Makes so much sense it would will never happen here. Tags: urban planningtrafficsafetynewscommutingbike infrastructureadvocacyactive transportation Comments vic Rolling stops Fri, 04/17/2009 - 10:50 This is pretty much what most cyclists and motorists do already. Usually without causing any harm. In most cases, as long as right-of-way is respected, it works out fine. One question though: If cyclists are to treat Stop signs as Yield signs, does that mean we always lose the right-of-way, even if we reached the intersection first? I guess it depends on the wording of the actual law, but this is something they should have clarified in the video. To be honest...I don't mind the existing stop sign laws. I stop more than most people (cyclists and motorists) and it doesn't bother me. 8sml (not verified) Re: Rolling stops Sat, 04/18/2009 - 07:36 vic: I always wonder that too. I navigate 4-way stops that have basically continuous traffic in rush hour, and treating the stop sign like the cars do gives me the right of way soon after I arrive; if I had to yield to other traffic, I would be waiting there a while. I'd love to know how this "rolling stop law" accounts for such situations. Steve (not verified) Rolling Stops Sun, 04/19/2009 - 09:15 It's a sensible law and should be applied here. FWIW the bike cops are starting to charge people for going through red lights downtown. I got one the other day @ Queen's Quay. It's a $200 fine folks ! AnnieD Ecological Footprint Fri, 04/17/2009 - 12:37 I like the comparison of energy use for the bike versus the car. My son was given the link to an Ecological Footprint calculator for a class at school: http://www.nssgeography.com/canada9%20web/Unit%20Economic%20Resources%20... Check out the impact of riding a bike relative to the impact of driving a private vehicle. Hello? What the heck are they teaching these kids??? Who designed this calculator, GM??? Annie vic Energy comparison Fri, 04/17/2009 - 12:54 One thing that the energy comparison part of the video unintentionally alludes to is that from an energy perspective, it probably makes more sense to let motorists roll through stops rather than cyclists! Imagine all the energy saved from not having to re-accelerate so much mass! In that ecological footprint calculator, there's something even more interesting than the impact of driving vs. cycling: "I took a long shower with a friend". Taking three long showers with a friend has the same impact as one trip in a car, but waaaaay more fun. Trikester Rolling stop PLEASE Sat, 04/18/2009 - 14:24 I just got stuck on an uphill stop, yesterday. This meant having to gear up full electrical power to start again. Waste of energy--at uphill I'm going less than 12mph to begin with and stopping and then having to blast the throttle where there are potholes is dicey maneuver at the best of times. With weight in the back [such as groceries] it also increases the likelihood of popping an unexpected wheelie. Rolling stops would make sense even on e-bikes/trikes/scooters that don't go very fast because it would save energy and in fact, make a crash less likely from not being tippy slow in potholes. 2 cents worth:-) Ted C (not verified) Good idea. Sun, 04/19/2009 - 21:48 I'd love to see a law like this here. A perfect example of why is the stop sign just before the steep hill on Poplar Plains. Not only are you forced to lose all your momentum just before a big hill, but there's almost no safety gain because it's a T-intersection where the car traffic can't cross the bike lane anyway. Wacopaco (not verified) Leaves too much room for interpretation Wed, 04/22/2009 - 09:56 I generally treat stop signs as yield signs already and take the cautious approach as highlighted in the video. One thing that bothers me is that introducing this law doesn't change the fact that it's still up to the police to interpret your actions. Should this law be passed, the police will have to make a decision on whether you were cautious or reckless, which is less clear than a full stop or rolling stop. There's no clear cut way of enforcing it which only leads to the police jamming us with more tickets. Furthermore, by changing the stopsign law, it raises awareness about this common practice in which we all partake. Given that it's potential to generate revenue is high, I'm sure tickets will skyrocket. Random cyclist (not verified) Rolling Stops Sun, 04/26/2009 - 11:16 I was never a believer in this for safety reasons. I mean, if I have a yield and assume the car is going to stop and it doesn't well, then...uhm I get hurt. I am now a huge fan of this because of this video! I drive a car more often than a bike. This law makes perfect sense for cars!! I mean, the efficiency and energy! Wow, it is a lot more eficient if we don't make cars come to a full stop! Lets just get rid of all stop signs...good luck cyclists!! Tom Flaherty Rolling Eyes Sun, 04/26/2009 - 23:35 Before you suggest that the same law