11 ms·

San Francisco May Let Bicyclists Yield at Stop Signs

84 points by ojbyrne 11y ago

koenigdavidmj 11y ago
Lots of people are going to be tempted to rant about seeing bicyclists run stop signs and red lights, just like the last time an article got posted about this subject. That has nothing to do with this law, which applies only when there is no interaction with cars anyway. What you are seeing is still just as illegal as before.
- snewk 11y ago
  running down pedestrians is still illegal as well, no matter what vehicle you're operating.
  - amadeusw 11y ago
    exactly! And so is reckless driving. I'm looking forward to this law being passed in more jurisdictions.
- flomo 11y ago
  I live a few blocks away from the Wiggle intersection pictured in the Times, and have been following the online flamewars (which primarily stem from conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians, not cars). The issue I see is that even the proponents of the Idaho Stop often don't seem to understand what an Idaho Stop actually is. An accident happens and people (including Morgan Fitzgibbons) immediately jump in and say "This is why we need the Idaho Stop!", even though it actually has no relevance to the situation. So the risk I see is that average every day person who isn't imbued with traffic laws will interpret this as "I don't have to stop." Which is how a lot of bicyclists currently behave.
  - schlumpf 11y ago
    As you say, many cyclists fail to stop at signed intersections. Clearly the knowledge that "I have to stop" isn't having its desired effect. So who exactly are you worried about not complying with a relaxed standard? Surely not the cautious people who stop at the Muni tracks on Church and Duboce while a torrent of riders streams past them across the middle of the intersection. The cautious ones already have enough common sense to observe the laws of physics. Surely not the people whose goal is never to dab (put a foot down) between SoMa and Outer Richmond. They don't care much for stop signs -- or red lights, or lanes, or the product of mass times velocity. So is there really a constituency of borderline nut jobs who currently observe stop signs but would suddenly turn into reckless maniacs on two wheels if yielding were "legalized"? I'm probably in this camp and I can tell you that I already roll through the Wiggle when the coast is clear...and assuming a car hasn't already waved me through. Sorry but it's hard to believe that allowing bikes to yield would turn me into a social menace.
dspoka 11y ago
I happen to live in Isla Vista, the college town of UCSB. Although not explicitly in writing, the rule of this town is that bikes have the right of way. We have somewhere around 14,000 cyclists that ride to campus and back everyday. From first hand experience this is a much safer system. The drivers are much more attentive at the wheel and the heavy bike traffic enforces that cars really don't go faster than the 25 mph speed limit
- mikeryan 11y ago
  From first hand experience this is a much safer system Right until someone visits thats not aware of this unwritten rule?
  - hkailahi 11y ago
    I also live in Isla Vista, and can confirm that this is exactly what happens. When freshman move in, the first few weeks are filled with crashes. Also, every time there is an event that draws lots of out-of-towners (Freshman Orientation, Halloween, etc.) it gets much, much worse.
noobermin 11y ago
Reading the comments on the article is fascinating. Drivers (of which I am not one) have a bunch of disdain for cyclists. I agree that some are just plain stupid, unconcerned for their safety and for others, but many drivers are just plain stupid, unconcerned for their safety and for others... and stereotyping in either direction. isn't fair.
- EStudley 11y ago
  I would also guess most of the drivers who complain live in a city that lacks proper bike lanes. Bikes wouldn't need to interact as much with drivers if we defined space for them.
  - lkbm 11y ago
    Most bike lanes don't fix intersections, which is where my biggest beef with most cyclists in my area is. I drive about once day a week and bike five days. I get to be on both sides, and gosh darn do I hate both groups. I hate a few drivers in all areas, and most cyclists at intersections. (t's a daily thing to see cyclists fly through an all-stop intersection when there's someone at the cross first. It's a weekly thing to see a car driving the wrong way down a one-way road. That said, it's the drivers that are going to kill me. (Leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 26: the human driver.)
    - bweitzman 11y ago
      Seeing the number of other cyclists that just blow through lights and stop signs, I'm pretty sure that the majority of them must not even know that they're supposed to stop. There are a few bike specific lights on my route to work and the number of cyclists that stop at these intersections is astronomically higher than at other, equally busy intersections.
      - noobermin 11y ago
        >Seeing the number of other cyclists that just blow through lights and stop signs, I'm pretty sure that the majority of them must not even know that they're supposed to stop. As a biker, I think we need to educate others on this. If we bikers want respect, we need to be willing to share the road sensibly. I have a bit of strong feelings towards drivers, but I also disdain bikers who don't follow the rules and just make it harder for the rest of us to garner the respect we badly need on the road.
mikekchar 11y ago
I haven't driven a car in many years and cycle pretty much everywhere. I'm not sure why anyone would advocate not stopping at a stop sign. They are there for a reason. When I'm riding, I'm usually doing about 30 kph. Hitting a pedestrian at that speed is going to do some serious damage, both to the pedestrian and to me. Hitting something more solid like a car would be extremely bad for me and my bike. One of the things that has gotten better over the years (especially in Europe) is that car drivers are starting to take cyclists seriously. They are legitimate vehicles on the road. When I was cycling in the UK, I was amazed at how courteous drivers were. Even on back roads, people would patiently wait behind me until the road was wide enough to pass. Often they would smile and wave after they passed me. Not everyone is like that, obviously, but this kind of mutual respect is what you want to go for. IMHO this idea is a huge step backwards if enacted. What are the counter arguments (the article was quite vague on the details)?
