I’m not trying to be rheotorical but is it legal to go through a stop sign at a 3-way intersection where there’s no right turn and a bike lane present? I usually slow down to ~ 5 mph even if the intersection is clear but I see pelotons and lines of cyclists blow through some all the time at 25+ mph. It’s obvious for a 4-way intersection but is the above scenario like a yield sign for some right-hand turns at intersections? Is this legal since there’s a bike lane and no traffic to the right? I’m almost positive it’s not but just in case I’m missing something…
It may differ by state, but here in CA, to the best of my knowledge, you have to stop. Nobody does, but technically the law says that you are required to stop. If I recall correctly, the cops were starting to crack down on this here about a year ago.
Depending on State rules - but in CO a bicycle is deemed a vehicle - so going thru a stop sign is considered a moving offense.
In Idaho, cyclists can treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs. Here is the statute:
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=490070020.K
As there’s no need to yield the right of way in your 3-way scenario, it could be argued that the cyclist is free to proceed “after slowing to a reasonable speed”.
Yeah, I’m in the SF bay area and could have sworn it was illegal. It seems harmless enough, especially if there’s a bike lane, since there’s no chance of a collision. That is unless a car turns and swerves into the bike lane as the cyclist goes by. Anyway, I guess I’ll continue to stop since I’d rather not get a $200-$300 ticket…
Legal or not, it seems like a safe thing to do. You really are not crossing any lines of traffic.
BUT
I never roll a stop sign if there is ANYONE around to see it. I want to be a good steward to my cycling community. I think any reason to give cars or others reason to hate us is bad. They wont rationalize that we are being safe. They just think we have a feeling of entitlement and total disrespect for the rules of the road. So I will continue to stop.
t
Yeah, I’m in the SF bay area and could have sworn it was illegal. It seems harmless enough, especially if there’s a bike lane, since there’s no chance of a collision. That is unless a car turns and swerves into the bike lane as the cyclist goes by. Anyway, I guess I’ll continue to stop since I’d rather not get a $200-$300 ticket…
Don’t do a rolling stop at a red light in Mill Valley. That’s $400.
clm
I would have to guess the logic behind it being illegal is that most 3 way stops have crosswalks and pedestrians should expect all traffic to come to a stop. If I was out for a run and needed to cross the street at that intersection, I would hope that some crazy triathlete isn’t bombing through on his aerobars at 25 mph.
Law in Illinois is that each and every person must stop, wait, then go - and we are not a parade or funeral. But, that never happens, first guy clears the intersection and the rest follow.
Yeah I agree. Cyclists already get a bad name in some areas. I agree that it’s best to act as a good example. The areas that I were referring to in my earlier email are rather rural. There is no crosswalk or pedestrian traffic so there is little to no risk there. However, better to treat everthing the same I guess. Good stuff here…
That’s a very good point. I completely agree with you in terms of looking out for pedestrians, especially in suburban settings. The locations that I was referring to in my previous emails are in rather rural settings. Other than maybe an infrequent horse crossing there is no pedestrian traffic. Either way, it’s likely best to treat all 3-way stops the same. And, in terms of the law, the police would have to assume chances of cross traffic from pedestrians. Good point…
This statute is very surprising to me. Well, I guess when you’re riding in Idaho, you don’t have as much traffic to contend with as some more densely populated areas.