The Colorado Safety Stop is the law of the land | Hacker News Reader

The Colorado Safety Stop is the law of the land

bicyclecolorado.org

320 pointsmooreds616 comments

The solution that’s never on the table is getting rid of most stop signs.

The main point of a stop sign is to control intersections that objectively need the stop to permit safe traffic flow.

We are instead seeing unwarranted stop signs proliferate like rabbits, justified by things they can’t do, like slow or calm traffic.

On top of that, we’re ignoring the problems _caused by_ unwarranted stop signs, including crashes that wouldn’t otherwise happen, increased noise, increased pollution (especially small particles in the stop sign’s vicinity), higher speeds that are induced after the stop sign (drivers make up for time lost at the stop), and the broader consequences of reducing credibility of traffic regulations overall (people aren’t stupid, and when they are conditioned to that stop signs are mostly pointless, the conditioning bleeds over to the whole regime of traffic regulations).

Stop engineering malpractice, ditch most stop signs, and problem solved!

I assume you mean "bicycle specific stop signs" and not all stop signs?

Bikes don't have blind spots while vehicles generally do

I mean all stop signs. I have yet to see a single city where the vast majority of stop-sign-controlled intersections couldn’t have been better served with yield signs.

Get rid of the vast majority of stop signs, and you’ve eliminated a huge amount of the problem this law seeks to solve.

Is there data that you've read on this to back up your claims?

I know there's a push to replace stop lights and signs with traffic circles. But I haven't heard the same for residential stop signs. I've just read that they prefer to eliminate 4-ways stops because 3-ways are much safer..

How are 3 way stops safer?

Because the mentality is to stop, look, and wait for it to be clear, rather than stop and immediately just go.

Stop and immediately go is particularly a problem for less visible road users like pedestrians and cyclists.

Not sure how that would work where I am from… there are so many cars, the one direction that didn’t have the stop sign would be constantly full and the other three directions would just sit there.

An intersection that busy should just be a traffic light though. All of these other measures are for managing flow at intersections where natural gaps exist and can be leveraged.

Or the speed reduced - you can handle a lot of traffic at an unsignaled intersection of both roads are slow enough.

It’s when there’s a huge speed differential and no signaling that it becomes a problem as traffic gets higher.

These are in residential neighborhoods, and stop signs help prevent people from speeding, as well.

No cross traffic is the thinking, so the most dangerous situation - someone blowing through the stop sign at full speed - is less likely to be an issue, because it can only happen in on the road that's the top of the T, and since bottom of the T traffic always needs to stop, they are more likely to notice traffic that may blow through the sign.

If you look at modern American suburban streets, you'll see this idea in action. Most intersections are 3-way vs the grid layout common in older areas.

So they're asking for a redesign with 3-way intersections, not some weird setup where you remove one stop sign?

Maybe I haven't seen 'modern' suburban streets, because all the suburbs I know have 4 way stops

> Is there data that you've read on this to back up your claims?

There’s plenty of it. If you want to start from the pollution angle, consider the pollution caused by a stop/start rather than steady-speed cruise through the intersection. Enormous difference.

> Is there data that you've read on this to back up your claims?

Many other countries get by with far fewer stop signs and have far fewer traffic fatalities. Not sure if there's a causative relationship there, but it doesn't seem to be hurting.

I can’t imagine any of the stop signs here in Los Angeles being able to be replaced by yield signs.

They are almost all 4 way stops, with regular traffic in all directions. If you made it an uncontrolled intersection, or added a yield sign, the road with the yield sign would never get a chance to go.

In fact, there are a number of places along my route to my daughters school where I take a slightly longer way to avoid the intersections without a 4 way stop because I would end up sitting forever trying to turn if I went to one of them.

You may have identified some warranted stops. Congratulations! In my area, the vast majority of stop signs can be replaced by yield signs, to broad societal benefit.

Yeah, but the comment I replied to said:

> I have yet to see a single city where the vast majority of stop-sign-controlled intersections couldn’t have been better served with yield signs.

So I was giving an example of a city where that wasn’t the case. I never said all stop signs are necessary, I was only disputing the point that most stop signs in ALL cities aren’t necessary.

In cities where there are streets - collectors - arterials you can remove almost all stop signs because the streets see little traffic.

But cities like LA have grown so much that even if they had that at one point effectively every street is a parallel collector and so the traffic volumes are too high.

The “rolling stop” is just proof that most intersections could be unsigned, and then use stop and yield to alert to specifically dangerous ones.

If you rarely or never saw a stop sign, one appearing would be an awakening.

You could replace with a roundabout.

> I can’t imagine any of the stop signs here in Los Angeles being able to be replaced by yield signs.

That's because the roads, as they currently are, were designed for stop signs. Removing those stop signs is going to usually involve changing the roads a bit too.

How would you even go about doing that? You would have to kick people out of houses.

You wouldn't necessarily need more space, but even if you did US streets are already so wide that you can generally apply road diets to them and still get better trafic flow out of them.

You haven't been to Sherman Oaks.

The only time I've ever not wanted a stop sign was because the intersection was so dangerous it should have had a stop light.

That may be an example of a warranted stop sign, which is unlike the vast majority that are going up today in cities.

I've seen fairly commonly in developing suburban scenarios something like "a through street with a new -- but very low-traffic -- intersection with a cross street". People are accustomed to driving fast on the through street, increasing the risks of the conflict at the intersection, but 99% of the time there is no conflict.

The easy solution that's often chosen is to add a stop sign to these intersections, but this tends to result in largely-unnecessary stopping and starting, which then tends to increase the number of conflicts (because the traffic on the through street tends to congest at the new stop rather than passing quickly through it).

A better solution would address the nature of the risk -- speed -- more directly. Traffic calming techniques like narrowing the road, or deflection (manufactured bends in the road or speed humps) would improve outcomes for all road users more than a stop sign that creates congestion (and therefore conflict).

Amen - we need traffic circles in most circumstances - not stop signs!!!

Yes, roundabouts make a lot of sense and I support them. However, how do you deal with the last mile?

For example, here is a stop sign. Would we convert this to a roundabout as well?

Maybe the problem is we have too many intersections?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/610+Martha+St,+Euless,+TX+...

That should be a yield, not a stop sign! Preferably with a low 15-20MPH speed limit on a street that narrow.

I guarantee you it is a yield, most people will rolling stop that.

I’d just leave it unsigned entirely since it’s a three way, the incoming traffic has to slow down to make the turn anyway.

How are intersections reduced? Closing them off with concrete blocks to create dead end streets? Creating more cul-de-sacs?

I certainly don't want a world where every residential street is a windy suburban-style affair that goes nowhere. That just entrenches car culture and makes it impossible to run efficient mass transit.

Effective is stopping the cars at points but not the people - Queen Anne in Seattle has many streets that become stairs at points because it’s too steep.

You can also have portions of the road that block cars but allow transit as necessary.

Cars should be discouraged and forced to go the long way around as it doesn’t harm them much, and gives an advantage to walking.

This intersection is big enough that you can just put a big concrete half-ball or a flowerbed in the middle, put up a bunch of signs that show how to use it, maybe add some plastic lane separators that ease cars into a right turn. That's it, a roundabout.

Maybe I need my mind opened but I can't imagine the space requirement for every side street intersection to become a traffic circle. Surely you're referring to intersections only between arterials?

American streets are very wide. You kill parking near the intersection and you can add a small “roundabout” which is basically a diamond in the street preventing straight through.

Where there's not much space, you can just paint the circle [1].

I think that one probably exists because people are going south and east (to the two main roads), so it's not clear that either direction should have priority. The junction looks more-or-less the same size as the crossroads to the north. (Which, incidentally, has no signs, just road markings to indicate which road has priority.)

For interest, move slightly south east to see the large roundabout between two main roads, then follow the A4540 north to see two more.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4875739,-1.9213084,194m/data...

Drivers in the US are so bad that painting a circle will do nothing. The physical roundabout with curbs and landscaping near me gets driven straight through a couple of times a year. If it won't destroy your car, American drivers will disregard it when it is inconvenient.

Driving over a painted ("mini") roundabout could lead to a £50 fine if it's spotted by a police officer in Britain, although in many cases (when there's no other traffic) I think they'd just stop the driver and warn them not to do it again.

(Driving over one in a bus, lorry or other large vehicle that can't make a tight turn is allowed.)

Driving over a normal roundabout with curbs and landscaping is unheard of, there isn't a specific fine. The kerbs are usually tall enough that it risks damaging the vehicle. I think it would be considered fairly serious¹, as it shows either a serious lack of attention to the road, or a complete disregard for the rules.

¹ i.e. you get a fine and 3-6 penalty points on your driving licence, which increases your insurance cost. If you get 12 points you lose the licence and have to retake the driving test.

This. I've seen a few small ones in residential areas in California and they prevent speeding because you need to slow down as you cannot go straight but still allow flow faster than stopping 5 times.

One division installed them badly as a retrofit and discovered they needed to add some really big rocks as people were just driving straight OVER the roundabout.

Only on bigger roads. Not very safe for pedestrians.

America does seem to have an absolutely enormous number of stop signs. Here in the UK 99% of what would be a stop in the US is just an implicit yield - a road joining another road is a yield. Obviously it's a yield - you'd be mad not to yield - so no need for a sign.

That is like ... blowing my American mind. I'm imagining whole swathes of code in self driving cars that are just commented out before they deliver to the UK.

A small road joining a larger road is also an implicit yield in America, but no one reads the bloody drivers manuals!

I had a driving examiner try to fail me for that very offense when I took my test long ago. I was in a neighborhood, on the vertical part of a T intersection with no stop sign present. I slowed until I had a clear view that there was no traffic approaching from either direction, then proceeded.

I complained when I returned. Asked to be shown where that rule was present in the state's official driver's manual. It wasn't in there. I passed.

Because I am a moron who got distracted: the examiner insisted that I had run an implicit stop sign.

There are lots of rules that are implicit on European roads. You have to actually read the signs. And as an American, it really requires studying before attempting to drive there.

As an example, in Germany, the speed limit on 2-lane highways is (from memory, it's been 5 years) 100 kph. But when you enter a town, which is designated by a specific sign that tells you the name of the town, the speed limit drops to 50 kph. There is no sign that says "speed limit is now 50 kph." It is implicit from the sign saying you are entering that town. Upon leaving the town, there will be a "speed restriction removed" sign. This doesn't mean there's no speed limit, it means the speed restriction has been removed and your speed limit is back to 100 kph.

Yield or "give way" signs make tons of sense. Think of a small two lane road that crosses a four-lane highway. The cars on the larger road have the right of way and cars entering or crossing must give way/yield to that traffic. There's generally no need for a stop sign, but we as Americans are used to it and see it as the only way to do things.

I find the UK's road sign for "National Speed Limit Applies" to be surely one of the worst designed road signs in history.

Much like your German example, it exists solely to tell you the speed limit has changed. Rather than put a number on a sign and be done with it, its an inexplicable white circle with a black line across it!

What is the "National Speed Limit" you ask? Again it depends on where you are, and even what you are driving. The only advantage I can think of is they don't need to replace these signs should the limits be changed...

> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_national_speed_li...

That part also exists in Germany. The 100kph on the "Landstrasse" - which does not mean two lane highway, it could simply be the road connecting two small towns that doesn't look much different from the road in town except for no houses on either side - only applies to cars. Trucks have an automatic limit of 80kph. That is sooo dumb! Lots and lots of accidents because cars get stuck behind trucks and get aggravated. Especially on one lane ones that have enough traffic to make passing almost impossible. And since this is Germany, most of these aren't straight like you might expect from the US. These are usually very meandering, which makes it real hard to pass those trucks.

And never mind the actual highways, where there's no speed limit unless posted. And trucks still can only go 80kph. So you have 2 lane Autobahn. Trucks at 80-99kph on the right lane. 90-200kph cars on the left lane. The trucks that go 80 will have a bunch of trucks that want to go 90 trying to pass them. Then add the ups and downs where even the 90kph truck that's passing will slow to 75. Even if you're only cruising at 150kph (actually a pretty nice cruising speed), if you come up on an "elephant race" as they call it behind a bend in the road it's not fun. This extends to 3 lane highways too. Just that now you actually have cars switching from the middle lane to the left lane, because one truck is passing another. So you have an 80kph truck on the right, 90kph truck on the middle lane and a 100kph car in the left lane and the 200kph Mercedes or BMW approaching from the rear.

Truck have a massively higher kinetic energy. Therefore they have different regulations. I really wouldn't want trucks driving around with 130km/h (let's not even speak about the environmental impact). The big issue with trucks in Germany is that Germany is a transit country and with just in time delivery freight trafic on the roads increased massively. So there are many more trucks on the road than originally planned for.

The weird thing is that in Germany you have these competing speeds that make driving worse for everyone. That 20kph difference is responsible for a lot of bad behavior on smaller roads. On the Autobahn the differences are even bigger, even if there's more space (a second lane) but then like you mentioned there is a lot of traffic.

In the US and Canada for example the speed limit is just the same. Everyone goes at 100kph in Canada, truck or no truck. While you have people speeding there as well obviously, everyone is sort of going at the same speed.

it varies a lot by region in the US.

in NJ, everyone is going about the same speed, but way over the limit. people seem to be pretty good about staying out of the passing lane in light traffic.

in VA, everyone does seem to more or less go the speed limit.

in MD, it's utter chaos. you'll see a minivan going exactly the speed limit in the left lane, people passing it 10-20 mph over the limit, and wild people weaving in and out of exit lanes to pass everyone else at even higher speeds.

that's my experience anyway.

Another major part of the problem is that driving on highways and since 2018 also Bundesstraßen (basically, Landstraßen with regional importance) costs tolls, and truckers try to save toll wherever they can.

> I find the UK's road sign for "National Speed Limit Applies" to be surely one of the worst designed road signs in history.

No its not my friend.

Because it is only telling you something that you should already know if you have passed your Theory Test.

Namely that the National Speed Limit is the default state.

Anyone who has passed the Theory Test will know what the NSL is based on the road they are on and the vehicle they are driving. Its not difficult, you've only got to be able to tell the pretty darn obvious difference between a built-up area, single carriageway, dual carriageway and motorway (and whether a central reservation is present or not).

Which is why you only (typically) find NSL signs:

     - in locations where the context may normally dictate otherwise (e.g. presence of street lights)
     - where temporary limits are changing back to NSL (e.g. after motorway roadworks)

Don't overthink it. Its a lot easier to understand and a lot more sensible than you're making it out to be.

Right, but not all drivers operating a vehicle in the UK are required to pass a UK driving theory test. Virtually all foreign drivers can arrive, show up to a rental car place on their foreign documents and just drive out. While in the best case scenario a driver may have a UK licence and passed a corresponding theory test, this is not guaranteed. There's zero requirement to have sat that test for almost all foreign cars entering the UK via train and ferry too.

As a counter example, a UK person visiting the US would have almost zero difficulty understanding any of the speed signage, as they all incorporate the actual speed limits. Similarly, there is zero expectation you have passed the theory element of a US drivers licence. The US has roads with different speed limits for different vehicles too and still manages to get clear signage with numbers.

Good signage can be clear regardless of any tests, virtually all other speed signage in the UK incorporates a number. Speaking from experience, even those who have sat a theory test can often not really understand that sign or forget its meaning. There's not even any guarantee a licenced UK citizen has ever sat a theory test, given those who gained a UK licence before the introduction of the theory test in 1996 have generally never been required to sit one. The pre 1996 "theory" element was some random questions from your tester during the practical.

The standard of driving in the US is also appalling because its basically seen as a god given right that you should be able to have a driving license, and so minimal barriers are put in place to get one.

I also know many UK peeps who learnt to drive before 1996 and never have I heard one of them bitch and moan about "how stupid the NSL sign is".

We all know the US is a bit of a nanny state and everyone is constantly covering their backsides to avoid getting sued, and that's probably why the US has explicit speed limit signs splattered at every opportunity. Because if the US had the NSL system, some smart-alec would have a crash and then open up a lawsuit because they were too dumb to figure out which of the four types of road they were on.

I'm sorry. I'll happily bitch and moan about other aspects of UK roads (e.g. not-so-smart motorways). But NSL ? Nah mate ... it makes sense and you know it. ;-)

As you can see from this link, most European countries use the "NSL" sign in some form. It's expected that drivers find what those limits are when they cross a border. There are signs at all land borders showing the limit, also on that page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_European_road_si...

> Rather than put a number on a sign and be done with it, its an inexplicable white circle with a black line across it! > […] > it depends on […] what you are driving.

If it depends on what you’re driving they can’t put a single number on it. I would guess putting multiple numbers on wouldn’t be an improvement.

The USA sometimes has this on freeways where you’ll see a large 70 and below it TRUCKS 55.

Most other classes aren’t listed.

Likely the German way is better as the real law everywhere is “do not drive faster than is safe for conditions” but that is a number that changes day to day.

It just means speed limits are passed by reference rather than by value.

The sign has that design because it used to mean the end of the speed limit - you'll also hear it referred to as "deristricted" although that hasn't been accurate for many years. Rather than spend a vast amount of money replacing the signs and potentially also missing some and resulting in driver confusion, the National Speed Limit was introduced.

> You have to actually read the signs.

Well, actually, the opposite -- you have to understand the meaning of the symbol that is the sign.

In the US, you'll see a sign that's 9 lines of text that you're supposed to read & comprehend at 35 mph = 56 km/h.

> you have to understand the meaning of the symbol that is the sign.

Isn't that what reading is?

Ehhh. There's reading text, and understanding symbols.

For example, the first time you see a sign in the UK denoting whether you or the oncoming lane has right of way through a narrow spot the meaning may not be totally obvious.

"Actually reading" (as per comment I replied to) of traffic signs while in motion is rarely required in significant amounts in Europe.

> In the US, you'll see a sign that's 9 lines of text that you're supposed to read & comprehend at 35 mph = 56 km/h.

Signs like what? The only signs I can think of that have a bunch of text are stuff like valid parking hours.

>> In the US, you'll see a sign that's 9 lines of text that you're supposed to read & comprehend at 35 mph = 56 km/h.

> Signs like what? The only signs I can think of that have a bunch of text are stuff like valid parking hours.

Like this one, except you have to read it at 65+ mph: https://3gz8cg829c.execute-api.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod/...

It's 3 signs totaling 10 lines:

  LEFT LANE
  HOV 2+
  ONLY

  6AM - 10AM
  2PM - 7PM
  MON-FRI

  NO TRUCKS

  VIOLATION
  $250
  FINE

Well, "HOV 2+ ONLY" is the only part you actually need to read in the moment.

And helpfully those words are much much larger.

I will note that signs like that don't exist in my area.

It's admittedly (probably) not from Colorado, yeah. Though the important part you need to read is really the hours, since the other stuff doesn't tend to vary. Which they helpfully used a smaller font for, to make sure so you don't forget to squint at the most relevant part.

It's definitely distracting to have so much text, since you're still supposed to quickly read all of it, just in case it might say something other than what you expect. Not sure how that's supposed to work at 65+ mph.

good example, it just means one hopes that there are at least 3 subsequent of the same sign so one can read it in chunks (at least that's what i do)

Everywhere I've driven in the US with HOV lanes, also has the restricted lane(s) separated from the unrestricted lanes by a single or double solid line and the lanes themselves have a diamond painted in them every X number of feet.

Even if you aren't able to read the entire sign, there are other clues that should alert you to the fact that you might not want to be in that lane.

The question of interest is not merely "is this an HOV lane" but "can I use it at this time" and "is there anything the sign says other than the usual stuff that I would need to know". You're supposed to read all road signs, and only after reading can you be sure that their information is redundant.

Yet HOV lanes can be minimum 2 people most of the time, minimum 4 people during certain hours. If you're in a car with 2 people, you want to know if you're allowed to use the HOV lane or not.

Case in point, no left turn during specific hours of specific weekdays.

Upon leaving the town, there will be a "speed restriction removed" sign.

There'll be a sign that you're leaving the town (same as entering the town, just crossed out). The speed restriction removed part is implicit.

My comparison is driving in the US is mostly stateless and context free. While in Europe, you must know from context what type of road you are on, and also remember the current state you should be from the signs you saw earlier.

I find driving in the US easier because of that. I just which there was roundabout instead of stop signs everywhere.

>> My comparison is driving in the US is mostly stateless and context free.

Understanding speeds, perhaps, but driving? There are many things that require context and state like the rightmost lane becoming an exit lane requiring action to continue straight ahead. You have left turns from right lanes in some states. There are different U-turn laws in adjacent states. Stop signs permitting right turns without stops in some states through tiny exception text.

GP's comment makes more sense if you consider driving safely/legally and actually navigating to be separate problems. in general, this is a good way to look at it; misunderstanding right-of-way is much more serious than taking a wrong (but legal) turn.

there are some cases where there is an implied state/town speed limit, but other than that, all the information you need to drive safely/legally is on signage in front of you or a hundred feet back.

For what is worth the same happens in Romania and, judging by other people commenting in here, in most of Europe. Around my parts of the continent (Bucharest) a stop sign is in place only if you really, really need to stop for the safety of traffic (usually to ensure better visibility, you see the perpendicular traffic better while you're at a complete stop).

More exactly the "need to stop for ensuring safety" has come first, followed by the Stop sign itself, while in the US it looks like the Stop sign has come first, no matter the actual "neediness" related to traffic safety.

An extremely-well-traveled travel photo-blogger I read sometimes, who has a thing for signs (among other things, like fire hydrants), noted that only one or two other countries in the world come anywhere close to the US when it comes to posting rules on things. He framed it as practically the defining feature of American cities and towns: signs with rules on them, everywhere.

I think that’s because their driving license tests are so easy to pass.

It seems they can’t assume drivers recognize a “no U-turn” sign, even though there’s a clear similarity with other signs (round with a red edge and a diagonal red line means forbidden, black arrows mean driving directions)

So, they write its meaning below it (https://www.alamy.com/beverly-hills-california-usa-8th-septe...).