- utnick 11y ago
  You won't be allowed to roll through a stop sign at 30kph. Yielding in this context, means slowing down, and going very slowly through the stop-sign, assuming its nobody else's turn to go. Every cyclist I've seen pretty much does this already if nobody is around. But the current law is that you must come to a complete stop, even if nobody is around, before going.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    Same thing most cars do, at least where I live. If there's no cross traffic, nobody comes to a complete dead stop at a stop sign.
  - mikekchar 11y ago
    Hmmm... I admit that I rarely put my foot down if there is no traffic, so I suppose I am rolling through. If that's what's being described, then I suppose it makes some sense. I've been surprised a few times in my life and even when I thought I was going slowly enough to stop, it wasn't the case. Now, I am pretty careful at stop signs. I haven't really been able to see a good description of what "treat a stop sign as a yield sign" means in practical terms, though. "If you hit something or got hit, then you did it wrong" doesn't seem to be a great way to proceed ;-)
thesis 11y ago
Cyclists here drive me nutty. Granted most places don't have bike lanes but IMO you shouldn't be on a road where the speed limit is 45 and you're blocking a line of cars. The other day everyone was patiently waiting to get around this guy going 15mph on his bicycle, and once we did, at the next stop sign he just cruised to the stop sign in the 2 foot space between the cars and the curb and blocked slowed down even more cars. I know my rant is a little off topic, but my point is that if you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards. Bicycles yielding at stop signs isn't right.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - gridspy 11y ago
    People who emerge onto the footpath are often not prepared to avoid a cyclist cruising along at >4x the speed of a normal pedestrian.
- jacobolus 11y ago
  If you’re talking about San Francisco, which road exactly is it that has a 45 mph speed limit, and cyclists? Most city streets have a speed limit of 25 mph, though drivers often go dramatically faster. (On my semi-arterial residential street, the speed limit is officially 25 mph, but between midnight an 6 AM, especially on the weekend, Uber cars and taxis tend to go 50–60+.)
  - zten 11y ago
    They're definitely not thinking of city driving. Suburbs, maybe. They might be thinking of roads like Highway 1 in Pacifica and north of Stinson Beach. Stretches will have a 50mph speed limit, a narrow shoulder, and a grade that will drop many cyclists to 15mph or lower.
- lutorm 11y ago
  if you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards The law treats bicyclists and motor vehicles differently in many ways already. For example: * Bicyclists are required to ride "as far to the right as practicable". No such requirement exists for automobiles. * Bicyclists are prohibited from certain roads, like freeways, unlike automobiles. Of course, in these cases it is the motor vehicles that are allowed to do things bicyclists aren't allowed to. I suppose for consistency you are arguing that these these rules shouldn't exist either?
zeckalpha 11y ago
Let's make most stop signs into yield signs, even for cars. Being on edge (alert) causes drivers to be focused, which reduces accidents. See roundabouts.
- ajmurmann 11y ago
  Yes, please! Those stop signs everywhere are often times unnecessary and a gigantic waste of fuel. Let's just give one street the right of way and the other street gets a yield sign. If they are both major streets, there should be a traffic light or a circle depending on the traffic patterns.
  - tabio 11y ago
    circles and lights cost a lot more than signs.
    - ajmurmann 11y ago
      Agreed. However, I don't think we would need many more off then than we already have. I was just trying to make clear that I don't think we should turn every intersection into one with one street having the right of way and their other one having a yield sign.
    - Symbiote 11y ago
      A mini roundabout in the UK is usually just a big white circle painted on the road [1]. It means "yield to the right" (driving on the left), and presumably costs a similar amount to other markings painted on the road. The one pictured has very poor visibility, so it's expected that drivers will almost-but-not-quite stop until they can see. [2] is more typical. A driver where the camera is can proceed, since they can see the other car is turning out of the junction and none are following it. Large vehicles like buses can drive over the white dot, since it's just paint. [1] http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/7/75/Tiny_mini_roundabout_1_-_Coppermine_-_4700.JPG http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/7/75/Tiny_mini_rou... [2] http://thumbsnap.com/i/LKjHG2eP.jpg http://thumbsnap.com/i/LKjHG2eP.jpg
  - 11y ago
birken 11y ago
As somebody who has biked thousands of miles in SF, this is a fun thing to argue about but it doesn't make any difference on the streets. Almost every biker already does this, and as long as the police (correctly) don't enforce the actual law, whether or not it is legal really makes little difference. If you are a driver you shouldn't notice the difference anyways. If you get to the stop sign first, then the biker has to stop. If they don't, they are breaking the law. If they get there first, they get to go, but by not stopping they'll get out of your way sooner. Also major Kudos to The Wigg Party [1] who came up with the idea for the creative and wildly effective "Stop In" protest. When you compare that protest to the moronic monthly takeover of the streets by Critical Mass it is like night and day. 1: http://wiggparty.org/ http://wiggparty.org/
- robszumski 11y ago
  Part of the article addresses that other cities are looking to San Francisco to set a precedent before adopting similar laws. It might be defacto legal here, but other cities need a law on the books to get the same privilege.
