Stop Signs and Bicyclists

[frenchyge]

Originally Posted by sitzmark .

Specific distance - no, but does clarify the requirement not to "cut off after passing". This is the same for motor vehicles too, but is now highlighted for emphasis as it pertains to bicycles. http://www.massbike.org/resourcesnew/bike-law/bike-law-update/

Wow, that it awesome and a real victory for Mass. cyclists. Congrats! I know of similar efforts/wins in other states, but nothing of that magnitude. I really hope that can be leveraged to influence all states to re-visit the issue.

Efforts like that arise from these kinds of discussions where people recognize that most states' car laws are insufficient for ensuring the safe and effective travel of cyclists as well. First the cyclists need to understand where "equal rights" does not work for inequal abilities, and then band together to educate and influence lawmakers. The tendency seems to be in thinking that the current laws aren't broken so there's no need to fix them, while people rightly use their own experience and judgement to safely navigate situations which aren't covered (or rightly ignore the laws in situations where the laws themselves present an unsafe situation) . The problem is that in many cases cyclists come out on the short end of the stick when motorists' experience and judgement fail them. If most cyclists are okay with the laws as written then there will never be enough support for the kind of effort necessary to institute bike law changes.

Originally Posted by sitzmark .
Sometimes you just have to go with your gut.

Absolutely, safety comes first. FWIW, I try to be courteous and follow the laws most of the time as well. My comments here are simply the result of questioning whether there is room for improvement in the current laws which could improve not only the safety of cyclists on the road, but also the harmonious interaction between all road users. It's good discussion.

 

[Mak'em Lad]

The laws, rules & regulations are made for ALL road users and cyclists ARE road users.

As a car driver & 'white van man' I will treat a cyclist as a car so when passing I imagine they are 1.7 mtrs wide & then give them 1 mtr clearance (one danger of not doing this is in windy conditions the cyclist could be caught up in the slipstream 7 fall under your wheels or those of a following vehicle especally when driving a larger vehicle). If that means I can't pass due to oncoming traffic I slow down to the speed of the cyclist & wait until it's possible to pass them safely.

Many a time I've had to slow to a crawl following a cyclist because I wanted to turn left & considered it unsafe to pass then turn in front of them.

I was doing this for many years prior to returning to cycling.

What does annoy me is the cyclist I've passed (as described above) then scraping passed me on the inside & through the red lights, swerving left & across the ped.X. area (on the road to the left), then back on to continuation of the road (effectively going straight on) often without slowing down.

If cyclists want motorists to treat them with respect then they should treat the motorist likewise & that includes observing the rules.

 

[PBRSTREETGANG]

As far as I'm concerned, if you're on the road, you follow the same rules and regulations as motor vehicles. Here in Cali, it's the law. I look at it as a matter of self-preservation. The reason I'm still here and able to add this post is because I strictly adhere to that principle.

There have been several close calls when I was a kid and my brain was still developing. I came VERY close to losing my life once from rolling through a stop sign... got lazy and wasn't paying attention. A car that had no stop sign, and the right-of-way, almost T-boned me going over 50. If I had rolled through one second sooner, I'd be stain on the asphalt.

If I had nine lives, I certainly spent a few of them that day.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming .




Actually in California the vehicle laws require a cyclist to put a foot down at an intersection for the stop to be considered legal, at least that was the case when I lived and rode there. Look it up.

There's already a world of gray between cyclists and motor vehicles regarding laws. We regularly ride on shoulders and share lanes with other vehicles when there are no shoulders both behaviors wouldn't be legal for motor vehicles. In Washington state cyclists can legally choose to ride on sidewalks, that's not true in every state but it's never true for motor vehicles. As Frechyge points out bikes are generally at a disadvantage to motor vehicles and the most important thing is to ride safe and smart and in general to ride somewhat defensively. I like the Idaho laws, they don't relieve cyclists of responsibility at intersections, they just give them more flexibility.

