Asian Sexy Babe

Do cyclists need to stop at a stop sign?

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,153
2,694
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
"Life," Albert Einstein once said, "is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving." You don't need to be a genius to know that riders of bicycles in this city keep their balance in no end of illegal ways.

They keep moving steadily, for instance, through the four stop signs that decorate the intersection of Beverley and Baldwin Sts. On any given morning you can watch the streams of pedal-powered commuters approaching that four-way stop, most of them rolling downhill to the downtown core, almost all of them treating the four-letter word on the red octagon like an impolite suggestion.

Some of them, like the gent in the dirty jeans with the liquor-store bag dangling from the handlebars, blithely blow through the intersection as though it does not exist, no matter the steady stream of motor traffic flowing alongside that treats the stop signs with more respect.

Most of them, like the woman in the Hollywood-large sunglasses perched atop the of-the-moment army-green folding bike, pause from pedalling to survey the flow while coasting, resuming their rhythm when it's safe to proceed.

Only a very few actually, fully, stop. To obey the Highway Traffic Act to its letter, after all, would be to contravene other statutes.

"There's an unwritten law, the law of preservation of momentum, that all cyclists follow," said Yvonne Bambrick, the executive director of the Toronto Cyclists Union.

The rolling stop – or, in some cycling circles, the Idaho Stop – is as popular as it is illegal, and there are those who will tell you it's also perfectly safe. Bambrick, among other cycling supporters and bloggers, is advocating its legalization, citing common sense and a compelling precedent.

Cyclists in Idaho have been legally permitted to treat stop signs as yield signs since 1982. And though the Idaho law was brought in by legislators to help relieve the pressure on a crowded traffic-court system, cycling-savvy proponents of its further spread argue it would make cycling more efficient, more appealing and ultimately more popular. In places bent on curbing car usage, it's a compelling argument.

Writing new traffic laws for a community of cyclists notorious for shirking the ones already on the books, of course, is also an inflammatory argument. Before fed-up motorists clog the rant-radio phone lines in opposition, Bambrick begs a moment to explain.

"(The Idaho Stop) is not just blowing a stop sign," said Bambrick. "It's slowing down enough so that you could come to a stop if you needed to. You slow down, you look right, you look left, you look right again, you look ahead ... I really think it's something worth pursuing. It's been proven effective in Idaho for some 20 years. If they can do it down there, why can't we give it a try in Toronto?"

Indeed, rolling-stop advocates will tell you that Idaho's bicycle accidents decreased some 14 per cent in the year after the stop-sign law was enacted. Cyclists bent on preserving momentum are also intensely interested in preserving flesh and blood, after all, and because they're not shielded by the barriers of hood and windshield and door they are more aware of their surroundings than motorists. The argument has been made that a cyclist devoting energy to clear-eyed and open-eared awareness – rather than to the vagaries of gearing down and/or slowing down – puts safety top of mind.

Mind you, whether or not Idaho's example is relevant to Ontario – and any change to traffic law would be a provincial matter – is debatable. In 1982, the population of Boise, Idaho's biggest city, was about 100,000. Today, Boise's population is about double that, which means it's the size of Saskatoon, which means it is home to less than one-third of Scarborough's populace. In other words, if a bike rolls through a stop sign at an otherwise-deserted intersection, what's the harm?

In busier urban centres, meanwhile, other bike advocates worry that legalizing the rolling stop would lead to wider disregard of the signs on already chaotic streets.

"If you loosen up the rules too much, people will just barrel right through the stop sign and they'll get killed that way," said Brian Maclean, president of the Toronto Bicycling Network, a club for recreational cyclists. Said Charles Akben-Marchand, past president of Citizens for Safe Cycling, an Ottawa-based bike safety organization: "It could be something better left to the discretion of the enforcers, rather than the legislators. In Ottawa, it's against the law to ride a bike on the sidewalk, but I've talked to police officers who say they won't give a ticket to anyone under 12."

Still, enforcement of the letter of stop-sign law persists, at least in Toronto. June saw the Toronto police run its "Safe Cycling: Share the Responsibility" campaign, a one-week blitz that saw 669 cyclists ticketed for ignoring stop signs, an offence that comes with a $110 fine.

"Encouraging more bicycling as opposed to car use is a good thing," said Jim Baross, 62, a cycling safety advocate in California, where there have been low-level rumblings about adopting the Idaho stop. "But ... on a public roadway, everybody gets along more safely and more efficiently if we all follow the same rules."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/675301
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Well it only takes on car to convince them to stop.

