San Francisco May Let Bicyclists Yield at Stop Signs | Hacker News Reader

San Francisco May Let Bicyclists Yield at Stop Signs

nytimes.com

84 pointsojbyrne154 comments

As somebody who has biked thousands of miles in SF, this is a fun thing to argue about but it doesn't make any difference on the streets. Almost every biker already does this, and as long as the police (correctly) don't enforce the actual law, whether or not it is legal really makes little difference.

If you are a driver you shouldn't notice the difference anyways. If you get to the stop sign first, then the biker has to stop. If they don't, they are breaking the law. If they get there first, they get to go, but by not stopping they'll get out of your way sooner.

Also major Kudos to The Wigg Party [1] who came up with the idea for the creative and wildly effective "Stop In" protest. When you compare that protest to the moronic monthly takeover of the streets by Critical Mass it is like night and day.

1: http://wiggparty.org/

Part of the article addresses that other cities are looking to San Francisco to set a precedent before adopting similar laws. It might be defacto legal here, but other cities need a law on the books to get the same privilege.

Why does this make any more sense for bikes than for cars? This seems to be an argument for why the current rules for stop signs are wrong because there is an "obvious" set of cases where someone shouldn't have to stop.

Isn't the problem when the two parties disagree about who got to the intersection first?

There are many differences. This is in the "beating a dead horse" category of argument because the difference between driving up to an intersection and biking up to one is so intuitively different if you've done both of them. But here are some reasons off the top of my head of why it is safer to yield through a stop sign on a bike vs a car:

1) On a bike you are much more towards the middle of the intersection so there is more space between you and people potentially entering the intersection from the sides, so you have more reaction time to deal with them

2) Your cross section is really tiny and entirely in front of you so there is no risk of hitting something you don't see

3) You have a much better field of view because you aren't obstructed by your car interior

4) You can use your sense of hearing to listen for cars/ pedestrians / other dangers

5) You are going much more slowly

Don't forget the cost of momentum. On a bike stopping and starting is a huge tax on you where as in a car it's just moving your foot from break to gas.

Except that there is also the cost to the environment. Conserving momentum in a car means using less gas.

That's not an 'except' kind of argument, more 'as a second order effect, there is also...'.

Tell that to the cities that don't sync their traffic lights. It doesn't matter whether I'm driving or cycling, that always pisses me off.

Bikes are also more nimble, so you're a lot less likely to run into someone else by accident, and if you do, you're likely to only hurt yourself (running into a pedestrian is different, but you're not going to encounter a pedestrian in the middle of an interesection; cross walk, sure, but the danger there is the same whether you stop or yield).

Meanwhile in a car, if you hit someone, you're driving a big multi-ton metal vehicle and you're going to injure or kill anything you hit.

And don't forget that a bike is least stable when starting and stopping, especially for unskilled riders. Having to come to a complete stop at every intersection can be more dangerous, not less, especially if there are cars approaching behind the cyclist: drivers are likely to roll through the stop sign themselves and pass the cyclist right as he is starting again.

Police where I am don't enforce full stop for cars either.

The consequences of two "yield" parties disagreeing about who got to the intersection first are a lot less severe when you're dealing with vehicles that weigh less than their operators. We already have laws that vary according to size and weight: trucks are not allowed on certain roads and highway lanes.

4-way stop intersections are extremely puzzling to me. We don't have them in most of Europe (I suspect all of Europe, but I can't speak for everywhere). STOP/Yield signs always come paired with right-of-way signs, so much so that having a stop/yield or right-of-way sign on just one street of an intersection automatically means the crossing street effectively has the other sign on it, even if it is missing. I think this is because they used to be stolen from time to time and sold for scrap metal. In the case of an intersection with no signs, the person on the right has the right of way, and the person going straight has the right of way respective to the one making a left turn. For T-sections, the person on the main road always has the right of way. For more complicated 5- or 6-way intersections, they put signs, traffic lights or roundabouts.

I suspect that stop signs serve an additional purpose, of calming traffic in neighborhoods. Long stretches where car drivers don't expect to slow down, will increase overall speeds. This is already evident on long neighborhood streets that don't have stop signs, and where they are now installing speed bumps at the request of residents.

Perhaps not a planned benefit, but the inconvenience of stop signs also funnels car traffic onto the larger trunk roads, leaving the side streets for cyclists -- a cheap and cheerful way of separating car and bike traffic.

On the other hand, I suspect that stop signs are also just a cheap traffic control device that works with minimal case-by-case design, especially in neighborhoods with narrow streets. Alternatives, such as roundabouts, tend to involve complete re-design of an area with at least a 50 yard radius, for instance eliminating visual obstacles and parked cars.

Moving to the US from Europe one of the most striking differences I noticed was the near complete absence of yield signs. Where I come from (Italy) yield signs are way more common than stop signs at intersections (unless visibility is very poor). Also, traffic lights seem comparatively overused the US, even at low-traffic intersections. I always wondered why. Yield signs would be a cheap and convenient alternative to stop signs and traffic lights at low-traffic intersections with good visibility.

Take the UK rules for stop signs as an example:

"In the UK, stop signs may be placed only at sites with severely restricted visibility, and each must be individually approved by the Secretary of State for Transport."

They are rare, I can only think of one in the county my parents live in. (No doubt there are a few more, but on all the routes we often used when I was a child, there was only one.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#United_Kingdom

That sounds excessive. Has there been a political movement against stop signs in the UK?

Thankfully there has been a movement to reduce the number of road signs in general - see the 'Reducing Sign Clutter' [1] advice released the the DfT in 2013.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

It's to ensure that they're only used where visibility is unexpectedly poor; not just where some unqualified local road planner thinks people should stop.

The one near my mum's house is on a junction where the 500+ year old building on the corner is very close to the road (which you can see as you approach), and where the building bulges out round the corner (which you can't see — roll through the junction from that direction and you don't have time to see if it's clear).

Illegal stop signs abound in the US. Stop signs should only be placed if they meet a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) warrant. One or more of the following conditions must exist: (1) intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the regular right-of-way rule is hazardous; (2) street entering a through highway or street; (3) unsignalized intersection in a signalized area; or (4) other intersections where a combination of high speed (directly related to sight distance), restricted view and serious accident record indicates a need for control by the stop sign.

