The proposed Idaho Stop Sign law has died a death in Salem, having failed to win adequate support from legislators in the House of Representatives.
The proposed law, which would allow bicyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs, got a contentious hearing in the house transportation committee back in March and went back for some amendments [“Stop, Collaborate & Listen,” News, March 26].
But Doug Parrow, legislative committee chair for the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, told Bikeportland.org yesterday that continued lack of support from lawmakers was related to concerns about giving cyclists “what they viewed as special rights,” and that the bill has effectively died.
We’ve got calls in to Parrow, BTA director Scott Bricker, and state rep Jules Bailey who was pushing the bill, to find out more.
Update, 11:56: Parrow adds that negative reactions by bicyclists to a proposed bicycle registration bill in March may have steeled some legislators against the stop sign idea. “In some cases bicyclists swore at lawmakers over that bill,” says Parrow. “And the reality of the situation is that some of those comments may have frustrated some of the people from whom we needed support on the stop sign bill.”
Ironically, Parrow thinks the swearing may have been wasted. “It’s never appropriate,” he says. “But in this case we were fairly confident that the bicycle registration bill was set to die, regardless.”
See. If only you bicyclists would learn to rein in those potty mouths of yours, you might get something done in this state.
Update, 12:09:
“I do think that there were some legislators whose perceptions were negatively skewed towards bicyclists over that [bicycle registration] issue,” says BTA executive director Scott Bricker. “Just through the media, word got out, and I know several legislators who had co-sponsored the bill got really negative reactions. They were anything from a typical ‘don’t support this’ to much more of a personal attack on some of the legislators.”
“When you start getting real personal—making nasty comments or using foul language, that really starts to irk the legislators,” Bricker continues.
Bricker mentions a specific blog post on Bikeportland.org, an interview with Representative Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach) about the proposed Bike Registration bill. Krieger, a retired state police officer of 28 years service, was slammed in the comments to the post:
“Fun law. Retarded sponsor. Don’t retired state patrol officers have anything better to do?” wrote one commenter. Krieger was invited by another commenter to “shut his hypocritical and lie-stricken mouth.” “This Krieger man is dumber than a block of wood,” wrote another commenter. “His goofy ideas about legislation should be met with ridicule rather than polite questioning.” “OMG, what a douchebag,” wrote another commenter. “Every single one of his talking points is utter squablewalish.” “What a mouthful of bullshit it was for him to say bikes are a great form of transportation when he so clearly wants them off the road,” wrote someone else. “I think Krieger’s just smoked a little too much of that crack stuff and his brain’s been addled,” wrote a late responder.
“There’s an aspect to this which is staying within the blog,” says Bricker. “But there’s another aspect that when legislators are getting attacked by many of these folks who aren’t even in their district, it’s an extra rub.”
Krieger’s wife and legislative assistant, Colleen Krieger, tells the Mercury she thinks the negative reaction to her husband’s registration bill among the bicycling community may have actually garnered support for it. “I’ve actually heard people say ‘I wasn’t interested in this, but when I started hearing the nonsense and the threats,’ they said maybe we need to look at these people,” she says. “They put out a lot of misinformation about the bill.”
We’ve got a call in to Bikeportland.org editor Jonathan Maus to get his take on this angle.
Update, 1:24:
“It’s pretty amazing. I think anyone who says negative comments about the bicycle registration bill had an impact on the Idaho stop sign law, that’s a mis-perception,” says Maus. “That looks to me, kind of like scapegoating.”
“Bikeportland is just a vessel for how people feel about things,” Maus continues. “Things said about bicyclists by representative Krieger and his wife were equally negative, but they were just said in a politically acceptable way. To say that folks shouldn’t then voice their opinions about them is just disingenuous.”
“I take a lot of things into account when I’m looking at comments,” Maus says.
Update, 5:21
House Representative Jules Bailey, (D-Portland), who brought the bill forward in the house, says it has not been his experience that the bill failed because of citizen opposition to the bike registration bill.
“I felt like we had some pretty good momentum on this,” says Bailey. “But there was a change in staffing at the BTA, and there was a little bit of a disconnect on this during that period, when resistance to the idea really solidified.”
Bailey seems to be referring to the departure of former BTA lobbyist Karl Rohde from the organization earlier in April.
“[Rohde] was really working it hard in a way that legislators don’t really have the time to do,” Bailey continues. “There was enough of a lag that we decided to let it go and try again next session.”
“I think it just may take more time to get people comfortable with the idea,” he says.
It’s good to know our representatives want bikes and cars to be treated equally, with no special treatment for one over the other.
I look forward to going out this weekend and cycling down through the Vista Ridge tunnel and then up over the Marquam Bridge.
So when are they going to start repealing all of those damn special rights that the pedestrians get?
Does this mean bikes will now resume stopping at stop signs?
Parrow’s acting like a sore loser.
BTA presented this bill without explaining WHY we need it– so it instantly got beat down as “special treatment” and such for bikes.
The way I see it, the bill would have protected bicyclists from being targeted by police when riding in a manner that, while currently illegal, is perfectly safe and reasonable. I’m not talking about “blowing through stop signs” but slowing, making sure there’s no oncoming traffic of any type, and then proceeding. It’s how most bicyclists already ride when at small intersections. And it’s similar to how many drivers drive.
