MORE STATES NEED THIS COMMON SENSE BICYCLE LAW
Bill Would Allow Bicyclists to Legally Roll Through Stop Signs
Idaho has had this law on the books for 27 years with no increase in bicycle-related accidents.By Bill Schneider, 1-14-09
 |
|
 | |
|
I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard a complaint about cyclists not stopping at stop signs. I’d have enough money to buy at least one new bicycle, maybe two or three.
And now one Montana lawmaker would like to make this normal behavior legal, just as it has been for 27 years in Idaho.
Robin Hamilton (D-Missoula) has sponsored HB 68, which is currently under consideration by the Montana Legislature, to be like Idaho and allow cyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs. Here is the exact language in the 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.”
I suspect this idea might give some motorists and police officers--at least those who don’t ride their bicycles--heartburn or worse. Before giving in to a knee-jerk reaction, consider this.
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.
(Actually, it would be interesting to have a speed gun on cyclists at these residential intersections.. I suspect the speed would approach zero in some cases even though the cyclist doesn’t put a foot on the pavement. If anybody knows of any such research, please put a link in the comment section.)
In Helena, where I ride, stop signs on residential routes make cycling so difficult that I usually take the high-traffic, through streets across town. Experienced cyclists take through streets for the same reason motorists take through streets. Cyclists not only get to their destination in half the time, but to me, it seems safer and easier--but exactly what traffic managers don’t want to see me doing. HB 68 would partly address this dilemma, and city traffic planners should be up on Capital Hill supporting it.
The concept of the bill is “counter intuitive” to police officers, Hamilton admitted in a NewWest.Net phone interview, “but it only makes customary cycling behavior legal. We’ve had a laboratory next door called Idaho for many years, and the law hasn’t caused any increase in accidents or fines.”
Hamilton told me about a conversation he had with the Missoula Police Chief who was concerned about the bill. He asked the chief to call his peers in Idaho cities, which he did, and then came back to Hamilton and agreed “it hasn’t been an issue” in the Gem State.
Nor would it be in Montana and other states.
I only wish police officers and lawmakers would have a little confidence that adult, experienced cyclists always put safety first because when on the roads they know who is the windshield and who is the bug.
I called Idaho’s bicycle and pedestrian coordinator Mark McNeese about Idaho’s law and he confirmed what Hamilton said. Idaho has had this law on the books since 1982, and according to McNeese, it has never been controversial nor have there been any attempts to change or overturn it. It has not caused any increase in bicycle-related accidents, nor does Idaho have a higher rate of bicycle accidents than other states.
Other states like California and Virgina are studying Idaho’s law, as are cities like Minneapolis and Portland, McNeese said, but “Nobody else has been able to get it passed, and I don’t know why.”
Idaho has recently gone a step farther, McNeese noted, by passing a companion law that allows cyclists to stop at a red light and then proceed through it if there’s no oncoming traffic.
I talked to Hamilton yesterday and asked him about the prospects for his bill, and he said, “ I think it’s going to die. The cycling community didn’t show up at the hearing to support it.”
Huh? Here we have a conscientious lawmaker trying to make a progressive move for bicycle commuters and not even one shows up to support the bill. How bad is that?
Fortunately, there’s still time to make a difference. Run to your computer and dash off an email to members of the House Transportation Committee, especially to your local rep if he or she is on that committee. You can find a list of representatives here; all their email addresses here; and a complete text of HB 68 here.
If you don’t have a local rep and don’t want to take the time to send to all committee members, at least send one to committee chair Jon Sonju (R-Kalispell). Here’s his email address: sonjumt@yahoo.com
If cyclists don’t show up to support such efforts to improve outdated state laws related to cycling, do we deserve help?
Footnote: Incidentally, HB 68 makes another progressive move for cyclists. It removes the requirement that cyclists must signal a turn or a stop “…if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle.” Such statutes requiring signals were written back when bicycles had coaster brakes, which haven’t been used on adult bicycles for decades, and the current law requiring signals encourages cyclists to make hazardous moves. When coming into an intersection, cyclists must keep both hands on the handlebars and brakes and can’t signal--a fact that receives little sympathy from non-bicycle-riding motorists, I might add.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
My new pickup does not get the mileage that I would like. It is a wonderful truck, but the mileage could be better, but due to needs for power in towing and comfort in my old age I hate to give it up. Therefore i would like you to add these types of vehicles to your "passin' everyone " law. In fact, if we just did away with stop signs altogether then we wouldn't have the fuel loss of stop and go driving. Perhaps this would force OPEC to reconsider their thoughts on lowering production levels and increasing fuel costs.
