Traffic Ticket

[JeffB]

Why Bicyclists Hate Stop Signs.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@JeffB 33171 wrote:

Why Bicyclists Hate Stop Signs.

Interesting read…I noticed that they used the familiar “cyclists can see better” reason for Idaho stopping. While I believe this to be accurate, I would love to see it quantified in some way, like comparing typical levels of situational awareness between drivers and cyclists. Maybe the authors of this piece could do some follow-on research.

[consularrider]

@TwoWheelsDC 33173 wrote:

Interesting read…I noticed that they used the familiar “cyclists can see better” reason for Idaho stopping. While I believe this to be accurate, I would love to see it quantified in some way, like comparing typical levels of situational awareness between drivers and cyclists. Maybe the authors of this piece could do some follow-on research.

I’d have to say the young woman riding ninja with earbuds (and, gasp, not helmet) up Wilson Blvd from Courthouse through Clarendon on Sunday evening had absolutely no situational awareness. Blew through red lights even when there was a car and pedestrian starting through the intersection.

[creadinger]

If you stopped and put your foot down at all 17 of the stop signs 200 ft apart from each other along Royal Street going N-S through Alexandria you’d get a heck of a work out, but it would also take about an hour and effectively ruin any idea of a nice relaxed cruise on your bike. Oh and you can forget about fun too. If this were heavily enforced you’d also have a lot more cyclists riding on N. Washington St (GW Parkway) through Alexandria simply because it does not have many stops at all comparatively. I’m sure that is something drivers would NOT want however.

I would probably be interested in seeing a small scale urban style race where people actually have to come to a full stop at every stop sign/red light. Any partial stops would result in a time penalty. An anti-alley cat race if you will. I think it would go to the best sprinters, but those with some endurance that could sprint 10 times in a row from a full stop. The best part about this race is that it wouldn’t break any laws.

[dasgeh]

@creadinger 33176 wrote:

I would probably be interested in seeing a small scale urban style race where people actually have to come to a full stop at every stop sign/red light. Any partial stops would result in a time penalty. An anti-alley cat race if you will. I think it would go to the best sprinters, but those with some endurance that could sprint 10 times in a row from a full stop. The best part about this race is that it wouldn’t break any laws.

Wouldn’t it be won by the same set who win crits?

But more importantly, the point about the role of stop signs in traffic calming is an important one. If urban planners use stop signs (or stop lights) to calm traffic in order to create routes that are safer for bikes, then they should take into account how bikes respond to that traffic calming measures. Wouldn’t it be great to see an intersection where cars have a four-way stop, but bikes always have the right of way?

[ShawnoftheDread]

@creadinger 33176 wrote:

If you stopped and put your foot down at all 17 of the stop signs 200 ft apart from each other along Royal Street going N-S through Alexandria you’d get a heck of a work out, but it would also take about an hour and effectively ruin any idea of a nice relaxed cruise on your bike.

What I find interesting about that street is that the one corner on Royal in all of Old Town that doesn’t has a stop sign is the one that’s next to a playground and a preschool.

[jabberwocky]

The issue is that, generally intersections are 4 way stops because visibility isn’t good enough for people to go through without stopping. I just don’t see it working well.

I’m sympathetic to arguments that a lot of tickets are stupid, and it probably shouldn’t be a great enforcement priority, but all the “cyclists just SHOULDN’T have to stop at lights or stop signs” banter is profoundly irritating to me. Its the same self-entitlement that causes so many issues when it comes from drivers, but its somehow ok when cyclists do it.

[creadinger]

@jabberwocky 33185 wrote:

The issue is that, generally intersections are 4 way stops because visibility isn’t good enough for people to go through without stopping. I just don’t see it working well.

I’m sympathetic to arguments that a lot of tickets are stupid, and it probably shouldn’t be a great enforcement priority, but all the “cyclists just SHOULDN’T have to stop at lights or stop signs” banter is profoundly irritating to me. Its the same self-entitlement that causes so many issues when it comes from drivers, but its somehow ok when cyclists do it.

I agree with you here simply because of numbers. Right now there aren’t enough cyclists that you really have to worry about crashing into another cyclist at a 4-way stop intersection if you blow through it or roll through it. If the current numbers of cyclists and cars was flip-flopped such that there was significant bike traffic everywhere and only a few cars, intersections would be crazy with cyclists blowing through going all directions. It would be chaos unless the vast majority of them were made to follow the rules through enforcement.

[jnva]

@creadinger 33193 wrote:

It would be chaos unless the vast majority of them were made to follow the rules through enforcement.

You mean like this?

[creadinger]

Haha! It’s no wonder they don’t paint lane lines there. Sheesh! It’s like watching schools of fish. Wow.

[thecyclingeconomist]

Man… talk about reshaping what I was writing.

I am a 365 commuter; boy, I sure do hate pedaling…

😡

[dasgeh]

To be fair, I meant (but didn’t type) that only the cyclists on one street should have the ultimate, don’t have to stop, right of way.

But a better general rule would be an Idaho stop. Or just redefine what “stop” at stop signs means for bikes: instead of 100%, foot down, not moving for a full second stop, redefine stop as, say, less than 5 mph with the ability to come to a complete stop. In other words, make it legal to do what most bikes do: slow down so that they can look around and yield/stop if need be, but not totally kill their momentum if no one is around or if they can safely roll up to an intersection while the other traffic clears.

[jabberwocky]

@dasgeh 33214 wrote:

But a better general rule would be an Idaho stop. Or just redefine what “stop” at stop signs means for bikes: instead of 100%, foot down, not moving for a full second stop, redefine stop as, say, less than 5 mph with the ability to come to a complete stop. In other words, make it legal to do what most bikes do: slow down so that they can look around and yield/stop if need be, but not totally kill their momentum if no one is around or if they can safely roll up to an intersection while the other traffic clears.

I’d be fine with something along those lines. Basically make it say that they need to stop if there is other traffic (obey the normal right-of-way laws regarding who proceeds at a 4-way stop) but if the intersection is clearly empty they can slow to 5mph and treat it as a yield. I just don’t like the idea of cyclists blowing intersections at full speed; I don’t think thats safe.

And yeah, the whole “must unclip and put a foot down for 3 seconds for it to count as a stop” interpretation is bullcrap. As far as I’m concerned, if I slowed to 4mph, checked the intersection, yielded properly to any other traffic and went, I stopped.

[vvill]

Agreed (to the last 2 posts).

[JimF22003]

For a bit of perspective on the “Idaho Stop” law, and why it makes sense in Idaho, here’s a ride I did the weekend before last while visiting my Dad:

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/229451225

Everything is laid out in one-mile squares. When you roll up to a stop sign you can usually see that the “traffic” is clear for at least half a mile in either direction. When you’re in town there’s usually enough traffic that you have to act like normal traffic in this area anyway, but it sure is nice when you’re out in the boonies (most of the place consists of boonies, BTW)…

[Author]

Posts