San Francisco Yield Law passes committee.

[bobswire]

http://www.sfbike.org/news/sfs-bike-yield-law-passes-committee/ :hello:

[joosttx]

Me likey.

[jtakeda]

Apparently it's going to get vetoed.

[eddief]

sounds like a recipe for disaster. I think looking both ways to move safely is the right approach. But cyclists and drivers can be idiots. Why change the law to increase the potential for them to act idiotic. I am all for cops looking for real crimes to solve rather than targeting cyclists, but I can't imagine this change will work in the long run. I like the idea of slowing way down, looking both ways for danger and cops, and then if no one is coming or watching, cruise on through. Eddie's law.

[cachagua]

Second on the recipe for disaster. I don't see anything good coming out it. Only increases driver hostility toward bikes, and also, an enforcement nightmare. Very bad idea to make bikes a special class of traffic.

[brando]

You naysayers are wrong and should get out and ride in the city more before speaking. And your attitudes are why we're trying to make this positive change happen in our community to show a way forward.

[eddief]

what are we wrong about?

You naysayers are wrong and should get out and ride in the city more before speaking. And your attitudes are why we're trying to make this positive change happen in our community to show a way forward.

[Louis]

What does the law propose to change? (I looked for info at the link and couldn't find anything.)

[professerr]

what are we wrong about?

Read here:

http://www.sfbike.org/news/frequently-asked-questions-sfs-bike-yield-law/

[professerr]

What does the law propose to change? (I looked for info at the link and couldn't find anything.)

Stuff in there about everyone yielding to pedestrians too, like those hippies in Berkeley:

The ordinance would also establish the 鉄an Francisco Right-of-Way Policy:
To promote safety, tolerance, and harmony on our streets, all users of San Francisco streets shall respect others right-of-way and take their turn when navigating intersections.
All users of SF streets shall yield to emergency vehicles.
All users of SF streets shall yield to Muni vehicles.
Drivers and bicyclists shall always yield to pedestrians and be vigilantly aware of pedestrians.
Bicyclists shall always yield to others at intersections, but they may slowly proceed without fully stopping at stop signs if the intersection is empty.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-francisco-lawmaker-announces-idaho-stop-style-bike-yield-law/

[Louis]

Maybe I have a quaint view of the world, but that sure doesn't sound bad to me. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable.
(Except of the "all users must yield to municipal vehicles" which sounds stupid - what's so special about them?)

My only question would be in a situation where a bike is on a road with no stop signs. He approaches a road that T's into the one he is using. That road has a stop at the T. Does the bike have to yield to a car that is approaching the stop sign? That would be stupid and very confusing. But if "bicycles shall always yield to others" that's what would happen. (Unless the actual law says something about signage and lights taking precedence over the yield law.)

All users of SF streets shall yield to emergency vehicles.
All users of SF streets shall yield to Muni vehicles.
Drivers and bicyclists shall always yield to pedestrians and be vigilantly aware of pedestrians.
Bicyclists shall always yield to others at intersections, but they may slowly proceed without fully stopping at stop signs if the intersection is empty

[fogrider]

most people drive in a car and roll stop sign anyways...cops included. lets all use some common sense and play nice.

[Pelican]

I like the idea of slowing way down, looking both ways for danger and cops, and then if no one is coming or watching, cruise on through. Eddie's law.

You just described an Idaho Stop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop), which is what this law is proposing for SF. It's a good thing.

[ajhapps]

Maybe I have a quaint view of the world, but that sure doesn't sound bad to me. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable.
(Except of the "all users must yield to municipal vehicles" which sounds stupid - what's so special about them?)


Totally guessing here, but based on experience and a recent trip to the cable car museum, I suspect they want people fully stopping before one of those things annihilates a cyclist. They don't really stop at intersections and have brakes made of of pine wood blocks!

But seriously, I'd stop for a muni bus too... no way I'd want to get broadsided by a city bus.

[oldpotatoe]

You naysayers are wrong and should get out and ride in the city more before speaking. And your attitudes are why we're trying to make this positive change happen in our community to show a way forward.

That's positive...(?)

"Mayor Ed Lee has threatened to veto the legislation, telling reporters in September: 的知 not willing to trade away safety for convenience, and any new law that reaches my desk has to enhance public safety, not create potential conflicts that can harm our residents.

