Idaho stop-sign law — what do you think?
As most readers of this website know, in Idaho a bicyclist is lawfully permitted to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. That is, a bicyclist can proceed straight through a stop sign without stopping so long as they first ensure that they can do so safely. And a bicyclist can proceed through a red light after having first stopped and ensured that traffic is clear.
I am curious what Arizona cyclists would think of such a scheme. It seems to me the stop sign language is probably more important than the red-light rule and it definitely feels to me more like something I would support. What do you all think?
Below is the Idaho statute:
TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 7
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
49-720.Stopping — Turn and stop signals. (1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to other traffic.
(3) A person riding a bicycle shall comply with the provisions of section 49-643, Idaho Code.
(4) A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given during not less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the bicycle before turning, provided that a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle.
One thing I like about the stop-sign part is that it gives bicyclists an incentive to ride the non-arterials for longer trips. I have gotten two very expensive tickets for running stop signs (both times at a snail’s pace, by the way) and I find that it has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I actually end up avoiding some good bike routes simply because I don’t want to mess with all the stop signs. And thus I find myself on Broadway or, worse, Speedway, running an errand in a hurry.
-Erik Ryberg
January 29th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Well, as far as the stop sign thing goes,
that’s kind of the way it exists now.
Change the law and ‘enforcement’ looses
one of its revenue generation options.
I truly believe that safety is the last
concern they have along that line.
I don’t know about the red light thing…
it could become wild in the streets if
that was enacted. You know it’s just
better, from a regard standpoint, if
everyone using the road follows the
same rules. ‘Enforcement’ doesn’t do
its part in bringing that about so it
might not matter anyway.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Agree with Coghauler in that fining cyclists for not coming to a full stop (is there a definition of this in the law or is this left to Officer Friendly’s judgement?) is more about spinning revenue than ensuring public safety or any other general good. Personally, I think that after having been T-boned off my bike once and in no way wishing to repeat that experience, I have AMPLE reason to be extremely aware of whether it is safe enough to “pause” and go or whether a full stop is truly required, especially if I am making a right turn into a bike lane (i.e., and not into the vehicular lane). Whatever we have to do to get something like the Idaho law (turning red lights into stop signs might have more safety risks and need some more cautions attached) on the Arizona books, sign me up. Thanks for listening.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I’m definitely in favor of being able to treat stop signs as yield signs (albeit with somewhat more weight).
While stop signs are often placed in neighborhoods as traffic calming devices, I tend to believe traffic lights are there for good reason and should be followed. I also think existing laws about being able to proceed through malfunctioning traffic lights already cover the situation of what a cyclist should do at a cycle-blind traffic light.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I would whole-heartedly support such a move for many of the reasons that have already been mentioned above. However, i think the main issue at hand, with relation to safety, is driver awareness. There is an enormous need for this already as the laws stand, and any change to statutes would need to be accompanied by state/city-wide education of drivers who for the most part have no idea how to deal with bikers on the road, and more often than not respond in anger and very dangerous driving habits.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I don’t think running a stop sign is necessarily criminal thing to do. The only thing I’d be concerned with legalizing it would be that people would take this to be a “right of way thing” and completely abuse it to cut off cars at 4-way stop intersections. That’s not to say that people aren’t doing that already, but for the sake of safety, I think there needs to be some pretty strict language regarding the “only after the roadway is considered safe to enter” aspect of the law. I’m with the commentors above, whatever law is passed should be about safety, and not generating revenue.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Check out the national statistics over the last 27 years since Idaho passed its law statewide to find the fact that Idaho has less bicycle accidents and fatalities than the national average consistently. This common sense law, which almost all serious bicyclists concerned more for their health and safety than how some cops and courts interpret the law follow, is well overdue. It is patently unfair to make bikes ‘park’ at stop signs, while motorists get to momentarily brush their brakes and go, keeping their mode of transport active throughout the stop. Annoy your state congresspeople now, and get it done.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
To those people who feel that it’s just too much work to lose momentum by stopping where legally required, I have to ask: What the hell are you doing on a bicycle? If you’re that freakin’ afraid of a little extra effort, shouldn’t your lazy ass be comfortably ensconced behind the wheel of some car?
January 29th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Oops – the humor of the above was lost along with the faux “grumpy old man” HTML tags bracketing the message.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:27 am
I would like to see less stop signs,
Why not create bicycle routes with out stop signs?
bicycle loops and lights, Roundabouts, barriers, and calming as in bulb outs for Peds. Must yield to a ped in a bulb out zone.
In Rural Arizona (JK) they put the sensor way back for cars, so you come up to the light and fly right through.
I think the jury or judgment is in.
You don’t see a Multi use path with a stop sign when it cross a another M.U.P. do you? I have several examples which don’t see a stop on on all four corners. I even have one very strange one. Where the M.U.P. crosses private property, but the M.U.P. has the yield over golf carts (motor) has a stop sign. Note private property entering public property, so even pedestrians need to stop. One foot in the cross walk I guess.
yielding works in my opinion and people are all glad I stop with both feet on the ground
They even like it when I allow them to turn right by “daylighting” on the left.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I think this is basically a good idea. Bikes are a different mode of transportation with different laws of physics. Therefore the traffic laws should reflect that. Most bicyclists treat stop signs as yield signs anyway.
I don’t remember where, but I thought I had heard of a bike law somewhere that allowed bicyclists to go thru red lights at ‘T’ intersections. Certainly not here in Tucson, but somewhere in the US. That made a lot of sense as well.
I think if I could change one thing in Tucson, it would be the amount of info that car drivers know about bike laws. It is incredible what I hear from car drivers. And I can’t really blame them – there is no requirement for them to know and know PSAs that inform them (hell – most bicyclists don’t know the law for that matter).
January 31st, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I wish they would do that in Chicago! It’s the common sense that cyclists follow already, anyway.