Comments on: Rep. Patterson on “fair, common sense” bicycle bill

By: Arizona Bike Law Blog » Blog Archive » Why I support "Bikes safe at stop signs"

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:27:59 +0000

[...] this proposal is quite controversial, e.g. the discussion over at tucsonbikelawyer.com, see here, here, and [...]

By: Opus the Poet

Opus the Poet — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:57:09 +0000

Something else I forgot to mention, most state laws about bicycles have a disclaimer about laws that by their nature don’t apply to bicycles. Well the majority of stop signs are being used not as they were intended but as traffic calming devices for motor vehicles, which makes them inapplicable to bicycles, which by their nature need no “calming”.

By: Ron Kearns

Ron Kearns — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 02:34:01 +0000

Alli, thank you for that informative link.

By: Alli

Alli — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:12:15 +0000

http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/02/10/when-is-a-stop-sign-not-a-stop-sign/#more-604

An excellent article written by physicists regarding cyclists and stop signs.

By: mister

mister — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:24:00 +0000

@Ron
By the way traffic laws are not designed for safety they are designed for level of service and cost. And yes the laws are modified for the sake of convenience.
No right turn on red don’t see to many street lights with those do you?
Speed limit 45mph that is really safe for everyone or more convenience?
Not using roundabouts which are safer than traffic lights because motorist can’t navigate them.
Or how about on street parking, how does that make the road safer and less convenient?

Imagine if every time you had to go to the bathroom you had to go to an outhouse, run around it three times to make sure no one was there and then pronounce you were going in the stall? Seem silly well that is what you do at a stop sign under your wishes.

By: Ron Kearns

Ron Kearns — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:08:23 +0000

d,
No, I rode extensively until 1976, but not in traffic since then. I have operated motorcycles in heavy city traffic and on Interstate highways.

Opus the Poet,
Thanks for your post; I understand, but I still see this proposal as based more on convenience rather than safety. I completely stop my vehicle at STOP signs. I do not roll through them unless I make a rare mistake at that particular driving task. I am not a perfect vehicle operator although I have had only one minor ticket in 45 years of driving.

Traffic laws are designed for safety and should not be modified for the sake of convenience.

By: Opus the Poet

Opus the Poet — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:15:32 +0000

I’ll expound. Cyclists avoid side streets and ride main routes without stop signs because such routes are faster and less tiring. Scientific studies have shown that stopping every block can result in a speed reduction of 40% compared to the same power output on through streets with only a few stops (lights rather than signs) or up to 5 times the power output to maintain the same average speed.

Why do bicyclists need that momentum? Stop means stop, not a rolling stop. Because bicycles need to be moving to remain upright, especially if clipless pedals are used. The equivalent would be removing the engine and placing it on the ground beside the car for a motor vehicle, instead of the typical rolling stop that most cars make. The main thing this would do is legalize bicycles stopping like the typical motor vehicle stop, without over exuberant LEO causing trouble. The other thing that this would do is reduce the amount of time cyclists spend in the speed range where they have the least control over their bikes and are in the most danger from motor vehicles.

By: d

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:01:55 +0000

Hey Ron,
Do you ride bikes often? Is so you know that coming to a complete stop at a stop sign when there are clearly no cars in the vicinity is a big pain and discourages people from using non-arterial routes – like the 3rd St. bike path.

By: Ron Kearns

Ron Kearns — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:32:19 +0000

“dramatically increases the likelihood that cyclists will utilize secondary streets instead of main thoroughfares when those thoroughfares have no bike lane or are otherwise dangerous and full of traffic.”

Please expound.

“This enables bicyclists to maintain some amount of their momentum through a stop sign…”

Why do bicyclists need that momentum? Stop means stop, not a rolling stop.

Erik, there are going to be many such questions asked during the legislative process considering this proposed bill. I know that you to have excellent reasoning skills from what you have written within this blog and other writings of yours. Thus far, I am unable to understand the logic of your argument and your comments here can serve as a prelude to what other people and legislators might ask.

How is this a commonsense bill; what makes it so?

Respectfully,
Ron