Jan Heine on riding through red lights

[fiamme red]

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/red-lights-and-the-idaho-experiment/

...My experiment suggests that adopting the “Idaho Stop” everywhere would pose few risks and complications. It would make traffic flow more smoothly. It would provide rules that reflect actual cyclist behavior. And my experience in Seattle shows that even in a city whose citizens are known for policing each other, few people mind if cyclists ride responsibly, but don’t wait at empty intersections...

As for me, my experiment is over, and I’ll now return to abiding the law. I’ll try to wait at every red light and stop at stop signs. I’ll plan some extra time during my commutes for this. And I’ll hope that our traffic laws will follow Idaho’s example soon and “legalized actual traffic behavior.”

[vav]

It wont work. It requires common sense and courtesy :cool:

[MattTuck]

Three things.

1. I think it is a slippery slope to legalize road user behavior for the sake of convenience. Perhaps we should start upping the speed limits on roads by 5 mph since that is how fast people actually drive.

2. There are some stop lights that I encounter occasionally that are not triggered to change by a cyclist. I do stop at them, and when it is clear, I ride through them. I think there is already a rule for this.

3. Just come to a stop at a stop sign. It takes one second to stop and then keep going. I'd rather have one set of road rules applied equally to all road users than have a special set for cyclists that further exacerbates driver/cyclist animosity.

[fiamme red]

My observation: almost all cyclists who think that every stop light should be obeyed don't live in a big city, where traffic lights are much more frequent.

[eddief]

look both ways before you cross the street. Of course that required a momentary stop when on foot. On a bike you can more or less stop / track stand to look both ways before rolling onward. My rule is if it is safe, seems like no one will give a crap, and the law is not in site...go for it. I have buds in the local club who bristle at this approach. Fortunately or unfortunately, they had a different mom.

[Mzilliox]

don't be an idiot. follow the laws, its simply for your safety. if you don't like the lights on your route, change your route. cyclists who don't follow rules then get angry at cars for doing things cars always do bum me out. its foolish and self centered. life is not meant to be so difficult.

[mg2ride]

I never knew there was a name for it ("Idaho Stop") but it is what I have always done and will always do both riding by myself or leading a group.

Other can choose to stop at every stop sign if they want. I will take the risk (safety and legal) and clear myself out of intersections as quickly as I safely can.

[fuzzalow]

Idaho Stopmakes perfect sense to me. The fact that it was critiqued as requiring greater discretion than current For-Automobile traffic regulations is spurious as a cyclist always bears the brunt and consequence of being flesh & bone in a internal combustion sheet-metal world. If you don't get it right, you wind up dead.

As was already brought out in the hipster u-lock thread, IMO motorists don't know anything about even what is legal for them to do on the road. So for them to observe bicyclists operate in a slightly different legal definition will only fuel their outrage from their misinterpretation as scofflaw bicyclist behavior.

It will be a image and PR challenge for drivers to accept what they will see as bicyclists skirting traffic regulations they must obey. Which will engender their false interpretation as bicyclists contempt of the law so why should they obey these laws when bicyclists don't either. And so begins the escalation of stupidity and a race to the bottom of the "FU too" cesspool.

People get behind the wheel and they become non-thinking, emotionally volatile idiots. Because car culture has taught them that the car is not a vehicle traversing public, shared common space in a taxpayer funded roadway but rather is a extension and expression of personal property and personal space. As such the behavior in a car is not constrained by etiquette in a public sphere but by response and outrage as though insulted in the living room of one's own home. Hence the omnipresent middle finger as the preferred mode of greeting and response. This attitude in concert with little to no driving skill or awareness is a lethal combination. Add to this mobile, smartphone distractions and it make a bicyclist's threat profile both numerous and random.

Be careful out there.

[MattTuck]

My observation: almost all cyclists who think that every stop light should be obeyed don't live in a big city, where traffic lights are much more frequent.

That's probably true. But there are also many drivers who would rather there not be so many stop lights in those cities. They're an inconvenience to everyone. "The rules shouldn't apply to us because we're being inconvenienced more than the next guy" isn't a persuasive argument.

[oldpotatoe]

Would aid traffic flow, no traffic, just run it. A few accidents here and there, 'worth' it, no??

Dum...the teeny number of cyclists have no meaningful effect on traffic flow. It just perpetuates this 'entitled', special attitude shown cuz you happen to be on a bicycle. Follow them all or none. Be a vehicle or not.

