Do cyclists need to stop at a stop sign?

[tboy]

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.

Bullshit.

1) a stopped cyclist will or should be at the curb. A cyclist is in no more danger of "getting creamed" than a pedestrian.
2) Moving at less than a quick pace, unless you're one of those cycle stunt riders, will NOT allow you to get out of the way of anything. It is physically impossible.
3) If a cyclist is stopped. They CANNOT move in front of any vehicle unless of course they see one coming and purposely jump out in front of it.
4) It is easier to jump off a stationary bike than one in motion. All you have to do is "let go" and the bike drops to the ground and the rider is GONE. Try doing that while you're moving.....

Oh nevermind, Fuji is one of those a holes that rides in the middle of the lane to block ALL traffic in that lane......

 

[fuji]

1) a stopped cyclist will or should be at the curb.

You obviously don't ride a bike, or you would know that being at the curb is fairly dangerous in the face of typical car drivers.

A cyclist is in no more danger of "getting creamed" than a pedestrian.

Wrong. A pedestrian can jump out of the way MUCH more quickly than a stopped cyclist can.

2) Moving at less than a quick pace, unless you're one of those cycle stunt riders, will NOT allow you to get out of the way of anything. It is physically impossible.

Wrong. On my bike at slow speeds I can turn 90 degrees in under a second. I can show you this any given Sunday. Any five year old can do the same.

3) If a cyclist is stopped. They CANNOT move in front of any vehicle unless of course they see one coming and purposely jump out in front of it.

The problem is the right-turning vehicles that move onto the cyclist, not the cyclist moving in front of the vehicle.

4) It is easier to jump off a stationary bike than one in motion.

Actually, no it's not. Try it sometime. It's eaier to jump off a slowly moving bike than a stationary one--assuming of course your goal is to throw yourself out of the path of something, rather than straight down under its wheels.

But more to the point, it is easier to maneuver a slowly moving bike than a stopped one. I wasn't suggesting you would jump off your bike. I was suggesting that you can steer a moving bike out of the path of danger.

Oh nevermind, Fuji is one of those a holes that rides in the middle of the lane to block ALL traffic in that lane......

Yup. Damn straight. I am not going to put my life at risk just to save you 5 seconds in traffic. I will move over and let you pass when it's safe, but I will choose when that is, I will not allow you to choose.

 

[multimedia]

George Carlin on Bicycles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6zj5nhASk0

Pretty funny.

 

[fuji]

I thought they were supposed to obey the sames rules of the road as motorists?

Well that's what we're debating: Is it more appropriate to have slightly differnet rules for differnet types of road users?

Several of us here are saying yes, in fact, the rules that are suitable for bicycles are different than the rules that are suitable for cars.

 

[fuji]

Why is it a debate? There are rules already in place, no? Cyclists do have to stop at a stop sign as far as I know.

You are describing the law as it is. We are debating what it should be. The law as it is written today is inadequate.

 

[fuji]

Okee dokee.

I'm not sure if you're being snide. If you read the thread before the last 2-3 messages you will see outlined why the current law is deficient and then you could state whether you agree or disagree with that position.

The basic point is that it is generally unsafe for a bicycle to come to a complete stop at a stop sign and yet the law requires it.

 

[papasmerf]

You are describing the law as it is. We are debating what it should be. The law as it is written today is inadequate.

Perhaps you can tell me why a cyclist has the right a way in your mind over pedestrians?

 

[rama putri]

"Do cyclists need to stop at a stop sign?"

Yes. I don't understand why this is even discussed.

 

[Garrett]

Perhaps you can tell me why a cyclist has the right a way in your mind over pedestrians?

I am not sure I have seen that assertion. I never agree with Fuji, but on this one I just may. For me the big issue is, bad drivers are the rule, and even pedestrians have lost the right of way. If you step off the curb without making eye contact with the driver, you are playing Russian roullette. Just look at the driver in Ottawa who wiped out five cyclists in the bicycle lane. Bad cyclists are pretty much a non-issue. Sure they are out there, but the stats say they are not going to kill you. Bad drivers are killing people on a regular basis, to the point it is taken for granted.

 

[Garrett]

You obviously don't ride a bike, or you would know that being at the curb is fairly dangerous in the face of typical car drivers.

Never mind for turning situations (whether the bike is turning or a car), the bike should *not* be at the curb but should be in the proper lane and highly visible.

Actually, no it's not. Try it sometime. It's eaier to jump off a slowly moving bike than a stationary one--assuming of course your goal is to throw yourself out of the path of something, rather than straight down under its wheels.

A lot of cyclists are actually locked into their pedals (whether straps or clipless pedals). Being locked in can make it a lot more difficult to get off the bike quickly. This is why a lot of cyclists do track stands while stopped to stay clipped in and be ready to go.

In general I would argue cyclists are far more law abiding than drivers:
o cyclists do not drive drunk
o cyclists do not speed (speeding is the rule on the 400 highways)
o cyclists probably roll stop signs at the same rate as motorists (I can show you intersections where every driver rolls)
o cyclists do not kill thousands of people a year (a stat that is taken for granted)

Financially, studies have shown in North America cyclists tend to be high income earners who pay more in tax. Being in better shape, they also consume fewer health care dollars. Specific to terb, they also have better sex

 

[Cycleguy007]

Wow!!! I can't believe this is even being discussed! Yes a cyclist is required to obey all the rules of the road same as a car... do they? Nope! I myself have seen thousands of such infractions on a daily basis.