But seriously, Idaho is ahead of the curve in this one regard, and Montana would do well to emulate their approach.
I've bicycled in Idaho before and after the law passed without noticing much difference. The situations where you can roll signs (or signals) are such that the law doesn't matter that much: there's no one there to enforce it, eh? I remember being surprised to learn about the current law at some point; oh, what I've been doing is legal, that's nice.
I think the main benefit is that if drivers know the law (ha!) they'll be less likely to stress out over seeing "those damn bicyclists breaking the law," and mind their own business.
I've been aware of the Idaho law(s) for some time. Adopting something similar here in Montana would definitely be a step (er, pedal stroke) in the right direction, but what I'd much rather see is the legalization of riding two abreast. I believe that Montana and Wyoming may be the only remaining states which still mandate single-file riding on undivided roads and highways.
My normal feeling about bicycles with regard to the traffic law is that the less bikes are mentioned, the better everyone is. Experienced cyclists don't need special considerations- the law already does a good job looking out for them and still allows for reasonable traffic flow.
However, I do support this addition, as it does help keep all traffic flowing smoothly. I've ridden in Boise a couple of times and was pleased to learn that riding in the manner that I felt most safe was also legal. And as far as the red light law goes, how many times have you ridden to a light that does not recognize you? At least with a stop, then ride through law we'll be legal to, again, do what is safest.
If people question me about rolling through a stop sign on a bicycle I explain that from the perspective of a cyclist it's sometimes better to be a moving target than a sitting duck. Many seem to understand.
This bill is a good idea.
I've got mixed emotions about the "stop and then go" traffic SIGNAL law.
If motor vehicles are waiting for a green light, I'm happy to wait with them. Or better yet, time my arrival at the intersection to coincide with the green light. When cyclists proceed on through, with all those motorists watching, it's sure to stir up resentment and hostility. I prefer friendly "vibes" from those people in their 4000-pound steel missiles, when I'm sharing the road with them! (And as mr dna said, "Experienced cyclists don't need special considerations..." Common sense goes a long way.)
(If Montana is like Idaho, I'm confident one of the reasons for poor showing by bike advocates is... we are a fairly independent and self-sufficient lot, and in these parts, cyclists are very apolitical. They're out riding, instead of attending committee hearings, etc.)
Y'all ride careful now, ya heah?
http://bikenazi.blogspot.com
Dear State and Local Law Makers,
I would like to urge you to support the proposed Montana House Bill 68 which will change traffic laws for bikers. The law would make it legal to treat stop signs as yield signs for bikers. This is also far more convenient for riding on back roads where there is less traffic. The law will also permit bikers to proceed through a red light after coming to a complete stop. This is essential when a biker comes to a sensor light which is not set off by a biker.
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. It makes customary biking legal.
Further, the law encourages bike riding which has several obvious benefits on the community including decreased use of fossil fuels, preventative health care, addressing parking issues, etc.
This law has been in effect in our neighbor state of Idaho. According to Idaho's bicycle and pedestrian coordinator: "Idaho has had this law on the books since 1982, and it has never been controversial nor have there been any attempts to change or overturn it. It has not caused any increase in bicycle-related accidents, nor does Idaho have a higher rate of bicycle accidents than other states."
Best Regards,
Of course, from the perspective of cyclists, the bill is attractive. Having to stop when there's no traffic is a pain in the butt, when you are providing your own locomotion. I can see how it's a pointless exercise. (I don't ride enough to really call myself a cyclist, but when I come to a stop sign, I usually stop.)
On the other hand, from the perspective of a motorist, it seems like this bill is allowing cyclists to have it both ways: they want vehicles to share the road with them, but they don't want to adhere to the same rules of the road. You can't have it both ways.
The reality of it is, the bill would have about as much teeth as the recent measure passed in Missoula that lowers the priority of marijuana-possession rousts. Everyone's already doing it anyway, what's the overlay of legislation going to change?
Curb, gutter, sidewalks and decent shoulder of the road area for bicycles should be a requirement where we have pedestrians and bicycles using the roadway.
Kids are routinely bussed to school because it is unsafe for them to walk to and from schools. Sidewalks and bike rights of way may even pay for themselves when you consider the cost of bussing kids to schools if they could walk or ride a bicycle to get there. It may even make a dent in obese kids and their health.
The following was included in the "Letter To Jon Sonju":
The law will also permit bikers to proceed through a red light after coming to a complete stop. This is essential when a biker comes to a sensor light which is not set off by a biker.
This is NOT included in the Montana law, the law applies only to stop signs.
Why so few riders don't purchase turn and stop signals
for their bikes I'll neber get.
