Quote of the Day: Yet Another View on Bikes and Stop Signs

Ok, so let me get this right... Stopping at a stop sign is a "Coordination Law" as is speed limits and driving lanes. Doesn't a bicycler driving in the middle of the lane disrupt the very coordination that the law was placed for?

I for one disagree with your "Coordination Laws" argument. There are no "Coordination Laws". Speed limits are there for safety. Stop signs are there for safety. Bike lanes and traffic lanes are there for safety. If you break any of these laws you are not just 'disrupting coordination' you are putting peoples lives in danger! Many people die every year because some one ran a stoplight. Now, a person on a bicycle is unlikely to kill someone, but rolling through a stop sign they are putting themselves at risk -and if they don't have health insurance, then they are putting the taxpayers money at risk.

For God sakes. Just stop at the sign. It's there for YOUR safety.

As a pedestrian having almost been hit by cyclists disobeying traffic rules on more than one occasion, i'd like to suggest that when someone requests that you obey the law, you consider it seriously rather than getting snarky with them suggesting that THEY obey the law and that they wouldnt like it if you REALLY obeyed the law. that just seems childish.

Amen Dallas!

Actually, they're putting more than just their life at risk. If a cyclist runs a stop in a busy intersection, which I see almost every day in downtown chicago, there's a very real chance that a driver will slam on the brakes. Which is a great way to have a collision chain reaction.

Basically, I view cyclists who run traffic signals and ride between the lines of traffic the same way I would a motorcycle that does the same thing. If it's not legal for a motorcycle, it shouldn't be legal for a bicycle.

And the "taking up a lane of traffic" argument is faulty. If I'm driving my car/motorcycle at bicycle speeds, I'll get ticketed for obstructing traffic. Same rule should (and hopefully does) for bicyclists.

Cyclists are allowed to occupy a full lane of traffic. However it is usually not practical.
"Coordination Law"? Maybe "Revenue Generation When the Times Get Tough Law".

Cyclists have to look out for everyone. We have a definite speed/agility advantage in many ways. If people and baby carriages keep getting run over there will just be draconian enforcement of additional laws against cyclists. This is another way to make a difference individually and as a whole.

Tons of pedestrians jay-walk, seemingly without looking, .... regardless, I try to stay out of the way. I'd rather take a couple of seconds off my trip as opposed to having to stay at the scene of an accident.
If someone is hit by suprise and falls and hits their head on the pavement, especially someone older, they coud die. Even if they jay-walked against a prevailing red light while drinking coffee, reading the newspaper, and plugged into an I-pod ... and you kill them, well, what's the opinion at large going to be, right or wrong. Not to mention killing someone will really screw you up.

Extreme yes, but stuff to think about.

Good Luck!!
vsk

I'll precede this by saying I pedal >120 miles per week and commute 8 miles each way to work 5 days a week.

So, from a cyclist: safety supersedes any argument over what's fair and not fair to drivers or cyclists. Whether you claim stop signs are products of "coordination laws" or not, this is a fact: Running through stop signs is dangerous for cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, and whoever else that occupies roads. Period. The solution to better cycling is a better cycling infrastructure. And every time a driver sees someone like you breezing past a stop sign without slowing or stopping, that person's opinion on cyclists is going to plummet. Ignoring traffic signals is as grievous (or more so) than riding against traffic or riding without a helmet. That person just might think twice when it comes time to take political action toward bike lanes.

And the speed limit argument is way off the mark. I'm not advocating speeding, but the system could use an overhaul. Most highway speed limits you claim the drivers are ignoring were prescribed at time when cars had less power, 4-wheel drum brakes, optional seatbelt requirements, and poor crash and safety standards. The habit of speeding is less blatant disregard of "coordination laws" and more a product of an obsolete system.

If you want to bring about better cycling, start calling for bike lanes and driver education and stop criticizing necessary laws that are there for everybody's safety.