When on busy city streets where traffic is most unpredictable, a cyclist should ALWAYS obey all the traffic signs, lights etc... I most certainly do. I wish car drivers gave me the same courtesy as well... unfortunately they do not. Which is why I need to be "uber aware" of what everyone around me is doing as well.

Last week, I was traveling along a fairly busy street in a clearly marked bike lane, minding my own business at about 30 kph and a lady in an SUV, talking on the phone turns right, crossing my lane into a parking lot for Tom Hortons! She totally cut me off, and I had to literally slam my brakes to avoid hitting her! In spite of my BRIGHT YELLOW clothing, she somehow didn't "see" me! To make matters EVEN worse, the lady behind her lays on the horn and starts flipping ME off!

Having said all this, I do admit that in residential areas where there is hardly any traffic at all, I treat stop signs as yield signs, slowing at an intersection and if there is no traffic, I will continue on my way...

 

[fuji]

Perhaps you can tell me why a cyclist has the right a way in your mind over pedestrians?

Never said they did.

 

[Moraff]

Wow!!! I can't believe this is even being discussed! Yes a cyclist is required to obey all the rules of the road same as a car... do they? Nope! I myself have seen thousands of such infractions on a daily basis.

Sigh.. while the title of the thread is misleading I agree, the original premise of the thread was that cyclists in Idaho have been legally permitted to treat stop signs as yields since 1982 and was that a good thing that we should consider doing here.

 

[Moraff]

Not often I say this, but I have to agree with fuji here tboy...

1) a stopped cyclist will or should be at the curb. A cyclist is in no more danger of "getting creamed" than a pedestrian.

Actually when I have snugged up to the curb at a light (being lazy it's easier to prop myself up on the curb) I find it is quite likely that a car will either come up and turn right in front of me when the light changes, or just come up beside and then snug themselves into the curb to try and hold me there until the light changes.

And just on the face of it a cyclist stopped in the road would be more likely to get hit than a pedestrian on the sidewalk just by virtue of the fact that they are in the road.

2) Moving at less than a quick pace, unless you're one of those cycle stunt riders, will NOT allow you to get out of the way of anything. It is physically impossible.

Again, I can turn very sharply at a slow speed as can any competent cyclist. Accomplishing the same thing while stationary requires me to either get off the bike, or hike it up between my legs and shuffle around.

3) If a cyclist is stopped. They CANNOT move in front of any vehicle unless of course they see one coming and purposely jump out in front of it.

It's not about the cyclist moving in front of the car, it's being able to maneuver out of the way of a moving car faster.

4) It is easier to jump off a stationary bike than one in motion. All you have to do is "let go" and the bike drops to the ground and the rider is GONE. Try doing that while you're moving.....

Perhaps if you are riding a "girl's bike" (ie doesn't have the horizontal bar a few inches below seat level) you could dismount that quickly. I can jump off my moving bike a lot faster than when stationary (assuming an intent to land on my feet... I guess you could just throw yourself to the side...)

 

[Moraff]

Since a bike is a vehicle under the HTA it IS ALREADY entitled to a full lane.
QUOTE]

This has been discussed in other threads, one dude quoted the HTA. There have also been recent newspaper articles on it. I don't have the references at my fingertips, but if you want to research them, it is quite clear that this is not correct. Bikes are NOT entitled to a full lane.

Again, i don't have the refs handy, but if you are that interested in it, you are welcome to do the research and find out for yourself that bikes don't have the right to take up a full lane. The line that keeps coming up is "keep as close to the right hand curb as possible".

Okay, you are correct sir. HTA 147 states that a vehicle moving slower than the normal flow of traffic should be in the right lane or as close to the right hand curb/edge of road as practicable.

But when you factor in the fact that grates usually stick a couple of feet out in to the lane, "close as practicable" becomes the middle of the lane anyway since it is far more dangerous to have the cyclist weaving to and away from the curb as obstacles present themselves.

 

[OddSox]

Hmm, just about every one of these bogus 'Idaho rules' would apply to a motorcycle as well - perhaps we should have different rules too?

 

[Brill]

The inconvenience and inefficiency of stopping a bicycle at a stop sign is equivalent to having to stop a car and turn off its ignition each time.

I'd guess 95% of cyclists already treat stop signs as yields, let's change the law.

 

[rama putri]

The inconvenience and inefficiency of stopping a bicycle at a stop sign is equivalent to having to stop a car and turn off its ignition each time.

I'd guess 95% of cyclists already treat stop signs as yields, let's change the law.

WTF?

 

[calloway]

WTF?

The inconvenience and inefficiency of stopping a bicycle at a stop sign is equivalent to having to stop a car and turn off its ignition each time.

WTF? That has to be the dumbest comment I've ever heard on Terb.

 

[Moraff]

WTF? That has to be the dumbest comment I've ever heard on Terb.

I'm guessing he means that it takes a lot more effort to get a bike moving than to keep it moving (laws of physics). Other than that I got nothing...