11 ms·

This seems designed to start a bicycle argument. I'll go ahead and present the cyclist's view, and try not to get flamed: A cyclist's head is much closer to t

by SamBam 4y ago

This seems designed to start a bicycle argument. I'll go ahead and present the cyclist's view, and try not to get flamed: A cyclist's head is much closer to the end of their vehicle, and they have a much more unobstructed view around them. By the time they are a few feet from the stop sign, they can already see much further down the street than a driver in a car could. This means it's easier to assess safety and make a snap decision to keep going. Coming to a complete stop doesn't really add any more safety. Further, while accidents that harm pedestrians do certainly happen, and shouldn't be minimized, the vast majority of the time the biggest danger to a cyclist is themselves. Cars kill people every day, so it is reasonable that they be held to a higher standard. If you started out with a bicycle-only intersection with a yield sign, and then started allowing cars through, wouldn't you want to increase the safety of that intersection by requiring a stop? As a final thought, most red lights in America could probably be stop signs or yield signs. The UK has been working towards this (with roundabouts too) and in general roads are safer when you require drivers to think and make decisions. I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through.

kazinator 4y ago
I will make it more technical: a cyclist doesn't have an windshield A-pillar blocking part of their view. When two vehicles approach an intersection, if they do so at the same speed (including same variation in speed, like both decelerating), the relative view angle from one vehicle to the other stays the same. It's possible for another road user to be entirely hidden behind a driver's A pillar during an approach to the intersection. In spite of several glances in that direction, it is possible to fail to spot the other vehicle. A proper stop is the only sure thing.
- CameronNemo 4y ago
  I once almost hit a pedestrian because of the pillar in my car. Luckily caught it at the last second, and was going at a slow speed, but yeah those blind spots are no joke.
- DoughnutHole 4y ago
  Cyclists have pretty much universally better vision on the road, it's not just the front A-pillars. - The pillars of every pane of glass in a car create blind spots, not just the the front - there's a reason changing lanes safely requires both a mirror check and a physical turn of the head. - Drivers are set back relative to the front of the car, so they can't easily see cross traffic if there's any sort of obstructions. - If a driver is right at the front of the vehicle (see euro trucks) they're necessarily lifted atop the engine and so have a blind spot immediately in front of them. - Drivers have the advantage of being able to look behind without completely turning their head, but mirrors have their own blind spots and necessarily have to have either a restricted field of view or distort distances depending on their curvature. None of these are problems for cyclists because they can just move their body and head without obstruction. The only real vision advantage drivers have is being able to see over the tops of other vehicles if they're driving something tall - which of course comes with its own blind spots (and impedes the vision of everyone else on the road).
  - kazinator 4y ago
    > The pillars of every pane of glass in a car create blind spots ... there's a reason changing lanes safely requires both a mirror check and a physical turn of the head True, but not relevant in the context of stopping or or rolling through a stop sign. I don't care about my B or C pillars when stopping, other than on the passenger side when making a right turn (check for cyclists, scooters). The A pillar has the unique problem that two drivers approaching the same intersection at constant speed, from a mile away, such that they will meet there at the same time, may fail to see each other almost the the entire time until the last few moments, because each vehicle maintains the same angle relative to the path of travel of the other vehicle.
  - tga 4y ago
    For a bit of pedantry, the driver _can_ be right at the front of the vehicle and low enough, see city buses.
- u801e 4y ago
  > I will make it more technical: a [pedal]cyclist doesn't have an windshield A-pillar blocking part of their view. Neither does a motorcyclist, but no one claims it's safer for motorcyclists to treat stop as yield compared to motorists.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    > But no one claims it's safer for motorcyclists to treat stop as yield compared to motorists. OK, I will claim it now; there, someone does. > Neither does a motorcyclist Not true if the motorcyclist has a full helmet. Though it's true that it doesn't have pillars.
    - u801e 4y ago
      Not all jurisdictions have helmet laws, nor does every motorcyclist wear a full helmet. Also, turning their head would mitigate the visbility issue, which isn't the case for a motorist.
  - slenk 4y ago
    That would certainly make riding easier
flerchin 4y ago
What's interesting to me is that cyclist injuries went down after these laws were passed. At least according to the wiki. Naively, I would think they'd go up, or stay level. Do you have any hypothesis for why that may be?
- riskable 4y ago
  Stopping a moving bicycle messes with the rider's balance and forces them to focus their awareness on balance and to look down at their feet to make a complete stop (otherwise they'd tip over). By allowing the rider to merely slow down it lets them maintain focus on the road and the hazards that might be around them.
  - feet 4y ago
    As a regular cyclist, I have never had to look at my feet when stopping. Why would they need to look down?
    - riskable 4y ago