"If it's not legal for a motorcycle, it shouldn't be legal for a bicycle."

Well, it's not legal for a motorcycle to ride on a bike path... Are you saying that it should be illegal for bicycles to ride on bicycle paths? I don't think you thought about that statement before you made it.

@stradric

If you are on the same road, you should follow the same laws. It's when people think that the laws don't apply to them because of such-n-such reason that people get hurt.

Stop signs are there for safety, yes, but requiring everyone to come to a full and complete stop at all times is a coordination law.

It should be reiterated here that NO ONE is proposing that cyclists be allowed to flagrantly disregard the law and fly through intersections without a care. Yes, I know many do this and it's abhorring. What's being argued is that cyclists be allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs. If there's any cross traffic (be it pedestrian, bike, or car), they have to stop like everyone else. Otherwise they can roll through at a safe speed.

In most cases, cyclists don't ride down the middle of the lane to be jerks, but for their own safety. One of the most common causes of injury to the urban rider is a car door opening in front of them (a friend of mine broke his back this way, while going less than 10mph!). It's therefore vital to ride at least three feet from parked cars. Also, many lanes are too narrow to safely accommodate a car passing a bike. Hugging the right side of the lane can cause cars to pass at unsafe and illegal distances (the law requires giving at least three feet of space when passing any vehicle).

In my city, it is perfectly legal for me to ride my bicycle in the center of every lane as often as I like. You, as a driver, are breaking the law by passing me in a non passing zone--usually in a quite reckless manner. I move over out of COURTESY, not obligation. Maybe drivers should remember that the next time they decide to rant about the bicyclists that don't obey traffic laws.

And to Rajio, I could say the EXACT same thing about the many, many drivers who I have near collisions with constantly because of their choices not to obey traffic laws.

I do stop at stop signs, but if we are talking about all of the same laws applying to bicycles and vehicles, I will also be expecting to see changes in infrastructure and to the application of the law to reflect my right to the road--i.e., traffic lights that don't need to be triggered by vehicles, tickets to drivers who cut me off on a daily basis, etc.

Sorry afdk, but cyclists ARE allowed to take up a full lane of traffic. And like motorcyclists, they may ride two abreast in a lane (at least in NY). Read your state's driver's manual.

Also, not all stop signs are created equal. Zyzzyva- I love that word, it is the last one in the scrabble player's dictionary :-) - is right, as not all stop signs and intersections are equivalent. In most residential areas in suburbs, the stop signs, by and large, serve no safety purpose. They are put there explicitly to serve as a nuisance (this is the often the official term used). They are intended to slow down cars who would otherwise speed through side streets, endangering kids and creating undue noise. These drivers frequently do so to avoid or cut between main roads.

As cyclists neither speed (what are they odds a cyclists is exceeding the 30 mph speed limit?) nor create much noise, there is no reason for these stop signs to apply to them. In other words, cyclists should treat such signs like any other uncontrolled intersections: you slow down, look both ways, and go when it is safe to do so and you have the right of way. In other words, how people on the roads react to signs must be situational. Law can never be a complete substitute for personal responsibility.

Yes, cyclists often don't follow the rules when they are on the road. Neither do drivers. We need better education for both. I also think driving tests- the written part, not the road test- need to be a lot harder. Almost no one actually reads the driver's manual that you get with your learner's permit in NY, because it is not necessary if you just want to pass the test. And safely interacting with bicyclists should be a mandatory part of the road test. And yes, I think cyclists should need to pass a test and get licensed in order to use public roads, especially if bike traffic is going to increase as much as we treehuggers hope it will.

as a person who commutes via bicycle to and from work (for the past 2 years) I say - obey the freaking laws and drop the narcissism - to both the cyclist and driver (and pedestrian as well).

Ultimately education of all of us humans is required. In addition - there are traffic signals that do not react to the weight of my bike and me and there is a issue. It may just be that I have not been educated on the correct, legal response to the issue but it could also be that there is not a correct legal response and needs to be address for the safety of all.