Here in Massachusetts, it used to be the case that stop signs had to be individually approved by the state. At some point, the towns were allowed to make the determination—and they frequently put them up as illegal traffic calming devices because that is what's the locals want (and most our towns have direct democracy).

This is definitely true. When I'm cycling in to work, for a 2-mile stretch I have a choice of two roads: one is a major thoroughfare with lots of stop lights and a lot of traffic, and I personally find it extremely irritating to ride on. My other option is a parallel road which has very few lights but a large number of stop signs, and has significantly less traffic even though in theory it could carry almost as many cars. The cars would rather drive where the traffic lights may allow them to continue going for long periods (the light timings are actually pretty decent), but cyclists definitely prefer the road with the stop signs.

I'm an American (San Francisco) visiting Saigon right now for work. The traffic is insane and the air quality here is horrid (even indoors!). I've been avid cyclist my entire life and motorcyclist for the past 10 years. I use either one in SF almost every day of the week.

Everyone here rides scooters and motorcycles. There is almost zero 'law' when it comes to moving around (walking, biking, car or moto). People drive on the sidewalks, wrong way, don't stop, 2 people a baby and a lawn mower, etc. The amazing thing is that while I'm sure there are a lot of accidents (although I have yet to see one personally), in general things _just seem to work_.

I've rented a moto here and experienced the flow first hand both by myself and with locals. I actually feel much safer on two wheels than while playing frogger trying to cross a street on foot.

I also felt safer here on a moto than I do in SF, simply because the culture here is to accept the insanity and not fight it. In SF the 'us' vs. 'them' argument has gotten so out of control that I feel like many people in cars literally have put a target on my back. I get none of that attitude here in Saigon and it is refreshing.

So if SF wants to let cyclists yield at stop signs because it is actually safer for the cyclist, then let them do it. If you hit the cyclist with your car because they did something stupid, you aren't going to get hurt and you won't be liable (just like before this rule). Many other places in the world have already figured this out and are working just fine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Interesting numbers. Vietnam is pretty high up there for deaths / 100k people. I'd attribute that more to the lack of proper safety equipment. Almost everyone wears helmets (required), but they are a joke in terms of quality and nobody wears any sort of armor cause it is too hot. Many people also ride two up which is the max allowed (3 with a baby). The speeds here are also just not that fast because of the traffic and quality of the scooters. Top speed is maybe 30mph.

In San Francisco, I strictly follow ATGATT and have had zero accidents, but a million close calls.

Not to turn this into that discussion again, but helmet do not substantially improve safety while they do significantly reduce acceptance of bikes as a mass transport mode.

The previous post was talking about motorcycles.

Was it? I took it to mean bicycles and light scooters which don't drive much faster than bicycles and share lanes with them; drivers of faster scooters generally do wear helmets, in my experience.

Well if we are talking about motorcycles, then of course, and my previous post doesn't apply.

I think the number of deaths in Vietnam is significantly higher than reported.

On a two week trip, I saw one fatality, two serious injuries and two minor injuries. This wasn't unusual, most tourists seemed to have seen at least a serious injury within a couple of weeks.

This seemed far more than 10× worse than the UK, where I lived for decades and saw less than one accident (even minor) per year, and where the police take a lot longer to clear things up (they do more investigation).

Saigon is attached to the rest of Vietnam, which is used to slow-moving two-wheel traffic chaos. SF is attached to the rest of the US, which is used to fast-moving four-wheel traffic. When you're making traffic laws, you have to take into account how visitors will commonly behave. Not necessarily limit yourself to their behaviours, but it's important to keep that demographic in mind.

You have a very good point. That said, it isn't the 'SF stop' law they are trying to pass right now. ;-)

Also, I'm a visitor in Vietnam and I'm doing just fine. It goes both ways.

You're really putting your finger on something here which is the American attitude and sense of entitlement that infects both sides.

I experienced what you are describing when I moved to London for the last 3 years. Congestion in London is really bad, not just cars, but public transport and pedestrian traffic as well. The city has worked really hard to optimize everything for the massive movement of people. Vans and motorbikes sometimes go onto the pavement (ie. british for sidewalk), and sometimes pedestrians overflow into the road. Buses often go into the oncoming lane to get around other buses with the full expectation that oncoming traffic will make room for them. All of this happens with a fraction of the road rage that you experience on much less congested US streets. Part of it seems to just be an unspoken moral duty and perhaps even comradery of everyone doing there part to help everyone else get where they're going.

That's not to say that it's all rainbows and unicorns in other countries—tube/rail commuting in London can be pretty traumatic, and if there's a strike or mechanical problems the knock-on effect through the system can be dramatic given how stretched it already is—but San Francisco transportion is drastically unoptimized (eg. BART 4-trains/hour per line vs Victoria Line 33-trains/hour) and it's not going to get better by quibbling over rolling stops and warring between drivers and cyclists. There was a time when the American people had the sense of duty and self-sacrifice to get on with massive transportation infrastructure projects like the Interstate Highway System (however misguided it may have been in hindsight), but now it's all about entitlement and NIMBYism and fighting over the crumbs from a decrepit and inadequate system.

I learnt to drive in London this summer.

Half an hour into the first lesson, the instructor asked me if I cycled regularly in London (yes). He'd noticed that I was yielding to oncoming vehicles some distance away, and said new road users often took several hours of lessons to get the hang of this.

It's possible to fail a driving test if you fail to yield to an approaching vehicle, which includes not moving slightly to the left to let an oncoming bus use part of your lane, and includes a bicycle if they have "right of way".

That is an utterly unscientific anecdotal argument on an important safety issue. Vietnam has over double the traffic-related fatality rate as the United States.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

This difference can be due to driving motorbikes, Vietnam has few cars. According to http://www.iii.org/issue-update/motorcycle-crashes in 2013, motorcyclists were about 26 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash per vehicle mile traveled and five times more likely to be injured.

If you aren't liable as the driver, and the biker is, how does it work if you car is damaged due to them not having auto insurance?

