Idaho comes to Delaware

[lordofthemark]

@hozn 166429 wrote:

This is not my experience. –I have been ticketed for slow rolling a stop sign. While I agree that cars don’t always stop completely, slowing down to a virtual stop is quite different behavior than most cyclists, including myself, which is to (hopefully) slow down and look and treat it as a yield. Cars are expected to stop even if there is perfect visibility and no other vehicles are present. I never put a foot down, but the law doesn’t explicitly require you to do that if you stop, does it?

1. I think most vehicles (bikes but especially cars) go faster than 5 MPH when proceeding through a yield sign, so I agree. So I think the Delaware stop legalizes going faster than a typical slow roll (but maybe I need to read the actual text?)

2. Alexandria police have in the past told BPAC that in their enforcement campaigns such as on Union they will not ticket someone riding a bike at walking speed, though I do not think they gave us a precise speed.

3. I still believe that it is reasonable to have a different standard for how bikes behave at stop signs than cars – because of lower risk to people other than the stop as yielder, due to better visibility from a bike, and due to the potential for a cyclist to get away from a dangerous or uncomfortable situation. I am eager for more data to see how the new law effects safety.

[Judd]

You all are going to bike jail.

[Crickey7]

Uggh. I hate Idaho Stop. It’s a gaudy bauble that distracts the cycling community from real, meaningful issues. It’s bad policy and worse politics. There is no logical reason for treating bikes differently at stop signs. Idaho Stop and its Delaware Stop variant are based on a calculus that bikes are simply such a small modal share that nothing they do will significantly affect overall safety or flow.

* Lower risk is not no-risk (especially with regard to the vehicle operator), and safety is not the sole criterion. Flow is another goal of traffic control devices.

* It’s an unproven theory that cyclists have better visibility. Certainly not when there’s precipitation, and often in very high or low temperatures cars have the advantage. I would venture to say that in intersection collisions (which usually involve moving objects), it’s rare to say that obstructed vision is commonly a cause of accidents. Not that I need to prove anything. It’s not my theory.

* It’s also an unproven theory that Idaho Stop is more suited to cyclists “due to the potential for a cyclist to get away from a dangerous or uncomfortable situation”. I’m not sure I even know what that means.

[lordofthemark]

Uggh. I hate Idaho Stop. It’s a gaudy bauble that distracts the cycling community from real, meaningful issues.

I was at a meeting of Alexandria BPAC last night. We discussed many issues of concern to cyclists and pedestrians. Idaho stop was not mentioned once. I see no such distraction.

It’s bad policy and worse politics.

I see no evidence that bike advocacy has been set back in Idaho or Delaware – indeed the new law in Delaware ALSO does the following:

“Bicycle traffic signals defined and enabled as an engineering tool for DelDOT (specifically enables the Delaware Avenue Separated Bikeway in Newark). Most serious bicycle crashes occur at intersections in Delaware. There is no more important safety countermeasure that Delaware could adopt to reduce serious bicycle crashes than the widespread adoption of bicycle traffic signals.

Requires motorists to change lanes (including when there is a double yellow line) when passing bicycles when travel lanes are too narrow for side-by-side sharing (making “Three Foot” passing a requirement only in the special case of wide lanes).

“As close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway” (the dreaded “AFRAP”) also disappears from state code (replaced by “far enough to the right as judged safe by the operator to facilitate the movement of such overtaking vehicles unless the bicycle operator determines that other conditions make it unsafe to do so“) and, again, only as a special case for wide lanes.

Motorists forbidden to honk horns at cyclists when passing except for imminent danger.

General clarification of “where to ride” laws, including specifically permitting two-abreast riding within the lane in a narrow lane. . “

Now the current status of having so many cyclists be scofflaws may be bad politics, but that would suggest a benefit of laws that legalize what what most already do.

There is no logical reason for treating bikes differently at stop signs. Idaho Stop and its Delaware Stop variant are based on a calculus that bikes are simply such a small modal share that nothing they do will significantly affect overall safety or flow.

