I haven’t driven a car in more than 25 years. When I did drive, I remember feeling like I was riding around in an iron maiden with small windows. I hope I never have to drive, unless I get a version of the pope-mobile.

I live near one of the weirdest intersections in town – Stone and University. Every single day cars take extreme advantage of traffic law there. Left turns on red lights are daily occurrences. What makes cars do that in this intersection and not in others? I am surprised that no one has been killed at this intersection. I have been hit by another cyclist at this intersection.

For specificity, the statement should read: slow to 5 miles per hour *or less*… or slow to a *maximum speed* of 5 miles per hour…or whatever is most unmistakable.

Erik, would this not open the door to additional, potentially unjustified, and biased LEO indiscretions against bicyclists? You and I both know that today’s LEOs can be the most abjectly dishonest people among any professional group.

“C. The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign and any person riding a bicycle approaching a yield sign or a stop sign shall slow down in obedience to the sign to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and 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 driver or bicycle rider is moving across or within the intersection. “

“ 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. END_STATUTE”

What concerns me most is that there is no real measure of wrongful actions until ‘after’ a collision occurs (prima facie evidence). Is there no logical, legally binding language available to ‘gauge’ bicyclists’ noncompliance of yielding to another vehicle, pedestrian, or approaching an intersection at an acceptable rate of speed short of a potentially life-threatening accident? As an attorney who has abundant experience in this area—both as a staunch bicyclist and one with a specialized legal practice—you, if anyone, could add to this proposed law’s clarity.

There will always be those bicyclists who would ruin freedoms for the majority by abusing this law. If there was clarity with defining the elements of the law to negate some of the subjectiveness; e.g. slow down in obedience to the sign; and a speed reasonable for existing conditions, then people such as I would likely accept the proposed law.

Several of the bicycles I owned over the years had speedometers. Sans a speedometer, is there a reasonable manner for an LEO located across an intersection or behind a bicyclist to estimate the speed of a bicycle, say, at 5 miles per hour? Since stopping at a STOP sign is what a bicyclist dreads the most, why not set the approach speed at a measureable level of 5 miles per hour —by a speedometer if a bike was so equipped or from an estimated speed discernable by an LEO. At least there is some metric for a reasonable and fair judgment. As a former LEO, I see a requirement for such a speed guide for rendering an equitable and unbiased decision as to the intent of a bicyclist to either yield at a STOP sign or not.

A fast walking speed is 5 miles per hour; after that, most people tend to jog. So instead of writing a statue with statements such as slow down, reasonable speed, then state instead—for bicyclists only: when approaching a bicycle yield sign (motor vehicle STOP sign) a bicyclist must slow to 5 miles per hour, which is approximately equivalent to a fast walking pace. With a reasonable and readily discernable measure, we would all know that “blowing through a stop sign,”—that is, literally running through it in pedestrian terms—was a clear violation of the Bike-Yield law.

A rate of 5 miles per hour will give the bicyclist the full opportunity to survey the intersection safely. A discernable, established speed would lessen the ire from motorists against abusing bicyclists if there is no limit whatsoever, or with varying speeds that are open to each bicyclist’s judgment of what is safe for him/her, and it would lessen the ability of LEOs to abuse their discretionary judgments of what constitutes a yield violation. I would support the Bikes Safe Yield Act if it codified a 5 miles per hour speed requirement during a bicyclist’s approaching a vehicle STOP sign (Bike-Yield sign) and written in the appropriate and unequivocal legalese all vehicle operators can understand.

Thank you for your discussion and reply.