Cyclists may be right to run stop signs and red lights. Here’s why
-
I think the unfairness psychological factor is often underappreciated. People have a very strong aversion to unfairness and that’s a part of reality no less than the real safety differences between cars and bikes running a stop sign. If we’re to change the status quo, it needs to take that into account and make people feel things are fair. E.g. if stops signs are treated as yield signs on most of the back streets, maybe change them to yield signs. And/or make new signs that except some vehicles from full stop where really needed. And start enforcing the rules of the road instead of letting people make their own rules, which produces chaos, injury and death. If some rule turns out to be impractical, enforcing it would get people to vote for changing it.
E: The quantity of stop signs on small streets in TO is TOO DAMN HIGH!
There are different rules for transport truck drivers, and there are different rules for pedestrians. Treating people who decided to go to the store in their 2 ton portable living room, that’s 3ft off the ground, with four reclining seats, and separated completely from the outside world by a bubble, the exact same as the guy walking or on a 30 lb bike is fucking asinine.
-
I stopped reading anything from The Conversation a long time ago. Such and idiotic title doesn’t encourage me to change that. Playing Frogger on a bike isn’t a good way to survive.
Read the article before posting. If you can’t be bothered then don’t comment on what you presume the content to be.
-
The title is a bit clickbait-y. I went into this one feeling strongly opposed it. Afterwards I’m still not sure, but I get that there’s some nuance to it.
Relevance:
In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.
Author: Steve Lorteau | Long-Term Appointment Law Professor, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa
Excerpts:
Interactions between different users on roads are often a source of frustration, the most prominent being those between motorists and cyclists.
For example, many motorists are frustrated when they see bicycles cross an intersection without coming to a complete stop, which drivers are required to do.
As a professor of law at the University of Ottawa who specializes in urban law issues, I have studied various regulatory approaches that have been adopted around the world, each with different advantages and disadvantages.
The uniform application of traffic rules may seem fair, but in reality, it can create a false sense of equality.
On the one hand, the risks associated with different modes of transport are incommensurate. A car that runs a red light can cause serious or even fatal injuries. A cyclist, on the other hand, is unlikely to cause the same degree of damage.
Furthermore, the efficiency of cycling depends on maintaining speed. Having to stop completely over and over discourages people from cycling, despite its many benefits for health, the environment and traffic flow.
Treating two such different modes of transport the same way, therefore, amounts to implicitly favouring cars, something akin to imposing the same speed limit on pedestrians and trucks.
Since 1982, cyclists in Idaho have been able to treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign. Several American states (such as Arkansas, Colorado, and Oregon) and countries, such as France and Belgium, have adopted similar regulations.
In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.
It’s important to note that the goal of the Idaho stop rule is not to legalize chaos on the roads. Cyclists must still yield to cars ahead of them at stop signs, as well as to pedestrians at all times, and may only enter the intersection when it is clear.
This was a dumb title OP.
Literally everyone in this thread didn’t read the article, didn’t comprehend what the Idaho stop rules are, and is just in here nonsensically bitching about cyclists getting run over thinking this rule will allow them to blow through all intersections willy nilly.
-
What the fuck are you talking about?
How is treating a stop sign like a yield sign no predictable? You do realize that we have yield signs and people predictably follow them every single day right?
As long as the law says cyclists have to stop
-
It’s important to note that the goal of the Idaho stop rule is not to legalize chaos on the roads. Cyclists must still yield to cars ahead of them at stop signs, as well as to pedestrians at all times, and may only enter the intersection when it is clear.
-
Replace most of these:
With those:
Stop signs are stupid, shark teeth are cool too.
-
The Dutch, the Finn’s, and the Danes absolutely did not cover every single possible street with bike lanes. There are still numerous places where you have to bike on the road. Don’t be daft.
Yes, and those are streets where cars are the ones that have to slow the fuck down, and give priority to pedestrians, kids, and bicycles. Woonerfs. I.e., infrastructure.