should apply to cars consider the following points. When I approach an intersection by bike my level of awareness far exceeds that of a driver: I am higher up that an average driver, so my view is enhanced I can see all around me without a windshield or car frame to block my view I can hear everything around me, plus I'm not going to answer my cell phone or use the radio/audio I am the only occupant on my bike, so no need for conversations or other distractions I don’t eat or drink coffee when I bike Additionally, I can stop very quickly, and I'm not much of a physical threat compared to a car or truck. Trikester Precisely Tom! Fri, 05/15/2009 - 13:00 Absolutely. Good points Tom. I'm finding on grocery runs up Soraraun [sp?] are driving me nuts. Not only are there those stupid humps, every 2nd street is a 4 way stop. This results in MY stopping while drivers are almost always "roll stopping" even when I have the "right of way". I have to use up battery and leg power getting up the hill already while some are paying no attention at all and can't see around the parked cars. Of course, I can stand up on my trike pedals and see quite a distance. Totally crazy making. Erhard Let's deal with the issue... Sun, 04/26/2009 - 17:53 ...because it can be solved. If Idaho can do it, Ontario could do it too. I can think of one way how to approach the issue: make it a requirement that the cyclist puts one foot down as part of the rolling stop. It seems to me that the requirement that cars must come to a complete stop is a symbolic move only that * indicates the driver has recognized that he has to yield to other traffic and * to make sure the driver has sufficient of time to assess what's going on at a possibly difficult intersection. * Moreover, it's a way to make sure that the vehicle's speed is so slow that in case something goes wrong that the damage will be minimal. * And as pointed out above, it gives a criterion that makes enforcement of the law quite straight-forward. At the same time, the driver is not being asked to turn the engine off or to get out of the car to ensure further safety. That is sensible enough since it adds only little safety margin and would be a bit of a harassment of the driver. I point out that stopping is symbolic only - once the car moves again we are back to the same hazards as the car moves slowly into the intersection. Considering the cyclist situation. As above, a rolling stop does * make sure the cyclist has sufficient of time to assess what's going on at a possibly difficult intersection and * is a way to make sure that the bike's speed is so slow that in case something goes wrong that the damage will be minimal. If we add the requirement to put one foot onto the ground as the cyclist coasts into the intersection, he is * indicating that he has recognized the need to yield to other traffic and * it makes enforcement of the law just as straight-forward. Any thoughts on this one, folks? 8sml (not verified) since you asked for opinions... Mon, 04/27/2009 - 07:20 My saddle is high enough that I can't put a foot down without coming off the saddle. No problem if I intend to come to a full stop, but not something I can do while doing a rolling stop as you're suggesting. All that your requirement would accomplish is give me an extra distraction when I should be concentrating on stopping, starting, and negotiating with other vehicles. Thanks for your thoughts, but I give a thumbs down to the idea. Erhard Any kid can do it.... Mon, 04/27/2009 - 07:52 ...you just slide forward off the saddle as you coast, lift one foot off its pedal and touch the pavement. The you slide back and continue putting down power as you proceed. I've never noticed any confusion or distraction on my part when doing it - I didn't make this up sitting at the desk, that's how do it, as I make my way to the coffee shop every morning. But, 8sml, maybe you have a better idea - one that makes it undisputedly clear that you are following the law and at the same time allows you to make a rolling stop. 8sml (not verified) better idea Mon, 04/27/2009 - 12:19 Let's not get into an argument about what children can or can't do, and I'll ignore the allusion to making things up while sitting at a desk. For myself, I would like a situation where I have right-of-way at a stop sign just as cars do, and as for the rolling stop idea, how does one determine whether a car has yielded correctly at a yield sign? Could the same requirement be applied to the actions of the cyclist yielding way at a stop sign? The "foot down" idea just seems too arbitrary to me. If I can come to a dead stop and start up again without putting my foot down, why would I put my foot down when I'm not even stopping? Seymore Bikes 4 Way Mon, 04/27/2009 - 13:26 8sml - A bike is considered a vehicle legally speaking - so you should treat 4 way stops the same way on a bike as you would in a car, just remember to use caution. 