Do cyclists need to stop at a stop sign?

[Manat33]

Right of Way

...

It's actually safer to slow down and do an "idaho stop", maintaining full balance and control, than to stop and then enter the intersection while still trying to regain balance and control.

Note that an "idaho stop" is waaaaaay different than just blowing through the intersection without a care.
......
.....
(a) They have adequate control to dodge the car

(b) They enter the intersection quicker, preserving their right of way visibly to the car driver

I could not agree with you more.

If a cyclist comes to a complete stop at an intersection before the car (one of those rare times it reaches first ).
Cyclists get pissed when the motorist will use this advantage and steal that "right of way".
The cyclist is put in danger as they now have to slow down or even stop in the middle of the intersection (unbalanced).

Scenario 1: Cyclist reaches intersection first
With the current rules in play, if everyone followed them, the motorist would be delayed longer as they would have to wait for the cyclist to come to a complete stop, start up the bike, and wait for the cyclist to clear the motorist's path through the intersection. With Idaho rules, the cyclist is out of the motorist's way quicker.

Scenario 2: Motorist reaches intersection first
With Idaho rules and everyone following them, if the motorist approaches the intersection first, the cyclist has to yield to the motorist as they have the "right of way".

Often times, if I see it more advantageous for the motorist to go ahead, I wave them through. This depends where I'm going and where they're going. Communication is key, but obviously there are stupid people out there we have to be wary for (motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians). Anyone on the road signalling late or not at all is another cause for collisions, but that's another topic altogether.

Certainly there are those that are blatantly breaking rules and that's what is peeving parties. We all need to learn how to share the road.

 

[Manat33]

I'm in a "Rolling Eyes" Kinda Mood.

Which comes back to the argument that cyclists should be licensed (and insured) and need to pass tests to get those licenses.

Yeah, and everyone driving on the road who passed their drivers' test follows the rules. That ain't gonna change a thing.
Heck you should see me in my car, I'm a maniac!

Rolling Stops and Rolling Eyes Baby!

 

[Don]

I realize that in big cties like TO riding a bike on the street can be dangerous BUT so can riding a bike on the sidewalk for pedestrians.

Speaking of which...
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/677462

 

[Moraff]

Yeah, and everyone driving on the road who passed their drivers' test follows the rules. That ain't gonna change a thing.
Heck you should see me in my car, I'm a maniac!

Rolling Stops and Rolling Eyes Baby!

My post was in response to the one where he said some cyclists are completely unaware of the rules regarding their conveyence.

Certainly tested licensing will not eliminate the problem of stupidity but it will reduce the ignorance.

 

[burt-oh-my!]

My post was in response to the one where he said some cyclists are completely unaware of the rules regarding their conveyence.

Certainly tested licensing will not eliminate the problem of stupidity but it will reduce the ignorance.

PU

LEASE!

Not another friggin license! Are youu insane? Gee, lets hire another 500 bureaucrats to administer the thing. . Am I the only one who thinks there is far too much friign red tape already in this world? Why do you so readily sacrifice your freedom?

 

[Moraff]

PU

LEASE!

Not another friggin license! Are youu insane? Gee, lets hire another 500 bureaucrats to administer the thing. . Am I the only one who thinks there is far too much friign red tape already in this world? Why do you so readily sacrifice your freedom?

Why would we need to hire more bureaucrats, we already have an existing MTO.

I sacrifice my freedom because there are too many out there who aren't responsible enough to have it. Every other vehicle on the roads requires one, why shouldn't cyclists? Or are you saying we should abolish vehicle licenses as well?

 

[spankingman]

PU

LEASE!

Not another friggin license! Are youu insane? Gee, lets hire another 500 bureaucrats to administer the thing. . Am I the only one who thinks there is far too much friign red tape already in this world? Why do you so readily sacrifice your freedom?

I can recall back in the 60's we had a bike license from the local Police Dept. which fit around the back two bars under the seat.It was yellow and had your name address etc on it in case of loss or theft.They were 2.00 if I'm not mistaken.