I see no evidence that that is what they are based on. Its certainly not an argument I have seen. Of course we will not know if legalizing Idaho (or Delaware) impedes or improves flow (or neither) until its legal in a place iwth higher bike mode share.

Flow is another goal of traffic control devices.

This AM I was at the intersection of 30th and Buchanan in Arlington. A fourway stop. Proceeding EB on 30th. There was zero traffic on Buchanan. The only traffic other than my bike was a car, also proceeding EB, behind me. Please explain how my Delawaring the stop sign impeded traffic flow.

* It’s an unproven theory that cyclists have better visibility. Certainly not when there’s precipitation, and often in very high or low temperatures cars have the advantage. I would venture to say that in intersection collisions (which usually involve moving objects), it’s rare to say that obstructed vision is commonly a cause of accidents. Not that I need to prove anything. It’s not my theory.

Really? NACTO disagrees with you. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/visibility-sight-distance/

* It’s also an unproven theory that Idaho Stop is more suited to cyclists “due to the potential for a cyclist to get away from a dangerous or uncomfortable situation”. I’m not sure I even know what that means.

If you had ridden with me this AM, I could have pointed out some examples.

In any case, its hard to prove the effects without data, and hard to get data on something that hasn’t been tried (IE legalizing the Delaware stop)

[Crickey7]

The other changes are welcome. I disagree with proposals that we are choosing to feed into the very worst charges that our opponents make against us. That we are scofflaws (the argument that the fact that we often don’t stop is actually presented as an argument for changing the law); that we want special treatment; that we simply don’t care about any other actors on the streetscape than ourselves.

There is no argument for extending Idaho Stop that doesn’t apply equally to cars, or for which cars do not have an equally valid alternative argument, save one: there are not enough of us to affect anything.

[lordofthemark]

@Crickey7 166440 wrote:

The other changes are welcome. I disagree with proposals that we are choosing to feed into the very worst charges that our opponents make against us. That we are scofflaws (the argument that the fact that we often don’t stop is actually presented as an argument for changing the law); that we want special treatment; that we simply don’t care about any other actors on the streetscape than ourselves.

There is no argument for extending Idaho Stop that doesn’t apply equally to cars, or for which cars do not have an equally valid alternative argument, save one: there are not enough of us to affect anything.

The other changes are evidence that advocacy for the Delaware stop is not bad politics, because it has not prevented significant advances on other issues.

The fact is that most people in all modes are scofflaws – most cyclist treat stop as yield, most drivers drive over the speed limit, and most pedestrians jaywalk from time to time. The worst charge our opponents make is that we are uniquely scofflaws, which is false. Anyway, failing to change the law has not resulted in any diminution of such attacks in states that have not changed the law.

As for special treatment, different treatment for different classes of vehicles is widespread. Trucks excluded from some roads, bikes are excluded from limited access highways, motor vehicles are excluded from MultiUse Trails and from bike lanes, pedestrians are excluded from bike lanes (and from roads where a sidewalk exists) bikes are excluded from select sidewalks, bikes are allowed to filter, pedestrians are not required to stop at stop signs.

As for the arguments for why treating stop a yield makes more sense for bikes than for cars, I find the rationales compelling, but realize you want “proof” which I cannot give to your standard. Anyway, I am concerned with the incremental benefits and costs of the law, not with a theoretical modal equity. The City of Alexandria is currently considering maximum parking space mandates for commercial buildings (Tysons already has such maximums) but no maximums for bike parking. Would you protest that?

[lordofthemark]

This is the bus stop closed to where I live.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8354318,-77.103456,3a,75y,24.79h,80.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb8NUk3WYaqDtik7sByGRBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

See the crosswalk? Its not on the most direct path from the building front door to the bus stop. I over three years there, I have never seen anyone use the crosswalk to get to the busstop. Everyone walks the straight route instead (and no, that is not an implicit crosswalk), and jaywalks. Everyone.