But regardless of the written laws and what cyclists are 'supposed' to do, there's the reality check of how folks, regardless of the vehicle they're operating. actually obey those written laws. Who hasn't exceeded a speed limit occasionally while driving? Who hasn't rolled a stop sign without as complete a stop as the law might desire from time to time? Cyclists are no different than drivers of motor vehicles when it comes to coloring outside the lines when they think it's safe to do so. Sure they'd better accept the risk of an accident or ticket when they choose to ignore traffic laws but that's no different than someone who drives a bit above the posted speed limit.

Cyclists have rights and the responsibilities that go with them, but that's no different than driving a car. You should know the laws and in general obey them, especially when someone's safety, including your own, is at stake but there's no more moral obligation to blindly follow all laws any more than there is while driving a car if you aren't endangering anyone in the process.

-Dave

Califonia DMV "bicycle section"

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/shr_slow_veh.htm#bike

No foot down required.

I'm all for the laws being the same. I don't want confused people driving cars wondering which set of laws apply because at the end of the day, if someone drives over my head, it really doesn't matter to me if I was in the right or wrong.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by frenchyge .

There already *are* different laws for different modes of travel. The fact that bicycles have been lumped in with cars doesn't make it any smarter just because they both have wheels -- the similarities end there.

I can respect the opinions of those who feel that bikes should follow the rules for cars, but why? It's not for the safety of the cyclists, so who does it serve? Does it really add to the safety of motorists that bicycles are following the same rules, or does it just make the motorists that much more complacent and likely to encroach on our rights? Why do you feel that a cyclist's vulnerability on the road doesn't warrant some additional protections, as pedestrians are granted (ie, *complete* right of way in their designated portion of the roadway (crosswalks))?

But the "different laws" by and large the piddly stuff, designed to take out the "guess" factor for those to thick to figure out what is going on. Stuff like cars shall not, for the most part, drive in bike lanes and likewise, bikes shall ride in a bike lane if present unless it's full of junk or you need to turn left or the gem of not riding on the freeway...

... not that the dangers of riding with vehicles doing 70+mph on a bicycle stopped generations of English time trialist riding on some big roads with lots of cars and lorries.

Personally, I think society is to dumbed-down as it is. What the heck do you want? A personal safety bubble for every cyclist... If you feel that a given road is dangerous then take another route. If there are no other routes consider another mode of transport. It'd be nice to get bike lanes everywhere but lets get real - money on cr*p like this needs to be spent on schools instead of our own little p1ssing contest of Car Vs Bike.

 

[daveryanwyoming]

Originally Posted by swampy1970 .


No foot down required....

I stand corrected. I wonder if even back in the day our understanding that we had to put a foot down was a misinterpretation of this from the sfbike.org faq's page:

Do I have to put my foot down for it to be a legal stop?
Nothing in the law says that a "complete stop" requires a bicycle rider to take his/her foot off the pedal and make contact with the ground. CVC 21201 does say that a bicycle must be small enough for the rider to stop, support with one foot on the ground, and restart safely, but whether or not a complete stop is made ultimately hinges on a police officer's discretion.

Anyway, cool I just looked up local Washington law and it's the same, no explicit requirements for putting a foot down, just some recommendations that it'll be harder for an officer to cite you if you do put the foot down but that sounds like a good reason to do a slightly longer trackstand...

Thanks,
-Dave

 

[steve]

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming .

Anyway, cool I just looked up local Washington law and it's the same, no explicit requirements for putting a foot down, just some recommendations that it'll be harder for an officer to cite you if you do put the foot down but that sounds like a good reason to do a slightly longer trackstand...

I've never heard of anywhere having this law, it would be a major pain in the butt.

 

[frenchyge]

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming .
I stand corrected. I wonder if even back in the day our understanding that we had to put a foot down was a misinterpretation of this from the sfbike.org faq's page:

Even if it isn't in the DMV codes, police officers had been enforcing it as if it is a requirement. Just another reason to have specific laws for cycling so that the police know what the heck they are doing as relates to bike-car interactions.