      It depends on where you are and your habits. I never looked down on city roads until I placed my foot on a grate and realized it wasn't nearly as grippy as I thought =) I haven't been riding in a long time but when on trails (i.e. "in the woods") I wouldn't look down. You saw that ground as you approached it and it's all the same for the most part. Differences in elevation are easy to see with peripheral vision. In the city there's potholes and puddles of unknown depth with who-knows-what buried in their depths, haha. BTW: I'm legally blind in my right eye so all I have on my right is peripheral vision so I may not be the best example. I've probably developed a near-instinctual glance.
    - miked85 4y ago
      As a non-regular cyclist, I have no idea why you would have to look at your feet when breaking.
  - kleinsch 4y ago
    Most people who are comfortable riding in traffic are experienced enough at cycling that they can stop without staring at their feet.
mynegation 4y ago
I probably bike more than drive but I will present driver’s argument. My main problem with Idaho stop is cyclist misinterpreting it as having right of way no matter what, especially on four way stops. As a car, if I am stopping first at stop sign, honest ass to the ground, I am going through that intersection first. If you are a cyclist who is still rolling up to the stop line, you do what you got to do, whether it is full stop or slowing down just enough. I got into multiple arguments with cyclist who thought they should be able to just roll through the stop sign and I should have waited for them. That’s illegal even with the Idaho stop.
- gwbas1c 4y ago
  I've seen cops give tickets to bicyclists for that. I happened to see the patrol car's number, and sent an email to the police department thanking them.
- brailsafe 4y ago
  Ya but probably 4 way stops should be abolished
  - kube-system 4y ago
    2-way stops are often worse, and replacing them with roundabouts often require the use of eminent domain.
- bombcar 4y ago
  What people don't realize about right-of-way laws is that they are there for everyone's safety! This is because predictability is a huge part of traveling safe - for the pedestrians, the bicyclists, the cars. If you can't reasonably predict what someone is going to do, you have an emergency situation that has to be handled.
  - Test0129 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
josephcsible 4y ago
Two of your three points are equally true for motorcycles as they are for bicycles. Should they be allowed to do this too? > I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through. I think the actual issue is a step beyond that: cyclists are treated as if they were equal to drivers sometimes (e.g., bikes being entitled to the whole lane even if they're going 20 under the speed limit), but being treated differently than drivers other times (e.g., this), and both cases are always at drivers' expense.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  > both cases are always at drivers' expense. Could you expand on this? And explain why this expense is so great, that it’s more important that the life and safety of someone on a bike?
- u801e 4y ago
  > I think the actual issue is a step beyond that: cyclists are treated as if they were equal to drivers sometimes (e.g., bikes being entitled to the whole lane even if they're going 20 under the speed limit) Unless the road has a minimum speed limit posted, there's no requirement to drive at or near the speed limit. The rules of the road were designed to accommodate drivers moving at different speeds. Where traffic keeps to the right, the general rule is that slower traffic keeps further towards the right and faster traffic passes them on the left. But when there are marked lanes, slower traffic just uses the right lane and faster traffic passes using one of the lanes to the left (even if that lane is normally for traffic moving in the other direction. Whether the slower vehicle is a bus, truck, or pedalcycle doesn't really matter. The lane isn't wide enough to share side by side anyway because lanes are really only wide enough for a single dual track vehicle. The only exception to that is two single track vehicles traveling side by side within the same lane. This is what makes it possible for traffic moving at different speeds to share the road.
  - lsaferite 4y ago
    Where I live, FL, this is not technically true. > Drive with the flow of traffic (within the speed limit). You should not drive so slowly that you block other vehicles moving at normal, safe speeds. You can be issued a ticket for driving too slowly. I would imagine that other locations may have similar laws. Do the police enforce these? Not that I have ever seen.
tomatotomato37 4y ago
If we are going to have this debate than let's turn it into a three-way; which category should motorcyclist fall into, and why? They definitely have both the risk characteristics and manuverability of a bike, but also the speed and weight of a motorized vehicle. We already have special rules for them in the context of lane splitting & filtering, what about this one?
- u801e 4y ago
  There really aren't any special rules for motorcyclists pertaining to lane splitting and filtering in the US in most states. The general rule most states have for roads with marked lanes is that drivers of vehicles keep their vehicle within a single lane as practicable and that they don't move out of that lane until they have determined that it's safe to do so. This is the law that's used against motorcyclists who lane split or filter to pass traffic. Interestingly enough, it's not used against motorists who lane split to pass pedalcyclists.
  - lsaferite 4y ago
    An automobile that 'lane-splits' to pass a bicyclist isn't moving between two other automobiles, they are (partially) blocking two lanes of traffic to pass. Basically it's a half-assed passing maneuver. When you discuss a two-wheel vehicle and talk about lane-splitting you are talking about moving in the middle of two lanes between automobiles, essentially claiming a middle third lane that's not marked.
    - u801e 4y ago