Maybe the building is a unique enclave of scofflaws. I don’t think so. The scofflaw cyclist meme is not caused by cyclist behavior. Its caused by the tendency of human beings to normalize what they understand from personal experience (midblock crossing, driving slightly over the speed limit, etc) and to not normalize what they do not understand. Pointing that out (and getting more butts on bikes) is the way to deal with that, not by denying the truth (which is that yes, most cyclists treat stops as yields)

Also this
One of our Bike Delaware members was ticketed at an empty stop sign on a quiet residential street in a college town,” says Bare. “Everyone – including the police who were on stop sign patrol intended for automobiles – thought it was silly. Getting the Delaware State Police on board was key.”

[Judd]

@lordofthemark 166443 wrote:

The other changes are evidence that advocacy for the Delaware stop is not bad politics, because it has not prevented significant advances on other issues.

The fact is that most people in all modes are scofflaws – most cyclist treat stop as yield, most drivers drive over the speed limit, and most pedestrians jaywalk from time to time. The worst charge our opponents make is that we are uniquely scofflaws, which is false. Anyway, failing to change the law has not resulted in any diminution of such attacks in states that have not changed the law.

As Crikey’s spokesperson, I think the point being made is, “Jeanne shouldn’t Idaho stop because it impairs her ability to then advocate for enforcement/regulation of other modalities behaviors.”

[Steve O]

I treat a stop sign exactly like the car drivers do. I slow down to ascertain that all is clear and safe and then proceed through. This is exactly what drivers do. Pretty much all of them.
A couple of differences.
1) Since I am typically going more slowly as I approach, I do not need to slow quite as much to have equal amount of time to ascertain safety. So if they roll through at 4-5 mph, I probably roll through at about 7-8. At stop signs where I am next to a vehicle (say, in a bike lane), I will deliberately match my speed to the vehicle just to see. I think my observation of 4-5 mph is pretty accurate.
2) My head is outside; theirs is inside. My head is higher than most drivers, I have no blind spots, and I can hear a lot better. This makes my ability to ascertain safe crossing better than theirs.

Legalizing the Idaho Stop, as correctly practiced, is no more than legalizing the equivalent behavior of motorists, that is readily accepted by other motorists, by people riding bikes.

[Crickey7]

You’ve made an argument for legalizing all rolling stops, not Idaho Stops.

[Zack]

In case anyone wants it, here is the 2010 study on the Idaho stop and safety. 14.5% drop in injuries is nothing to sneeze at. I hope we can repeat this study in Delaware!

[Crickey7]

That was a one-year change. No one draws conclusions from single year results.

[Steve O]

@Crickey7 166465 wrote:

You’ve made an argument for legalizing all rolling stops, not Idaho Stops.

In a sense, true. Since that’s the way it is anyway.
And I don’t see giant piles of bodies at every intersection.

[peterw_diy]

@Crickey7 166465 wrote:

You’ve made an argument for legalizing all rolling stops, not Idaho Stops.

Sure. Bikes and motorists in electric convertibles with zero – length hoods like VW camper vans and their radios turned off and their tops down. I won’t sweat the detail of the windshield pillars creating blind spots or the increased threat posed by their greater mass if they can match us in the other regards. Let ’em slow roll.

[hozn]

I take issue with the suggestion that bikes and cars treat stop signs the same now. If there are some studies that show that most cars do not stop at stop signs, I would be curious to see them.

My very, very brief research suggests that not completely stopping is a minority behavior at a stop sign. Certainly this is what matches my experience as a driver.

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/25779288/Observational-Study-for-Determining-the-Percentage-of-Vehicles-Completely-Stopping-at-an-All-way-Stop-sign-Intersection

This is quite different from the behavior of cyclists — at least of my experience of cyclist behavior.

To be clear, I’m all for Idaho/Delaware stops as I think that it would be in the interest of all parties to treat cyclists differently (cars don’t want to wait behind me at a 4-way stop to “miss their turn” to go, any more than they want to wait behind me when I take the lane). I just don’t think it is fair to say that drivers and cyclists are currently applying the same behavior when it comes to obeying stop signs.

[Author]

Posts