I believe ANY "vehicle" that is under the HTA SHOULD be licensed including the scooters used by some handicapped or seniors BUT would wave the fee for that group.

 

[Brill]

Why not license pedestrians as well?
We have to create special infrastructure for them, they often wander aimlessly without regard for people behind them and sometimes spit their gum on the sidewalk.

 

[Brill]

Currently, car licenses and taxes don't begin to pay for the damage they create to our society, perhaps a $25 tax on every litre of gasoline would suffice?

 

[Moraff]

Currently, car licenses and taxes don't begin to pay for the damage they create to our society, perhaps a $25 tax on every litre of gasoline would suffice?

My first thought was to just shake my head and ignore you... but instead I will ask you to justify the amount you feel is a proper tax.

 

[Brill]

I admit pulling that figure out the air to shock you, heh heh.

How about a $5 tax per litre then?

I do feel that a large gas tax or carbon tax would begin to pay for the damage cars do to society and to encourage better forms of travel.
40,000 Americans are killed each year in traffic accidents, wars are waged over oil, they're inefficient - taking up space on our public streets, they pollute - creating health problems we all pay for. They create urban sprawl which takes over valuable farm land.
I could go on.

They don't even pay their way in building roads, non driving citizens have to subsidize them with taxes.

Why do you feel car drivers should be subsidized, are you one of those left wing loonies?

 

[pepsiman]

Recently watched a bike in traffic on a busy street.
The cars would get to a red traffic light and stop .
The bike would run up the right hand side of all these cars and get to the red light,
There he would stop along side the first car ; as he could not roll though into a stream of traffic .
Light turns green and all the cars are trying to get past the bike.
Not a pretty scene to say the lest .
The cars got to the next street and the light was red ...
Bike runs up the right hand side again and the the scenario replays itself .
This was on a major street and I was thinking that if I was the guy on the bike ; I would have taken a few side streets and not put my life on the line at every light.
Of course bikes have to use major routes to get over rail track bridges or rivers ect. But I would never ride a bike in major traffic; if I could avoid it.
I have not rode a bike since I was ten and see no desire to put my life at risk.
I have never rode a bike in town let alone a big city .
I grew up in the country and got right OFF the road if a car was coming behind me. And into the grass part . After the car passed I would ride again ..
As for the rolling stop thingy :: I ASSUME the bike is NOT going to stop anyway; SO I always give the bike the right away .
I always thought the bike people were just a bunch of considerate pricks LOL. But maybe they "have "to do some of the things that appear stupid to car drivers .
Bike verus car never seemed like a good game to play.
I have always thought if I happen to hit a bike ; it is a pile of paper work ))
Takes less time to let the bike go and then I can proceed with my life .

 

[Moraff]

I admit pulling that figure out the air to shock you, heh heh.

Shock me? Hardly. Convince me that you don't know how to debate rationally?... much better chance of that.

How about a $5 tax per litre then?

Again, where are you getting that number? There isn't much point in discussing a topic if one side is just going to pull numbers out of their a$$.

I do feel that a large gas tax or carbon tax would begin to pay for the damage cars do to society and to encourage better forms of travel.
40,000 Americans are killed each year in traffic accidents, wars are waged over oil, they're inefficient - taking up space on our public streets, they pollute - creating health problems we all pay for. They create urban sprawl which takes over valuable farm land.
I could go on.

They don't even pay their way in building roads, non driving citizens have to subsidize them with taxes.

While I don't disagree that we are too heavily reliant on the personal automobile... if we're going to tax car owners then we must also give them rebates because most cities are designed that you generally cannot live, shop and work within convenient walking/public transit distance, especially if both partners (and possible children) are working.

We can't just say "cars are bad, let's tax them until noone can afford to drive" without changing the way we build cities...

Also non-drivers have to help subsidize roads because they are also used by vehicles that bring the groceries and other goods that the non-drivers wish/need to purchase.

Why do you feel car drivers should be subsidized, are you one of those left wing loonies?

