Cyclists may be right to run stop signs and red lights. Here’s why
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Furthermore, the efficiency of cycling depends on maintaining speed.
That’s some pretty specious logic. I would use less fuel if I didn’t foolishly waste it stopping at red lights too.
-
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.
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.
But they can cause damage. So this direction of logic is faulty. If they argued that there would be less accidents with cyclists going through stop intersections then I would ask to see the data to validate that, but “the crashes won’t be as bad” is ludicrous to ground this change on. And won’t be as bad for whom? It’s going to be bad for the cyclist certainly, but even if a fatal hit only creates a scratch on a car hood, does that mean it’s okay?
-
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.
The key is being predictable. As long as the law says cyclists have to stop and they don’t, they are being unpredictable, and put themselves at greater risk.
And the driver who inadvertently hits a non-stopping cyclist - someone who is already much smaller and less likely to be noticed in the first place - gets to spend the rest of their lives dealing with having hit (possibly maimed or killed) said cyclist.
It’s a bad idea. Idaho should never be cited as an example.
-
Totally, why would you want to stop at a stop sign as a cyclist it’s not like you’re driving 50km/h
Yeah as long as you slow down a bit to check if there’s incoming cars or pedestrians you’re fine.
-
How is this faulty? The degree of damage is incredibly relevant. We don’t make everything that could ever cause damage illegal, because we have nothing left. Laws are a balancing act of pros and cons to society.
A car has far less visibility (they are inside a box with a few windows) will will do far more damage if they hit someone. A cyclist has dramatically better visibility (they have basically an unobstructed 180° view) and especially when going slow is very unlikely to cause significant damage (posing risk of significant harm only the the most frail and elderly).
If not requiring complete stops for cyclists leads to 1% more cyclists on the road (because their travel is easier) it almost certainly causes less harm overall due to how dangerous cars are and also their indirect health effects (both inactivity when driving and the pollution).
So no, the logic isn’t faulty at all and probably one of the most important arguments.
-
Furthermore, the efficiency of cycling depends on maintaining speed.
That’s some pretty specious logic. I would use less fuel if I didn’t foolishly waste it stopping at red lights too.
It terms of the energy that the human puts in, which is a pretty big factor in how people choose their modes of transportation
-
Furthermore, the efficiency of cycling depends on maintaining speed.
That’s some pretty specious logic. I would use less fuel if I didn’t foolishly waste it stopping at red lights too.
I think it is a little different given the physical demand of starting and stopping is on the person rather than on machinery. Adding say a dozen stops to what would have otherwise been relatively smooth speed on a bicycle will significantly increase the energy expended by the person cycling.
-
Furthermore, the efficiency of cycling depends on maintaining speed.
That’s some pretty specious logic. I would use less fuel if I didn’t foolishly waste it stopping at red lights too.
You’re gonna get a bike-splanation on that.
-
I think it is a little different given the physical demand of starting and stopping is on the person rather than on machinery. Adding say a dozen stops to what would have otherwise been relatively smooth speed on a bicycle will significantly increase the energy expended by the person cycling.
This right here. I stress fractured my ankle making hard stops over and over and over.
-
As a Dutch citizen: NO, stop at red!
In a lot of place around the world where a green light needed to be triggered by metalic object, then the rule is really : Stop at red, only go when it’s safe. Else you will wait forever. In Netherland, the development favour cyclist and pedestrian so it’s best to follow the existing rule, as the experience is already smooth.
-
Drivers will criticize cyclists while drivers themselves rarely stop for a right turn on red and rarely make a full stop at a stop sign
Just look around in this thread and you will find driver talking as if all cyclist is bad.
-
As a driver, I want to know what to expect from bike riders. Having them follow the same rules on the road cars do just makes sense.
-
When traffic infrastructure is geared toward you and your safety, it’s easy and natural to follow the rules. If the traffic infrastructure is designed to make life convenient for car drivers while neglecting cyclists’ safety, don’t expect them to respect the rules over their own judgement.
Cool and when they get hit don’t blame the car drivers like they always do.
-
As a driver, I want to know what to expect from bike riders. Having them follow the same rules on the road cars do just makes sense.
If cyclists are allowed to run stops, it better damn well go hand in hand with a requirement that they wear a fuck ton of hi vis and lights, and that if there is an accident between a car and a cyclist when the cyclist is running a stop, the driver bears zero responsibility.
-
Just look around in this thread and you will find driver talking as if all cyclist is bad.
A lot of them are. Just roll through stop signs and red lights see it alot. And I’m fine but if you get hit it’s on you.
-
A lot of them are. Just roll through stop signs and red lights see it alot. And I’m fine but if you get hit it’s on you.
A lot of driver did that as well, didn’t see such language pointed toward them.
-
Cool and when they get hit don’t blame the car drivers like they always do.
Do you get mad if a pedestrian jay-walks across the street? A bike running a light after determining it’s clear is closer to a pedestrian jay-walking than a car running a light.
From my perspective, you are saying “the cyclist got hit by a car. But he didn’t act perfectly within the rules that weren’t designed with his safety in mind. Therefore, it’s his fault and not the one driving tons of metal at high speeds.”
This isn’t an individual problem, it’s an infrastructure problem. In Amsterdam where it’s so safe they don’t even bother with helmets, they follow the rules. In a place with unsafe cycling infrastructure, only the most risk-tolerant will ride. And they will act more recklessly while ignoring road rules that aren’t built for them. As infrastructure improved, more people will start riding that don’t want to act recklessly and people will want to act within rules that were made for them.
-
How is this faulty? The degree of damage is incredibly relevant. We don’t make everything that could ever cause damage illegal, because we have nothing left. Laws are a balancing act of pros and cons to society.
A car has far less visibility (they are inside a box with a few windows) will will do far more damage if they hit someone. A cyclist has dramatically better visibility (they have basically an unobstructed 180° view) and especially when going slow is very unlikely to cause significant damage (posing risk of significant harm only the the most frail and elderly).
If not requiring complete stops for cyclists leads to 1% more cyclists on the road (because their travel is easier) it almost certainly causes less harm overall due to how dangerous cars are and also their indirect health effects (both inactivity when driving and the pollution).
So no, the logic isn’t faulty at all and probably one of the most important arguments.
It’s a faulty argument because it only considers the damage caused by the bike hitting something, not the consequences of other vehicles with the right of way making emergency maneuvers to avoid smearing the idiot who ran the stop. This guy has been sitting on his tenured ass and smelling his own farts for too long.
-
It’s a faulty argument because it only considers the damage caused by the bike hitting something, not the consequences of other vehicles with the right of way making emergency maneuvers to avoid smearing the idiot who ran the stop. This guy has been sitting on his tenured ass and smelling his own farts for too long.
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.
It would still be illegal for a cyclist to roll through a 4 way stop if it wasn’t their turn. My understanding is that they can only treat it as a yield if they have the right of way. Which makes sense.
Ideally cyclists would have their own dedicated infrastructure but until then we need to share the road.
