http://www.kval.com/news/local/41432647.html
Makes tremendous sense to me. Hope it passes and spreads.
/too bad the chick in the pic is sans helmet.
I don’t understand why we would want to run stop lights and stop signs. It just seems unsafe and pisses off cars. The only reason I can come up with is for the lights that are sensors and cannot register my carbon and alumimum bikes but that is pretty rare and I would guess a ticket would not really stick in court if a cyclist stopped a red waited and went when it is clear because of the sensor never going to give a green.
I just don’t understand this need to disregard traffic signals. We complain about all the crazy crap we see cars doing out on the roads that endangers us, then we want to be able roll through intersections.
Just my .02
t
The news story is partially incorrect; I believe the bill only allows to proceed without stopping at stop signs and flashing red lights, not stop lights. I hope it passes, and I wish it had the red light provision as well.
it is NOT safe. Being stopped is death to a cyclist. You are most vulerable. You do NOT have a chassis, bumper, frame to absorb a 10mph fender bender. This would be catastrophic for you.
Also, why clog up the traffic lanes with bikes? This takes up road space. Bikes are narrow. They can fit on the side of the road and keep moving. This is why motorcycles are allowed to travel between lanes in California.
Why act like a car when you’re not a car?
And we don’t complain about the crazy crap cars do… we complain that they have no regard for us, and about the malicious things DRIVERS do, and that’s different. You’ll get crazy crap everywhere you go in life, and you prepare for it. What you can’t prepare for is getting rear ended at a stop sign or ran down travelling in the bike lane just like you were supposed to.
Motorcycles have had lane sharing legal in most states for a long time and it pisses off motorists all the time.
I still think it’s best (read safest) to do as much as you can to NOT piss off motorists and when you meet someone with an open mind, spend the time to discuss cycling safety.
I have had more close calls than I can count. They happen all the time. Not a single one has ever happened when I was not moving. None. Not a single close call has happened while I was sitting at a red light or stop sign. I am not saying it never will, but certainly not a thing I worry much about. And I worry a lot about getting hit all the time.
it is NOT safe. Being stopped is death to a cyclist. You are most vulerable. You do NOT have a chassis, bumper, frame to absorb a 10mph fender bender. This would be catastrophic for you.
huh?? you aren’t actually being serious here are you? How many accidents happen involving a stopped cyclist? While I haven’t seen any data to directly answer that, a cursory look at the available data–and some common sense–says, very, very few.
How many cyclists get hit while moving through intersections?? The available data indicates ‘many’.
What you can’t prepare for is getting rear ended at a stop sign or ran down travelling in the bike lane just like you were supposed to.
there's not a lot of hard data on bike/car accidents, but my intuition, experience and parsing through what data *is* available leads me to believe that being rear ended while stopped at a stop sign is about the last thing one needs to worry about--and I say this as someone who was once rear ended at a stop sign. I'd be more concerned about what happens riding though the intersection.
I think this new legislation is great for sensible cyclists like (hopefully) most of the people on this board. That said, I think it’s a horrible idea, since it will make the average knucklehead feel even more entitled when blowing through stop signs.
OK, you make good points too. I’ll I’m saying is you need to be in control of your own destiny out there. Ride like a fighter pilot… a target on your back but gun sights on the front.
http://www.kval.com/news/local/41432647.html
Makes tremendous sense to me. Hope it passes and spreads.
/too bad the chick in the pic is sans helmet.
Stop signs are generally pointless anyway (4 ways in particular)… most countries outside North America manage perfectly well with mainly yield signs. I shudder to think of the energy cost of reacclerating cars after all the unecessary stopping.
I’m currently preparing a platform to stand in for election in Ontario to abolish stop signs, pedestrian priority at intersections, the LCBO, and the need for policemen to be on duty everytime someone digs up the road. Or I could just be turning into a grumpy old man.