8sml (not verified) yes... Tue, 04/28/2009 - 06:55 ...and doing so works pretty well for me and the cars. That's why I'm not keen on changing the existing system. But I was asked for my "better idea". Erhard To just treat it as a "Yield" may work Tue, 04/28/2009 - 08:20 I checked the Idaho traffic act and that's how they deal with it: 49-720.Stopping -- Turn and stop signals. (1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping. The "reasonable" speed is up to the cop to determine and, unless he's out to get get you, that should be fine. I'll leave it at that. http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH7SECT49-720.htm Seymore Bikes In Step Mon, 04/27/2009 - 09:12 I think the cyclist needs to be prepared to stop, but putting a foot down is unnecessary. I would hope that if one didn't feel they could stop suddenly then perhaps a full stop is in order. The process of slowing down - keeping your balance - being ready to brake - stop - and plant a foot, is pretty elementary; practice it, or try some slow straight-line riding to make you feel more comfortable. Erhard ...but putting a foot down is Mon, 04/27/2009 - 09:38 ...but putting a foot down is unnecessary. Absolutely right - it's unnecessary from a technical aspect. But it makes it clear when the cop can write you a ticket and when not. Seymore Bikes Footing Mon, 04/27/2009 - 10:28 When I approach an intersection I am also looking for Police, so the degree to which I slow is increased. If I blow a 4 way on my bike doing 30km/h then I am defenseless - but if I slow to a near stop and demonstrate safe cycling then I'm probably not going to get a ticket. 3 way stops are similar - I slow down but not as much. I would also suggest that there are very (VERY) few cyclists ticketed for 'failure to stop' offences - so I don't see what the "issue" is. dash (not verified) few HERE perhaps Mon, 04/27/2009 - 15:13 People get stopped all the time for blowing stop signs. All year round, and particularly during the blitz weeks. People also get stopped for blowing red lights and cycling on the sidewalk. These are $200+ tickets here. Police aren't going to just ignore these people. Seymore Bikes Ticketed Event Mon, 04/27/2009 - 17:12 I have been riding all season for years now and I've never got a ticket, and I hardly ever stop at Stop Signs, but usually do stop at 4 way lights. I think it may be how you run the Red Light or Stop Sign that factors into this. dash (not verified) I think that it's more of a Tue, 04/28/2009 - 13:51 I think that it's more of a matter of police catching a cyclist not paying attention (or assuming the police wont care). Like any motorist, a cyclist is going to start following the rules more closely if they see police hanging around. And, like some motorists, the police aren't noticed, the offender carries on as per usual, and gets caught. It just doesn't come up as often on our radar because there are vastly fewer cyclists than motorists. I just wanted to put it out there that cyclists DO get ticketed regularly though. I've ridden a number of years downtown, all seasons and I've managed to escape tickets. I stick to the rules a little bit more than you, I believe, but I've done my share of ticket-able offenses. However, I've seen cyclists get stopped, I've heard stories of cyclists being stopped and I've spoken to officers who've stopped cyclists. I've gone looking for the stories though, because the subject started to interest me after a ticketing blitz a couple years ago. Svend Just one note Mon, 04/27/2009 - 10:00 Putting a foot down is impossible when braking a coaster bike like I do. Same with fixies. I'd like to see cyclists able to treat stop signs as yield signs, but yield means just that - I'm ready to stop if traffic is approaching. Erhard Fixed gears would have a problem... Mon, 04/27/2009 - 10:21 ... - I have never ridden one in traffic but I can see the point. Coaster brakes might be OK. My first few bikes were equipped with them and I recall that at slow speed I could always count on the hand brake to stop me if necessary. But that depends on how slow you are willing to be, in a rolling stop situation.... ;-) Trikester @Svend Coaster brakes Fri, 05/15/2009 - 13:03 That's a valid point about coaster brakes. I have one front hand brake and back coaster brake. If I have 100lbs of cargo + 100 lbs of trike + my weight there are times when I must use the coaster brake. So the foot down thing could cause accidents. dash (not verified) I'm surprised at your break Fri, 05/15/2009 - 14:02 I'm surprised at your break setup for a power assist trike! I would have imagined you'd have at minimum dual hand brakes, if not outright disk brakes. That you can easily stop with a full load on one hand brake at all amazes me. :-) Kevin Love Why reinvent the wheel? Just adopt the Idaho rules Mon, 04/27/2009 - 14:18 Its worked in Idaho since 1982. Erhard Sounds simple enough... Tue, 04/28/2009 - 08:05 ...if we can get the law changed.