I just purchased bike turn signals from http://www.safetybikesignals.com
and they worked great. A no brainer.
Hmmm . . . maybe because those lights cost more than many commuter's bikes.
Although I don't bike much (I'm not suicidal enough to ride up 93), I fully support this bill. Now I just want the same rule for pulling a horse trailer. The stop and go is hard on the horses too. :) I'm guessing that's not happening any time soon . . .
There is a thin line between an exception and a precedent. What's the next law bicyclists won't have to follow? Will sidewalks be fair game before long? Where will it end?
I also agree with Bozone biker about the stoplights not detecting bicyclists, however, this bill is not the way to address that problem.
I bicycle commute and have no personal issues with stopping at stop signs.
If somebody were to conduct a study, I am convinced it would be shown that most traffic fatalities involving bicycles result from the deceased cyclist having foolishly attended to the laws.
Running stop signs and stop lights are clearly the next step in our continuous striving for more convenience...
Your point, while simple, ignores one piece of logic. Bikes and motor vehicles, are not the same. As someone who has commuted by bike for most of my life I can tell you with certainty that a cyclist is safest when moving. I feel vulnerable when I am stopped.
The exceptions provided in this bill are similar to laws that allow lane splitting for motorcycles, something that on the surface seems counterintuitive but yields its reason when given some thought.
If the bill does not pass but gets motorists and bicyclists talking about what the current laws are, then I feel that that is an improvement.
What I am most disturbed about is that I found out about this today. If Rep. Hamilton is dismayed that none of the cycling community showed up to support it, then he should have done a better job at letting people know about it. I work at a bike shop in Bozeman and I have three blogs dedicated to cycling in Montana, and I only found out about it this morning. That's frustrating.
But I'd like to point out that the idea of treating vehicles differently, based on their differing characteristics and capabilities, is not without precedent. In the world of boating, the maneuvering rules for an 800-foot oil tanker are different than they are for a sailboat or a taxiing sea plane. No one seems to find that strange, or at least I never heard any complaints during my mariner days. When you consider that what makes a bicycle maneuverable and responsive is being in motion, there's a logical reason for allowing bikes to stay in motion as long as possible that just doesn't apply to cars. I would think most people could accept a distinction along those lines.
As a long-time dedicate transportation driver (and occasional cyclist in many parts of America) I fully endorse the soon to be announced stop SIGN law for cars and trucks. It's a blessing to not have to stop at every sign. It costs this country huge amounts of money in fuel every year to hit the gas pedal after each stop and now I will be able to roll right through them. This will be a huge savings for me and all drivers.
Bikeboy, if it's too difficult for you to pedal from each stop then maybe you should take the bus.
For obvious reasons, I also teach my young children this habit, as well as hand signalling (which they love for some reason), and since they don't know any different, they just think it's what you do, despite witnessing countless people on bikes rolling through stop signs. When they ask about this, I just say, "Bad idea." or "Silly squirrel." (I use flattened Missoula squirrels as "teaching moments.")
What a waste of legislative time this proposed law is. What a great way to cement the division between bikers and the already uptight gotta-get-there drivers I have to deal with every week. What a great way to subvert my parenting with a silly exception as I try to teach my children safety and protect them from their own childish judgement. "OK little Billy, if you think it's safe, just run those stop signs like all those smart adults."
If adults want to ignore an unenforced law out of convenience, knock yourself out, but I remember something about bicyclists having the same "rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES" as drivers. Can cyclists claim the same rights when they don't want the same responsibilities?
Dump this proposed law. Geez.
Brink Kuchenbrod
MontanaOutside.com
Rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES. You have the right, and responsibility to do the right thing, regardless of the law.
What's most remarkable about the discussion is the amount of latent hostility toward people choosing a virtuous, and vulnerable mode of transportation, and endorsing the legal expression of common sense. Motorists are not exactly known for their strict adherence to traffic laws. You all always obey those MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS, right? Don't forget to explain that to your kids.
If you're on a bike it makes little to no sense to stop if you don't have to. If it's icy out, particularly if you going up a hill, it makes no sense to stop. If you're pulling a trailer with animals in the back of it that will be jolted by repeated stopping and starting it makes no sense to stop. If you're driving an ancient and moody stick shift, it makes no sense to stop.
That doesn't mean you blast through the intersection. You slow down to 3 or 4 miles an hour, so you can stop immediately.That said, I don't think we should entirely redefine what stop signs mean. A better tact would be to quit putting stop signs on every corner and to use a few more yield signs instead.
Slowing to 3-4 mph at a stop sign often is _safer_ than coming to an absolute stop. Cycling is inherently different than driving, and there should be some difference in rules.
