print page
email
share this
comment
bookmark
text size

Arthur Salm: Bicyclists don’t need stop signs


By Arthur Salm, SDNN

Monday, June 15, 2009 18 comments  |  read comments  |  post a comment
San Diego: Arthur Salm is an SDNN columnist.

Arthur Salm is an SDNN columnist.

H.L. Mencken defined Puritanism as “The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” A corollary might be “The grating knowledge that some jerk, right before your outraged eyes, is getting away with murder. Or queue-jumping, even.”

San Diego: sdnn-opinion2Scofflaws are deeply, almost existentially annoying. A deliberate offense, while minor, mocks our  treading of the straight and narrow; it suggests that we’re suckers for playing by the rules, and if there’s one thing no one wants as a building block of his self-image, it’s the idea that maybe he’s a sucker, a chump, a mark. The guy driving on the shoulder when the traffic has congealed into a motionless mass, zipping past six dozen cars to get to his exit, isn’t just breaking the law - he’s thumbing his nose at us.

Such actions tend not to arouse sympathy for a cause, if you have one. And some on the road do.

Tell me this doesn’t just twist your shorts: You’re driving along a surface street, one with stops signs just about every block. You’re dutifully stopping, or damn near, at every one, when whoosh! — a bicyclist blows through the stop sign without even slowing down. Then, up ahead, he does it at the next cross street as well. Makes you want to …

No, don’t do that. But you may well respond to the next “Share the road!” sign with a punchy expletive and/or the raising of a key digit.

Now, there’s a reason cyclists blow through stop signs, and it is explained, and a clear-headed solution suggested, in a short, crisp, engagingly lucid video called “Bicycles, Rolling Stops, and the Idaho Stop.” Since 1982, the state of Idaho has allowed bicyclists to regard stop signs as “Yield” signs. That is, when approaching an intersection with a stop sign for the direction of traffic in which they are traveling, bicyclists must slow down and, if necessary, yield to any vehicle or pedestrian with the right of way. But they can cruise (at a safe speed) right through it.

The video explains that, while bicycles are thousands of times more efficient than automobiles in terms of energy expended, like any vehicle they are very much dependent on momentum. Coming to a complete stop eliminates all momentum, and the rider must start from zero. The Idaho Rolling Stop law allows bike riders to maintain a good portion of their momentum when the coast is clear, thus making trips by bike even more efficient. The law’s been in effect for about 27 years now, and the state’s bicycle safety record is outstanding.

More from Arthur Salm

American vs. European health care - Part I

American vs. European health care - Part II

Opinion section

Absent from the video, unfortunately, is the very good argument that when you’re on a bike, your field of vision is far wider than when you’re driving a car. There’s simply nothing there to obstruct your view; it’s just you and the outside world. You can detect road sounds better, too, unless you’ve got iPod buds in your ears, in which case, Are you out of your mind?

Now for the bad-news kicker: The video was produced as part of a campaign to persuade the Oregon legislature to enact a similar law, but a couple of months ago the bill died in committee for an unspeakably idiotic reason. The Web site BikePortland.org reported that a fairly small number of people e-mailed their representatives, all in a snit because they didn’t want cyclists to get “special rights.” There’s no way to know for sure, but I suspect that some of that bile was stewed up in the gizzards of resentful drivers who saw bicyclists doing their “stop-sign?-I-don’t-think-so” thing.

The bill may also have failed because of these shaky times. BikePortland.org said that “the Idaho Stop Law idea was almost certainly victim to a sense in Salem that how bicycles treat stop signs simply wasn’t a priority in light of a $4 billion budget shortfall facing our state.” The legislators, the article suggests, were afraid of being seen as dallying with petty, inconsequential stuff when there are big problems to be dealt with.

Well, there are small problems to be dealt with, too, and this one shouldn’t take more than about 20 minutes. The video’s a little over 4:18; I bet our team of crackerjack lawmakers in Sacramento could take a look at it, then whip up a California Rolling Stop ordinance in the remaining 15:42. We’re trying to get cars off the road, right? Save energy? Clean up the air? Encourage people to exercise and stay healthy?

“This ain’t Idaho, buddy!” you might shout at the next bicyclist (Not me. Probably.) you see blowing through a stop sign. And it’s not. But it ought to be. In some respects - make that, one - anyway.

Arthur Salm is an SDNN columnist.

