Did the Cyclist Protest in San Francisco Help Their Cause?

It looks like San Francisco may be making an important change to allow cyclists to yield at a stop sign rather than having to do a full stop. Their recent protest halted traffic and may have been effective in illustrating the need for change. Do you think Chicago cyclists will be able to accomplish the same with a peaceful, organized protest? Could the Idaho Stop be in our near future?

Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/us/san-francisco-may-let-bicyclis...

For additional reading, see Chainlink group, "Idaho Stop": http://www.thechainlink.org/group/idahostop

Views: 1508

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eli on October 22, 2015 at 7:10am

Personally, I follow the rolling-stop method now, even if it's a violation.

What about those cyclists who don't have the luxury of ignoring the law in the near-certainty that the police won't use it as an excuse to bother them? Laws that are selectively enforced are always enforced the hardest against the most vulnerable people in the poorest neighborhoods.

Permalink Reply by David P. on October 23, 2015 at 3:26am

I think that attempting to mollify angry people as a basis for public policy is always going to be a losing game.

Permalink Reply by Irvin Steinert on October 24, 2015 at 5:32am

Good point.

Additionally worrisome is that some cyclists (many, I think) would then actually feel entitled to not stop if they don't want to because, in essence, that is what the "Idaho Stop" actually is: the cyclist decides if they want or need to stop.

  • What happens as two or more cyclists converge on the intersection and neither wants to stop?
  • Does the cyclist then feel that he has greater entitlement than the car? Is there not enough animosity between drivers and cyclists?
  • Will cyclist behavior stay the same or will a feeling of entitlement cause even more poor behavior?

I think we should be advocating for equal rights to the road and once that is clearly evident then we can advocate for special consideration.

Permalink Reply by Sam B. on October 22, 2015 at 7:05am

Ambiguity in signage and law will lead to even more accidents and injuries. To say "bicycles are vehicles and should abide by all rules of the road" is unambiguous. If more bicyclists drove like they were cars, obeyed traffic laws, and came to full stops at all red lights and stop signs, then there would be less accidents.

When bicyclists drive predictably, they are more safe, not only from vehicle drivers, but pedestrians crossing the streets with their children or pushing baby carts are also safer from bicyclists. I've been riding my bike to work for two years and the only bike accident I've seen was when a bicyclist ignored a stop sign and plowed into a young woman who was walking through an intersection.

When bicyclists drive unpredictably and don't stop at stop signs or red lights, they increase their chance for accidents. Vehicle drivers and pedestrians have just as much right to the road as everyone else; they deserve safe bicyclists.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on October 22, 2015 at 7:18am

I recommend looking at the video I posted in the thread. Idaho has had less collisions since they enacted the law and now (hopefully) we will see how this goes in San Francisco. 

The Idaho Stop isn't meant to "blow off" the stop sign but instead, treat it like a yield sign and yield to traffic that got to the intersection first. As cyclists, we experience traffic much more closely than if we were driving a car so I think a law like this could remove the ambiguity we have right now - a some cyclists following the stop, some yielding, some completely blowing through. As with any other law, it would need to be communicated effectively to all motorists and cyclists. 

Permalink Reply by Greg Valent on October 22, 2015 at 7:24am

Yasmeen, sorry, but, how is the word STOP ambiguous ?

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on October 27, 2015 at 3:37am

When Evanston puts lines across the road with stop signs, followed by a qualifier (in English) that says 'for pedestrians in crosswalk.'

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 22, 2015 at 7:48am

I've discussed Idaho stop with a few police officers I know.  The common opinion was that if EVERYONE used courtesy and common sense and yielded when it was appropriate, we would have a lot fewer crashes. They didn't have an issue with the idea of Idaho stop, but agreed with me that we see a great shortage of courtesy and common sense on our streets.

Permalink Reply by Irvin Steinert on October 27, 2015 at 2:14am

I agree, if an overwhelming majority of cyclists would at least slow down to the point where they could stop if need be and politely yield as needed then the cops would leave us alone. An "Idaho Stop" is not blowing a stop sign; however, a lot (A LOT) of cyclists are currently blowing stop signs even without the "Idaho Stop" law.

This is clearly prevalent in the suburbs. I believe that state law would have to change; the city cannot retract a state law that is more restrictive.

Permalink Reply by Greg Valent on October 22, 2015 at 8:19am

So, it's okay to blow stop signs because everybody does ? That's being on an equal footing ? If you see me riding or driving my Cherokee, watch out, I'm the one who stops for stop signs.

Permalink Reply by Scott Stelzer on October 22, 2015 at 10:00am

This is how I ride:

1) When I do not have priority at a stop sign: Come to a stop or slow enough to allow the other driver to take their priority. NEVER steal another driver's priority

2) When I do have priority at a stop sign, or when the intersection is clear: Maintain or slow to a speed where I can see the full intersection and stop/evade if required, and continue. This is what a yield sign means. 

This is what I believe the Idaho Stop simply legalizes.

Your term "blow stop signs" is ambiguous because it does not address priority. On a quiet county road with clear fields where you can see the full intersection well in advance you can go through a stop sign at 30 mph knowing your bike is the only vehicle on the road for miles.  But "blow stop signs" can also mean cutting in front of traffic and making a lawful driver in the intersection slam their brakes to avoid t-boning you.

This is the kind of terminology that opponents of the Idaho Stop use to muddy the difference between a "yield" and stealing someone else's priority.

Complete stop. One foot on the road. It's the law!

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 22, 2015 at 8:30am

When we have stop signs every block in places where the volume of traffic is relatively low, as we do in some areas, it's gone beyond the point of ridiculous. If I came to a FULL stop at every stop sign while riding in my neighborhood, my knees would be toast in no time.

When there is other traffic close to the intersection I yield and follow right-of-way laws. That's what is specified under Idaho stop, which also requires that we SLOW DOWN for intersections to the point where we can easily stop if needed - not an unreasonable requirement.  At busy streets, I always stop.  That's all I'd ask anyone else to do.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service