Survey: Should Cyclists Be Allowed to Go Through Stop Signs?

I say no they shouldnt have to stop as its a lot harder for a cyclist to keep stoping for every sign then for a car. To keep stopping and starting would be death to my legs. You just have to be cautious.

If a bicycle is on the street it should behave as though it were a car. This is the safest for everyone involved.

When I get my bike (very very soon hopefully), I plan on following the same laws/rules that are required of me when I drive my car, for my own safety (and maybe for the peace of mind of the drivers around me).

Other: No! If I just read that correctly, it said that a cyclist must yield to a car if a car is present. The way it is worded implies that if both come to a stop, the car has right of way over the cyclist, which is fundamentally wrong, it should be position dependent.

If it's a cyclist turning right onto a bike lane, and he or she has enough visibility to see if there is a cyclist coming, I'd say the stop sign is pointless. Turning on to a road without a bike lane on a road where cars go over 25 MPH would be dangerous, though, and so would turning left without coming to a stop at any time, in my opinion and experience biking in a suburban environment.

I agree with the last comment, the 30 pound vehicle shall not be required to yield to the 3000 pound one. I like it how it is (around here anyway): legally we have to stop, but we don't and no one cares. The cars don't anyway.

I agree with Paul - I think - in that cars should treat cyclists as though they are vehicles (much like motorcyclists) and should yield if the cyclist is in the position of having the Right Of Way.

I think that cars must always stop at stop signs and lights, whether there are others there or not. But I think slowing, checking, and proceeding if it's clear is okay for a cyclist. Cyclists weigh less, go slower, and have a much greater degree of interface with their environment than drivers in cars do.

I think they should be allowed to go through stop signs, just as long as they don't mind getting hit by cars that are following the rules.

Obeying traffic laws may be an inconvenience to cyclists, but it is important for safety reasons that all vehicles occupying the road follow the same set of rules. Someone driving a car needs to know what that person on the motorcycle or the bicycle is going to do when approaching an intersection. If there's some uncertainty as to whether the bicyclist is or is not going to stop, then it creates a dangerous situation.

It's up to the smaller vehicles to be more aware of the larger vehicles around them...perhaps not from a legal standpoint, but from a practical point of view. If a full-sized pickup goes through a stop sign and hits a cyclist, who's going to win that contest? The cyclist may have had the right-of-way, but that's going to be a small comfort once they're dead.

Bikes should follow the same rules. What if the bike runs a stop sign on a road where the perpendicular road has no sto psign and a 50mph speed limit? The bike would get creamed by the car going 50mph.

Most accidents at intersections happen when one person does not see the other approching. The idea that not seeing an oncoming vehicle while on a bicycle makes it okay to run the stop sign makes no sense. This also makes a poor example for young people riding with their parents who only obey laws when it is convenant.

In Ohio, cars are vehicles, and must obey veihilce laws. I agree completely with this. My argument, however, is that many stop sign should be replaced with yeild signs. It would be better for bikes and cars. It takes a lot of energy to start a vehicle from a complete stop (just as it does for a bike). We would use less fuel if we didn't have to stop.

I think treating stop signs as a yield is sufficient, not because it is too much work for cyclists to stop, but because the purpose of a stop sign is satisfied without a cyclist coming to a complete stop. Stop signs are there so that each vehicle has time to check that the intersection is clear before proceeding. For this, stopping is necessary when one is moving at 30-45 miles per hour. But when you are moving at only 10-15 miles per hour, you are usually able to see the intersection clearly and ascertain whether it is clear to proceed before you even pull up to the stop sign by simply slowing down slightly. By slowing down you are in a position to stop if you do see other vehicles at the intersection that have the right of way, or in a position to speed back up if you see a clear road ahead. Cyclists yielding instead of stopping still obeys the *spirit* of the law, even if it doesn't obey the letter.

I think it's a slipery slope to have different rules for different vehicle classes, unless it is clearly marked at every instance. It would be better to have bike paths on roads and give those roads right of way.

Better yet, have some bike triggered signaling. Right now, most sensed signaling doesn't seem to work on bikes, meaning that a cyclist has to wait for a car to approach before the light will turn (at certain intersections).

If the rest of the world is like the neighborhood near me, then the law won't matter as long as little kids ride bikes. I saw a girl riding on the handlebars of a bike driven by a boy trying to beat an on-coming car. I don't think that the stop sign even entered the mind of the boy.

i think it's interesting that most bikes probably go through stop signs at a slower speed than cars that "stop" at them do, at least this is my personal observation,
so i aggree with Emily above "it should behave as though it were a car...." just roll right through

How we make it moot, and switch to round-abouts.