Cylists do not have all the rights of drivers: for instance, a driver does not have to drive as 'far right as practical', nor should they.
This is proposed change seems sensible, yet education and respect on the part of all road users is a critical component.
Let's keep the conversation going and continue to work on making transportation better. Montana can be a leader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Roundabouts_and_Cyclists
Reasons why cyclists should be given the option to yield:
Bicyclists have better awareness of surroundings (better field of vision, higher than cars, no windows/stereo/cell phone obstructing hearing);
Bicyclists can avoid collisions better (sharper turning radius, much less width, less speed and weight to manage, can become flush with the side of the road almost instantly, can stop in a shorter distance);
Bicycles are much safer to the public (much less momentum, and much more forgiving of a physical structure so much less dangerous to others);
Bicyclists have to expend their own energy to start and stop (it's a courtesy to let them pass just as it is to yield to someone carrying something heavy or bulky);
Cyclists should be able to avoid the pollution of stopped cars as much as possible (cyclists are breathing harder and not polluting. It’s fair to be spared from this harm. Pollution tends to be highest at stops);
Frequent stopping is associated with long-term chronic knee problems (compounded by the use of "track" or single-speed bikes, or any bicycle used in a low gear);
Most cyclists responsibly "go thru" stop signs at present (showing that the law simply doesn't work for reasonable people);
Places that provide for bicyclists have much lower bicycle fatality rates than the USA (e.g., Netherlands, about 1/13 our fatality rates per mile travelled. One reason is that cyclists are given a head start at stops).
Fortunately, Joseph, I live in Idaho where cyclists can indeed roll appropriately slowly though an intersection! It's been a pretty good law down in these parts for 27 years now. It's embraced by cyclists and tolerated by motorists.
The Montana law won't affect me too much personally, one way or t'other. (I've ridden my motorcycle in Montana on numerous occasions, and driven a motor vehicle from time to time. Never have ridden a bicycle up your way.) But I'd like to see it for my brotha and sista cyclists.
(And "difficulty" isn't an issue. Regular cyclists don't suffer from lack of fitness, unlike so many people who are slaves to their motor vehicles.)
Have a great day!
What you're leaving out is the substantial portion of the population that would bike if it was practical and safe. I work directly off the interstate. It is possible for me to get there on a bike, but I don't trust the enough to bike the Reserve/I90 underpass. There are plenty of brave fools who bike up Reserve, Brooks and 93, but I suspect there are more who won't because of the danger.
And you're suggesting California stops are going to improve safety..?
Concerning the comments about cyclists not stopping at stop signs and then being hit by oncoming traffice, this would clearly be the fault of the cyclist who even though he/she wouldn't be required to come to a dead stop, they would still be required to yield to oncoming traffic.
Bill
Another good idea brought to you by Idaho, the state that loves business...
Few people on bikes stop for stop signs, no matter the state, no matter the law. If you legalize it, then of course it doesn't change the number of collisions. Nothing changed.
If we're going to update the traffic code for convenience and let bikers run stop signs, then let's let drivers speed when they happen to be in a hurry. They do it anyway, so why is it illegal? Legalizing speeding when you happen to be in a hurry won't increase the number of collisions because... drivers already do it. Can you see where this is going?
The proponents of this are baffling. I don't believe they've thought about it much beyond, "Geez, I wouldn't get that guilty feeling every time I run a stop sign on my bike. And riding a bike is so noble. And Idaho is so cool. And my knees hurt."
Again, if adults want to ignore an unenforced law out of convenience, go for it.
And again, if you want all the rights of cars, then assume all the responsibilities of cars, whether or not you care to obey the letter of the law. Excepting bikes from stopping trivializes traffic laws (see second paragraph above), offends drivers, and could potentially inspire anti-bike legislation. Does that really help cyclists? There's just no need to clog the legislature with this nonsense.
"Yes, little Billy, it's legal to run stop signs on your bike, but it's not a good idea." Maybe Adventure Cycling would be willing to help with that one on the day the grade schools teach "Stop, look, and listen." for walking across streets. What do you say?
If police increased patrols and cracked down on bicyclists who didn't come to a complete stop (in your state, not mine), bicyclists would genuflect as you seem to want them to do, or else get better at looking around for enforcement.
But public safety would not be improved, nor would the orderliness of society markedly increase. We would just be wasting a lot of enforcement resources and some of the cyclists' energy.
You don't sound like somebody who knows what it's like to ride a bike. If you do, and you still want an obsessive adherence to the letter of unnecessary laws as part of some campaign to make the world a better place, well, I guess I'm glad we live in different states, at least.