One of the (few) nice things about insurance is that when you are in an auto accident typically the insurance companies battle it out on your behalf rather than you have to sue somebody for damages directly.

I enforced rules would still play a part in accident litigation. If a bike blew through a stop sign, he might me more liable compared to if he was allowed to simply yield. No cop will ticket it but a lawyer would include that in court.

blowing a yield sign, into a collision, is as illegal as blowing a stop sign.

I got fined $150 for breezing through a stop sign on a bike once and since then I've been stopping at every single goddamn one. So if they're changing the law it makes me happy.

I live on the wiggle. The problem in most cases is not the interaction with cars. It's the interaction with pedestrians.

When bikes approach intersections at speed, it's pretty easy to spot the vehicles at or approaching it. They have bulk and presence. But to clear pedestrians you've also got to check 3 or 4 corners. Sometimes those corners are even occluded by parked cars as you approach.

So what happens time and time again is bikes don't notice pedestrians entering the crosswalk until it's too late to stop at the speed they're going. So they end up veering around the often very surprised people who did not expect a bike to blow right past them from out of nowhere. This is a rather disconcerting experience, and it leads to a HUGE number of complaints.

Note, I am a big supporter of proper bike infrastructure, think it's worth removing parking spots for it, think it's worth installing traffic lights for bikes, separated elevated bike lines, and all that.

But I'll say this: San Francisco is not Idaho. We have so much more density. The busiest bike/pedestrian intersection in Idaho can't hold a candle to the wiggle. Rolling through stop signs at even moderate speeds is not super compatible with heavy pedestrian traffic.

Bike density is way higher in Amsterdam, yet it works well. Then again, in Amsterdam all bikes have brakes and people go at a slower speed.

That is because Amsterdam has vastly better bike infrastructure.

"Cyclists rule in Amsterdam and great pains have been taken to accommodate them: the city is equipped with an elaborate network of cycle-paths and lanes, so safe and comfortable that even toddlers and elderly people use bikes as the easiest mode of transport."

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicy...

In this context, that statement is wrong. Cycle paths mostly keep cyclists safe from cars. They don't do much for pedestrians.

Worse, it seems that in recently years the city of Amsterdam is set on creating cycle paths in just about all streets but can't be bothered to engineer them properly. So the whole thing becomes a bigger and bigger mess.

How do you mean? I've been pretty satisfied with the cycle lanes. The fact the construction closes key roads for long periods of times is frustrating, are you referring to that?

(Taking terminology from opentreetmap), a cycle lane is part of the main road separated from it using paint, a cycle path is separated physically using a curb, parked cars, etc.

I have no problem with cycle lanes, I do have problems with cycle paths. To give a few examples:

Many zebra crossing have traffic lights that only apply to cars. Big mess.

Many cycle paths now have traffic lights placed such that cyclists waiting for a red light block cross traffic (bikes and pedestrians)

On many intersections, taking a left turn with a bike now takes waiting for the traffic light twice.

There are now many cycle paths with bikes on the wrong side of the road. Certainly on roundabouts that's an accident waiting to happen.

In many cases pedestrians overflow from side walks into the cycle path. It used to be that there was nice layer of parked cars preventing that.

Cars taking a right turn are a bigger risk.

A good thing is that parked cars taking off don't hit bikes. But that seems to be it.

Can you provide any actual examples of streets where the paths/lanes have been recently created or updated where its worse than before in the way of any of the examples you provided? Obviously there are issues, but I'm not familiar with the situation actually worsening anywhere, and some of the problems you mentioned are tradeoffs that mitigate other problems. (for example, yes sometimes pedestrians flow onto the bicycle lane, but I'd rather see risk between cyclists and pedestrians than cyclists and cars, parking separated cycling does create one issue but mitigates a bigger one).

On the whole it feels it's very sensibly done and some issues you mentioned I'm not familiar with at all (like crossings having only lights that apply to cars, unless they're super short crossings in relatively quiet streets where lights make no sense. Cyclists blocking traffic is something that happens less and less, too, little islands have been created for the front row, lines for the back row. On the contrary the new designs have improved this point over the past. Of course it's not perfect but specifically I'm not sure what proposals you have that'd be better).

Anyway specific streets/corners as examples would be helpful!

Take Raadhuisstraat, etc. from the palace to Mercatorplein and back and you should pass just about all misfeatures except for the roundabout.

Another nice example of poor design is the intersection Aletta Jacobslaan / Johan Huizinglaan

I don't follow, Raadhuisstraat is known for having no parking separated cycle paths/lanes, which you seem to view as the source of various problem like pedestrians overflowing on the cycle lane (as I understand it). For me the Raadhuisstraat is an example of poor cycling infrastructure because nothing is being done and mix cyclists with motorised vehicles, rather than the badly engineered new lanes that mix cyclists with pedestrians that you talked about. I don't know the rest from memory but I'll try to cycle it sometime soon, I've got a buddy who lives near Mercator.

I agree the corner on Aletta and Johan could be better but it's not terrible if you ask me. For Dutch standards you don't get much bigger intersections and it's relatively well done. I guess a roundabout might be better (like Vlaardingenlaan / Overschiestraat, statistics show they do really well. I'm curious what you suggest to do to improve it?

You mean suicide brakes? count me out!

No. Only racing bikes have those, occasionally. In Amsterdam 99% of people ride a normal bike, not a racing bike. This is the essential difference between the bike cultures. Car drivers in the netherlands also do not like like bike racers, but only a small fraction of cyclists are racers.

I though a lot of dutch bikes had the pedal backwards to Brake?

It's common, and I like them a lot.

Not when you are used to proper brakes it doesn't as you unconsciously move the peddles to the best position to start peddling after coasting.

They are in all aspects proper brakes, in practice better in many ways than rim brakes.

They do take some getting used to, but then so does everything else about bicycling.

"Coaster brake" is probably the more common term for this setup. It makes for a more complicated rear hub, but works better than calipers in rain and snow and gunk.

They're highly reliable and rarely wear out - no cables, no pads, and as you mentioned, no issues with water/mud which is a real concern in the NL.