Swampy, I'm not asking for a protective bubble. The problem with vague laws is that if there isn't a clear statute violation the police defer to insurance companies to sort it out, and without a credible witness to back the cyclist's claims the motorist probably skates. My experience is that most motorists suck at the "guess factor" when it comes to cyclists -- either being far more conservative than necessary or too reckless -- so I'd prefer that the laws remove the guess factor and replace them with some clearer guidelines so drivers can be educated and cyclists and police know what to expect.

If you feel that a given road is dangerous then take another route. If there are no other routes consider another mode of transport. It'd be nice to get bike lanes everywhere but lets get real - money on cr*p like this needs to be spent on schools instead of our own little p1ssing contest of Car Vs Bike.

I'm shocked to hear that from a cyclist -- if you remove the cars then there aren't any dangerous roads. If left to the majority to decide then *all* roads would be too dangerous for other modes of transport. If motorists can be educated on what is proper with regards to safe interactions with cyclists then bike lanes aren't really necessary, but that's hard to do when there aren't clear laws to describe what that is. It's not about a pissing match at all -- the laws need to support and promote cycling as an alternative mode of transport.

 

[64Paramount]

Good points, Frenchy.

 

[Mak'em Lad]

I have taught several people to drive for start to test standard. I would tell them to apply the park brake at stop lines (even if they just held the button in ready to release it) as to use the foot-brake they were tempted not to come to a halt. At least with the park brake on the would prove to the examiner they had stopped.

As the rules of the road apply to ALL road users (at least in the UK although there are some cycle specific rules) then they should come to a halt & from what I've seen there are not many who can balance a static bike so would need to put a foot down.

There are too many drivers who basically observe the laws but flout the rules widely. The difference between a rule & a law is the police can prosecute if you break a law whereas there is no direct offense (as such) they can charge you with for breaking rules. That comes under the umbrella charges of careless, reckless or dangerous driving etc. that cover a multitude of sins.

Lead by example, drive/ride correctly at all times and hope the others get the message.

There are no dangerous roads, just dangerous drivers/riders. I am not aware of any different rule for cars & cyclists but there are some that mainly apply to cyclists, some that mainly apply to buses and/or taxis (bus or no car lanes) etc. but they follow the same basic princples rather than conflict. In the UK it is required that learners learn ALL the highway code & can be tested on any part of it.

 

[CalicoCat]

I am totally an advocate of obeying the rules of the road, both as a driver and as cyclist. However, I have found 4-way stops to be tricky. As a driver, I always stop. However, as a cyclist, I slow down to an almost complete stop, check for cars, and if I am clearly the first vehicle to have approached the intersection, I roll through it without putting a foot down. I know that this is technically wrong. However, when I do come to a complete stop, get out of the saddle, and put a foot down, the approaching car often makes it to the intersection. While I technically have the right-of-way to enter the intersection first, I have to make an extra effort to ensure that the driver sees me, and is willing to yield to me. Too often the driver of the car wrongly assumes the right of way (presumably because it can make it through the intersection faster). This causes confusion and a dangerous situation that would have been avoided had I simply not made a show of putting a foot down.

 

[Mak'em Lad]

Originally Posted by CalicoCat .

I am totally an advocate of obeying the rules of the road, both as a driver and as cyclist. However, I have found 4-way stops to be tricky. As a driver, I always stop. However, as a cyclist, I slow down to an almost complete stop, check for cars, and if I am clearly the first vehicle to have approached the intersection, I roll through it without putting a foot down. I know that this is technically wrong. However, when I do come to a complete stop, get out of the saddle, and put a foot down, the approaching car often makes it to the intersection. While I technically have the right-of-way to enter the intersection first, I have to make an extra effort to ensure that the driver sees me, and is willing to yield to me. Too often the driver of the car wrongly assumes the right of way (presumably because it can make it through the intersection faster). This causes confusion and a dangerous situation that would have been avoided had I simply not made a show of putting a foot down.