Ahh name-calling.... the main weapon of the poor debater.

Why do you feel cyclists should get off scott-free? They are also using part of those roads and contributing to the CO2 problem with elevated heart-rates. <grin>

 

[Brill]

I used the name in jest because someone else called me a leftie for riding a bike. These labels are kind of ridiculous, don't you think? Right wingers can't be pedestrians?

Cyclists don't get off scot-free, they pay taxes and don't wear out the roads. I see you agree that drivers are subsidized, this is why cities are designed to benefit them. Then you even talk about giving drivers rebates because cities are designed for cars???
If there were higher taxes on gas, then other means of transport would be competitive and cities wouldn't sprawl over valuable farmland.

Again, where are you getting that number? There isn't much point in discussing a topic if one side is just going to pull numbers out of their a$$.

You want me to put a price on the deaths and illnesses cars cause directly and indirectly? Would you agree the price isn't factored into car taxes AT ALL?
If so, how many dollars per litre would cover it?

 

[staggerspool]

To answer the question at the top of this thread: Yes, according to the law cyclists do need to stop at a stop sign. For myself, I have formulated this aphorism: THE LAW IS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE. We have laws against acts that harm others and self because people perform those acts despite that harm. They don't know how to behave among others, and we need a way to control those people.

I myself blow off stop signs all the time, about 30 yesterday alone. I saw a lot of cars doing it too. I ride on sidewalks every day, even past copcars, not one ticket in the last 25 years. Why? Because I know how to behave. If there are pedestrians, I stop, go onto the grass, slow to walking pace, whatever is neccessary to prevent myself from scaring the pedestrian. If there is other traffic at a stop sign, I do not enter the intersection.

I think of bike riding as a wonderful game. I love finding ways to avoid problems on the road while maintaining forward motion. I understand the momentum arguement, but I take those situations that require me to fully stop as opportunities to work on the old cardiovascular system. It is probably the only way to do that in the city where you do have to mantain reasonable speeds (usually below the speed where wind drag actually challenges the heart and lungs) if you are going to get along with fellow travellers.
Yes, bikes and cars have very different requirements, and the law cannot accomodate them all. Also, many of the laws regarding bikes are antiquated. Hand signals? From the days of coaster brakes. I use my hands to stop and steer, and I would be at least a hand short if I were to signal every move I make. Signal bells? Yeah, ring that at a car. Ring it at me? I'M RIGHT HERE, USE YOUR VOICE, JERK! Bike lanes? Many of them put me in prime position to collect my door prize. Bike paths in the park look just like pedestrian paths, and strangely are used that way. They have separate bike lanes,on some roads in Montreal, complete with their own curbs to knock you down if you get a little off line. Fuck bike lanes.

To me, the bike is the ultimate tool of anarchy. I take the rules as a basic guide, and behave with others in mind. I ignore stupid rules. If I get a ticket, I will smile and write it off as a fee for the tremendous freedom my bike gives me. Most of the rules are there to control cars, and evolved because drivers are prone to exploit the power they take from the planet. I personally think that drivers should meet a standard similar to that required of gun owners. Think of it this way: if there were any other human habit that killed as many people as driving, would we let pretty much any idiot have a liscence to indulge it?

We have cars because we need them to maintain a lifestyle that is destroying our world. They are a sign that humans are not currently evolved to the degree that is neccessary for their long term survival.
While the car addicts (sorry to be so down on you, I'm sure you really are nice folks outside of your big metal death boxes) get all roadragey, I am cutting beautiful arcs across the pavement, improvising my way through the city, stopping for squirrels and having a great old time.

Not long ago, I rode past a lovely cherry red 50's convertable, the kind men apparently use to attract women. In the passenger seat, a beautiful blonde with her hair blowing in the breeze. She gave me a look that said "Stop right now, gazzelle boy, you have something I want to wrap my legs around!" The driver was waiting for the other cars to get out of his way, with a big grimmace on his face.... Value of bike? $200. Value of that experience? ....