[christian]

Because car culture has taught them that the car is not a vehicle traversing public, shared common space in a taxpayer funded roadway but rather is a extension and expression of personal property and personal space. As such the behavior in a car is not constrained by etiquette in a public sphere but by response and outrage as though insulted in the living room of one's own home. Hence the omnipresent middle finger as the preferred mode of greeting and response.Wonderful summation. I often wonder if more sound-isolated cars make this phenomenon even worse. It would be an interesting experiment to ask drivers of similar cars to drive a month with the windows up vs. the windows down in in-town traffic, and see whether their instances of road rage etc. differ.

[Dead Man]

Would aid traffic flow, no traffic, just run it. A few accidents here and there, 'worth' it, no??

Dum...the teeny number of cyclists have no meaningful effect on traffic flow. It just perpetuates this 'entitled', special attitude shown cuz you happen to be on a bicycle. Follow them all or none. Be a vehicle or not.

Then get rid of bike lanes, bike paths, and bike signals, and other separate laws pertaining to bikes. I'm not even allowed to use the lane, but I'm still supposed to follow the laws and traffic control devices of the lane?

Fact is: we're not the same, we do have different laws, we can't be treated exactly the same.

Here in Oregon, the state senate just passed a bill to legalize motorcycles and bikes proceeding through red lights if the signal doesn't change in "one full cycle." Why? Because we're not cars - we don't reliably trip the signal sensors. How can we be held to the same standard when we can't even get the light to change? I've sat at signals waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting.... carbon rims don't help. Once this bill becomes law, I can just use that wonderful squishy organ in my skull instead, when the light sensor obviously isn't picking me up.

[fuzzalow]

Would aid traffic flow, no traffic, just run it. A few accidents here and there, 'worth' it, no??

Dum...the teeny number of cyclists have no meaningful effect on traffic flow. It just perpetuates this 'entitled', special attitude shown cuz you happen to be on a bicycle. Follow them all or none. Be a vehicle or not.

I agree with this.

My first post earlier was nuanced but the conclusion is that this Idaho Stop thing will never work in the real world. As much as I like it and it makes sense to the reality of how a bicycle uses the roadway and how a bicycle actually really fits in the overall scheme of traffic flow.

But our survivable and peaceful coexistence with every imbecile motorist out there that can kill you with a moments inattention means that whatever strategy is used to bring bicycles into the mainstream, it cannot happen with a strategy that demands too much of the typical motor vehicle operator. They are not capable. They can't and won't be bothered. Sad but true.

So for Idaho Stop or ANYTHING that will look different from what a bicyclist and a motorist must obey on a public roadway - fugeddaboudit!

[Seramount]

when traffic is present, I do one thing.

when it's a completely empty intersection, it's a different story...

[David Kirk]

Would aid traffic flow, no traffic, just run it. A few accidents here and there, 'worth' it, no?..........

I've been seeing this lately.......early in the morning with very little traffic and drivers making left-on-red turns because they don't feel like waiting. It's kind of shocking when you see a driver just say "eff-it" and decide to just drive through a red light after stopping.

dave

[Ray]

Pretty much the only time I clearly break the law is when I approach an actuated signal and there's no car coming the same direction as I am to trigger the actuator and give us some green time. If there's a car there (or coming up behind me), I stop and wait along with them. But if it's just me, I'm NEVER gonna trigger that thing, so I wait until it's safe to go through and then I go through.

And at stop signs, I don't always come to a complete and total stop, but I get down to a near track-stand so that I can see if anything is coming before I go through, and if I need to, I can stop fully and get a foot down in a real hurry. I've never met a cop or driver that would hassle me for either approach...

And other than those situations, I'm pretty much by the book...

-Ray

[JStonebarger]

Do you all brake to avoid speeding on a bike, too? Say, downhill in a 25mph zone?

I think it's odd that we have higher standards for our conduct on a bike than we do in a car, even when the car is the far more dangerous vehicle. Don't get me wrong, I do it too.

[93legendti]

Would aid traffic flow, no traffic, just run it. A few accidents here and there, 'worth' it, no??

Dum...the teeny number of cyclists have no meaningful effect on traffic flow. It just perpetuates this 'entitled', special attitude shown cuz you happen to be on a bicycle. Follow them all or none. Be a vehicle or not.

+1.

It's the cyclist's choice to ride on a street with signs and lights. Choosing which laws we will obey isn't the hallmark of a civilized society.

If a cars and trucks did this it would save gas and lower pollutants. Is that a justification for cars and trucks to start ignoring stop signs and red lights?

I guarantee any cyclist hit by a driver who didn't make legal stops would be outraged and wouldn't see the "positives".