The only thing you're sacrificing is stopping power - but it fits the riding style over there perfectly. Its flat, and nobody is in that big of a hurry.

No you just buy a bike with proper V brakes and alloy wheels - will stop you dead in a torrential downpour our just go for disk brakes if your doing off road.

They do (but this is different from a suicide break). I'd say most people use the pedal for breaking, the exception are mostly people who are a bit older and benefit a lot from gears, and somewhat wealthier people (as the pedal break bikes are usually a bit cheaper and often second hand), but even then I'd say I still see most people wearing suits who cycle, cycle on pedal break bikes.

Its even worse in London where cyclists undertake stopped traffic at speed - and never stop to think that pedestrains might be crossing.

And thats not counting the fixed wheel bikers who jump traffic lights putting them selves out of sync with the traffic light patterns and on a collision course for pedestrians.

And thats not counting the fixie riders that ride at 20mph plus though pedestrians at peak rush hour.

Lets' think about the record of your police in selective enforcement of traffic laws for minorities. If the norm is non-enforcement, and if I was black, I'd probably prefer it if the law was 'tidied up' in this regard.

As somebody who encounters a dozen cyclists every day, it DOES matter and the "do whatever we want" behavior of many, many, many, many, cyclists is a big problem.

Some of the stop signs on my path are 5-way, which are already screwed up enough without having to guess which random direction a cyclist will coast from (usually endangering pedestrians and cars alike).

When I am trying to turn right at a stop sign, a disturbing number of times a cyclist will approach from somewhere and decide to coast around the corner while I am turning too. Then I have to worry about seeing him when he should have STOPPED.

I also see cyclists turn from pretty much anywhere they want. They don't use hand signals, they don't switch to the driving lane, they just randomly hang a left in front of you while you're approaching a stop.

Cyclists expect to share the road, they need to obey the rules. It really can't be any simpler than that.

It make a huge difference whether or not it's legal. Drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians need to be able to make reasonable assumptions about other vehicles on the road. Whether cyclists should be required to stop at stop signs or not is debatable, but I'm not ok with the police deciding which laws they want to enforce. Enforcing the actual law is the whole point of their job.

This whole debate has become toxic.

Lots of people are going to be tempted to rant about seeing bicyclists run stop signs and red lights, just like the last time an article got posted about this subject. That has nothing to do with this law, which applies only when there is no interaction with cars anyway. What you are seeing is still just as illegal as before.

running down pedestrians is still illegal as well, no matter what vehicle you're operating.

exactly! And so is reckless driving. I'm looking forward to this law being passed in more jurisdictions.

I live a few blocks away from the Wiggle intersection pictured in the Times, and have been following the online flamewars (which primarily stem from conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians, not cars). The issue I see is that even the proponents of the Idaho Stop often don't seem to understand what an Idaho Stop actually is. An accident happens and people (including Morgan Fitzgibbons) immediately jump in and say "This is why we need the Idaho Stop!", even though it actually has no relevance to the situation.

So the risk I see is that average every day person who isn't imbued with traffic laws will interpret this as "I don't have to stop." Which is how a lot of bicyclists currently behave.

As you say, many cyclists fail to stop at signed intersections. Clearly the knowledge that "I have to stop" isn't having its desired effect. So who exactly are you worried about not complying with a relaxed standard?

Surely not the cautious people who stop at the Muni tracks on Church and Duboce while a torrent of riders streams past them across the middle of the intersection. The cautious ones already have enough common sense to observe the laws of physics.

Surely not the people whose goal is never to dab (put a foot down) between SoMa and Outer Richmond. They don't care much for stop signs -- or red lights, or lanes, or the product of mass times velocity.

So is there really a constituency of borderline nut jobs who currently observe stop signs but would suddenly turn into reckless maniacs on two wheels if yielding were "legalized"? I'm probably in this camp and I can tell you that I already roll through the Wiggle when the coast is clear...and assuming a car hasn't already waved me through. Sorry but it's hard to believe that allowing bikes to yield would turn me into a social menace.

I haven't driven a car in many years and cycle pretty much everywhere. I'm not sure why anyone would advocate not stopping at a stop sign. They are there for a reason. When I'm riding, I'm usually doing about 30 kph. Hitting a pedestrian at that speed is going to do some serious damage, both to the pedestrian and to me. Hitting something more solid like a car would be extremely bad for me and my bike.

One of the things that has gotten better over the years (especially in Europe) is that car drivers are starting to take cyclists seriously. They are legitimate vehicles on the road. When I was cycling in the UK, I was amazed at how courteous drivers were. Even on back roads, people would patiently wait behind me until the road was wide enough to pass. Often they would smile and wave after they passed me. Not everyone is like that, obviously, but this kind of mutual respect is what you want to go for.

IMHO this idea is a huge step backwards if enacted. What are the counter arguments (the article was quite vague on the details)?

You won't be allowed to roll through a stop sign at 30kph.

Yielding in this context, means slowing down, and going very slowly through the stop-sign, assuming its nobody else's turn to go. Every cyclist I've seen pretty much does this already if nobody is around. But the current law is that you must come to a complete stop, even if nobody is around, before going.

Same thing most cars do, at least where I live. If there's no cross traffic, nobody comes to a complete dead stop at a stop sign.

Hmmm... I admit that I rarely put my foot down if there is no traffic, so I suppose I am rolling through. If that's what's being described, then I suppose it makes some sense. I've been surprised a few times in my life and even when I thought I was going slowly enough to stop, it wasn't the case. Now, I am pretty careful at stop signs. I haven't really been able to see a good description of what "treat a stop sign as a yield sign" means in practical terms, though. "If you hit something or got hit, then you did it wrong" doesn't seem to be a great way to proceed ;-)

1. Yielding means going relatively slowly through the stop, probably <= 15 kph. At that speed, it's relatively safe to go through. And of course you have to yield to pedestrians still.

2. This has been implemented in Idaho already with no ill effects, and Paris is implementing a variant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

3. You have cause and effect backwards. Treating bikes as legitimate road users, with corresponding infrastructure, is what causes cyclists to respect the rules. People don't respect systems that ignore them.

