“We were hoping to do some advance media on this in December,” says Karl Rohde, public affairs director for the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, “but we kept getting buried in the news cycle, whether it was by snow storms, scandals, or budget cuts. Nobody in the media cares about us right now.”
Or perhaps that’s what he’s hoping…because a lack of controversy around the idea would certainly make its passage into law a lot easier.
Rohde was speaking at a brown bag lunch today about Oregon’s proposed Idaho Stop Sign Law, which is currently making its way through the house of representatives. If all goes according to plan the law, which would allow bicyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs, could be in effect, Oregon-wide, by January 2010.
STOP SIGNS: LAW WOULD ADD CAVEAT TO STOP SIGNS FOR BICYLISTS…
If the law passes, said Rohde, addressing an audience of 40, “you’ll all be able to do what every single one of you are doing now, which is coming to a slow and safe speed before a stop sign.” A similar law has been in effect in Idaho since 1982, said Ray Thomas, a bike and pedestrian lawyer. “There’s just no increase in injuries or accidents for bicyclists under this law.” Thomas asked the audience how many of them come to a complete stop when they reach a stop sign, and just one man raised his hand. “A lone pioneer,” said Thomas, “and one who deserves our admiration and respect.” But Thomas said he wanted the law to reflect the reality of human behavior.
“The BTA would certainly never support anything that put pedestrians or bicyclists in jeopardy,” said Rohde. “This law is certainly not designed to free up the scofflaws who flout safety considerations. It allows law enforcement to target the right people.” Thomas said that in his experience as a bike attorney, he would rather see motorists harbor ill will towards bicyclists being treated differently than for motorists to routinely see bicyclists flouting the law. “As a bike cop I like being in the position of not having to enforce laws that I would not follow out of uniform,” Thomas quoted an Idaho bike cop as saying.
“How many people have been hurt at the stop sign near OMSI or in Ladd’s Addition, where the police conduct their stings?” asked Thomas. “I think, if we change the law, that law enforcement is going to be relieved.” Portland Bike Cop Rob Pickett was also in the audience. He doesn’t have an opinion one way or the other on the law, he told the Mercury. And nor does the Portland Police Bureau.
BIKE LAW SUPPORTERS: Ray Thomas (l) and Karl Rohde (right)…
The law is scheduled to go before the house judiciary committee in Salem in mid March. If it passes there, it will go to the senate, and then to the Governor’s desk. Transportation Activist Chris Smith, who moderates the website Portland Transport, said he supports the law, but is looking for a two-sentence response to its two most common criticisms: That it’s decriminalizing bad behavior, and that it flouts the fundamental principle that there should be the same laws for everyone.
“I think the two sentence response is that bicyclists don’t stop for stop signs, anyway, when there are no cars, and that this has been in place in Idaho since 1982, and it’s supported by the police, the public, and has resulted in no increase in injuries,” said Thomas.
“We’re decriminalizing good behavior,” added Rohde. “The bad behavior will still be criminal.”
The new law would still require bicyclists to yield to pedestrians, and contains a new $360 penalty for unsafely entering a junction, designed to deter bicyclists from blowing the stop signs if there’s any danger that they won’t be able to safely clear the junction. Rohde added that he’s happy to reappear on Lars Larson’s radio show, where he’s been pilloried for his support of the law in the past. “I think there are some people who have irrational hatred of bicyclists,” he said. “And I can’t get through to those people. But I think that most people can see the benefits of this law.”
“There’s just no increase in injuries or accidents for bicyclists under this law.”
Uh huh. One more story I DON’T want to say ‘I told you so,’ if this passes.
This is BS! Biclycists should follow the law, just like everyone else. If we start repealing laws just because people don’t feel like following them where does it stop? I am sick to death of bicylists and their elitist attitudes in this town!
Wow, this is a first – nobody has yet come on here saying this will result in loads of cyclists going through stop signs at full speed.
Yeah, I know anyone with a brain knows that the proposed change doesn’t decriminalize that and makes absolutely no difference to it, but there’s usually someone saying it anyway by now.
Guess all the educationally challenged people are over on the Sam Adams threads at the moment…
pilar – you’re forgetting a group of people. Pedestrians. Damn them, they think they have the right to separate rules from the rest of us. They should be on the road, obeying traffic signals like the drivers. I mean, I’m so sick of the elitist attitudes of pedestrians, demanding sidewalks and crossing signals and things.
What? Oh.
“Biclycists should follow the law, just like everyone else.”
Yes, and they can also lobby to have laws changed and make their reasons known.
“If we start repealing laws just because people don’t feel like following them where does it stop?”
I dunno … maybe medical marijuana might be legalized, or death with dignity, or the repeal of the 55MPH speed limit, or the laws prohibiting the consumption and distribution of alcohol. Why, civilization itself would end if any of those things happened.
“I am sick to death of bicylists and their elitist attitudes in this town!”
Since when is lobbying to change a law to better-fit (it is argued) a particular non-harmful (it is argued) set of behaviors being “elitist”?