Weirdly, they do assume their population and tourists can understand written English when passing such signs at speed in a car and even know what a ped xing is.

It may be a broader cultural thing, though. Their state flags also are full of text (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_U.S._states_and_t...)

I agree. Signage is out of control in most of the US. On the roads, but not just on the roads. It's visual noise, often redundant or stating what already is apparent, and I think it's stress-inducing. It's probably related to the litigiousness of American society. If someone got hurt, and there wasn't a sign telling him to not do the clearly dangerous or stupid thing he did, a lawsuit will be filed.

Same in Turkey, and I presume through most of continental Europe. Most stop signs were removed in late 90s and converted into either implicit yields (i.e. nothing, ‘don’t be stupid’ rule) or traffic lights. Right now they’re trialling allowing California style allowed right turn at red lights.

Being allowed to turn right on red is the law in every US state. The only real exception is that it's banned in a few downtowns and, obviously, wherever a sign says otherwise.

One counterexample, right turn on red is not allowed anywhere in any borough of NYC. And outer Queens/Brooklyn/Staten Island are indistinguishable (to me) from the rest of Long Island (suburb). (i.e. not just downtown/busy areas of NYC)

Yes, NYC is not just pragmatically anti-car (which to some extent it needs to be), it is also ideologically anti-car, and that manifests in stupid rules like that.

NYC has free parking in every borough which is fairly pro-car in my (admittedly probably anti-car) circles.

The most expensive real estate per sq foot in the world and they allow people to store personal cars for free on the street. Ludicrous

That's not a stupid rule. Right-on-red is quite unsafe for pedestrians.

Right turn on red really doesn't belong anywhere where people could be on the street. Drivers turning red will often pull forward into the crosswalk and there may be a walk signal.

How is that any different from a right turn on green where there may be a walk signal?

In a right turn on green scenario, the driver mainly needs to be looking for pedestrians crossing and they will be crossing a different direction. In a right turn on red, their primary focus is on cars, limiting their attention on pedestrians. It also encourages creeping out into the crosswalk, blocking people from crossing on a signal.

That makes sense. Being European I’m often annoyed at not being allowed to turn right on red. Allowing it at non-pedestrian intersections would perhaps be a fair compromise.

Blows my mind you’d both tell a pedestrian to cross and also allow a car to drive through at the same time.

So you'd have every intersection come to a complete stop in all directions for pedestrian crossings? New York would come to a complete standstill.

I mean, only 15% of Manhattan population owns a car.

And thus many of them rely on the cross town busses. Which would be brought to a stop if what you propose was implemented.

> California style allowed right turn at red lights.

How are these different from other 'right turns on red' in the US ?

I find turning on red to be a pretty bad idea, because Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians. I think a majority of pedestrian accidents occurs on turn on reds/stops .

"Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians"

Rarely is being heavily abused in this statement. It's just not true. Otherwise pedestrian fatalities would be vastly higher than they are. Additionally, regional driving habits differ drastically. People in Colorado and California drive far more aggressively than they do in Iowa or even more densely populated areas on the east coast, where policing is far more rigorous.

I live in suburbia where there are few pedestrians. When I am out running, I would guesstimate that only about 20% of drivers actually stop before turning right on red. About 90% of drivers, even the ones that stopped, also never even glance in the direction they are turning, looking only for traffic coming from the left. By the time they have starting looking right, they have already crossed through the crosswalk.

The only reason there aren't more injuries to pedestrians is that there aren't very many to begin with and those that are on foot operate on the assumption that every driver is out to kill them.

>I find turning on red to be a pretty bad idea, because Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians. I think a majority of pedestrian accidents occurs on turn on reds/stops.

Right on red is indeed unsafe: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002243...

The US, for various reasons that primarily relate to privatized healthcare and a proliferation of lawyers, had absurdly high rates of lawsuits and liability around driving. Most road signs here are excessive for the purposes of making it as straightforward as possible to assign liability to a driver in the event of an acccident.

A prime example of this is the "No U-Turn" signs all over the US. People make U-turns at these spots all the time. The sign is really just there to ensure that any accident resulting from said U-turn is always, no matter what, the turner's fault in a legal sense.

I'd be far happier if we were just allowed to ignore the signs and have strict liability for the consequences if we screw up doing so. Being subject to fines and harassment by law enforcement is what I don't like.

Statistically 80% (might have been even higher I can't find the source right now) of drivers consuders themselves above average.

a) That's possible depending on how you quantify ability because average is influenced by outliers.

b) Is that supposed to be a rebuttal or something? I think "do whatever but strict liability if you F up" would be fine even for average and below average drivers. That's mostly how things already work in practice.

and depending on the distribution, they might be right!

Good thing they didn't say the rule should be for above average drivers only?

> Right now they're trialling allowing California style allowed right turn at red lights.

Sounds unwise - this is a fundamentally unsafe policy [1], and more people will die if it's implemented.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002243...

Makes sense outside cities. Not so great in cities.

Right on red is a bizarre murderous idea - why let cars cross a pedestrians' right of way?

I’m not a huge fan of right-turn-on-red but one thing I don’t often seen brought up is that right-turn-on-green is problematic as well, for this very reason. When your light (to go forward) turns green, the pedestrian crossing on your right often also turns green, which means there are now pedestrians trying to cross your path. It’s definitely better because you’re only have to focus on pedestrians and not traffic, but “green=go” is a thing that has led several cars to almost hit me at street crossings.

Better than right turn on green, where the same thing occurs. With right turn on red, cars must stop before turning. Furthermore, cars are not permitted to turn if there are pedestrians crossing.

How is that California-style? That's the general rule in USA/Canada (not sure about Mexico). Some dense cities like New York and Montreal forbid right-turns on red city-wide, but those are the exception.

There's a belief that stop signs will slow traffic. Instead, they'll often result in people flooring it between stops, making up for lost time or whatever.

Other traffic calming measures do more to slow drivers down and improve safety while potentially making the entire drive faster, or at least more pleasant and efficient due to a steady speed.

I think we're starting to recognize that, but it's a lot easier to toss up another sign than to move a curb, and stop signs are seen as less of an "anti-car" measure.

Stopping and start every block also burns more fuel, increases pollution (cars emit most when accelerating), increases brake and tire wear, and makes drivers more frustrated and aggressive.

When I first visited the US the frequent stop signs were one of the strangest things to me. They are so rare in Europe where there are yield and right of way signs instead. Ever since I've been wondering if the fossil fuel lobby is causing this to drive up fuel consumption.

I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago in the 70s. Our house was on a corner.

The city decided that just about every uncontrolled intersection should have a stop sign, and for busy intersections, a 4-way stop. It happened that they put in the stop signs in the winter. We had a few weeks of entertainment watching out the front window as car after car was caught off-guard by the new stop sign. They'd try to panic stop at the last second and of course slide right into the intersection.

Yep, and when there's snow on the roads and a stop sign top of a hill, we treat them as yield signs so we don't get stuck on the hill.

The weirdest part for me is that there is no reliable way to tell if the crossing street also has a stop sign (at least in CA). After 5 years of living in the US I still get annoyed about it.

The states I have lived in always as a “all-way” sign at the bottom of the stop signs to indicate if the crossing streets have stop sign as well

I think there's non-infrequently an "All Way" sign under the stop sign if the crossing street has one too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-way_stop But I'm not sure how common that is.

I remember in Illinois seeing a little sign under the stop sign like "4 way", showing you that it was a 4 way stop. Here's a street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8659021,-87.6285001,3a,41.2y...

I don't really recall these in New York, but I went for a search on Street View, and we seem to do the same thing here: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6700018,-73.9955353,3a,75y,4...

It seems like that if cross traffic doesn't stop, the stop sign doesn't have a marker. If it does, it gets a tag like "ALL WAY". No idea if this is standardized or an artifact of my sampling, or if it varies between states.

(I had to really rack my brain to find a 4 way stop in NYC. Ultimately the satellite view was helpful, they seem to not paint crosswalks if traffic doesn't stop. Seems dangerous! People are going to cross those streets. But I digress.)

In AZ "4 Way" or "All Way" signs are almost always present when applicable. These "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" signs [1] are common (but not universal) at other intersections.

[1] https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pinalcentral.co...

that sign (along with cross traffic does not stop) exists in CA, but it's not universal enough to rely upon an absence of that sign meaning a 4 way stop.

The worst variant I know on this idea afflicts several intersections in my daily driving environment (west side of Portland): stop signs with little addenda saying "3-way stop". So one direction doesn't have to stop. And they don't tell you which one it is. Is that car coming from your left going to barrel through, or not? Maybe that's a stop sign over there, maybe not, it's hard to tell from the back. Come on.

My driving instructor* ~20 years ago said that's the reason stop signs are hexagons – you can see it's a stop sign from the other side. Same for why yield signs are inverted triangles – the person who doesn't have that sign can see from its shape what it is.

*this was for an underage moped license

I believe all the international signs have unique shapes and the stop and yield signs are borrowed from there.

No, only the yield and stop signs, and the right of way sign (diamond shaped) have unique shapes. Oh wait, the one way sign too, being a long rectangle. Other signs are shaped according to group: Warning signs are triangular, tip up, signs forbidding or mandating something are round (distinguished by color), and informational signs are rectangular. And one interesting case is the do not enter sign, which is usually curved. That makes it more obvious to someone looking for a turn, but also you can recognize it from behind so you know to go in the far left lane if you plan to make a left turn.

There (should) be a very small rectanglular sign right below the stop sign that says "4 way" meaning there are stops on all 4 corners. I've always thought these were way too small to notice and I wouldn't be surprised if they were often missing.

Those aren't there (at least not reliably) in California. One of the most frustrating parts of driving here for me too.

That is part of why the MUTCD requires that the hexagonal shape of the stop sign not be obscured from either side. That way, you have a clear visual reference if there is an hexagonal sign in the opposing directions.

*octagonal

In New Zealand, the paint markings on the road make it clear. Yellow line across the road for stop, white for give way. Examples here: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roadcode/code-for-cycling/intersect...

Like any good UI, it isn’t something I could immediately recall, but it is something I mostly unconsciously notice when driving. You can also look for signs, but it isn’t as trustworthy.

I really like this design. The UK has a similar system, where there's always a line across the road whenever road users have to stop or give way. There are different types of lines [1] but even without knowing by heart what each of them means I've always found it obvious what one has to do (based on signs and other road markings).

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/560aa6c7ed915...

When I lived in Hamburg in Germany, there was an arterial on my way to work where cars definitely _did not_ stop for pedestrians. The street was 2 lanes wide with an spot to stand in the middle.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but the stop sign (around here) means you have to come to a full stop and yield to crossing traffic, which includes bikes, cars and other vehicles, but not pedestrians.

Strange - in most US states you have to yield to pedestrians at all times, even if they’re doing something stupid.

You are meant to yield at certain dedicated crossings without lights and you can’t negligently hit someone just because they didn’t use a crossing (jaywalking isn’t a crime either but there are some fast roads where people are not allowed to walk on). And obviously drivers are meant to be courteous towards pedestrians, especially where the space is more shared (eg suburban streets or some country roads), and this would generally mean yielding after some polite eye-contact-based negotiation.

Less upfront cost, more longterm cost. You can make a huge grid of streets and just stop sign all of the intersections and avoid any unpleasant calculations of who should have right of way. This way, for the past 70-80 years or so, developers have been able to just ctrl-c ctrl-v mindless designs over greater land areas than city planners can keep up with.

These aren’t related. Simple street patterns do not require stop signs per se. If you have a bunch of four-way intersections, potentially two ways can have yield signs and two ways can have right of way.

Or just have yield-right or yield-left rules apply. And get rid of signage for anything but the main high throughput routes.

Is there a name for the logical fallacy that if an aspect of a system benefits a group, that the group must have planned said system aspect?

It's a constant thread amongst all conspiracy theorists: GW Bush BENEFITED from 9/11, therefore he must have had some hand in planning it. Tech monopolise BENEFITED from COVID, therefore it's a "plandemic". Fuel sellers BENEFIT from stop signs, therefore they coordinate putting more of them up.

Yes, they are called conspiracy theories. I don’t know if there is a more specific name, but I don’t think calling it a fallacy is correct as a fallacy means incorrect, while a conspiracy means it is unprovable/secret. Conspiracies can be false, but they can also be true with proper evidence and then it is called a scandal.

> but I don’t think calling it a fallacy is correct as a fallacy means incorrect

The (logical) fallacy is in the word "must". Let's look at the statement again:

> if an aspect of a system benefits a group, that the group must have planned said system aspect

This is incorrect because sometimes groups benefit from things they haven't planned. If the statement were changed to "that there is a good chance the group planned said system aspect", it would no longer be a fallacy.

It's the same as the slippery slope fallacy. Slippery slopes are real things. Sometimes A does get out of hand and cause B. Saying that if A happens, B must happen is where it becomes a fallacy. Changing this to "If A happens, there's a good chance it will snowball and B will happen" also removes this fallacy.

I agree with the other commentor that this relates to conspiracy theories, but I find that conspiracy theories are where people go when they have no evidence to support their premise. In other words, the ratio of alleged to likely conspiracy theories is really bad for theorists.

Stop signs’ utility in shutting up squeaky wheels or appeasing anti-car agitators are a simpler and more direct explanation.

I think it’s a simple post hoc fallacy. Stop signs proliferated afterBig Oil gained a degree of power over Congress, therefore Big Oil must be part of the cause.

That said, there is precedent for traffic laws being set by fuel consumption concerns and there was industry pushback against it that led to its repeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

The difference between Drive 55 and the stop signs is that Drive 55 was enacted by a single legislative act, and stop signs proliferate due to a combination of state code, municipal code, civil engineering practices and limited imagination. Traffic circles are currently proliferating just as easy, and reduce fuel consumption.

it has a name, but not as a fallacy. cui bono, "who benefits?" in the law is suggested as a good place to look (for suspects, for responsible parties) because there's motive.

I find the "right of way" signs in Europe way more strange, specifically when the signs aren't present. When you're on a main thoroughfare, it's pretty obvious you have the right of way. It's on the smaller side streets where you need to yield to the person to your right that things get a little weird.

That's how it works, yes, but why is it strange and a little weird?

It's natural once you've learnt it -- throroughfare doesn't really matter, the street you're on is signed as having right of way or you have yield signs, otherwise always yield to the car from the right. No signage => yield right.

I'm still not sure who's got the right of way e.g. in US parking lots or unsigned back roads. The person going straight, I think? But that's not always clear depending on road topology. "Yield to the right" seems more well-defined, but maybe because I got used to it.

You always have the right of way in the U.S. unless there is a stop sign or a yield sign. If both directions have stop signs, then the person who arrived first has the right-of-way. To me, it's more straight forward to always have right-of-way, but that's probably because I'm used to it.

Unsigned intersections exist and they work as in Europe. The reality of them is people handle them relatively well as long as lines of sight are good, and when they become a problem they’re improved (usually by adding a stop sign that people ignore).

Traffic calming is better done with mechanisms not signs.

I only really see here stop signs when there is either very poor visibility or very high speed difference. In my mind it works well enough.

> You always have the right of way in the U.S. unless there is a stop sign or a yield sign.

Incorrect. There are explicit right of way rules for completely unsigned intersections. Yes, they do exist. My neighborhood hasn’t been fully polluted with stop signs yet, so about half our intersections are unsigned. The last crash in the neighborhood that I am aware of was about 10 years ago and was wholly unrelated to intersection control.

Driveways, parking lots, and some merge lanes don't have stop or yield signs. So it's not always marked.

Much more interesting are one lane tunnels or bridges that have a yield sign on both sides. Effectively, people just do fist come first served, but if it's at the same time you have to negotiate who has the right of way.

Sydney has a crazy number of signs but I like their use of yield signs and relative lack of unsigned intersections.

It took me a while to learn to automatically look for European yield signs. It was by far the highest effort to change between the two systems for me.

I don't like the default to yield to progress as it means one is looking for the absence of something most of the time.

Small streets can be difficult but often in the U.K. you just get a thick dashed line across the road when you need to give way in a normal place. That’s usually sufficient to figure out which street takes priority over the other (intersections where the middle isn’t part of one of the roads are uncommon) and where to give way.

Maybe most of Europe. In Greece, my experience was that they seem to throw them everywhere, even if they tend to be largely ignored. For intersections where they really want you to stop, they’ll have two or three stop signs spaced maybe 40–50 meters apart leading up to the intersection. You know, for emphasis I guess.

I know of precisely zero stop signs in the area I live, and have seen two stop signs in my lifetime in Norway.

You basically need them to enforce pedestrian crossings.

I grew up in an older suburb that made judicious use of yield signs (give right-away to pedestrians AND vehicles). I remember being told as a kid to always give the right-of-way to cars and only cross when the intersection was clear - Smart advice from my parents, because cars had no issue zipping thru the intersection without slowing down while I stood at the corner waiting to cross.

Yup, it's an instance of warning fatigue.

They exist because of the usual bureaucratic CYA risk-avoidance. "We have to do something, this is something" and "If it saves just one life" and all that, even though the vast majority of stop signs never will. Or even the cumulative man-hours lost by stopping exceeds that one life.

I find it’s more of a convenient way for cynical or buffoonic politicians or bureaucrats to shut up squeaky wheels.

Nearly every last squeaky wheel requesting a stop sign is wanting a solution to something much more complex. Even though an unwarranted stop sign can’t solve the problem, it’s the cheapest and fastest way to solve the problem, so it’s chosen.

It's also the lowest-cost "something".

Installing speed control devices is expensive. Installing a sign is cheap.

I've never heard an anti stop sign opinion before. I don't know what to think.

It's not anti-stop sign. Stop signs absolutely have their place. The opinion is against the misuse of stop-signs, where other forms of traffic control are more effective.

Unfortunately a grid system lends itself to 4-way stop signs because two roads at a right angle are equal. In a tree-shaped road system (like in much of the world) you have a main road and a side road. The side road gives way.

It is anti-stop sign in the sense that it’s rational to ask for the vast majority to be deleted. The abuse is that rampant.

Two-way yields can work fine on grid patterns.

I've been saying this for a long time too. The VAST majority of stop-signs in the US should be replaced by yield signs. Also roundabouts are far superior, even many 4-way light intersections could be replaced with them.

In my European experience roundabouts are better for cars safety, worse for bicycle safety (cars are driven closer to bikes), use up more land, increment gas consumption (almost stop and then go vs just go). The latter point could be debated because it's worse for the cars on the main road, better for the ones on the small ones.

At least in the Dutch roundabouts I’ve seen that people hold up as a standard, bicycles are not supposed to take the lane but instead have a separated path along the perimeter.

I think the grandparent comment is also coming from the US, where all-way stop intersections are extremely common.

Is there a cyclist road all around the roundabout then that easy to get on and off?

Usually not. Bicycle roads are a pain if the road they run along has many intersections and roundabouts. You loose so much time and you don't have an engine to go back to speed. I usually stay on the road but I'm doing at least 25 km/h. Families or people with low saddles usually do half that speed and bike lanes are good for them.

You would probably be in the protected path separated from the road to begin with.

Reference: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/a-modern-amste...

Yes. The Netherlands have standalone bicycle paths as the standard. Not a line on the sidewalk, not a lane on the road, but a completely separate path that is designed to avoid both pedestrians and cars.

Roundabouts would use less gas compared to stop signs or lights. A car is going to use the most fuel when it goes from stopped to moving. A roundabout will reduce the amount of cars that have to come to a complete stop, unlike a stop sign or light where stopping is mandatory.

>In my European experience roundabouts are better for cars safety

Correct - roundabouts reduce traffic fatalities in intersections quite signficantly.

>worse for bicycle safety (cars are driven closer to bikes)

I think this probably depends on design - if cyclists have a separated path with a raised crossing, then they are likely safer than intersections.

>use up more land,

Arguably true.

>increment gas consumption (almost stop and then go vs just go). The latter point could be debated because it's worse for the cars on the main road, better for the ones on the small ones.

Roundabouts generally replace signalled intersections, and compared to those, roundabouts are probably better (slow down/yield vs full speed/full stop).

There is no contest. Roundabouts are better than silly multi-way stops any day of the week.

There are hundreds of reasons why. But I'll just name the most obvious one that you've missed.

Traffic volume.

Multi-way stops just kill traffic throughput.

Its a hard fact. You make each vehicle stop.

Meanwhile roundabouts can safely and efficiently move staggering amounts of traffic. Want to move more traffic ? Add an extra lane or two.

P.S. As for the bicycle saftey...

Historically yes, but only to a degree, because I'd argue that if you can't manage to avoid hitting a bicycle on a roundabout then you probably should not be driving because you are most likely also committing lots of other dangerous driving offences elsewhere.

Going forward however, it should be stressed that a lot more attention is being paid to cyclist safety, both in terms of further re-enforcing driver awareness (i.e. more prominent in driver training and examination) but also in terms of vehicle design (especially HGVs) and roundabout design.

I could also argue that with a multi-way stop, perhaps especially at night or in inclement weather or where HGVs are at play, that your cyclist might not be immune to death or injury.

> Meanwhile roundabouts can safely and efficiently move staggering amounts of traffic.

I don't find this to be accurate--at least in the US and in my limited experience in the UK. In computer terms, roundabouts don't guarantee progress under contention.

Roundabouts seem to work when there is semi-continuous, medium-level amounts of traffic. They are better than stop signs, better than unsensored signals, and probably comparable to sensored traffic signals (which are more expensive).

However, once the traffic becomes high, roundabouts are TERRIBLE. Stop signs and controlled intersections at least guarantee some progress while someone may sit at a roundabout entrance almost indefinitely since "give way to traffic on the roundabout" is the normal rule. This is particularly bad when you are entering a roundabout between the most popular inlet and the most popular outlet.