Personally I always assume a bike will not stop.
 

toughb

"The Gatekeeper"
Aug 29, 2006
6,731
0
0
Asgard
Where is Cycleguy when you need him???

Can you assist us two wheeled wonder???...:)
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
toughb said:
Can you assist us two wheeled wonder???...

Time for his after dinner ride. He is likely lubing up his seat post now :eek:
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
It's silly to have the same rules of the road for cars and bikes. A rolling stop makes sense on a bike, providing the cyclist slow down, look both ways, and stop if its actually unsafe. The law as it stands should change.

Cyclists who blow through intersections at full speed without looking still should be charged--I think it's possible to define a rolling stop properly.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
fuji said:
It's silly to have the same rules of the road for cars and bikes. A rolling stop makes sense on a bike, providing the cyclist slow down, look both ways, and stop if its actually unsafe. The law as it stands should change.

Cyclists who blow through intersections at full speed without looking still should be charged--I think it's possible to define a rolling stop properly.
One road.
One law.
 

TheNiteHwk

New member
Aug 22, 2001
6,059
0
0
69
Downtown Toronto
www.profile.to
CYCLISTS AND THE LAW 1994-05-15

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
A bicycle is considered a vehicle under the Ontario Highway
Traffic Act (HTA), which means cyclists must obey all traffic
laws just like other road users
. If you don't obey the law you
can be fined a minimum of $105 ($90 fine + $15 victim surcharge).

The following is a list of some of the provincial laws that
cyclists must obey and the section(s) of the HTA under which
these rules fall.


ATTACHING TO A VEHICLE - A cyclist is not permitted to attach
him/her self to the outside of another vehicle for the purpose
of hitching a ride. (HTA 178)

BELL - A bicycle must be equipped with an "alarm bell, gong or
horn" in good working order. (HTA 75)

BRAKES - A bicycle must have at least one brake system on the
rear wheel. When these brakes are applied, the bike should skid
on clean, dry, level pavement. (HTA 64)

CROSSWALKS/CROSSOVERS - A cyclist must stop for pedestrians at
crosswalks. Equally, he or she must walk across the crosswalk or
crossover with the bike. (HTA 140,144)

EXPRESSWAYS - Bicycles are prohibited on expressways such as
those in Ontario's "400" series, the Ottawa Queensway (417) and where
No Bicycle signs are posted. (HTA 161)

HELMET - a cyclist is NOT required to wear an approved cycling
helmet until October 1995.

IDENTIFICATION - a cyclist must identify themselves when stopped
by the police for contravening the HTA. Giving correct name and
address is sufficient. (HTA 218)

LIGHTS - When cycling between one half hour before sunset and
one half hour after sunrise or in inclement weather, a bicycle
must have a white front light and a red rear light or reflector
as well as white reflective tape on the front forks. (HTA 62)

PASSENGERS - "Doubleriding" is prohibited on bicycles designed
for one person. (HTA 178)

POSITIONING - a cyclist must drive in the right-hand lane or as
close as is practicable to the right edge of the road, except when
preparing to turn left or when passing another vehicle. (HTA 147)

SCHOOL BUS - Cyclists must stop when approaching buses whose
upper red signal lights are flashing. You may proceed only when
the school bus moves or the upper alternating red signal-lights
have stopped flashing.


TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS - A cyclist must stop for red lights
(HTA 144), stop signs (HTA 136) and comply with all other
traffic signs.


TURNS - When making a turn, cyclists must signal their intention
to motorists in advance. Proper hand signals must be used to
indicate that the cyclist is changing position on the road and a
final check should be made before making the turn. When signalling
a right turn, cyclists also have the option of extending their
right arm. (HTA 142)
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
calloway said:
It wouldn't matter if there is a law or not... these guys live by their own rules... until we run them over.
they make a piss poor hood ordainment.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
papasmerf said:
One road.
One law.
Silly. Cars and bikes are nothing like one another it does not make sense to have the exact same rules.

Similar, compatible rules, yes. Same? Silly.
 

CapitalGuy

New member
Mar 28, 2004
5,766
2
0
canada-man Indeed said:
I don't understand how yielding instead of stopping could reduce accidents. It actually seems the converse would be true. My instinct is that the reduction in bicycle accidents is spurious, in relation to the yield rule. Thus, the credibility of the "rolling stop" advocates is brought into question.