[eddief]

don't think anyone here is talking about ignoring. simply interpret in a way that makes common sense. lots a laws, lots of interpreting going on. Following laws made by corporate-purchased lawmakers is in the eye of the beholder. Let your common sense or sense of values be your guide.

http://norml.org/laws/item/federal-penalties-2
http://norml.org/laws/item/california-penalties

What to do?

+1.

It's the cyclist's choice to ride on a street with signs and lights. Choosing which laws we will obey isn't the hallmark of a civilized society.

If a cars and trucks did this it would save gas and lower pollutants. Is that a justification for cars and trucks to start ignoring stop signs and red lights?

I guarantee any cyclist hit by a driver who didn't make legal stops would be outraged and wouldn't see the "positives".

[93legendti]

don't think anyone here is talking about ignoring. simply interpret in a way that makes common sense. lots a laws, lots of interpreting going on. Following laws made by corporate-purchased lawmakers is in the eye of the beholder. Let your common sense or sense of values be your guide.

http://norml.org/laws/item/federal-penalties-2
http://norml.org/laws/item/california-penalties

What to do?

Lol.


This thread has become very funny.

[beeatnik]

A couple of weeks ago after stopping at a 4 way stop, a driver pulled up next to me and thanked me for stopping. Not sure why I decided to explain my behavior to him but I told him I appreciated the thanks but that there are many cases where it's not safe or "convenient" for a cyclist to come to a full stop. Yesterday, on a ride through one of LA's most affluent suburbs, I ran every single 4 way stop. I was on residential streets and trying to ride tempo. Then at some point I hit one of the more travelled streets in the town. There was typical LA traffic but with only one lane in each direction and 4 way stops every few blocks. It occurred to me that this is the most ideal type of riding situation for "rolling" stops and allowing traffic to flow predictably (traffic behaves like a gas...fractals and chaos theory stuffs). A bike accelerating from a full stop takes a few seconds longer than a car to get to 20 plus miles per hour. These seconds add up and more importantly these are meaningful seconds (rationally or not) to drivers. So, as a cyclist and a driver, I'd rather have a bike flow through some stops than slow me down longer than necessary by having to accelerate to prevailing speeds.

Oh, and, the longer I'm stationary in the middle of an intersection, the more exposed I feel. All the riders I know who have been rear ended were at intersections waiting for a light change.

[guido]

Agree with him or not Jan does have an interesting way to get folks to think and talk about the issues...

[oldpotatoe]

don't think anyone here is talking about ignoring. simply interpret in a way that makes common sense. lots a laws, lots of interpreting going on. Following laws made by corporate-purchased lawmakers is in the eye of the beholder. Let your common sense or sense of values be your guide.

http://norml.org/laws/item/federal-penalties-2
http://norml.org/laws/item/california-penalties

What to do?

Ignore NORML?

[texbike]

Agree with him or not Jan does have an interesting way to get folks to think and talk about the issues...

Yes, but was he PLANING during those experiments??? ;)

My stop sign guide is this: if there's traffic at an intersection I stop. If there isn't, I don't. I stop at all red lights.

Texbike

[oldpotatoe]

Yes, but was he PLANING during those experiments??? ;)

My stop sign guide is this: if there's traffic at an intersection I stop. If there isn't, I don't. I stop at all red lights.

Texbike

Me too. For the gent 'riding tempo' in a crowded part of LA with a lot of 4 wheel stop signs, he just runs them. Sounds like a great way to get hit by a car.

[brockd15]

My stop sign guide is this: if there's traffic at an intersection I stop. If there isn't, I don't. I stop at all red lights.

Texbike

Ditto...mostly.

If there isn't traffic I don't do a full stop but I still slow down enough to be able to stop short if needed. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I'm worried about the car who also doesn't want to stop at an empty 4-way.

[beeatnik]

Me too. For the gent 'riding tempo' in a crowded part of LA with a lot of 4 wheel stop signs, he just runs them. Sounds like a great way to get hit by a car.

I should have been more clear. I didn't see a single car while I was riding on the quiet, tree-lined, estate filled residential "side" streets. That's where I ran 4 way stops. However, on the one congested street, traffic was flowing north-south with no cross traffic as the intersecting streets are all residential. In LA you can have 10000 plus daily car trips on single lane streets which bisect suburbs on the periphery of freeways. On these streets, I think it's convenient to roll stops; however, I don't as these small suburbs have very active police forces.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/S+Los+Robles+Ave+%26+Old+Mill+Rd,+San+Marino,+CA+9 1108/@34.1182235,-118.1387989,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x80c2c4944a54e967:0x25d37 8564cb26ca0

San Marino is a city in Los Angeles County, California, United States. Incorporated on April 12, 1913,[3] the city was designed by its founders to be uniquely residential, with expansive properties surrounded by beautiful gardens, wide streets, and well maintained parkways. The city is located in the San Rafael Hills. The population was 13,147 at the 2010 census.

