Bill introduced in Arizona legislature to permit bicyclists to treat Stop signs as Yield signs
It’s true!
Tucsonbikelawyer returned from a wilderness hiking trip to learn that Representative Quelland along with eight legislators has introduced a bill that would permit Arizona bicyclists to proceed through stop signs as if they were yield signs. My understanding is that Representative Quelland is a very serious bike commuter, so he would understand the need to let bicyclists pass cautiously through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop if it is safe to do so.
I’m proud to have contributed to this effort. My own district’s representative, Daniel Patterson, worked on this bill and we have had several discussions about it, so I am extremely pleased to see that it has been introduced. You can read Rep. Patterson’s lively news blog here.
There is a long way still to go to get this bill passed and signed into law, but this first step is cause for celebration.
Also working on the bill was Representative Nancy Young Wright, another important advocate for Arizona cyclists.
Getting this bill passed has been a dream of mine ever since I forked over $200.00 to the City of Tucson for slowly rolling through a stop sign at a roundabout in the Dunbar Spring neighborhood at one in the morning some years ago. The cop who cited me flat out admitted that I had not compromised the safety of any living thing, including myself, and he even admitted to me that he himself regularly rode through stop signs as a bike cop. Then he laughed.
Even so, I have not worked on this out of some kind of desire for revenge but because it will improve the lives of cyclists and motorists both in Tucson. If cyclists can cautiously proceed through a stop sign without a constant fear of getting an expensive ticket (I’ve gotten two, and neither time was I moving at all quickly or dangerously) it will increase the likelihood that they will make intelligent decisions about where to ride.
–Erik Ryberg
February 7th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
“a stop sign at a roundabout”
Doesn’t a stop sign at a roundabout defeat the purpose of what the roundabout is designed to do?
February 7th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Eric, is this a Tucson thing or an AZ thing? If AZ, and I think that’s what you’re saying, who might I contact in Chandler to promote this? Thanks, Doug
February 8th, 2009 at 10:00 am
This fair, common sense bill has strong bipartisan sponsorship, with 5 Rs and 4 Ds sponsoring. It also has strong statewide support, with lawmakers from Tucson, Phoenix, Yuma, Prescott and Flagstaff sponsoring.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:02 am
So, if the legislation is passed, would stop signs get a second line saying “bikes yield”?
February 8th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Bike Jax: Yes, I agree, but there are a lot of stop signs at roundabouts in Tucson, for some reason. Even four way stops!
Doug: It’s an AZ thing. I will be giving out suggestions for advocacy of this bill when the time comes. You can find your district and legislators at the http://www.azleg.gov website.
Rep. Patterson: Thanks for your comment and your efforts to get statewide, bipartisan support for this bill!
John: No, the signs would stay the same, but cyclists would be permitted to proceed through them safely.
February 8th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
If after driving or riding past a yield sign or stop sign without stopping the driver or bicycle rider is involved in a collision with a vehicle in the intersection, the collision is prima facie evidence of the driver’s or bicycle rider’s failure to yield the right‑of‑way.
That reminds me of the bike lane law. Where you must ride in a nearby bike lane or a motorist is exempt of all penalties.
Because when the cyclist is dead the drivers story is written down.
Second comment while not state cycling where riding was suppose to be? cycling past. Riding and driving are the same thing if a bicycle is a vehicle.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Jax – it’s not a *real* traffic roundabout as most folks from places that have real roundabouts know them. In Tucson they considered “traffic calming devices” like speed bumps, and are small (about 8ft dia.) gardens planted smack in the middle of residential intersections, mostly intended to motivate people to stop at routinely ignored stopsigns.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Great work, Erik! This would be the first large-scale law of this kind in the U.S., wouldn’t it? (I don’t know very many people in Idaho…)
February 9th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
At first glance, I disagree with this revision. A vehicle is a vehicle; a stop sign is a stop sign; and a ‘double standard’ law pertaining to one universally understood and longstanding symbol can only lead to misunderstandings and potential accidents.
Please explain the reasoning and justification for the change, other than for convenience. Others might disagree with the change and this would be a good opportunity for proponents to clarify some concerns and perhaps win the support of opponents, such as I am right now.
Respectfully,
Ron
February 9th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
[...] tucsonbikelawyer.com: It’s [...]
February 9th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“At first glance, I disagree with this revision. A vehicle is a vehicle; a stop sign is a stop sign; and a ‘double standard’ law pertaining to one universally understood and longstanding symbol can only lead to misunderstandings and potential accidents.”
There are many areas of bike vehicles vs motor vehicles in our code. Until they lower the speed limit to 15 mph I want separate laws.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Yes, but existing disparity of law mostly exists to address points of safety *caused* by the disparity between vehicles – this particular one has no such justification. While I agree that bicyclists, due to their lower speed and shorter stopping distance, don’t really *need* to come to a full stop at intersections, it’s not really a bad idea that they do so.
I agree with Ron that it’s not really a good idea to start creating “special” laws for bicycles simply to cater to convenience. Your bicycle is a vehicle, not a toy – we’re better off if we all at least act like we believe that.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
[...] this proposal is quite controversial, e.g. the discussion over at tucsonbikelawyer.com, see here, here, and [...]