The primary difference with respect to San Francisco is that every single residential intersection has a 4-way stop. This is quite different from the UK where (as far as my experience goes living in London for three years) the 4-way stop is almost unknown, instead you either get a preference to the busier road or a roundabout/mini-roundabout/micro-roundabout.

Cyclists here drive me nutty. Granted most places don't have bike lanes but IMO you shouldn't be on a road where the speed limit is 45 and you're blocking a line of cars.

The other day everyone was patiently waiting to get around this guy going 15mph on his bicycle, and once we did, at the next stop sign he just cruised to the stop sign in the 2 foot space between the cars and the curb and blocked slowed down even more cars.

I know my rant is a little off topic, but my point is that if you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards. Bicycles yielding at stop signs isn't right.

If you’re talking about San Francisco, which road exactly is it that has a 45 mph speed limit, and cyclists?

Most city streets have a speed limit of 25 mph, though drivers often go dramatically faster. (On my semi-arterial residential street, the speed limit is officially 25 mph, but between midnight an 6 AM, especially on the weekend, Uber cars and taxis tend to go 50–60+.)

They're definitely not thinking of city driving. Suburbs, maybe. They might be thinking of roads like Highway 1 in Pacifica and north of Stinson Beach. Stretches will have a 50mph speed limit, a narrow shoulder, and a grade that will drop many cyclists to 15mph or lower.

if you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards

The law treats bicyclists and motor vehicles differently in many ways already. For example:

* Bicyclists are required to ride "as far to the right as practicable". No such requirement exists for automobiles.

* Bicyclists are prohibited from certain roads, like freeways, unlike automobiles.

Of course, in these cases it is the motor vehicles that are allowed to do things bicyclists aren't allowed to. I suppose for consistency you are arguing that these these rules shouldn't exist either?

there still needs to be laws keeping them off roads over 35 or such; I ride a bike. Unless there is a dedicate bike lane being on a road with speeds like that is just asking for trouble even if it is long and straight.

also, tag them like cars. no reason they should not have tag fees if they want to use the road

Bicycle registration has been tried, and it doesn't work from a practical or fiscal perspective: http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/exhibits-and-education/s...

You never ride on highways? How do you get anywhere?

Where is there a road in San Francisco with a speed limit over 35MPH, but without a separate bike lane? I'm sure there is one but I can't think of it. It's definitely an edge case which should not affect how one thinks about the Idaho Stop.

Also, roads are primarily funded by general revenues such as sales and payroll taxes. The idea that your registration fees buy you access to the road is completely absurd. Registration fees in California cover a tiny fraction of road costs, and even registration fees together with fuel taxes are not even a majority of the money spent on roads.

This would make it impossible to do any bike touring at all. The longest trip I did was 2,000 miles and I can tell you: you need to go on highways, period.

Not the interstate, which is not allowed in many places (but is in some!) but highways, which are a different thing.

Also, it's simply just not the direction we should be going in (especially in the US, which is already overrun with cars and sprawl). We need to make the roads more bike friendly, and that doesn't mean adding bike lanes everywhere. How about lowering the speed limits?

People just need to get over the goddamn fact that sometimes another traveler is in your way, and that doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. The person in front of you turns left and needs to wait for other cars. The person in front of you turns right and needs to wait for pedestrians in the crosswalk. The person in front of you uses a slower vehicle.

Even assuming completely benevolent car drivers (which seems a stretch), i believe that separated bike and car lanes are the only way it should be done. It is unrealistic to expect such different modes of transport (i.e., very fast 2-ton metal boxes vs. completely vulnerable meatbags on frames going 20km/h) to interact well together. If anything gies wrong (again, assume benevolent drivers: the thing going wrong might be oil on the road, a tyre blowout, sleeping driver, etc.) then the cyclist is going to come off second best, every time. This is the main point to keep in mind. Cyclists are vulnerable, and should be kept away from motorised traffic.

(incidentally, i believe the same in the pedestrians vs. cyclists argument: they too should be separated. But i didn't want to get too off-topic)

EDIT: grammar

EDIT 2: Another point: it's not as simple as you are saying, where people should just be more patient if they're in a car behind a bicycle. That may be true, but when a cyclist falls, for example, and a car "rear ends" them, they are going to be dead with a non-zero probability. The other way around (i.e. a car stalls and a cyclist rear ends them -- this has happened to me) then it's again the cyclist who ends up somewhere between just embarrassed and in the hospital.

There are motor vehicles that are barred from freeways.

From: http://vespamotorsport.com/?p=654

In California, any scooter with 150cc of displacement or more is legally classified as a “motorcycle” and all motorcycles are freeway legal (see California vehicle code section 400). Any scooter with less than 150cc of displacement is not freeway legal, therefore, even though you still need a motorcycle license to ride a scooter in this class.

Similarly, Scoots (scootnetworks.com, those electric mopeds you see going around SF) are classified as, well, electric mopeds, and therefore are not freeway-legal (but they don't require a motorcycle license).

> "as far to the right as practicable". No such requirement exists for automobiles.

Incorrect. Cars are required to drive at the speed of traffic or get off the road. Example: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425

Bikes have the extra privilege of using the road at slow speed.

That may be incorrect in Washington, but it is correct in California. See CVC 21202.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c...

And 18-wheelers are treated differently than a pickup truck.

How late did you arrive at your destination? How much earlier would you have arrived had the bicyclist been driving a car instead?

Cyclists shouldn't have to share the road, because they should have separate infrastructure. Bikes and cars in the same space is nearly as dumb as cars and pedestrians in the same space.

> Granted most places don't have bike lanes but IMO you shouldn't be on a road where the speed limit is 45 and you're blocking a line of cars.

Then appeal for that to be made the law. Otherwise what are you doing deciding who should and shouldn't be on the road? Usually 45 mph roads are 2-lane, there is a perfectly serviceable extra lane for all the car drivers in a hurry.

> The other day everyone was patiently waiting to get around this guy going 15mph on his bicycle, and once we did, at the next stop sign he just cruised to the stop sign in the 2 foot space between the cars and the curb and blocked slowed down even more cars.