But what’s the problem? Cops taking enforcement to an extreme. You see this when they set up “stings” in Portland (or target downtown bike messengers). You see this in small rural communities where the police will camp out at a deserted intersection on a sunny day and fill their coffers when roadies come through.
These practices generate a lot of ill will between cops and cyclists yet rarely, if ever, promote public safety. At times it’s essentially police harassment– a technicality enforced only when the authorities feel like it.
This bill would have clearly defined when cops can ticket bikes– while promoting safe behavior. But the BTA did a shitty job of explaining it, and all the old grumpus voices in the mainstream media wrung as much sensationalistic crap out of it as you’d expect.
So whatever, BTA. I say Portland cyclists should focus their efforts on getting the PPB to commit to a standard of enforcement. Forget the rest of the state for now– let’s clamp down on unfair enforcement practices in our community and work from there.
I do hope those who are opposed to “special rights”, for the sake of consistency, will now lobby to repeal those pesky “special rights” laws which ban nonmotorized vehicles from most urban freeways, as well as removing any barriers to pedestrians from crossing an intersection which cars may cross but pedestrians currently may not.
Why would cops bother with harassing bikers when they can harass pedestrians in perpetuity for jaywalking.
The reason cops are putting stings on bikers are because there have been accidents, and public pressure to do so.
If you’ve ever waited for buses on the mall on 3rd and 4th, you have seen bikers [messengers] swerve in and out of traffic all the time, and scream that an SUV or bus have cut them off. Look, I’m a biker, but those guys are fucking assholes, and put *my* life at potential risk because of their shitty biking and some car is going to take it out on me one day.
Also, I’d happily pay a registration fee/tax, if it meant that the bike lanes are repainted yearly and we get more projects devoted to us as a result. I will absolutely put my money where my mouth is.
Bricker is a prime example of how the BTA is a joke. I mean, really, he’s blaming blog comments for his poorly-handled (and, to be honest– pretty unlikely anyway) bill failing? Hilarious.
Wayne Kreiger’s bill is even more knee-slappingly amusing. And it generated exactly the response it deserves– old politician from a conservative district fails to undstand anything outside of his myopic little world and proposes a bunch of laughable stuff that only appeals to curmodgeons as ignorant as himself?
God, this is cute. Just precious. Hoopsnake 101.
I supported this legislation but never expected it to pass due to ignorance in Salem and bicycle activists generally being petulant little bitches.
Wow, the special rights bs is usually only trotted out as an argument against gays. Now bicyclists are the new gays; that’s what they get for wearing tightpants.
Plus, everybody knows in Portland that when a car reaches a curb it is supposed to sit there as long as possible until all movement in any direction has ceased and the driver has reached a state of Zen Oneness.
Wait, does this mean bike legislation is the first and only time these politicians had mean things said to them? Because you get the sense it’s a new experience for them.
I have to imagine that beer tax law garnered them a few surly drunk-dials. Or maybe beer really does make you a jolly good fellow.
Like most cyclists, I tend to avoid arterial streets and ride parallel streets which happen to have a lot of stop signs. I am strongly motivated to do this because of the dangerous driving and pollution exhibited by motorists, otherwise I would take the shortest and fastest route. The “stop as yields” effort is basically a response to this, so that cyclists can make their way faster and with less effort when it doesn’t create more danger. In the end, it is careless driving and the unpleasantness of auto exhaust that created this need.
“So when are they going to start repealing all of those damn special rights that the pedestrians get?” –tk
Oh, you mean like the “right” to continually dodge cars, buses, and *bicyclists* who pay us no mind and continually run through stop signs and crosswalks?
If trying not to get smeared across the grill of an automobile is a “special right,” it’s one I’ll gladly give up any day.
Most cars don’t come to a complete stop at stop signs and I doubt most cyclists will either (probably not me). When will cops be forced to stop “legally” running through stop signs every time they flash their lights for two seconds? I’ve seen it many times, at red lights, too. They’re not usually going anywhere.
I recently thought of another argument FOR the Idaho stop law:
Allowing a cyclist the right of way at a stop sign reduces traffic congestion. How can that make sense? It is my experience that drivers most often give the right of way to cyclists anyway. But when I refuse the right of way, everyone in the intersection just sits there staring at each other. And them I motion the usual signals “Come on!… What are you doing?…Go already…” And then they usually still don’t budge so I just go. Its almost as if the divers already expect for the cyclist to keep rolling. (If I had the book in front of me, I’d site the excerpt from The Immortal Class by Travis Hugh Culley where he messes up his ankle because a driver didn’t take his/her right of way.
And as far as the “special rights” goes, thats BS. Call them “different laws”. Traffic laws aren’t written with cyclists in mind. Traffic laws are written for automobiles and then cyclists just have to abide regardless of how safe or unsafe they are for cyclists. There are a few “exceptions” to vehicular law which could also be deemed “special rights” but in reality are just different laws due to the fact that a bicycle is a VERY different type of machine than an automobile. (Like riding on sidewalks outside of business districts).
mbegin, An erroneous report by KATU and KVAL caused a lot of confusion about the Idaho Style stops and the right of way. The bill would not have changed the right of way rules at all. If another vehicle has the right of way the cyclist would still be required to stop.