More generally: the idea is that cities need to be restructured to make cycling and transit the preferred transit options with cars the “ok if you really must” option. Currently we are at the exact opposite polarity. Our infrastructure reflects this basic foundational choice. Idaho stops are still operating under that foundational choice. We need to rethink the foundation, therefore we need to rethink infrastructure. Then, instead of talking about giving new meaning to car centric signs, i.e., about making more space to humans in a car centered world, we would be talking about finding the right space for cars in a human centered world.
If that’s daft, then fine.
Ps. I’m not against the Idaho stop. If that’s what it takes to keep the cops from harassing cyclists and to keep some road rage at bay, that’s good. I’m against thinking it solves the problem.
-
Read the fucking article before posting.
With Idaho stop rules, a stop sign becomes a yield sign, meaning that cyclists are still required to slow down and make sure it’s safe before proceeding.
That’s a very good point. Maybe you should read a fucking comment before you reply it. At what point did you see me say anything about the actual details of the rule? That isn’t relevant to my comment. We were talking about the faulty argument regarding the consequences of when people inevtiably get it wrong. If you have anything pertinent to add on that point, please comment.
-
Read the article.
Read the comment. Helps if you understand the rule itself isn’t relevant to the consequences for getting it wrong.
-
That is literally what the Idaho stop rule change is.
I know but I think this should happen for all vehicles. If we want lower speeds on back roads, we should speed limit or even better, narrow them instead of sprinkling stop signs that some people treat as yields.
-
Read the fucking article.
I did, thanks. I decline to agree with it’s premise, based on other articles I have also read.
Be.
Fucking.
Predictable.
-
There are different rules for transport truck drivers, and there are different rules for pedestrians. Treating people who decided to go to the store in their 2 ton portable living room, that’s 3ft off the ground, with four reclining seats, and separated completely from the outside world by a bubble, the exact same as the guy walking or on a 30 lb bike is fucking asinine.
That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m saying that any diffetrnce in treatment must be clear and well signed. Not based on personal judgment and interpretation of one signage or another. And I do think we have to be separated from vehicle traffic in physical ways. Fuck vehicular cycling (just coming off of NJB’s video)
-
Read the comment. Helps if you understand the rule itself isn’t relevant to the consequences for getting it wrong.
So you’re just posting an irrelevant tangent on car accidents?
-
That’s a very good point. Maybe you should read a fucking comment before you reply it. At what point did you see me say anything about the actual details of the rule? That isn’t relevant to my comment. We were talking about the faulty argument regarding the consequences of when people inevtiably get it wrong. If you have anything pertinent to add on that point, please comment.
It’s literally the last paragraph quoted on OP post.
-
It’s literally the last paragraph quoted on OP post.
I don’t think you understand the article or my point. The guy who is advocating the rule change says it is justified because there are only consequences for the rider. That is simply not true. That’s the point being made. That has nothing to do with how the rule works. I don’t understand what you don’t understand that.
-
So you’re just posting an irrelevant tangent on car accidents?
No, if you read the article you would know that the person making the case for the rule change thinks it would be justified because there are only consequences for the person on the bike. But he is demonstrably wrong, which is my point. That is what was being discussed in the original post I replied to. Not how the rule works. Just that there are indeed consequences to getting it wrong. If you don’t understand it, try reading the article and the comments again.
-
Commas have meanings
In the Netherlands 3 died statistics often means a reevaluation of the crossing layout.
In Canada you’ll probably become an excuse to enforce pricy bicycle insurance & number plates and a ban on bicycles on large roads
You do realize I was making a joke, right? I’m well aware commas have meanings and I respect traffic laws.
-
The title is a bit clickbait-y. I went into this one feeling strongly opposed it. Afterwards I’m still not sure, but I get that there’s some nuance to it.
Relevance:
In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.