Why not just stop at stop signs? If it's OK to legally slid thru stop signs as a cyclist, why not legally for cars too? Why not make all those stop signs yield signs? And I can guess the answer...

IMHO, of course.

And for above, pretty sure the 'Idaho stop' gig is cyclists can treat stop lights as stop signs, 'stop, proceed with caution(light still red)'. And stop signs as yield signs, 'slow, proceed with caution', without stopping...

[shovelhd]

I am against pretty much any law that makes a bicycle a special class of road user. A pedestrian, equestrian, cyclist, and a slow moving vehicle on the road shoulder are equally vulnerable to getting killed by a semi. Some feel that cyclists should be treated as pedestrians when it suits them, as cars when it suits them, and a special class when it suits them. I am against that sort of logic.

[oldpotatoe]

I am against pretty much any law that makes a bicycle a special class of road user. A pedestrian, equestrian, cyclist, and a slow moving vehicle on the road shoulder are equally vulnerable to getting killed by a semi. Some feel that cyclists should be treated as pedestrians when it suits them, as cars when it suits them, and a special class when it suits them. I am against that sort of logic.

agree.

[bobswire]

I am against pretty much any law that makes a bicycle a special class of road user. A pedestrian, equestrian, cyclist, and a slow moving vehicle on the road shoulder are equally vulnerable to getting killed by a semi. Some feel that cyclists should be treated as pedestrians when it suits them, as cars when it suits them, and a special class when it suits them. I am against that sort of logic.

Of course you are, you're a bike racer and as such like well defined course and rules. Some of us actually use bikes as our main form of transportation and as such prefer laws that support cycling instead archaic rules that were adopted in 1940' and 1950's that favor autos.
Having said that , maybe this law is not adaptable in all areas but in San Francisco where you come upon a stop sign almost every block you are required to stop at all stop signs,whether or not other vehicles are in the vicinity or not. All this law does is allow you to go through the intersection without making a complete stop if no other vehicles or pedestrians are in the crosswalks.

http://i65.tinypic.com/ajnlmq.jpg

Below is a ride I did yesterday for an appointment and another errand then back to my place. Had this law been in place I'm sure I would have made much better time without impeding traffic or causing chaos or mayhem, not counting motorists heads exploding seeing me going slowly through a stop sign without stopping. :)

15.57 mi Bike Ride with MapMyRide
Duration: 1:23:41
Pace: 5.4 min/mi
http://www.mapmyride.com/workout/1273157057

[zap]

I am against pretty much any law that makes a bicycle a special class of road user. A pedestrian, equestrian, cyclist, and a slow moving vehicle on the road shoulder are equally vulnerable to getting killed by a semi. Some feel that cyclists should be treated as pedestrians when it suits them, as cars when it suits them, and a special class when it suits them. I am against that sort of logic.

I have ridden and raced bicycles in a few countries (driven automobiles in many more)........the USA is far behind when it comes to road safety. The status quo here in the USA is unacceptable.

The practice, classifying cyclists as well as pedestrians as a vulnerable road user, has proven effective in countries that have far fewer cycling accidents. Greater responsibility is placed on the motorists if they hit a pedestrian or cyclist.

[Mark McM]

I am against pretty much any law that makes a bicycle a special class of road user. A pedestrian, equestrian, cyclist, and a slow moving vehicle on the road shoulder are equally vulnerable to getting killed by a semi. Some feel that cyclists should be treated as pedestrians when it suits them, as cars when it suits them, and a special class when it suits them. I am against that sort of logic.

I don't understand this argument, since cyclists are already viewed as a special class (at least in every state I'm aware of). Even motor vehicles are divided into classes - would you want a tractor trailer truck to be treated exactly like a motorcycle, or emergency vehicles to be treated exactly like other vehicles?

If you think that bicycles should not be treated as a special class, then you must never ride your bike two abreast, because automobiles are not allowed to share a lane, right?

[cachagua]

What if the proposal would apply to cars just the same as bikes.

Would those of you who've voiced support for San Francisco's proposal support this, if it were up for a vote?