- cpitman 11y ago
  Why does this make any more sense for bikes than for cars? This seems to be an argument for why the current rules for stop signs are wrong because there is an "obvious" set of cases where someone shouldn't have to stop. Isn't the problem when the two parties disagree about who got to the intersection first?
  - birken 11y ago
    There are many differences. This is in the "beating a dead horse" category of argument because the difference between driving up to an intersection and biking up to one is so intuitively different if you've done both of them. But here are some reasons off the top of my head of why it is safer to yield through a stop sign on a bike vs a car: 1) On a bike you are much more towards the middle of the intersection so there is more space between you and people potentially entering the intersection from the sides, so you have more reaction time to deal with them 2) Your cross section is really tiny and entirely in front of you so there is no risk of hitting something you don't see 3) You have a much better field of view because you aren't obstructed by your car interior 4) You can use your sense of hearing to listen for cars/ pedestrians / other dangers 5) You are going much more slowly
salimmadjd 11y ago
This is a very bad idea! It'll cause far more accidents as the result. You'll have some crazy bicyclist who'll fully ignore the stop sign and fly through them. The problem is that you have some minority of cyclists ruining it for everyone else. I have arrived on a stop sign in SF on many times. I do my full stop, I have the right of the way, only to see a cyclist just fly by. And then give me the birdy when I hunk at him. At the same time, many of them just fly through pedestrians. For those who are not familiar with SF, the cult of cyclist in SF is becoming rather entitled. They have (not sure she is still there) a PR women that make the perfect deputy for Karl Rove. The SF cyclist are basically the NRA of SF, IMO. They have a strong lobby and are getting everything they want. Including having a special privilege that puts them above cars and pedestrian.
- bgentry 11y ago
  This is a very bad idea! It'll cause far more accidents as the result. You'll have some crazy bicyclist who'll fully ignore the stop sign and fly through them. What you describe is illegal now and will remain illegal if this law is passed. The proposal is for cyclists to be able to yield, but not fully stop, if it is safe for them to do so. Blindly flying through an intersection at full speed is and will remain illegal.
  - ajmurmann 11y ago
    The rule we have right now is much easier to follow and leaves nothing up to interpretation, yet SF cyclists seem unable to follow it as it is. I doubt that replacing that with a rule that makes things much fuzzier will do much good. If the existing easy rule is neither followed not enforced, how is the new fuzzy rule gonna be anything than a permission to do even more problematic stuff. I am really not worried about cars here, but am terrified as a pedestrian.
    - salimmadjd 11y ago
      Exactly right. Stop sign is a simple rule to follow. You make full stop and then you go. yield is open to interpretation.
GPGPU 11y ago
This is the worst idea ever. While you should never expect a bicyclist to follow laws, this will make them even more unpredictable, and give them a feeling of entitlement.
carbide 11y ago
I live in one of the Colorado counties mentioned in the article as already having this law on the books. The law works fine up here in the mountains, and we have a lot of cyclists and a lot of seasonal traffic. Of course, we don't have the traffic of a big city like San Francisco. Still, we don't have a lot of bike-car accidents or bike-pedestrian accidents at our intersections. The thing is, the stop signs are treated as yield signs. If a biker just blows through the stop sign without yielding right-of-way, they can still be ticketed. So as far as safety concerns, I don't see it making any difference. The people who would ignore a "yield" are the people who are already ignoring a "stop" and are subject to being ticketed if they get caught. If you dart out in front of a car and get hit by that car, you'll still be found to be at fault (and you're the one who is going to wind up in the hospital)
grandalf 11y ago
After seeing cyclists routinely disregard safety around cars and buses, and after being nearly hit many times crossing an intersection at the 'walk' sign by a cyclist flying through a red light, I have come to believe that cyclists are generally daredevils who lack the typical common sense about traffic safety and act like bullies around pedestrians. If you are riding a bicycle and lack the strength to stop at a red light and then get back up to speed once the light turns green, perhaps a segway or a motorized scooter would be a better option (or a public bus).
- mirimir 11y ago
  Maybe pedestrians will start using canes and walking sticks ;)
  - grandalf 11y ago
    Indeed.
- techterrier 11y ago
  Safety doesn't mean what you think it does. Those aggressive cyclists? They're the safe ones. The people that get squished by traffic are the timid ones clinging to the kerbs and stopping at left-turn red lights.
  - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
    Riding aggressively doesn't mean jumping red lights and playing chicken with pedestrians
    - techterrier 11y ago
      You can do one without the other. As I said, the data is clear. The best way to get squished by a lorry (the most common KSI for cyclists in city environments) is by following the rules.
      - 11y ago
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
What's the context for the video link where some cyclists and a zipcar are having a standoff? I'm not sure I understood what was happening there.
panglott 11y ago
The answer isn't to let cyclists run stop signs, because the problem is that there are too many stop signs in the US. Don't put a four-way stop on every corner and this won't be a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#Placement_and_standardization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#Placement_and_standa...