In 2010, Forbes magazine ranked the city as the 63rd most expensive area to live in the United States.[4] In 2014, LA Weekly ranked the city as the 3rd most expensive area to live in the Los Angeles County, topping Beverly Hills (7th), Malibu (5th), and more.[5] There are little to no homes priced under US$1,000,000, with the median list price of a single family home at US$2,159,000.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino,_California

[texbike]

If there isn't traffic I don't do a full stop but I still slow down enough to be able to stop short if needed. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I'm worried about the car who also doesn't want to stop at an empty 4-way.

Agreed. I'm not referring to a full-on, blast through an intersection without ensuring that it's clear first. I make sure that nothing is approaching the intersection at a fast rate of speed (my personal rule is nothing within a block of the intersection) before committing. If it's a blind intersection, I stop...

Texbike

[beeatnik]

San Marino residents oppose the extension of a regional bike lane system through their town because they believe their children's safety would be threatened. In other words, bike lanes are bad for kids.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/05/san_marino_nimbys_freak_over_farmers_markets_and_b ike_lanes.php

"The mailer also voiced concern over "bicycle commuters and other adult riders" sharing bike routes with San Marino's schoolchildren, who are apparently free to bike to school unsupervised without a care in the world as it stands now."

watchu think about that, OldP. do kids ride bikes in the Republic?

[soulspinner]

Yes, but was he PLANING during those experiments??? ;)

My stop sign guide is this: if there's traffic at an intersection I stop. If there isn't, I don't. I stop at all red lights.

Texbike

Yup

[Dead Man]

San Marino residents oppose the extension of a regional bike lane system through their town because they believe their children's safety would be threatened. In other words, bike lanes are bad for kids.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/05/san_marino_nimbys_freak_over_farmers_markets_and_b ike_lanes.php

"The mailer also voiced concern over "bicycle commuters and other adult riders" sharing bike routes with San Marino's schoolchildren, who are apparently free to bike to school unsupervised without a care in the world as it stands now."

watchu think about that, OldP. do kids ride bikes in the Republic?

I think bike lanes are freaken stupid, myself. My wife was hit in a bike lane. Almost every (not at-fault, anyway) close-call I've ever had was in a bike lane. I don't have numbers tallied up anywhere, but off the top of my head, I genuinely believe most of my friends who have been hit by cars were hit inside bike lanes. They don't benefit us at all - and they put us in worse danger than being in the lane. I'd rather get hit from behind at urban speeds than right-hooked and ran over by the rear wheels any day. But we're way less likely to hit from the lane anyway - people right-hook us in bike lanes because they don't freaken see us!

[beeatnik]

There are good bike lanes and there are bad bike lanes.

[Dead Man]

There are good bike lanes and there are bad bike lanes.

What's a good bike lane look like? I don't think I've ever seen one.

[beeatnik]

What's a good bike lane look like? I don't think I've ever seen one.

http://flyingpigeon-la.com/2011/06/may-the-goddess-protect-us/

"Likewise, bike lanes–especially separated bike lanes–feel safe, though they have safety issues that street riding doesn’t, even in Europe. These are caused mostly by the increased number of intersections with road traffic they create.

But what bike lanes do is get more people riding, and, over and over again, it has been found that large numbers of riders on the roads (or even next to the roads) condition drivers to look for cyclists, and so make all riders safer. This is the famous “safety in numbers” effect."

[Ray]

I think bike lanes are freaken stupid, myself. My wife was hit in a bike lane. Almost every (not at-fault, anyway) close-call I've ever had was in a bike lane. I don't have numbers tallied up anywhere, but off the top of my head, I genuinely believe most of my friends who have been hit by cars were hit inside bike lanes. They don't benefit us at all - and they put us in worse danger than being in the lane. I'd rather get hit from behind at urban speeds than right-hooked and ran over by the rear wheels any day. But we're way less likely to hit from the lane anyway - people right-hook us in bike lanes because they don't freaken see us!

