I found this video today supporting a bill in the Oregon legislature to legalize rolling stops for cyclists. Under this law, cyclists would be able to treat stop signs as yield signs only being required to come to a complete stop when they must yield the right of way. This legalizes what the vast majority of cyclists already do which is avoid the extra time and effort of stopping when no cars are present. Importantly, the law also increases the fine when cyclists disregard yielding the right of way punishing those that ride hazardously.
This law has been on the books in Idaho for 27 years without any spike in traffic accidents or fatalities and just seems like common sense. Should Austin and Texas do the same?
on Apr 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
We need this law. As mentioned, its the way nearly everybody rides already. In addition, rolling thru stop signs is used as an excuse by motorists to treat us poorly, even though it doesn’t have any bearing on safety.
On the other hand, I observed two cyclists zipping (17-18mph) thru stoplights downtown, in situations where I don’t think they had the time to really ensure it was safe to do so. Maybe they could see over the cars on either side of them… I’d sure feel terrible if I hit them while I was driving, and probably even worse (but non-fatal) if I was riding my bike.
Unfortunately, the us-them mentality makes them the representatives for all of us.
on Apr 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Idaho’s urban areas are small and more like our rural areas. Bad idea.
on Apr 18th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Good idea, and the reality of every day riding in this city. Plus Idaho, believe it or not, does have cities.
on Apr 18th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Hasn’t some other state enacted this law? I believe Idaho also has a red light “stop and go if clear” law for cyclists.
on Apr 20th, 2009 at 9:46 am
I think this is a great idea, and have brought it up many times before. Unfortunately we can’t enact it at the city level. We need a group like the Texas Bicycle Coalition to take it up. My guess, unfortunately, is that this may be too controversial for them. And ACA most likely won’t touch it. I was very disappointed when ACA members attending the Art Acevedo meeting agreed with his statement that cyclists should move out of the road when cars approach from behind “for our own safety”. I don’t think ACA caters to commuters, it is more for recreational riders that don’t face the same issues we do. And if Oregon passes this law, it will invalidate the “Idaho is a rural state” argument M1EK uses (although I know most the comments he makes are just to get a reaction, he hasn’t made a positive contribution in some time now).
on Apr 21st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Allen, screw you. How’s that for positive?
I believe that the best thing for cyclists to get respect to be treated as legitimate road users is to behave as responsible road users. The problem with this law is that motorists won’t understand it – they’ll just see even more cyclists running stop signs than they see today.
If you want a positive change, stop supporting neighborhood groups who try to use stop signs as traffic calming on bike routes like Harris Blvd. Get more yield signs instead — we still have them in a few places in Austin, amazingly enough.
on Apr 21st, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Well, I can’t really express myself like I’d want about the proliferation of stop signs. In 5 years, there will be a stop sign on every corner, everywhere. Once one appears, they never go away. Even the stop sign on (I think) Nueces and 23rd st. was not removed when 23rd was blocked off from Guadalupe for the vendors. Too many cars – I can’t wait for gasoline to go away. Since the world’s production of oil has peaked, it won’t be too many years before we discover we should have done something about public transportation after all. I am sure, though, even with 20% of the traffic we have now, we’ll keep all the @#&*%$! stop signs.