Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Idaho Stop For California??
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for the link

Every discussion we have locally with drivers about bike safety inevitably ends with "well cyclists never stop at stop signs."
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks, Neal. Love the Idaho stop.

Not so sure about Sec. 1 d. Requiring a rider to continuously signal for 100 ft before a turn seems unsafe to me. While we can easily ride with one hand off the bars, it's no high on my priority list when a vehicle is close by.

Virginia is not the greatest when it comes to cycling laws, but we aren't required to signal when we believe it isn't safe to do so.
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Looks like you can be busted for drunk bicycle riding. The other thing is I wonder if any bike riders would signal. I have never seen one do so.


They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [len] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I had a friend who got a BUI - the week after getting a DUI. This was like 15 years ago, so drunk riding isn't new.

Also on the signaling, the next part specifically mentions 'unless the hand is needed to control the bike', so I don't see an issue with not signaling when you are right next to cars (or more relevant now, when you need both hands to swerve around potholes and busted asphalt)
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [Jwizzle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The hand signal is a non-issue. The bill in pertinent part reads:

"
A person operating a bicycle pursuant to this section shall continuously signal an intention to turn right or left during the last 100 feet traveled before the turn, provided that a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand is needed to control or operate the bicycle."

In every case the hand will be needed to control or operate the bicycle up to and through the intersection.


Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [ludlaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Makes you wonder why they put it in the bill. You need to signal if there is no one around to see you signal. But if cars are around who would benefit from seeing your intentions feel free not to signal. Illogical.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
100 feet is too long... cut that down to 30ft and there is no chance a following vehicle may not notice that the rider intends to turn..as he also may take a position in the lane that is indicative of his/her intentions......

If a car is parallel to you, drivers can't see your signal , regardless of for how long you are signaling.

Otherwise. this is currently done already with great success and will go smoothly, if there isn't a donut-starved cop around......




Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'd like to see the text of the law specifically mandate yielding to pedestrians as a point of emphasis, even if that is covered by "right of way."
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [ludlaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ludlaw wrote:
The hand signal is a non-issue. The bill in pertinent part reads:

"
A person operating a bicycle pursuant to this section shall continuously signal an intention to turn right or left during the last 100 feet traveled before the turn, provided that a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand is needed to control or operate the bicycle."

In every case the hand will be needed to control or operate the bicycle up to and through the intersection.


Thanks. I must have skipped right over that (very obvious) part. Perhaps I'm too old to ride any more...
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [FatandSlow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hello FatandSlow and All,

Here is some more info on bike legislation .... it will be interesting to see how the California Highway Patrol weighs in .... and what revisions may be made .... and if it can get signed into law..

http://cal.streetsblog.org/...-for-bicycle-riders/

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My reservation is that many cyclists cannot handle the responsibility of "slowing to a reasonable speed".
Give them 5mph- and they will take 10-
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [ChrisM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Living in Boise I can tell you the Idaho stop is indeed most awesome, but people still yell at us for riding through stop signs. God forbid if we ride through a red (allowed, after stopping and making sure no cars are coming).

Riding in other places becomes challenging, because we are so used to the Idaho laws, we forget not every place is so bike friendly.
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [bootsie_cat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hello bootsie_cat and All,

We had a cat named Bootsie .... no foolin' .... white 'boots' fur on all 4 feet ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Most studies show the procedure is safer than a full stop .... and I see it has spread to some of Colorado.

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [sto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sto wrote:
Living in Boise I can tell you the Idaho stop is indeed most awesome, but people still yell at us for riding through stop signs. God forbid if we ride through a red (allowed, after stopping and making sure no cars are coming).

Riding in other places becomes challenging, because we are so used to the Idaho laws, we forget not every place is so bike friendly.

I've no doubt even if it passes we still hear "But cyclists never stop!!!!!!"

Our local community is going through quite the battle at the moment between cars and bikes. It's getting overblown by the extreme on both sides. And everyone says drivers in the community (Palos Verdes, Ca) are horrible, out to kill us, etc. I usually ride solo or in small groups, and I make a concerted effort to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and always when there is cross traffic in the area. On most occasions, after I stop and even though the driver has the right of way as they got there first, they wave me through. Otherwise, I unclip and stop and wait (I can't track stand anyway). There will always be a hole drivers and a hole cyclists.

I just find that a little courtesy and common sense goes a helluva long way.
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I also had a cat named Bootsie- hence my handle.
On my drive home not 5 minutes ago I saw a woman on a bike (probably mid 40's) run 2 stone signs at pretty much full speed.
Saw another older guy do the same thing.

So a lot of people don't respect the current laws (full stop).

My guess is that an Idaho stop law will result in more stringent enforcement of the laws as they apply to bikes.

I think there are too many riders out there that do not realize that their actions shape the opinions of the non-cycling public about cyclists. Hence the "cyclists are assholes" that we often hear.
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [bootsie_cat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hello bootsie_cat and All,

Recent developments in Colorado ...

Similar 'Idaho Stop' law proposed in Colorado fails.

http://www.denverpost.com/...top-signs-bill-dies/

Excerpt:

"After a Senate committee heard two hours of arguments much like those above, Colorado law will continue to require cyclists to obey red lights and stop signs. And, much to the annoyance of many motorists, a lot of cyclists will continue to ignore them."

http://bikeleague.org/...niversity-idaho-stop


Excerpt:

"WHO HAS THEM?

"Idaho is the only state that has both a stop as yield rule and a red light exception that allows a cyclist to proceed through a red light after yielding.

Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin allow bicyclists to proceed through an inoperative and/or malfunctioning light after either a specified period of time or a reasonable period of time.

South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin allow cyclists to proceed through a red light after either a specified period of time or a reasonable period of time.

Tennessee and Wisconsin qualify their laws in unique ways. Tennessee requires that the intersection actually be controlled by a vehicle detection device. Wisconsin requires that the bicyclist have a reasonable belief that the intersection is controlled by a vehicle detection device. Under either law, a cyclist should take extra care to ensure that they can proceed through the intersection and should familiarize themselves with common vehicle detection devices.

Utah's law only applies to persons age 16 or older and will sunset in July 2014.

Washington State has a law that requires signals to be adjusted to routinely and reliably detect bicycles. However, there is no law that allows a bicyclist to proceed through a signal that fails to detect a bicycle or otherwise does not change for a specified or reasonable period of time."

Steve Tilford notes:
http://stevetilford.com/.../rolling-stop-signs/

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster
Quote Reply
Re: Idaho Stop For California?? [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interesting to hear about all the different state's laws. I've never actually found a traffic signal in Washington that can detect me though, apparently they forgot about that part of the law.
Quote Reply