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.
Dear Bill,
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.
Hold on, I need to go check the spelling on "apoplectic."
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.
Bill,
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.
jw: it is legal on streets that have two lanes in one direction, provided you're not holding up traffic flow.
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.
OH, and if the Montana's cycling community got a little heads up, maybe we would have shown up to support it.
Comment By JAK, 1-15-09For all practicle purposes this is how the law is enforced. I've been on bike rides with off duty police officers-they roll through stop signs too. I've rolled through stop signs past patrolling police officers-they didn't care (note: I always stop if some is coming on the cross street-just as the proposed bill requires).
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.
As a long-time dedicated transportation cyclist (and occasional motorist) in Idaho, I fully endorse the stop SIGN law, as found on the Idaho books. It's a blessing to not have to stop at every sign, when you're providing your own acceleration power. (Not so much when you just have to stomp a gas pedal, or twist a throttle.)
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
I have written a letter to my local reps and committee chair Jon Sonju (). As you can see I have used some text from the article above. I have decided to include a copy of it below for people to use as a template to help support the issue and to save time...
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,
I don't know, man...
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?
You have to consider some bicycles have pedals that have the rider clipped into the pedal. Slowing and making certain it is safe to go forward is a reasonable compromise.
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.
Re: Bozone Biker's comment
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.
If an intersection is clear, I'm for GO! Riding my bike with my 5 year old in the back chair can make it more hazardous to stop & go rather than check & roll. I feel rolling through an intersection when it is clear is safer than a shakey stop & start which may be timed with more traffic & wait, just when I've gotten started again - rolling through a clear intersection is less frustrating!
Comment By Bill Johnson, 1-15-09This proposed law is ridiculous.
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.
Bill,
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 . . .
Same Road - Same Rights - Same Rules.
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?
For the first time in my life I agree 100% with Bob Wire. I also shudder to think of the horrific accidents that could happen as children misinterpret the law, and bolt out into intersections.
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.
Greg, let's hope your agreeing with me is an exception and not a precedent. ;-)
Comment By rcm2, 1-15-09It seems to me that the purpose of the traffic laws is not just to promote efficiency, but to prevent accidents and help assign fault. Lots of drunks get away with driving home every night and not causing an accident, but just because the risk seemed low and it was more efficient for the driver doesn't mean it should be legalized.
Comment By horst, 1-15-09Traffic laws are fundamentally just nuisances.
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...
hayespoint:
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.
Sounds like the moral equivalent of allowing Right Turns On Red. Let's get such a bill introduced in Olympia.
Comment By Sutton R. Stokes, 1-15-09@Bob/Greg: I see your point, and think there's a "vibes" argument to be made about making bikers stop at stop signs, so as not to make drivers jealous (see bikeboy's comment above).
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.
Bikeboy says: As a long-time dedicated transportation cyclist (and occasional motorist) in Idaho, I fully endorse the stop SIGN law, as found on the Idaho books. It's a blessing to not have to stop at every sign,
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.
The comments for the roll through law are certainly positive from the bicycle enthusiasts, however death and injury makes no assumption of understanding right or wrong. We have had a death already near Costco in Missoula from an assumption, and the driver of the truck was certainly not to blame, as records show. It was so very tragic, and my life was intertwined some what with both parties. But the cold hard fact is that there was an assumption made and a life lost. These assumptions are frequently made by inexperienced cyclists as I have seen many times. I am a professional driver and have logged millions of miles. It would be fine to have laws such s this if it were a perfect world, but it is not, and we have to consider the youth that we share the road with. One injury or death is not worth all of your cumulative words. The bicycle is a vehicle and shares the road with other vehicles, most of much larger perportion. SP ? ( help me with the spelling !! ) I do not care to be responsible or involved in anything bad happening to anyone. Keep the laws as they are to keep your health the way it is.
Comment By Long Distance Commuter, 1-15-09for those of us w/ a lonnng commute, e.g. 20miles. The stop signs become only suggestions. Sometime they're just a chance to show off your skills and do a stall; while frightening the local motorist... Or just an opportunity to catch your breath. But in reality they are just yield signs. Spent the summer riding w/ a Highway Patrol Officer, and yes Stop Signs were Yield Signs.
Comment By Brink Kuchenbrod, 1-15-09I ride my bike a LOT as a commuter and for exercise in the Missoula Valley... and I stop for stop signs 99.9 percent of the time. It's an easy habit I've developed over twenty years that I hope will keep me alive for a long time.
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
Yes, so much easier to teach children in black and white. Simple rules.
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.
I think a lot of this debate really comes down to whether or not police officers selectively enforce the law or anally enforce it. There are many laws that exist simply so that if an officer sees a problem, they can stop you. I apparently have a looser opinion of what stop signs should mean than most people here, and I kind of regard stop signs as one of those laws that should be selectively enforced.
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.
I think this bill can enhance driver/cyclist relations, and make enforcement _easier and better_. An officer could better uphold the law by citing cyclists that do not _yield right of way_ if they blow thru a stop sign.
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.
By the way, Mr. Hamilton had a bill passed in 2005 that required roundabouts to be considered whenever a stop light is considered. This is also a sensible bill that further promotes a 'smoother flow' to our transportation system rather than stop and go, stop and go. Properly designed roundabouts (not rotaries, and different than neighborhood traffic circles) have been shown to virtually elimiate injury crashes.
Let's keep the conversation going and continue to work on making transportation better. Montana can be a leader.
Interesting reading -- Roundabouts and Cyclists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Roundabouts_and_Cyclists
I've done some searching and editing and add this:
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).
hey all. i bicycle commute everyday i can (i do not on icy/wintery roads for my own safety and general comfort). to me the main points in this conversation were made by the two Bobs (Giordano and Wire). as Bob G points out, the simple fact is that experienced cyclist - read safety conscientious - already roll thru stop signs when no traffic is present, and without fear of cops wasting time to write a ticket for something so silly. and all of you drivers that complain about fairness...really, come on. you all roll thru stop signs in neighborhoods where no other vehicles are present, and yes, police turn their heads to that as well. So, while Bob Wire also complained about the "fairness" issue (you know better than that Bob! life aint fair) you also made the pertinent point that this is yet another really silly use of the legislature's time. reminds me of the one in the last biennium to make it the law to have bikes ride on the left! come on, peops, let's worry about the budget and schools and jobs.
Comment By Tom von Alten, 1-16-09I don't like the sound of bicyclists... can become flush with the side of the road almost instantly; I've come too close to that too many times.
Comment By bikeboy, 1-16-09Joseph Mamma said, Bikeboy, if it's too difficult for you to pedal from each stop then maybe you should take the bus.
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!
Mr. Giordano, some of your assertions about the superiority of bicycling don't carry water. Trucks are higher and may have a clearer field of vision. Bicyclists have been known to use cell phones and earphones for ipods. Nor do they need to be licensed or even a certain age. Bicycles may be safer to the public but not necessarily to the bicycle riders. If I buy gasoline, it's just as much mine to expend as the food you bought to provide energy in your legs. Stopping is hard on my brakes. Places that provide for bicycles probably means exclusive bicycle paths and that kind of gets to the point. I don't have anything against cyclists but they seem to be prejudiced against me. Cyclists want to convert a transportation system that was largely designed for and has to coexist with motor vehicle users to a system that is favorable to them. They want to convert car drivers to bicycle pedalers. It's not going to happen any time soon, even when gas gets over $4 a gallon. There is a large segment of the population that will walk, take motorized public transportation, or work from home or use courier services and minimize personal transportation before they will ride a bike. And so long as cyclists are in the minority, they will need to adapt to rules designed to meet the needs of the majority, not the other way around.
Comment By Treehuggin' Cowgirl, 1-16-09rcm,
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.
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..?
When a bicyclist fails to stop at an intersection, then gets broadsided by a car or truck, who pays that bill? What about school buses - do they want to stop for those as well? For the record, I favor a "bike-only highway system" to rival the automotive system we have now. In fact, we can do away with cars completely for all I care. But for now, since I have to drive the damn car, I don't need bicyclists wantonly blazing across intersections.
Comment By Bill Schneider, 1-19-09tjamo and others,
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
Refreshing to know--after having killed a cyclist--that it was, in fact, his/her fault.
Another good idea brought to you by Idaho, the state that loves business...
Damn those wantonly blazing bicyclists!
Comment By Jim Sayer, 1-19-09After going through all the comments, it's interesting how the basic evidence of Idaho's experience has been buried. After many years, the police tell us: (1) the law makes it easier for cyclists to travel; (2) the law has not caused more collisions or caused problems for motorists. Police should cite cyclists who do blaze through stop signs or stop lights. But otherwise, why are people so worked up over a statute change that makes a clean, quiet form of transportation easier without interfering with others? The only ones I see losing from Robin Hamilton's bill are the makers of bike brake pads.
Comment By horst, 1-19-09And why would Idaho LEOs want to mess with the data..?
Comment By Brink Kuchenbrod, 1-19-09What's buried, Jim?
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?
Brink, your attempt at reductio ad absurdum is not convincing. Where speed limits are strictly enforced, people follow them. Try going 30 (or maybe even 25) through a school zone in my neighborhood and you'll get the message.
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.
Wow, people don't seem to think much of kids' ability to learn the rules. Anyone who made those comments actually know some children? The ones I've known are always checking the limits, asking questions, seeing what all the rules are (if only to figure out if they can get around them, sigh). Even when playing a game, they often are better acquainted with the rules than the adults are.
Comment By Bill Schneider, 1-20-09Brink,
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
i really cannot believe the amount time spent and debate generated by such a mundane topic. then again, we are talking about Cyclists in Missoula! O No! whatever they are up to...it must be no good subversive something or other.
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!
If anybody's still reading these comments... here's another point that I haven't seen made yet:
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!!
Coming to a complete stop in a car kills gas milage. Why not make all stop signs optional for the sake of fuel efficiency?
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.
Hayespoint:
"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.
Those who are advocating allowing all vehicle operators to go through stop signs without stopping, not just bicycle operators, will find supportive reading in Tom Vanderbilt's book Traffic: Why we drive the way we do. His argument is that the US has too many traffic signs, and people don't pay attention to them. It's more effective in changing drivers behavior to redesign the roadways.
You can read his blog on the subject at http://www.howwedrive.com/
Cheers,
Carl in Vermont
Coming to Missoula from Boise, I find Montana's stop sign rule inconvenient and sometimes dangerous. Occasionally, when stopping at a stop sign in Missoula, when cross traffic is clear, cars tend to pull in front of cyclists for right hand turns while the cyclists are stopped and to the right behind the stop line. If the bill were to pass, cyclists could avoid this situation since they would not be legally required to stop behind the stop line. Wether in a car or on a bike, there are many intersections where you cannot see if it is safe to proceed from the stop line. This results in second safety stops. Since cyclists are much more aware of their surroundings and have better peripheral vision, they should not be required to stop at a stop sign and should be able to roll through gauging if the intersection is clear while moving.
Comment By hayespoint, 1-22-09Sutton,
You'd be able to see what you're doing if your head wasn't in your @**.
Hayespoint: I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Comment By hayespoint, 1-23-09Sutton,
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?
Yeah, Sutton! You're brave indeed to match "whits" with the likes of hayespoint.
(-;
(Who is finally and predictably trying to turn this interesting thread into a schoolyard insult match.)
Hayespoint: I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. If you're curious what I do, there's this thing called Google.
Comment By hayespoint, 1-23-09bikeboy,
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.
On the issue of safety, stop signs and cyclists:
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.
I have recently become interested in the topic of bicycles having to stop at stop signs (other than yielding which most bicyclists do) after being ticketed for rolling through an empty intersection. As the cop ticketed me dozens of vehicles behind us rolled through the busy crosswalk at the same sign in clear violation of state laws. My state, like over 30 others, does not have a definition for 'stop', but like all states has a definition for 'parking', which is what every bicycle that ceases movement does at a stop sign. As it is illegal to park in the street at, or close to, an intersection, a bicycle that stops is in clear violation of the law. When motorists have to, by law, shut off their engine and come to a dead stop at a stop sign, I will gladly follow suit. Until then, I will continue to roll through them, for it is much safer, improves traffic flow, and totally within the law of my state
Comment By Vikkenpox, 1-27-09Good points, Tom, but don't forget that when you do 'park' at that stop sign, and put your foot on the pavement your state more than likely defines you then as a 'pedestrian', and thus you have violated the law in your state as to where a pedestrian can be on the street (i.e. not in the crosswalk or on the left side of the road). By extension, you also lose the 'rights and duties of a vehicle' at that point. In my state, there is no compulsory law for a pedestrian to stop at a stop sign, so if you drag your feet through the intersection, you're good as long as you follow proper right-of-way yielding!
Comment By Tom Rotta, 1-27-09Vikkenpox, looked up the law and you are absolutely right about the pedestrian stuff. The local cops would still ticket me even if I dragged my feet, because they would invoke the 'pedestrian in the wrong part of the roadway' law.
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.
The law of the road needs to change and start putting cyclists first. A driver is safe in his car but cyclists don’t have that protection so they should come first. More road <a >safety signs</a> are needed to protect cyclists and make riding to work on a bike seem a much more welcoming idea then it is now for many people.
Comment By timada, 5-10-09The law of the road needs to change and start putting cyclists first. A driver is safe in his car but cyclists don’t have that protection so they should come first. More road safety signs < http://www.proshieldsafetysigns.co.uk > are needed to protect cyclists and make riding to work on a bike seem a much more welcoming idea then it is now for many people.
Comment By Hexen, 1-21-10Well Mr Rotta - just what leg do you have to stand on - I recall reading about you on some site where you complained about getting a ticket - but keep in mind YOU DID BREAK THE LAW - he kept telling everyone he was a ex firefighter - wouldn't you think someone of the public office would know the laws and instead he keeps breaking them.
Comment By Disarm, 8-20-10I believe that everyone who is found guilty of breaking the law should quit complaining about the law and go out and do something about it. We had one idiot here in Michigan who received a citation for blowing a stop sign on his bicycle directly in front of a police cruiser. To complicate matters, the idiot was a member of the local Fire Department and started acting like he was immune to the law in this regard. Ultimately he quit serving on the fire department because he took offense when others tried to help him accept his legal obligation. THAT was 2 years ago, and he is still plastering local forums with his situation as if he were a poor victim of the worst abuse this side of the ground.
People here are sick and tired of his pitiful crying and wish he'd get a real life. He makes all bicyclists here in our area look bad but he seems not to care about anybody except his poor pitiful self.
Look folks, if you have a legitimate complaint .. then let the people know and then move on and do something constructive about it. If you keep crying and carrying on about bad bicycle laws and fail to follow through and make things better, then it makes all bicyclists look like whining idiots.
And that idiot is me! Thanks for the introduction Hexen and Disarm. They won't tell you the stop sign I was cited for was twenty-five feet beyond where it was supposed to legally be (before the crosswalk) by Michigan Law and so legally unenforceable or that the local politicos decided to violate a wide range of laws to cover themselves when I decided to deny responsibility for the ticket as someone served with a citation is legally allowed to do. The City of Ludington, Michigan has since moved a dozen stop and yield signs to their proper places after the state DOT forced them to. If you wish to read more of the graft and corruption that is part of Disarm's Ludington and Mason Co. Government and how it negatively affects the citizens of that fair city visit: http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/
There you can view the facts and the laws, and make your own informed decision, instead of listening to petty name calling by a public official or two here.
Tom Rotta,
Sir .. with all due respect .. it was a highly visible Stop sign and bicyclist's in the State of Michigan have a legal duty to stop. Our community has spoken loud and clear that bicyclists who complain about the laws .. but then disregard the laws themselves .. are not very well appreciated here. Moreover, the individual of whom I speak has reduntantly harped (ad-nauseum) over the course of 2 years about the actual 'placement' of the highly visible Stop sign, and fully deserves the "idiot" nametag for not discerning how selfish, narcissistic, and hypocritical he appears.
I wonder what the other readers of this forum think about a bicyclist totally disregarding a Stop sign and blowing through it directly in front of a Police cruiser?
Moreover, ..What would be your opinion, sir .. if somebody had been driving a car and had blown that same stop sign and killed a bicyclist?
That's the point here .. the actual intent of the Stop sign. It was clearly visible and bicyclists in Michigan have a duty to stop.
BTW: You and your forum buddies, sir, have repeatedly accused of being a public official .. but I most definitely am NOT! Those repeated accusations, along with numerous personal attacks and name-calling against me by your forum buddies .. is why I quit posting there.
Finally, sir .. I see absolutely no good reason for you to be bad-mouthing the community of Ludington or bad-mouthing Ludington's duly elected public officials. It serves no useful purpose in these posts here .. and further reflects upon your poor judgement.
Okay, I stand corrected. I am not only an idiot, but I apparently am also selfish, narcissistic, hypocritical, and someone who complains about and disregards laws, as well as redundantly harps.
In Michigan, we have a saying: "If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look around you". If you seek 'repeated accusations, numerous personal attacks and name-calling', Disarm, look around your posts. Self-awareness is a virtue few involved in government possess.