      > An automobile that 'lane-splits' to pass a bicyclist isn't moving between two other automobiles They are moving between traffic in the next lane and the cyclist. Lanes simply don't have room for an automobile and half of another one. > When you discuss a two-wheel vehicle and talk about lane-splitting you are talking about moving in the middle of two lanes between automobiles, essentially claiming a middle third lane that's not marked. From a legal perspective, the driver of the two wheeled vehicle is not keeping their vehicle as nearly as practicable within a single lane. While I personally agree with lane splitting for single track vehicles like pedal and motorcyclists, the law says otherwise in most states in the US. But I don't agree with lane splitting for dual track vehicles because drivers of those types of vehicles don't have a precise idea of their extent, which makes it more likly they may end up colliding with a vehicle in the next lane when they lane split, compared to the driver of a single track vehicle.
steelframe 4y ago
> This seems designed to start a bicycle argument. Any time anyone talks about cycling outside of a venue designated specifically for topics on cycling, you can generally assume it's going to result in uncivil discourse. There should be an Internet law about that or something. (But who are we kidding? Cyclists would find a way to break that law too. OH, SNAP!)
u801e 4y ago
> A cyclist's head is much closer to the end of their vehicle, and they have a much more unobstructed view around them. By the time they are a few feet from the stop sign, they can already see much further down the street than a driver in a car could. There are two problems with that argument: 1. Very few intersections meet the criteria where a cyclist would be able to see approaching cross traffic significantly earlier than a motorist could. In over 30 years of motoring and over 15 years of on road cycling in various locations, I have not encountered an intersection where I'm not able to see approaching cross traffic when motoring but could see while cycling 2. No one argues for treating stops as yield for motorcyclists > Coming to a complete stop doesn't really add any more safety It really depends on the intersection. An intersection where one cannot really see approaching cross traffic until shortly before entering it would have a safety benefit if drivers came to a full stop and checked for traffic before entering the intersection. Other intersections where the roads don't intersect at near right angles or where cross traffic is moving at higher speeds also have a safety benefit by adding a requirement that traffic stop and check before entering. > Further, while accidents that harm pedestrians do certainly happen, and shouldn't be minimized, the vast majority of the time the biggest danger to a cyclist is themselves. Traffic control designating right of way isn't about minimizing harm. It's about preventing collisions in the first place by having a clear set of rules about who has the right of way and who does not and has to yield it. Just because a certain vehicle/driver combination has less mass compared to another doesn't mean that they shouldn't be following the same right of way rules. Regardless of the amount of damage caused or who gets injured, a crash still causes harm and costs money. In this particular case[1], the cyclists didn't get harmed, but their actions in terms of violating the established rules designating right of way resulted in significant property damage > As a final thought, most red lights in America could probably be stop signs or yield signs. This is the actual root cause of this issue in the US. But even so, if cross traffic is moving at higher speeds, it's best for drivers of all types of vehicles to stop and check before entering the intersection. In the US, this is the case for many types of intersections (a side road crossing or joining an arterial with traffic moving in excess of 40 mph). But for residential neighborhoods with sparse traffic and low traffic speeds, full stops are not required. [1] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/car-collision-cyclist-over-hulton-16021891 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manches...
spamizbad 4y ago
Stop signs are a product of American driving culture. You see far less of them in Europe, where it's more common to require drivers to simply yield. Unfortunately I think the design of our roads, speed limits, and general car culture necessitates the need for stop signs in the US.
giantg2 4y ago
"I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through." Not really. The anger I see is because they didn't stop at a stop sign when there are cars around. The counter argument to this stop-check-go argument for bikes and not for cars, is that you could just as easily do this safely with a car vs a bike (some states even make exceptions for lights that are too long or for motorcycles), and a car would traverse the intersection more quickly than a bike (safer since the intersecting traffic doesn't stop, requiring a shorter line of sight than with a bicycle). So there are really points on both sides. The biggest issue is that there need to be standardized rules, and road users need to know and follow them. I see so many near accidents at stop signs because people don't know who has the right of way. Stricter driver training and testing would by far provide the biggest safety increase given that the vast majority of accidents are due to driver error.
notacoward 4y ago
I'm pretty well known in my local community (and here) as a strong advocate for pedestrians and thus often a critic of cyclists, but even I support the Idaho stop as long as that's really what it is. Slow, look, then go? Great! Godspeed to you, fellow non-driver. Don't even look or slow as you blast across a sidewalk or through an intersection? Not such a fan. I wish there was a way to support the first (which I know is the common case by a long shot) without enabling the second.
- bombcar 4y ago
  The second is the problem and the only real solution is policing it. Bike cops, perhaps.
- uoaei 4y ago