You were probably driving too close to him (with your rant, I wouldn't be surprised) and pushed him into that space.

> If you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards. Bicycles yielding at stop signs isn't right.

I agree, on a road that is open to both motorists and cyclists, no one should be forced to ride in the narrow space between the rightmost lane and the curb. Cyclists should be given the use of a specific lane, just like all other vehicles.

Not only is your rant off-topic, so is your conclusion. You just rattled off a whole list of irritants that have nothing to do with bicycles yielding at stops.

at the next stop sign he just cruised to the stop sign in the 2 foot space between the cars and the curb and blocked slowed down even more cars

If the cyclist passed you and even more cars already at the stop sign, that implies that if, instead of passing him, you simply followed him as you would have any other vehicle, you would have ended up in the same place in the queue of motor vehicles at the stop sign. Thus you saved zero time by passing the cyclist.

In city traffic, the average speed of a cyclist can easily be greater than the average speed of motor vehicle, yet many motorists, perhaps not understanding the difference between maximum speed and average speed, insist on rushing past cyclists at the first opportunity, safe or not, just to stop and wait at the next intersection.

I'm not the OP, but it sounds like the cyclist came up the edge of the lane, between the car and the curb, to get in front again. A car can't follow a bike into a 2-foot-wide gap.

No, no it can't. But as far as I'm aware, the bike is allowed to ride in the 2-foot-wide gap. And still, the bike isn't stopping you from going forward. In the case when there really isn't enough space to pass the bike - the road is just too thin, the guy on the bike is a dumb asshole and shouldn't ride on that road.

The point is that it did no good to pass the cyclist if they arrived at the intersection after you and then had enough time before the light changed to gingerly pedal to be in front of you. Even if your top speeds were wildly different, the fact that you both still ended up in the same place at the same time but further down the road, implies that there was no need to pass.

To belabor the point, you would be said to have the same mean velocity, but different peak velocities.

I'm guessing if they didn't have to wait patently to get past a slow bike, they would have gotten through the intersection long before the bike got there. The only reason the bike was able to get back in front was because it delayed them earlier.

>everyone was patiently waiting to get around this guy

Reminds me of the beginning of this video in California: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u64SFHVYyyg

Yeah nah, I bike a lot and that guy is a dumb asshole. Why wasn't the guy in the white car honking at him?

Let's make most stop signs into yield signs, even for cars. Being on edge (alert) causes drivers to be focused, which reduces accidents. See roundabouts.

Yes, please! Those stop signs everywhere are often times unnecessary and a gigantic waste of fuel. Let's just give one street the right of way and the other street gets a yield sign. If they are both major streets, there should be a traffic light or a circle depending on the traffic patterns.

circles and lights cost a lot more than signs.

Agreed. However, I don't think we would need many more off then than we already have. I was just trying to make clear that I don't think we should turn every intersection into one with one street having the right of way and their other one having a yield sign.

A mini roundabout in the UK is usually just a big white circle painted on the road [1].

It means "yield to the right" (driving on the left), and presumably costs a similar amount to other markings painted on the road.

The one pictured has very poor visibility, so it's expected that drivers will almost-but-not-quite stop until they can see. [2] is more typical. A driver where the camera is can proceed, since they can see the other car is turning out of the junction and none are following it.

Large vehicles like buses can drive over the white dot, since it's just paint.

[1] http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/7/75/Tiny_mini_rou...

[2] http://thumbsnap.com/i/LKjHG2eP.jpg

Welcome to Europe ;-) we have virtually no stop signs, just a priority to one road or lights when it's too busy for that. And in the last 20 years a lot of roundabouts were added to that mix.

Reading the comments on the article is fascinating. Drivers (of which I am not one) have a bunch of disdain for cyclists. I agree that some are just plain stupid, unconcerned for their safety and for others, but many drivers are just plain stupid, unconcerned for their safety and for others... and stereotyping in either direction. isn't fair.

I would also guess most of the drivers who complain live in a city that lacks proper bike lanes. Bikes wouldn't need to interact as much with drivers if we defined space for them.

Most bike lanes don't fix intersections, which is where my biggest beef with most cyclists in my area is.

I drive about once day a week and bike five days. I get to be on both sides, and gosh darn do I hate both groups. I hate a few drivers in all areas, and most cyclists at intersections. (t's a daily thing to see cyclists fly through an all-stop intersection when there's someone at the cross first. It's a weekly thing to see a car driving the wrong way down a one-way road.

That said, it's the drivers that are going to kill me. (Leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 26: the human driver.)

Seeing the number of other cyclists that just blow through lights and stop signs, I'm pretty sure that the majority of them must not even know that they're supposed to stop.

There are a few bike specific lights on my route to work and the number of cyclists that stop at these intersections is astronomically higher than at other, equally busy intersections.

>Seeing the number of other cyclists that just blow through lights and stop signs, I'm pretty sure that the majority of them must not even know that they're supposed to stop.

As a biker, I think we need to educate others on this. If we bikers want respect, we need to be willing to share the road sensibly. I have a bit of strong feelings towards drivers, but I also disdain bikers who don't follow the rules and just make it harder for the rest of us to garner the respect we badly need on the road.

Do schools I the US teach children how to safely ride a bike? When I went to primary school in Germany we had a cop cone by several times and we went to a parking lot that had fake roads painted on it and he taught us about traffic rules and we ride bikes around the lot while he gave us feedback. We learned about right of way, arm signals etc.

Not a thing where I grew up in the US

Another good idea (seen in the Netherlands) is to give red lights a countdown [0]. In my limited, anecdotal experience, people are more willing to wait when it's clear how long it'll take. Of course, this should be done in combination with bike-specific traffic lights, of which i am an advocate.

0. https://s3-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2...

You're right that bike lanes don't fix intersections, and much of the problem stems from the New World-style grid city layout. Roundabouts are much safer for cyclists, although not a panacea of course. It's also a chicken and egg problem: right now there are enough cyclists in 'cycle-unfriendly' cities so to say to be dangerous, but not enough to find safety in numbers. Inner cities in much of Europe are cycle-friendly because there are so many cyclists that they interact with other agents in the transport system as swarms more than as individuals. This makes the reactions from other agents very different.