I must admit that I'm surprised to read your comments and I don't understand your concerns. I admit this bill really isn't directed at expert cyclists like yourself. It's mainly focused on encouraging commuting among cyclists who currently hesitate to do so for a variety of reasons, including the effort and time it takes to get somewhere. I think anything we can do to encourage the wider use of bicycles is a plus.
As far as safety goes, bicyclists will still be responsible for avoiding accidents, no different that a driver honoring a yield sign, and of course, they have the strong incentive of being "the bug." I think Idaho's 27 years of experience with this law seals the deal. There has been no increase in accidents, and Idaho may have a loower per-capita rate than other states, but that's impossible to determine because of different ways of keeping records. Also, there has been no controversy, no attempts to change or overturn the bill, and no opposition from police departments. I even have an email from a police officer who went out of his way to support the law. I believe that speaks very loudly.
Bill
no one is arguing that bikers will be allowed to "blaze" through stop signs and suddenly ignore all traffic laws. not even close. that isn't what the bill says or the law states that we are supposedly discussing here. so that group can stop ranting anytime now.
in my neighborhood there are no traffic signs at all and we all trust drivers to understand and follow the "right of way" rule. talk about vague and dangerous. all this law would allow is for a biker who has already slowed to a near stop at an intersection to continue on if safe to do so. bikers do it ALL THE TIME (ooo, i know that just grills some of you, get over it) and aren't being run over left and right. where bikes do actually get into accidents is in traffic and at difficult intersections, not when rolling through a stop sign with no apparent traffic.
let's move on now.
how about that new President we just got!
I ride a bicycle.
When I approach an intersection - whether it have lights, or signs, or no controls at all - I carefully look for potential hazards in both directions, and oncoming, before proceeding. For you see, even if I have a green light "protecting" me, or a stop sign that side traffic should honor... if I get smashed, I will lose, and it really won't matter what the law was, or who was right or wrong. The laws of physics always trump the laws of our legislature or city council.
jcc73 - yeah, how about that president! I didn't vote for him, but he's my president, and he gives a GREAT pep talk, and I pray and wish for his success!!
I've taken the time to read all points and none yet has provided a valid reason for a biker's rights to disobey the simplest and most basic of traffic laws.
You can't have it both ways. Just because it's convenient doesn't make it right. These points might be simple, but genius lies in simplicity.
"Genius"? You're too modest. Nonetheless, here's the very simple reason why the : cars shouldn't roll through stop signs because it's too difficult to tell what's around you in a car -- you can't hear well, your sight is obstructed at various angles, plus, if you make a mistake and roll through when you shouldn't, a car has more momentum, will be harder to stop, and will do more damage if it fails to stop in time.
Bikers, on the other hand, can see and hear in all directions and, even if rolling through, can take fast action to stop or make room for a car to pass. Not to mention the fact that bikers have an incentive to be more careful than drivers because, as bikeboy points out, in an accident with a car, they lose. Kind of for the same reason that car drivers have to be more careful and more defensive than 18-wheeler drivers, bikers have to be more careful than cars.
A genius would be able to see this, I think.
You can read his blog on the subject at http://www.howwedrive.com/
Cheers,
Carl in Vermont
You'd be able to see what you're doing if your head wasn't in your @**.
In nearly all your posts, on varying issues, it appears that you're trying to have a battle of whits. I hate to be the one to tell you, but you've brought a sandwich to a gun fight.
Do you have gainful employment or are you a professional Komputer Kowboy?
(-;
(Who is finally and predictably trying to turn this interesting thread into a schoolyard insult match.)
Don't forget who started the name calling (the evidence is found above).
Sutton,
Not to fear, I know how to work the internets. It appears you're exactly what you appear to be - another outsider looking in. East Coast Condescension only goes so far 'round these parts. Nice to see you've chronicaled your life for the world to view. Hopefully someone cares.
If I'm cycling towards an intersection that has parked cars up to the corners, trees or a tight curve, it is often safer to keep slight momemtum. I have been in situtations that if I come to a complete stop, by the time I start up again a car going, say 40 mph, can come out of nowhere, come upon me too quickly, and cause a crash.
How about this for another law you may break by 'parking' at a stop sign: since you need to reclip into pedals, sometimes slip between, or off, gears, and slowly accelerate from your dead stop, you can easily be claimed to be impeding traffic from all sides of the intersection.
When the "vehicular cyclist's" chain falls off at the stop sign when they put the stress of a start-up on it, and they become a sitting duck for fast and massive traffic in the middle of the intersection, maybe the last thought of their life might be that they should have rolled through that empty intersection when they safely could have.