At very busy roundabouts in the UK, drivers usually yield in turn to traffic joining that in theory they have priority over.

Also at busy roundabouts in the UK it is expected that you will arrive to join the roundabout via the correct lane for the exit you desire.

If you try to join via the wrong lane then you're in for a world of hell. ;-)

> in my limited experience in the UK

I think you need to spend a bit more time in the UK !

Take Hyde Park Corner for example. A bit of an extreme example as it is a super-busy roundabout. I will grant you that its not one where you will make smooth progress during peak rush-hour (outside of peak it works perfectly though).

There are also other good (and less extreme) examples along the secondary routes out of Heathrow (i.e. along Bath Road and Great West Road).

There's no way in hell you could replace any of the above with a US-style multi-way stop and achieve the same throughput of traffic.

Roundabouts work so well because you can have that magical combination of vehicles already established on the roundabout and also adding new vehicles all the time.

Multi-lane roundabouts are problematic. If you have to change lanes in a busy roundabout it can be difficult to find a gap or have someone let you over. And if you're on an "inner" lane you will clearly have to cross the outer lane at some point to get off of the roundabout. I'm not talking about roundabouts that have a special lane for people turning right, which is helpful, but roundabouts that have two or more lanes in the main circle.

Roundabouts fall apart when one road is much busier and dominates it, and nobody else can get in. Happened to me once and I was there waiting to get in for at least 5 minutes until I just forced my way in.

As more roundabouts have appeared in my boring flyover city in the last decade (from ~none to quite a few) I have started wondering what it's doing to my tire balance and suspension.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around this. I can understand removing stop signs in some parking lots, for example, but I have a hard time imagining removing the ones at cross street intersections, even if they're converted to yields. When people talk about removing stop signs, I imagine they'd include streets like [1], and I don't understand how that's supposed to work. Could you link to a good example of a street or two on Google Street View that is an actual public street (not a parking lot or such), and where speed limits are (say) over 15mph, where you think removing stop signs would be a good idea? Maybe my imagination is just lacking but I don't see what people are thinking of.

[1] https://goo.gl/maps/TGdwEAmXLCU43Gpj9

One road gets a diamond priority sign, the other gets an inverted triangle yield sign.

For example, the road going up and down the slope would get priority signs and the road going across the slope would get yield signs. Actually, in this case they might leave it with stop signs, because the visibility is quite bad.

> I've never heard an anti stop sign opinion before. I don't know what to think.

It's literally how I learned to drive in Europe. They have right of way signs, not stop signs. You stop and wait if someone else has the right of way.

That's just a stop sign by a different name, no?

Technically, you don't have to stop if the primary road is clear. In practice, you will end up stopping, so it's exactly like a US 2-way stop without the fear of getting ticketed should you roll through it during off-hours.

Ah, we have that in the US as a yield sign. The problem is a huge portion of stop signs have horrible visibility so you have to stop and creep up to see if you need to yield first.

Same here. No idea what the hell this thread is about. I've never thought there were too few stop signs or too many. They have never been a problem in my life. To me this is like having a strong opinion on the thickness of a street curb or something. Weird thread.

There are places that just have way fewer stop signs. Seattle has a lot of local residential street intersections with no stop signs (or yield signs either). When I was living in Munich, same deal.

> They have never been a problem in my life

Like the boiling lobster in the pot, they are a huge problem in your life, but you don't know it because you've never experienced life without them.

Come to a country that doesn't have a single 4 way stop and instead has roundabouts (and people that know how to use them). I drive clear across town through 40+ intersections without stopping once. So does everyone else.

Are you aware which website you’re on? Having strong opinions on esoteric topics is a HN mainstay. Also as a non-American driving in the US made me think about a lot of things I wouldn’t otherwise consider. (Yes you have too many stop signs)

When I first moved to Seattle, the lack of stop signs in most residential neighborhoods blew my mind! But when I started biking to work, being able to just look both ways and breeze through without stopping was amazing.

Not sure if Seattle is still like this or if it was confined to specific neighborhoods (I lived in Leschi until 2018).

It's still very common outside of the cores of highly urbanized neighborhoods. I generally like it, but sometimes the visibility isn't as well-maintained as it should be.

Portland has some neighborhoods like this with uncontrolled intersections. They also allow cars to park all the way up to the curb, so it becomes a game of go and pray since you often can't see cross-traffic until you have already entered the intersection.

The stop signs haven’t changed (on that note we do have lots of traffic calming islands [1]) but we did get the “Idaho” stop in 2020.

[1]: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hHn

This is common in a lot of Seattle neighborhoods, but the custom doesn’t extend beyond the city limits. For the most part it just works, but when I’m in a car with someone not from the city I always need to inform the driver or they just expect right of way. I lived near one of these intersections and personally witnessed two collisions over ten years. Neither were serious. I think these intersections largely work as a custom, save for the people not already accustomed.

Seattle can do this with its much smaller neighborhood roads and their roundabouts.

Many other American cities with their much larger (new) suburban roads have cars driving at 30/40 mph in the neighborhood

The other thing I love about Seattle is that in a lot of places you could park on either side of the street facing either direction. Another one of those weird customs that people just seemed to go with

What I have started doing is simply ignoring some stop signs. Will I eventually get a ticket?

Eventually, but it hasn't happened yet!

When your roads are laid out in a neat grid, like many US cities and suburbs, a lack of stop signs encourages you to treat residential streets like shortcuts to avoid traffic lights. People who live in those residential areas don't want a ton of cars cutting through their neighborhood and would prefer that those cars took the main streets. One way to make it unattractive to drive through residential streets is to put a stop sign at every corner.

Sure, they are not ideal. They are there because changing road design for safety is expensive and not something that engineers in the US seem to understand how to do. Removing stop signs doesn't magically solve anything. Road design needs to be changed to keep things safe.

> Removing stop signs doesn't magically solve anything.

It sure does! Look at all the harms caused by unwarranted stop signs in my original post. Removing the vast majority of stop signs removes those harms, and since they couldn’t have solved any problem in the first place, their removal causes no novel, long term harm.

How would yield signs would be better for pedestrians and pedestrian safety?

Perhaps by making it clear to the pedestrian that they should confirm the vehicles are stopping before stepping into the road?

I will never trust a vehicle no matter how much the law and signage is in my favor - I will see it stop before I move.

Seems like the person walking may be waiting a very long time then.

Stop signs often are placed mainly as a reaction to a tragedy, as a speed control device (neighborhood residents complain about speed, so the city lowers it, then they complain some more so the city installs more stop signs), or as a device to give police officers probably cause for stopping drivers.

Speed control devices should be used instead, such as using curbs to narrow the street at intersections to just one lane's width.

> neighborhood residents complain about speed

Damn right they should complain about speed. Cars at high speed are just plain dangerous, and should slow down.

Streets are so dangerous here for non-drivers. There needs to be much uch ore complaining AFAIC.

> such as using curbs to narrow the street at intersections to just one lane'

That'd be great!

Would you feel the same if your child was killed at an intersection?

The biggest problem with driving in my opinion is that everyone is in a useless rush. Speeding, rolling through stop signs. Putting more wear on the vehicle, consuming more fuel, and adding more risk, all for the sake of getting home literally just a few minutes earlier. And once home what do most do? The same thing they were doing in the car: sitting on their ass.

In west coast cities, stop signs seem to serve the purpose of letting pedestrians exert their legal right of way where it would otherwise be taken by cars. Without stop signs, cars are not really likely to stop and pedestrians will wait until the road is simply clear rather than playing a one sided mortal game of chicken. The result is that cars can pretend that the pedestrian doesn't actually want to cross. With a stop sign, pedestrians can reason that a car has to stop for the stop sign, and so they will also be able to walk.

That said I think stop signs is a terrible solution to this issue.

Said it better than me, at the same time. It's also better than a fully controlled intersection with lights for pedestrians, since you don't have to wait for a light cycle or choose to cross on red.

It's pretty sad to see people having to wait for a gap to sprint across a road, and little wonder that the situation perpetuates people driving everywhere - it's the safest and fastest way to even cross a street.

But there's an even better alternative to that: pedestrian controlled lights.

There is a main road in France I often take, in the south Paris (RN 20), that goes through a small town. There are traffic lights that are only there for the pedestrians. When there's no one there, they'll be green for cars. When there are pedestrians waiting, they can push a button that'll switch the lights.

Instead of the repurposed stop sign, this has the advantage that cars can flow through without stopping at all when there are no pedestrians, which is basically always. I've only ever stopped there a handful of times.

I think roundabouts with pedestrian crossing lights solves the problem. Roundabouts alone also reduce accidents or make them less severe.

They reduce car crashes with other cars. I don't know off the top of my head if they reduce car-pedestrian crashes but I suspect not.

I used to live off of a busy roundabout in a place that makes heavy heavy use of roundabouts (almost no four-way stops). It felt dangerous as fuck honestly. The crosswalks are a little "downstream" of the true circle, where cars have already begun to exit. Frequently (saw this a few times myself) a car would stop for a pedestrian and then get rear-ended by another car focused on exiting the roundabout.

This was not the US so unfamiliarity with roundabouts can't be blamed. They were the norm there.

Did they have large, flashing crossing lights for pedestrians to turn on?

Not the one I lived by, but some of them did, yes!

How small can you make a roundabout? Where I live stop signs are common at very small intersections.

Alternating two way stops (n/s at intersection one, e/w at intersection two) seems like maybe an ok way to reduce the problem by half at little to no cost?

The UK historically has lots of roundabouts, the design guidelines are here : https://www.google.com/url?q=https://trl.co.uk/uploads/trl/d...

Basically they recommend 28m diameter if you are going to have a central island, otherwise it should be a mini-roundabout (capable of being driven over)

I’ll add that in my family’s home town (farming town in Perthshire) in Scotland, there are mini roundabouts that are just a spot of white paint in the middle of the intersection. It works fine.

Pretty small: a mini roundabout isn't really any bigger than just the intersection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Mini-roundabouts

Mini roundabouts are very likely to be confusing horrors, outside of low-speed residential zones, parking lots and the like.

See the city of Nantes in France (roundabout’s paradise), navigating the intersections is horrible. In a few parts of town they even have double mini roundabouts. The only reasonable explanation I found is “security by confusion” : if you have no idea how to drive through the intersection, you’re more likely to slow down. Well it doesn’t make the intersection really safer.

I've seen some in Vancouver that are little more than an oversize planter with a scrub in it stuck in the middle of the intersection. As long as it deflects traffic to the side a bit, a slowdown is achieved and the main purpose fulfilled.

Yea there are a bunch of those in Seattle neighborhoods, they work well.

In my experience with the ones in Seattle, people who are turning left use the wrong side of the mini roundabout to save 3 seconds of driving time.

There's a configuration for bike safety that's basically a mini roundabout superimposed on a normal intersection. It doesn't significantly increase the size of the intersection, but the geometry works out in a way where bikes can go at near full speed, but it's impossible for a right turning car and straight going bike to get into a collision without seeing each other first (assuming both are looking forward while driving).

Is there a picture/diagram you could link to that would show this configuration in more detail?

Roundabouts generally require a driver to look in a direction other than their direction of travel, to determine if it is safe to go. They are also designed to reduce the amount of time any given vehicle has to actually stop if there is no reason to. However, to keep the flow, a driver must check if there is incoming traffic. This varies based on left/right side driving countries. Lights for pedestrians might help, but then the benefit of continual traffic flow is reduced. There are more considerations that can make it work, but I often see this point (my first sentence) overlooked.

> Roundabouts generally require a driver to look in a direction other than their direction of travel, to determine if it is safe to go.

True for stop signs... and any other traffic control solution in existence, frankly. Yielded merges are the most obvious form of specifically unbroken traffic flow that requires the same.

> They are also designed to reduce the amount of time any given vehicle has to actually stop if there is no reason to.

So it works like a yield. That's a good thing because it reduces congestion.

> This varies based on left/right side driving countries.

There are much bigger issues resulting from switching between left- and right-side driving standards which don't have anything to do with roundabouts, so this doesn't say anything about roundabouts so much as the difference in standards.

> Lights for pedestrians might help, but then the benefit of continual traffic flow is reduced.

Comes with the territory, and is also true of every other traffic control solution in existence. The complete solution to this is to completely separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic, which is also not limited to roundabouts.

It sounds like you don't have a problem with roundabouts so much as traffic control per se, if you believe these to be reasons not to implement roundabouts.

>> Roundabouts generally require a driver to look in a direction other than their direction of travel, to determine if it is safe to go.

> True for stop signs...

Not really. Stop signs make you stop first, before needing to look around, after which you continue. There's no "direction of travel" when you've stopped; you're not traveling when you've stopped. Meaning you can focus on one thing at a time, unlike with a roundabout.

This seems like an argument without a point.

Huh? The point is that your attention (and vision) isn't nearly as divided when driving with a stop sign than with a roundabout. You don't have to multitask nearly as much; you do one thing at a time. Less division of attention = less car accidents.

It doesn't sound like you're familiar with any of the studies concerning the safety of traffic flow if you think that that is the only factor that determines intersection safety.

> It doesn't sound like you're familiar with any of the studies concerning the safety of traffic flow if you think that that is the only factor that determines intersection safety.

I'm pretty sure "the only factor that determines intersection safety is division of attention" was not a stance I was taking (when is an event ever a function of just 1 variable in the real world?), but if you'd prefer to take a swipe at me regardless, it would be nice if you could make your response constructive and actually link to some studies that show I said something contrary to reality, if you're well-studied in traffic flow.

Hopefully my reply clarified for you what my earlier point was, even if you think the point was wrong.

The implied point of the above comment was that, while specific linear relationships can be hypothesized, and shown in certain limited controlled experiments, the nonlinear interactions with every single other factor makes such an assertion not only meaningless but also misleading.

"Well-studied", no, I would not claim that. I follow the zeitgeist of urban planners as they discuss topics like this on the fora in which they congregate. I read some of the studies they post and discuss, and I have picked up on some of the memes present in that community. Something that comes up again and again and again and again (and which is immediately apparent upon reading the research) is the primacy of roundabouts for intersections, because they are the safest of the popular options and less prone to congestion than stop signs, stop lights, etc. Even when they do get congested, the outcomes are better for everyone on average, since everyone waits a similar amount of time compared to the asymmetry of e.g. intersections with stoplights. One common pitfall in thinking about these things is only thinking about individual wait times in a subjective sense, and not aggregate wait times in a systemic sense. The latter perspective provides much clarity.

Here, I did your Googling for you. Where do I send the invoice?

https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/1248

Every time I see a crosswalk near a roundabout, I think that's a terrible place for a crosswalk (the drivers are distracted by figuring out if they need to stop, and when it's clear to keep going).

They shouldn't be, if a driver is already looking into the roundabout before even reaching the crosswalk they are simply driving too fast.

Just as with yield signs you should be able to stop in time when needed.

> They shouldn't be, if a driver is already looking into the roundabout before even reaching the crosswalk they are simply driving too fast.

I mean, yes, they are driving too fast. Given that drivers do drive too fast, it's a bad place for a crosswalk.

I like the solution of the pedestrian triggered stop signs. The don’t literally say stop but they flash yellow and cars have to stop even if there’s no one in the street.

No. This is wrong. Disregard it, please.

If you’re talking about at least California, that isn’t how those work, and please never stop at one unless it’s occupied. Those of us who read the book are expecting you to proceed through an empty crosswalk because we know the flashing yellow lights are legally advisory and often keep going long after the crosswalk is empty. Some even flash permanently. Every time you stop for an empty, flashing crosswalk, you’re risking a collision that you’ll probably get away with, but that will really be your fault deep down.

This is quite simple: if a pedestrian is threatening to cross or actually crossing, whether the crosswalk is painted, flashing, not flashing because they didn’t push the button, or even merely implied by an unpainted intersection (another overlooked reason to read the book, given my pedestrian experience!), you yield. Otherwise keep moving. It’s that easy.

It's this way with on-demand flashing pedestrian signals in my city in Washington as well, though honestly I see it in practice (and do it myself) without actually knowing what the law is.

We also have at least one red light that is strictly for pedestrians that I find irritating every time it's triggered, since it requires a full stop cycle even if the person or persons using it cross quickly or not.

If you’re going by the book you should never be following another car closely enough that you can’t stop in time to avoid a collision, even if they come to a full stop unexpectedly.

You clearly misunderstood the point of mentioning being rear ended, which wasn’t that I’d be rear ending you, but instead the dumbass who doesn’t know that. It was really a warning about property damage to your own car from stopping unnecessarily, which is why I mentioned legal and actual fault since we’re discussing California.

And no, being rear ended is not an automatic “they should have been further away,” including potentially in this circumstance. Full stop in a travel lane on an interstate and report back on your fault determination if you survive.

What is it about driving that makes threads personal? The person was totally wrong in a heavily-read forum is all, and that’s your cue to put me in my place for pointing it out or something?

You’re arguing from a point of misunderstanding. Pedestrian triggered cross walks these days have signs that only flash while occupied and have signs that warn drivers again by flashing, ahead of the crosswalk.

> And no, being rear ended is not an automatic “they should have been further away,” including potentially in this circumstance. Full stop in a travel lane on an interstate and report back on your fault determination if you survive.

You're surprised that interstates are a special case?

> What is it about driving that makes threads personal? The person was totally wrong in a heavily-read forum is all, and that’s your cue to put me in my place for pointing it out or something?

Yeah, you just wandered in and started telling people that they were Wrong, and that even if legally they were in the right they were still Wrong; I can't imagine why anyone would take issue.

I looked it up for California and the best I could find is that if someone stops or slows inappropriately they could bear partial blame. Partial as in not all of it, so some of the blame stays on the person doing the rear ending. To me this infers that you are not following the book if you don't leave enough space to stop in time.

>What is it about driving that makes threads personal?

How did I make this personal? By using the pronoun "you"? I was doing that in a general sense and not targeted, which I thought you were doing as well in your own post.

horseradishjam made it personal with his post containing the quote below. I don't understand why he's complaining about that to you.

> [...] please never stop at one unless it’s occupied. Those of us who read the book [...]

> they didn’t push the button

I absolutely can't stand beg buttons for pedestrians. Nothing indicates more to pedestrian that they are second class road users than having to push a button to ask permission for the gods of traffics to be able to cross. When driving, I always make it a point to slow down for flashing yellow signs; any small thing I can do to make the streets feel less dangerous for pedestrians. Same as crossing right on red, I'll never do it, out of principle, it's so trashy, everybody who's walked anywhere has almost been killed by a driver turning in a little too cavalier.

> but that will really be your fault deep down

Not true, it is definitely most certainly the fault of the cars behind you. It's because of the driver behind you is too aggressive or careless, and not keeping proper distance. If they can't slow down for a car in front of them, they certainly can't either when there's a true emergency, like a dog or child sprinting across the street. There's a million reasons why the car in front of you may have to slow down or come to an emergency stop, and that's why you keep proper distance from cars in front of you.

> if a pedestrian is threatening

It's just a turn of phrase, I get it, but pedestrians can never threaten a driver. They get maimed or killed if they do. It's such an insidious mindset that somehow pedestrians and drivers have equal responsibilities, when the power to inflict harm is so enormously lopsided.

This solution is really cool: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa14014...

Road guy rob is one of my favorite youtubers. He did an awesome video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHX8ezW2XGs

> In west coast cities [...]

... outside of Berkeley.

> stop signs seem to serve the purpose of letting pedestrians exert their legal right of way where it would otherwise be taken by cars

So do clear pavement markings and yellow flashers.

Beg buttons with yellow flashers aren't nearly as strong a guarantee in my experience – more people blow through those than stop signs in my area

When I'm walking, I specifically plan routes with as many stop signs + as few stoplights for this reason.

For those who live outside the US (or maybe outside California) in California there is a legal crosswalk (ie a 'zebra crossing') at EVERY uncontrolled (ie without lights) intersection, whether it is painted in or not, and pedestrians have absolute right of way (the trade off is that they are not allowed to cross anywhere along a block between intersections).

I now live in NZ where mostly we have Yield/Give Way signs if anything, and pedestrians have no rights (also the neighbourhood speed limit is higher 30mph vs 25) - I'd love for us to have 4 way stops everywhere and slower speed limits everywhere

There's pedestrian crossings in NZ, but sounds like a lot fewer.

Plenty of stop signs here though, but it kinda depends on where you're driving though. They're rather rare in cities now, either replaced by lights or roundabouts.

And honestly, NZ road rules at a "4 way stop" confuse the crap of everyone, as they violate the general assumption of "just give way to your right".

(E.g., I'm at a 4 way stop, I'm going straight, the person to my right has the right of way... ...if he's going straight. If he's turning, then I have right of way. Far more complex.)

But there's still lots of them in the country still :)

US rules for 4-way stops are easier to deal with - if you are the first to come to a full stop you get to go first (people learn to judge that little jump on your shocks as you actually stop) then people take turns (N-S then E-W then N-S etc) - if it's unclear then the NZ-like rules take over.

Yes NZ has occasional pedestrian crossings, but not at the one place we most need them (roundabouts) - what we don;t have are ubiquitous ones (at every intersection)

Fully agree on that.

This video is a great explainer: https://youtu.be/42oQN7fy_eM

there's a similar issue with lanes. i grew up in a county with twisty mountain roads, and even in the flat valley areas roads tended to be more like a lane and a half wide rather than two. none of these roads had lanes painted and it was fine. if you saw someone coming and the road was too narrow, you both slowed down and eased past each other, and it's much safe to drive in the middle of the road on the twisty mountains, you just have to be situationally aware of oncoming traffic.

someone from the state saw and freaked out, and lanes were painted. they were too narrow and not safe, but they had lanes!

Where I live (Arkansas) stop signs are being replaced by roundabouts.

Seems sensible to me.

