12 Places Tried Letting Cyclists Roll Through Stop Signs. Here's What Happened.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Like, I don’t care what the signs say, every single time I’ve seen a cyclist cross a street when the red lights were against them, I have also seen a car come to a screeching halt to not run them over while they are impeding traffic.
You are morally and ethically superior for bicycling instead of driving a car, but you are also unnecessarily risking your life if you do not follow the traffic laws that the cars follow.
-
Like, I don’t care what the signs say, every single time I’ve seen a cyclist cross a street when the red lights were against them, I have also seen a car come to a screeching halt to not run them over while they are impeding traffic.
You are morally and ethically superior for bicycling instead of driving a car, but you are also unnecessarily risking your life if you do not follow the traffic laws that the cars follow.
A red light is a different scenario entirely. In that situation, one direction of traffic is able to assume that nothing will impede them, and crossing into that traffic is indeed dangerous.
But that is not what this video and law change it covers is about. This is about laws changing specifically to allow bicycles to perform rolling stops if an intersection with a stop sign is clear or if they reach it first, as this avoids them having to regain their momentum.
-
Like, I don’t care what the signs say, every single time I’ve seen a cyclist cross a street when the red lights were against them, I have also seen a car come to a screeching halt to not run them over while they are impeding traffic.
You are morally and ethically superior for bicycling instead of driving a car, but you are also unnecessarily risking your life if you do not follow the traffic laws that the cars follow.
letting cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs
It’s in the video description.
I have never seen a place that picks between stop and yield signs by any sane rule. I imagine the US isn’t an exception. What they seem to do that is uncommon is enforcing the difference.
-
Colorado has the safety stop. If no one else has right of way, we can pass through stop signs at up to 10-15mph. In practice, visual blocks mean we have to slow down quite a bit, but where there is visibility, there are some 4-ways I can very easily blow through. We can also pass through a red light once we come to a complete stop provided nobody else has the right of way. In practice, very little changed except now I put 100% of my effort into scanning for traffic, rather than 50% watching traffic and 50% scanning for the police. Going through downtown is also faster now that I don’t have to dwell at the lights. Overall, this just legitimizes something that happens anyway. Cars roll through stops every day, it would be silly to ticket a cyclist for it.
Jesus Christ, build a circle.
Four-way stops are already awful without inventing more rules to juggle.
-
Given that a good part of cyclists ignore signs and traffic lights anyway, what’s the point?
Cyclists are just trying to match their motoring brethren who consistently ingone signs, traffic lights, and speed signs anyway
-
Cyclists are just trying to match their motoring brethren who consistently ingone signs, traffic lights, and speed signs anyway
Oh, yes? How many cars have you seen recklessly racing through pedestrian zones? Where do you see more than half the cars ignoring red lights?
-
Oh, yes? How many cars have you seen recklessly racing through pedestrian zones? Where do you see more than half the cars ignoring red lights?
I live in North America, so I see cars ignoring speed limits on literally every road.
I see cars ignoring red lights when they turn right on red without ensuring there are no pedestrians in the crossing. I also see cars beginning crossing the intersection while the light is already red (in my own town this is such a problem, its common practice to wait a couple seconds after the light turns green to go).
I see cars consistently treating stop signs as yield.
-
I live in North America, so I see cars ignoring speed limits on literally every road.
I see cars ignoring red lights when they turn right on red without ensuring there are no pedestrians in the crossing. I also see cars beginning crossing the intersection while the light is already red (in my own town this is such a problem, its common practice to wait a couple seconds after the light turns green to go).
I see cars consistently treating stop signs as yield.
That is seriously bad. And your cops are probably busy doing American Cops things instead of making sure the city is safe and sound.
-
That is seriously bad. And your cops are probably busy doing American Cops things instead of making sure the city is safe and sound.
Canadian cop things. Not quite as bad as the Yanks, but still not great.
-
You don’t need to pass a test or read the road law books to buy a bicycle. It’s not a motor vehicle. Therefore it is not bound by motor law.
Why do you think this is true? Where do you think this is true?
-
Never heard of this before despite traveling in Colorado innumerable times, but it makes me like Colorado even more.
There’s a great bike trail between Glenwood and Aspen if you ever make it out that way. Highly recommended.
-
Why do you think this is true? Where do you think this is true?
Why? Common sense. On flat land, in a town, speed of: Person ~<4mph. Bicycle ~<14mph. Motor vehicles ~30mph+. Bicycles sharing lanes with cars is stupid and causes dissent and death. Bicycles sharing lanes with pedestrians causes way less death. Government should stay out of it if they’re going to mandate endangerment, which is what has happened in many areas.
Why do I not consent or conform to governments’ decision to tell cyclists to use the road? Because it’s a stupid fucking decision.