Author: Steve Lorteau | Long-Term Appointment Law Professor, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa
Excerpts:
Interactions between different users on roads are often a source of frustration, the most prominent being those between motorists and cyclists.
For example, many motorists are frustrated when they see bicycles cross an intersection without coming to a complete stop, which drivers are required to do.
As a professor of law at the University of Ottawa who specializes in urban law issues, I have studied various regulatory approaches that have been adopted around the world, each with different advantages and disadvantages.
The uniform application of traffic rules may seem fair, but in reality, it can create a false sense of equality.
On the one hand, the risks associated with different modes of transport are incommensurate. A car that runs a red light can cause serious or even fatal injuries. A cyclist, on the other hand, is unlikely to cause the same degree of damage.
Furthermore, the efficiency of cycling depends on maintaining speed. Having to stop completely over and over discourages people from cycling, despite its many benefits for health, the environment and traffic flow.
Treating two such different modes of transport the same way, therefore, amounts to implicitly favouring cars, something akin to imposing the same speed limit on pedestrians and trucks.
Since 1982, cyclists in Idaho have been able to treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign. Several American states (such as Arkansas, Colorado, and Oregon) and countries, such as France and Belgium, have adopted similar regulations.
In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.
It’s important to note that the goal of the Idaho stop rule is not to legalize chaos on the roads. Cyclists must still yield to cars ahead of them at stop signs, as well as to pedestrians at all times, and may only enter the intersection when it is clear.
Well… if you don’t want the bicycles to slow or stop on traffic lights, another ridiculous idea is to time the traffic light changes to the average speed of cyclists instead of cars.
If the old days they time the traffic light to cars so cars doesn’t have to stop at every traffic lights. Maybe now its the cyclists’ turn.
This way, you can keep the traffic rules equal and drivers who do not want to stop at intersection can drive as fast as the cyclist.
If you think cyclists will be too slow to reach the next traffic light, you can arrange the interval to use double the speed of cyclists, so the lights turn right in the middle between the two lights.
Then the Question will be, what is the average speed of cyclists on the streets? -
Simply not true though. Someone who doesn’t want PTSD from turning a human being into a big red crayon is going to make panic maneuvers, which could very well cause a different fatal crash. There are lots of “good” arguments as to why we should be able to ignore traffic signs under certain circumstances, but they all require that humans consistently get it right. Take the extra seconds to stop and make the roads safer for everyone, or if that is so much of an imposition, please just take the bus.
I’m not saying you’re right or wrong but do commute on a bike for a few months before making an opinion of biking rules.
-
I’m not saying you’re right or wrong but do commute on a bike for a few months before making an opinion of biking rules.
For the record, for many years I used to live a few kilometers from work and commuted by bike. I gave it up after passing the second fatal collision on my route. I still try to be objective about traffic law. Given that you attach some importance to specifially cycling experience when adjudicating the obvious for anyone with any road experience, I don’t think you are capable of having a reasoned discussion over traffic rules where bicycles are concerned, but I hope that I am wrong.
The author tries to defend this exception to the normal stop rules as being unique from all the other road rules that sacrifice expedience for safety by saying there are only consequences for the cyclist when they get things wrong. That assertion is objectively wrong. It doesn’t take much experience to know that vehicles making emergency maneuvers to avoid someone who screwed up can kill people, and that is true whether it is a car, bike, or person who thought it was safe to proceed but were wrong.
And you’ll notice that I have not made a value judgment regarding the change itself. That’s because it’s immaterial. I’m merely pointing out that there actually are consequences to consider that extend beyond the cyclist. The person cited in the article handwaves these consequences, saying it only impacts the cyclist who gets it wrong because a bicycle isn’t big enough to hurt people. Anyone who has seen a stroller roll out into traffic can attest to the chaos that will actually happen next. Sorry, but I just can’t stand to see an alleged expert missing something that big in his argument and everyone just nodding along. If you want such a change to happen, it needs to stem from an intellectually honest discussion.