Stop signs seem to be the current solution to roads that promote unsafe/fast driving. It's been demonstrated that narrow, non-straight roads promote slower, safer driving. This is the opposite of how roads have been built in most US suburbs for years.

> , like slow or calm traffic.

Perhaps that depends on the context a little. My city has removed some lights in my neighborhood, in favor of 4-way stops, and traffic is much calmer. No more the gunning it to try to make it through the intersection when it's green or orange. It feels so much safer when on foot or biking.

Compared to what it was before, it's a real improvement.

I love all-way stops on intersections where all roads carry broadly equal traffic. They're just so efficient, and very low-tech. But I hate them on unequal intersections, where a yield on the smaller road makes more sense.

Unnecessary red turn arrows are my biggest complaint about driving in the bay area. This, coupled with multi minute light cycles greatly reduces intersection utilization, and doubles or triples all the commutes I've had. (East Bay, San Francisco, and South Silicon Valley don't have this issue.)

Bad engineering won’t eliminate bad engineering.

That’s not a defense of civil engineering culture, which tends to farm lots of free money from unnecessary work with little value.

The stop signs everywhere are one example. Another I would cite is the end of my street, which was ADA compliant with a modern crosswalk, signals, etc. Unfortunately, the crosswalk lines and stop lines wore off, but the city DPW cannot just re-paint them… they need to spend ~$100k on a traffic study.

I'm constantly amazed at the amount of bad engineering traffic engineers come up with. For example, there's a street near downtown Denver that has a stop sign that has a blind 270 degree off-highway-ramp with no stop that racers frequent. You're expected to keep an eye on every other direction and hope you don't get blind sided while pausing at the stop sign by someone going over 100mph off the highway from someone you have to extremely uncomfortably look behind you and around cement blockers for.

Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and stay stopped on my bike at stop lights and stop signs. I'm not in such a rush that I would risk getting creamed by some drunk, tired, or impatient driver. I don't care what the law says, I don't trust people in cars. (and I find it annoying when I stop for a car, and then they tell me to go.... no dude, I want you to go, because I don't want to be in front of your car)

I find the whole "you go" thing annoying too. Someone in a vehicle can simply modulate their acceleration pedal and be out of there in a few seconds. Getting out of an intersection with a bike isn't as quick.

If it’s for commuting then yes, it makes sense that exercise isn’t the goal.

But if this is recreational exercise based biking then stopping and starting are perfect additions to the bike workout regimen!

Well technically riding a bicycle around in the grass in your own yard is also good exercise. Doesn't make it pleasant though.

Also, it's hard to see through windshields. When you're not sure if that was a wave or a weird reflection, you err on the side of caution.

In states where right of way is codified and well defined in law, generally, "you go" is a ticketable offense (you are instructing someone to break the law, technically, by telling someone else to violate right of way). Additionally, as I once saw it noted, "By not taking your right of way, you are not being courteous, you're being unpredictable."

This would make a lot of sense, since as mentioned elsewhere, it can cause accidents when people don't drive predictably. Great summary as well.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. If the other vehicle has stopped and the driver is requesting you to go, they are not attempting to travel into your path, and so there is no conflict of right of way. Right of way laws aren't written to tell drivers when they must go, but rather to tell drivers when they must yield.

You don't know that they're not attempting to travel into your path. Once they ignored the rules of the road and became unpredictable, you need to treat them as possibly doing the stupidest thing for the given moment.

Many a time I've come up to a stop right after someone else, and they start waving me on. But almost invariably, unless I immediately go (basically without even waiting for the 'go on' wave) they will wave me through, and then start driving through the intersection.

The point is these 'go on' people _are_ ignoring the laws about when a driver must yield. They're trying to tell a driver that must yield that its okay if they don't.

The correct term for this behavior is "nicehole."

Please do! It's a choice to yield at stop sign, stop at lights - you shouldn't feel any pressure to do so.

If you can't assess an intersection at 5 mph with good visibility on a bike then that seems wise.

Cycling should be for people of all ages, skill levels, and risk tolerances. I don't think it's sensible to be snarky to someone because you judge them to be taking too many precautions for their safety.

they were viciously attacking me for my risky behavior in light of dastardly drivers, I was merely defending my honor, sir or madame.

Just like there is a speed that is too low on most roads, there absolutely should be a floor for skill level and risk tolerance. People who are very unskilled or too scared to bike normally, such that they impede the flow of traffic or put others at risk, should not be biking. Obviously step 1 is help them correct their behavior, of course--better to have them biking in the end.

I don't think "stopping at stop signs" is anywhere near that floor. On top of that, cycling is inherently so much less dangerous to others that the floor can safely be a lot lower than it would be for motor vehicles.

For people at the extremely low ends of skill and risk tolerance - most of those people aren't cycling, especially not in the U.S., where driving is considered the "default" mode of getting around. The single best way to help them improve is putting in better bike infrastructure since people need a low-stakes place to gain experience and confidence.

> I don't think "stopping at stop signs" is anywhere near that floor.

Sure, but I'm responding to a comment that made a much broader claim. I think the claim I'm responding to is wrong.

Americans in particular don't really have a mental category like "road for bikes". I see it all the time...if it's for bikes, then that means it's really for pedestrians too, right? For kids learning to bike? For prams?

What I want in bicycle infrastructure is a means for regular people to get around. What I don't want is people learning to bike in traffic (where "traffic" means regular people on bikes just trying to get around!). If you're not a confident bicyclist, the road is not the place to learn. You should not be taking your little kids with their trikes on bicycle roads. You should be performing to some minimum standard of competence, such that you're not going to hurt or delay others.

> For people at the extremely low ends of skill and risk tolerance - most of those people aren't cycling, especially not in the U.S., where driving is considered the "default" mode of getting around. The single best way to help them improve is putting in better bike infrastructure

We agree!

>since people need a low-stakes place to gain experience and confidence.

Except this bit. I think making it seem safer is certainly a thing that will result in more people bicycling. Part of it is affecting decisions made by people who are already competent cyclists ("Should I continue to cycle to work?"), and part of it is affecting the decision to start cycling for newbies. But you really shouldn't be on the road until you're some minimum level of competent; find a parking lot.

If you want to stop at stop signs, that's totally fine.

> Americans in particular don't really have a mental category like "road for bikes". I see it all the time...if it's for bikes, then that means it's really for pedestrians too, right? For kids learning to bike? For prams?

I'll cop to the claim being so broad that it includes the extremely, extremely low end of skill ("unable to reliably operate a bicycle"), which is a level where most people do not stay for long, especially in places where cycling is common for everyday tasks.

I can't think of a pithy way to rephrase the original claim, so I will nuance it instead, that any cyclist who has mastered the basics of a bicycle should feel free to continue their learning in public places.

After acquiring a basic ability to stay balanced, pedal, turn and brake, learning how to cycle and conquering the anxieties people have around negotiating their environments on a bicycle is trial-by-fire with (hopefully progressively) larger fires. This is even true for a lot of people learning to drive: many people in car-dependent suburbia figure out how to operate the steering wheel, pedals, and gears in a deserted parking lot somewhere, and then have to spend time on an actual road with cars to figure out how to interact intelligently with traffic. If learners weren't supposed to interact with traffic before they knew confidently how to interact with traffic, they'd be caught in a chicken-egg problem since it's fundamentally a trial and error process.

Ultimately cycling is by its nature much more forgiving to people who are still figuring it out since the probability of an accident is much lower, as is its expected severity. It's much easier for competent cyclists to identify people who are clumsy or slow in a timely manner, and navigate around them.

I've been cycling in urban environments for 20+ years, and the only time I've been hit by a car was when I was rear ended at a stop sign. There's also been a half dozen or so other times where I've heard cars come to a quick stop behind me, or that I've pulled into the crosswalk to avoid being hit.

Being rear-ended is one of the most common accidents for cyclists and motorcycles. When I rode in California, it was less of an issue because I was between cars side to side, not front to back. I felt much safer there than I do in Iowa where I'm forced to queue behind cars and hope the people behind me see me and stop for me. That combined with the much shortened riding season means drivers also aren't as aware of motorcycles and cyclists as they are in areas where people ride year round. I literally rode everywhere in SoCal. It was my primary means of transportation. I ended up getting rid of my motorcycle not long after I moved back to Iowa because of those safety reasons.

I was literally "rear-ended" by an 18 wheeler at an intersection in downtown Chicago. Orleans and Grand iirc.

The guy had pulled up so close to my back wheel, and then "forgot" I was there. When the green turned, he immediately impacted my back wheel.

I was able to exit the bike in the brief second between that tap and when he seriously hit the gas. My bike proceeded to be crushed by the semi along with all my electronics in my bag strapped to the back. I was so lucky to get off the bike (admittedly I was incensed that someone had bumped me and I was about to get into a fight with the person), if I had tried to stay on that bike I would've definitely died!

The woman who hit me got out of her car and said "I'm so sorry! I saw you but I just didn't stop in time!"

The only other time I really got hurt was when a very aggressive driver (again downtown chicago)( became incensed that I was riding in the car lane (no bike lane) and got within inches of my back wheel and started honking like crazy, scaring the shit out of me and causing me to slam into the curb and fly off my bike.

Both were accidents I made while a newb biker, I became a lot more "seasoned" after these two events and became a way more defensive biker

what would you have done with experience/hindsight here?

sounds like you'd already taken the lane and didn't have a good out; would you just try to avoid the panic now?

I am confused by how an impatient driver would put you in danger with this law… the law says that you should treat stop signs as yield signs, which means if there is already a car stopped ready to go forward, you would have to let them go first anyway to yield to them.

I wish new drivers were taught that making unexpected moves is a safety issue. Maybe they are-- it has been nearly 30 years since I had any drivers education. Given the wildly unexpected stuff I see other drivers doing, though, it doesn't seem like they are. (I guess this falls under the heading "defensive driving"...)

I assume assume all other drivers are drunk / sleeping / texting / etc. I'm very alert when I do anything conflicting with the "default" behavior other drivers. My suspicion of drivers goes up about 10X when I'm riding a bicycle on roads.

Point being: We've got a bike path here that crosses a fairly busy state route at the edge of a town. Drivers coming into town don't slow down (even though the speed limit changes way back at the city limits and well before the bike path crossing).

When I'm waiting to cross, invariably, some "do gooder" driver coming into town will stop and motion me on. Meanwhile some driver behind them, not expecting someone to be stopped in the road (and going too fast), ends up braking hard to get stopped. I'm not going to put myself in front of that.

The "do gooder" usually doesn't want to "take no for an answer", either, so I end up having to sit for much longer than if they'd just done the correct thing. In some cases I've even gotten exasperated gestures from drivers, apparently miffed that I didn't take advantage of their "charity".

(I'm actually surprised at the amount of squealing tires I've heard, given that anti-lock brakes are on virtually every car on the road.)

Lots of negativity regarding someone trying to do something nice for you.

I guess-- yeah. Obey the law. Take the right-of-way when you have it. Don't do unexpected things.

I don't want "charity" from drivers (as a cyclist, pedestrian, or other driver). I want them to act predictably and safely.

So many things in the world would be better if people just did the thing they're supposed to do. If that's "negativity" so be it.

They're not doing anything nice. That's my point. They're putting themselves and others in danger for no benefit. I don't want my bicycle to be immediately in front of their car and, more than likely, they're taking more of my time than if they'd just driven on.

I can appreciate that perspective. I am not a cyclist. I think what this really comes down to is people being on the same page, and the many people out there who are not as familiar with right of way and the law as would be ideal.

If the outcome is them inconveniencing everyone involved because they haven't really thought about the situation, who cares what the intention is? GP is supporting the argument that drivers should not do unexpected things, and this is a good example of how that rule trumps trying (ineffectually) to be nice. There are lots of situations where someone simply taking their right-of-way or continuing to do what they're doing is much more efficient and safe than suddenly stopping or changing course in the name of courtesy.

Intent doesn't matter when the result is almost always bad. The name of the game in traffic safety is "predictability", that means taking the right of way when you're supposed to.

Right of way is an important safety measure and isn't something you should just yield unexpectedly.

I got in a car accident about ten years ago which resulted in my and another car getting totaled. I was going down a 35 or 45 mph four lane wide (two in each direction plus a median) street which was crossed every quarter mile or so by smaller two way residential streets. The cross streets had stop signs at intersections. The larger road I was on had left turn lanes but no stop signs.

I was in the right lane of the larger street going along at the speed limit. As I was passing a backup of several large vehicles waiting to turn left in the lane next to me, a car from a cross street pulled out in front of me from the left. I'm still shocked that I managed to steer so that I hit the back of the car instead of the front. The other car spun completely around, but neither of us had any injuries other than whiplash.

Apparently what happened was that the car I hit was waiting at the stop sign and got waved forward by the driver in the lane next to me. They decided to pull into the intersection despite the fact that they couldn't see the lane I was in, and thus didn't know that there was a vehicle in it.

Obviously, they shouldn't have pulled into the intersection without knowing that there wasn't a car going into it, but also if they'd refused to go until the cars with the right of way had turned it wouldn't have happened either.

As a cyclist, I've often been waved into an intersection by some well-meaning motorist when there's no way for me to be sure that the intersection is clear. I usually just shake my head and motion for them to go on. Usually they smile and go on, but sometimes they get visibly irritated.

I think the issue is doing something nice here is unexpected and while driving or using the roadway, anything unexpected is TOUGH to deal with and causes both parties to have to navigate a situation with limited communication.

As a cyclist, when some driver waves at me to go contrary to the rules, I do something that looks like it's going to take 15 seconds or so like adjusting my helmet, pulling out my phone to check the time, etc. Seems to work with no fuss from the drivers who think they are doing me a favor.

yep, you can do this in cars too when someone is intent on waving you on contrary to the right of way, i usually take an extended sip of coffee or water while looking the other way or at least not directly at the other person (helps to have sunglasses on); works a treat

I believe that law takes it into account. If you approach the intersection and there is an approaching vehicle that has a reasonable chance to collide with you if you proceed, then - by definition - intersection is not clear and you are obliged to stop. Let alone the fact that in the absence of 4-way stop that vehicle may have the right of way.

If restricted visibility does not allow you to assess whether the intersection is clear - stopping always is also the right thing to do.

This is actually what this law is about. The difference between a cyclist at a stop sign and your average vehicle is visibility. Cyclists don't have blind spots the way cars & trucks do.

So if you can reasonably see that there is no immediate traffic, you don't have to wait at an intersection and risk hoping that another driver at a 4 way stop will respect the stop sign. This whole law is being called the "Colorado Safety Stop" but was initially called an Idaho stop [1][2]. It resulted in a 23% reduction in bicycle crashes in intersections with STOP signs only [3].

Even if you think the results are not intuitive, they are certainly backed by data. Making this a law just means cyclists won't be harassed by law enforcement for doing what is statistically known to be safer.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT_KdFCVEdc

[3] https://www.bikede.org/delaware-yield-crash-data/#page-conte...

Coming to a full stop and then slowly crossing the intersection puts you at way more danger than clearing the roads as you approach and rolling through. I like to get out of harms way as soon as I can.

Just like when I'm on my motorcycle, I like to pass cars on the highway, not chill next to them waiting for them to merge into me. Keep moving and limit your time spent in dangerous situations.

Somehow I don't believe that you come to a full stop same as cars every time at every intersection with a stop sign or red light. Maybe it's just that I've just never seen a bike do it at intersections where an Idaho stop would be safe enough, so I'm extrapolating from that.

I don't think that's what the OP is saying re: simultaneous stopping.

In my experience drivers with the right-of-way will yield to cyclists, unpredictably, because they think they're being courteous. I see this at road crossings and intersections all the time. The driver has the right-of-way but they'll be "helpful" and try to let the cyclist go first.

It's not just "because they think they're being courteous". Drivers also have come to expect bicyclists to not stop.

There's lots of stop lights that won't change until a car is over the magnetic sensor. This means staying stopped at the light on a bike will never get you the green (until some car pulls up anyway, but where I live that can be a long time).

You can get around this sometimes with a bunch of strong magnets stuck to your lower bracket, but only sometimes and it depends on the sensors' calibrations.

Point being, this change does have some practical benefits if you have to deal with such traffic lights - running the red in sight of the wrong cop is no longer a concern.

I've had the same thing happen with smaller motorcycles, so I can imagine it's a huge problem for bicyclists.

From what I read the law stems from exactly that, though I don't fully see it either. Most bikers get slammed while they're waiting at intersections by drunk, tired, or impatient drivers. This gets them through more quickly.

The idea is that if the bicyclist doesn't see any cars, they can go. If a bicyclist is not able to see a car irrespective of the driver's condition, they probably should not be on the roadway.

I think the dangerous situation this is trying to fix is when drivers turning right fail to see you stopped there, ready to go straight. Drivers are usually looking left or ahead when turning right, and often fail to look right. I’ve been hit this way myself. Being able to legally go straight on those reds would help a lot.

The alternative, which does help, is to wait in line behind a car, but often drivers dislike this more (have been shouted at for this as well).

> wait in line behind a car, but often drivers dislike this more

Yes, it can also cause you to miss the light or be in the intersection when red, if it is a quick one and the driver up front is not paying attention, since the bike can't accelerate as quickly from the stop. But I will do this, if it seems safer for the intersection. It's all contextual…

In many cases it is safest for a cyclist to get through an intersection as quickly as possible. Many times I have waited at red lights at empty intersections, only to have a bunch of cars come up and stop at the intersection while I was waiting. That is a much riskier situation than if I had just stopped briefly and proceeded through while empty.

Visibility can be partially obstructed for drivers at an intersection due to surrounding cars. This can create a situation where a car that is stopped 5 cars behind me, or is coming from the opposite direction, might not be able to see me. The risk is compounded at intersections with multiple lanes, where visibility is further decreased, and I may need to wait in the middle lane due to the presence of a dedicated turning lane.

The act of just starting a bicycle from a full stop also increases risk. I wear pedals that require me to unclip when stopping, and clip my feet in again when starting. This can take a couple seconds (I don’t always get it on the first attempt), during which time my maneuverability is severely limited, and I may need to look down at my feet for a moment instead of watching other cars in the intersection. Even for people using flat pedals, it can require more effort to turn the pedals when stopped vs. moving slowly, which decreases maneuverability and increases time spent in the intersection. Riders are also more likely to wobble when starting from a full stop.

So it’s not really about saving time, although that is certainly a nice benefit, but rather about improving safety for cyclists.

This is my experience as well! On several occasions, when going straight in an intersection, I’ve almost been hit by left turning cars with drivers who haven’t seen me until last second.

It's very often safer to cross during a red light when you don't have to do so with a bunch of cars. Often the intersection is empty. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

> Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and stay stopped on my bike at stop lights and stop signs.

Premised by a false dichotomy. There are more choices than 1. harm and 2. servile obedience to signs.

This doesn't change anything in situations where you're considering being a meat sack against a metal box.

This is great for slow roads and neighborhoods - where many people prefer to be riding their bikes anyways.

The linked Safety Stop Fact Sheet [0] in the article says this

"The most recent data we have...indicates that in that time frame 72.2% of reported crashes between bicyclists and drivers took place at intersections or were "intersection related." When bicyclists are able to get out of the intersection and away from that conflict zone before a potential crash can even occur their safety improves.

I guess that I see some logic in that statement. For example, if you are a cyclist who has to stop at a red light and a car comes up that is turning right I know that sometimes creates a hairy situation if there is not a dedicated turn lane and the car might try to turn in front of you. Is it all instances like that that they are trying to prevent or is it something else. Most of the issues I have when cycling are cars turning off a road and not looking for someone in the bike lane which I think would qualify as "intersection related" but I don't think this would solve that issue. Not saying its a bad idea, but I'm still struggling to see the full logic of it.

[0] https://www.bicyclecolorado.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/S...

> Not saying its a bad idea, but I'm still struggling to see the full logic of it.

You don't have to see the full logic of it! There's data collected and analyzed by people who have studied the problem!

You're advocating a form of feudalism, only the key differentiator is "expertise" rather than land ownership or the ability to field an army.

Any time somebody says something like "Trust us, plebs. We're the experts." I know I should, in fact, not trust that person.

Because you're an expert on knowing who to trust?

Absolutely. Everyone should have the opportunity to try to understand. Advocacy for something else is no better than religion.

I can't tell if this is meant in jest or seriously, please could you point to a source for your claim that there is data analyzed by people who've studied the problem? (Genuinely asking - I'd love to visualize the data).

And now I can't tell if you're joking. It's linked very prominently in the article. Here you go. https://www.bicyclecolorado.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/S...

It wasn’t overly tricky to find the link labeled “The data is clear” in the article.

IMO, this is the most dangerous mindset of the 21st century, so far.

Agreed.

Much more dangerous than ignoring established subject matter experts in favor of relying on one’s finely tuned intuition developed through years of computer programming.

The bike lane that suddenly doubles as a right turn lane always makes me nervous, but having said that ... I haven't ever actually had an accident with one.

I get far more nervous at my area's predilection for putting the left-turn arrow and the pedestrian crosswalk cycle at the same time.

You seem to be incentivizing drivers to run over pedestrians.

What, where is this? That seems crazy to tell two people they have the right of way when their paths cross.

Here in Los Angeles they solved this problem by just never giving turning cars the right of way with a protected arrow. You just have to wait in the intersection until the light turns red and then turn.

>That seems crazy to tell two people they have the right of way when their paths cross.

This is common in Austin, especially downtown. Green light for turning + Pedestrian has a walk sign. It's dangerous, and people get hit all the time.

I think it is simply, intersections are the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be.

This new law reduces the amount of time cyclists spend at an intersection.

I don't see how spending less time in an intersection guarantees better safety. Can it really only be about how long you're in an intersection and not what is done while you're there?

Isn't this like trying to make a dangerous aircraft seem safer by only flying it 100 mi at a time? The number of successful flights would skyrocket while the baseline crash count stays about the same.