That said, it seems like a reasonable law change to me. I just don't like people misusing statistics to suit their own needs, and this causes me to wonder about the whole thing.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
CapitalGuy said:
I don't understand how yielding instead of stopping could reduce accidents. It actually seems the converse would be true.
Maybe you should try riding a bike, so that you understand.

If you are on a bike your ability to react depends on maintaining forward momentum. If you are stopped, you can't react. If you have momentum you can move quickly.

In an "Idaho stop" even at the slowest moment a cyclist can react rapidly and swerve out of the way of an oncoming car. A cyclist who has no forward momentum, with a foot down on the ground, is frozen in place and gets creamed.

In other words it is about control. A stopped car still has substantial control; a stopped bike has next to none.
 

Brill

Well-known member
Jun 29, 2008
8,679
1,193
113
Toronto
While riding I treat stop signs as a yield, I'll simply roll through if there isn't any traffic.
The reason we have so many stop signs and speed bumps is because cars travel too fast through neighbourhoods.
Bikes weren't the problem.

As far as red light runners, nail all offenders.
 

CapitalGuy

New member
Mar 28, 2004
5,766
2
0
fuji said:
Maybe you should try riding a bike, so that you understand.

If you are on a bike your ability to react depends on maintaining forward momentum. If you are stopped, you can't react. If you have momentum you can move quickly.

In an "Idaho stop" even at the slowest moment a cyclist can react rapidly and swerve out of the way of an oncoming car. A cyclist who has no forward momentum, with a foot down on the ground, is frozen in place and gets creamed.

In other words it is about control. A stopped car still has substantial control; a stopped bike has next to none.
Yes fuji I understand the momentum bit. Sheesh. But it doesn't apply here.

If a cyclist stops at stop sign, he would not proceed through the intersection until he is certain it is safe to do so, that no cars are likely to enter the intersection while they cyclist is in it. That would provide a greater degree of safety than entering the intersection from a roll, and trying to adjust your course once you realize a car is not going to stop. By then, you are in the intersection and are open to all kinds of additional dangers. Much safer to stop, look every way, then proceed.

Or are you asserting that 14% of Idaho bike accidents occur when the cyclist is stopped, with one foot on the ground?

I'm not arguing for the sake of argument, I simply have a hard time believing that not stopping is safer than stopping, or that 14% of Idaho bike accidents involve riders getting schmucked when they are stopped with one foot on the ground.

The yield law is more convenient, yes. A reasonable risk, yes. But not safer.
 

Moraff

Active member
Nov 14, 2003
3,648
0
36
CapitalGuy said:
I don't understand how yielding instead of stopping could reduce accidents. It actually seems the converse would be true. My instinct is that the reduction in bicycle accidents is spurious, in relation to the yield rule. Thus, the credibility of the "rolling stop" advocates is brought into question.

That said, it seems like a reasonable law change to me. I just don't like people misusing statistics to suit their own needs, and this causes me to wonder about the whole thing.

As has been stated a cyclist in motion has a better ability to maneuver.

Also, have you watched the average cyclist get going from a full stop? Tend to be wobbly (since the twin gyros haven't spun up yet) and concentrating more on getting going than looking around.

I admit that as I cyclist I've treated most stop signs as a yield as long as I can see that it is safe to do so, and reduce my speed to the point that I can stop if I have to.

But I fully realize that under Ontario's law I deserve a ticket every time I do it.
 

rxxxryan

New member
Aug 17, 2003
261
0
0
Brill said:
While riding I treat stop signs as a yield, I'll simply roll through if there isn't any traffic.
The reason we have so many stop signs and speed bumps is because cars travel too fast through neighbourhoods.
Bikes weren't the problem.

As far as red light runners, nail all offenders.

I cant stand cyclist in the city...They will scream that they are a vehicle just like a car when it comes to any anything that it advantages to being in a car ...like taking up a whole lane of traffic while going a quarter of the speed limit...but the minute it becomes a disadvantage like stopping at a stop sign or waiting for pedestrians to cross the road they instantly are like ...Oh im a pedestrian I dont have to obey the laws of the road


The thing I see the most that makes me want run over these self-centered pricks is when im in the right hand lane trying to make a right hand turn and waitng for some pedestrians to cross the road ..just when I think its clear a stupid cyclist will come flying beside me on the right side of my car ( I thought it was only one vehicle per lane!) and then they give me a dirty look as if I did something wrong


FU cyclists!
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts