I have been stuck at home the last couple of days, phasing in and out of coherence due to a nasty virus-induced fever. I’d love to be able to tell you that it was my mental state that makes the current debate over the Idaho Stop Law so surreal. Alas, it’s just the same old “us vs. them” “bikes vs. cars” crap that crops up every time the subject of cyclists comes up. And you can thank the Oregonian for kicking off the witch hunt.
You would think from the volume of complaints being made that this measure would make bicycle commuting mandatory, and fund separate bike lanes for every street in the city. But it doesn’t. In summary, the bill “permits person operating bicycle to enter intersection with specified traffic control device without stopping, provided that person operating bicycle slows to safe speed and yields right of way to traffic or pedestrians.” That’s it.
Oh My God. You mean bicyclists could roll slowly through intersections if there was no traffic coming? The Endtimes are upon us!
Folks this is a common sense moderation of existing law. It’s a pain in the ass to bring a bike to a complete stop when you don’t have to. Wah-wah, poor us. Please get it out of your system. Nevertheless, it’s true. For more details check this excellent FAQ provided by BikePortland.org. And let’s just be honest here, you KNOW that if cars stalled and had to be restarted whenever they came to a complete stop, the law would make rolling stops MANDATORY.
There are folks that scream about how this would lead to scofflaws rolling through intersections when it wasn’t safe to do so. You know what? There are PLENTY of bikers that already ride like that, and they aren’t going to stop just because you give them a more legal (and slower) option. This isn’t about those bikers. This is about the bicyclists and their families, and the bike commuters that just want to get from point A to point B as safely and as easily as they can.
Mind you, a law just like this has been on the books in Idaho since 1982, and has been working just fine. Idaho, which is hardly the liberal bellwether of the northwest. No, the reason this bill is getting such a rough response is the same reason EVERY proposed bicycle-oriented improvement gets a hard time: The anti-bicycle brigade wants to punish SOMEONE for the outrage they feel during their commutes.
Sadly, for the outspoken minority, the car/bike debate has become open warfare. Any concession, any acknowledgment of the other side’s argument is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. This is true for BOTH sides of the debate.
As far as bikes and cars go, this city has stopped being rational.
{ 16 comments }
Thanks for posting this. I am not a commuter at all these days (so no built up angst about cyclists getting to roll when I don’t), and I truly feel I have no anti-bike OR ant-car agenda. You wouldn’t know it from my conversation on Twitter on the subject, in which 140 characters makes it pretty confusing to figure out what anyone is actually saying (and made me sound, even to myself, biased where I thought I wasn’t) – so I’m really glad to read it here. I think both sides of the argument are irrational to a degree, but it seems like there’s an awful lot of screaming from both sides when what is really needed is straight answers.
For me, my question is surrounding public safety for all on the road. I see the usual “well if this were a car it would be different” argument, ok fine, but I am not hearing from the cycling community a straight answer on how relaxing a safety law is an improvement for the safety of anyone, and helps to prevent the tragedy experienced on both sides when a rider is accidentally hurt by an innocent driver. And I do mean the truly innocent vs. aggressive, such as in the mom with 3 kids in the car who simply doesn’t see the smaller frame of a cyclist before she turns. It’s horrific for all involved.
And I’d preemptively ask please, save the hate mongering. I’m trying to understand it, and can easily see (and support) either side if the discussion is rational. I get the idea that it’s more work to stop at a stop sign on a bike particularly when you’re clipped in. Got that. I’m more interested in a reasonable answer to the safety question.
The safety aspect seems easy to me to figure out and I don’t know why no one’s looked into it. Take Idaho’s accident/death rate for bikers before the law passed and after it passed. Compare to see if there’s a difference. Ask the people from Idaho how it’s been working for them. Why are we acting like this is virgin ground when we have a perfect case study right next door?
I don’t really see this as a safety issue.
Maybe I’m wrong? But I don’t think it would impact rider safety one way or the other. All it seems to be saying is that I wouldn’t have to unclip and put a foot down, as I’m legally required to do now, at an empty stop sign. BFD.
Metroknow: The mom with x number of kids should be watching for me; should be aware of her surroundings. Period. If she is not, then she is not innocent. If I am not, then putting a toe down won’t save me, either.
There is a safety issue, although I think it is secondary (or tertiary) to the desire to make cycling faster, more convenient, and more accessible.
In many ways, a cyclist is most vulnerable when coming to a stop, or starting out from one. There is a discrete span of time when you are in motion, but not moving fast enough for the bike to be stable. For most athletic upright cyclists, this is a negligible time frame, and they probably don’t even worry about it. But for recumbent bikes, bikes with trailers, and bikes with loads (Xtracycles, bikes with infant seats) it can be a terrifyingly long span of time. The idea of going through that panic every single block is a daunting one. In addition, your ability to control a bike before it is up to stable speeds is severely compromised.
So I think there IS a safety component, but not one that is recognized by non-riders.
@PAgent – Thank you for the explanation – I certainly hadn’t considered that aspect of the safety question. And it has the “reasonable” ring to me.
@Justin: While I appreciate your comment, I have to say this is the argument that really polarizes things IMHO. What it says to me is many in the cycling community feel that regardless of a cyclists actions, safe or not, it is always the driver’s fault. Sorry – I don’t buy it if we’re all trying to work together to share the road (which is what I think most Portland folks want to do). I have never hit anyone or anything in a car (knock on wood), but I have had some close calls with legal and illegal motorcycle lanesplitters (for example) because it is not humanly possible to be aware of all of your surroundings every second of every minute 360 degrees. You do your best, but you can’t be focused on every detail in 3 mirrors and forward at once for every single moment. It’s particularly true when smaller vehicles are able to change position so quickly. So what’s the best alternative to this physical limit? To me, reasonable safety laws to make up the difference. It’s why we have bike lanes and progressive laws that preserve safe conditions for cyclists and motorists alike. The basic physical truth is cyclists are often harder to see than other cars and trucks – because they are smaller, and especially because they’re more nimble. Which means, to me, a) drivers need to be as aware as is physically possible, and b) that cyclists should be afforded the best protective measures possible.
If a case can be made, as @PAgent does, that running a stop sign can be safer for those involved, then I can work with that and actually get behind it. But blaming drivers because they don’t have superhuman powers to see around them 360 degrees at all times is exactly the kind of bitterness that loses me.
I totally disagree with changing the law. I would disagree if it were pedestrians proposing it, too.
Here’s my reasoning. First, very few bicyclists stop anyway (and very few are ever ticketed; c’mon, let’s be honest), but most of them at least pause or slow down long enough to assess if there is any danger coming their way. As well they should and as I do when I’m the bicyclist or pedestrian.
Second, when driving a car, I have to look in a lot of different directions at all stops, particularly in inner-city Portland where there are a LOT of bicyclists and pedestrians. Which, frankly, I like.
But the car driver shouldn’t be the only person who is saddled with the responsibility of making sure he/she and those around them are safe. So, THIRD, none of us own the road. And ALL of us should obey the same laws. That’s the basis of civilisation. There should be NO exemptions for special interest groups.
And, FOURTH, all those folks who have been killed in recent years because vehicles made right turns into them? Do you think in ANY WAY, this law will do anything to alleviate that? Or, using your common sense, isn’t it more likely to increase such tragedies, once bicyclists abdicate any sense of responsibility for their own well-being?
This proposed law does NOT pass the common sense test.
And, yes, I bike, drive and walk. Even if a law passes, I’ll still stop or, at least, proceed very slowly.
And it looks like hysterical media coverage may well have killed the bill:
http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/19/bta-negative-media-has-put-idaho-stop-effort-in-jeapordy/
thanks for tackling this subject in a thoughtful manner –more discussion can actually be a good thing. a few points:
First, in your comment from march 19 you state, ‘…it (the discrete span of time when you are in motion at a stop, but not moving fast enough for the bike to be stable) can be a terrifyingly long span of time. The idea of going through that panic every single block is a daunting one.’
in my opinion, this is a mischaracterization. ‘terrifyingly’, ‘panic’ and ‘daunting’ do not accurately describe this situation and certainly do little to encourage new riders.
i have ridden and do ride most every type of bicycle you listed in your post (commonly carrying 100 pounds of cargo) and have never suffered from these fear-inspired words due to a stop sign. yeah, stopping on a hill is a bitch, but so be it –get off the bike and push it to a flat spot if it makes you uncomfortable. if you’re choosing to ride a bicycle (which i do every day), then you choose to learn and appreciate the behaviors inherent in operating the bicycle on city streets, guided by the laws of the road.
the only thing terrifying about bicycling is knowing that there are other people on the road who do not take care to learn, respect and appreciate the responsibilities inherent in their transportation choice (be it automobile, bicycle, camel, etc.).
whatever the case, i have yet to develop an opinion on whether the idaho stop law would hurt or help. yes, i would love maintaining some of my momentum as opposed to killing it at every stop sign, but i can always use the exercise. i really don’t care whether the law changes as i follow the rules of the road, whatever they may be. i stop at every stop sign because it’s the law. if you choose to break the law (which many people on bikes and people in cars do at stop signs regularly), then you deserve whatever fine you get. hell, i wish i was deputized so i could dole-out fines to people all day long (regardless of their transport choice). people roll through stop signs regardless of their transport choice and as the laws exist today, it is unlawful and punishable. are these laws in the best interest of everyone? good question.
the implications of breaking the stop sign law is contextual. one could argue that enforcing stops for motor vehicles is good, but perhaps unnecessary for bicycles, simply due to the potential for harm incurred during an accident. but this argument is flawed as it makes assumptions for only one component of the collision, when in fact, there are two. subsequently, lawmakers often consider worst-case scenarios when drafting laws; maybe not the most ideal scenario, but it often gets the job done.
lastly, let us not confuse idaho with oregon. i grew up in idaho and cycled in pocatello and boise for years. idaho is not portland, oregon. the law works in idaho because idaho has very few cyclists, thereby making the impact on other roadway users minimal at best. in my opinion it is rogue to assume a law will be just as effective here as it is in idaho. the implications are obviously far greater here in portland alone.
“in my opinion, this is a mischaracterization.”
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion regarding what I wrote and why I wrote it. It’s entirely possible that you simply a better, stronger bicyclist than I have been.
I used to ride a fat tire bike on the wonderful bike paths of Eugene, pulling a Burley trailercycle. My children, bless them, were always 99+ percentile for height and weight, and starting from a dead stop was ALWAYS a concern for me, and there were many, many times when a child leaned abruptly one way or the other before I was up to speed and I very nearly went over. I found this very frightening. Enough so that, for this and other reasons, I chose to NEVER ride with my children in traffic.
My experience with recumbents has been owning, and commuting on, a long wheelbase Koosah, also from Burley. With your experience, you surely know how much harder it is to balance on a recumbent, particularly at very low speeds. You aren’t able to use your body weight effectively to maintain balance, and ‘bent riders are forced to swerve right and left at low speed to stay upright. This comes into play both when starting out at intersections, and when climbing hills. It’s one of the primary reasons I QUIT bicycle commuting, because the damage to my knees prevents me from applying enough power to the crankset to maintain a minimum stable speed when climbing.
Jeremy, I congratulate you on your ability to rise above these petty distractions, and appreciate that you have attained the Zen-like clarity to “learn and appreciate the behaviors inherent in operating the bicycle on city streets, guided by the laws of the road”. But I’m not about to pretend it isn’t challenging (and sometimes ‘terrifying’ and ‘daunting’) for you or anyone else. That’s a disservice in itself, and would NOT be an accurate reflection of MY OWN cycling experiences.
thanks. indeed, your personal experience is what is reflected in your comment from march 19 (which used the language that i took as being mischaracterizations). good point, just as my experience certainly may not be that of everyone. terrifying for one may be cake for another.
whatever the case, i find little value in implying that i have found “…Zen-like clarity to ‘learn and appreciate the behaviors inherent in operating the bicycle on city streets, guided by the laws of the road’. i didn’t imply this or write it, so please don’t apply it to me. it has nothing to do with being ‘Zen-like’ (whatever that may be). it’s just a simple case of coming to terms with the situation in a manner that best suits your needs –which you and i seemingly both have.
Joe Rose wrote an excellent piece in the Oregonian yesterday, laying out the facts as it relates to the general behavior of all people on the road, regardless of transportation choice. Here’s a few highlights:
“…the study did indeed show that bicyclists come to a complete stop only 7 percent of the time, it also showed that motorists stop completely only 22 percent of the time.”