84 points by ojbyrne 11y ago

Lots of people are going to be tempted to rant about seeing bicyclists run stop signs and red lights, just like the last time an article got posted about this subject. That has nothing to do with this law, which applies only when there is no interaction with cars anyway. What you are seeing is still just as illegal as before.

snewk 11y ago
running down pedestrians is still illegal as well, no matter what vehicle you're operating.
- amadeusw 11y ago
  exactly! And so is reckless driving. I'm looking forward to this law being passed in more jurisdictions.
flomo 11y ago
I live a few blocks away from the Wiggle intersection pictured in the Times, and have been following the online flamewars (which primarily stem from conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians, not cars). The issue I see is that even the proponents of the Idaho Stop often don't seem to understand what an Idaho Stop actually is. An accident happens and people (including Morgan Fitzgibbons) immediately jump in and say "This is why we need the Idaho Stop!", even though it actually has no relevance to the situation. So the risk I see is that average every day person who isn't imbued with traffic laws will interpret this as "I don't have to stop." Which is how a lot of bicyclists currently behave.
- schlumpf 11y ago
  As you say, many cyclists fail to stop at signed intersections. Clearly the knowledge that "I have to stop" isn't having its desired effect. So who exactly are you worried about not complying with a relaxed standard? Surely not the cautious people who stop at the Muni tracks on Church and Duboce while a torrent of riders streams past them across the middle of the intersection. The cautious ones already have enough common sense to observe the laws of physics. Surely not the people whose goal is never to dab (put a foot down) between SoMa and Outer Richmond. They don't care much for stop signs -- or red lights, or lanes, or the product of mass times velocity. So is there really a constituency of borderline nut jobs who currently observe stop signs but would suddenly turn into reckless maniacs on two wheels if yielding were "legalized"? I'm probably in this camp and I can tell you that I already roll through the Wiggle when the coast is clear...and assuming a car hasn't already waved me through. Sorry but it's hard to believe that allowing bikes to yield would turn me into a social menace.