I think it’s a STUPID idea…If we start having rules different for cyclists and drivers on roads where we are allowed, we lose all chance to one day be treated equally, and get respect from drivers.
http://www.kval.com/news/local/41432647.html
Makes tremendous sense to me. Hope it passes and spreads.
It’s a stupid idea. It’s a band-aid on top of the wrong problem.
The real problem is the proliferation of stop signs for reasons other than allocating right of way. It’s far cheaper for a city or county to install a stop sign than to re-engineer the roadway to make it safer so it has become the first choice for almost any traffic problem no matter its underlying cause.
The worst case is to use 4-way stop signs every block as a way to calm traffic through residential neighborhoods, but the second worst case is all-way stop signs protecting a traffic circle. In the latter case, yield signs are more appropriate. In the former case, stop signs have been installed to keep cars from going 40mph through a residential neighborhood – not to prevent bikes from going 12mph through that neighborhood. Cyclists can tell the difference between a stop sign used for traffic calming and stop signs used to protect right-of-way on a busy street.
The real solution is not to install stop signs whenever and wherever anyone complains about car traffic.
The real solution is not to install stop signs whenever and wherever anyone complains about car traffic.
Yay to that.
I like this idea. Stop signs are a suggestion to cyclists.
Roads are meant for traffic to flow and traffic doesn’t only mean cars.
Another thing I don’t like about this law is that it seems to make any accident the fault of the cyclist if they run the sign. I think it is generally bad to open ourselves up to more liability.
t
What makes you think that if you have a stop sign, come to a complete stop, enter an intersection and cause an accident that you don’t have liability now?
I agree with the post above, the problem is stop signs every block. It used to be in Portland residential areas there were almost no stop signs. Now, every other block has a stop sign. Cars were going too fast through neighborhoods and not slowing at intersections. Now, every other block on your bike you are supposed to stop. I say supposed to because nobody comes to a complete stop on their bike in these residential areas. Why not be able to legally slow to 5-8 m.p.h. then continue? I can stop in less than 10ft when traveling 8 mph and I can hear a car coming from a block away in a residential area.
What makes you think that if you have a stop sign, come to a complete stop, enter an intersection and cause an accident that you don’t have liability now?
I agree with the post above, the problem is stop signs every block. It used to be in Portland residential areas there were almost no stop signs. Now, every other block has a stop sign. Cars were going too fast through neighborhoods and not slowing at intersections. Now, every other block on your bike you are supposed to stop. I say supposed to because nobody comes to a complete stop on their bike in these residential areas. Why not be able to legally slow to 5-8 m.p.h. then continue? I can stop in less than 10ft when traveling 8 mph and I can hear a car coming from a block away in a residential area.
well, I think Robert’s point is that it’s a band-aide solution to that problem, and, IMO, will have some unfortunate unintended consequences, those being the following:
-it will brand bikes in the eyes of drivers as being ‘less than cars’ (even more than they are already!), since they have ‘special rules’
-it will lead to stinky hippies running through intersections where stopping really IS a necessity (even more than they do already), and now doing so with an even greater sense of entitlement
The real solution to the problem is to do it the way most of Seattle has done it–traffic circles versus stop signs everywhere. These pretty much rule, since they slow drivers down to the same (or slower) speed than a cyclist, and as a cyclist you just have to slow down enough to check out the intersection.
I really can’t imaging that they’re really much more expensive than stop signs (though removing stop signs and replacing w/traffic circles would obviously be expensive). They were installed at both ends of my block since moving into my house. The city puts in the concrete rounder (4 or 6 preformed concrete arches) and dumps some dirt, and the residents on the block maintain the plantings in the roundabout. It seems to work out pretty well.
I agree.
Traffic circles are used successfully throughout Europe where cyclists and cars manage to co-exist somewhat peacefully.
It’s all about establishing appropriate right of way laws.
I believe it’s only legal in the US in the state of California…?
Good luck in your election.
C party?
If you have ever lived in Portland you know that the hippster, fixed-gear riding, no helmet wearing cyclist do not stop at stop signs anyways!