It's a case of in-group vs out-group, self-identification, etc.

If you said "I'm not going to respect drivers because they speed all the time," everyone would think you were a nutter; but the same sentiment for bikes gets a thumbs-up.

There's a bunch of disdain on both sides, huge amounts of rule-breaking, etc. People are people, people 'bend' rules toward their own gains.

But the thing I want every car-driver to remember, when they talk about their dislike of bicycles, is that they are driving a very deadly weapon (as Doc Brown says in Back to the Future "He's in a '46 Ford, we're in a DeLorean. He'd rip through us like we were tin foil!"). An angry jerk of the wheel 'to get back at a that bicyclist' puts the bicyclist in the hospital with permanent brain damage.

I guess all I'm saying is, be careful out there.

Along those same lines, cyclists should remember that they have both considerably more mass and velocity than the average unprotected pedestrian.

Yes! As a driver I don't have very strong feelings about bicyclists, as a pedestrian I am terrified. It has happened very often that I had to jump out of the way of bicyclists that were running red traffic lights and stop signs.

A lot of people say these kinds of things, as if they are constantly dodging homicidal bicyclists, but the statistics of bicyclist-pedestrian violence show that it is quite rare, and not particularly violent when it does happen. If you had a choice, you'd be much better off with the world's most aggressive, negligent bicyclists than in a city full of average motorists.

I've nearly been hit by cyclists going at least 30 miles per hour running through red lights. They careen past looking dazed. In many cases I've had to jump out of the way at the last second to avoid a collision.

I've been actually hit by a car as a pedestrian. I believe the recorded statistics on injuries are very much in support of the comment you replied to.

OK, you were _nearly_ hit by someone on a bicycle, and you lived to tell everybody about it on the Internet. Meanwhile, 2.4 million Americans are injured in car collisions every year, and tens of thousands of them die.

I'll just leave this data here to back up my assertions for future readers. This, from Streetsblog today:

"From 2000 to 2013 (the most recent year for which official bike crash data are available), cyclists killed eight New York City pedestrians, according to DOT. During that time frame, drivers killed 2,291 people walking. There were two reported incidents in which people on bikes struck and killed pedestrians in 2014, when DMV data show drivers killed 127 pedestrians.

All told, cyclists fatally struck 10 people in NYC in 14 years, compared to 2,418 pedestrians killed by drivers, making cyclists accountable for .4 percent of pedestrian deaths."

Considering that in NYC cars transport hundreds of thousands of times the number of people that bicycles do, the pedestrian death toll for bicycles per useful unit of transit is far higher than that of motor vehicles.

And of course accidents will happen. I am referring to being nearly hit at high speed several times by cyclists who were blatantly disregarding the traffic signal. It's just needlessly reckless.

Also, you have not addressed the issue of why someone who is allegedly healthy enough to cycle would be so lazy as to want to avoid having to stop at a signal and pedal to get up to speed again.

It's not about saving energy. It is much more dangerous for bicyclists to stop at stop signs.

By the way, transportation mode share in NYC is only about 10:1 in favor of cars over bicycles, not 100000:1

I go to one of the largest public universities in the US. I try to be a good biker (stopping at worst, true idaho stops at stop signs, full stops at red lights, of course). In between classes, when student pedestrian traffic is heavy on sidewalks many bikers dart and cut through the thick of people. It definitely is an annoying experience. I think I've witnessed only one accident however. While, as a biker on the road, I've experienced near death a number of times and being actually hit once, although not violently enough to case damage to me.

So yes, there is a lot to be said about bikers from a pedestrian point of view and a lot to be said about cars from a bikers' point of view.

That works great until such time at you jump towards the side the cyclist was intending to pass on. Then you might get hit.

The proper thing to do when being approached by a cyclist is whatever you were doing up to that point. The cyclist can't read your mind. They can't compensate for every possible thing you might do.

They know you are there and it will hurt them just as much as it will hurt you if there is a collision. They are not going to hit you on purpose.

Judging by the extremely reckless behavior around cars that many cyclists engage in, I am not persuaded that they are conscious of their own safety or the safety of others.

Additionally, many seem to be in some kind of trance while careening through red lights. There is a "walk" sign for pedestrians, and there is no way you can safely stop to avoid a collision.

Also, if you don't have the strength to start and stop the bike safely, then there are other options such as a segway or motorized scooter.

What those cyclists do is they are getting extremely good at predicting movement of cars and pedestrians and finding a collision-free path. Bikes (both motor and human powered) are generally much better at evading than at stopping. That "trance" is actually deep, but deliberately unfocused ("sense everything at once" instead of "focus on one thing at a time") concentration.

Ignoring the obvious illegality, this would still be bad for mainly two reasons:

#1 it all breaks down as soon as a pedestrian does something unpredictable (which he of course has every right to do) and

#2 the external behavior gets imitated by people who don't actually have the skill (and who won't know they don't have it before they hit someone)

I do appreciate that cycling is fun and that it's a great method of transport. The part I don't understand is why someone would feel the need to behave recklessly and go through red lights and put pedestrians at risk. It just seems like antisocial behavior.

I've nearly been struck as a pedestrian by cyclists sailing through red lights in SF...

It's so dangerous and reckless. There is no way the cyclists could have stopped or turned the bikes to avoid me. I walk at a decent clip and so depending on the intersection, no way the cyclist would have seen me in advance either.

The part I don't understand is that if you are riding a bike and don't have the strength to start and stop the bike appropriately for traffic safety, then you shouldn't be riding a bike. Get a segway or a motorized wheelchair.

They don't really have much more mass. My bike plus me has about the same mass as a mildly overweight 6'0" man.

I think he meant kinetic energy, not mass. (E=mc^2 of course but probably not what he means here.)

A 180lb cyclist going at 20mph has the same kinetic energy as an 8000lb person walking 3mph.

I happen to live in Isla Vista, the college town of UCSB. Although not explicitly in writing, the rule of this town is that bikes have the right of way. We have somewhere around 14,000 cyclists that ride to campus and back everyday. From first hand experience this is a much safer system. The drivers are much more attentive at the wheel and the heavy bike traffic enforces that cars really don't go faster than the 25 mph speed limit

From first hand experience this is a much safer system

Right until someone visits thats not aware of this unwritten rule?