dspoka 11y ago

I happen to live in Isla Vista, the college town of UCSB. Although not explicitly in writing, the rule of this town is that bikes have the right of way. We have somewhere around 14,000 cyclists that ride to campus and back everyday. From first hand experience this is a much safer system. The drivers are much more attentive at the wheel and the heavy bike traffic enforces that cars really don't go faster than the 25 mph speed limit

mikeryan 11y ago
From first hand experience this is a much safer system Right until someone visits thats not aware of this unwritten rule?
- hkailahi 11y ago
  I also live in Isla Vista, and can confirm that this is exactly what happens. When freshman move in, the first few weeks are filled with crashes. Also, every time there is an event that draws lots of out-of-towners (Freshman Orientation, Halloween, etc.) it gets much, much worse.

noobermin 11y ago

Reading the comments on the article is fascinating. Drivers (of which I am not one) have a bunch of disdain for cyclists. I agree that some are just plain stupid, unconcerned for their safety and for others, but many drivers are just plain stupid, unconcerned for their safety and for others... and stereotyping in either direction. isn't fair.

EStudley 11y ago
I would also guess most of the drivers who complain live in a city that lacks proper bike lanes. Bikes wouldn't need to interact as much with drivers if we defined space for them.
- lkbm 11y ago
  Most bike lanes don't fix intersections, which is where my biggest beef with most cyclists in my area is. I drive about once day a week and bike five days. I get to be on both sides, and gosh darn do I hate both groups. I hate a few drivers in all areas, and most cyclists at intersections. (t's a daily thing to see cyclists fly through an all-stop intersection when there's someone at the cross first. It's a weekly thing to see a car driving the wrong way down a one-way road. That said, it's the drivers that are going to kill me. (Leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 26: the human driver.)
  - bweitzman 11y ago
    Seeing the number of other cyclists that just blow through lights and stop signs, I'm pretty sure that the majority of them must not even know that they're supposed to stop. There are a few bike specific lights on my route to work and the number of cyclists that stop at these intersections is astronomically higher than at other, equally busy intersections.
    - noobermin 11y ago
      >Seeing the number of other cyclists that just blow through lights and stop signs, I'm pretty sure that the majority of them must not even know that they're supposed to stop. As a biker, I think we need to educate others on this. If we bikers want respect, we need to be willing to share the road sensibly. I have a bit of strong feelings towards drivers, but I also disdain bikers who don't follow the rules and just make it harder for the rest of us to garner the respect we badly need on the road.

mikekchar 11y ago

I haven't driven a car in many years and cycle pretty much everywhere. I'm not sure why anyone would advocate not stopping at a stop sign. They are there for a reason. When I'm riding, I'm usually doing about 30 kph. Hitting a pedestrian at that speed is going to do some serious damage, both to the pedestrian and to me. Hitting something more solid like a car would be extremely bad for me and my bike. One of the things that has gotten better over the years (especially in Europe) is that car drivers are starting to take cyclists seriously. They are legitimate vehicles on the road. When I was cycling in the UK, I was amazed at how courteous drivers were. Even on back roads, people would patiently wait behind me until the road was wide enough to pass. Often they would smile and wave after they passed me. Not everyone is like that, obviously, but this kind of mutual respect is what you want to go for. IMHO this idea is a huge step backwards if enacted. What are the counter arguments (the article was quite vague on the details)?

utnick 11y ago
You won't be allowed to roll through a stop sign at 30kph. Yielding in this context, means slowing down, and going very slowly through the stop-sign, assuming its nobody else's turn to go. Every cyclist I've seen pretty much does this already if nobody is around. But the current law is that you must come to a complete stop, even if nobody is around, before going.
- ams6110 11y ago
  Same thing most cars do, at least where I live. If there's no cross traffic, nobody comes to a complete dead stop at a stop sign.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  Hmmm... I admit that I rarely put my foot down if there is no traffic, so I suppose I am rolling through. If that's what's being described, then I suppose it makes some sense. I've been surprised a few times in my life and even when I thought I was going slowly enough to stop, it wasn't the case. Now, I am pretty careful at stop signs. I haven't really been able to see a good description of what "treat a stop sign as a yield sign" means in practical terms, though. "If you hit something or got hit, then you did it wrong" doesn't seem to be a great way to proceed ;-)