It depends on when the crashes happen. If your unsafe plane only crashes during takeoff and landing then you’d want to minimize those, if it only crashes at cruise you’d minimize that.

If crashes occur IN the intersection and not entering it, then reducing time IN is a net win, even if the number of insertions remain the same.

> Can it really only be about how long you're in an intersection and not what is done while you're there?

Empirically, it certainly seems to be the case; the fact sheet linked in the article references a couple of studies which demonstrate a correlation between adopting the "Idaho stop" and shockingly large reductions in cyclist injury.

> Isn't this like trying to make a dangerous aircraft seem safer by only flying it 100 mi at a time? The number of successful flights would skyrocket while the baseline crash count stays about the same.

You're sort of correct, except for the small detail that the total number of intersections traversed by cyclists is going to remain relatively constant--no one is going to start crossing more intersections because of this law. Thus, if you reduce the average amount of time spent traversing each individual intersection, you also reduce the total amount of time spent in intersections.

> Not saying its a bad idea, but I'm still struggling to see the full logic of it.

If you don't have to stop at an intersection, you get through the intersection much faster and are therefore in less danger. This is true for all vehicles but especially true of bicycles, which don't always accelerate as fast.

Here's a video demonstration https://youtu.be/42oQN7fy_eM?t=71

That link was very helpful, thank you. I should have expected it to be the excellent Not Just Bikes channel.

The video gives a great explanation and demonstration of the problem and solution. At first I was thinking "Now bicyclists are allowed to not follow the rules of the road?" After watching the video, it makes much more sense and I'm on board with it.

>For example, if you are a cyclist who has to stop at a red ligh

Just to be clear, this law does not change the requirement for bicyclists to stop at red lights. Red lights become stop signs, stop signs become yield signs.

But they don't have to remain at the stop light if it's clear, so it does change the circumstances. Now a cyclist can get through the intersection without having to wait for the signal to change if it's safe (a judgement call they make based on what they can see and know). This means they will be gone before the circumstance described in the part of the quote that you dropped:

> For example, if you are a cyclist who has to stop at a red light and a car comes up that is turning right I know that sometimes creates a hairy situation if there is not a dedicated turn lane and the car might try to turn in front of you. [emphasis added]

This will help to create or maintain separation between cars and bicycles at intersections (in theory).

I've been hit four times on a bike, and every time it was by someone making a right turn into a busy road too focused on traffic to look for cyclists.

Luckily the speeds were low enough it was more of a bump every time, but still, enough to put me on the ground

> For example, if you are a cyclist who has to stop at a red light and a car comes up that is turning right I know that sometimes creates a hairy situation if there is not a dedicated turn lane and the car might try to turn in front of you.

As a cyclist, in these scenarios I put my bike in the center of the lane ahead of the vehicle. That way there is zero uncertainty about who proceeds first.

Besides intersections, uncertainty between drivers and cyclists is the most dangerous thing to cyclists, IMO. Clear signaling and cycling behaviors that remove that uncertainty help a lot in my experience. (I'll even give vehicles hand signals when I cross intersections when _running_ just to make sure.) Eye contact is very important as well.

I do not see any logic here. They took a metric, in this case the location of accidents, and correlated it to a solution with no evidence that the solution (exiting the intersection as soon as possible) will actually improve things.

I could just as easily claim that the problem is what cyclists are doing in intersections, not the length of time they are there. There is more than one axis here. In my experience (I have lived in CO for 35 years) cyclists already assume that they do not need to stop and treat stop signs and some stop lights as yield signs. Does their data take into account if the cyclist in these accidents were actually following the letter of the law in the first place?

There's a very pragmatic aspect to this that isn't being covered, but for me is the big one: lots of lights don't change until a large metalic object goes over the in-road sensor. Bikes don't really trigger them. So you have to run the red either way, now at least it's not ticketable if a cop on a bad day sees you do it (safely of course).

Good to see this common-sense law spreading.

"The Myth of the Scofflaw Cyclist" (https://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2008/07/the-myth-of-the.h...) highlights why this issue provokes such strong emotion from drivers:

> Running a red light is so dangerous for cars that it isn't just illegal, it's taboo. You're breaking a social construct. That means people find it objectionable and abhorrent. So if education is needed, maybe it's needed to explain why it's safer for cyclists to do it than for drivers.

As a cyclist the main reason I treat stop signs as yield signs is because the bicycle tips over if I come to a complete stop. The physics are really optimized to keep going. Clipless pedals really force you to make a decision -- am I going to stop, or am I going to coast through. Maybe this is a poor design for a world where stop signs exist, but that's how it is.

(As an aside, for all of these bridges with instructions like "cyclists dismount", I think we should make car drivers do the same thing. Put in neutral and push it. It's for your own safety!)

I've got to be honest. I live in SF and up in the Oakland Hills and ride a bicycle, commute via motorcycle, and use my SUV the rest of the time so I've got a nice cross-section of motorist interactions. The truth is that most people are nice on the road, easily adapt to other peoples' mistakes, and for the most part are doing the best they can.

On my bicycle, people will slow down to arrive at a stop a little later than me to give me right of way. On my motorcycle, folks will give me room to lane split easily. In my car, people will let me into the lane. An example of this is the time I was on CA-13 going South and when you come off CA-24 going West, you know that the on-ramp rapidly becomes an exit-only. The guy in front of me clearly didn't realize right off the bat (or he'd have merged early) so I slowed so that when he made the inevitable late attempt to merge he would have room. People do that for me too.

Given that my experiences are so different from Internet people's view of the road as some sort of general warzone, I can only conclude that most real-world people experience the road as what I see it: a shared space that we can collaboratively make less unpleasant. And also, that this so-called cyclist-driver animosity which I have only rarely experienced (and never actually on the PCH despite that being where I make drivers' lives most hard).

In practice, I treat stops as yields in the SF Bay Area and life is fine. Everyone is cool. I have to conclude that the people angry about other drivers are over-represented on the Internet.

Living in Oakland (lower Rockridge), I completely agree with you, Rene. I'm encouraged by the common courtesy of drivers as well as bicyclists. On our street, there's a mix of cars, bicycles, scooters, skateboarders, and pedestrians. Cooperation, collaboration, and courtesy make for a happy street life.

I've had a similar experience in southern California. Probably the most dangerous thing I've encountered when biking to work is when a well-intentioned driver who has the right of way will stop anyways to make it easier for me to turn (which in general is much appreciated but when there's 2 lanes and a larger vehicle stops in the right lane to help me make a left turn it can be hard to see if the other lane is clear). I know it only takes one jerk/drunk/texter to ruin your day but I haven't run into that yet.

It has been only one day since a bicyclist was assaulted by a hit-and-run driver in Oakland. Life is not fine for cyclists in Oakland.

https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/u3quif/oakland_bic...

To be clear, the “assault” you are referencing was the hit and run. Cops attributed to unsafe speed. Has absolutely nothing to do with the cooperation we’re talking about here.

Anyhow there is nuance here indeed. I have lived, biked, walked, and driven a car I own extensively in Oakland for over four years - it really is better than other places, with regard to the cooperation cited upthread! And also, I encountered my first aggressive-toward-bikes driver here the other day. Clearly, norms and safety are all relative. Oakland has room for improvement.

For example, I’ll take Oakland over adjacent Berkeley hands down. Berkeley people (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, everyone) are bimodal (unpredictable!) between “excessively polite” and “horribly impatient”. And Berkeley cops are busy bodies, they’re pedantic with both drivers and cyclists (while Oakland cops ignore both, but have always been respectful when driving nearby to me walking or on my bike). And Berkeley’s transportation politics are far more dysfunctional than Oakland’s - see how Oakland will put a protected bike lane on San Pablo, but Berkeley refuses [1]. Stuff like this make us Oakland cyclists grateful to live in Oakland.

There’s also the median driving behavior in a geography that matters. Bay Area drivers are pretty terrible all around, and Oakland is as bad as anywhere. But that’s not specific to bikes, it harms everyone. See the Molcajete (good burritos btw) parklet that was destroyed last week [2]. Bad driving in general isn’t a bike issue, it’s an everyone issue.

[1] https://oaklandside.org/2022/02/17/san-pablo-avenue-corridor...

[2] https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/Oakland-restaurant-parkl...

There are a lot of stop signs I've come across that should be yield signs. The main problem is that most Americans don't seem to understand how yield signs work (ie. when there is another car there first it's a stop sign for you).

If they could better train people, they could replace most stop signs with yield signs, and it would be better for bikes, cars, and the planet.

This and don't even get me started about the cars coming up a freeway on-ramp that seem to think the yield sign is for the people already on the road. :/

> most Americans don't seem to understand how yield signs work

I'm not sure people even agree on how stop signs work.

Imagine this scenario:

Car A arrives at a 4-way stop sign, intending to turn left.

1 second later, Car B arrives from the opposite direction, intending to continue straight.

Who gets to cross the intersection first? Is it:

A) Car A because they arrived at the intersection earlier, or

B) Car B because, after stopping, they are continuing straight, and thus are not required to yield to a car that's turning?

Good point. Legally Car A of course, but people definitely follow B more often than not.

> Legally Car A of course

Not 'of course'. One second is arguably reaching the intersection at the same time.

who argues that arriving at a different time is actually the same time?

Do I really have to explain that part out loud?

Fine.

Pretend instead of "1 second" it was a tenth of a second. Or a hundredth of a second.

Surely at that point both cars are arriving "at the same time". "same time" is not measured with a laser interferometer. It's about human perception.

So yes, sometimes "different times" are "at the same time"! Especially when you're measuring something with a very vague threshold like "arriving" at an intersection.

In the opposite direction, if it was ten seconds, then it's blatantly obvious that the cars aren't arriving at the same time.

At one second, "same time" and "not the same time" arguments are both plausible, and in the real world I think I'd lean toward treating it as the "same time". But it's not an objective truth either way. One second is in the fuzzy range.

Car A. FIFO.

Whoever is brave enough or impatient enough or aggressive enough to go first is how it seems to play out. This is a good thing in my opinion, because I really don't like sitting in a stalemate where my way of doing things (I'm usually in camp A) conflicts with their way and no one is brave enough to just go. So now you have a full intersection of cars with cars behind them and someone (maybe me) is going to get impatient and just go (usually at the exact second the other person decides the same thing).

So I tend to be more aggressive and just start out slowly ready if the other person does the same thing if I perceive it to be "my turn".

My solution to this conundrum is to anticipate the opposing straight driver's arrival, and match it. I.e. try to arrive at the intersection simultaneously and a beat later so we can then both go at the same time, with them continuing straight and me turning left behind them.

Or, I might get there a bit faster so It's crystal clear that I was first and I can get my turn over with while they're still coming to a stop.

But that gray area in between is no good, for the reason you say: people don't agree on the order of operations. Better to avoid it entirely.

I moved to the states from Ukraine, and I must say that I love intersection with 2 stops and find it very strange that lots of the proposals in comments section is to get rid of stop signs.

When I was driving in Kyiv (that has eu-style rules, with most of things covered by signs like yield, main road etc) last year, I missed it so much. The things like yield sign, main road or absence of signs at all, expecting that if you have obstacle on the right you should give way are just not working in places with high traffic and low culture of driving. There is a chance that you will just sit and wait because NOBODY will let you go as you should yield by the rules, when, in case of 2 stops, I could go much earlier.

> The bill defines “low speed conveyances” in Colorado law. These are small profile, low-speed vehicles that people use for transportation and recreation, including bicycles and electric bicycles, electric scooters (not including mopeds), and wheelchairs.

I think including electric bicycles in this is unwise. In a typical commute, they average the same speeds as motorcycles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM8Xli2KTzI

Interesting video. I learned from the comments that in the US, the maximum assisted speed for something to still be considered an "electric bicycle" is 28mph, ≃ 45kmh [0]. Bikes that can go this fast are actually not allowed on bike paths.

45kmh is a good amount less than the max speed the video quotes for his ebike at 60kmh, though of course that could be because he was riding downhill.

[0] https://himiwaybike.com/blogs/news/ebike-speed-limit-in-the-...

I wish my state would introduce the "treat a red light as a stop sign". I've wasted way too much time waiting for a red light that won't change until a car shows up and trips the sensor.

You might look to see whether there is a law on the books that allows you to "proceed cautiously" or similar language, after a certain amount of time without it changing. (It's probably intended for cars at lights that are malfunctioning, but to my mind it should apply.)

Isn't this commonly known as an Idaho Stop? Why is it being rebranded for Colorado? Seems like a weird way to market your state.

It would be weirder to pass a law in Colorado called the Idaho Stop Law

As a European, it's very amusing how some people in the US treat safety features as state-owned brands, that other states can infringe on :)

For four decades Idaho was the only state that allowed bicyclists to treat stop signs as yields and stop lights as a stop-and-then-yield, so it was the easiest way to refer to the concept.

We're finally seeing some sanity, but most of the states have refused to adopt the "stop light is a stop and then yield."

"Idaho Stop" is also more often used to refer to the cycling move than the law. Idaho stopping is something a cyclist does; Idaho Stop laws make the Idaho stop legal.

Language is fun!

Turning left at an intersection when there's no dedicated turning lane is known as a New Jersey left because no one in the South does it...and it's fucking infuriating.

It is, and Colorado has previous legislation (from ~4y ago?) _permitting_ individual counties to allow the Idaho Stop; as I recall they call it such by name there. Hard to pull in search, since everything's swamped with this new, more comprehensive legislation.

Question: when does anyone have "right of way" at a red light? The rest of the intersection will have green lights. Certainly they have right of way over those facing red lights. So when can a bicycle ever proceed through a red light?

>>This new law means that when an intersection is clear and they already have the right of way, bicyclists ages 15 and older may now treat stop signs as yield signs and treat stop lights as stop signs.

This law also seems rather self-defeating. If you are taken out by a car/bus/truck then evidently the intersection was not "clear", you shouldnt have proceeded and are at fault for the accident. Maybe cops will be handing out fewer tickets to bicycles? Was that ever really a problem?

>Maybe cops will be handing out fewer tickets to bicycles? Was that ever really a problem?

yes, it definitely is a problem. cops will stake out intersections just to give tickets to cyclists who roll through a stop sign when there's literally no other cars in sight. also, other drivers will get all high-and-mighty about cyclists breaking the law for rolling a stop sign when there's no cars for miles on the cross street. if this law can prevent that, it's a good thing.

Such a common sense law. Too bad we have a dingbat in charge of California https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/10/19/bicyclists-treat-stop....

Other than on extremely busy highways or similar, not sure why there were laws against this in the first place. But glad they fixed it. I can’t recall ever riding a bike and stopping for just a stop sign on residential roads.

I once saw a cyclist scream at another cyclist "you have to stop" when the other cyclist didn't stop at a residential four-way stop sign intersection. IMO there wasn't any kind of safety threat.

Just an anecdote but it was pretty disturbing tbh, because the guy seemed absolutely enraged that another cyclist wasn't car-ing hard enough.

"Cyclists flagrantly violating traffic laws" is probably one of the most prevalent anti-bike rhetoric tools used by drivers to justify ill behavior towards cyclists.

So, I can absolutely understand a cyclist getting upset with another for flagrantly violating a traffic law. It's unfortunate that this is where this situation has evolved to, but I think it's a lot more understandable (and nuanced) than "cyclist wasn't car-ing hard enough."

> "Cyclists flagrantly violating traffic laws" is probably one of the most prevalent anti-bike rhetoric tools used by drivers to justify ill behavior towards cyclists.

It’s not entirely unjustified. I deal with badly behaved weekend cyclists every week.

Like, why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit).

Or going the wrong way in a one-way?

Lots of entitled type-As ruining the experience for regular cyclists.

> Or going the wrong way in a one-way?

why should cyclists be required to follow one-way signs? the point of one-way streets is that the street can be narrowed to a single car width; cars are too wide to pass in narrow streets, so a single direction of travel must be shown on both ends, otherwise cars will be stuck in the middle and have to reverse to get out. bicycles don't have this problem. the only justification for one-way cycling is high-traffic streets with danger of collision, but in such high-traffic scenarios I think 99.99% of cyclists will self-organize into reasonably consistent traffic flows, no sign required.

Are you trolling, to make cyclists look bad?

If I drive and hit a cyclist going ignoring the one way, the following things happen: -Emotional trauma for the driver -Death or serious injury for the cyclist -No punishment; or maybe a lawsuit against the cyclist for damages, if I want to be an asshole. Because the cyclist was in the wrong.

Not the person you're replying to, but why would you think this is trolling? In some countries it's quite common for streets to be one-way for vehicle traffic but two-way for bikes. I don't think the suggestion is for cyclists to ignore the law, but for the road signage to be changed to allow this to happen legally.

Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics).

Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?

>Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics).

I think a lot of places have them. Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, the UK ... basically any European country. I mean it's not like every (or even most) one-way street is like that in those places, but they're common enough.

There are also "advisory cycle lanes", where there is physically one car lane, but cars can go in both direction. They are expected to (slowly and carefully!) go into the cycle lanes either side in order to pass each other. Speed limit is very low on these ofc.

>Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?

Actually no, "roads designed for cars" tend to be pretty wide. Take an existing two-lane road, cut it down to a single lane down the middle and have half-width cycle lanes either side. It's easier to do that on a wide road than a narrow European city road. (American lanes are too wide anyway.)

The problem is not "roads designed for cars", it is politics designed for cars. The roads are not immutable, they can be modified, if there is political will. It can be done: Netherlands was rebuilt after WW2 to be car-dependent in the American pattern, and then that was undone in the 1970s onwards after the oil crisis and record pedestrian fatalities:

https://one-handed-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/...

There is a myth that European cities have always been pedestrian and bike friendly because they inherit their street design from a time before cars -- not always so! Things have gone back and forth.

> Actually no, "roads designed for cars" tend to be pretty wide.

Wider isn’t safer, so width is irrelevant. The most dangerous local roads in NYC are extremely wide.

What should worry you is that going the wrong way in a one-way isn’t obviously dangerous.

It really should be, and perhaps that’s a failure in US road rules and education. Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists.

>Wider isn’t safer, so width is irrelevant. The most dangerous local roads in NYC are extremely wide.

Yeah that's precisely my point; the physical space is there. Narrow the lanes and use the freed space for more sidewalk, bike lane, trees, etc. It means there's an opportunity.

>Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists.

Absolutely not!

> Absolutely not!

Why not? Everything I’ve seen here and in the real world strongly suggests otherwise.

If safety is really the overarching concern and assumptions on basics like one-ways are not so obvious and cannot be taken for granted…

Then I don’t see any other obvious choice other than testing and licensing cyclists.

It won’t happen, but that’s the rational conclusion.

Even if you take away everyday motorists, the same safety issues remain with delivery vehicles, mass transit, and taxis.

>Then I don’t see any other obvious choice other than testing and licensing cyclists.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Empirically the countries that are safest for cyclists don't have licensing for cyclists, and they have the infrastructure and laws I talked about.

> What should worry you is that going the wrong way in a one-way isn’t obviously dangerous.

How is this claim different from the oft-heard claim that "not stopping at stop signs is obviously dangerous", ignoring TFA and the substantial evidence therein regarding cyclists and stop signs? I have presented arguments for my proposition that one-way signs are not appropriate in the vast majority of circumstances for cyclists. As far as I can tell, you have presented no arguments in favor of your position except 1) assertions that it is "obvious", 2) claims that anybody that disagrees with you should not be allowed to cycle, and 3) vague insinuations that running over cyclists is appropriate retribution for traffic violations.

You presented your beliefs; it doesn’t align with reality or physics.

Like I said to another poster: You make a compelling case for requiring cyclist licensing.

> I think a lot of places have them. Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, the UK ... basically any European country. I mean it's not like every (or even most) one-way street is like that in those places, but they're common enough.

I think this warrants a further response.

One of the best things NYC has done was to reduce lanes of traffic.

So there’s a lot of QoL improvements to narrowing.

However, driveways will pose significant danger to two-way bike traffic in one-way roads; especially near corners.

It’s safer cycle center or the opposite side, to be fully visible.

How is this addressed?

this reeks of American-style "those are the rules, and some people made those rules, so people need to follow the rules, because the rules are meant to be followed." reasoning. as far as i can tell, your claim is that you are perfectly justified in running over cyclists committing minor traffic violations, and in fact your list makes your "emotional trauma" equal to or in fact even more important than "death or serious injury for the cyclist", simply "Because the cyclist was in the wrong". nowhere in this comment or even further down the replies do you actually explain why they're wrong, merely more circular logic that they're wrong because they're wrong.

That’s not what I’m saying at all, but you’re either too worked up or don’t want to understand this.

I’m saying that right of way is the least concern; instead, cyclists should be cycling very defensively.

You seem very happy to let cyclists get killed, to promote your own PoV though.

Your avoidance of the issue is almost impressive. You should run for president! First you aggressively claim "maybe a lawsuit against the cyclist for damages, if I want to be an asshole. Because the cyclist was in the wrong."; now you claim that "I’m saying that right of way is the least concern". Forgive my skepticism that I am the one that wants cyclists to be killed.

You’re the one suggesting cyclists can safely go the wrong way down a one-way.

Maybe in other countries, but that’s a no-no in the US.

If you care about cyclist safety, then don’t spread misinformation.

Edit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...

Wrong-way cycling the single largest cause of cycling accidents, where it was the cyclists fault.

Because people driving on one way streets will be looking for traffic coming only one way. They won’t look the other way except to check for pedestrians, and a bike can move much faster.

However, much of the problem is resolved if street parking is reduced or eliminated.

> will be looking for traffic coming only one way

which direction is that, exactly? any cyclists or pedestrians coming the wrong way down the street will be in front of the vehicle. are you saying that drivers will exclusively look behind their vehicle while driving down a one-way street, and only very occasionally look in front?

Not the OP but do you believe every oneway road has infinite visibility?

No bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions?

And what happens when a car and cyclist both go at a 20 mph pace? How much time does the driver have to react, if the cyclist doesn’t?

Firstly, googling "cycling 20 mph", the first result is "20mph is a speed most cyclists are not able to average."

Setting that aside, this is the exact purpose of speed limits, not one-way streets. One-way streets do not prevent pedestrians from popping out behind "bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions", or children, or debris, or potholes, or stopped or malfunctioning cars, or construction, or sudden road ends...

Edit: If you can't stop in time for a bicycle, you can't stop in time for anything, and you need to drive slower. Unfortunately, many American drivers seem to believe that they own the road, and if dumb children run out onto the road and get flattened, that's their own fault for breaking the law.

25 mph for a car is quite slow. It’s the standard around school zones.

Are you suggesting cars go even slower?

When two vehicles move towards each other at 25 mph, that’s 50 mph.

It’s not 50 mph of automobile kinetic energy, but the human reaction time suffers the same.

Reacting to a 10 to 20 feet distance at 50 mph isn’t easy nor realistic, in roads designed for 25 mph travel.

> Like, why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit).

On a road with one lane in each direction? So that passing vehicles aren’t facing oncoming traffic for as long. If you’re giving them enough space when passing, you’re probably over the line anyway; would you rather be there for twice or three times as long if they were riding single-file?

If they’re going single file, then they have a paved space past the solid lane border.

What’s happening is weekend cyclists having a conversation. Why is this okay?

Setting aside the fact that the gutter is often full of uncleared debris that are likely to puncture a tire and there’s often not actually enough space there for a car to safely pass while staying in the lane next to it…

You might be having a conversation with the person next to you in your car. Why is that okay?

It’s not a gutter.

> If they’re going single file, then they have a paved space past the solid lane border.

Incredibly dangerous to drive there with cars zooming past, just inches away.

> What’s happening is weekend cyclists having a conversation. Why is this okay?

Are you jealous, driving alone in a car taking up as much space as multiple cyclists?

That’s the rule where I’m driving and cycling.

It’s done that way because the space is about five to seven feet wide of paved and another 10 feet of unpaved.

So no, it’s not incredibly dangerous unless the cyclists make it that way.

Around where I live in Massachusetts (and I think where I used to live in Virginia), bikes are permitted to use an entire lane.

Paved shoulders are not travel lanes. They often have debris (nails, glass bottles, etc) which don't get cleared by regular vehicle traffic.

> Like, why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit).

At a guess, because going single file means that aggressive drivers will try blow past them, inches away, at 50 mph. So using the whole lane is much safer.

And depending on where you are, it's also legal. In California, if the road is too narrow to share safely, even a single bicyclist is allowed to take up the whole lane. [1]

> Or going the wrong way in a one-way?

Yes, these people are terrible.

[1] https://www.calbike.org/go_for_a_ride/california_bicycle_law...

Nah. A temporary passing I get.

I’m talking about duos and trios just riding in sync having a conversation.

This happens way too frequently in some areas of where I cycle. Nobody calls them out on it either, except honking drivers.

Why should anyone call them out for anything? Honking at them is incredibly entitled behavior. Are your use of the road more important than other's?

Its not entitlement.

It’s for their safety and courtesy, telling them that a car is passing because they (the cyclists) aren’t following the rules and interfering with the flow of traffic.

At minimum, know that you’re giving up your right of way as a cyclist.

As I pointed out, it may well be within the rules.

Yes, cyclists should be courteous. But they also deserve to be safe, and sometimes that safety requires occupying a full lane so aggro drivers don't pass them going too fast and too close. The truth is that a lot of drivers only respect other people in cars, so sometimes cyclists have to hold space like cars if they want to be safe.

Yes and I’m saying the cyclists bear some of the decision and outcomes.

Even when everyone tries following the rules, accidents happen between cars and “x”.

When cyclists deliberately break the rules designed for their own safety then what? The law is small comfort to someone maimed or dead.

It’s why I tell people to assume the other driver/cyclist are unaware and will choose to make the “wrong” choice, until proven otherwise.

How are you not getting that cyclists using a full lane on a narrow street are not breaking the rules, at least here in CA? And that even they were breaking a rule somewhere, it may be the right choice for their own safety, because the rules are mainly made with car traffic in mind?

I get that you as a driver may not like it because it's inconvenient for you. But that's no reason to just ignore the actual rules and preemptively blame cyclists for the outcome of being maimed or dead.

I’m not based in California. Cyclists going side-by-side in a single-lane (per-direction) is violating the rules.

See https://nybc.net/education/bike-law/2-uncategorised/68-a-sum...

> Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast.

You linked this to support your argument?

It does say to switch to single file while being overtaken. But in the scenario you described, nobody was overtaking them when they set up side by side.

> if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge.

Cyclists do not have an unlimited right of way in NY and are not allowed to just take-up a lane arbitrarily.

But that doesn't say anything about side by side.

It sounds like, when there is a usable edge, that rule both allows side by side on the edge and disallows single file in a lane.

You must have missed this quoted section: “as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic”

Nevermind that the road signs also say single file.

No, I definitely didn't miss that part.

If there's a wide bikeable shoulder, you could go side by side and still not interfere with traffic.

If there's a narrow bikeable shoulder, you're forced into single file in it, in most cases.

If there's no bikeable shoulder, then you're taking up the lane no matter what, and then those rules say nothing against being side by side except while being passed.

The rule is not "go single file". The rule is "stay out of the lane when you can".

I’m afraid not.

> https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a20026266/bicycle-safety-do-...

> https://www.zifflaw.com/ny-bike-accident/bike-accident-attor...

And this is assuming, again, that the municipality is silent on the matter. That is, some areas and roads can and do insist on single file.

Or for that matter, that cyclists in twos aren’t forcing drivers to cross into the opposing traffic lane.

> I’m afraid not.

I have no idea which part of my post that's a response to.

Especially because the first sentence of your second link is "Only three states allow bicyclists to ride side by side but require them to ride single file when being overtaken by a vehicle. New York is one of those states."

allow bicyclists to ride side by side...

Because, just to be extra clear again, the scenario you laid out earlier was complaining that they were side by side before any attempt at overtaking was happening.

Then that’s your misunderstanding.

To quote myself: > It’s for their safety and courtesy, telling them that a car is passing because they (the cyclists) aren’t following the rules and interfering with the flow of traffic.

To be extra clear: I’m already overtaking a duo/trio and I’m doing so because they still haven’t yielded or gone single file.

To quote you more:

> I’m talking about duos and trios just riding in sync having a conversation.

> This happens way too frequently in some areas of where I cycle. Nobody calls them out on it either, except honking drivers.

This post sure sounds like you think they already aren't following the rules by hanging out side to side, having a conversation for an extended period of time.

If that's not what you meant, that you're only talking about when someone tries to pass, then okay I guess we're not in disagreement here.

And let's not forget that you also said:

> Cyclists going side-by-side in a single-lane (per-direction) is violating the rules.

Which is only true on certain shapes of road, and the core of the rule is staying out of lanes when possible, even when they're already single-file. So I think any misunderstanding on my part is understandable and not purely my fault.

HN isn’t letting me reply, so using this one.

> This post sure sounds like you think they already aren't following the rules by hanging out side to side, having a conversation for an extended period of time. If that's not what you meant, that you're only talking about when someone tries to pass, then okay I guess we're not in disagreement here.

I wonder what you think “overtaking” means, in the context of not impeding traffic.

>And let's not forget that you also said: >> Cyclists going side-by-side in a single-lane (per-direction) is violating the rules. Which is only true on certain shapes of road,

You mean like “….why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a *narrow service road* (40 to 50 mph speed limit).”

> So I think any misunderstanding on my part is understandable and not purely my fault.

Oh, it’s absolutely your fault. Context is everything.

> I wonder what you think “overtaking” means, in the context of not impeding traffic.

Someone has to be trying to pass before it counts as overtaking and possibly impeding.

The law definitely doesn't say to stay in single file at all times just in case someone might want to overtake at some point.

> You mean like “….why are groups of cyclists going in rows of two or three in a narrow service road (40 to 50 mph speed limit).”

No, not at all! They only have to leave the lane if there is a big enough shoulder. A narrow service road is exactly where bikes are permitted to use the lane!!

You cut the most important part of my sentence which is "the core of the rule is staying out of lanes when possible, even when they're already single-file."

If the road forces them to be in the lane anyway, then they don't have to be single file as a general rule, only when someone is overtaking.

The only reason not to be side by side, other than overtakers, is when one bike could fit in the shoulder but the second bike would have to be in the lane. If both bikes can fit in the shoulder, then side by side is no worse so it's allowed. If zero bikes can fit in the shoulder, then side by side is no worse so it's allowed.

> Someone has to be trying to pass before it counts as overtaking and possibly impeding.

So are you saying cars need to slow down to bicycle speeds, wait for the cyclists to go to single file (assuming they do at all), then go back to normal speeds?

> No, not at all! They only have to leave the lane if there is a big enough shoulder. A narrow service road is exactly where bikes are permitted to use the lane!!

Nope. Again, you failed to understand the context.

The service road is narrow—just two lanes, but one for each direction—but the shoulder is well-paved, clean, and nearly the width of a full lane.

I make this extremely clear in my discussion elsewhere.

New York insists that cyclists stay on that righthand shoulder.

If there is a quality shoulder then the law tells them to stay on the shoulder.

This is completely separate from single file vs. side by side. Just stay on the shoulder.

Even single file in the lane would break the rule.

If the shoulder is nearly the width of a full lane, then it would fit for them to be side by side entirely inside the shoulder, and that would be allowed too.

Sometimes, as a secondary effect, this rule blocks being side by side. But only when the shoulder is very specific widths. It's not the point of the rule.

I'm making this part separate because it's less important.

> So are you saying cars need to slow down to bicycle speeds, wait for the cyclists to go to single file (assuming they do at all), then go back to normal speeds?

Cars shouldn't have to slow down quite that much, but overall yes cars might have to wait a couple seconds as they approach the bikes and show intent to pass.

Once one car passes, other cars can easily go by after them, since they'd need to stay single file until the cars are done overtaking.

It's a very short wait and only for the first car in line.

And, mind you, this is only on roads where bikes can't use the shoulder.

If the law wanted bikes to stay in single file at all times it would just say that, and not "when being overtaken".

> (assuming they do at all)

Well if they don't then that's breaking the law, of course.

> If there is a quality shoulder then the law tells them to stay on the shoulder. This is completely separate from single file vs. side by side. Just stay on the shoulder. Even single file in the lane would break the rule. If side by side fits in the shoulder then they can do that too.

Yes.

So the situation I’ve been writing about is where there is a quality shoulder, but the cyclists going side-by-side end up jutting into the driving lane.

This is because there isn’t enough space for two cyclists to reliably stay in that shoulder.

If cyclists don’t proactively go back to single file, at this point a car has swerve out partially into oncoming traffic or brake check and down to bike speeds and wait for the cyclists go back into their lane.

Either decision creates hazards to other drivers and other cyclists.

So no, in the context I’ve been dealing with weekly these aren’t separate issues.

> Cars shouldn't have to slow down quite that much, but overall yes cars might have to wait a couple seconds as they approach the bikes and show intent to pass.

A 40 to 50 mph service means going down to 25 mph. That impedes traffic and it’s dangerous, especially when you consider that cyclists are less visible to begin with.

The best outcomes are where cyclists proactively move, when they hear the courtesy honk.

Weekend cyclists having a conversation don’t care.

Ok, recognizing it is legal in some places and not in others is a good step forward.

Now try recognizing that the reason it's legal here is safety. And that whether or not it's legal there, it may be safer for cyclists everywhere to use the whole lane in some circumstances.

That’s your interpretation.

Try recognizing that the rules are written to accommodate both the safety of the cyclist while preventing traffic congestion.

It’s a compromise and requires cyclists to do their part as well.

Really, if asking to stay single file is too difficult then cyclists really need to get licensed for their own safety.

I’d hate it but the comments make it more and more convincing that there’s no other way.

You can't just claim that your rules are the perfectly balanced ones, while the California rules are foolishly wrong and dangerous. Especially given the article we're all commenting on, which shows that even very reasonable bike-friendly rules changes can take decades of effort.

Yes, sharing the road is important. But as somebody who uses multiple modes of transport on the regular, I'm confident in my judgement that the existing standards overly favor cars. If sharing the road is truly what's important, the work ahead of is is much more about improving access for bikes than it is for cars.

Should cyclists in a peloton make it easier for cars to pass? Sometimes! And sometimes they shouldn't, because that would put them more at risk of dying at the hands of some irate dick.. If you can't see that, it's probably because you're not a regular distance cyclist.

Yeah, I bet you do it out of courtesy...

They're not "interfering with the flow of traffic". At that point, the flow of traffic is the speed the cyclists are keeping. You're the one interfering.

You’re 100% not arguing in good faith, but I’ll answer anyway.

https://nybc.net/education/bike-law/2-uncategorised/68-a-sum...

A quarter-second honk gets cyclists’ attention without startling them.

Some states and cities actually care about the flow of traffic, because it will cause hourslong gridlock otherwise.

I'm in favour of cyclists occupying a lane, especially on narrow roads to take full control and I do that myself often. What I dislike is when they have their own lane and then ride 2 or 3 abreast so they don't fit and stray a foot or two into the car lane as well. It's the worst of both worlds. Even worse when they drift into the car lane without looking back to overtake other cyclists, which seems to happen regularly around here.

For sure! Sharing the road is important.

Every weekend I see badly-behaved motorists taking up the entire lane of narrow roads in their little metal wagons with four empty chairs. Like, why do drivers do that? So entitled!

Drivers get tickets or worse if they don’t follow the rules.

I would love if cyclists everywhere also had the same expectations; and loss of cycling privileges, if they didn’t.

I really don't see very many traffic law violations from cyclists, and once you put aside nitpicking about stop signs, the number gets extremely low.

Each time a cyclist has annoyed me or created an extremely dangerous situation of their own accord, it mostly just came down to poor route selection by cyclists, which represents an infrastructure problem, or exactly one traffic law violation: speeding.

Cyclists riding in packs represent a route selection and availability issue. Large groups of cyclists have to decide between being annoying or being dangerous every time they ride on a road without a bike lane or large shoulder. Whether they're riding two or three abreast (in which case everyone just has to wait for them, the annoying choice), or single file in a line (in which case vehicles have to cross the center line for a very long time to pass safely, the dangerous choice), there is no safe and friendly way for them to coexist on these routes. Now, of course, these cyclists did make the decision to do this - so, the debate here becomes fairly existential. Personally as a cyclist, I avoid these roads and situations, but I'm not convinced that "these people shouldn't be doing this" is a societally beneficial option here.

Cyclists who speed aggressively do really annoy me. Both on footpaths, where they build animosity with pedestrians and create dangerous collisions, and on mountain descents, where they regularly out-ride their sight lines and braking ability.

The signs say single file; but a duo or trio of cyclists decide the rules don’t apply to them.

It’s a danger to them, to drivers, and to other cyclists (the ones coming down the other direction).

In my experience it’s not a constant problem but it’s not a trivially small number either.

How is riding side by side in a lane dangerous?

When there's a dedicated bike lane or a wide shoulder, riding side by side impedes car traffic unnecessarily. In this situation, when cyclists are riding single file, vehicles can pass without needing to enter the opposing lane. Riding two or three abreast, vehicles cannot pass without needing to enter the opposing lane.

In the absence of a bike lane or wide shoulder, I don't feel that it matters much as it's just an unsafe situation regardless - there's an argument that a large group in a pack is shorter and therefore safer and easier to pass, an argument that having to swing "wide" into the opposing lane is more dangerous, an argument that cyclists in this situation simply should not be passed (in which case IMO they should pull out at the next opportunity, just as a slow motor vehicle would be required to do in many states), and an argument that the situation shouldn't exist to start with.

Is it illegal for cyclists to take the lane where you live? If you're doing that I don't understand why it makes a difference if it's 1 person taking the lane or 2 abreast. Either way the lane is taken. Trying to leave a fraction of a lane open to drivers just seems like a good way to get sideswiped

I'm not sure what the laws are in the rest of the country / world, but at least in California you cannot simply take the full lane as a cyclist at any time. There are specific situations where you can -- such as to avoid a hazard in the bike lane or when turning at an intersection -- but you can't ride in the middle of the lane always.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

If I'm parsing that correctly, those limitations on taking the lane are only for roads that have real bicycle lanes. For the vast majority of roads, it's legal to take the full lane.

While not in the same section as posted above, the ~same limitations apply.

Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

I get out of sorts when other cyclists break the law. How can we cyclists ask drivers to obey the law, to protect us, if we won't even do it ourselves?

I can relate to the desire to self-police among cyclists, though it sounds like this person was road raging as well. I often hear complaints from people who only drive cars that cyclists (as if they’re a monolith) are recklessly inconsiderate, and it hurts me knowing how hard I personally try to ride responsibly.

It happens with any subgroup. Bad apples spoil the bunch and all that. Heck, a lot of bicyclists in this very thread make the same complaint about car drivers and act as if they're all a monolith who only care about running down as many bikes as possible, even though at least some percentage of us do try very hard to be safe and considerate while driving.

Somewhere else in this thread, bicyclists are complaining about cars who specifically try to wave them on to go first. While I can understand why this might not always be what they want, this seems like a generally good situation - the car driver is aware of the bicyclist and is attempting to do the right thing by indicating that they've noted the presence of the bicyclist and also trying to be courteous. I've done this myself from time to time and I assumed I was being a good driving citizen, but perhaps I was wrong.

I would hope that we can all agree that there are a subset of drivers who are reckless and dangerous, and there are a subset of bicyclists who are also reckless and dangerous. We have the same issue with boaters, personal watercraft, etc. Aircraft might be slightly better because of the high barrier to entry, but reckless pilots exist too. In each of these cases, the bad ones tarnish the rest.

> cars who specifically try to wave them on to go first

Ha, yep that’s a lesser peeve. I’ve found that an innocently confused look and head tilt usually gets them to take their turn.

I guess I've assumed that a bike would prefer to cross in front of me, someone who has acknowledged their presence and also happens to be blocking the lane behind me, rather than wait and take their chances with the next guy who may not be looking. Perhaps I'll reconsider that in the future. I still think I will do this in at least some circumstances, like when I see kids on bikes wanting to cross. In the case of kids I make a point to check all the traffic before waving them on and basically try to act as another set of eyes for them while they're crossing.

I did just that to a cyclist who role through a stop sign, causing a car that I had stopped for to have to stop mid turn to avoid the cyclist. Sure, stopping completely randomly isn't necessary, but a lot of cyclists take the cycle-through-stop thing far too far and assume that they also have priority, irrespective of the state of other rode users.

Not the same but I've gotten tickets in NYC for running red lights on a bike. I bet there are a lot of laws in place where bikes are treated exactly the same as automobiles.

Really? That's amazing - how does that happen? You just happen to do it right in front of a cop who then flags you down?

>You just happen to do it right in front of a cop

You do it in front of a cop who needs to make his quota!

Kind of. Cops on bicycles looking out for those running red lights.

In California you can get a DUI on a bicycle, because bicycles are defined as "vehicles" in the state vehicle code. It's the stuff of legend in bicycle-heavy college towns like Davis.

To head off a whole lot of fallacious assertions, personal anecdotes, and so on:

https://cyclingfallacies.com

Specifically, the page about red-light running, which if you scroll down lists numerous sources showing people on bicycles do not break traffic laws more than drivers: https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/11/people-break-the-rules-wh...

People think cyclists break traffic laws more because cyclists are a minority outgroup, and like any other minority outgroup, negative behavior and attributes are exaggerated. A whole slew of observational biases come into play.

The absolute favorite thing drivers love to shriek about is cyclists not obeying stop signs and stop lights. Except that in urban cities, the most common cause of crashes is usually doorings and "hooks" - where the driver passes a cyclist, while braking and turning - something that is almost impossible to avoid because a car can out-turn and out-brake someone on a bike, and the situation was initiated by the driver. Doorings? You can tell people "ride outside the door zone" but that usually ends up subjecting you to all sorts of abuse by drivers, including "punish passes", which turn into collisions when drivers misjudge the distance and hit the cyclist instead.

The amount of hatred drivers have for people on bicycles is astounding. Even people like the head of the British Automobile Association described the attitude drivers have as being similar to racism: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/16/cyclists-abuse-r...

There's also the ever-popular self-loathing bicyclist who loves to criticize and victim-blame other cyclists. It may come as a surprise, but victim-blaming by members of a group is done as a psychological self defense mechanism. Being struck by a driver is something that by and large you have no control over; cyclists obeying the law, riding prudently, in a straight line, on a straight road, wearing high-visibility clothing, etc still get plowed into. That's scary, so people invent reasons why the victim was at fault - reasons that coincide with steps the victim-blamer takes that they think protects them.

Thanks for all of this.

Regarding the point on similarity for racism, spending years as a commuter cyclist, where I was frequently forced to the margins of the road, gave me a much deeper appreciation for marginalized people of all sorts. Some people were nice, many people were oblivious and/or didn't give a shit, and some people were hostile and dangerous. Not because of anything more than me living my life a little differently than them. Those visceral experiences made it much easier for me to empathize with people in other outgroups.

The page discouraging the use of helmets is a wild take: https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/29/people-should-wear-helmet...

They cherry pick data (often decades old) from specific countries/regions to try to apply their claim that "A high rate of helmet use is a sign that the authorities have failed to design well for cycling" at a global level.

Which of the thirty references in that article do you feel are "cherry picking"?

What is your justification for dismissing data because it is "decades old"?

...particularly given that in the US, especially by the federal government, claims of "80%" helmet efficacy are based on one study of ER patients done in the early eighties?