  > I wish there was a way to support the first (which I know is the common case by a long shot) without enabling the second. I think if we can all take a deep breath and acknowledge that it is a relative majority who ride with situational awareness and understand right-of-way, even if sometimes the specific dynamics of a specific interaction means the rule won't be strictly obeyed in all scenarios, and that's fine. There are many, many cases where I ride (SF bay area) where drivers are so extremely deferent and "nice" that they give up their right-of-way and just wait for a bike to roll through the intersection, even if it's clearly their turn and the obligation of the person on the bike to stop. But this gets back to the points made elsewhere about why right-of-way exists: for predictability. It's easier on everyone and conserves mental/decision-making effort to just do what right-of-way dictates. It gets to the point where I forcefully put both feet on the ground and stare through their windshield til they get the message and go. While we're on the point of complaining about unsensible driving practices: do not stop for bikes who want to ride across the street in a crosswalk! They are not pedestrians, they have to use the road! They can wait for traffic to pass, it's fine. No, I don't care if it's a mom with her baby on the back, she has strong instincts around safety anyway and won't do anything dumb around cars. Relax and trust other people.
dfxm12 4y ago
I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through. I really hope there's some other reason besides drivers acting like babies over this.
- slipperlobster 4y ago
  I drive a lot more than I bike (leisurely, for exercise) and my personal hangup with the argument is that drivers are to treat cyclists as vehicles, but cyclists don't even want to act like vehicles. Stop signs are just that - road signs to signify traffic is to stop at the sign before proceeding. When I bike in my neighborhood, I come to a full stop in the cycle lane at every sign before proceeding.
  - valeness 4y ago
    Ok except there are laws for Idaho stops, specifically in my state. So it's more about cars not knowing the rules of the road and trying to act like entitled babies. Depending on your state, not only is coming to a full stop more dangerous, it may actually not even be the law.
    - slipperlobster 4y ago
      > coming to a full stop more dangerous .. in the bike lane, alone? Rolling through a stop sign as a yield is only legally allowed in 9 states as of 2022. No one is saying anyone is trying to act like entitled babies. All my point is saying is that a vehicle is a vehicle as defined by the law.
      - valeness 4y ago
        Yes, coming to a full stop is statistically more dangerous. There are studies on this, the idaho stop is there for a reason, it saves lives.
      - 4y ago
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through. Nobody on/around the roads using any mode of transit cares at all about any other thing on/around the roads so long as it is not in their way or otherwise about to cause them to need to take action to avoid a conflict. They don't like you as a cyclist because your actions are hard to predict sufficiently far in advance relative to the speeds at which you move. When you're walking do you care about the cars? No, of course not. Unless they're doing something that's likely to cause you to need to do something.
joshlemer 4y ago
I'll also add that the anger of motorists towards cyclists rolling through stop signs is completely irrational when you take into consideration that approximately 100% of motorists also run through almost all stop signs, so long as they aren't blocked by an other car. This twitter video exemplifies it pretty well https://twitter.com/toddnickel/status/1560358628707618816 https://twitter.com/toddnickel/status/1560358628707618816 We just take for granted that cars will blast through stop signs at a pretty high speed (maybe 10 - 20 km/h?). But when we see a cyclist do it, for some reason there seems to be some sort of optical or logical illusion that makes it stick out to us more. If you look at the speed these cars are going at, a lot of them are probably actually going at around the full cruising speed of a casual cyclist. So, considering most cyclists would actually slow down somewhat to roll through a stop sign, they're probably actually going faster. Oh the Urbanity! Recently had a great episode on this as well https://youtu.be/HT_KdFCVEdc https://youtu.be/HT_KdFCVEdc
- _tom_ 4y ago
  > We just take for granted that cars will blast through stop signs at a pretty high speed (maybe 10 - 20 km/h?) No, we don't. This doesn't happen, at least where I live. This sounds like a made up statistic, to justify bad behavior.
  - joshlemer 4y ago
    How fast do you think the cars are going in the twitter video I posted?
    - manofmanysmiles 4y ago
      Where was that video taken? People certainly don’t behave like that everywhere I’ve lived (Massachusetts, California).
      - joshlemer 4y ago
        Vancouver area, Canada
gumby 4y ago
> The UK has been working towards this (with roundabouts too) As far as the USA goes: Absurdly, roundabouts in California (a relatively recent import, starting about 20 years ago) always have stop signs! In fact in Palo Alto there is precisely one roundabout with yields on all entrances. Makes me wonder why they bothered. Roundabouts (called "rotaries" there) are common in Massachusetts and don't have stop signs. Not that it would matter much as traffic signs and other rules are optional and not enforced there.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Nobody here seems to know how pedestrians are supposed to play with roundabouts (the ones without stop signs). On the streets with little or no traffic it doesn't matter, it's the larger roundabouts on already difficult to walk highways.
hooverd 4y ago
I roll through stop signs on my bike all the time. I don't however get mad at pedestrians or fellow cyclists for crossing the street or stopping. Too many cyclists view pedestrians the same way drives do, and I've seen the lycra set get red and mad about fellow cyclists exercising caution.