Bicycles should get special privileges because they are sustainable.

There are carpool, bus, and taxi lanes. These are also special privileges for people who act sustainably.

People who whine about special privileges are just jealous-- the solution is to get off their (likely fat) butts and get on bicycles. Then you will get the same privileges.

I ride my bike a lot, on designated bike paths and on the street with the rest of traffic. There are nearly an infinite number of possible situations that can be anticipated pretty well by our narrow, but generally effective laws. My own philosophy while riding is to be hyper-vigilant; no ipod, no cel-phone, look drivers in the eye to judge their attention and intention, but the key is that I don't surprise and I don't inconvenience car-drivers. If I can see all the cross-traffic at an intersection, I'll blow through if it doesn't mean that anybody else has to slow down or deviate. So mine is a policy of accepting responsibility for my own actions; not depending on anybody else to accommodate me, and behave responsibly within the "community"; putting myself in their driver's seat and not freaking-out or pissing-off anybody in the way that I am when a cyclist suddenly appears in front of my car. The established laws don't support my actions, but my actions avoid all the same bad stuff that the laws are intended to prevent.

Bicycles should get special privileges because they are sustainable.

There are carpool, bus, and taxi lanes. These are also special privileges for people who act sustainably.

People who whine about special privileges are just jealous-- the solution is to get off their (likely fat) butts and get on bicycles. Then you will get the same privileges.

Haven't the Dutch experimented with doing away with all traffic regulations in some towns? Haven't they seen a decline in accidents after instituting this system? Didn't I read about it here at treehugger?

A couple of problems Anthony, and I am just playing the devil's advocate here. Please don't take this as a personal attack.
Firstly, all stop signs are equal. You stop at them or you are breaking the law. They are not their as a nuisance, They are their for the safely of you and of others. You contradict yourself when you say that many stop signs in neighborhoods are there as a nuisance and serve no safely purpose but in the very next sentence you say that they are there to protect children from people driving through their neighborhood to fast. The endangerment of a child sounds like a safely issue to me. All speed limits and traffic signs are there for safely purposes, not simply to annoy people.
Secondly, you say that whether or not a cyclist obeys the traffic laws such as stopping at a stop sign should be a situational consideration. Last time I checked you can't pick and choose when you feel like obeying a law. They apply at all times. If you choose to travel on our roadways in a vehicle whether it be in a car or on a bike you have to follow the rules of the road and this includes obeying all traffic signals and signs.
Next up cyclist can speed, tickets are given out every day on the college campus near my home to cyclist riding faster than the posted speed limit, I know, I have paid that ticket.
Also in my state the last time I checked the law read that if there is no bike lane then a cyclist is allowed to ride in the traffic lane. If however there is a bike lane a cyclist must use it and must be single file. Don't assume that just because you state says something different that someone else is wrong.
Finally I do agree with you in the fact that both motorist and cyclist should be tested on their knowledge of the traffic laws. If you are going to be on the streets you should be required to have an understanding of the rules of the road.

In Chicago laws have been passed that state that bicyclists must obey the same traffic laws as other street traffic. This means you can't ride on the sidewalk, go the wrong way on a one way street, or blow traffic signals. They make sense. Why would a stop sign not always be a stop sign? As a pedestrian, I have to obey the traffic lights or risk getting mown down by a car. This makes sense. I don't walk across a street against the light -even if there is no traffic. Why should bicyclists get a bye on that? I cringe every morning when I see them swerve through an intersection, against the light and then they proceed to flick off the driver that screeched to a halt so as not to hit them.