If cyclists fly through intersections and get creamed by traffic with the right-of-way, guess who's gonna get blamed? Hint: it's not the cyclist. Sort of like when a bike goes zipping along too fast too close to cars, pops up out of nowhere & wins a "door prize" even after the driver has checked before opening the door.

In Los Angeles, every time I do stop my bike at a 4 way stop sign, all car drivers yield to me. It only takes so many repetitions of this before you learn not to pointlessly stop just to be waved across again. Strangely at a 2 way stop sign, where I do have the right of way, cars will almost always try to hurry to out before I arrive at the intersection, which means I do have to brake and wait for their vehicle to slowly accelerate through the intersection. Go figure.

It should be noted that bicycles accelerate from a stop much faster than cars do as well as stop much faster. This gives bicycles the flexibility to interact at intersections in a different manner.

In my mind an intersection is not a physical place but is an event in time between 2 or more bodies going in different directions. I have been experimenting with shifting the location of intersections in the following manner. If there is a car who has arrived at a stop stop sign perpendicular to me before me, and I am unsure whether this car will yield to me (as 99/100 cars will), I will attempt to cross the intersection behind this stopped car. That way, they can continue on their path, and I can continue on mine without having to 'intersect'. I'm fairly sure this is common practice in boats, airplanes, and other vehicles where the physical location of the intersection is not confused with the event of the intersection.

I approve of laws that formalize and acknowledge the actual behavior of people. Instead of predetermining the way that people should behave, and then having another set of informal rules for the way people actually behave. I see this all the time in civic planning where pathways are paved for pedestrians which ignore the pathways people actually travel, which are usually the most efficient and will persist as informal trails in the grass.

Since I started commuting more often by bicycle, I've been considering this question lately. My conclusion is that if bicycles want to be treated as vehicles, with the right to ride on street without danger from cars, then they should be subject to all of the same traffic laws as the other vehicles on the road. This includes licensing and registration (while cyclists don't impact the road way as much as cars, those roads don't get paved & maintained for free). Fees don't need to be as high for cyclists and there should be exemptions for kids on bike paths or residential streets.

If cyclists want to be treated as vehicles on the road then they need to act like it.

Took me a while to stop laffing.

Bike riders have been ignoring the law for some time and paying for it.

F-350 - 9,000 lbs. Bike, maybe 20 lbs.
Who do YOU think has the right of way and who will loose if they collide?

I'm sure most folks here are pro bike, but in the news in Portland Or. Today a Cyclist was charged with assult. He ran a red light, when taken to task by a driver he attacked said driver with his bike. Funny thing is the car drive is a big supporter of bikes in the city.

Three weeks ago a bike rider did not like what a bus driver did, and placed his bike in front of the bus and refused to move. He was attacked by a Tri Met passenger (who was charged)

Today I was in Long Beach when an ambulance with the lights flashing went past a guy on a bike, who started yelling at them to SLOW DOWN.
I am sure most of you are decent people, but here in the North west the Better then Thou attitude is not helping when it comes to questions like stopping at stop signs.

If car drivers want cyclists to follow the laws, then the car drivers should also actually follow the same laws.
To this point, if car drivers want cyclists to be treated as vehicles, then the cyclist should ride in the through lane as a vehicle would when a bicycle facility is not present.
Another consideration is that laws have been created favoring the use of passenger cars, or have been set up based on passenger car safety concerns. Would it also then be reasonable to have laws set up for favorable operation of bicycles with their safety concerns taken into consideration.
For my own bike commuting experience, I stop at signals when I have a red light. Partially, I do this because the intersections are typically larger than a 2 or 4 way stop. However, with all-way stop condition intersections, if I have good sight distance, it is easy to assess any safety concerns and make the crossing. If a stop controlled intersection has cars present at it, then I take my turn as a vehicle would.
Any good cyclist I think has the common sense to know that even if they are in the right, a car can smash them. I think too, many cyclists are acutely aware of the danger they are in when sharing the road with cars. This fact just makes it even more necessary to have laws and facilities which work to the cyclists benefit, just as is done with cars.

I'm in favor of allowing bikes to go through stop signs, it's kind of what I do now however I'm not just racing through it, I go down to a coast, look around first, and if there is NO car at all, I just go through... which of course now that I think about it kind of sounds a lot like what we called a 'California Stop' when I lived in washington state...

Idaho permits bicyclists to run stop signs and red lights. (Idaho Statute 49-720).

For stop signs you slow and if needed for safety, stop or yield. Otherwise it's ok to proceed through the stop sign.

For red lights, you stop first but if conditions permit, you can then run the light.

Very progresssive eh? Now extend that to automobiles and we'll really be saving some time and gas.