I mostly agree except in one sense, and it's a HUGE sense. Bike lanes, as bad as they can be from a direct safety standpoint, DO give more people a sense that they can ride safely on the street. As a result, where there are bike lanes, there are more people riding. And there's NOTHING more important to overall bike safety in a automotive society than having more and more riders out there. Critical mass isn't just the name of a movement of riders - it's a very real thing. Cities with the most riders end up being the safest FOR riders. And bike lanes help make that happen.

The Philly bike advocates worked pretty closely with the streets department around here and they ultimately concluded that they wanted the best bike lane designs possible. But given a choice between a less than optimal bike lane and no bike lane, they'd take the flawed bike lane. And even though I'd rather ride in the traffic lanes than in some of those bike lanes, it's WORKING. Philly is getting more and more riders and drivers are getting more and more used to them. And the more accustomed to us they become, the more they take us into account in their driving.

Bike share programs help too, but bike lanes help pave the way, so to speak, for bike sharing. New York's bike sharing is a huge success, whether financially or not, certainly in terms of the number of people riding. Philly just started theirs last month and it's been getting really positive publicity so far.

From a strict design standpoint, bike lanes mostly suck (although some designs are a lot better than others). But they're utterly essential at the same time to getting people out on bikes, which is the ultimate safety factor...

-Ray

[beeatnik]

Ray, I like your style.

[Ray]

Ray, I like your style.

Back at you man. You must have posted while I was typing, but it's a critically important point... Whether said with more words or fewer... :cool:

-Ray

[fuzzalow]

Bike lanes, as bad as they can be from a direct safety standpoint, DO give more people a sense that they can ride safely on the street. As a result, where there are bike lanes, there are more people riding. And there's NOTHING more important to overall bike safety in a automotive society than having more and more riders out there. Critical mass isn't just the name of a movement of riders - it's a very real thing. Cities with the most riders end up being the safest FOR riders. And bike lanes help make that happen.

The Philly bike advocates worked pretty closely with the streets department around here and they ultimately concluded that they wanted the best bike lane designs possible. But given a choice between a less than optimal bike lane and no bike lane, they'd take the flawed bike lane.

Yes, let not perfect be the enemy of good.

Agree on all your main points. Because the points raised above bring the conversation back from opinions and anecdotes to one that is more challenging and substantive which is one about public policy concerning motorized traffic and alternative transportation.

Important to keep clear about the bigger picture and longer term goals, even if some compromises (deemed "sell-outs" by the militancy, perhaps) occur along the way. As always there will be disagreements as to strategy. But I am actually confident that cooler heads will prevail.

NYC south of 14th Street today is very amenable to bicyclists. Philly, from Ray's reporting, is getting a foothold too. There is no reason not to think this cannot continue in the longer term and in the bigger picture. The Gen X's and Millenials do not seem to have this lust for cars the way us Baby Boomers did/do. Uber, ZipCar and other transport lessen the dependence and seduction (and waste) of owning vehicles. All of this being done and doable in the urban environments in the near term. And perhaps expansive to being adapted to the broader urban-to-suburban sprawl for other geographies in the future. Car culture is not your friend - it's whatever it takes to get a buyer to sign the papers.

I am an optimist and I have hope.

[Dead Man]

http://flyingpigeon-la.com/2011/06/may-the-goddess-protect-us/

"Likewise, bike lanes–especially separated bike lanes–feel safe, though they have safety issues that street riding doesn’t, even in Europe. These are caused mostly by the increased number of intersections with road traffic they create.

But what bike lanes do is get more people riding, and, over and over again, it has been found that large numbers of riders on the roads (or even next to the roads) condition drivers to look for cyclists, and so make all riders safer. This is the famous “safety in numbers” effect."

Hey that probably works great in the midst of major cycling populations... over here in Oregon, where bike lanes are generally required on any new or improved road, we just have hundreds of thousands of miles of unused bike lanes that motorist pay absolutely no heed to. Riding through my city 45 miles away from Portland, in the bike lane, means avoiding being hit several times - and that's really no exaggeration. Car doors, pedestrians, LOTS of debris, right-hooks, motorists backing into you, trying to parallel park on top of you! It's really pretty friggin insane sometimes.

So it's just not that simple. Painting in lanes obviously does not create a cycling population where there isn't one. Instead, it just makes it even more dangerous for those few cyclists that are there.

[beeatnik]

No one said the solution everywhere but they do work in the aggregate. Ergo, not "stupid."

[Dead Man]

No one said the solution everywhere but they do work in the aggregate. Ergo, not "stupid."

