Bicycle Transportation Alliance will push for Idaho-style stop law
Posted by: KarlJan 15 2009, 6:55 am
In the 2009 session of the Oregon State Legislature, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) will actively pursue an Idaho-style stop law. In Idaho, bicyclists have been allowed by statute since 1982 to approach stop signs, yield the right of way and roll through at a safe operating speed. In 2003, then Representative Floyd Prozanski introduced House Bill 2768, which would have granted bicyclists the legal right to yield and roll at stop signs and not have to come to a complete stop. The bill passed the House with 47 ayes, 9 nays, and 4 excused. The bill went to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but did not pass out of the committee prior to the closure of the 2003 Oregon legislative session.
The BTA supported the bill in 2003 and continues to believe that this law would improve the conditions for cycling in Oregon. Coming to a complete stop at all stop signs, rather than yielding at safe operating speeds, substantially reduces the efficiency of riding a bicycle and can create unsafe conditions. Bicyclists ride higher than most cars giving them greater visual awareness with virtually no blind spots. Bicyclists are not enclosed in vehicles and therefore have a heightened awareness to the sound of approaching vehicles. Bicyclist have greater maneuverability which allows them to avoid potential collisions. For these reasons, bicyclists can better assess the hazards on the road and make safe decisions on when to yield to oncoming vehicles and pedestrians. Bicyclists will be mandated to approach intersections at speeds that will allow them to make full stops when traffic conditions require.
Idaho’s experience with its innovative approach has been positive according to Mark McNeese, Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator for the Idaho Transportation Department. McNeese says the Idaho law recognizes the reality that most bicyclists fail to come to a complete stop at stop signs. It is fairly easy to yield the right-of-way, if needed, without actually stopping. McNeese argues that collisions occur in stop sign controlled intersections because vehicle operators, including bicyclists, make a mistake deciding when it is safe to go, not due to confusion about whether to stop or yield. He adds that Idaho bicycle-collision statistics confirm that the Idaho law has resulted in no discernable increase in injuries or fatalities to bicyclists. McNeese says that bicyclists, due to their vulnerability, will seldom “push their luck” and refuse to yield to vehicles when necessary. Those who do take such chances would probably do so with or without the yield law.
McNeese also reports that conflicts between neighborhood traffic-calming advocates and bicycle commuters have also been reduced. He says that many neighborhoods alongside arterial roadways attempt to limit traffic cutting through their neighborhoods by requesting installation of stop signs. Since bicycle commuters and youngsters tend to favor these same low traffic-volume side streets, the flow of non-motorized commuter traffic is made smoother because bicyclists can slow, yield and roll at stop signs. He says this cuts down on bicycle commuter time (and effort) while also reducing the flow of motorized traffic on quiet neighborhood side streets.
The law does not permit nor intend in anyway for vehicles with the right of way to have to stop for a cyclist approaching an intersection. This law change would allow a cyclist to slowly approach the intersection and proceed only if the intersection was clear and it was safe to continue. In addition, the proposed law would allow cities to designate specific intersections that would require bicyclist to come to a complete stop when the need arises.
Thank you!
Good luck with the effort. It'll be nice to be safe… and legal.
You could add a provision to allow a motor vehicle to cross an intersection at a red light with no approaching traffic to throw some meat to the rest of the public who aren't sympathetic to bicyclists running stop signs but really hate waiting for long lights to change on empty streets. Some places already allow this (just not OR I'm pretty sure).
As acknowledged by the article, most of the bikes I see do this already so I don't get it. When was the last time you've seen a cop "pull over" someone on a bicycle because they ran a stop sign? Please take a photo for me next time, because I have yet to see it happen.
"The law does not permit nor intend in anyway for vehicles with the right of way to have to stop for a cyclist approaching an intersection. "
That sounds like permission to drive like a jerk and claim "I had right of way" after an accident.