Most cyclists are drivers as well. I often wonder how safe they are as drivers. Do they do all of the things as drivers that they themselves as cyclists insist drivers must do? Certainly not, in the case of the people I've seen on this very site saying that drivers should never take their eyes off the road (even to check a mirror apparently) or that they should never drive above walking speed lest someone jump out from behind a street light or mailbox in front of them. "If you hit someone it means you were driving too fast" is the usual version, ignoring these kinds of realities. Even without such hyperbole, I doubt that the bike bros I see every day on the path near my house are all that much mellower once they get behind the wheel. They're not interested in what's right or fair. They're just using the very real safety issues involving bikes to rationalize their preexisting sense of entitlement.

treat stop lights as stop signs

This seems like a great way to get cyclists run over.

Cyclists have extensive practice in avoiding getting hit by cars, so I expect there will be little difference in cyclist injuries from this change.

Self resolving problem?

In NYC most cyclists seem to already do this.

As stop signs? Usually as yields or as green lights, surely?

Fair enough, at most as stop signs.

This is already in effect in Idaho. In my experience, the cyclists that ride dangerously do so regardless of this rule.

Sure, but at least an innocent driver is less likely to get arrested if the cyclist was breaking the law.

It's counter-intuitive, but the data [0][1] is quite clear that laws like these significantly improve safety for bicyclists. I found this video [2] useful in understanding what might be going on.

[0] https://www.bikede.org/delaware-yield-crash-data/#page-conte... ("All reported injury crashes involving bicycles at stop sign controlled intersections dropped 23% in the 30 months after adopting the Safety Stop compared to 30 months prior to adoption")

[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/18WEQdDpxSmgETZBFPh5iO8LGAL9... ("In year after adopting the “Idaho Stop,” crashes between bicyclists and motorists fell 14.5%, and Boise was 30-60% safer on a bicycle compared to similarly sized cities")

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42oQN7fy_eM

I like explaining this as “bikes don’t have to stop for no one”. Upon hearing that people are usually momentarily affronted by the apparent insolence, then realize I mean it literally and laugh.

Yeah, except that pedestrians exist. By both law and convention in most places, they (we) do have right of way over bikes. Horses are often given precedence over both, where that's relevant. Being on a bike doesn't make you king of all roads, sidewalks, and other paths.

You misunderstand. :) The phrase is a play on words that literally means if “no one” is there you don’t have to stop for them. It’s a contrapositive description of yielding—the point being precisely to counter the common misconception (and ensuing outrage) that such laws do confer higher right-of-way to cyclists.

Thank you for the clarification. The double-negative form didn't come across that way, perhaps because it's used so often for emphasis (and not even considered ungrammatical in most languages other than English AFAICT).

If a bike can safely yield, then this seems to imply that visibility is good enough to see coming cars. Wouldn't it then be safe for cars to treat it as a yield as well, especially if we consider that a car could likely clear the intersection more quickly than bike (aka the visibility distances needed for a bike to safely treat it as a yield are greater than for a car since they potentially spend more time in the intersection due to slower speed)?

The major hangups are that cars are inherently more likely to cause a collision and are significantly deadlier if a collision occurs. They have a much larger hitbox, they weigh several tons, they cannot maneuver easily and rapidly, they have visibility obstructions (like the A-block), and the internal environment of a car has potential distractions that take their attention off of the street. By contrast, bicycles are small, weigh an order of magnitude less, have no blind spots, and can execute dramatic maneuvers to avoid collisions. Cyclists should have the option but not the obligation to exercise additional restraint at intersections because their risk profile is dramatically different.

Stop signs are so common in North America because they serve as "bolted-on" traffic calming, which is necessary to force drivers to proceed at safe speeds and pay attention to their environment. In addition to vehicles within the intersection, you also have to look for people crossing at the crosswalks, and dedicated bicycle crossings if the intersection is so enlightened as to have them.

Not really; in that case the stop sign should just be a yield sign. That's the point of this law: the margin where an action is safe enough is vastly different between bikes and cars. A car and a bike travelling at the same speed will cause vastly different amounts of harm on impacting the same object. The absolute time to emergency stop is different, thus the required reaction time. And so on.

"A car and a bike travelling at the same speed will cause vastly different amounts of harm on impacting the same object."

Theoretically, then the bike should be stopping. Two cars colliding at 15 mph is less dangerous than a bike hitting or being hit by a car at 15 mph. I doubt the stopping distances are that much different (probably 20 vs 30 feet).

"in that case the stop sign should just be a yield sign."

Well, most stop signs could just be yield signs. Looks like they're doing that for bikes. Would be nice if they do that for cars too.

> Theoretically, then the bike should be stopping.

As I and others have pointed out elsewhere, the law hasn't changed at all what a bike may or should do when there is a car present. It only covers the situation when there is no other traffic.

And that doesn't conflict with what I'm saying - that you have to have the visibility/design at that intersection to be able to see that there are no cars present; that if a bike can safely see that there are no other cars around and keep rolling, then a car could too.

Your friendly reminder that we almost got this law in California and Newsom vetoed it.

https://www.planetizen.com/news/2021/10/114932-jaywalking-id...

Not only did he veto it, he veto'd it "for the children"

Feel like many bicyclists already act like this is the law regardless of the right of way. Anecdotal of course but around me they just blow through stop signs like they have permanent right of way. Especially the groups riding together in the mornings. Totally ignore all rules of the road.

For sure. The reason they are changing the law is that the law makes sense for cars, not bikes. I'd suggest spending some time cycling in your area; you'll discover that most cyclists are not "Totally ignore all rules of the road", but instead have reasonable and sensible behaviors that are just different from what make sense for cars.

Because when you have good visibility and momentum, it’s much safer to get through and away from an intersection than to come to a stop, put your foot down, and get moving again. The traffic laws are made for automobiles, but it’s great to see Colorado recognizing the difference.

I hear what you are saying but if the people driving the cars expect you to stop and they go based on the belief that the bicyclists will follow the law and stop then its just a recipe for disaster. Now if the law is changed then the drivers expectations should change as well and all will be well. Until then though one group is breaking the law and the other is not in these specific scenarios. With that said many people drive like fools anyway.

This new law hasn't changed a bicycle's abilities, privileges, or responsibilities when other traffic is present. So if there is a situation where "the people driving the cars expect you to stop" the person on the bicycle still needs to stop. (Assuming the expectation is correct.)

Of course cyclists expect drivers to expect us to stop. The entire point of treating it like a yield is that we only proceed when a car is not about to go. Most cyclists treat every car like it’s actively trying to kill them, so “running a red” carelessly is not the way.

Stopping at lights and stop signs is particularly dangerous because of distracted drivers rear-ending you. It’s better to take a good look, and if no cars are left and right, don’t wait around. Get away from the intersection.

If 'less time in the intersection' is actually safer, wouldn't it be safer for cars too?

A car can accelerate through the intersection much easier than a cyclist can remount and accelerate from a full stop. Cars are also not in the same danger of being killed by a distracted driver rear-ending them. Cyclists are up higher, can hear better, and see the situation at the intersection much better, so the can roll through an intersection more safely than a car.

You should reconsider your windshield bias.

There is loads of data that shows people on bikes break laws at the same or lower rate than people in cars, and unlike drivers, they rarely kill people.

Here's a few to start with:

https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists-reckless-lawbreakers/

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-b...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists...

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/study-drivers-...

Couple of quick points, never in anyway compared the rate of law breaking in my post. Pretty sure I specified my post was anecdotal. I really don't care what stats say, I care that around me large groups of bicyclists blow through stop signs while I am taking my kids to school in the morning. I understand you have a cause to push but I'm not the guy you should be pushing it at. I'm just some middle aged dude trying to get his kids to school safely without running anyone over.

> Pretty sure I specified my post was anecdotal. I really don't care what stats say

Why should we care about your anecdotes here, though? Especially when they're going against the science.

> I understand you have a cause to push but I'm not the guy you should be pushing it at.

You're the one claiming your anecdotes to be the truth here, trying to push your anti-bicyclist view.

> I'm just some middle aged dude trying to get his kids to school safely

Ironically, you and the other drivers are the risk factor for school kids. Why do you even feel the need to drive them to school? To dangerous for them to walk/bike because of other cars is my guess.

psst, you don't have to care that's the neat part. You are responding though so you have chosen to care, that's on you.

"push your anti-bicyclist view" lol, my what?

"Why do you even feel the need to drive them to school? To dangerous for them to walk/bike because of other cars is my guess." I am going to assume you have no children and no idea what you are talking about and that 90% of your daily concern is focused on you 'pro-bicyclist view'. My kids are young, school starts at 7:30 am. Their school is a good distance away. of course I care about them getting hit by cars, your argument is really bad. Its like when people in the US complain about police brutality and some genius retorts with "well why don't you live in communist china and see how you like it." Its ok to focus on multiple issues friend. I wish both you and your 'pro-bicyclist' agenda well. :)

I drive, walk, and cycle under the assumption that every single other person in view is both suicidal and insane at the same time, and act accordingly. It works pretty well, all things told.

Practically this means traveling in such a way that I always have an “out” and it has saved me from my own stupidity multiple times.

He probably loves them, and quite responsibly would prefer to encase them in steel on the way to school. If I see an adult driving with kids and I'm biking I usually just fall back. They will crush you like a bug, and curse you for traumatizing the children as you shuffle off this mortal coil. I'll let em go first.

Absolutely, most bicyclists in the area where I live almost never actually stop at stop signs and would even make hand gestures if a stopped car does not yield to them when they zoom through.

Yeah, fast heay things and slow light things don't mix well together in flows. The fast things have to stop being fast to stop from obliterating the slow things.

If you think of a hypothetical situation where 50% of the road things are slow then there's not much benefit to being able to go fast.

Where is the tipping point?

Yeah, I agree that this will probably bring a lot of cyclists into compliance with the law (and hopefully reduce injury and death as more cyclists take advantage of the newly permitted behavior!)

This law makes a lot of sense to me, having been off and on a bike commuter. But I wonder if its sensibility depends on a variety of circumstances. A lot of non-cyclist drivers complain about exactly these behaviors, but in my experience it’s helped both to keep me safe on the road (typically climbing a steep hill, where a hard stop would make starting again less stable) and to let traffic continue to flow. I’m not sure I’d feel the same way in a flatter city with larger roads. Or with heavier car traffic in areas with more obstruction of view.

This is an infrastructure design problem that can't be solved by simply trying to change behavior. We have to change how we design streets and roads so they are more pedestrian and cyclist friendly. See here: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/3/1/whats-a-stroad-...

I haven't ridden through Woodside, CA in a few years, but their ultra-rich residents came to hate the flocks of bicyclists who go through there every weekend (because the scenery is so awesome).

So they pressured the cops to crack down, and on organized rides we were always told "in Woodside, come to a complete stop, and put a foot down on the pavement."

From the headline, that's what I was afraid this was. What a relief.

I found this article to be very useful in taking stronger ownership of my own safety as a bicyclist: https://iamtraffic.org/engineering/behaviors-and-risk/

Have they coupled this new law with the money and resources necessary for cyclist and motorist education?

Without a public education campaign, drivers will not know this has changed and will interact dangerously with cyclists at intersections.

I don't think it makes a difference for cars at intersections. It only gives cyclist additional options if the cyclist already has right of way.

You don't have the right of way on a red light.

Let me rephrase-- This law only changes things for cyclists when the intersection is clear. If there are cars going through the light, then the cyclist treats it the same as they always have.

Agreed on paper. But my largest concern is that drivers make many, many anticipatory decisions in split-seconds while scanning for traffic.

If a driver sees a cyclist coming while they approach an intersection and, unaware of the new law, assumes "They are going to stop because that's a red light / that's a stop sign," that's a significant risk for the oncoming cyclist if they mis-judge the velocity of the oncoming car and think they'll be able to clear the intersection before the car arrives.

Everybody drives a bit safer when everybody has the most correct mental model of driver behavior they can have.

I would say 80% of cyclists in Denver did this anyway, so at least there the education is well under way!

Imagine believing that a car driver expects someone to stop at a stop sign. Literally 100% of American drivers, without any exceptions, already do the "Idaho Stop" at every intersection. They just don't want to own up to that.

and treat stop lights as stop signs.

There is no info on this in the article, but it seems like a really bad idea.

Only the most pressing matters...

I feel intense hatred for this law & look forward to finding ways to punish bikers for taking advantage of it

this is the first i've heard of cyclists having to obey any traffic laws of any kind. But then again, I live in Arkansas.

Can we write a law where cyclists cant ride on a main thoroughfare when there's a perfectly good side street a block away?

The amount of times I've seen traffic backed up for miles behind one exercise man, on a MAIN ROAD, when there's a perfectly good barely used road, literally ONE BLOCK away.

I'm all for being considerate of bicyclists but that goes both ways.

Side streets rarely have bike lanes, have more 4-way stops, randomly appear/disappear and have terrible potholes for road bikes.

People act as if american side-streets aren't designed in an actively hostile manner for traffic calming that makes biking really difficult.

Most importantly, most cyclists are using google maps like the rest of us, and google sends us on the main street. So, that's where we go.

So cyclists would rather inconvenience hundreds of people down to 5 mph than deal with some inconvenience themselves.

These folks know exactly what they're doing. I've worked with one of them -- he saw it as a plus that he's slowing down drivers and blocking traffic and would cycle in a way that made it impossible to pass him. He framed it as environmental activism.

It's the cyclist equivalent of rolling coal.

In more than one other sub-thread here, people have offered variants on the theory that some drivers are hostile toward cyclists and/or more likely to notice cyclist transgressions because those cyclists constitute an out-group and that's what we always do with out-groups. "Treating them differently just because they choose to live a bit differently" is the most recent version I saw.

Well, that cuts both ways. A certain subset of cyclists treat anyone in a car, or indeed not on a bike, as an out-group. They notice transgressions more, deny the out-group's right to do what they're doing, etc. It's not activism. Positive change is not the goal. It's just venting their own unresolved anger and frustration. If the putative cause of their complaint disappeared, they'd miss it ... and then they'd find a new "cause" to be anti-social about.

The different treatment is injury and death vs slight inconvenience. It's an asymmetrical arrangement in favor of the car for any kind of two wheeled conveyance. Or are you fearful of ten-speed riders traumatizing you by impolitely smashing up on the windscreen instead of politely disappearing under the wheels?

You are not wrong though. It just is not a defensible position. You won't be the one who suffers.

You're missing the point. What matters is that GP's friend had used "activism" to describe acts of simple spite or revenge, and the label does not apply. Such behavior stands in the way of real activism. Perhaps you feel the spite is deserved, the revenge justified, based on the level of potential consequence. Your use of hyperbolic imagery and character assassination suggests that you might, and I might not even try to dissuade you ... but don't call it activism. Words have meaning, and a potato is not a pear.

I don't treat excercise man differently because they're an outgroup.

I treat them differently because they ride 10 mph on a road regulated for safe travel of above 40 and slow hundreds of people down.

I'm surprised the law already doesn't handle that case. In Minnesota cyclists are treated as normal vehicular traffic with a handful of exceptions, and one of those exceptions is that the cyclist cannot unnecessarily impede traffic flow. (The language of the Minnesota law as written was obviously written with the scenario you describe in mind.)

These kinds of annoyances are almost always an infrastructure problem, as the Dutch have shown. If you correctly separate modes of transit according to speed on a high enough density of route links, blockages like this are eliminated. It's possible that those side streets are not optimal for their journey. You seem to be assuming that person on a bicycle was traveling for recreational purposes and not necessarily transiting from point to point.

The goal of their transit is irrelevant.

Riding on a main road and slowing down hundreds of people by orders of magnitude is an jerk move.

Personally, I view hundreds of predominantly single-occupant, predominantly internal-combustion automobiles clogging up my neighborhood's main thoroughfare 18 hours a day to be a jerk move at a scale much more vast than inconveniencing those motorists for some number of minutes. The goal of their transit is irrelevant, as you say.

But anyway. This frustration is why "share the road!" is stupid and inconveniences everyone. I don't like it either. As an occasional bicycle user I don't want to be in your lane any more than you want me to. It's very dangerous and 1/10 motorists are needlessly belligerent. Perhaps you should contact your local transit authority to support the addition of a separated bicycle lane for that main road, so that you don't have to share a single lane with cyclists. Or the side roads you speak of should be beefed up as bicycle infrastructure and cyclists banned from the main road. I am quite sure that there is a reason they're on that main road, because I bet it is unpleasant to cycle on it.

If you don't like sitting in traffic, (who does?) you have to think like a bicycle user, and reduce blockers to cycling because if your area has population growth and finite land, there is no solution to traffic other than getting people out of cars and into other modes of transport, including bicycles. Blaming bicycle users for cycling and saying "why don't they cycle somewhere else?" is not a valid solution.

No we just need to let natural selection take it's course as cyclers share the road with multi ton metal vehicles.

I refer you to my previous comments explaining how I also don't like "share the road" idea. We are on the same page on this. Go complain to your county or city or whichever rather than wishing literal death to your neighbors.

Bicyclists have places to go and those places are often, disproportionately even, on the "main road". Asking cyclists to bike at least two blocks out of their way is not reasonable. Also often those side roads have uncontrolled crossings of other busy roads which makes traversing them practically impossible.

The real question is why a car, which can effortlessly stop, go, and turn without any exertion whatsoever on the part of the driver, is permitted on the shortest route. Since it's so easy for a driver to detour to a side road, the main roads should be reserved for bicyclists and pedestrians exclusively.

Roads are made with a speed limit specifically matched for cars.

Bikes cannot achieve that speed limit.

So your thought is to slow down hundreds of thousands of cars which the road was made for... in order for cyclists not to be inconvenienced?

The only application of large-scale natural language processing in law enforcement of which I completely approve is classifying comments like these which totally misunderstand the concept of speed limit, identifying their authors, and inviting them to an all-expenses-paid driver retraining session where they might have the opportunity to regain their recently revoked driving privileges.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit

Your right! It's a speed LIMIT!

Feel free to hop on the interstate!

It's just a speed LIMIT of 70! There's no speed minimum.

Dont let those 18 wheelers push you around!

Let natural selection do its job!

>So your thought is to slow down hundreds of thousands of cars which the road was made for... in order for cyclists not to be inconvenienced?

Roads are made for wheeled vehicles, many of which are cars and many of which are bikes. Demanding they stick to the side street ghetto seems suboptimal, considering car drivers are just as lethal with respect to motorcycle riders, are they not?

I also have this complaint. Where I live there are miles and miles of closed-access bike trails. The state spent loads of money turning old railbeds into trails specifically for pedestrians and bicycles.

But those aren't good enough for the exercise man. He has to ride on the winding, hilly, full-of-blindspots roads where cars routinely are doing 45+. More than once I've nearly gone into the ditch because exercise man was in the middle of the road over the crest of a hill. (I separate people who are commuting on their bikes from the ones that are clearing doing it for recreation).

I'm all for biking - it's great for your body and the environment but I question those that choose to co-mingle with cars when there are other options. In a collision between 250 pounds of bike + human vs a ton of plastic and steel...the ton of plastic and steel is going to win pretty much every time.

sounds like you were driving quite unsafely when you nearly went into the ditch, i'd slow down on such roads

Sounds like you don't often drive outside the a city. I live in a county with a _significant_ Amish population and am well accustomed to non-motorized vehicles on the road. The difference between the Amish and most cyclists is that they recognized that they're vulnerable on their horse and buggy, follow the rules of the road, and they generally stick to the side roads whenever they can for obvious reasons.

I'm continuously amazed that HN, a site full of smart people, can't seem to wrap its head around the fact that riding a bicycle on a road with a bunch of vehicles is _inherently_ more dangerous for the cyclist than it is for the driver.

Should drivers pay attention more? absolutely. If I had a magic wand to wave that would instantly add separate lanes for cyclists I would but the fact is that America's streets are mixed use. It's all well and good that the driver of the car is "responsible for not hitting you" but what's that matter if you get killed or paralyzed because your hubris demands that you be able to share a shoulder-less road with tractor trailers?

"I'm continuously amazed that HN, a site full of smart people, can't seem to wrap its head around the fact that riding a bicycle on a road with a bunch of vehicles is _inherently_ more dangerous for the cyclist than it is for the driver."

can you find me one person who actually thinks this? or did you just make this up.

i am personally in the reality camp and find cycling in traffic to be quite a bit more dangerous than being piloting a car

> i am personally in the reality camp and find cycling in traffic to be quite a bit more dangerous than being piloting a car

That is literally what I said but you just had to get the snark in, didn't you?

ok ignore that comment, but tell me who believes cycling in traffic isn't more dangerous than driving a car since you've indicated that HN (the monolith) seems to think that

They're not having a problem because of the speed...they're having a problem because the excercise man in front of them is blocking traffic.

You must live in Colorado? Or someplace like it.

Excercise man rides on roads that are already dangerous for cars: roads with no shoulder, windy, high elevation, icy, huge drops on either side.

Excercise man makes that situation much more dangerous.

I'm rarely upset when I see an excercise man was inured in the newspaper.

That side street is probably full of stop signs? We don't go out of our way to ride on busy roads.

So slow down hundreds of people to 5 miles an hour..... versus stopping at a few stop signs...

cyclist mentality is very interesting.

why don't you go to the perfectly good barely used road one block away? bikes have a right to the road too

You're right! Bikes have a right to the road! Feel free to hop on the interstate! Don't let those 18 wheelers push you around! Let natural selection do its job!

> This new law means that when an intersection is clear and they already have the right of way, bicyclists ages 15 and older may now treat stop signs as yield signs and treat stop lights as stop signs.

Can someone explain? This, to me, says that bikes can enter a road with ongoing traffic. Yes, it says "when an intersection is clear", which could mean anything ore, more than likely, used irresponsibly. And treating red lights like stop signs also makes no sense. It all sounds like a formula for carnage.

I lack context, which is why I am asking for an explanation.