Tags:

This entry was posted on Monday, June 15th, 2009 at 1:48 pm and is filed under Columns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

READER COMMENTScomment rules | moderation | privacy

Comment by: humanpower Posted: June 15, 2009, 10:44 pm

Hey, a local columnist writing sense about bicycling! The “Idaho Stop” is a great idea and one that safe, responsible cyclists everywhere, including here in San Diego, often employ. Most drivers will never even be aware that a bicyclist is using a rolling stop if the rider is doing it safely. Watch those of us who ride safely: our heads are up, we’re engaged with the traffic around us, we’re aware of our surroundings. How many drivers can say that?

Comment by: Paul M Bowers Posted: June 16, 2009, 5:02 am

Great!

Then motorcyclists should get the same privilege? We have a great field of vision, we’re also assisted by momentum. We’re engaged with the traffic around us, our heads are up, too.

Thanks for promoting this!

Comment by: Paul M Bowers Posted: June 16, 2009, 7:23 am

Oh, wait! Since bikes are so efficient, maybe we assign a ratio of some sort, based on the efficiency of the vehicle and the requirement to stop, or pause at a stop sign. If you’re riding a heavy bike, momentum is important, so you don’t have to stop at all. A carbon fiber bike is less momentum demanding, so it must at least pause, or “fermata” at a STOP sign. Motorcycles, also aware of their surroundings (and how many drivers can say that??) are not required to stop entirely, but may continue to roll if they wish. Hybrids like the Prius are very efficient, so maybe there should be a special rule for them. The hybrid SUVs are not really as efficient, but still merit special consideration over, say, a 1970 F250 pickup.

Comment by: humanpower Posted: June 16, 2009, 8:21 am

Paul, I think you’re having just the reaction this piece is trying to counteract. Giving bicyclists this common sense law doesn’t harm anyone. Can you imagine a single circumstance in which this sort of rolling stop by a bicyclist, *safely executed*, would negatively impact you as the rider of a motorcycle or driver of a car? It’s not about taking rights away from anyone or giving anyone special rights, it’s about crafting sane traffic laws that take non-motorized traffic into consideration.

Comment by: Paul M Bowers Posted: June 16, 2009, 10:06 am

Ok, I’ll buy that. But certainly bicyclists (which I have been for many, many years) are not the only class of citizen capable of *safely executing* a rolling stop. I’m not saying it would negatively impact [there's THAT word again] me as a rider or driver. Truth is, Idaho may be a great place for laws like this, but Southern California is not.

Comment by: humanpower Posted: June 16, 2009, 10:50 am

Paul, I don’t buy the argument that SoCal is fundamentally different from other places. The same general rules of the road apply here as in Idaho. For bicycles, a rolling stop *can* make sense (not always, of course–we’re not talking about *every* stop sign or light) no matter where you are, San Diego or Boise. For cars and motorcycles, which are a good deal heavier and harder to stop in an emergency than bicycles, a rolling stop doesn’t make sense. And keep in mind that most bicyclists (like you, it seems) are drivers, too. People who bicycle aren’t a separate “class of citizen” but when they get out of their cars and onto their bicycles, they do represent a different kind of vehicle to which different laws can reasonably be applied.

Comment by: michael-leonard Posted: June 16, 2009, 11:05 am

Can another sometimes cyclist (not motor) join in?
Paul, in arguing for allowing a rolling stop for motorclcles, you ignore the fact that they, like cars and trucks are *motor* vehicles. The rolling stop only makes sense for muscle-powered conveyance.

Comment by: Fulton Martin Posted: June 16, 2009, 3:31 pm

Motorcycles are like bicycles in that they’re unstable at rest; for that reason a rolling stop makes sense, if only to prevent having to put a foot down. But the ‘momentum’ argument is less compelling, since a twist of the wrist requires less effort than the pump of a leg.

Seeing a bicycle blowing through a stop sign without making any visible head checks for traffic *does* piss me off, though.

Comment by: Serge Issakov Posted: June 16, 2009, 3:51 pm

While bicyclists are the only ones who are hindered _physically_ by all these unnecessary stops, the root problem hampers everyone, and it is TOO MANY UNNECESSARY STOP SIGNS.

When was the last time you even saw a yield sign at a regular intersection? Why don’t we have more of those?

Four-way stops are the bane of our modern existence. Pick a 4-way stop instersection, yank the stops signs, pick one of the two streets to have traffic on it be given priority, and put yield signs for the traffic on the other street. Done, everybody benefits, and nobody has to be given special treatment.

It’s not like we bicyclists need to give motorists yet another reason to be annoyed by us being on “their” roads.

Down with STOP signs; up with YIELD signs!

