5 ms·
Not really; in that case the stop sign should just be a yield sign. That's the point of this law: the margin where an action is safe enough is vastly different
by cnelsenmilt 5y ago
Not really; in that case the stop sign should just be a yield sign. That's the point of this law: the margin where an action is safe enough is vastly different between bikes and cars. A car and a bike travelling at the same speed will cause vastly different amounts of harm on impacting the same object. The absolute time to emergency stop is different, thus the required reaction time. And so on.
- giantg2 5y ago"A car and a bike travelling at the same speed will cause vastly different amounts of harm on impacting the same object." Theoretically, then the bike should be stopping. Two cars colliding at 15 mph is less dangerous than a bike hitting or being hit by a car at 15 mph. I doubt the stopping distances are that much different (probably 20 vs 30 feet). "in that case the stop sign should just be a yield sign." Well, most stop signs could just be yield signs. Looks like they're doing that for bikes. Would be nice if they do that for cars too.
- cnelsenmilt 5y ago> Theoretically, then the bike should be stopping. As I and others have pointed out elsewhere, the law hasn't changed at all what a bike may or should do when there is a car present. It only covers the situation when there is no other traffic.
- giantg2 5y agoAnd that doesn't conflict with what I'm saying - that you have to have the visibility/design at that intersection to be able to see that there are no cars present; that if a bike can safely see that there are no other cars around and keep rolling, then a car could too.