If the casual reader seeks the truth, or at least a debatable point one can discuss civilly, look around the website http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/
Shame, shame, Disarm. If you can't get any ground in our local forums in Michigan, you take an e-trip to Montana and slander a good man here. You say Tom violated the law by not obeying a stop sign that was 25 ft beyond the crosswalk. He has offered laws that show a sign that's improperly placed has no regulatory value, and you have offered no law that say he is guilty. He has forced the City to move a lot of signs that are in violation of law, and strives to get some accountability from our arrogant Ludington/Mason County officials.
You, sir, have not only ineffectively argued your side throughout this last year, you have stupidly moved your argument to a discussion where the amount of people who think having "Idaho stops" is a good idea outnumbers those who don't by nearly three to one. Which means that most here would think you are the idiot, just like most do back in Ludington-- but for different reasons.
Edie Lindsey,
No surprise seeing you here!
I actually expected it .. because actively enlisting his forum buddies into his disgreement has proven to be typical behavior that we have seen on all the other forums. His inability to reach across and understand disagreement is why he felt compelled to start his own forum. That type of 'gang' mentality is why I quit that forum .. and no other reason (but you all can think what you want). Many people in this community disagree with his tactics, as he has been kicked off this community's most popular local forum at least 4 times.
I have been doing a ton of research into the bicycle laws and that is how I found this forum. But again, you all can think whatever you want. Knock yourselves out thinking up whatever cause & effect your collective minds can dream up.
The facts of the situation speak louder than your disagreement with me. The particular bicyclist of whom I speak received a civil citation because he disregarded a Stop sign directly in front of an oncoming police cruiser. He attempted to envoke a loophole in the law to deny responsibility. Ultimately, ..he was found guilty in a court of law. Justice prevailed.
So, I welcome you to speak your peace here all you want my dearest Edie. My opinion remains that he has nobody to blame but himself.
BTW: I fully support Idaho's 'Stop-as-Yield' bicycle law.
Instead of expending so much time, money, and effort focused upon attempting to discredit local officials (and citizens) about the legalities of stop sign placement, ..perhaps mr rotta should instead utilize his energies trying to change Michigan's (bicycle) Stop sign law to match the Idaho's 'Stop-as-Yield' law.
Disarm, Thank you for openly supporting the rolling yeild law for bicyclists. I counted the posts here both for and against the law and found that it is not 3 to 1 like Eddie said but more like 1.5 to 1 (about 13 to 8) in favor of the rolling yeild for bicycles. I expected it a lot higher in support of the yeilding law considering the area is Pacific Northwest and the outdoor theme of this forum.
I checked the Michigan Law and you are 100% correct. A bicycle rider has the same duties in Michigan as vehicles. It is against the law in Michigan to run a stop sign. I visited the link Tom Rotta provided. Somebody named xlfd (my guess it is probably Rotta) has copied some of these posts and invited people to come over here to say "Hi" to Disarm. yeah right LOL. That is like a Nouth Korean walking across the border into Sorth Korea and asking to borrow some sugar!! Imagine that! Anyway, somebody responded by asking how Disarm can find the time to post here but said not a single word about Tom Rotta having 4 posts to Disarms 2 posts. That sure looks like a double standard to me and shows evidence of what Disarm said about being 'ganged' upon at that forum. Did anybody else notice Tom Rotta arguing semantics here by talking about 25 feet away from the cross walk. Disarm made a very good point by questioning why Tom Rotta is arguing the semantics (25 foot displaced?) of his ticket instead of using his effort, time, and money to help change the law to make it legal for bicyclists to yield. I agree that arguing semantics does appear selfish, narcissistic, and hypocritical. Disarm did not say you are that Tom Rotta, but it does appear that way based upon what I have seen here and on the link you provided.
You're killing me here, Disarm! I never knew you had such a sense of humor.
Nice to hear you are in favor of Idaho's "stop as yield" law, but it seems to contradict a lot of your past statements. One of my points has always been that there is no law or succession of laws here in Michigan that says a bicycle (which is specifically defined not to be a vehicle) must stop at a stop sign, or defines how a bicycle "stops".
There are laws, MCL 257.648, that unequivocally state that a bicyclist needs to determine before "stopping" if a "stop" can be made in safety. I've listed ad nauseum several safety concerns a bicyclist faces whenever he stops on the road indiscriminately.
There are laws instructing how a bicyclist is supposed to interpret specific traffic control devices, without nary a word about a stop sign. You linearly interpret a car's driver stopping at a stop sign as doing his duty. He has not; he has obeyed the sign, as specifically stated by the law, and ceased movement. His DUTY is to make sure he has the right of way before he proceeds after having stopped.