Comment by: DynamicDeebytheSea Posted: June 16, 2009, 3:58 pm

I actually like to stop at stops signs and red (or yellow lights) because call me lazy, I enjoy stopping for a little rest now and then. Actually, I stop to TRY and create good PR between me the ever growing number of hostile drivers. I feel I do get treated better on my bike when I behave this way. However, on quiet mornings with no cars around, I have a couple of lights I must go through because without cars around (which I prefer) I do not trigger some lights to change green. So this law would help in these cases.

Comment by: Jon Isaacs Posted: June 16, 2009, 5:48 pm

Hi Folks…

As a long time cyclist, I stop at stop signs and stop lights and I believe there are good reasons to stop.

Most cyclists I see blow stop signs and stop lights are to the right of the straight through traffic lanes. This makes them vulnerable to the “right hook”, a vehicle turning right. The right hook is one of the major causes of collisions between cars and bicycles and it is easily avoided if the cyclist uses “destination positioning” for lane choice. Running stop signs gets more complicated if one uses destination positioning.

The Idaho law allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, this does not mean they should “blow a stop sign at speed” as I see many do, a yield sign means that you should be prepared to stop and only proceed when it is obvious that the road is clear. Yet what I see already are riders who are assuming the road is clear even when it is not.

The idea that “Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles” means that bicycles are part of the flow of traffic, not just in the gutter as many are want to believe. Fitting in with the flow of traffic is best done if one follows the same rules as the rest of traffic.

I once read that Miguel Indurain, the 5 time winner of the Tour de France, stopped at all the stop signs when he was training. I don’t know if that was true but I figure stopping is just not that big a deal and maybe it’s true, if he could do it, I can certainly do it. It’s a good habit to develop. When one expects to stop at a stop sign, then one is prepared for the unexpected. When one expects to run a stop sign, then one is not prepared for the unexpected and it can lead to trouble.

Jon Isaacs

Comment by: James Kleba Posted: June 17, 2009, 8:17 am

The Video and the fact that a bicyclist are more aware (less hindered) of their surroundings make a pretty good case for the Idaho stop. I would add that a bicyclist is also exposed to numerous other threats while stopped and is simply better off spending les time in the intersection.

I would propose another law. If you can throw a rock from one four way light to the next, they are to close. This is become way to common. Yield signs and roundabouts should be the first choice in residential areas. They save energy and maintenance cost.

Comment by: Deborah Posted: June 17, 2009, 4:07 pm

Thanks to Jon Isaacs for writing a reasoned argument for bicyclists stopping at the signs. And I appreciate it that he was so much calmer about it than I would be. I strongly resent cyclists whose careless behaviors put me in danger of hurting them and living the rest of my life with undeserved guilt.

Comment by: JosephVann Posted: June 18, 2009, 9:44 am

Any driver who has nearly hit a bicycle rider who appeared out of nowhere - at top speed - just as the driver was abolut to turn right at a stop-signed intersection knows what an arrogant - and stupid - idea it is that bicyclists should not follow the general rules and flow of traffic.

Comment by: Mark Posted: June 18, 2009, 9:48 am

The problem with Salin’s argument is that changing the law is not going to instill common sense in the majority of cyclists I see on the road. Too many ride with a complete sense of arrogance…blowing through stop signs, blocking lanes by not riding single file, not riding in available bike lanes, riding in the opposing lane on mountain descents, etc. They may have more visibility/awareness but few seem to use it. I used to ride quite a bit and have many friends that ride still and unfortunately, it just seems their prevailing attitude is they own the road.

Comment by: Out-of-car experiences: Biking to work in San Diego Posted: September 8, 2009, 1:33 pm

[...] related: Arthur Salm: Bicyclists don’t need roads | Arthur Salm: Bicycle freeways [...]

Comment by: Out-of-car experiences: Biking beyond the commute Posted: September 14, 2009, 2:33 pm

[...] stories: Out-of-car experiences: Biking to work in San Diego | Arthur Salm: Bicyclists don’t need stop signs | Arthur Salm: Bicycle freeways [...]

Comment by: Patrick Posted: September 15, 2009, 10:39 am

The day automobile drivers stop using cell-phones, stop putting make-up on WHILE DRIVING and actually come to complete stops at stop signs, is the day I’ll start wasting my time and energy by coming to a complete stop at a ridiculously placed stop sign while riding my bike.

How many people driving autos do you see come to a complete stop at a stop sign in California? I’ve observed this over the years and I’d honestly say about 5-7 percent do.

Post a comment