by SamBam 4y ago

kazinator 4y ago

I will make it more technical: a cyclist doesn't have an windshield A-pillar blocking part of their view. When two vehicles approach an intersection, if they do so at the same speed (including same variation in speed, like both decelerating), the relative view angle from one vehicle to the other stays the same. It's possible for another road user to be entirely hidden behind a driver's A pillar during an approach to the intersection. In spite of several glances in that direction, it is possible to fail to spot the other vehicle. A proper stop is the only sure thing.

CameronNemo 4y ago
I once almost hit a pedestrian because of the pillar in my car. Luckily caught it at the last second, and was going at a slow speed, but yeah those blind spots are no joke.
DoughnutHole 4y ago
Cyclists have pretty much universally better vision on the road, it's not just the front A-pillars. - The pillars of every pane of glass in a car create blind spots, not just the the front - there's a reason changing lanes safely requires both a mirror check and a physical turn of the head. - Drivers are set back relative to the front of the car, so they can't easily see cross traffic if there's any sort of obstructions. - If a driver is right at the front of the vehicle (see euro trucks) they're necessarily lifted atop the engine and so have a blind spot immediately in front of them. - Drivers have the advantage of being able to look behind without completely turning their head, but mirrors have their own blind spots and necessarily have to have either a restricted field of view or distort distances depending on their curvature. None of these are problems for cyclists because they can just move their body and head without obstruction. The only real vision advantage drivers have is being able to see over the tops of other vehicles if they're driving something tall - which of course comes with its own blind spots (and impedes the vision of everyone else on the road).
- kazinator 4y ago
  > The pillars of every pane of glass in a car create blind spots ... there's a reason changing lanes safely requires both a mirror check and a physical turn of the head True, but not relevant in the context of stopping or or rolling through a stop sign. I don't care about my B or C pillars when stopping, other than on the passenger side when making a right turn (check for cyclists, scooters). The A pillar has the unique problem that two drivers approaching the same intersection at constant speed, from a mile away, such that they will meet there at the same time, may fail to see each other almost the the entire time until the last few moments, because each vehicle maintains the same angle relative to the path of travel of the other vehicle.
- tga 4y ago
  For a bit of pedantry, the driver _can_ be right at the front of the vehicle and low enough, see city buses.
u801e 4y ago
> I will make it more technical: a [pedal]cyclist doesn't have an windshield A-pillar blocking part of their view. Neither does a motorcyclist, but no one claims it's safer for motorcyclists to treat stop as yield compared to motorists.
- kazinator 4y ago
  > But no one claims it's safer for motorcyclists to treat stop as yield compared to motorists. OK, I will claim it now; there, someone does. > Neither does a motorcyclist Not true if the motorcyclist has a full helmet. Though it's true that it doesn't have pillars.
  - u801e 4y ago
    Not all jurisdictions have helmet laws, nor does every motorcyclist wear a full helmet. Also, turning their head would mitigate the visbility issue, which isn't the case for a motorist.
- slenk 4y ago
  That would certainly make riding easier

flerchin 4y ago

What's interesting to me is that cyclist injuries went down after these laws were passed. At least according to the wiki. Naively, I would think they'd go up, or stay level. Do you have any hypothesis for why that may be?

riskable 4y ago
Stopping a moving bicycle messes with the rider's balance and forces them to focus their awareness on balance and to look down at their feet to make a complete stop (otherwise they'd tip over). By allowing the rider to merely slow down it lets them maintain focus on the road and the hazards that might be around them.
- feet 4y ago
  As a regular cyclist, I have never had to look at my feet when stopping. Why would they need to look down?
  - riskable 4y ago
    It depends on where you are and your habits. I never looked down on city roads until I placed my foot on a grate and realized it wasn't nearly as grippy as I thought =) I haven't been riding in a long time but when on trails (i.e. "in the woods") I wouldn't look down. You saw that ground as you approached it and it's all the same for the most part. Differences in elevation are easy to see with peripheral vision. In the city there's potholes and puddles of unknown depth with who-knows-what buried in their depths, haha. BTW: I'm legally blind in my right eye so all I have on my right is peripheral vision so I may not be the best example. I've probably developed a near-instinctual glance.
  - miked85 4y ago
    As a non-regular cyclist, I have no idea why you would have to look at your feet when breaking.
- kleinsch 4y ago
  Most people who are comfortable riding in traffic are experienced enough at cycling that they can stop without staring at their feet.