“‘The law says a complete cessation of motion is required,’ said Greg Raisman, traffic safety specialist for the Portland Bureau of Transportation.”
“Regardless of whether they drive an SUV or pedal to work, everyone on the road tends to have ’selective perception’ in how they view other modes of transportation, he (Randy Blazak, a Portland State University sociologist) said.”
“A 2002 study by England’s Transport Research Laboratory found that when bicyclists violated a traffic law, motorists saw it as symptomatic of reckless attitudes and incompetence among people who choose to bike. However, when they saw another driver breaking the same law, they tended to see it as somehow required by unpredictable circumstances.”
“Of course, there’s also a such thing as ‘transportation envy,’ said Blazak, who often bikes to work. ‘Cyclists have a kind of freedom that people in cars don’t have,’ he explained, ‘including getting around backed-up traffic, going up on the sidewalk, being out in the elements. It breeds a certain amount of resentment and jealousy when you’re stuck listening to a mattress commercial in a traffic jam.”
I don’t live in Oregon personally, but I do find this issue interesting. Personally, I am completely in favor of the law. In all honesty, I think it should be extended to apply to stop lights too. Now don’t get me wrong, rolling through some stop lights (or signs) is suicide. However, there are some signs and lights where you have very good visibility all around to see if there is anyone coming or not and can very safely proceed on through without endangering yourself or others.
That being said, though, I think an even better law to enact would be one requiring all cyclists to have at least a headlight and taillight affixed to their bikes. I realize that many would balk at this and think that it discourages new cyclists from riding, but in my opinion, it would do wonders to reduce the chances of not being seen by motorists (especially if both lights have a blinking function).
There are many advantages to being able to utilize the ‘Idaho’ stop, not the least of which is getting ahead of the cars at an intersection. I do not mean this in a go fast and get ahead sense, but in a get in front so you can be seen one. Any time a cyclist can be ahead of cars at an intersection, everyone wins- drivers can see me, I can get out of their path, we can all get moving more quickly and safely. If there is no one coming in the cross route, then it makes sense for me to keep going so that I can get out of the way.
Many say ‘get used to stopping’. When I carry my 4 year old on the back of my bike, I become unsafe if I have to constantly get us up to speed again and again. My legs get so tired it becomes difficult to keep us both balanced, especially if he is squirming- and no, finding other paths isn’t going to help. I am a very strong cyclist, but I still get tired.
We have to stop trying to force square pegs into round holes. Cars and bikes may be equal in importance and right to the road, but each has different needs that need not be competitive. If each group is given what they need to get where they need to go, everyone will get there safely.
Share the road.
I agree that in many cases coming to a full stop on a bike is unnecessary and a waste of time and energy. Used properly this law sounds reasonable. For other safety considerations I would like to suggest that a bicyclist use their lights during the day as well as at night, ride without headphones on and not ride side by side on two lane roads. I don’t regularly bike, but I always take these precautions when I do.
No one seems to have mentioned the fact that it is typically motor vehicles which cause the injuries and deaths. lIf I am walking, a motor vehicle travelling 5 mph can kill me but a cyclist travelling 5 mph will be an incovenience. Are pedestrians obliged to stop at stop signs?
In many European countries, there is vulnerable road user legislation. For example, in the Netherlands, if there is a crash involving a cyclist and motor car, the motorist is assumed guilty and the onus is on the motorist to prove otherwise. This is the kind of legislation we need in North America.
I am not sure that the way to get all of the things done that need to be for all of us to have the roads we want is to point fingers about which vehicle is more deadly or where to assign guilt. It is inevitable that when you point a finger, one gets pointed back at you.
Marketing and PR 101- if you want something from someone, it is best to show them how giving it to you benefits them. If there are more bike lanes, there are fewer cars and calmer traffic, which will get drivers to their destination faster. It there are more bike lanes, then the decreased car-bicycle interaction will mean fewer accidents and less lost time and life for all. If we target everyone for education on sharing the road, fewer of us will be caught up in the silly stresses of bike-car interactions like dooring, right hooks and passing too close. If we limit car access around schools, children will be able to walk and ride to school safely with less need foe chauffeuring by parents…..
All of these things are tied together, what makes sense for bicycle riders makes sense for all. Everyone benefits from more riders on the road, we have to show them how and not make it adversarial or blaming.
Comments on this entry are closed.