The Dish takes on the Idaho Stop: Everybody Do The Idaho Stop
Idaho’s rule is pretty straightforward. If a cyclist approaches a stop sign, he or she needs to slow down and look for traffic. If there’s already a pedestrian, car, or another bike there, then the other vehicle has the right of way. If there’s no traffic, however, the cyclist can slowly proceed. Basically, for bikers, a stop sign is a yield sign.
If a cyclist approaches a red light, meanwhile, he or she needs to stop fully. Again, if there’s any oncoming traffic or a pedestrian, it has the right of way. If there’s not, the cyclist can proceed cautiously through the intersection. Put simply, red light is a stop sign.
This doesn’t mean that a cyclist is allowed to blast through an intersection at full speed — which is dangerous for pedestrians, the cyclist, and pretty much everyone involved. This isn’t allowed in Idaho, and it’s a terrible idea everywhere.
Agreed on all counts. As usual, Dan Savage is on my side:
A cop stopped me in the U-District a few years ago after I failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.
There was no traffic coming in either direction—and I had slowed down (my days of bombing through intersections are over). But the cop explained as he wrote me a ticket that I had to apply my brakes and come to a complete stop, take one foot off a pedal, and put that foot on the ground. That’s a legal stop. I replied: That would be like telling a driver he had to put his car in park at a stop sign, take the keys out of the ignition, hold them out the window and jangle them. He handed me the ticket.
I’ve continued to roll through stop signs.
Drum is also on board:
I’m convinced. This actually sounds like a perfectly sensible rule to me. Blowing through intersections at top speed is obviously dumb, and you deserve every ticket you get if you do it. But bicycles are a lot slower than cars; a lot less dangerous than cars; and have a way better field of vision than cars. Allowing them to slow down but not stop for stop signs when no one is around makes perfect sense.
.
Another point worth making – as a rusty, wobbly cyclist I am at my most dangerous when starting up from a complete stop (watch me zig zag through an intersection as I try to get going). It’s in _everyone’s_ best interest to avoid unnecessary complete, foot-down stops.
The question is – is there some way to sell Idaho stops in a way that avoids drivers thinking cyclists are ‘getting away with something’? I think that’s where some of the backlash comes from. Clearly Idaho stops are a rational, proven thing – and yet most places still require full and complete stops – how do we get over this?
I think we need to differentiate between single cyclists, and the “weekend pelletons” that we see on Saturday/Sunday mornings. These guys blow through pedestrian crosswalks (with pedestrians waiting, and cars already stopped) at full speed, with no regard to anyone. And, when you say “Hey, Stop!”, they give you the “over the shoulder finger”.
These Idaho interpretations make sense, but why not apply them to small cars or e-cars or any car, too ? Many red lights are unnecessary, as are many stop signs, especially in light traffic. Ie what makes sense during rush hour ( red light, stop sign) makes no sense at midnight with virtually no traffic around.
Different rules make sense because cyclists have so much more situational awareness. They can see and hear things that car drivers behind windscreens and A-pillars cannot. A car driver needs to stop to get the same situational awareness that a cyclist can get just from slowing down. Because I cycle all the time and rarely drive a car, I actually find the cramped vision of the windscreen unnerving. Small cars have the same vision limitations that bigger cars have so there is no point relaxing the rules for them.
You sell this by selling effective equivalence not just formal equivalence. If we are going to have truly the same rules for the same roads, then car drivers ought to be wearing helmets just like the cyclists do. I think that would quickly drive home the point that different rules are required for different situations.
makes sense. Thank you. So, what can a city like Vancouver do here where much of this Idaho approach is done already ?
Advocate for rationalization of our current BC motor vehicle act, which doesn’t much acknowledge non-motor vehicles.
I could not disagree more, and I will actively lobby against cyclists being able to roll through stop signs. Rolling through a stop sign is as dangerous for a cyclist as it is for a motorist; consequently it is illegal and should remain so. The expectation for drivers is that all traffic of all types will come to a complete stop at a stop sign, allowing the driver with the right of way to proceed unimpeded. Allowing cyclists, or anyone, not to come to a complete stop would require through traffic to have to guess whether a rolling cyclist is going to proceed through an intersection or not. It is illogical and dangerous to expect drivers to second-guess the intentions of a rolling cyclist and still be held legally accountable for hitting one. “Stop” means just that — STOP, and it means the same for all types of traffic. Any alteration to that rule is a slippery slope that is not equitable, and, more importantly, exceedingly dangerous.