I believe if you use the road then you obey the rules. It shouldn't matter if you are driving a car, riding a motorcycle, riding a bike or being a pedestrian. Those rules are to keep people safe and courteous.
Flipside, if you are on some streets where there is no traffic do you do a full stop? No one does. Not motorists or cyclists. Pedestrians jay walk when it is safe (we hope). Most times we make judgement calls of when we can bend or break the rules because common sense dictates that there are certain times we can do it and no one is going to get injured, offended or frightened.
If an accident happens the blame will quickly lay on whomever broke a rule. If a cyclist did not wait their turn at a stop sign and they got hit, well then it should be their fault and the motorist should not be charged. If a pedestrian steps off the sidewalk without looking and doesn't give a cyclist enough time to stop, then the pedestrian should get charged.
If you made it legal for cyclists to ignore traffic signs then what happens to the motorist or pedestrian that wants to cross the intersection. Who gets the blame, or more appropriately, who is willing to take accountability for their actions.
I know Lloyd is not promoting bicyclists breaking the laws or the government changing the laws, he is just showing two sides of the coin. I guess everyone just gets irked whenever a cyclist breaks a rule that directly inconveniences a motorist and vise versa. We should just keep this article in mind for the next time we are either driving or biking.

> Cyclists are allowed to occupy a full lane of traffic.
> However it is usually not practical.
Then cyclists are breaking the law and deserve to be chastised. Riding off to the side puts you in the greater danger of being doored. Here, the farthest you are allowed to ride to the right is in the car's "right wheel track" on the road.

> If a cyclist runs a stop in a busy intersection, which I see almost every day in
> downtown chicago, there's a very real chance that a driver will slam on the
> brakes. Which is a great way to have a collision chain reaction.
This wouldn't happen if the car didn't blow through their stop sign.
We're not talking of blowing stop signs
We're speaking of cyclists treating stop signs as YIELD signs. Using their own judgement to avoid dying.

What, is this article flamebait or something?

Quoth the article:

"Coordination laws, like driving regulations--where the laws themselves have no moral content"

No, sorry, but I think it's morally wrong to drive your car above the speed limit. Or running stop signs, failing to yield, not using your turn signal, driving on the wrong side of the road, driving under the influence, and driving on the sidewalk at 90mph. Traffic laws exist for the protection of the public because cars are extremely dangerous bits of heavy equipment. Not obeying traffic laws is nothing short of evil.

Some of the Amish folks in my hometown had a habit of driving a bike like it was a car. When you are on the way to work and someone is doing 10mph in a 30 mph zone is is infuriating. Run all the stop signs you want, just stay out of the middle of the lane!

There should be no privilege allowing ANYONE to ignore traffic laws that exist for EVERYONE'S safety. If you want to encourage cycling, then give cyclists some reward that is socially positive, not a pass to be lawless and endanger themselves and others. That privilege argument is classic anti-social bullying.

The "bicycle community" has a constant concern about being seen, as it should. The biggest part of being seen is to be visible -- don't wear dark colors at night, run without lights, etc. The second part is to be PREDICTABLE. If you are visible and predictable, you are most likely to be seen. Those are parts of being seen that are in the cyclist's, not the motorist's, control. The biggest part of being predictable is following the traffic regulations, including respecting stops and reds, respecting direction of traffic lanes, where to wait, etc.

I have no problem with cyclists taking the middle of the lane when that is the safest way to ride. But when somebody rides the line between cars to cut in and then takes the lane, they are creating havoc and deserve to be ticketed. When you blow through stops, ride on the wrong side of the road, jump off curbs into the middle of moving traffic, etc, you are not being a cool environmentalist, you are being an idiot.

Everybody needs to ride peaceably, with respect and care for both others and themselves. The traffic laws exist for the safety of all of us.

Bicycles and cars are like water and oil, they just don't mix. I'd say BAN all private cars in inner cities, distribute the "leftover" lanes between buses, cyclists, and pedestrians, all of them required to stay on their own lanes.