While not the case at all stop signs, they are normally used at 'closed' junctions (UK) where in order to fully check both way it is necessary to come to a halt.
At a 4 way stop, no one has 'right of way' (technically, legally or whatever, same as unmarked junctions) but 'best practice/good manners' says you go in order you arrive (or in turn if traffic is to heavy to keep track). In these days good manners goes out of the window when a driver is pushed for time or when the other road user is slower or smaller than themselves.
Many motorists believe that because they pay road tax & cyclists don't, they have priority. ALL road users are equal regardless of speed, size, road tax etc.

If you, as a cyclist, are the first to approach the stop and put your foot down but are then beaten in to the junction by another vehicle then clearly THEY have not come to a full stop as they should.

By the use of the word 'yield' (and your 'share the road' picture) I take it you're from the USA. Whether things are different over there I don't know.

 

[Aussie_Al]

The Law in NYC is come to a full stop...I "try" to obey the law as much as possible

 

[ted6869]

It is real SIMPLE if the Light is RED or the Sign says STOP then S T O P ! ! ! ! ! ! !

 

[maddogbubba]

Originally Posted by Mak'em Lad .


Quote: Originally Posted by CalicoCat .

I am totally an advocate of obeying the rules of the road, both as a driver and as cyclist. However, I have found 4-way stops to be tricky. As a driver, I always stop. However, as a cyclist, I slow down to an almost complete stop, check for cars, and if I am clearly the first vehicle to have approached the intersection, I roll through it without putting a foot down. I know that this is technically wrong. However, when I do come to a complete stop, get out of the saddle, and put a foot down, the approaching car often makes it to the intersection. While I technically have the right-of-way to enter the intersection first, I have to make an extra effort to ensure that the driver sees me, and is willing to yield to me. Too often the driver of the car wrongly assumes the right of way (presumably because it can make it through the intersection faster). This causes confusion and a dangerous situation that would have been avoided had I simply not made a show of putting a foot down.

While not the case at all stop signs, they are normally used at 'closed' junctions (UK) where in order to fully check both way it is necessary to come to a halt.
At a 4 way stop, no one has 'right of way' (technically, legally or whatever, same as unmarked junctions) but 'best practice/good manners' says you go in order you arrive (or in turn if traffic is to heavy to keep track). In these days good manners goes out of the window when a driver is pushed for time or when the other road user is slower or smaller than themselves.
Many motorists believe that because they pay road tax & cyclists don't, they have priority. ALL road users are equal regardless of speed, size, road tax etc.

If you, as a cyclist, are the first to approach the stop and put your foot down but are then beaten in to the junction by another vehicle then clearly THEY have not come to a full stop as they should.

By the use of the word 'yield' (and your 'share the road' picture) I take it you're from the USA. Whether things are different over there I don't know.

I drive a car ,pay taxes ( as much as the next poor schmuck ) and ride a bike , I even consider myself to have some manners at times . If you can afford to ride a bike on the streets for recreation or training etc , than there is a good chance you pay up the nose in taxes - not everybody can afford to pursue cycling as a sport /hobbie /lifestyle . I also roll through stop signs and lights when I should not, but jeeze - just trying to keep up averages - I know - no excuse . We all know what's right and wrong and we have to follow the laws as they are written for the area's we live in . Blasted through a stop light two weeks ago (of course I made sure it was clear ) but a cop was a couple hundred yards away ( parked on a motorcycle ) and nailed me with a ticket . I could not do anything but laugh at myself . Just follow the laws / rules where you live as best you can so you can live to ride another day .

 

[Jim Moore]

I don't look at as a question of "breaking the law" or not. I look at as a question of "am I being a jackass?" Run a stop sign or a red light in the middle of nowhere. Who cares? Rdie up a line of cars to a stop sign, run it, and create a traffic jam on the other side as those same cars struggle to repass me. Jackass. Don't be one. Simple. Edit: hey, why are my posts so long?

 

[randochap]

I don't know of any exception for cyclists in the rules of the road. I think it's not a good idea for cyclists to make up new rules that other road users are unaware of. It's a losing proposition. A skilled cyclist can, gear down, come to a halt and proceed with caution--all without putting a foot down.

 

[BrianTX]

No special rules in the city. Stop sign means stop.