thesis 11y ago

Cyclists here drive me nutty. Granted most places don't have bike lanes but IMO you shouldn't be on a road where the speed limit is 45 and you're blocking a line of cars. The other day everyone was patiently waiting to get around this guy going 15mph on his bicycle, and once we did, at the next stop sign he just cruised to the stop sign in the 2 foot space between the cars and the curb and blocked slowed down even more cars. I know my rant is a little off topic, but my point is that if you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards. Bicycles yielding at stop signs isn't right.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- gridspy 11y ago
  People who emerge onto the footpath are often not prepared to avoid a cyclist cruising along at >4x the speed of a normal pedestrian.
jacobolus 11y ago
If you’re talking about San Francisco, which road exactly is it that has a 45 mph speed limit, and cyclists? Most city streets have a speed limit of 25 mph, though drivers often go dramatically faster. (On my semi-arterial residential street, the speed limit is officially 25 mph, but between midnight an 6 AM, especially on the weekend, Uber cars and taxis tend to go 50–60+.)
- zten 11y ago
  They're definitely not thinking of city driving. Suburbs, maybe. They might be thinking of roads like Highway 1 in Pacifica and north of Stinson Beach. Stretches will have a 50mph speed limit, a narrow shoulder, and a grade that will drop many cyclists to 15mph or lower.
lutorm 11y ago
if you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards The law treats bicyclists and motor vehicles differently in many ways already. For example: * Bicyclists are required to ride "as far to the right as practicable". No such requirement exists for automobiles. * Bicyclists are prohibited from certain roads, like freeways, unlike automobiles. Of course, in these cases it is the motor vehicles that are allowed to do things bicyclists aren't allowed to. I suppose for consistency you are arguing that these these rules shouldn't exist either?

zeckalpha 11y ago

Let's make most stop signs into yield signs, even for cars. Being on edge (alert) causes drivers to be focused, which reduces accidents. See roundabouts.

ajmurmann 11y ago
Yes, please! Those stop signs everywhere are often times unnecessary and a gigantic waste of fuel. Let's just give one street the right of way and the other street gets a yield sign. If they are both major streets, there should be a traffic light or a circle depending on the traffic patterns.
- tabio 11y ago
  circles and lights cost a lot more than signs.
  - ajmurmann 11y ago
    Agreed. However, I don't think we would need many more off then than we already have. I was just trying to make clear that I don't think we should turn every intersection into one with one street having the right of way and their other one having a yield sign.
  - Symbiote 11y ago
    A mini roundabout in the UK is usually just a big white circle painted on the road [1]. It means "yield to the right" (driving on the left), and presumably costs a similar amount to other markings painted on the road. The one pictured has very poor visibility, so it's expected that drivers will almost-but-not-quite stop until they can see. [2] is more typical. A driver where the camera is can proceed, since they can see the other car is turning out of the junction and none are following it. Large vehicles like buses can drive over the white dot, since it's just paint. [1] http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/7/75/Tiny_mini_roundabout_1_-_Coppermine_-_4700.JPG http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/7/75/Tiny_mini_rou... [2] http://thumbsnap.com/i/LKjHG2eP.jpg http://thumbsnap.com/i/LKjHG2eP.jpg
- 11y ago

birken 11y ago

As somebody who has biked thousands of miles in SF, this is a fun thing to argue about but it doesn't make any difference on the streets. Almost every biker already does this, and as long as the police (correctly) don't enforce the actual law, whether or not it is legal really makes little difference. If you are a driver you shouldn't notice the difference anyways. If you get to the stop sign first, then the biker has to stop. If they don't, they are breaking the law. If they get there first, they get to go, but by not stopping they'll get out of your way sooner. Also major Kudos to The Wigg Party [1] who came up with the idea for the creative and wildly effective "Stop In" protest. When you compare that protest to the moronic monthly takeover of the streets by Critical Mass it is like night and day. 1: http://wiggparty.org/ http://wiggparty.org/

robszumski 11y ago
Part of the article addresses that other cities are looking to San Francisco to set a precedent before adopting similar laws. It might be defacto legal here, but other cities need a law on the books to get the same privilege.
cpitman 11y ago
Why does this make any more sense for bikes than for cars? This seems to be an argument for why the current rules for stop signs are wrong because there is an "obvious" set of cases where someone shouldn't have to stop. Isn't the problem when the two parties disagree about who got to the intersection first?
- birken 11y ago
  There are many differences. This is in the "beating a dead horse" category of argument because the difference between driving up to an intersection and biking up to one is so intuitively different if you've done both of them. But here are some reasons off the top of my head of why it is safer to yield through a stop sign on a bike vs a car: 1) On a bike you are much more towards the middle of the intersection so there is more space between you and people potentially entering the intersection from the sides, so you have more reaction time to deal with them 2) Your cross section is really tiny and entirely in front of you so there is no risk of hitting something you don't see 3) You have a much better field of view because you aren't obstructed by your car interior 4) You can use your sense of hearing to listen for cars/ pedestrians / other dangers 5) You are going much more slowly

