Should cyclists have to actually stop at a STOP sign?

gunit130 · 05-09-2011, 12:36 PM

Putting this here so the non-cyclists can chime in with their opinion.

New Breckenridge law may pass which would allow more leeway for bikers at stop signs.

The changes would be modeled after a statewide standard recently adopted by Idaho, and would require riders of bicycles and electric-assisted bicycles to slow down to a reasonable speed when approaching stop signs, check for traffic and proceed through if safe. Cyclists would only be required to stop if another vehicle has the right of way.

It's always funny to me when the rednecks start commenting about road bikers always blowing through stop signs. Maybe this will get them to STFU.

**dumpy** · 05-09-2011, 12:40 PM

A bicycle is a vehicle and for the safety of all, should have to follow all of the same rules and regulations as any other vehicle.

That being said, I like the system where that is the law, but police will turn a blind eye to the occasional running of a stop sign or biking while intoxicated. This is basically the way it works now, unless you have an asshole cop and/or cyclist. To full on allow running of stop signs could create major problems.

FWIW I ride lots of bikes, all flavors, all surfaces, I like it all./

**Lurch** · 05-09-2011, 12:42 PM

It is pretty easy to approach a stop sign slowly then continue through safely on a bike. I'm not really sure why people get so upset that a foot did not get put down.

**Sirshredalot** · 05-09-2011, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by dumpy

A bicycle is a vehicle and for the safety of all, should have to follow all of the same rules and regulations as any other vehicle.

So next time I commute to work, I should file a flight plan with the FAA?

gunit130 · 05-09-2011, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by dumpy

To full on allow running of stop signs could create major problems.

Did you read the law? It says you must come to a reasonable speed when approaching a stop sign. It doesn't say bikers can just run stop signs without looking.

**Toadman** · 05-09-2011, 01:08 PM

It's pretty easy to come to a stop on a bike. So, bikes should have to follow the same rules of the road. Maybe to make up for lost revenue by fewer cyclist ticket citations, the motorists could ask that cyclist pay an annual license tab fee? FWIW, I commute to work on a bike.

**Sirshredalot** · 05-09-2011, 01:21 PM

[QUOTE=Toadman;3263777]So, bikes should have to follow the same rules of the road./QUOTE]

Look, this makes no sense. You have different rules for pedestrians, cars, semi-trucks, bikes, mopeds, helicopters, ultralight aircraft, hovercrafts, Segway scooters, electric wheelchairs, and motorcycles BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT FUCKING THINGS. Should a hovercraft follow the same rules of the road as a train, helicopter, a pedestrian, and an 18 wheeler? No. If you can't figure out why, you have no business getting behind the wheel of any type of vehicle.

**Elkhound Odin** · 05-09-2011, 01:30 PM

When was the last time you saw a hovercraft on the highway?

**dumpy** · 05-09-2011, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

Originally Posted by Toadman

So, bikes should have to follow the same rules of the road.

Look, this makes no sense. You have different rules for pedestrians, cars, semi-trucks, bikes, mopeds, helicopters, ultralight aircraft, hovercrafts, Segway scooters, electric wheelchairs, and motorcycles BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT FUCKING THINGS. Should a hovercraft follow the same rules of the road as a train, helicopter, a pedestrian, and an 18 wheeler? No. If you can't figure out why, you have no business getting behind the wheel of any type of vehicle.

You are really stretching it here (as well as w/ your previous comment about the FAA).

Sure there are different rules for cars vs. semis- they are very different vehicles, but there are a core set of laws that apply to all wheeled vehicles. These rules typically involve "traffic flow" matters and are designed to make sure that two bodies do not attempt to occupy the same space at the same time- the type of vehicle is of very little consequence. As long as the vehicle is on the road, not in the air or on the sidewalk, these rules should apply.

Stopping at stop signs is pretty much rule #1 of the "apply to all" rules.

If a bike and a semi try to occupy the same space at the same time, somebody is going to have a bad time!

gunit130 · 05-09-2011, 01:35 PM

Well dude, I think the law is basically just saying that bikes don't need to follow the law, word-for-word, as written for vehicles. Which means bikes don't need to come to a complete stop, put a foot down, or balance stopped, but instead can slowly roll up and look both ways, then proceed if safe.

What's so bad about that?

Frankly, I'm surprised this concept hasn't moved towards vehicles. In other countries, STOP signs are not used nearly as much as in the USA, rather YIELD signs are used instead. With oil at such high prices, we could save some by not having to come to a complete stop all the fucking time.

**jibij** · 05-09-2011, 01:46 PM

Thank God we've got laws to govern every aspect of societal life. Common sense is for losers.

**AltaAndy** · 05-09-2011, 01:49 PM

I think cyclists should have to stop at a stop sign, it is safer for them and is less likely to freak out people driving cars.

A better question might be: why shouldn't they have to stop at a stop sign?

**Socialist** · 05-09-2011, 01:51 PM

cyclists risk their lives every time they go through an intersection. I highly doubt anyone is just blowing through them blind.

It might appear to a car driver that the cyclist just bolted through - but the cyclist was likely aware of the car way, way, before the car was aware of the cyclist. You are much more aware of your surroundings when you aren't on a cell phone, blasting music, and partitioned from the outdoors.

**BigDaddy** · 05-09-2011, 01:52 PM

No, but they should ride single file.

This two abreast thing is a pain in the ass...

**Jethro** · 05-09-2011, 01:57 PM

I think that new proposed law is great in small communities. It is a greater inconvenience for a biker to come to a complete stop and then physically have to accelerate from zero mph that it is for a motorist to press the gas pedal.