What problem is this solving? Were cyclists getting killed waiting at stop signs and red lights? If so, the law now allows them to potential ride right in front of moving vehicles? Is that better? How?

You're not "asking for an explanation."

You haven't made the slightest effort to educate yourself on the basic facts of the matter, are still dismissing everything based on pure personal incredulity, and constructing wild strawman arguments.

Not only is your pitiful interpretation of what I wrote wrong, it is precisely how you destroy any potential for constructive conversation, understanding and learning. Brilliant.

> Can someone explain? This, to me, says that bikes can enter a road with ongoing traffic. Yes, it says "when an intersection is clear", which could mean anything ore, more than likely, used irresponsibly. And treating red lights like stop signs also makes no sense. It all sounds like a formula for carnage.

By clear, they probably mean clear of existing or oncoming traffic. Basically, no one is around, which happens a lot. Cyclists aren't trying to get killed, in fact quite the opposite. Allowing them to assess the situation and continue without stopping means they can spend less time in the intersection, which is a dangerous place to be. They still have judgement they need to use.

> What problem is this solving? Were cyclists getting killed waiting at stop signs and red lights? If so, the law now allows them to potential ride right in front of moving vehicles? Is that better? How?

Yes they were and are being killed in intersections. They are still not permitted to simply ride in front of moving vehicles, they have to treat stops and red lights as yields, similar to yields when driving. Blame can still be placed on the person that was supposed to yield if they cause a crash.

I think you need to actually read up on the law and the reasons for its existence, because it sounds like you're coming at this from a worst case scenario where there aren't rules. There are still rules and parties can still be at fault. This isn't some "anything goes and we'll see what happens" type of law, not at all.

The reason why cars hit cyclists is not for lack of understanding laws.

It's for lack of giving a damn.

Rolling-coal dude is not even going to tap the brakes running over you because there's zero penalty for killing you.

Until people start going to prison for coming within 3 feet of cyclists, let alone hitting and killing them, nothing is going to change.

This should extend to all pedestrians as well.

Right - in most of the country our infrastructure and laws exist to basically only serve cars (most notably the idea of "jaywalking"). Glad steps are being taken in the interest of non-car transportation options.

* Edit. I do not "roll coal". I thought it was a term for driving a car.

I'm both a rolling-coal dude and ride a bicycle in NYC. I'm extremely careful when driving a car around cyclists. The last thing I would ever want to do is injure someone on foot, bike, or in a car.

I would take it most people care and a few do not.

Question for you, why would you ever roll coal?

Did not realize what the term meant. I do not roll coal.

Your reply is confusing to the point where maybe there's a misunderstanding of the definition.

Rolling-coal is illegally bypassing the exhaust on a vehicle, it's illegal everywhere in the tri-state area, it's illegal in the whole country because it's a federal law (Clean Air Act, no tampering with exhaust) that states cannot override.

So you are simultaneously confessing to committing crimes while insisting you respect other people? Something isn't meshing there.

My mistake. I thought it was a term for driving an ICE car.

They kind of proving one of your points though. Clearly you did not know what rolling-coal meant, you said so, and admitted it multiple times. Carry on, sir!

Can you say more about this world view? I'm experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance. To me, this is like saying, "I actively pour motor oil into the ocean, but I would never intentionally harm someone."

My mistake. Did not know what the term meant.

Except drivers don't even need to know about this law. As long as bikers know, they will improve their safety

I get the idea that we feel the social contract is getting a little frayed, but it seems like a pretty long way from Death Race 2000 ... I am still pretty sure there aren't many people on the road for whom the criminal sanction is the factor that's stopping them mowing down other road users.

I used to bike to work daily in Manhattan for years—rain or shine for two hours or more daily.

Drivers really don’t want to hit you. It’s a headache even if the driver doesn’t get charged, and experience bears this out; it’s also not enough.

What kept me alive while weaving through traffic with zero incident was going on two facts: I’m much harder to spot than another car; I’m as good as dead if I put myself in certain split-second-decision situations.

So I biked assuming the cars don’t see me until I’m certain they did. Constant split second adjustments and verifying on my part.

It was one-part thrilling and one-part exhausting.

Based on this experience I see way too many cyclists making questionable choices.

The real option for the regular cyclists is to make separate, cyclist-friendly roads but there doesn’t seem to be any appetite for this; and there would be idiots riding with heavy, fully motorized bikes that police wouldn’t be able to catch.

I'm not sure I see the point. Is bicycling so hard that the extra burden of having to stop at a stop sign and then get back up to speed stopping people from bicycling?

For a long time I thought "A bicycle is vehicle" is common sense and completely workable, and it is the law of the land in most places although judges and the police are often ignorant. (e.g. I see bicycle cops riding in groups on the sidewalk on the wrong side of the street three across... I'd have no trouble with them doing anything to get to an active crime scene or chase a suspect but they should be setting a good example otherwise.)

As it is bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists.

try riding a bike in the city regularly and then you will understand.

I've been riding bikes in the city since I was 6 years old. I was taught to obey the traffic laws and be respectful to other people who use the road although it seems like I'm the only one.

In college I raced bicycles on a team, and I would go out riding through the large city that I lived in all the time without problem. I think the issue is both sides don’t respect each other.

Drivers pass way too close, and treat cyclist like an annoyance. I see so many people online complaining about cyclist riding in the middle of the road. They do that so the cars will not blow past them closely pushing them off the road.

As for the cyclists, I think a lot of them have a mentality of invincibility, and they don’t think traffic laws apply to them.

A bicycle is a vehicle, and both cyclist and drivers should treat each other as if they are vehicles on the road and obey all laws.

Not only do many cyclists not think traffic laws apply to them, but where they have to share with pedestrians many display the same disregard for the safety of pedestrians that they claim drivers show towards them.

How many pedestrians are killed by bicycles in the US every year?

Certainly, significantly less than bikers killed by drivers.

Bikes and pedestrians are low-speed, low momentum, and low likelihood impacts.

I was walking in town this past weekend and someone in my group accidentally bumped into another pedestrian that was walking by in the crosswalk.

It was the most harmless thing and actually kind of funny because they were both caught off guard and immediately started apologizing to each other.

Just goes to show how severe a pedestrian impact can be, be careful out there.

This guy

https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a32257789/vehicular-cyclin...

published some stats back in the 1980s that pointed to remarkable high risks from hitting pedestrians, parked cars, other bicycles, dogs, and everything other than the fantasy cyclists have that a driver is going to crash into them from behind either from obliviousness or as a hate crime. (My worst bicycle accident was when I was riding in a thunderstorm at 1 am had no visibility and hit a parked car.)

He was influenced by the dangerous bike lanes of San Luis Obispo and experiences in California and the Northeast.

More recent statistics seem to show that drivers in the U.S. South are astonishingly bad and really do crash into cyclists from behind.

> More recent statistics seem to show that drivers in the U.S. South are astonishingly bad and really do crash into cyclists from behind.

Yes, I stopped road biking because of them. I'd deliberately stay in the shoulder (just right of the white line) and they'd swerve into the shoulder next to me. At times they also crossed into the oncoming traffic lane to fuck with me. Not a pleasant experience to share the road with those morons.

I have news for you: drivers don't think laws apply to them either. I've nearly been killed several times because of it, and I know people who have been killed.

RIP Dan Spira, one of the faster guys in Denver at the time of his death: https://www.bicyclecolorado.org/join-us/donate/remembering-d...

Thanks to Bicycle Colorado's advocacy, perhaps I won't have drivers intentionally trying to side swipe me next time I ride through stop signs in a safe (and legal!) manner.

Almost everywhere it is illegal for bicycles to ride on the sidewalk without dismounting but everybody from parents to judges and police make excuses for this behavior.

Cyclists crash into pedestrians at high speed all the time going down hills and going around corners.

In my mind it is a perfectly fair bit of judo to firmly grab the handlebars and dismount them forcibly if they are endangering the public this way.

The problem is that some people just don't feel safe riding on the street - and that's with good reason! I was riding in the bike lane probably going 25-30mph and was struck by a school bus who ran a stop sign. These drivers are supposed to be well trained.

These days, I almost always ride on the street but sometimes will cut over to the sidewalk in the case of a one lane bridge, dangerous intersection or a traffic jam. I always stop for red lights and usually wait for them to go green. In the case of rush hour traffic, there are certain intersections that are particularly dangerous. At these intersections, I often get cut off drivers who pass in the intersection and turn in front of me.

I've learned that stopping for the light and proceeding through mitigates these circumstances.

Riding on sidewalks is a lot more dangerous than riding in the street.

Cyclists imagine they get killed because somebody comes up behind them and runs them over either out of ignorance, hate or both.

That really happens in Georgia, Florida and places like that but in civilized places cyclists really get killed at intersections and when they transition from being invisible to being visible.

Bike paths were built in San Luis Obispo, CA and got a reputation for being astonishingly dangerous because from the viewpoint of cars bicyclists would "come out of nowhere" and they couldn't brake in time to stop them. Oppose that to a bicycle that is operated like a vehicle and is visible and predictable like all the other people.

The first thing many people note about the Netherlands is that they have separated bike lanes, but the most remarkably thing is that all of the intersections are designed with many different transportation modes in mind. Separate paths that connect randomly to the roads are dangerous, but separate paths that form a meaningful composition with the roads are priceless.

Right but that cyclist didn't crash into anybody. Some dude grabbed his handlebars, clearly gonna be a fight since the cyclist would be long gone otherwise. Streetfighting is stupid at the best of times. Don't do this thing. Act, don't react. Some people, I guess you might be one, live for this kind of situation. Can't you just spit at the guy?

I always try to give cyclists a wide clearance when passing them on the street and slow down behind them if it’s not practical to pass at the moment. I don’t really mind sharing the road with road bikers, they seem to be thoughtful about the impacts they are having on other traffic.

The cyclists that bother me are the ones riding fast and recklessly on the running trails around town. They can be a significant hazard to the joggers.

I vaguely remember a car ad, think it was Honda, and the crux was that trucks hate cars, cars hate cyclists and cyclists hate pedestrians. I can't rememeber but, maybe , pedestrians hate all of the above?

In other words, it's bullying. Today I was delayed by a lone cyclist, I didn't risk his life or risk hitting another car to get past him. I just accepted that he has the same right to be on the road as I do. I got home a few minutes later than I would have done otherwise and saved the same few minutes not being bored with nothing else to do.

> Today I was delayed by a lone cyclist,… I just accepted that he has the same right…

Cheers for your charitable, patient, and friendly attitude.

I'm just over the attitude I see from the decked-out "racing" cyclists that nearly run me over, yell at me, and generally act like the trail system was built for them and that as a pedestrian, I'm an obstacle on their turf. It makes me extremely hesitant to support changes that would encourage them to ride on the roads.

Oh, they're not all like that, I'm sure. It's enough of them that I end up just sticking to recreation areas and stay off the main line that runs through the metro area.

I live near a path like this. Its official name is the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway, which is unfortunate because it has always been multi-use. Neither the MBTA which owned the right of way at the time nor the four towns it passes through would ever have supported it as a bicycle-only resource. There are signs everywhere reminding people of the law that says cyclists must yield to pedestrians. That's Massachusetts General Law I.XIV.85.11B in case anyone is wondering.

Nonetheless, a significant number of cyclists constantly force pedestrians to yield to them, and almost always point to the name when the subject comes up in online discussions. Maybe a third or less of cyclists give audible warning when passing pedestrians, even though the aforementioned law also requires that and a pregnant woman was killed on that path after being run down from behind by a cyclist only a few years ago. (Interestingly, there's a strong gender divide on that one, and I think you can guess which gender is significantly worse.)

So anyone who tries to say claims about cyclists breaking the law are "myths" is simply not telling the truth. The vast majority of cyclists are sane and considerate. Some of them, such as the ones I've worked alongside on maintaining parts of that path, are even better than that. But there's also a substantial contingent of "bike bros" who absolutely personify the worst stereotypes. I see them every day. Real cycling activists (not those merely claiming the mantle here) don't deny that reality, or try to exclude pedestrians from the discussion. They try to educate and improve everyone's behavior, including their fellow cyclists'. That's how we'll get better bicycle-related laws and infrastructure - not by an entitled few putting their hypocrisy on display any time cyclist/pedestrian interactions come up.

I don't want to expect "true cyclists" to kow-tow to my superior vehicle. I just want to move through the sort of areas where folks bicycle without a mess and walk on the multiuser trails without a mess and drive/cycle/stumble down 50 of it comes to it, with nobody getting hurt. I've chosen a workpla e a way from my house and I take that on myself.

I see at least four reasons this is the reasonable policy - Bicyclists:

* have a much better communication with their surroundings: unimpeded sight lines, and typically less sheltered from surrounding sounds

* suffer more risk and do less damage in a collision

* lose momentum in stopping that must be spent getting back up to speed - as to the significance of that last point, it affects the speed at which you arrive and the exertion you expend doing so - you can look to the preferential user experience of electric bikes as an example of how different cost/benefit energy/velocity trade-off influence use patterns

Finally, it is in society's interest to incentivize bicycles over cars, as they exhibit far fewer costs on society, in the form of parking, pollution, and physical violence.

> lose momentum in stopping that must be spent getting back up to speed - as to the significance of that last point, it affects the speed at which you arrive and the exertion you expend doing so

Actually this is significant for a different reason. Starting up again slowly means you're slowly crawling through an intersection, and intersections are the most dangerous places to be.

To answer your "question," no, probably not, but it's harder work than a cyclist needs or deserves to put in, since the whole reason society decided stop signs and signals were needed in the first place is because they noticed all the collisions of larger vehicles that were harder to stop and did orders of magnitude more damage when they would hit things. If none of those are around, things are pretty safe.

Stop signs are designed for cars - because of the built in obstructions to their sight lines (e.g. pillars, trim, maybe passengers) that a cyclist doesn’t have, the speed at which cars approach the intersection (much faster, so less time to look, plan and react), etc.

But the issue for the bike (apart from the fact that stop signs mostly aren’t necessary even when they are for cars) is that it takes much longer for a cyclist to take off, so they spend longer on what you could call the ‘danger zone’ of the intersection (where they are crossing the path of traffic) if they have to stop.

The article and provided information answers all of your questions. The point is to get the cyclist out of a danger zone as fast as possible.

Why make this legal statewide?

Intersections are by far the most dangerous locations for bicyclists, in Colorado and elsewhere. The most recent data we have from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), which is comprehensive for the state from 2017-2019, indicates that in that time frame 72.2% of reported crashes between bicyclists and drivers took place at intersections or were "intersection related." When bicyclists are able to get out of the intersection and away from that conflict zone before a potential crash can even occur their safety improves.

The Safety Stop is safer for bicyclists and motorists alike. Research shows that the Safety Stop:

● Reduces interactions between motorists and bicyclists in intersections.

● Reduces crashes in intersections.

● Increases the visibility of bicyclists in the intersection.

● Reduces the number of bicyclist-only injuries associated with starting and stopping on a bicycle.

"I'm not sure I see the point." "Is bicycling so hard..." ... "bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists."

You see how you brought a level of animosity towards this relatively benign measure to increase cyclist safety? Yeah, that's why stuff like this is important. People with a "cars first" mentality have no appreciation for the vulnerability of cyclists and often go out of their way to ridicule them.

Despite the predominantly helpful info in your comment, you are also making assumptions about the parent commenter having an animosity and "cars first" mentality that may not be accurate or justified. See their comment elsewhere in the thread:

> I've been riding bikes in the city since I was 6 years old.

It's not an assumption, it's very obvious in his rhetoric that he prioritizes cars and the laws built for those cars over cyclists and any potential laws built for them. Hence, cars-first.

Even if he rides his bike everyday, he still views the world from the perspective of someone driving a car.

I'm the grinch of cycling ever since I blew my knees from doing rides that went up a mile vertically when I was 20. There was that time I was in agony riding home from a Ross Perot rally.

I went through a phase when my knees hurt just looking at a bicycle. Even today I avoid any hills, off-road or anything challenging.

I'd just like to point out the subtle use of language to objectify motorists and thus make it easier to ignore their side of the issue when these discussions come up. You can see it very clearly here:

"laws built for those cars over cyclists"

If one wishes to engage with people who like using cars, instead of dismissing or ignoring them, use motorist instead of car. I hope our societies are still human centered enough that we can agree that cars are used by people to do things, not the other way around.

I can't tell if this is parody or not.

It ignores motorcycles, who at least in my head is why the term "cyclist." is used. Trucks, Cars, bikes, cyclists. Last two slightly more humanized because you can see the human fly off of the thing in an accident, trucks and cars, driver wearing a seatbelt is part of the machine.

It’s a classic trope in these conversations: “I’m an avid cyclist, but…”

> you are also making assumptions about the parent commenter having an animosity

Not so. The OP comes right out and says this,

> As it is bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists.

Which is wrong, shitty, and straight up victim blaming.

See Forrester's insider criticism of cycling culture

https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a32257789/vehicular-cyclin...

> As it is bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists.

As it is, car activists seem to think that everybody is responsible for the hazard their chosen mode of operation imposes on the safety of less dangerous road users except for car drivers.

I think a lot of people might be confused by the term "car activists" because the car, as well as the attitude permitting its dominance, is so pervasive in the status quo, and passive/active support for the status quo doesn't register as activism in everyone's mind.

So to be clear: The U.S. is a country where, in many many places, the "car activists" won and successfully channeled untold billions and billions of dollars into imposing their ideology. The U.S. has built incredible amounts of roads, highways, parking lots, and interchanges exclusively for cars, which it has done at great expense by taking on debt and bulldozing existing neighborhoods. It has lax police enforcement and penalties for injuries and fatalities caused by motorists. It has tons of laws requiring businesses and housing to make accommodations for cars. And society passively tolerates the environmental, noise, and visual pollution cars cause, as well as the congestion they create and the people that they kill.

Not all vehicles are equal. Bicycles pollute less, are quieter, safer for pedestrians, cause less road wear. They should be given preferential treatment over cars in places where people live and gather.

In places where bikes are common, cars should yield to bikes.

In a purely moral dimension, it's hard to disagree. On the other hand from an environmental perspective the best thing to do with a car is to get it up to speed as soon as possible and keep it there to the journey's end. Cars that repeatedly slow and idle use their resources (brakes, fuel, etc.) less efficiently, and emit worse fumes. This is of course somewhat mitigated with electric cars, but not entirely.

On bike or foot, I especially hate to see the one last car in a line slow, stop, and wait for me. It would be less polite perhaps but big-picture preferable for them to just keep rolling.

I'm a big believer in letting different conveyances enjoy their superpowers. Cars can transport you at 80mph with a cage and climate control, motorcycles can lane split and filter, and bicycles have better environmental awareness (importantly because they are slow and can hear) and are less likely to cause serious injury or property damage so they can ride where cars and motorcycles cannot.

They're not the same and we don't have to give them exactly the same rules. In fact, we never have.

I don’t see the point because it my experience this is how bicyclists behave and always have. I’ve rarely ever seen one stop at a stop sign, they always coast through. As a rider myself I’ve done this but I can control my speed leading up so as to time it with the other traffic and cause minimal disruption. I’m also usually very clearly waving someone by and indicate given right of way as most drivers freeze at an intersection with a bike. It’s like the pedestrian rules apply and they have right of way by default with not other rules but that just cogs everything up. Anyways, I’m for a unified approach. Educating and changing people’s behaviors is going to be the most difficult part of this. Signing in a new law is the starting line and they seem to thing they reached the finish line.

Stop signs are located based on traffic studies of automobiles. They aren't necessarily appropriate for bikes.

Of course bikes coexist with those automobiles but other comments parallel to mine talk about some of the factors that differ from cars (e.g. open sight lines).

Prior to Oregon's passing of a similar law, I lawfully stopped at a 4-way intersection on my normal bike commute home and was rear-ended by a car who "didn't see me" and was presumably planning to blow through the intersection. Given my experience, I see laws like this as a safety thing rather than a "reduce the physical burden" thing.

I used to ride my bicycle to work most days. I like to ride. I am all for "a bicycle is a vehicle", but I still think this adjustment makes sense.

Being able to treat a stoplight like a stop sign is great. It's pretty common for stoplight sensors to not detect bicycles. It's also common for polite folks in cars to stop far enough behind a bicycle that their cars don't get sensed. It's not a good feeling to sit on the sensor loop, watching the walk lights cycle and reset, knowing that if you don't run a red or walk out of the intersection, you'll be stuck.

As for treating a stop sign like a yield sign, I agree with a lot of other posters who come citing sources: bicycles move slower and are at a lot of risk from cars coming up from behind. It's not about the extra effort to get started (though in a hilly place, I could see that being a problem for some riders).

As a cyclist, bike safety is hard. You're squishable and very aware of it, surrounded by big, fast, solid cars whose drivers often aren't paying close attention.

As a driver, bike safety is hard. A lot of drivers get weird around bikes (e.g., they yield the right-of-way when they shouldn't). Cyclists often aren't well-trained in the rules of the road. And the rules of the road often force bikes and cars to intersect in ways that aren't ideal.

So I think making it clear that yes, bikes are vehicles, but making a few exceptions to improve safety by reducing the chance of bicycles getting unintentionally hit from behind--seems like a win to me!

> Is bicycling so hard that the extra burden of having to stop at a stop sign and then get back up to speed stopping people from bicycling?

yes, along with other safety considerations.

>For a long time I thought "A bicycle is vehicle" is common sense and completely workable

no, the "vehicular cycling" doctrine is terrible. bicycles are obviously not the same kind of thing as motor vehicles; treating them the same is a foolish consistency. in countries that recognize this fact (netherlands, denmark), cycling is many times more common and far safer than in the US.

>As it is bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists.

pilots of heavier and faster moving vehicles have a greater propensity for harm and therefore should take greater responsibility for the safety of more vulnerable road users.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com