salimmadjd 11y ago

This is a very bad idea! It'll cause far more accidents as the result. You'll have some crazy bicyclist who'll fully ignore the stop sign and fly through them. The problem is that you have some minority of cyclists ruining it for everyone else. I have arrived on a stop sign in SF on many times. I do my full stop, I have the right of the way, only to see a cyclist just fly by. And then give me the birdy when I hunk at him. At the same time, many of them just fly through pedestrians. For those who are not familiar with SF, the cult of cyclist in SF is becoming rather entitled. They have (not sure she is still there) a PR women that make the perfect deputy for Karl Rove. The SF cyclist are basically the NRA of SF, IMO. They have a strong lobby and are getting everything they want. Including having a special privilege that puts them above cars and pedestrian.

bgentry 11y ago
This is a very bad idea! It'll cause far more accidents as the result. You'll have some crazy bicyclist who'll fully ignore the stop sign and fly through them. What you describe is illegal now and will remain illegal if this law is passed. The proposal is for cyclists to be able to yield, but not fully stop, if it is safe for them to do so. Blindly flying through an intersection at full speed is and will remain illegal.
- ajmurmann 11y ago
  The rule we have right now is much easier to follow and leaves nothing up to interpretation, yet SF cyclists seem unable to follow it as it is. I doubt that replacing that with a rule that makes things much fuzzier will do much good. If the existing easy rule is neither followed not enforced, how is the new fuzzy rule gonna be anything than a permission to do even more problematic stuff. I am really not worried about cars here, but am terrified as a pedestrian.
  - salimmadjd 11y ago
    Exactly right. Stop sign is a simple rule to follow. You make full stop and then you go. yield is open to interpretation.

GPGPU 11y ago

This is the worst idea ever. While you should never expect a bicyclist to follow laws, this will make them even more unpredictable, and give them a feeling of entitlement.

carbide 11y ago

I live in one of the Colorado counties mentioned in the article as already having this law on the books. The law works fine up here in the mountains, and we have a lot of cyclists and a lot of seasonal traffic. Of course, we don't have the traffic of a big city like San Francisco. Still, we don't have a lot of bike-car accidents or bike-pedestrian accidents at our intersections. The thing is, the stop signs are treated as yield signs. If a biker just blows through the stop sign without yielding right-of-way, they can still be ticketed. So as far as safety concerns, I don't see it making any difference. The people who would ignore a "yield" are the people who are already ignoring a "stop" and are subject to being ticketed if they get caught. If you dart out in front of a car and get hit by that car, you'll still be found to be at fault (and you're the one who is going to wind up in the hospital)

grandalf 11y ago

After seeing cyclists routinely disregard safety around cars and buses, and after being nearly hit many times crossing an intersection at the 'walk' sign by a cyclist flying through a red light, I have come to believe that cyclists are generally daredevils who lack the typical common sense about traffic safety and act like bullies around pedestrians. If you are riding a bicycle and lack the strength to stop at a red light and then get back up to speed once the light turns green, perhaps a segway or a motorized scooter would be a better option (or a public bus).

mirimir 11y ago
Maybe pedestrians will start using canes and walking sticks ;)
- grandalf 11y ago
  Indeed.
techterrier 11y ago
Safety doesn't mean what you think it does. Those aggressive cyclists? They're the safe ones. The people that get squished by traffic are the timid ones clinging to the kerbs and stopping at left-turn red lights.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  Riding aggressively doesn't mean jumping red lights and playing chicken with pedestrians
  - techterrier 11y ago
    You can do one without the other. As I said, the data is clear. The best way to get squished by a lorry (the most common KSI for cyclists in city environments) is by following the rules.
    - 11y ago

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

What's the context for the video link where some cyclists and a zipcar are having a standoff? I'm not sure I understood what was happening there.

panglott 11y ago

The answer isn't to let cyclists run stop signs, because the problem is that there are too many stop signs in the US. Don't put a four-way stop on every corner and this won't be a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#Placement_and_standardization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#Placement_and_standa...