By the way, the word is “bicyclists”.
pedestrians aren’t on the STREET. and, excuse me if I am wrong, but a pedestrian DOES get a ticket for crossing against a light… on the sidewalk or on the street, the laws are there to make it safe, for all of us!
Pilar this law change would actually move cyclists to a point between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Currently pedestrians are not required to stop at stop signs at all and actually if there is a 2 way stop a pedestrian can keep going without yielding and the cross traffic is expected to yield to them. The law does not impact intersections that are controlled by stoplights, only stop signs.
Take a look at this frequently asked questions list for more information:
http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2009/01/1…
and matt your headline is incredibly disingenuous, there have been a number of press releases by the bta and more than a dozen articles written about this issue in the last two months.
I can’t tell you how many times my kids and I have almost been mowed down by bicyclists doing this exact thing…
I think it’s a great idea, even though I’m suspicious of anything endorsed by Karl “Womb of Time” Rohde.
I think its good to acknowledge that bikes are not like cars.
That way we can arrest cyclists for riding uphill on MLK at 10 mph in a traffic lane.
Wintergreen, actually you and your kids have never been almost mowed down by anyone doing what this law allows. In fact if a cyclist fails to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk under this law the fine actually increases.
econoline,
potato, potahto…
bottom line is, based on my experieces with SOME bicyclists ’round here, I’m afraid people will abuse this one, I’m just sayin’….
and my point is that the experience in Idaho shows us that there is not an increase in problems with this law change. They don’t see more accidents, and they don’t see more injuries.
I think that by making it clear to police officers that their time should be spent enforcing the law only against people who are riding dangerously and not people who slow down, and yield when other road users have the right of way we may actually see better behavior by those who are truly dangerous.
sweet i hate stopping at STOP signs on my bike….esp when its obvious i am in no danger whatsoever
“and my point is that the experience in Idaho shows us that there is not an increase in problems with this law change. They don’t see more accidents, and they don’t see more injuries.”
I’m a little leery of this law but I want to make this point. Nothing in Idaho is built like Portland. Everything is a lot more spread out, wider and you can generally see what’s coming. There are so many blind corners in Portland that just don’t exist there. I don’t know that using Idaho and their experience is a good example.
Anyway I guess I’m ok with trying this one out. I’d definitely prefer to give a a 2 or 3 year trial period and examine the before and after stats in Oregon and not rely on data from Idaho.
Looking at Google Earth, it appears that downtown Boise has a block size similar to Portland’s 200ft (maybe a bit longer on one side) — if you’re concerned about differences in urbanized development patterns, it would be good to have some input from Boise’s downtown-area riders, merchants, residents, law enforcement officers, etc.
And thinking outside of the Portland-metro area for a moment, this law could have positive effects in numerous other communities. There are towns with lower-density development patterns but still a high percentage of bicycle users, such as Corvallis or Eugene, where such an change in the law might prove beneficial… so we shouldn’t just look at this in terms of Portland.
Bob – What you say makes a lot of sense, but with one caveat. I suspect this wouldn’t happen in downtown Portland. There’s already different bike laws downtown (it’s the only place you’re not allowed to ride on the sidewalk), and since there’s more pedestrians there, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it become an exception this time as well. So comparing with downtown Boise might be problematic – better to compare with areas surrounding downtown.
I think it’ll work well actually, but I’d absolutely support a trial period (with education campaign) first.
Most intersections in the dense part of downtown are controlled by signals so the law would not apply to any of those. Downtown is also busy enough that seldom would someone ride up to a stop sign where no one had the right of way. Really this law basically changes nothing in the downtown PDX core.
Just to be clear. Idaho. They are citing Idaho as the source of this libertarian enlightenment. I guess when you need a bad idea anyplace will do as a source.
http://ideawhiplash.blogspot.com/2009/02/p…
Oh, come on, Jimbo. You’re just arguing to argue. You don’t even say anything meaningful or substantial in your blog post.
The legitimate point that advocates for the change are making is that the prohibition is unncessary. Unnecessary laws should be eliminated. The law is a burden on law enforcement and on bicyclists.
But I’m sure you agree with every law on the books.
Have any of you ever ridden a bicycle through the city? I’m not an avid bicyclist, but I ride for fun occasionally during the summer. A few times to work, too. Take a ride down one of the bicycle route roads, like Clinton, some time and see if you think you need to stop for every stop sign. Visibility is very good on a bicycle. You go slow enough that you can see what’s ahead long before you get there and see what’s coming from the sides, in most cases, long before you reach an intersection. You can also stop very quickly on a bicycle, meaning your ability to react to dangers, is much better than in something with a lot of mass, such as a car.
I do actually stop at stop signs, which I didn’t know was such a rare thing, but it would definitely be nice to conserve a little bit of momentum in places like, yeah, Clinton and 17th (I think it is) which is a high-visibility low-traffic intersection on a bike route.
Oh, and to anyone who says there shouldn’t be one law for bikes and another law for cars: Should bikes be allowed on the Marquam and Fremont bridges, or through the Vista Ridge Tunnel?
Jimbo? He’s just *another* cranky white guy trying to be ironic.
Let him have his midlife crisis in solitude.