Hey. Good question. Karl over at the BTA blog has posted 17 of the most frequently asked questions about it over there this morning:
This law would make it legal for bicyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs. A cyclist approaching an intersection controlled by a stop sign, would be permitted to roll through the stop sign after yielding the right of way if there are other vehicles at the intersection.
Karl, are there efforts to put the law on the books here in Portland? Also, won’t this send the wrong message, to children? Won’t this just further anger motorists? Why would we want to model ourselves on Idaho?
Oh, you’ve answered most of those. Just the first one, please…
Why is this in the news?
For clarification: Because it seems that there is a move afoot to lobby for this change, and as a news reporter it’s my job to chronicle new information that is of significance to the community in which I work.
Matt,
Just head over to bikeportland.org. They have a story today about the efforts that will be made within the Oregon State Legislature to make it a state-wide change in the law.
Thanks, Hilsy! One of the problems with being a one-man news team this month, following Amy Ruiz’s departure, is keeping on top of developments left, right, and center. Here’s a link to Jonathan Maus’s article late last night:
http://bikeportland.org/2009/01/14/exclusi…
His coverage of the bike world, as always, runs deep.
As a biker I’d love to see this come into play. On the other hand, as a driver, I can see this being a very, very bad thing for drivers and bikers.
I think too many bikers ignore stop signs already. I can say for sure that six or seven bikers are alive only because I know to pay attention for them at a particular intersection I drive through on my way to Lake Oswego in the mornings from SE PDX. In all cases the bikers blew through the stop sign and I had no stop sign. If I didn’t know that street was a bike path I might not pay so much attention and actually expect people to stop at the stop sign.
I wonder if there are already so many bikers that completely ignore stop signs anyway that allowing them to “yield” might give off the idea that they can ignore the stop signs and that would lead to more ghost bikes.
Well there’s one way to find out – do a six month trial, and then re-assess whether the number of collisions has gone up or down before making a permanent decision.
My guess is, it’ll be great for the (vast majority) sensible cyclists out there; but will result in the culling of a few of the less sensible cyclists. You know, the ones who ride at night with no lights while talking on their cellphone. Accelerated natural selection. Not necessarily a bad thing?
Actually there already has been a trial. It has lasted over 25 years, and has shown that the safety concerns are unfounded. Mark McNeese of IDOT is adamant that there has been no increase in accidents, injuries, or deaths as a result of this law change in Idaho. The law changed there in 1982.
Last weekend walking through our N. Portland neighborhood we approached a four way stop. No cars in sight but a biker 20 or so feet away, coming from our left. We assumed(!) the biker would stop at the clearly marked stop sign and that as pedestrians, the coast was clear to cross the street. We started crossing, took two steps and heard the biker yell, “WATCH YOURSELF … WATCH YOURSELF!!” He blew the stop sign and swerved around us. He had plenty of time to stop but selfishly chose not to. It’s this type of biker that makes me think a stop sign = yield sign is a horrible plan for Portland.
@ econoline: I’ve lived in Idaho. Nobody rides bikes. Because nobody rides bikes, your stats mean nothing in the context of a major bike-riding city considering such a law.
agreed lorenzo! as a pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver I say on all counts this would fucking suck. nothing makes me more upset than crossing a street at a crosswalk/stop sign (I work on alberta) and almost getting run over by a bike. I saw a guy barreling down alberta recently on a bike (faster than I would ever drive) and almost mow down three pre-teens. it was terrifying. and he yelled at them! the cars had stopped but he obviously didn’t believe any signs applied to him. I watched him blow through the next stop sign . this would only amplify that sort of behavior. and sure maybe some people would use the new law wisely but I am not convinced the majority would.
lorenzo and mmm,
Do you realize that the actions you cited would still be illegal under a revised law since the bicyclists in question did not in fact yield?