mynegation 4y ago

I probably bike more than drive but I will present driver’s argument. My main problem with Idaho stop is cyclist misinterpreting it as having right of way no matter what, especially on four way stops. As a car, if I am stopping first at stop sign, honest ass to the ground, I am going through that intersection first. If you are a cyclist who is still rolling up to the stop line, you do what you got to do, whether it is full stop or slowing down just enough. I got into multiple arguments with cyclist who thought they should be able to just roll through the stop sign and I should have waited for them. That’s illegal even with the Idaho stop.

gwbas1c 4y ago
I've seen cops give tickets to bicyclists for that. I happened to see the patrol car's number, and sent an email to the police department thanking them.
brailsafe 4y ago
Ya but probably 4 way stops should be abolished
- kube-system 4y ago
  2-way stops are often worse, and replacing them with roundabouts often require the use of eminent domain.
bombcar 4y ago
What people don't realize about right-of-way laws is that they are there for everyone's safety! This is because predictability is a huge part of traveling safe - for the pedestrians, the bicyclists, the cars. If you can't reasonably predict what someone is going to do, you have an emergency situation that has to be handled.
- Test0129 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

josephcsible 4y ago

Two of your three points are equally true for motorcycles as they are for bicycles. Should they be allowed to do this too? > I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through. I think the actual issue is a step beyond that: cyclists are treated as if they were equal to drivers sometimes (e.g., bikes being entitled to the whole lane even if they're going 20 under the speed limit), but being treated differently than drivers other times (e.g., this), and both cases are always at drivers' expense.

avianlyric 4y ago
> both cases are always at drivers' expense. Could you expand on this? And explain why this expense is so great, that it’s more important that the life and safety of someone on a bike?
u801e 4y ago
> I think the actual issue is a step beyond that: cyclists are treated as if they were equal to drivers sometimes (e.g., bikes being entitled to the whole lane even if they're going 20 under the speed limit) Unless the road has a minimum speed limit posted, there's no requirement to drive at or near the speed limit. The rules of the road were designed to accommodate drivers moving at different speeds. Where traffic keeps to the right, the general rule is that slower traffic keeps further towards the right and faster traffic passes them on the left. But when there are marked lanes, slower traffic just uses the right lane and faster traffic passes using one of the lanes to the left (even if that lane is normally for traffic moving in the other direction. Whether the slower vehicle is a bus, truck, or pedalcycle doesn't really matter. The lane isn't wide enough to share side by side anyway because lanes are really only wide enough for a single dual track vehicle. The only exception to that is two single track vehicles traveling side by side within the same lane. This is what makes it possible for traffic moving at different speeds to share the road.
- lsaferite 4y ago
  Where I live, FL, this is not technically true. > Drive with the flow of traffic (within the speed limit). You should not drive so slowly that you block other vehicles moving at normal, safe speeds. You can be issued a ticket for driving too slowly. I would imagine that other locations may have similar laws. Do the police enforce these? Not that I have ever seen.

tomatotomato37 4y ago

If we are going to have this debate than let's turn it into a three-way; which category should motorcyclist fall into, and why? They definitely have both the risk characteristics and manuverability of a bike, but also the speed and weight of a motorized vehicle. We already have special rules for them in the context of lane splitting & filtering, what about this one?

u801e 4y ago
There really aren't any special rules for motorcyclists pertaining to lane splitting and filtering in the US in most states. The general rule most states have for roads with marked lanes is that drivers of vehicles keep their vehicle within a single lane as practicable and that they don't move out of that lane until they have determined that it's safe to do so. This is the law that's used against motorcyclists who lane split or filter to pass traffic. Interestingly enough, it's not used against motorists who lane split to pass pedalcyclists.
- lsaferite 4y ago
  An automobile that 'lane-splits' to pass a bicyclist isn't moving between two other automobiles, they are (partially) blocking two lanes of traffic to pass. Basically it's a half-assed passing maneuver. When you discuss a two-wheel vehicle and talk about lane-splitting you are talking about moving in the middle of two lanes between automobiles, essentially claiming a middle third lane that's not marked.
  - u801e 4y ago
    > An automobile that 'lane-splits' to pass a bicyclist isn't moving between two other automobiles They are moving between traffic in the next lane and the cyclist. Lanes simply don't have room for an automobile and half of another one. > When you discuss a two-wheel vehicle and talk about lane-splitting you are talking about moving in the middle of two lanes between automobiles, essentially claiming a middle third lane that's not marked. From a legal perspective, the driver of the two wheeled vehicle is not keeping their vehicle as nearly as practicable within a single lane. While I personally agree with lane splitting for single track vehicles like pedal and motorcyclists, the law says otherwise in most states in the US. But I don't agree with lane splitting for dual track vehicles because drivers of those types of vehicles don't have a precise idea of their extent, which makes it more likly they may end up colliding with a vehicle in the next lane when they lane split, compared to the driver of a single track vehicle.