I did a nice 35mile ride in 1:59 last night with about 600 ft of climbing thrown in and figure I used up 250 watts for those two hours for a grand total of a half a kilowatt hour - about 5 cents worth from my utility company if powered from recharged batteries. Given the rediculous relative energy consumption of all other forms of transportation, I'd like to suggest that the solution to stop signs in most urban areas is to just ban cars from the roads which were originally built for bicycles 100 years ago. For congested cities like NY, NY the whimpiest of LiOn battery systems to augment human leg power would get everyone around at break-neck speeds in cities. Let's start small. Close 20% of inner-city streets to motorized traffic, give bikes a 15ft priority zone at the front of the line at traffic lights, and take one 8ft lane on major connecting thoroughfares for bike lanes. A program to sticker cars driven by pro-bike drivers who have attended safety classes would also go a long way towards building a partnership between motorists who are freed of traffic jams and bicyclists who can get around quickly in relative safety.

I am a bike commuter, and in the city I follow the laws and ride as if I am a car. I stay in the middle of the lane so that I don't get the door prize, and so that I can be seen. I don't want a bike lane, I just want my presence in the road noticed. I often ride closer to the left side of a lane so that cars don't even think about passing illegally. As for stops, I stop just like any other car does in the city. If I am in an area with no traffic such as the country, I do the following when I see a stop:

1) Look to see if the side roads and oncoming lane need to stop
2) If no cars are there, I ride about 10mph through the stop, with the assumption that if no one is around to inconvenience or cause a safety risk, then stopping is not necessary.
3) If there is any traffic around whatsoever, I approach the stop slowly, but rarely stop. It's just like a hypermiling technique: there is no point in rushing to a stop.

I think the rules are clear here, regardless of the laws. No one should ever "blow" a stop going anywhere near full speed. No one should go through any intersection without looking in every direction to anticipate where other vehicles/peds are. It's all for courtesy and safety. I have no problem with a car slowly rolling through a stop outside of a city when there is no traffic. I never did that because I knew the risk of a ticket, but I see no other reason to make a completely legal stop in those situations. BUT if even one car, one bike or one pedestrian is approaching, I wait when I should by law, because unexpected actions on roads are what causes nearly every accident.

I consider stop signs to be yield signs for bikes, and stop lights are stop lights for everyone. When I approach a stop sign I slow down, get more upright on the handlebars, look around, and if there is no one coming then I drop down again and start accelerating through the intersection. If there is a car, then they get the right of way. But what often happens in that situation is the car just sits there, waiting for me to go through the stop sign! Partially nice because they don't want to hit me, partially not because I have to come to a complete stop and it gets awkward. Ahh the midwest...

A bike is not a pedestrian, it can't maneuver nearly as well.
A bike is not a motorcycle, it can't accelerate nearly as fast nor go as fast.
A bike is a bike, and people expect them to act like bikes.

In my experience of course. Minneapolis MN.

I really feel like the way to make everyone happy in this situation is to make it legal for bikes to treat stop signs as yield signs. Perhaps by adding small signs below them saying "Bikes Yield" or something to that extent.

Cars will be happier because now the bikes wont be breaking the law, bikes will be happier because in circumstances in which it is safe, they don't need to stop.

I know that I don't so much mind bikes not stopping as I mind them breaking the law. In the same way that I don't like it when cars stop at a red light then go straight through because there is no traffic. Sure, its entirely safe, but as a society we agree not to do it.

I think that laws need to be changed to make travel better. I don't think we should just start breaking laws because that makes travel better.

I would agree with closing more streets to make them pedestrian zones. However, bikes should WALK in those, just like they are required to do in Europe, because it isn't safe to do otherwise.

I don't think I have ever seen someone on a bicycle fully stop at a stop sign. Usually they roll through them anyway. Kind of a waste of a sign.

On roads with a speed limit of 20 or 25, I can typically go faster so I take up the lane. However, drivers OFTEN still feel the need to zoom by me making unsafe maneuvers.

Any drivers here wanna give me a good reason for doing that?