Change bike laws

[W. K. Lis]

From the San Francisco Bay Guardian Online webpage:

Let's change the bike laws

Should bicyclists be allowed to treat stop signs as “yields†and stop lights like stop signs? Tomorrow, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Bicycle working group will be pondering the question.

Idaho, recognizing the law of momentum is just as important as the vehicle traffic code, already adopted this practice back in 1982. And it’s working out fine, as guest writer Rachel Daigle pointed out in our special bike issue this year.

A piece in today’s Examiner highlighted naysaying from the Police Department about how this could increase accidents.

What if the exact opposite happened? What if changing the law to favor cyclists actually decreased accidents?

We all know most cyclists disregard the letter of the law because it’s really annoying to come to a full, unclipped stop at an empty intersection. Even Capt. Greg Corrales, chief of SFPD’s traffic company, was quoted in the Examiner saying, “There’s a small minority of bicyclists who actually obey the law.â€

So let’s look at that. How difficult would it be – in fact, how difficult has it been – to break the will of cyclists? Clearly, ticketing cyclists doesn’t work – it’s a waste of strapped SFPD staff and resources and I’ll be the first to testify that my ticket for blowing through a stop sign only created a lot of resentment.

As it stands now, every intersection where a bike meets a car is a free for all. No driver really knows how a cyclist is going to behave because there is such a range of compliance with the law,

Instead, what if it were understood that at an intersection a cyclist was expected to roll through the sign and stop at the light, then wouldn’t that improve things?

This isn’t a call to toss safety to the wind. I’m a cautious cyclist: I function under the premise that no one can see me and I’m in constant and imminent danger of being creamed by a car. I would argue most smart cyclists also follow that creed and should continue to if California law were changed.

 

[drum118]

From the San Francisco Bay Guardian Online webpage:

If that the case, then lets ban all the laws and let everyone run wild and do what they want in the first place.

We got cars running stops signs today let alone cycles.

What will be the call when cycles get nail by cars or pedestrian's by yielding the stop signs?

 

[CDL.TO]

What will be the call when cycles get nail by cars or pedestrian's by yielding the stop signs?

That argument just doesn't make any sense. If cyclists are hit by cars at an intersection then they didn't yield. I'm not sure how a cyclist would be nailed by a pedestrian. If you mean a cyclist nailing a pedestrian then yet again, the cyclist failed to yield.

As pointed out yielding at stop signs is the law in Idaho and it's also the defacto law here in Toronto for both cars and bicycles and there doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.

That said, I really don't agree with allowing cyclists to treat a red traffic light as a stop sign. That could really confuse things and breed resentment among drivers. It also wouldn't help cyclists maintain momentum, so what's the point?

 

[ShonTron]

I believe Ohio has the same law allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yields. I'm not so crazy of the stop and proceed allowance for red lights, but there's some merit.

If the cyclist fails to yield, then the cyclist is an idiot. I say this is a better way of separating the majority of responsible cyclists (of whom just about already, reasonably, treats stops as yield signs) from the dangerous idiots.

 

[nfitz]

Personally, as a pedestrian, I'm tired about cyclists cursing at me and other people because we are walking on the sidewalk in their way.

Cyclists think they are above the law - if we want to change the law and improve safety perhaps we should simply ban bicycles.

 

[TKTKTK]

How do you educate cyclists about this change in laws? And if you have this structure in place - why can't you educate cyclists about the laws as they stand now?

 

[W. K. Lis]

To obey the law, a bicyclist must bring a bicycle to a full stop by taking a foot off the pedal and placing it on the pavement or sidewalk, with weight on the foot and not moving.

How many actually do that at stop signs and at red lights? Most likely only at the red light.

 

[TKTKTK]

To obey the law, a bicyclist must bring a bicycle to a full stop by taking a foot off the pedal and placing it on the pavement or sidewalk, with weight on the foot and not moving.

How many actually do that at stop signs and at red lights? Most likely only at the red light.

Most don't even slow down.

What exactly does yield at a stop sign mean? Will cyclists have to stop if a car arrives at the intersection first?

 

[Hydrogen]

Personally, as a pedestrian, I'm tired about cyclists cursing at me and other people because we are walking on the sidewalk in their way.

Cyclists think they are above the law - if we want to change the law and improve safety perhaps we should simply ban bicycles.

As a pedestrian and a cyclist, I agree with your first point. Bikes do not belong on sidewalks and certainly should never be ridden on crosswalks.

I don't think bikes should be banned; rather, bad cyclists should be ticketed - often.

 

[Admiral Beez]

To obey the law, a bicyclist must bring a bicycle to a full stop by taking a foot off the pedal and placing it on the pavement or sidewalk, with weight on the foot and not moving.

How many actually do that at stop signs and at red lights?

On my motorcycle I always come to a full, two feet down stop at stop signs and red lights. I don't see why people-powered two wheelers should be any different.

 

[wyliepoon]

I ride my bike on streets following mostly the same rules of the road as I do driving a car, so yes, I do stop at stop signs on a bike.

However there is so many ways that bikers interpret the rules of the road. Some think that the bike should be treated just like a pedestrian (ie. they should only belong on the sidewalk), and those who think the bike is just like a car. One case of the latter is a biker I saw on Finch Avenue taking up the left lane. It's extremely hard to get everybody to interpret these laws the same way, unless the government decides to license biker, but given the strong attitude in favour of biking, it would be political suicide to carry out such a thing.

 

[ShonTron]

Most don't even slow down.

What exactly does yield at a stop sign mean? Will cyclists have to stop if a car arrives at the intersection first?

Yes. That's what yield means - approach the intersection at a slow speed and prepare to stop in the case you do not have right of way.

On my motorcycle I always come to a full, two feet down stop at stop signs and red lights. I don't see why people-powered two wheelers should be any different.

Uh, the fact that you are driving a motorcycle?

 

[TKTKTK]

Yes. That's what yield means - approach the intersection at a slow speed and prepare to stop in the case you do not have right of way.

Ok - but they don't even treat stop signs like that now (when they're expected to come to a complete stop) what makes you think they're going to start slowing down and heeding ROW when they're legally allowed to keep going?

That goes back to my original point: if you can educate cyclists about this new law, and how it applies to them - why can't you educate cyclists about the rules of law as they currently stand?

I have been cut-off by innumerable cyclists who don't respect ROW at stop-sign intersections, why would that change for the better?

 

[CDL.TO]

Changing the law is for the benefit of cyclists who do obey the law, not the ones who break it.

The written law and enforcement of the law are two different issues.

I have been cut-off by innumerable cyclists who don't respect ROW at stop-sign intersections, why would that change for the better?

It won't. That isn't the issue this is meant to solve.

 

[TKTKTK]

Changing the law is for the benefit of cyclists who do obey the law, not the ones who break it.

So what percentage of cyclists do you think that corresponds to? 20-30%?