Comments on: Cyclists and stop signs: Will someone come up with a constructive solution?

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:52:39 +0000

> Let me tell you what the Idaho law has done for cyclists here in
> Boise.
>
> I’ve seen riders flying down the road approaching a stop sign where I
> have just stopped and have the right-of-way. They are expecting to
> zip right in front of me without yielding or even slowing down.
> When I don’t give them the right of way, they get upset.

Well, here’s the thing — even with the Idaho stop being law, what you’ve described is still illegal. In that situation, the cyclist is supposed to yield to you.

And it also happens in places where the Idaho stop isn’t law (i.e. it happens outside of Idaho too.)

So, I would suggest that this behavior is *not* the result of the “Idaho stop” law, and must instead come from something else.

By: Neil

Neil — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:34:00 +0000

Let me tell you what the Idaho law has done for cyclists here in Boise.

I’ve seen riders flying down the road approaching a stop sign where I have just stopped and have the right-of-way. They are expecting to zip right in front of me without yielding or even slowing down. When I don’t give them the right of way, they get upset.

In one instance, had I not paid attention and just taken my turn, a cyclist would have hit me. But I give her time to slow down and to ride around me as I was leaving the stop sign.

Why would she be upset when clearly I had the right-of-way?
That’s the way it is here in Boise (I can’t speak for all of Idaho). Cyclists I’ve seen are arrogant and feel they own the road. I’ve seen people riding two across in the middle of the road when there’s an empty bike lane. I’ve seen cyclists zip in and out of the bike lane into the street in front of me and get upset when I want to get around them. It makes me nervous!

So from what I see, it’s made them feel as though no laws apply to them and every accident is blamed on careless motorists. This is just crap. Who would want to hit someone?

Boise has really grown in the past 20 years, not the rate of Austin, but it has taken off. The state has generously provided bike lanes on almost every major road in the city. Yet I see riders on the sidewalk. One almost hit me the other day when I turned to hear what I thought was a goose but it was someone saying, “On your right!”

Maybe I’m callous. But Ive seen these laws create a biking community that feels the motorists are persecuting them and they’re all to blame for accidents when there is no enforcement of using the lanes or of the yield law.

My two cents.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:32:30 +0000

Sunny, once again, you’re arguing for one class of road users to be able to treat a sign as meaning one thing, while the rest of the road users get to treat it as a different thing.

This is very very different from sticking up a Yield sign – where every road user can do the same thing. Yield signs were put up after an intersection’s sight lines were analyzed; after traffic volumes were checked out (or known ahead of time to be trivially low); etc.

What about this is so hard for you to understand?

By: Wes Robinson

Wes Robinson — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:48:30 +0000

Sunny,
Thanks for the cite. It helps to be able to read the law. However, I still believe the FTR law that is written for cyclists is discriminatory. If you will read the two laws carefully, you will see that the one that applies to motor vehicles allows the driver to use the full right hand lane. The one written for cyclists grants no such automatic right. Again, I’m not so much upset with the way the law is written, as with the way that it is enforced throughout the country. I can give you more examples if you need it, but here are two:
http://russroca.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-just-got-ticket-wtf.html
http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz_Rt2Road.htm
The Selz case is an important one and I think every cyclist should read it. You will note that the original citation was for “impeding traffic.” However, if you will read through to the bottom, you will see that the judge seemed to believe that there was sufficient evidence to convict Selz on a FTR violation. However, since that was not the ticketed offense, the defense never was allowed to present evidence on the proper lane position.
Anyway, thanks for tracking down the motor vehicle version of the FTR law. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I would be happy with a law that required a cyclists to use the rightmost lane that leads to their destination, except when turning left, one way streets, etc., similar to the motor vehicle version.

By: sunny

sunny — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:33:15 +0000

and my favorite…544.010, “(b) If safety requires, the operator of a vehicle approaching a yield sign shall stop as provided by Subsection (c).

(c) An operator required to stop by this section shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. In the absence of a crosswalk, the operator shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. In the absence of a stop line, the operator shall stop at the place nearest the intersecting roadway where the operator has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway.”

“IF SAFETY REQUIRES”…who do they think we are, a bunch of Einsteins? We need to be told exactly what to do…we cannot make decisions…That’s not a law, oh wait, it is.

By: sunny

sunny — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:27:27 +0000

while I’m at it, here’s another little tidbit…544.004…”(b) A provision of this subtitle requiring an official traffic-control device may not be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation the device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to an ordinarily observant person. A provision of this subtitle that does not require an official traffic-control device is effective regardless of whether a device is in place.”

hmmm, an “ordinary observant person”…”ordinary” means more than 50% (one synonym of the word is average)…notice how it does NOT say, that a sign should be sufficiently legible to the dumbest 5% of us…hmmm

By: sunny

sunny — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:13:36 +0000

Wes,
545.051…(b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is:

(1) passing another vehicle; or

(2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

By: sunny

sunny — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:07:01 +0000

m1ek, why not articulate YOUR points as opposed to defining yourself simply in opposition to what others are saying?

By: sunny

sunny — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:04:00 +0000

“Because the intersection was deemed safe (by traffic engineers) for “slow-down and sometimes stop”.

so you’re contending that traffic engineers (btw, you put way too much faith in beureaucrats) have assessed EVERY 4-way intersection in town, and only the handfull where we see roundabouts were deemed “safe”…hahaha, you are so wrong…

By: M1EK

M1EK — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:45:03 +0000

Wes, are you kidding me? I don’t have time for your homework assignment, but are you unfamiliar with the signs up and down the interstate?