steelframe 4y ago

> This seems designed to start a bicycle argument. Any time anyone talks about cycling outside of a venue designated specifically for topics on cycling, you can generally assume it's going to result in uncivil discourse. There should be an Internet law about that or something. (But who are we kidding? Cyclists would find a way to break that law too. OH, SNAP!)

u801e 4y ago

> A cyclist's head is much closer to the end of their vehicle, and they have a much more unobstructed view around them. By the time they are a few feet from the stop sign, they can already see much further down the street than a driver in a car could. There are two problems with that argument: 1. Very few intersections meet the criteria where a cyclist would be able to see approaching cross traffic significantly earlier than a motorist could. In over 30 years of motoring and over 15 years of on road cycling in various locations, I have not encountered an intersection where I'm not able to see approaching cross traffic when motoring but could see while cycling 2. No one argues for treating stops as yield for motorcyclists > Coming to a complete stop doesn't really add any more safety It really depends on the intersection. An intersection where one cannot really see approaching cross traffic until shortly before entering it would have a safety benefit if drivers came to a full stop and checked for traffic before entering the intersection. Other intersections where the roads don't intersect at near right angles or where cross traffic is moving at higher speeds also have a safety benefit by adding a requirement that traffic stop and check before entering. > Further, while accidents that harm pedestrians do certainly happen, and shouldn't be minimized, the vast majority of the time the biggest danger to a cyclist is themselves. Traffic control designating right of way isn't about minimizing harm. It's about preventing collisions in the first place by having a clear set of rules about who has the right of way and who does not and has to yield it. Just because a certain vehicle/driver combination has less mass compared to another doesn't mean that they shouldn't be following the same right of way rules. Regardless of the amount of damage caused or who gets injured, a crash still causes harm and costs money. In this particular case[1], the cyclists didn't get harmed, but their actions in terms of violating the established rules designating right of way resulted in significant property damage > As a final thought, most red lights in America could probably be stop signs or yield signs. This is the actual root cause of this issue in the US. But even so, if cross traffic is moving at higher speeds, it's best for drivers of all types of vehicles to stop and check before entering the intersection. In the US, this is the case for many types of intersections (a side road crossing or joining an arterial with traffic moving in excess of 40 mph). But for residential neighborhoods with sparse traffic and low traffic speeds, full stops are not required. [1] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/car-collision-cyclist-over-hulton-16021891 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manches...

spamizbad 4y ago

Stop signs are a product of American driving culture. You see far less of them in Europe, where it's more common to require drivers to simply yield. Unfortunately I think the design of our roads, speed limits, and general car culture necessitates the need for stop signs in the US.

giantg2 4y ago

"I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through." Not really. The anger I see is because they didn't stop at a stop sign when there are cars around. The counter argument to this stop-check-go argument for bikes and not for cars, is that you could just as easily do this safely with a car vs a bike (some states even make exceptions for lights that are too long or for motorcycles), and a car would traverse the intersection more quickly than a bike (safer since the intersecting traffic doesn't stop, requiring a shorter line of sight than with a bicycle). So there are really points on both sides. The biggest issue is that there need to be standardized rules, and road users need to know and follow them. I see so many near accidents at stop signs because people don't know who has the right of way. Stricter driver training and testing would by far provide the biggest safety increase given that the vast majority of accidents are due to driver error.

notacoward 4y ago

I'm pretty well known in my local community (and here) as a strong advocate for pedestrians and thus often a critic of cyclists, but even I support the Idaho stop as long as that's really what it is. Slow, look, then go? Great! Godspeed to you, fellow non-driver. Don't even look or slow as you blast across a sidewalk or through an intersection? Not such a fan. I wish there was a way to support the first (which I know is the common case by a long shot) without enabling the second.

