Should Cyclists Be Allowed to Yield at Stop Signs?

[ChristoB50]

Seems to be a law (stop at the stop signs) that is already vastly ignored by the majority of cyclists (and now, many scooterists). I stop at most of them myself, but do roll through 2 specific ones on my morning commute (both in a parking lot where the stores are not yet opened at that time.) Also tend to roll through the MVT stops at the crossing exit ramp from airport, and the Gravelly Point parking lot. Both based on only if the roadway is devoid of cars in my field of vision. I stop at all signs if I’m biking in the road (other than those 2 in the closed parking lot!)
So… a slightly mixed bag in my own application of stops. I’m not sure I have a strong opinion formed yet, either way, about the rolling stop while in a roadway.

[dkel]

I hardly ever see drivers come to a complete stop. I also will get passed by drivers at stop signs: these drivers seem to think that when a bike slows down at a stop sign, that’s the perfect time to roll through—on the wrong side of the road. In other words, what difference does it make whether cyclists stop or not? The whole thing is already pretty close to a free-for-all, and the only thing that matters to anyone, it seems, is getting ahead.

[ChristoB50]

@dkel 191932 wrote:

The whole thing is already pretty close to a free-for-all, and the only thing that matters to anyone, it seems, is getting ahead.

Sad but true! Seems an ever tightening me-centric view, governing how more and more people behave in general.
{Sorry, feeling very pessimistic today!}

[mstone]

Of course they should be allowed to do this, the only reason to forbid it is because of concern trolling. There would be an immense net increase in safety if cycling advocacy organizations could teach cyclists how to do it properly instead of pretending that everybody isn’t already doing it and saying “always stop at stop signs” for liability reasons. I don’t expect to ever see this in VA unless NoVA secedes from SWVA.

[KWL]

@ChristoB50 191933 wrote:

Sad but true! Seems an ever tightening me-centric view, governing how more and more people behave in general.
{Sorry, feeling very pessimistic today!}

You ain’t alone.

[rcannon100]

Someone I think from WABA tweeted this and it made me ponder.

I mean, I come to a stop sign, I “stop” (there is essentially zero forward motion – sometimes I go lateral to stay clipped in) and then move on

Cars, cars think they are doing more than us. The reason why is that the difference in speed between their approaching speed and their “stopped” speed is so much more.

I go from 15 mph to 1 mph. I call that a stop.

A car goes from 25 mph to 5 mph and calls that a stop…. but they rolled the stop sign.

BAN CARS

[rcannon100]

@ChristoB50 191933 wrote:

Sad but true! Seems an ever tightening me-centric view, governing how more and more people behave in general.
{Sorry, feeling very pessimistic today!}

Yes it is true. But it is also simple engineering. Traffic at the macro level is an a-moral, flow of vehicles that follows statistically predictable patterns.

20 years ago, if you ran a red light in Arlington, you would get a traffic ticket. This created an incentive. People did not run red lights. Not because they are good / bad or bruce. They just follow predictable instincts.

Now, we have essentially no traffic enforcement. We also have an overwhelmed infrastructure. Arlington which likes to harken back to the days of cherry tree orchards and dairy farms, is now a light urban community – but has refused to employ urban traffic management (like traffic officers managing the flow of traffic in the worst intersections)

No enforcement. Overwhelmed infrastructure (larger wealthier population driving stupid cars over stupid distances). Vehicles follow their incentives. A light turns red, there is no known enforcement, a red light causes a minor inconvenience – run the light.

I am the first person to sit on my porch and tell all of you to get off my yard. Reality is that this is engineering at a macro level – and our local govts have utterly failed us.

[Drewdane]

Yes, we should.

[elbows]

I know this is a can of worms, but I do not like to completely roll as I think it emboldens cyclist trashing and I think laws should be well-reasoned and (at least occasionally) enforced. I wish local jurisdictions would consider reasonable refinements to laws, such as DE has done. Which jurisdiction is most likely to do this? Could towns in MD introduce DE-like provisions? My commute involves a number of stops signs that make very little sense for someone in the bike lane.

[Crickey7]

I don’t mind the debate, but the core principle, in my mind, is that cyclists are simply not a sufficient modal share that this would create an issue. If half of all traffic were bikes, this would be unworkable. I’m uncomfortable with otherwise generally applicable traffic regulation that are defensible on safety grounds being waived primarily because we’re too few to matter.

[SolarBikeCar]

My theory: It is all about horsepower and traffic density.