Then I guess I should have said, "Apart from exceptions for certain areas and judicious application, excluding most of my corner of the world, I think bike lanes are friggen stupid." :)

[oldpotatoe]

I think bike lanes are freaken stupid, myself. My wife was hit in a bike lane. Almost every (not at-fault, anyway) close-call I've ever had was in a bike lane. I don't have numbers tallied up anywhere, but off the top of my head, I genuinely believe most of my friends who have been hit by cars were hit inside bike lanes. They don't benefit us at all - and they put us in worse danger than being in the lane. I'd rather get hit from behind at urban speeds than right-hooked and ran over by the rear wheels any day. But we're way less likely to hit from the lane anyway - people right-hook us in bike lanes because they don't freaken see us!

I've been hit from behind by a Dodge Dakota and I prefer BY FAR to be able to see the guy in front who may right hook me rather than wake up in the hospital with a broken back and 40 hours of not knowing I even existed.

So riding at 18 mph in traffic that's going 40, how do you co exist without either staying far right, on a shoulder or in a bike lane? If you are far right, your chance of getting right hooked is there. If you 'take the lane', which is really dumb, and get hit from behind. I'd rather be in the shoulder.

[DHallerman]

My stop sign guide is this: if there's traffic at an intersection I stop. If there isn't, I don't. I stop at all red lights.


Same for me, but depends greatly on the territory.

I mean, up here in Northern Westchester, if there's a traffic light on the roads we cycle on, that's rare -- and that means most definitely obey it.

And stop signs aren't all that common either, and after a point I've learned which ones give me clear sight into the intersection, and therefore whether or not it's clear, and which ones need to be obeyed because I can't be certain if there's traffic or not until I slow down to a crawl at the stop.

But when I lived in NYC -- well, all traffic lights there weren't created equal.

[cinema]

california roll stop signs.
full stop if there's oncoming.

always wait for lights unless it's late at night zero traffic. i feel confident enough to say i am actually a fast rider; i can and do ride my 6-7 mile commute in the morning stopping at every red light on the way in central los angeles in 20 minutes. 20 extra seconds to both respect the rules of the road/not die are worth it and i'll still pass the cyclist who blew the light in a few moments.

[beeatnik]

^What about the guy in the black Mercedes with rims and tinted windows behind you who isn't happy that he has to wait for you to accelerate from zero to 20 in ten seconds when he can go from zero to 60 in 4?

[hesh0925]

^What about the guy in the black Mercedes with rims and tinted windows behind you who isn't happy that he has to wait for you to accelerate from zero to 20 in ten seconds when he can go from zero to 60 in 4?

This the same guy who's waiting to floor it and drive as fast as he can only to stop again 10 seconds later at the next red light? Hehehehe. :banana:

[cinema]

speaking from experience that Mercedes guy is also the same guy who gets pissed that i ran the light or rolled the stop and purposely clips me with his mirror, gets out of his car while i'm on the ground, threatening me in a mixture of unintelligible Russian and American curse words. All I can say is at that point it's beyond laws/rules/courtesies and helps to have a swmbo who's also a lawyer

[palincss]

My first post earlier was nuanced but the conclusion is that this Idaho Stop thing will never work in the real world. As much as I like it and it makes sense to the reality of how a bicycle uses the roadway and how a bicycle actually really fits in the overall scheme of traffic flow.


It may be one of those "flyover" states, but last time I checked, Idaho indeed was part of "the real world" and they call it "Idaho stop" because that's what the law is in that state. This isn't some mad scheme Jan dreamed up on his own.

[Gummee]

I've never met a cop or driver that would hassle me for either approach...I did just last Fri coming back from the Fri night mtn bike ride.

I've concluded that if you're stupid enough to yell anything out the window, you're too stupid for your opinion of my riding to count

And other than those situations, I'm pretty much by the book...

-Ray
Ditto

I live in the boonies. There's ONE stop light for miles around. Lots of times, there's cars there or cars coming up so I'll wait.

If the other side has a green and there's nothing coming behind me, I'll go thru my red/their green to keep going.

Stop signs out here? No one truly stops so why should I?

M

[fuzzalow]

It may be one of those "flyover" states, but last time I checked, Idaho indeed was part of "the real world" and they call it "Idaho stop" because that's what the law is in that state. This isn't some mad scheme Jan dreamed up on his own.

Yeah, I know and got all of what you said here.

Mr. Heine wrote his article to suggest using what is a traffic regulation in effect in Idaho and applying that statute elsewhere. My response was in the same vein, pertaining to its possible success or failure supra-Idaho. Thanks for your clarification.