Also, lorenzo, did you ever go to Boise when you lived in Idaho? That place is bike crazy and was even 15 years ago when I visited a friend living in the North End neighborhood. It sure appeared that everyone at least had a road bike and usually a mountain bike as well for riding in the Foothills.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Boise. Downtown Boise is nearly void of bikers. Closer to BSU, naturally, more people riding bikes. Obviously I didn’t mean there are zero people riding bikes in Boise/Idaho. But as the imaginary second largest city in an imaginary Oregon, I’d venture a guess that imaginary Boise would be far far far below the #2 largest cycling city in imaginary Oregon.
I have to echo the comment of hilsy here, not only would not yielding to a pedestrian still be illegal, but the police would have more time to actually enforce the failure to yield law rather than wasting time with enforcement in safe low traffic areas where there is no failure to yield.
I have family that lives in Boise. I’ve been there plenty of times. While biking is most definitely up it’s nowhere near what it is here. Plus there aren’t blind corners like there are EVERYWHERE here in PDX. It’s much more spread out and easier to see bikes and cars coming. PDX and Boise are non-comparable when it comes to this.
And hilsy, of course those actions would be punishable as they are now even with an amended law, but that’s not what I was saying. I was saying that there is already a mindset with some bikers that rules of the road do not apply to them. If you legally say they don’t have to stop at a stop sign I think many will subconsciously think that they cars have to yield for them even if they have a stop sign and the car doesn’t.
There are already enough bikers that bike offensively rather than defensively. In bike vs. car accidents the biker never wins. If I hit a biker and killed them I would have that on my conscious even if the biker blew a stop sign. As a regular biker and necessity driver I don’t want even the slightest chance for an increase in bike/car accidents.
I doubt the Idaho law allows bicyclists to “blow” stop signs or dash through them recklessly. It probably allows them to use their judgement and proceed without coming to a full stop (putting a foot down)if they’ve ascertained conditions allow. By asking them to rely on their common sense, the Idaho law is probably safer than ours, in some counter-intuitive way.
Police in Idaho were originally worried about similar doomsday predictions :”Will it make bikers go crazy with (non-stopping) power? what will the children think?”
But now Idaho cops are grateful that the law gives them more discretion.
Thanks for making it happen BTA! More personal responsibility in 2009!
I agree, right now there are some assholes that run stop signs when people are around. According to some of the comments here, if people can legally run stop signs, there will be more assholes than there are now? I don’t exactly follow that logic, it seems like being an asshole would be more of a genetic problem, and it manifests itself as stop sign running, not the other way around.
I suspect that more likely, the number of assholes will stay the same, and the non-asshole bicycle riders will just silently run some stop signs when nobody is around, only, unlike now, they won’t have to worry about a cop hiding in the bushes trying to catch them for it…
However, more importantly, this law makes it very easy to traffic calm bicycle blvds. Simply put a stop sign every block. The bicycles will go right through them, the cars will get sick of stopping, and go find another street.
btw boise has an absurdly large fixed gear scene.
Funny, right after I wrote my last post I left to head to a doctor appointment. I pulled out onto Hawthorne, drove down to 41st and got stopped at the light there. A biker next to me blew through the light. He failed to notice the car pulling out on the left and then when the car slammed on it’s brakes and he swerved to the right to miss the car the biker spit on the car.
Weird how that works isn’t it? Biker blows through stop light, car almost hits biker because biker blew through stoplight, bikers gets pissed at lady in car and spits on her car, driver is so rattled that she has to pull over and collect herself, biker continues to bike down Hawthorne in the right lane at rush hour.
Garrett, you act as though this is the case all the time. Last time I checked the # of vehicle drivers killed by bicyclists was nil. You pointed out one example of a dumbass biker but for every dumbass biker there are plenty of dumbass drivers. I know, I bike and drive. I see plenty more dumbshits behind the wheel then in the saddle.
If they can get this on the books, I’m going to demand it for Motorcyclists also. After all, if bicyclists can’t aford to put a foot down to steady their 10 pound transportation, we shouldn’t have to risk our 200 pound transportation machine either.
I can’t tell you the number of times I have done this late at night, with no other cars around, as I approach a deserted intersection…especially one on a hill!