I was unable to find a definition of “stop” in the Missouri statutes. That doesn’t mean a definition does not exist. So if any Carbon Trace readers can direct me to a definition, I’d be grateful. I did, however, find this in the Missouri Department of Revenue Driver Guide:
A stop sign is red with white letters and has eight sides. When you see a stop sign, you must come to a full stop. You must wait until crossing vehicles and pedestrians have cleared the intersection.
You must stop at the stop line if one is present even if it is located past the stop sign. If there is no stop line, pull up and stop near the edge of the intersection, look both ways, and then proceed when it is safe.
While “full stop” is not specifically defined, we do learn something of the intention of “full stop” in the second paragraph. Bicyclists in Missouri are required, as legal vehicles on the road, to follow the traffic laws. And this description of how to handle a stop sign sounds good to me.
Now, you may be aware that two states — Arizona and Oregon — have been considering the Idaho-style stop law for bicycles. This would allow bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. The more I think about it, the less I like this idea.
The proposed law recently failed in committee in Arizona. Jonathan Maus, at Bikeportland.org, offers a detailed look at the how and why this happened.
I find there are very good reasons for bicyclists to obey traffic laws. Primary among them: I believe we are safer when we follow the rules.
When I first mentioned this issue I confessed to being “torn.” I was “torn” partly because it does seem like common sense to carefully roll through, say, a 4-way stop when I’m the only person for miles around. I am no longer torn. In fact, I’m not entirely sure why this is even an issue. What is wrong with following the rules?
(Note: You might check the comment by Keri, of Commute Orlando, from my previous post. I think she makes an interesting point: “I think the improper overuse of stop signs is an issue we should address first.”)
Seriously. What’s the big deal about stopping at a stop sign (even if we have too many of them)? Here’s what Bill Schneider, of New West Missoula, wrote: (also quoted in my earlier post):
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.
While I sympathize with much of what he wrote, this stops me short. The issue as he explains it here seems to be all about sport cycling. As I have said before, sport cycling rules American cycling culture. That is not a good thing, IMO. That is how something as goofy as this happens:
The state rep who proposed the bill, Doug Quelland (R-Phoenix) reportedly wore his “cycling garb” in front of the committee prior to the vote. Spandex and all, his bill was voted down 5-3.
Spandex? You cannot be serious! (Ooops. Sorry. That’s tennis.) But, does this person really expect to be taken seriously wearing Spandex to a committee hearing? Do ballplayers wear their uniforms when called before Congress to testify about steroids?
(And, again, I have nothing against sport cyclists. They have their fun and more power to them. I wonder, however, if this is the right culture from which to propose laws that affect utility cyclists, town cyclists, and short-range commuters, i.e. the people out in the traffic everyday.)
If anyone has a good argument for not coming to a full stop it’s the drivers of motor vehicles. Coming to a full stop does place real burdens on an engine that then spews more crap into the air when the driver takes off from a full stop. I’m not seriously suggesting that cars not stop — although I’m serious about the “crap” part.
I could be totally wrong. Can someone give me a good argument for why town cyclists, utility cyclists, and short-range commuters ought be to interested in the Idaho stop?
Comments 11
I agree 100%.
Today I left the office and went for a 50 mile ride.
I arrived at a stop sign where one rural highway crosses another. I could see for at least 1.5 miles all four directions and no one was around.
I stopped and put a foot down and started pedaling again. I was back up to speed in just a couple of seconds. Big deal.
Then again, I often find myself riding arterial roads rather than residential streets because I do not want to stop 15 times to get across town. I’d rather ride a road with stop lights where I at least have a good chance of being able to continue.
An Oregon politician recently tried to pass a law that would assign traffic fines based upon vehicle weight. The idea was that bicyclists would not be fined hardly anything for breaking traffic laws. In Portland the fine for running a stop sign with a bicycle is about $270 from what I have read on the blog there. In Columbia, and in the entire state I think, the maximum fine for bicycle infractions is $25.00. In columbia that turns out to be $49.50 after court costs.
If you start trying to take away your responsibilities than you will start to lose your rights.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 9:31 pm ¶Just to expand on my last sentence…….that is true of everything.
Think of the companies who received a “bailout” from our formally capitalist government. They can no longer pay their employees what they want, no longer reward their customers how they wish and can no longer advertise how they feel appropriate.