A cyclist has a duty to also observe the right of way rules, as you rightly point out. The process he does so at an intersection or at a crosswalk is never explained by Michigan law. Practice and common sense finds the safest and the most conducive for traffic flow for everyone on the street is for a cyclist to proceed through an intersection after they can gauge there is no conflicting traffic for them. Usually, they do not have to come to a full "stop" to ascertain this in our neck of the woods.
Mr Tom Rotta aka XLFD,
As the subject article above pointed out, most states do require bicyclists to stop at stop signs. That is why states like Montana have tried to change the law to match Idaho's law, because Montana's residents understand the requirement to stop.
In Michigan, bicycles have the same duty as vehicles do to stop. To assume that a bicycle is parked if they stop is a false arguement because a bicycle is not considered to be parked when they stop at a sign the same as a motorcycle is not considered to be parked when they stop at a stop sign.
You paint a poor picture of Ludington Michigan when you openly accuse Ludington public officials of violating several laws in your case. The basic fact in your case is that you ran a stop sign in front of an oncoming police cruiser. You received a ticket for your infraction. You were determined guilty in a court of law. You spent time in jail for your civil infraction.
Tom,
Just ignore Disarm.
He is not worth all your time. Appears he is obsessed with you, if he would track you down via a google search.
Disarm grow up!
Please keep that garbage in Ludington Michigan where it belongs.
Comment By Disarm, 9-06-10Jack,
Uh, excuse me, but it was Tom Rotta that copied posts from here over on the torch and and invited his friends to come over here. I found this site in my bicycle law research. Try typing in "bicycle stop, Idaho Law" yourself and you will find this site listed there. Get a grip on reality and stop being so obsessively ignorant.
John Hall,
I would keep this in Ludington but Tom Rotta brought it here by accusing Ludington's officials of committing illegal acts against him. Tom was found guilty in a court of law and spent time in jail. He has nobody to blame but himself.
Concerned Ludington Citizen,
There are a lot of folks who feel exactly as you do. Many people have complained about his negative attitude, a lot more than he is willing to admit. He has been kicked off the Talks forum at least 4 times.
Huckleberry Found,
He would mess his britches if he found out that you are a real life clown. Hardy Har Har. I thank you for your support.
Disarm!
Now I see what you've been doing on the computer all day. Clean your room right now, it's a mess with all those Pokemon Cards scattered about. When you are done, don't get back on here and chat with your boyfriends, come in to mommy's room and rub some oil on my back. I will put parental controls on this computer if you don't.
Disarm,
You were 100% right! They are going to be coming out of the woodwork now.
This truly is Tom Rotta's typical mode of operation. Whenever he finds disagreement he brings in his internet friends (blind mice) to disrupt the discussion. Its just as you told me, he has done the same thing on LT and continues to do the same thing on the torch. Check out the torch, they are really laying it on today.
Mr Tom Rotta,
This is so typical of you. What is wrong with you?
I hate to be the one to burst everyone's bubble here, .. but there is fake Disarm among you all .. an imposter. I am the real Disarm and I had made one post here on 8-20-10. Personally, I do not much care because it is no skin off my nose. But whoever you are .. I really do hope you are enjoying yourself. Have a great life.
Comment By Sheila, 9-07-10Disarm is so full of it that he could burst at any time.
Get a life Disarm.
Sheila, I agree with you. Disarm needs to stop bothering us and get a life.
Grow up Disarm!
diszy, you got some serious problems sir. It is the same thing with you every post you make. Everyone that doesn't think exactly like you do gets scolded. You always defend law enforcement and do not expect them to live up to the same laws they are supposed to enforce. Didn't your pappy teach you any better?
Comment By Jayden, 9-08-10Disarm AKA Kevin
Just knock off all of your games Kevin.
Oh my is Kevin up to his usual tricks of stalking people on the internet?
Kevin, when are ever going to just stop?
Disarm you are one sick demented ignoramass. People hate you. You need to be banned from the entire internet and penned up like the rabid animal you really are. You stink. None of us ever want to see you again. Stay away from the Torch forever.
http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/
Several comments here have been removed because they violated our terms of service.
Also, the comment thread has been shut down because of blatant abuse of this forum by one or more people using numerous names and sock puppeting to dominate the discussion.