bombcar 4y ago
The second is the problem and the only real solution is policing it. Bike cops, perhaps.
uoaei 4y ago
> I wish there was a way to support the first (which I know is the common case by a long shot) without enabling the second. I think if we can all take a deep breath and acknowledge that it is a relative majority who ride with situational awareness and understand right-of-way, even if sometimes the specific dynamics of a specific interaction means the rule won't be strictly obeyed in all scenarios, and that's fine. There are many, many cases where I ride (SF bay area) where drivers are so extremely deferent and "nice" that they give up their right-of-way and just wait for a bike to roll through the intersection, even if it's clearly their turn and the obligation of the person on the bike to stop. But this gets back to the points made elsewhere about why right-of-way exists: for predictability. It's easier on everyone and conserves mental/decision-making effort to just do what right-of-way dictates. It gets to the point where I forcefully put both feet on the ground and stare through their windshield til they get the message and go. While we're on the point of complaining about unsensible driving practices: do not stop for bikes who want to ride across the street in a crosswalk! They are not pedestrians, they have to use the road! They can wait for traffic to pass, it's fine. No, I don't care if it's a mom with her baby on the back, she has strong instincts around safety anyway and won't do anything dumb around cars. Relax and trust other people.

dfxm12 4y ago

I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through. I really hope there's some other reason besides drivers acting like babies over this.

slipperlobster 4y ago
I drive a lot more than I bike (leisurely, for exercise) and my personal hangup with the argument is that drivers are to treat cyclists as vehicles, but cyclists don't even want to act like vehicles. Stop signs are just that - road signs to signify traffic is to stop at the sign before proceeding. When I bike in my neighborhood, I come to a full stop in the cycle lane at every sign before proceeding.
- valeness 4y ago
  Ok except there are laws for Idaho stops, specifically in my state. So it's more about cars not knowing the rules of the road and trying to act like entitled babies. Depending on your state, not only is coming to a full stop more dangerous, it may actually not even be the law.
  - slipperlobster 4y ago
    > coming to a full stop more dangerous .. in the bike lane, alone? Rolling through a stop sign as a yield is only legally allowed in 9 states as of 2022. No one is saying anyone is trying to act like entitled babies. All my point is saying is that a vehicle is a vehicle as defined by the law.
    - valeness 4y ago
      Yes, coming to a full stop is statistically more dangerous. There are studies on this, the idaho stop is there for a reason, it saves lives.
    - 4y ago

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

>I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through. Nobody on/around the roads using any mode of transit cares at all about any other thing on/around the roads so long as it is not in their way or otherwise about to cause them to need to take action to avoid a conflict. They don't like you as a cyclist because your actions are hard to predict sufficiently far in advance relative to the speeds at which you move. When you're walking do you care about the cars? No, of course not. Unless they're doing something that's likely to cause you to need to do something.

joshlemer 4y ago

I'll also add that the anger of motorists towards cyclists rolling through stop signs is completely irrational when you take into consideration that approximately 100% of motorists also run through almost all stop signs, so long as they aren't blocked by an other car. This twitter video exemplifies it pretty well https://twitter.com/toddnickel/status/1560358628707618816 https://twitter.com/toddnickel/status/1560358628707618816 We just take for granted that cars will blast through stop signs at a pretty high speed (maybe 10 - 20 km/h?). But when we see a cyclist do it, for some reason there seems to be some sort of optical or logical illusion that makes it stick out to us more. If you look at the speed these cars are going at, a lot of them are probably actually going at around the full cruising speed of a casual cyclist. So, considering most cyclists would actually slow down somewhat to roll through a stop sign, they're probably actually going faster. Oh the Urbanity! Recently had a great episode on this as well https://youtu.be/HT_KdFCVEdc https://youtu.be/HT_KdFCVEdc

_tom_ 4y ago
> We just take for granted that cars will blast through stop signs at a pretty high speed (maybe 10 - 20 km/h?) No, we don't. This doesn't happen, at least where I live. This sounds like a made up statistic, to justify bad behavior.
- joshlemer 4y ago
  How fast do you think the cars are going in the twitter video I posted?
  - manofmanysmiles 4y ago
    Where was that video taken? People certainly don’t behave like that everywhere I’ve lived (Massachusetts, California).
    - joshlemer 4y ago
      Vancouver area, Canada

gumby 4y ago

> The UK has been working towards this (with roundabouts too) As far as the USA goes: Absurdly, roundabouts in California (a relatively recent import, starting about 20 years ago) always have stop signs! In fact in Palo Alto there is precisely one roundabout with yields on all entrances. Makes me wonder why they bothered. Roundabouts (called "rotaries" there) are common in Massachusetts and don't have stop signs. Not that it would matter much as traffic signs and other rules are optional and not enforced there.

bombcar 4y ago
Nobody here seems to know how pedestrians are supposed to play with roundabouts (the ones without stop signs). On the streets with little or no traffic it doesn't matter, it's the larger roundabouts on already difficult to walk highways.

hooverd 4y ago

I roll through stop signs on my bike all the time. I don't however get mad at pedestrians or fellow cyclists for crossing the street or stopping. Too many cyclists view pedestrians the same way drives do, and I've seen the lycra set get red and mad about fellow cyclists exercising caution.