Its the same thing with medial care. If you do not want “the government” telling you what to eat, how to exercise and the like than you for sure do not want anyones tax dollars paying for your healthcare.
I sometimes have to bite my tongue when I hear people mock government programs that try to get people to conserve electricity. They feel they have the right to use as much power as they can. I would agree if they were producing that power. In other words if you want the “right” to waste electricity than you need a windmill and solar panels and the like. You certainly should not be getting it from a government sponsored utility monopoly.
Sorry for hijacking your blog. My point is that if you want to keep your rights than fight to keep your responsibilities.
Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 9:35 pm ¶Stop signs are much more common in the US than over here. Stopping and restarting takes a lot of energy from a cyclist. Enough to cover around a hundred metres. It also greatly damages their average speed.
This is why cycling infrastructure here is designed to be continuous. It greatly increases the efficiency and desirability of travelling by bicycle.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 2:31 am ¶David… That your system is designed to be continuous makes sense. But your assertion about energy sounds like sport cycling culture to me (although I know that’s not where you’re coming from). Since you are used to continuous travel, things like average speeds/times are a legitimate concern. In the U.S., it seems to me that our heavily regulated streets have taught some of us not the view bicycle travel as efficient, but rather as “better” in terms our health, pocketbooks, and the environment. Within a mile of home, bicycle travel in the U.S. can be more efficient that car travel. Outside that mile and the utility of cycling in terms of efficiency falls off fast.
This is an interesting issue that needs more exploring, i.e. how traffic realities mold our thoughts about what cycling is supposed to be.
Robert… Hijacking is OK if it gets the point across.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 8:39 am ¶…if you want to keep your rights than fight to keep your responsibilities.
Is about the most succinct and perfect statement I’ve read on this topic. Thank you, Robert!
I agree with David’s point about momentum as applied to bike route/facility design. Orlando has a lot of trails, but most of them have not been designed with any thought toward the bicycle as a transportation vehicle. One (of many) resulting issue is the trails cut through short blocks with frequent stop signs. It’s easy for cyclists to get stop-sign fatigue and become complacent about stopping. Last year a mother of three was killed by a car when she rode through a stop-sign at a minor road. She had ridden that trail nearly every day as a part of her exercise routine. Having ridden on that trail myself, I can tell you I get tired of the frequency of intersections on that part.
Agree with Andy that sport cyclists can be most annoying about loss of momentum and obsession with average speed. But momentum matters to any cyclist who has a distance to travel. When I’m in mosey mode I don’t mind stop signs, so I’ll go for a quiet route with frequent stops. If I’m on a mission, I do like Robert and choose an arterial road with a better chance of green lights and constant motion.
One other note about quiet “bike routes.” I’ve found that motorists are very bad about rolling stop signs without looking when they cross roads that have very little traffic. They become used to not seeing anything so they just phone it in. I have had more close calls with that on quiet bike routes than on busier roads.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 3:27 pm ¶Keri… The follow is NOT a criticism of your comment, I just feel like a rant
I have never understood this momentum thing. To me it seems to be some fascination with speed, perhaps held over from sport cycling.
I tried an experiment today while riding downtown. I tried to experience some loss of momentum by trying to discover if I was really working hard(er) to get my bicycle going after a stop. I still don’t get it! I had no trouble getting back up to a comfortable speed after stopping. I felt no loss of anything whatsoever. I felt no burden having to stop and no strain getting going again.
A human on a bicycle is the most efficient moving machine ever invented. How much trouble can it possibly be to get going from a stop that so many cyclists see it as a burden?
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 7:27 pm ¶Here in Norman, OK, my morning commute to work is less than 3 miles and one of the best routes (traffic-wise) is punctuated by 10 stop signs and 1 stop light. Granted, I’m wending my way through residential streets by choice, and I’ve reduced major road crossing to just 2, but still. When traffic commands at intersections, I take the lane and dismount wherever I am in the queue, one foot on the pavement, before pushing off again when my turn comes around. While waiting I sometimes wonder how I, as a motorist myself, would feel if the law required motorists to turn off the ignition at each stop sign, which seems analogous to requiring the cyclist to come to a full stop at every stop sign. It does get old and my commuting route only has so many permutations. Maybe the discipline helps my dharma …
Cheers and Best Wishes.