 

[OddSox]

Pretty much every time some jerk proclaims that 'the law is for all those other stupid people, not me', then I'm pretty sure I know who the jerk is.

 

[staggerspool]

Pretty much every time some jerk proclaims that 'the law is for all those other stupid people, not me', then I'm pretty sure I know who the jerk is.

Hmmm... not sure I saw that proclaimed anywhere.... if you were referring to my post, I invite you to read past the first few sentences, and get back to me if you have any questions. If you did read on, I guess you are just out of your league here. You could at least get the quote right. Your misreading betrays your attitude. To save you the trouble, the law is for people who don't know how to behave. I do.

Folks who are hung up on the law are often that way because they need it to feel safe. Because they know, deep down, that without the law, they would get themselves into trouble. They like to have a big brother to keep them from having dangerous fun. The law justifies their own fear of their own desires and drives. They don't really know how to behave from perspective of personal experience and choice. I'm always very aware of anyone I know who is a stickler for following rules, because I know, deep down, that they can't be trusted. For further reference, refer to any Ken Wilber book discussing the evolution of individual psychology. You are at the RULE/ROLE level, which in an ideal situation is transcended by age 12. Here's hoping you get to FORMAL/REFLEXIVE soon.

Sorry to psychoanalyse you, and yes, I am taking this beyond the car/bike subject of this thread, but really, you know you are asking for it. I was expecting your reply. I'm sure others will follow. (you really all do think alike. That's what rules are all about.)

If I get caught on something, I take my lumps - that goes with the attitude. Go beyond the law, you are responsible for the consequences. (I probably should have mentioned that in my earlier post, though it really goes without saying.) I trust myself, and am happy to deal with my mistakes. Believe me, I have made abject appologies when I have screwed up. Funny, I don't remember ever getting an appology from a driver who blew me off at a 4way stop.

I like the law, because it protects me from people who just can't figure out how to get along in the world. The downside is people who then take the authority of rules as their place of power. If you are a cop or the pope or some other powerful authority, I'll never let you catch me at anything big. Guys like you, well, you did your best.

As to knowing who the jerk is, 'pretty sure' is sometimes mistaken, especially if the substance of the objection is clearly delt with in the statement being objected to.

And let me guess: car driver? If so, you have my codolences. Too many bike riders having fun, must be hard to watch.

 

[Jade4u]

I do not believe it is the law that cyclists have to stop at all intersections. Posted by toronto medical services. http://www.torontoems.ca/main-site/careers/safety-tips/bicycles5.html

Young children, typically under the age of nine, are not able to identify and adjust to many dangerous traffic situations, and therefore, should not be allowed to ride in the street unsupervised. Children who are permitted to ride in the street without supervision should have the necessary skills to safely follow the "rules of the road."

Pedestrians get to go first. Yield the right of way, and keep a sharp lookout for danger in every direction if you have to adjust your path. Be courteous to pedestrians and other vehicle operators. Sidewalks are designed for pedestrian use and are often congested with pedestrian traffic. Pedestrians often move from one side to the other. Bicycles travel faster and cannot always avoid hitting moving pedestrians. The mix of bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk always poses conflicts.

Use caution at intersections - go slowly and yield to pedestrians. Look for turning cars and trucks. In heavy traffic, walk your bike across.

Ride defensively and expect the unexpected. Keep both hands ready to brake, and be aware of traffic around you. Many accidents occur at driveways or other intersections, check for traffic and always look left-right-left before beginning your ride and entering roadways.

Make eye contact with drivers, assume that other drivers don't see you until you are sure that they do. Eye contact is important with any driver which might pose a threat to your safety.

Scan the road behind, learn to look back over your shoulder without losing your balance or swerving. Some riders use rear-view mirrors or mirrors attached to the frames of glasses.



It was also my belief that while a cyclist is on the bike he/she is considered a motor vehicle but if getting off and walking is then considered a pedestrian. Hence so if they are still in motion on the bike then the lights must be correct to do so. So, if a light is green for vehicles to go a bike could continue to go through with the flow of traffic while if off the bike they would have to wait for the traffic to leave and the signals to change to safely get across.