Sorry to disagree, but this will encourage anarchy. A much better solution is to change all approprate 'STOP' signs to 'YIELD' signs. Then everyone is on the same page. This sets a better example to small children who cannot rationalize that bicyclists are 'above the law'.
Let the bike riders pay the licensing that Kulongowski wants to increase for cars and the gas tax and maybe some other $$ and then they can share my roads.
Let the bike riders pay the licensing that Kulongowski wants to increase for cars and the gas tax and maybe some other $$ and then they can share my roads. Also let the riders pay for the street sweeping, I don't drive in the bike lane.
Guido,
I am a driver, tax payer, cyclist and police officer who has investigated numerous accidents involving bicycles. While its true that many cyclists don't obey many of the laws regarding their use of the roads, the simple fact is that nearly every serious accident that I've investigated involving cyclists was made serious due to the acts of someone driving a motor vehicle. Either they didn't yield the right of way when they were required to do so, of they just weren't paying attention.
As far as the rest of your post; I expect you will be letting all of us share "your roads" since most cyclists, like me, do pay road and gas taxes to the tune of several hundred dollars a year.
I will never understand how or why anyone on a bike with a combined weight of say 130lbs thinks for a minute that they have the "right of way" apposed to a 3 to 4 thousand pound car. You cannot legislate the "law of physics" as it will win hands down every time. I also do not understand why some people seem to think they are better suited to decide when it is okay to violate the law of the road and when not to. Any time I do that in my car I get a ticket or worse a wreck. (no thanks)
I agree with the comment about sitting at a lighted intersection waiting for the light to change when no traffic is present, so of the bikers get to "roll through" then let me go and save gas not idling at an intersection. We (car drivers) waste more gas sitting at intersections then we do driving down the road. Lets see some legislation in that arena and save gas!
To the person who said awhile back that they've never seen a police officer pull over a bike, I have! It was in the Lloyd district one evening after dark. I didn't see what the cyclist did wrong, but I guessed it was probably running a red light.
I draw the line at red lights, because they mean cross traffic isn't going to be slowing down and proceeding with caution. A street with a traffic light is most likely a busier street. But I routinely roll through stop signs after looking both ways. I even look both ways when I don't have a stop sign–just in case.
I am disappointed that BTA has once again allowed a small faction of bicycle fanatics to drive policy that puts speed and convenience ahead of traffic safety. Most biker riders I know just want all vehicles to obey the same traffic rules. Instead, BTA supports brakeless “fixies,” privileged “green boxes” over safer California style right turn merges, and now dispensation from obeying stop signs. BTA does not represent this middle-aged regular bike commuter, I can no longer support an organization that divides the community and promotes lawlessness.
I will immediately withdraw any future support from the BTA if you proceed to back this change in the law. Making it convenient and legal for cyclists to have these rights will just create more ill will from motorists. Because people have become too lazy to ride their bikes properly is no reason to change the law. What could possibly make you think that cyclists should be considered above the law?
I have been commuting, racing and touring for 38 years, and if you had seen all of the things I have seen, you would not even consider making it easier for cyclists to be less safe than they are now.
As serious bicyclist and bike commuter for over 20 years I totally disagree with the rolling stop concept and am disappointed the BTA is actively pursuing with the Oregon State Legislature on the subject.
Enabling bicyclists to "roll through at a safe operating speed" is asking for trouble, serious injury and, in my opinion, higher fatalities among bicyclist. First. It will create confusion for drivers, especially out of state drivers. "Will that bicyclist stop?" Second. It will empower drivers of all vehicles to roll through stop signs at an even greater rate and speed. And third, the point no one has seems to recognize, it will make the bicyclist complacent when it comes to his or her own safety. When you treat ALL intersections with the same regard, you ensure your own safety and that of others.
I have personally seen too many near collisions where the bicyclist runs the stop sign, oblivious to anyone else, only to have the driver of the car slam on breaks and blowing their horn to get the bicyclist attention. This law will kill bicyclist plain and simple. Make drivers even more resentful to the biking community. And sends the wrong message to children about personal and civic responsibility.
Good arguments from both sides.
What I would really like to see are laws like the Germans have. They only have stop signs when absolutely needed. Otherwise at lightly trafficked intersections the car on the right has the right of way, and it's up to all drivers to slow and check to the right to see if anybody is coming. This applies to all traffic, bikes and cars.
Or course this requires drivers to pay attention, know the rules, and follow them – instead of just mindlessly obeying signs like the US system.
So yeah, I guess I'm in favor of this since I already do it.
On paper, this is a great idea. In real life, I think it's a bad idea.
I roll safely through stop signed intersections, and have never been warned or ticketed because I do it safely and with respect. I truly decelerate, break cadence, use brakes!
On the streets, more than 50% of cyclists I see go through stop signs too quickly, IMO. This law will say it's OK, so folks will roll through even faster, and the threshold for safety will likely decrease.
I don't think we need this law, and I think it will do more harm than good. Are cyclists getting ticketed for SAFE roll-throughs? Not very much at all.
This is a great idea. It legitimizes what many riders consider to be safe, normal and correct.
I learned to ride in the city of Chicago in 1964 and probably have a few tens of thousands of bike miles since then. I've developed a riding style that keeps me safe, gets me where I want to go and does not diminish the rights of others. Be polite, stay to the right, stay out of the way but claim your territory (take the lane) when appropriate. And roll through stops when doing so causes no harm.
The notion of yielding makes a careful distinction between cautiously crossing an intersection and "blowing through". This is an important distinction. "Blowing through" implies carelessness and disregard.
Coming to a hard stop is not necesarily the safest thing to do. Bikes are most unstable at slow speeds — most everyone wobbles about starting out. Having a wee bit of speed makes the bike more controllable and safer. Also entering an intersection with a little speed gets you across in less time, minimizing risk.
Frequent stopping and starting is stressful to the body. Breaking the law is stressful to the conscience.
Support guilt-free cycling!
Legalize conservation of momentum!
I think that the suggestion that the law will cause deaths or injuries is a red herring. This law has been in place in Idaho for almost 30 years and all the statistics show that there was and has been no increase in bike injuries or deaths.
I don't know why there is no difference in safety, maybe it is because most cyclists ride very defensively to begin with, maybe it is because cyclists can see and hear better than auto drivers so they are less likely to not see an oncoming vehicle, maybe it is because people start tending to ride on lower traffic streets with lots of stop signs because it isn't so much slower with the law.
Regardless of the reason though we have a very large pool of data to draw on from the Idaho experiment which shows that this law will not have a negative impact on injury rates, and I think claiming that it will lead to a massive increase is disingenuous.
I don't know if I've seen anyone mention one of the main reasons that I roll slowly through stop signs. Once I stop, I have to stand on the ground and lose about a foot that would have helped me see over the parked cars. Also the slow rolling helps get different lines of sight through the parked cars so I get a better sense of what's headed toward me. I, too, have seen plenty of bicyclists not even slow down at a 4-way stop and that is obviously stupid and would still be illegal and enforceable. Too add a little to that, as someone who has accidentally driven a car through two stop signs in unfamiliar cities — fortunately without incident — I think anyone who is not ready to stop his bike, is relying too heavily on luck for survival.
There are places that regularly ticket cyclists for not coming to a full stop at a stop sign. There's an intersection in North Plains where a friend of mine did a slow roll right turn at a stop sign and was ticketed. The fact that what they did was safe didn't mean anything to the judge who just asked if she came to a complete stop. Any city could decide to begin to enforce the current law and start making some extra revenue.
Personally I like the idea of making it legal. I ride very defensively and slow, or stop, at all stop signs but in most cases slowing is perfectly safe. Stopping is also a pain with clipping in and out of pedals, so this would be a definite plus for that.