Posted 07 Mar 2009 at 9:39 pm ¶Ian… I hear you re: lots of stops. I have 11 stops in 2.25 miles. Would I rather not stop or stop less? You bet. My point is simply this: I don’t feel any energy burden largely because I’m not trying to make time. I don’t ride a bicycle as basic transportation to be more efficient. It is not more efficient most of the time. I ride because it is “better” that driving a car in terms of what it does for my health, my pocketbook, and the environment. That’s why I do not care about this Idaho stop. It solves no problems for me.
Posted 08 Mar 2009 at 9:51 am ¶Andy says “But your assertion about energy sounds like sport cycling culture to me”
Actually, it’s anything but. The distance that people find easy to cycle is determined by just that. How easy it is. How pleasant it is. Stopping and starting is a huge problem for cyclists. All cyclists. If you’ve the weight of a lot of shopping or two children on your bike then it’s at least as much of a problem for you as if you were cycling fast.
The Dutch typically plan around an assumption that a 7.5 km ( 5 miles ) radius is a reasonable distance that most people are quite willing to make by bike. The “1 mile solution” here is a “5 mile solution”.
Average Dutch cycling speeds are quite high. Few people are to be found meandering as most are not merely out for a ride but are trying to get somewhere on time.
When a new housing development was planned on the edge of Assen, at a distance of 6 km or so from the centre of the city, an obstacle stood in the way: a big road junction with a four lane road which carries a lot of motor vehicles. There were traffic lights at this point which would slow down cyclists, and it was a noisy and not very safe feeling junction. This could have reduced the cycling rate from the outlying homes.
The action taken to solve this problem was to lift the road on a bridge to take it over the (level) cycle path. This means that cyclists no longer have to bother with crossing a road and no longer have to stop at a set of traffic lights which would otherwise be in their way. Due to the noise barriers, you don’t actually hear the motor vehicles either. This was done rather than dig a tunnel for bikes as cyclists don’t always feel safe in tunnels after dark, which would lead to a lower cycling rate. Thus it was deemed reasonable to spend a lot more money to make conditions a lot nicer (there are also tunnels, including this one which crosses the same large road 200 metres away).
Another result is that drivers no longer can turn to travel along the cycle route. This road directly into the city has been made into a “bicycle road” providing direct access for cyclists and no through route for motorists (there are barriers to prevent motor vehicles from using it).
Cycling infrastructure can take many forms. In this case it is a huge bridge used only by cars and trucks, perpendicular to the directional of travel of most cyclists at this point. You can see it in the video here.
There is also planning of cycle routes expecting commuters to make longer commutes than this. A 15 km radii is thought to be a reasonable distance for many people who ride faster. Speed is increasingly important as distances get longer.
I generally have to stop just one once in each direction on my 20 mile each way commute, which helps no end with making a reasonable time. It takes under an hour door to door if there isn’t a headwind. If it took twice as long it simply wouldn’t be practical.
Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 1:40 am ¶David… I understand how stopping and starting is a problem from the perspective you’ve given us. You *expect* to be able to ride for long distances uninterrupted by stop signs. There is almost no such expectation here, although I think the sport cyclists try very hard to force the issue by not stopping and promoting the Idaho stop.
Just as you’re forced to put up with headwinds in a flat country, we’re forced to put up with stop signs. While there is nothing to be done about the wind, perhaps we can do something about the signs. I’m not sure allowing bicycles to roll through them is the right thing to do, however.
Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 12:02 pm ¶Hi, totally late…
but I agree with Andy in that I like to stop at stop signs etc. I am a rule follower in that way. I’m a new biker and feel most confident when I am following the rules and very predictable…
However, I also agree about the momentum. And I say this as a small woman who rides S.L.O.W.L.Y. usually carting one or two kids and having to re-start can be killer for me. I have lots of hills and I find myself putting myself in more danger as I wobble and zig zag to get balance on my two wheeler while dealing with cars trying to pass me through the intersection. On my trike I’ve gotten stalled and can’t reach the ground to push off and have had to make cars wait (although I had to stop anyway as I was making a left turn and was stopped on a slight hill. My face turned red)
So basically I’m of two minds. I stop b/c I want to be very predictable. But I also think rolling through would be much nicer. Frankly I wish my roads and bike path system was like David’s. Or that US “bike lanes” ( you know those silly white painted lines that mean almost nothing to cars) were painted THROUGH the intersection as that is where I need the cyclist support most…
nice blog. Interesting points and posts. thanks.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 6:40 pm ¶