I also live in Isla Vista, and can confirm that this is exactly what happens.

When freshman move in, the first few weeks are filled with crashes. Also, every time there is an event that draws lots of out-of-towners (Freshman Orientation, Halloween, etc.) it gets much, much worse.

I live in one of the Colorado counties mentioned in the article as already having this law on the books. The law works fine up here in the mountains, and we have a lot of cyclists and a lot of seasonal traffic. Of course, we don't have the traffic of a big city like San Francisco. Still, we don't have a lot of bike-car accidents or bike-pedestrian accidents at our intersections.

The thing is, the stop signs are treated as yield signs. If a biker just blows through the stop sign without yielding right-of-way, they can still be ticketed. So as far as safety concerns, I don't see it making any difference. The people who would ignore a "yield" are the people who are already ignoring a "stop" and are subject to being ticketed if they get caught. If you dart out in front of a car and get hit by that car, you'll still be found to be at fault (and you're the one who is going to wind up in the hospital)

After seeing cyclists routinely disregard safety around cars and buses, and after being nearly hit many times crossing an intersection at the 'walk' sign by a cyclist flying through a red light, I have come to believe that cyclists are generally daredevils who lack the typical common sense about traffic safety and act like bullies around pedestrians.

If you are riding a bicycle and lack the strength to stop at a red light and then get back up to speed once the light turns green, perhaps a segway or a motorized scooter would be a better option (or a public bus).

Maybe pedestrians will start using canes and walking sticks ;)

Indeed.

Safety doesn't mean what you think it does.

Those aggressive cyclists? They're the safe ones. The people that get squished by traffic are the timid ones clinging to the kerbs and stopping at left-turn red lights.

Riding aggressively doesn't mean jumping red lights and playing chicken with pedestrians

You can do one without the other.

As I said, the data is clear. The best way to get squished by a lorry (the most common KSI for cyclists in city environments) is by following the rules.

Oh yes looking at the uk stats 90% of cycyclist deaths in London are undertaking HGV's (lorrys)

The answer isn't to let cyclists run stop signs, because the problem is that there are too many stop signs in the US.

Don't put a four-way stop on every corner and this won't be a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#Placement_and_standa...

This is a very bad idea! It'll cause far more accidents as the result. You'll have some crazy bicyclist who'll fully ignore the stop sign and fly through them.

The problem is that you have some minority of cyclists ruining it for everyone else. I have arrived on a stop sign in SF on many times. I do my full stop, I have the right of the way, only to see a cyclist just fly by. And then give me the birdy when I hunk at him.

At the same time, many of them just fly through pedestrians. For those who are not familiar with SF, the cult of cyclist in SF is becoming rather entitled. They have (not sure she is still there) a PR women that make the perfect deputy for Karl Rove.

The SF cyclist are basically the NRA of SF, IMO. They have a strong lobby and are getting everything they want. Including having a special privilege that puts them above cars and pedestrian.

This is a very bad idea! It'll cause far more accidents as the result. You'll have some crazy bicyclist who'll fully ignore the stop sign and fly through them.

What you describe is illegal now and will remain illegal if this law is passed.

The proposal is for cyclists to be able to yield, but not fully stop, if it is safe for them to do so. Blindly flying through an intersection at full speed is and will remain illegal.

The rule we have right now is much easier to follow and leaves nothing up to interpretation, yet SF cyclists seem unable to follow it as it is. I doubt that replacing that with a rule that makes things much fuzzier will do much good. If the existing easy rule is neither followed not enforced, how is the new fuzzy rule gonna be anything than a permission to do even more problematic stuff. I am really not worried about cars here, but am terrified as a pedestrian.

Exactly right. Stop sign is a simple rule to follow. You make full stop and then you go. yield is open to interpretation.

How is yield a fuzzy rule? It's simple: if nobody is in your way, then go. If they are, you need to wait till it's clear, then go.

It's basically the same as a stop sign, except you aren't forced to artificially stop.

In practice, many people treat stop signs as if they were yield signs ("rolling" or "california" stops). The real problem is when people treat yield signs like they just plain don't exist. Or when they treat them like a stop sign at freeway on-ramps.... but that's a whole other discussion.

I support this change - and am glad it became legal here in Paris a few months ago, since most people here already went through red lights - but it clearly is more subject to interpretation.

If a vehicle is already in the junction as you speed through at 30mph on your bike and swerve to avoid the vehicle, you could argue "I got through so clearly there wasn't anything in my way so I didn't need to yield". In this example sure we can all agree the cyclist is in the wrong, but for every metre further away the car is, and the slower the bike is moving, the more reasonable the cyclist's argument to continue becomes.

Personally I'm pretty good at keeping an eye out for pedestrians, I always slow down for stop signs unless I have a literally unblocked view of everywhere somebody could step/drive out from (in 6 months living here and cycling at least once most days I've only fucked up once, and even then I was perfectly safe avoiding people, just possibly gave them a slight surprise to see me curving around them as they crossed - and that was completely a case of mea culpa, I fucked up). But many cyclists here are pretty terrible road users, even when not going through red lights.

Then again, pedestrians here are just as bad - if I'm cycling near them I am constantly paying attention to where they are and whether they might step out in front of me, I've never known a city so full of people willing to walk backwards into a road without looking around first, it's astonishing. And drivers are even worse... and motorbikes are the worst yet. Seriously, it doesn't matter what vehicle / lack of vehicle you use in Paris, the majority of people seem to follow a "fuck everyone else, I'm the priority" mindset when it comes to getting around.

Yeah I've been hit multiple times by bikers ignoring pedestrians in the city, thankfully no injuries.

One time the biker got pissed at me, when he had a red and was making a turn in the wrong direction at night. He and the biker in front of him didn't slow down at all. I narrowly missed the first biker and paused when the next guy hooked me with his handlebar.

What's the context for the video link where some cyclists and a zipcar are having a standoff? I'm not sure I understood what was happening there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com