nothing.
Stop signs are not speed control devices!!! Let’s talk about waste of fuel and increased emissions. It’s way worse for the environment that autos are having to stop and start unnecessarily.
I think there is a slippery slope in creating different rules for different vehicle drivers. I’ve worked with a lot of law enforcement agencies in my career and I’ve dealt with them as a bicycle advocate. In all of my dealings, officers and supervisors have said they expect bicyclists to acknowledge stop signs and yield ROW when others are there first. I’ve only seen full-stop enforced where there has been an intractable problem of abuse (mostly by group riders). Also, in most states a foot down is not required, just a wheel stop.
I say leave the law as it is. We have FAR more to gain by equality than by tampering with it for negligible benefit.
Same Roads, Same Rights, Same Rules. It is a point of strength. Let’s not undermine it.
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 10:15 pm ¶Alexander,
I agree with you but…….
anyone who has bicycled before knows that your vision is far superior to a motorist. I’m 100% sure that I could roll through every stop sign in town and not be hit by a motorist but I would never try it as a driver.
There are many more blind spots from behind the driving wheel.
That said, I would lean towards, “no” on this law but the advocates of it would point to my reasons of a bicyclist having superior vision.
Posted 28 Jan 2009 at 4:44 am ¶While I acknowledge that Schneider’s description of how many cyclists handle stop signs is accurate, I don’t think that means the law should be changed to fit the behavior. It’s analogous to what happened in Springfield recently with speed limits: The city raised a few because drivers were consistently speeding. That’s going the wrong direction.
All else being equal, I agree with Keri re: same roads, same rights, same rules.
As I’ve said before, however, the law argues that cars and bicycles are equal; physics argues they are not. I’m with the vehicular cycling crowd only until the day we come to our senses and realize that automobiles are deadly and expensive contraptions that have caused more harm than good. Cars need to be controlled to a far greater extent than we now control them. Driving needs to become far more expensive and difficult to do.
The Idaho law does not move us in the right direction on both fronts — parity or (eventual) cycle superiority.
Posted 28 Jan 2009 at 9:49 am ¶Clay… I think you may have meant to comment on the previous entry. Please take note of the question mark in the headline.
Posted 28 Jan 2009 at 9:55 am ¶“It’s analogous to what happened in Springfield recently with speed limits: The city raised a few because drivers were consistently speeding. That’s going the wrong direction.”
Right on! Perfect analogy. Just like raising the speed limits will raise the speeds even more (because everyone knows you can drive 10mph more than the limit), changing the stop law for cyclists will cause them to be less careful about rolling through. Americans don’t get nuance. The expectation will become that everyone must yield to cyclists because they don’t have to stop. Just like Oregon’s bike lane law, that system will have a costly built-in failure rate. Not to mention backlash.
“Cars need to be controlled to a far greater extent than we now control them.”
For the moment, I’ll settle for drivers being controlled more. We could make a large dent in the problems by increasing the requirements for licensing. Our culture has come to see the driver’s license as an entitlement. It’s too easy to get and too hard to take away. Let’s ratchet up the requirements for competence and personal responsibility.
Do that, enforce speed limits, move the subsidies away from autos and into transit, and the traffic culture will change significantly.
Posted 29 Jan 2009 at 7:51 am ¶Robert,
I agree with vision issues, but I think the route problem is judgment. But that is a good point.
Alexander
Posted 29 Jan 2009 at 9:00 am ¶Alexander, I think you’re right on about the judgment thing.
Cycling is very safe compared to other activities (including auto driving). It’s safe because we have superior visibility (as Robert says) and superior maneuverability.
But as a curious observer of cyclists, I seldom see superior judgment. I often see breathtakingly awful judgment… but the bicycle being a forgiving vehicle, they get away with it probably a thousand times… until the time they don’t. I can only imagine what our crash statistics would look like if we added superior judgment to vision and maneuverability. Cycling stats wouldn’t even be a blip… even in our imperfect traffic culture.
Posted 29 Jan 2009 at 11:12 am ¶