[kmac]

i am a recreational rider (translation: not for transportation), but i do live in downtown dc. so every ride i do involves navigating through busy city streets. i guess i feel like if we all (trucks, buses, cars, bikes, anyone on the road) follow the same set of rules, it allows us all to be able to predict what each other will do. i tend to feel the most vulnerable when i see another road user (even a fellow bike rider), and i can't guess what their next action is going to be.

i understand that in a case like this, many may make the argument that by making new laws, it creates this level of predictability. but the sad reality is that so few people know all the laws that are already out there (as evidenced by how often we're all told to "hop up on the sidewalks") that -- as stated by a few others -- this "different behavior" will simply be interpreted as more "entitled bikers doing whatever they want".

it just seems like most road users follow a code based much more on being able to predict what each other will do, and less on what the law allows. and that system falls apart when you can no longer assume that they guy next to you (regardless of mode of transport) will do the same things as you would.

is it right? maybe not... is it reality? maybe...

i just want to get home every day. i feel like (at least for me personally) my best shot at this is taking steps to make sure that everyone knows what i'm going to do at a stop light, a stop sign, etc -- because it's the same thing they would (or at least, should) do too.

p.s. long time reader here, but just recently made my first few posts... the community you all have created is pretty extraordinary, and all these different perspectives are always thought-provoking!

[Hindmost]

Wow! I thought the majority of us cyclists would welcome this change.

Some feel that cyclists should be treated as ...

I think what you are describing here is the attitude of some cyclists which is: "I'll do what I darn-well please." Most of us recognize how this harmful this attitude and resulting behavior can be.

Whereas, a change to the vehicle code or statute is means to regulate orderly behaviors.

[professerr]

I am against pretty much any law that makes a bicycle a special class of road user. A pedestrian, equestrian, cyclist, and a slow moving vehicle on the road shoulder are equally vulnerable to getting killed by a semi. Some feel that cyclists should be treated as pedestrians when it suits them, as cars when it suits them, and a special class when it suits them. I am against that sort of logic.

Yes, like when a cyclist rides in a pedestrian crosswalk and expects cars to yield to them like a pedestrian. Annoying. But the proposed rule isn't suggesting individual cyclists can pick and choose which rules apply to them and when, it just recognizes the practical reality that bikes are not cars, nor pedestrians, and creates a rule that avoids criminalizing existing normal behavior.

[oldpotatoe]

I don't understand this argument, since cyclists are already viewed as a special class (at least in every state I'm aware of). Even motor vehicles are divided into classes - would you want a tractor trailer truck to be treated exactly like a motorcycle, or emergency vehicles to be treated exactly like other vehicles?

If you think that bicycles should not be treated as a special class, then you must never ride your bike two abreast, because automobiles are not allowed to share a lane, right?

But all 'motor vehicles' obey the same set of rules and laws. Speed limit, stop signs, etc.

2 cars are too large to share one lane, they can't 'share' one lane. If the 'bike lane' or shoulder is wide enough, riding 2 abreast is perfectly legal and acceptable,

[professerr]

But all 'motor vehicles' obey the same set of rules and laws. Speed limit, stop signs, etc.

2 cars are too large to share one lane, they can't 'share' one lane. If the 'bike lane' or shoulder is wide enough, riding 2 abreast is perfectly legal and acceptable,


Not so: cars are frequently permitted to go faster than trucks, take roads and bridges trucks can't, etc. Bike aren't allowed in auto parking spaces. Motorcyles always have to have a full night beam headlight on. Anarchy has not ensued.

[cachagua]

Oh, I think it has -- read the last few pages again.

Yes, complete anarchy. You know what would be fun is if we were all armed!

[jtakeda]

I think the proposed law is less important than the application of it.

What I support about the law is making a guy on a bike rolling through a stop sign on an empty street a non issue. It's not really a public safety issue (blasting through a busy intersection is a different story).

Honestly if SFPD could enforce autos using turn signals more i would be a lot more happy than this law.

Kind of like what Kmac said. If we enforce laws that make EVERYONE a more predictable vehicle on the road we can help increase transportation safety.

I feel like a lot of the driver-bike conflicts derive from one person not knowing what the other is going to do. Turning right? Signal right and get into position before the turn.

I think what this law aims to do is make bikes more predictable, a driver now knows not to make that three point turn to get the parking spot on a side street in lower haight if they see a bike signaling right at the stop sign. The bike sees an empty 4 way stop and knows they can slow and turn right without making a complete stop. Things like that.
Just my opinion though.

[unterhausen]

most people drive in a car and roll stop sign anyways...cops included. lets all use some common sense and play nice.

Nobody around here stops for stop signs, the hypocrisy involved in them complaining about bicycles is pretty blatant. Just today, I was riding through a neighborhood when someone came off of a dead end side street. Apparently they are in the habit of running that stop sign. Fortunately, I correctly apprised the situation and pulled out further into the road. Because they didn't even look carefully enough to see me in my dayglo jacket, which can be seen from space by the naked eye. And when they floored it, I was far enough out into the road that they had time to correct.

On another subject, why do so many careless people floor it when a steady acceleration will do? That person needs to slow down a little. For one thing, they were no more than 50 feet from another stop sign they were going to ignore

[Elefantino]

Regardless of the laws passed, I will continue to treat stop signs as, well, stop signs because of the cars and trucks with whom I share the road. This seems to be a constant source of frustration for some cyclists behind me who expect me to blow through stop signs as they do and has led to harsh words being directed my way and nearly a couple of pileups.

I value my safety more than others' convenience, apparently.

[fogrider]

Regardless of the laws passed, I will continue to treat stop signs as, well, stop signs because of the cars and trucks with whom I share the road. This seems to be a constant source of frustration for some cyclists behind me who expect me to blow through stop signs as they do and has led to harsh words being directed my way and nearly a couple of pileups.

I value my safety more than others' convenience, apparently.
Sure if I'm riding in busy city street during rush hour, but most of the time there are almost no cars or at best very few cars and pedestrians around. I'm saying use good judgement and be curious.

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

[bikingshearer]

And for above, pretty sure the 'Idaho stop' gig is cyclists can treat stop lights as stop signs, 'stop, proceed with caution(light still red)'. And stop signs as yield signs, 'slow, proceed with caution', without stopping...

The SF proposal doesn't address stop lights, but is exactly that for bikes. Slow down, look around, go ahead if there is no traffic (car or pedestrian) in the way. I heard on a radio news broadcast about this but cannot independently confirm that the proposal states that the bike has to slow down to 6 mph or less.

Two more thoughts. First, this proposal can't actually say the "Idaho stop" is legal - only the California Legislature can do that. In legalese, this is due to the doctrine of state preemption. What this one does is direct the SFPD to make targeting the "Idaho" stop at signs signs the lowest enforcement priority.

Second, I seriously doubt the "Idaho stop" will do any harm in terms of cyclist-driver relations. What pisses drivers off - me included - are cyclist who just bomb along regardless of stop signs, yield signs, stop lights or anything else. I can't back this up with a statistical study, but having seen and heard my share of "damned cyclist ran the stop sign" stories and rants, the vast majority of them deal with a cyclist blasting through a stop sign or stop light with little or no reduction in speed. I have seen or heard few complaints about a cyclist that slows for a stop sign and then takes a right of way that is rightfully theirs without coming to a full stop. So it seems to me that drivers by and large are already able to tolerate the "Idaho stop."

If someone knows of any studies on this, I'd be interested in seeing them.

[Elefantino]

Sure if I'm riding in busy city street during rush hour, but most of the time there are almost no cars or at best very few cars and pedestrians around. I'm saying use good judgement and be curious.

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk
I hear you, but I don't think that my always coming to a track-stand stop at all stop signs and good judgment are mutually exclusive.

[professerr]

I hear you, but I don't think that my always coming to a track-stand stop at all stop signs and good judgment are mutually exclusive.

Not sure a track stand qualifies as a stop: I was stopped by a cop on Sand Hill Road this year and was told stop=one foot on the ground.

Me: Bbbbbbut I was doing a track stand officer.
Cop: I can give you a ticket if you'd like instead of a warning...

Most track "stands" at stop signs are really just creeping rolls, so he wasn't entirely off base.

[shovelhd]

Kmac and OP get it. I have no problem with the Idaho stop as long as it applies to all road users. It's the lack of predictability that causes frustration and accidents.

I no longer race my bike. I don't count Zwift racing.