In Manila every vehicle is underpowered and severely overloaded. There are no traffic lights or stop signs. Everyone just goes…but very slowly. It appears chaotic and inefficient. 3 striped lanes turn into 4 lanes of cars plus filtering for 5 lanes of mopeds with pedestrians crossing at any point at diagonals. Everything moves along at speeds below 25 mph. No spaces open up to allow faster speeds as all roadway is filled…including the box. There are no stop signs and no one stops anyway. No accidents occur because the underpowered vehicles can’t accelerate faster than a pedestrian can run.

If you have stop signs and traffic lights traffic flow creates spaces allowing higher speeds. A powerful engine allows one to accelerate to 35 mph in the space taken up by the intersection box, for example. Pedestrians can’t outrun American vehicles like they can the jeepneys and tricycles in Manila. That reduces the egalitarian aspects of Manila traffic and makes it more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians in US cities due to the relative speed difference.

If traffic speeds are slower than 25mph and if all vehicles accelerated slower than a bicycle (and stopped twice as fast) we would not need stop sign adherence by anyone.

[lordofthemark]

@Crickey7 192070 wrote:

I don’t mind the debate, but the core principle, in my mind, is that cyclists are simply not a sufficient modal share that this would create an issue. If half of all traffic were bikes, this would be unworkable. I’m uncomfortable with otherwise generally applicable traffic regulation that are defensible on safety grounds being waived primarily because we’re too few to matter.

If bikes were half of all traffic, requiring them to come to a full stop at every stop sign would be unworkable, I think. Or we would have to have many fewer stop signs and replace them with yield signs. But that would be difficult because motor vehicles are more dangerous. Better would be mini roundabouts.

Of course I think that the world where bikes are 50% of traffic is a world where bikes are mostly going in protected bike lanes, fairly slowly, for fairly short distances. The Dutch model more or less. People riding 15 miles fast from the suburbs to the center city is NEVER going to be mainstream (probably not even with widespread ebike adoption) Not sure what intersection treatment for unsignalized intersections happens in those circumstances (signalized intersections will have bike specific signals, of course)

My concern is how we get there. The status quo, where the 60-70% or more of riders who Delaware stop signs, are conflated in the public mind with the 30-40% or so who Idaho reds, who are in turn conflated with the 10% or so of riders who are actually reckless, is making it more difficult to grow biking and bike friendly policies than it should be.

I would much rather have a world where WABA could teach how to be safe, based on the way they know riders will actually ride.

[ImaCynic]

Nearly all traffic signals and laws serve one purpose only: Establish Right of Way. Folks tend to get upset if their RoW is taken and NO, cyclists do not have RoW at all times and do have to stop and/or yield.

When I arrives at an intersection and no one else is there, who cares if I stop or not. But when there are others, I always make sure that RoW is observed and established. I also NEVER interpret RoW such as green light and/or walk signal as SAFE as this sense of entitlement has killed many.

I no longer expect others to obey any traffic rules, but rather operate mostly on what is the stupidest thing another can pull and how to react to it by honing necessary bike handling skills. I also do not subscribe to the notion that traffic laws offer any real protection as people are killed not by those following the law, but by those who ignore it.

[Crickey7]

I’ve seen no evidence that cyclists’ judgment in assessing traffic situations is any better than any other modal users. I think any notion that situation X will be okay if we just have more education is simply not realistic. People are people. You need clear, simple, and sometimes bright line rules to follow to ensure smooth flow and protect people. Again, the argument that cyclists should be entitled to an exemption from those rules rests on unsupported and unsupportable assumptions–or apply equally to all modes.

[Steve O]

In my many years’ of observation and thinking about this, the vast majority of people on bikes essentially behave at stop signs exactly the way drivers do.

In each case they slow to be able to assess the situation accurately and then proceed based on circumstances. Yes, there are exceptions in both cases, but for the most part, this is my observation and, for the most part, it works just fine.

Cars do not stop at stop signs (I took a couple of videos to show this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQXcyxdPJyc & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEbxeEbwUzs). Nor do people on bikes.

People riding bikes do not need to slow as much as drivers because they are usually higher up, moving more slowly (allowing more time to assess), have no blind spots and can hear better. I’m not interested in quibbling over whether 4mph constitutes stopping but 5mph does not. As long as the driver or cyclist is being safe, then the stop sign is essentially a yield sign already. For both.

[Author]

Posts