As implemented in Idaho, the data shows it isn’t dangerous. And through traffic isn’t impacted, since the presence of through traffic at an intersection means that the option of a rolling stop doesn’t apply.
Jeff, tell that to cyclists. What applies and what is done are two different things.
We’re talking about the law, not the law breakers. I can only speak for myself, as a cyclist, and not all cyclists. If there is no cross traffic and I roll a stop sign at low speed, after checking that both directions are clear, then I believe I am safer since I am in the intersection (and the potential path of any traffic) for less elapsed time. If I get a ticket, fine, no argument, I broke the law. But at the same time, it is a dumb law. We should change it.
This has nothing to do with running red lights at any time, or stop signs at speed. That is just ridiculous.
I don’t think equity applies either. If it was equitable, car drivers would have helmets. And they wouldn’t be presumed innocent in bicycle/vehicle collisions. Different vehicle types require different approaches. Bicycle operation is currently governed by the Motor Vehicle Act. That doesn’t make sense.
Yes, the only way a rolling stop would work is if the cyclist bears all risk and responsibility for any accidents caused by he or she entering the intersection without stopping.
If “there is no one around” – no problem.
If there are other users around, the rules of the road apply.
I seem to recall the Mayor almost being hit by a bus for failing to stop.
And Geoff Meggs actually being hit after failing to stop.
Yes, Guest, some people, unfortunately, have to learn the hard way.
“If “there is no one around” – no problem.
If there are other users around, the rules of the road apply”
That is pretty much what the Idaho law says. All red lights require a stop, but you can then proceed on a bike if the road is empty of cross traffic. Makes sense, because bikes often don’t trip the sensor and you can end up waiting several light cycles for a car to come along.. Stop signs require a full stop if there is any cross traffic. If there is no one around, check both ways and proceed with caution, full stop not required. What it does is formalize what makes sense and what many bicyclists are safely doing today.
Jeff, it is simply not a good analogy to suggest that motorists need to wear helmets; motorists have the car’s frame and a seatbelt to protect them from impact, but cyclists have nothing without a helmet. Further, the fact is that many cyclists simply do not follow the law, so it is fiction to expect that cyclists will voluntarily stop for through traffic. And, as you well know, there is insufficient enforcement of the rules for cyclists, so leaving up to the police to require cyclists to adhere to traffic law is bogus. Again, “STOP” means “STOP,” not “GO.” What you do or do not do has nothing to do with what others do or do not do, when given the choice.
“it is simply not a good analogy to suggest that motorists need to wear helmets; motorists have the car’s frame and a seatbelt to protect them from impact, but cyclists have nothing without a helmet”
Agreed. That was my point, that the goal shouldn’t be to try and treat both modes of transportation the same. Equity shouldn’t be the goal, at the expense of safety.
Yes, there are cyclists who break the law. They should be ticketed. But the existence of those cyclists doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to design traffic regulations that work. We don’t eliminate all speed limits for vehicles because some drivers ignore them. We still require vehicles to stop at a red light before turning right, even though most don’t, and there is rarely any enforcement. Better to have the law than to throw in the towel.
Jeff, why doesn’t requiring cyclists to stop at stop signs work? You seem to be suggesting that the current law to this effect does not work. Surely, requiring everyone, regardless of mode of transportation, to stop before proceeding through a crossroad or intersection is the best way to prevent collisions and death or injury. Not wanting to stop or not wanting to dismount are hardly good reasons for cyclists not to do so. As a motorist, I stop at red lights before making a right turn as I know it is the law and is for safety. I disagree with you that “most don’t.” This has not been my observation or experience. Further, you seem to be arguing that breaking the law is good reason not to have the law in the first place; with that logic, you are advocating that crime should just be accepted and not prevented or punished.
Susan, the current law doesn’t work because responsible cyclists routinely break it. It doesn’t make sense. Cyclists breaking it don’t do so to be unsafe, they do so to be safer. It isn’t driven by not wanting to stop, it is driven by wanting to be safer. We aren’t talking about blowing through stop signs (or red lights) here, as that is not part of the Idaho stop law (lets go ahead and aggressively ticket those riders and motorists), but about proceeding through a stop sign once having slowed and then ensuring that there is no cross traffic to interfere with. The current law is designed for motor vehicles, not for bicycles. It may be counterintuitive, but stopping isn’t always safer. Getting through the intersection more quickly (once having ensured there is no cross traffic) is safer, due to the reduced exposure time and avoidance of the stop/start cycle. Bicycles don’t fall over when moving, they fall over when stopped. Most cyclists have much more awareness of other traffic than motor vehicles due to more ability to better see and hear other vehicles (and most of us have an interest in self-preservation). And making cycling easier encourages more cycling, which makes all cyclists safer (reference the studies on safety in numbers).