**OSECS** · 05-09-2011, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Socialist

cyclists risk their lives every time they go through an intersection. I highly doubt anyone is just blowing through them blind.

It might appear to a car driver that the cyclist just bolted through - but the cyclist was likely aware of the car way, way, before the car was aware of the cyclist. You are much more aware of your surroundings when you aren't on a cell phone, blasting music, and partitioned from the outdoors.

I'd agree, riding a motorcycle for several years made me very aware of what was going on around me, but there's still the dumb ass out there who thinks he can make it before you get there. Still freaks me out when I see somebody doing a slow roll up to a stop sign on a bike. Had a guy just yesterday cross in front of me on a stretch of 50 MPH road on a bike without a whole hell of a lot of safety margin.

**carvedog** · 05-09-2011, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by gunit130

Did you read the law? It says you must come to a reasonable speed when approaching a stop sign. It doesn't say bikers can just run stop signs without looking.

I think what dumpy was referring and that I also thought of immediately, is the close calls that happen already (for me there have been several in the last couple years) when cyclists merely slow at an intersection and then blow through. If....they have the legal right to not stop....well that sounds like a huge shit show to me. Can't believe those fucktards in boise thought this was a good idea. Replace stop signs with yield signs? Sure I like that, we have too many of those red fuckers anyway. But to have to separate enforcements for the same sign. No bueno.

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

Look, this makes no sense. You have different rules for pedestrians, cars, semi-trucks, bikes, mopeds, helicopters, ultralight aircraft, hovercrafts, Segway scooters, electric wheelchairs, and motorcycles BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT FUCKING THINGS. Should a hovercraft follow the same rules of the road as a train, helicopter, a pedestrian, and an 18 wheeler? No. If you can't figure out why, you have no business getting behind the wheel of any type of vehicle.

Sirshreds - dude. And I thought I woke up grumpy. If you can't figure out that having some "vehicles" stop at a stop sign and some be able to go through if they think it looks ok, is a really bad idea, maybe you shouldn't be behiind the wheel.

For the record I pretty much hate any kook on a bike who puts on special gear or clothes to go biking on the road. Mtn bikers are ok.

**dumpy** · 05-09-2011, 02:08 PM

^^Well, CarveDog is pretty much a douche when it comes to his opinions of cyclists (I wear a jersey and lycra because it performs better than jeans, asshole), but he's right otherwise^^

One sign, one law for traffic (not speed) control. Share the road, follow the same rules.

What the law proposes is basically what happens anyway, relax the law more and it could turn into a serious shit show.

**Crass3000** · 05-09-2011, 02:08 PM

No they shouldn't have to stop. Maybe pause to make sure they're not gonna get ran over. Don't they know how important my momentum is? Does their car smoke cigarettes?

**Sirshredalot** · 05-09-2011, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by AltaAndy

A better question might be: why shouldn't they have to stop at a stop sign?

Same reason pedestrians and don't: it's intended for automobiles. Automobiles have extremely poor visibility and stopping distance compared to cyclists and pedestrians. This is the same reason that we have different traffic control rules for pedestrians. For example, at the typical speed that I approach the nearest four-way stop to my house, I am able to get a clear view up and down the street for about 30 seconds when I'm approaching on my evening jog. I can stop in about one second. When I'm biking, I get a good clear view up and down the street that I'm crossing for perhaps 15 seconds and I can stop the bike in about 3 seconds. When I approach at speed in my car, I get maybe 3 or so seconds when I get a clear view up and down the street and it would take at least that long to stop the car. That's why there's a stop sign there.

Honestly, if you're not actively watching for hazards and thinking about stopping distance when you're out driving - if what I just explained is news to you - you have no business being behind the wheel of any vehicle. If that's the case, I really recommend that you take some sort of adult driver's ed or defensive driving courses. You could seriously benefit from it. There are plenty of terrible drivers out on our roads. We don't need you making the problem worse.

**Downbound Train** · 05-09-2011, 02:17 PM

It's a good law except that it should also apply to cars. Whatever lefties already said that, we agree.

I see no reason why a bike doesn't have to stop where a car should.

**boarddad** · 05-09-2011, 02:28 PM

A proposed change in the law pre-supposes that the current law is being followed and there is a problem with the status quo. The spandex douche bags have taken over city hall in Long Beach and have gotten MILLIONS of dollars in special lanes, planters in the middle of streets to "calm" traffic, street furniture everywhere to lock their bikes to etc. All well and good, but it's become the norm for these same douche bags to blow through stop signs, ride on the sidewalk as they see fit, ride two abreast in the traffic lanes etc. The "stopping when there are already other vehicles in the intersection" part of the law would be a refreshing change for the better. Who are we kidding though? Nobody will ever enforce traffic laws in regards to bikes anyway. Giving them special laws would only serve to boost their already over-inflated sense of entitlement.

**Tippster** · 05-09-2011, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sirshredalot

Same reason pedestrians and don't: it's intended for automobiles. Automobiles have extremely poor visibility and stopping distance compared to cyclists and pedestrians. This is the same reason that we have different traffic control rules for pedestrians. For example, at the typical speed that I approach the nearest four-way stop to my house, I am able to get a clear view up and down the street for about 30 seconds when I'm approaching on my evening jog. I can stop in about one second. When I'm biking, I get a good clear view up and down the street that I'm crossing for perhaps 15 seconds and I can stop the bike in about 3 seconds. When I approach at speed in my car, I get maybe 3 or so seconds when I get a clear view up and down the street and it would take at least that long to stop the car. That's why there's a stop sign there.

So why do motorcycles have to stop?