[unterhausen]

my experience is that the Idaho stop is in effect for most cyclists in the U.S. and that it works fine. Intersections are dangerous, and that's where cyclists get killed, but it's not generally due to their own behavior. It's due to left crosses and right hooks.

My own approach to stop signs is "no witnesses, no stop," so I usually stop. I always stop for red lights, if they are poorly timed and there is no cross traffic I will go. Do that occasionally in my car too if the light doesn't change, I'm not sitting at a red light at 4 in the morning if there is nobody but me on either road.

[Grant McLean]

my experience is that the Idaho stop is in effect for most cyclists in the U.S. and that it works fine.

It's practiced here in Toronto too, by all road users. In my experience,
cyclists, drivers, pedestrians yield the right of way, otherwise continue
on without stopping. To me, it's a total red herring issue, mostly used
as phoney evidence to argue against "safety". There is no safety issue
what so ever associated with not stopping at an empty intersection.
Cyclists are prepared to stop at any moment. They don't generally need
stop signs to move about safely. yield signs would suffice.

The larger safety issue I see is cars gunning it at yellow lights. Toronto
is very congested, and all road users are frustrated with how long it takes
to move around. The most serious accidents happen when cars accelerate
to race through lights as they change, often beyond the "stale" yellow,
but fully red, cross traffic has already has a green. This behaviour puts
vehicles travelling at deadly speeds in close contact with pedestrians.
Rolling stops on a bicycle through empty intersections is not a real problem.

-g

[eddief]

is that nobody signals their turns. Lots of drivers, lots of bikers. Kinda tough to use one finger to flick that turn signal lever or put your arm out.

[Aaron O]

My observation: almost all cyclists who think that every stop light should be obeyed don't live in a big city, where traffic lights are much more frequent.

This. Idaho laws are safe, common sense rules where I live. If you make the rules reasonable and sane, it's eaiser to enforce them.

[bikinchris]

don't be an idiot. follow the laws, its simply for your safety. if you don't like the lights on your route, change your route. cyclists who don't follow rules then get angry at cars for doing things cars always do bum me out. its foolish and self centered. life is not meant to be so difficult.

In other words, don't be a hypocrite. If you expect others to follow the law and not hit you, don't ride like a jerk.
Oh, and write this in stone: Those who run through "inconvenient" traffic controls eventually get hit.

[beeatnik]

http://laist.com/2015/05/13/bicycle_ride_highland_park_downtown.php

Always looks worse on video, doe

[Gummee]

http://laist.com/2015/05/13/bicycle_ride_highland_park_downtown.php

Always looks worse on video, doe

Read the intro and expected much worse driving from everyone around him. Yeah, he doesn't have the broadest streets to ride on, but that's nothing. You should see some of roads closer to DC or up in say Boston.

M

[jr59]

This. Idaho laws are safe, common sense rules where I live. If you make the rules reasonable and sane, it's eaiser to enforce them.


But wouldn't that imply that those who make the laws have common sense where it comes to riding a bicycle?

:cool:

[Fishy1923]

Plus if you run a red light, stop sign, or what have you and you get hit...guess who is paying out of pocket for the damage done to the driver's car/medical bills etc?

[zap]

http://laist.com/2015/05/13/bicycle_ride_highland_park_downtown.php

Always looks worse on video, doe

Doesn't look bad at all.

[Buzz]

[QUOTE=bikinchris;1756364]In other words, don't be a hypocrite. If you expect others to follow the law and not hit you, don't ride like a jerk.
Oh, and write this in stone: Those who run through "inconvenient" traffic controls eventually get hit.[/QUOT

Apparently another unfortunate example:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Cyclist-killed-during-bike-race-in-Dixon-6268029.php

[bikinchris]

[QUOTE=bikinchris;1756364]In other words, don't be a hypocrite. If you expect others to follow the law and not hit you, don't ride like a jerk.
Oh, and write this in stone: Those who run through "inconvenient" traffic controls eventually get hit.[/QUOT

Apparently another unfortunate example:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Cyclist-killed-during-bike-race-in-Dixon-6268029.php

Man, I hate reading stuff like that. I teach cycling using League of American Bicyclists materials. I know I can say it a thousand times to stop at stop signs. But I also tell riders that if they have no intention of stopping, they had better be ABLE to stop. Blowing through stop signs is a crap shoot.

[oldpotatoe]

[QUOTE=bikinchris;1756364]In other words, don't be a hypocrite. If you expect others to follow the law and not hit you, don't ride like a jerk.
Oh, and write this in stone: Those who run through "inconvenient" traffic controls eventually get hit.[/QUOT

Apparently another unfortunate example:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Cyclist-killed-during-bike-race-in-Dixon-6268029.php

Yee gads....is it light at 5:10 in the AM? A check shows sunrise about an hour later...I'm guessing the trucks lights were on..did he not see the stop sign??