The safety statistics from Idaho (pre and post implementation in 1982) provide a good baseline to back the above up.
The biggest challenge to implementation is that many motorists will think that cyclists are “getting away with something”. It is similar to the green bike boxes that have been painted on many intersections. They are there because it is safer for bicycles to be in front of stopped vehicles, and thus more visible. But sometimes when a bicycle pulls into a painted bike box, and uses them as designed, motorists think you are “jumping the queue” and some try to block bicycles out, or honk and gesture to go behind them. If they don’t do that, they wait until the light turns, and roar past, swerving in front of the bikes that took their front row spot. This comes down to a bicycles vs cars mindset, which Gordon touches on in his subsequent post here:
http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/the-giant-can-of-worms-that-is-cycling-vs-motorists/
Finally, if we had a local version of this Idaho law, police would have more time to focus on the dangerous operators (those cyclists and motorists blowing through lights, turning right on red without stopping, and bikes riding on sidewalks where not permitted). We could spend enforcement resources on stopping the actions that are actually risky, not those that are just perceived to be risky.
Jeff, regarding police enforcement: don’t get me started. What enforcement? The last time that I was stopped by a police officer for a supposed traffic violation was many years ago, when I had eased out after coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, and then shifted immediately into the left lane rather than the inside right lane because the police officer had his bike parked in the middle of the right lane, blocking anyone’s access. He pulled me over for “blowing through the stop sign,” which I did not do, and for “entering the outside lane,” when I had no choice but to do so. Only when I asked for the officer’s badge number and informed him that I would be fighting his false accusations in traffic court did he say, “Oh, well, this is just a warning, not a ticket.”
Enforcement works only when it is conducted by people with some education and training, including critical thinking skills, and is performed regularly and consistently. Vancouver’s police force and its traffic enforcement is categorically embarrassing.
Jeff, I understand everything you are saying; I comprehend the cyclists’ argument in favour of the convenience to them of the rolling stop, and cyclists may, indeed, view their rolling stops as safer for them. But, we do not have just a one-sided argument here; the reality is that motorists are on the road too, and they have the greater responsibility (morally and legally) not to hit a cyclist. If cyclists are not required to come to a full stop at a stop sign, motorists will be driving on egg shells at all times, not knowing when/if a cyclist is going to dart out from a side street. You can say that cyclists won’t do that, but many do it now even with the full stop regulation. If you toss out the full stop completely, you are creating a slippery slope such that more cyclists will adopt a false sense of entitlement to dart out anywhere and everywhere. And, motorists will expect this to happen, causing them to slow down unnecessarily, which is a hazard. Unless you want to advocate in conjunction with a rolling stop allowance being implemented that cyclists, and not motorists, will be held 100% responsible in a collision with a car at a cross street or intersection, it is simply unfair to motorists to give cyclists carte blanche mobility at stop signs, not to mention the purely obvious irony of not having to STOP at STOP signs. While we are on the subject of cyclist responsibility, dare I also bring up licensing, lights, bells and helmets?
Actually, pedestrians are on the road as well. We need to have laws and regulations that consider the differences between various road users, not a one size fits all approach.
The Idaho stop law doesn’t come into play if a motorist or cyclist on the main road is in the intersection, because that motorist or cyclist has the right of way. The full stop doesn’t get thrown out completely, it is put aside for a stop sign where there is no cross traffic. That’s it. There is no carte blanche.
You can bring up licensing, but it probably deserves its own thread, given the high cost of implementation and lack of any value. How is it working for all the bicycle couriers, who have licenses? Lights and bells, fine. Helmets? Another topic worthy of its own thread. Probably worth dividing into the value of helmets (limited, but quantifiable) as opposed to the value of helmet laws (a negative according to several studies). But what do any of the above have to do with stop signs?
If we really want to get it going, we should discuss a vulnerable road user law that holds motorists accountable for injuries to all classes of vulnerable road users, starting with pedestrians and cyclists. No more assumed innocence. No more $50 tickets, if that, after a cyclist or pedestrian is killed.
Jeff,
Helmets, licensing, etc. don’t have anything to do with stop signs, and yes, I agree that each needs a separate thread. However, I do not agree that motorists should be held responsible in all clashes with pedestrians or cyclists; to be equitable, all users need to follow rules of the road, and those who do not should be punished, regardless of perceived vulnerability.