I personally still tell my boys at 12 years of age to walk the bikes across that way they are considered pedestrians and will have the right of way as driving is more a responsibility for a driver and they should be more aware than a child.

 

[Moraff]

Cyclists don't get off scot-free, they pay taxes and don't wear out the roads.

They pay the same taxes as non-drivers... they may not wear out the road but the demand (rightly so) for more cyclist features on our roads means they should be paying more than non-drivers no?

I see you agree that drivers are subsidized, this is why cities are designed to benefit them. Then you even talk about giving drivers rebates because cities are designed for cars???

Yes today's cities were designed to be auto-centric... but you can't just start penalizing drivers for this... Generally speaking they have no option to avoid using the car at this time. Rethink the way we plan our cities and then start penalizing those who chose to drive because they want to rather than they need to if you must.

If there were higher taxes on gas, then other means of transport would be competitive and cities wouldn't sprawl over valuable farmland.

Other means of transport also use fuel be it gasoline, diesel, electricity, natural gas whatever. Or are you just going to tax car owners? What if the car owner uses their vehicle as their business (ie. the trades)?

You want me to put a price on the deaths and illnesses cars cause directly and indirectly?

Yes you're the one proposing a tax on cars to offset this after all.

Would you agree the price isn't factored into car taxes AT ALL?
If so, how many dollars per litre would cover it?

No.. there's already a surcharge if you buy a vehicle with more than 6 cylinders I believe, so there's already at least one tax on vehicles that contribute more pollution than other vehicles.

I believe it would be impossible to calculate such a figure... how do you calculate what % of indirect deaths are actually caused by cars?

 

[Moraff]

I do not believe it is the law that cyclists have to stop at all intersections. Posted by toronto medical services. http://www.torontoems.ca/main-site/careers/safety-tips/bicycles5.html

You may not believe it, however it is the law in Ontario that cyclists have to stop at all red lights and stop signs just like cars do. Several times a year the police give tickets to cyclists running the stop signs on their way to McMaster campus.

With all due respect, the Toronto Medical Service is not the HTA.

Pedestrians get to go first. Yield the right of way, and keep a sharp lookout for danger in every direction if you have to adjust your path. Be courteous to pedestrians and other vehicle operators. Sidewalks are designed for pedestrian use and are often congested with pedestrian traffic. Pedestrians often move from one side to the other. Bicycles travel faster and cannot always avoid hitting moving pedestrians. The mix of bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk always poses conflicts.

Other than small diameter wheels (not sure what Toronto bylaw permits), bikes shouldn't be mixing with pedestrians on sidewalks.

Use caution at intersections - go slowly and yield to pedestrians. Look for turning cars and trucks. In heavy traffic, walk your bike across.

If you're using a crosswalk you are expected to walk your bike at all times, not just in heavy traffic.

It was also my belief that while a cyclist is on the bike he/she is considered a motor vehicle but if getting off and walking is then considered a pedestrian. Hence so if they are still in motion on the bike then the lights must be correct to do so. So, if a light is green for vehicles to go a bike could continue to go through with the flow of traffic while if off the bike they would have to wait for the traffic to leave and the signals to change to safely get across.

Correct... but I'm not sure I follow you on the pedestrian having to wait for the traffic to leave. If the pedestrian and cyclist are going in the same direction they both get to go on the green light (unless there's pedestrian signals indicating differently.. ie advance green)

I guess if the two people in question were going left at the intersection then yes I would agree that the pedestrian would have to wait for the lights to change.

I personally still tell my boys at 12 years of age to walk the bikes across that way they are considered pedestrians and will have the right of way as driving is more a responsibility for a driver and they should be more aware than a child.

I wish more parents would train their kids this way. It wasn't until I became a driver that I realized how hard it is to see a cyclist as opposed to another vehicle. Especially when turning and you may not see that little figure whipping along the sidewalk on their bike until it's too late.