[Bstone]

Wonderful summation. I often wonder if more sound-isolated cars make this phenomenon even worse. It would be an interesting experiment to ask drivers of similar cars to drive a month with the windows up vs. the windows down in in-town traffic, and see whether their instances of road rage etc. differ.

I grew up before AC was common in cars. Even though I now live in Florida, I don't use the AC often.

I completely agree. Isolation is part of the equation. People move from bubble to bubble in their daily lives.

[Buzz]

[QUOTE=Buzz;1757796]

Yee gads....is it light at 5:10 in the AM? A check shows sunrise about an hour later...I'm guessing the trucks lights were on..did he not see the stop sign??

Having done a few of these events there is usually a competitive group that heads out fast in the beginning. People are really amped up and not thinking straight trying to hang on or catch up to the group and willing to cut corners so to speak. Or a bad assumption there isn't any traffic out that early. I'm guessing that is what happened here.

News reports now indicating rider was part of a group that leaves ahead of the main official start group in order to finish - that's the amped up part. Also, however there was a corner Marshall at the corner. Now you can have a scenario where rider maybe thought it was safe to proceed without stopping. Wrongful death lawsuit seems inevitable...

[shovelhd]

That doesn't make it a race. It's a sensationalist headline.

[pakora]

It wont work. It requires common sense and courtesy.

vav already nailed it, but man I wish I could cite the civil engineer who had a long explanation of designing traffic flow (or rather, giving examples of how to make traffic not flow) in which she notes that STOP signs are widely misunderstood with respect to their original purpose, which was to Be Prepared To STOP If There Is Traffic.

That basically, a stop sign is a yield sign where traffic may come from multiple directions and whoever's there first is entitled to go first (as opposed a yield sign where one flow always has the right of way to be respected and the other must enter that flow when possible). Or basically the Idaho Stop is the original stop.

I want to say the example city was Toronto and that in the east and west sides block length was chosen to allow flow on the non-arterial streets.

[martl]

"Green arrows" have been there for a while in many places, for cars, allowing a right turn at red lights. As i learned from Mr. Woody Allen, it is commonly the use in California as well (?!).

In addition to Idaho, the french have a similar thing. Lyon has "green arrows" for cyclists, and also such that allow crossing the intersection, not only the right turn:

http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/connaitre-les-regles/questions-frequentes/une-nouvelle-signalisation-a-destination-des-cyclistes

Seems to work quite well.

It is a bit similar to the idea of "shared space" - no one has the "right of way" per se, so *everyone* is forced to look out for the next person.

Once one dives into the vast matter of road safety, one can discover surprising things. For instance, the absence of active lights on bicycles seems to have no measurable effect on the likelyness of getting hit by a car.
Numbers from Germany and the UK support this.


When there is an abundance of fixed rules, one rides by a lot of assumptions: The assumption that *every single person* follows these rules in every single instance. And we all know the mother of what assumption is - if just one person doesn't follow the rules, all hell may break lose.

[metalheart]

[QUOTE=bikinchris;1756364]In other words, don't be a hypocrite. If you expect others to follow the law and not hit you, don't ride like a jerk.
Oh, and write this in stone: Those who run through "inconvenient" traffic controls eventually get hit.[/QUOT

Apparently another unfortunate example:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Cyclist-killed-during-bike-race-in-Dixon-6268029.php

I am hoping someone here rode the Davis Double and has more information, but there are some confusing issues about this accident as reported by the media.

This was a sponsored ride by the Davis Bike Club (Davis Double) and the report below indicates there was a "corner marshall" at the intersection, although it was before the official start time of the event. If you watch the video in the report below (you have to suffer through a few seconds of commercial) you can see the cyclist view of the intersection at about 1:38 or so. Trees and fencing block the view of the major road (55 mph speed limit) and traffic coming from the right (the cyclist was turning left). Rolling through the stop sign at this intersection at any time seems extraordinarily risky and I have a hard time understanding how this could have happened given the nature of the intersection.

I am one of those that always obeys stop lights and usually stops at stop signs, but it is always a risk assessment when you decide to roll through.


My condolences to the family and friends....

http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news/news-sacramento/bicyclist-killed-in-early-morning-crash-during-davis-double-century/33060488

[azrider]

Doesn't look bad at all.

I didn't think that looked all that bad either ? :confused: