Should Tulsa adopt the Idaho Stop?

[davideinstein]

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride

Opinions?

[Ed W]

Let's say this right up front - no one stops for stop signs unless there's cross traffic in the intersection already. No one. Not motorists, not cyclists, not motorcyclists, school buses, or even police officers. A stop sign is treated as a defacto yield unless there's a conspicuously parked police car nearby. So the Idaho stop is already the default. It's common practice that while still illegal, is nearly in universal use.

And it's a bad idea.

It's easy to habitually ignore a stop sign when weeks or even months of daily travel show that there's seldom any conflicting traffic. Running that stop sign becomes a habit until that one day you're confronted by a car that seemingly came out of nowhere. Your brain is not programmed to look for cars there, because the road is always clear.

The FAA has a list called the Dirty Dozen - human factors that lead to aircraft incidents involving the loss of life or property - and one of the them is complacency. Regardless of our transportation choice, none of us can afford to think that every commute will be boringly similar, that the car ahead might suddenly change speed or direction, that a cyclist will never have to swerve to avoid a patch of debris or broken glass, or that the deer in the headlights will continue to cross the road rather than freezing in place.

On a related note, the legislature passed a bill to allow motorcyclists to run red lights when the signals do not detect their bikes. If I remember right, a motorcyclist has to wait to determine that the signal is not working for him before he can proceed, and he can proceed only when it's safe to do so. OBC tried to have language inserted that would permit the same for bicyclists, but someone in the legislature decided it was too risky. Go figure.

Oh, and one other thing. Tulsa could not adopt the Idaho stop unless state law were changed. Local governments are permitted to have more strict traffic laws than exist at the state level, but they cannot implement laws that are more lenient.

[AquaMan]

Then I am the chosen one. I stop at stop signs. Always. I have a commercial drivers license and don't intend to lose it over something like that. I made it a habit and it has served me well. No one has perfect vision or can trust what they do see 100%.  Most CDL drivers I know also stop routinely. Even though I recently witnessed a school bus merely slow down at a stop light and cavalierly turn right on red it isn't the norm.

Those are also called rolling "California" stops. Though I don't know if California actually allows them. I haven't read the link yet but I can't imagine why a bicyclist should insist on being treated like a vehicle in all other considerations of traffic, yet blow through stop signs.

To say "everyone does it" so we must change the law to reflect that unsafe practice doesn't appeal to me.

[Conan71]

Let's say this right up front - no one stops for stop signs unless there's cross traffic in the intersection already. No one. Not motorists, not cyclists, not motorcyclists, school buses, or even police officers. A stop sign is treated as a defacto yield unless there's a conspicuously parked police car nearby. So the Idaho stop is already the default. It's common practice that while still illegal, is nearly in universal use.

And it's a bad idea.

It's easy to habitually ignore a stop sign when weeks or even months of daily travel show that there's seldom any conflicting traffic. Running that stop sign becomes a habit until that one day you're confronted by a car that seemingly came out of nowhere. Your brain is not programmed to look for cars there, because the road is always clear.

The FAA has a list called the Dirty Dozen - human factors that lead to aircraft incidents involving the loss of life or property - and one of the them is complacency. Regardless of our transportation choice, none of us can afford to think that every commute will be boringly similar, that the car ahead might suddenly change speed or direction, that a cyclist will never have to swerve to avoid a patch of debris or broken glass, or that the deer in the headlights will continue to cross the road rather than freezing in place.

On a related note, the legislature passed a bill to allow motorcyclists to run red lights when the signals do not detect their bikes. If I remember right, a motorcyclist has to wait to determine that the signal is not working for him before he can proceed, and he can proceed only when it's safe to do so. OBC tried to have language inserted that would permit the same for bicyclists, but someone in the legislature decided it was too risky. Go figure.

Oh, and one other thing. Tulsa could not adopt the Idaho stop unless state law were changed. Local governments are permitted to have more strict traffic laws than exist at the state level, but they cannot implement laws that are more lenient.

Ed, I'm pretty sure Oklahoma extended it to bicycles a few years ago.  Please double check, as many cyclists I know rely on this.

[Red Arrow]

Let's say this right up front - no one stops for stop signs unless there's cross traffic in the intersection already. No one. Not motorists, not cyclists, not motorcyclists, school buses, or even police officers. A stop sign is treated as a defacto yield unless there's a conspicuously parked police car nearby.

Sorry to disappoint you but I actually stop at stop signs.  I know it's dangerous and I check my mirror for tailgaters but I just don't feel like checking every intersection for a police presence.

Drivers who perform right turn on red without hesitation also make me less than happy.  I would hope they get hit but that would involve a potentially innocent driver. It makes me REALLY unhappy when someone blasts through a red to get in front of me and then goes slow.

Cyclists... If you want ALL the rights of other traffic, you need to obey ALL the rules.  I know I have posted this before but the kid across the street (back in about '72) was killed when he ran through a stop sign on a bicycle at 101st & Mingo.  My sister watched him get hit and die.  She was slowing to stop for the stop sign.  My sister is still alive and well.

[Ed W]

Ed, I'm pretty sure Oklahoma extended it to bicycles a few years ago.  Please double check, as many cyclists I know rely on this.

I looked through the webpages for the Tulsa Bicycle Club, the Oklahoma Bicycle Society, the Oklahoma Bicycling Coalition, and OSCN. The only reference I found to a non-standard stop was 47-11-202 which details the motorcycle requirements to proceed through a signalized intersection that does not respond to a motorcyclist's presence. As far as I'm aware, the Idaho stop has never been enacted in Oklahoma.

This has practical implications for a group ride. Suppose a group of 30 cyclists approached an intersection, slowed to a stop, and then proceeded through it en masse. Thirty cyclists is about the same space as a city bus. As it stands, the law requires each rider to stop and proceed only when it's safe. It would take a minute or two for all to get through the intersection, probably causing any motorists behind them to start fuming. On the other hand, if they all go at once, motorists start fuming about "all cyclists being law breakers."

The usual crop of complainers in Sand Springs will be screaming about the Wednesday Night Ride before long. The police chief said last summer that he'd simply enforce the law if cyclists or any other road users run stop signs. And of course, the usual assortment of mouth breathing rednecks out there will do their own amateur enforcement effort as well.

[AquaMan]

There is a compromise. Consider legislation that allows designated leaders ride ahead and behind to make sure the intersection is safe and hold cross traffic at bay. Similar to how funeral processions use their motorcycle escorts. Groups of less than a dozen could be exempted and allowed to cross en masse. That way the mouth breathing redneck bike riders who feel empowered to cross without stopping can still allow small town police chiefs to fill their coffers.

[guido911]

Nope. In fact, we need to enact new laws/ordinances prohibiting cyclists from major thoroughfares outright--if not at busy times. They also need to possess and provide proof of liability insurance as well if they use main thoroughfares (higher speeds=higher injury risk/nature of injuries). Just recently, at 5:00 p.m., got behind two cyclists traveling north on freakin' Sheridan between 111th and 101st. No sidewalks, no real shoulder. Just riding along at 15 mph in a 40+ zone at rush hour. Selfish people backing up traffic at least 20 cars.

[Ed W]

Nope. In fact, we need to enact new laws/ordinances prohibiting cyclists from major thoroughfares outright--if not at busy times. They also need to possess and provide proof of liability insurance as well if they use main thoroughfares (higher speeds=higher injury risk/nature of injuries). Just recently, at 5:00 p.m., got behind two cyclists traveling north on freakin' Sheridan between 111th and 101st. No sidewalks, no real shoulder. Just riding along at 15 mph in a 40+ zone at rush hour. Selfish people backing up traffic at least 20 cars.

Riiiight. Aren't you one of the guys who complains about intrusive, over-reaching government? I'm beginning to think that applies only when it restricts you, yet when it restricts someone else, it's an entirely different matter.

[guido911]

Riiiight. Aren't you one of the guys who complains about intrusive, over-reaching government? I'm beginning to think that applies only when it restricts you, yet when it restricts someone else, it's an entirely different matter.

I'm all for freedom. Cyclists want special treatment, special rules at stop lights, deference, etc. But to be fair, I guess look for me on the river walk trails, doing donuts in an M56.

[Townsend]

Nope. In fact, we need to enact new laws/ordinances prohibiting cyclists from major thoroughfares outright--if not at busy times. They also need to possess and provide proof of liability insurance as well if they use main thoroughfares (higher speeds=higher injury risk/nature of injuries). Just recently, at 5:00 p.m., got behind two cyclists traveling north on freakin' Sheridan between 111th and 101st. No sidewalks, no real shoulder. Just riding along at 15 mph in a 40+ zone at rush hour. Selfish people backing up traffic at least 20 cars.

Another reason for everyone, not just pro-bicyclists and pro-pedestrians, to support sidewalks and bike lanes.

[Conan71]

Nope. In fact, we need to enact new laws/ordinances prohibiting cyclists from major thoroughfares outright--if not at busy times. They also need to possess and provide proof of liability insurance as well if they use main thoroughfares (higher speeds=higher injury risk/nature of injuries). Just recently, at 5:00 p.m., got behind two cyclists traveling north on freakin' Sheridan between 111th and 101st. No sidewalks, no real shoulder. Just riding along at 15 mph in a 40+ zone at rush hour. Selfish people backing up traffic at least 20 cars.

Who's being selfish?  The rider going 15 to 20 MPH, or the impatient driver who will get home a whopping 30 to 60 seconds later?  I've seen the math worked out on a mile stretch in terms of delay to motorists, it's not a huge delay.

Please explain why cyclists need proof of liability to ride on a public roadway.  What's the correlation between that and a car or truck carrying liability?  You almost make it sound like it's some sort of tax to be on a public road.  Chances are far more in favor of the cyclist being hit by a car and the damage would be far greater.  If a bike hits your car at 15-20 MPH (very highly unlikely) the damage would be quite minimal and you could still sue them if they failed to pay for damage to your vehicle.  

Cyclists needing a specific cycling endorsement and/or liability insurance is a complete straw man.  

Face it Guido, men in Spandex makes you hot and sweaty and you just aren't comfortable with that.  

Bottom line is, we all need to consider every motorist, motorcyclist, pedestrian, and cyclist is someone's husband, wife, child, sibling, etc.  They are cops, attorneys, medical professionals, billing clerks, insurance agents, librarians, etc.  We need to better humanize who else is on the road rather than objectifying them into something that pisses us off.  

[heironymouspasparagus]

Please explain why cyclists need proof of liability to ride on a public roadway.  What's the correlation between that and a car or truck carrying liability?  You almost make it sound like it's some sort of tax to be on a public road.  Chances are far more in favor of the cyclist being hit by a car and the damage would be far greater.  If a bike hits your car at 15-20 MPH (very highly unlikely) the damage would be quite minimal and you could still sue them if they failed to pay for damage to your vehicle.  

Cyclists needing a specific cycling endorsement and/or liability insurance is a complete straw man.  

Face it Guido, men in Spandex makes you hot and sweaty and you just aren't comfortable with that.  

Bottom line is, we all need to consider every motorist, motorcyclist, pedestrian, and cyclist is someone's husband, wife, child, sibling, etc.  They are cops, attorneys, medical professionals, billing clerks, insurance agents, librarians, etc.  We need to better humanize who else is on the road rather than objectifying them into something that pisses us off.  

This sounds like one of those "only the rich pay taxes" nonsense items - and are therefore more special.  Cyclists ARE paying taxes.  And I suspect that maybe 3 of the people in Tulsa who ride bikes don't also have cars - the rest are also paying for cars and associated taxes, costs, etc for that.  Plus the FACT that the bikes were here first, so everyone who has their little "Ricky Racer" sports car should just sit down and shut up about it - get along with the bikers who have equal right to the road, and are actually much better citizens than those driving the gas burners contributing so much to the horrible imbalance of trade we have in this country.  Or since so many are wanting a return to our founders roots, we could reinstate the requirement that no automobile can go over 10 mph and must have a person walk in front of them as they go to give reasonable notice to people that one of those noisy, smelly contraptions is about to disrupt the day.

[guido911]

Who's being selfish?  The rider going 15 to 20 MPH, or the impatient driver who will get home a whopping 30 to 60 seconds later?  I've seen the math worked out on a mile stretch in terms of delay to motorists, it's not a huge delay.

Please explain why cyclists need proof of liability to ride on a public roadway.  What's the correlation between that and a car or truck carrying liability?  You almost make it sound like it's some sort of tax to be on a public road.  Chances are far more in favor of the cyclist being hit by a car and the damage would be far greater.  If a bike hits your car at 15-20 MPH (very highly unlikely) the damage would be quite minimal and you could still sue them if they failed to pay for damage to your vehicle.  

Cyclists needing a specific cycling endorsement and/or liability insurance is a complete straw man.  

Face it Guido, men in Spandex makes you hot and sweaty and you just aren't comfortable with that.  

Bottom line is, we all need to consider every motorist, motorcyclist, pedestrian, and cyclist is someone's husband, wife, child, sibling, etc.  They are cops, attorneys, medical professionals, billing clerks, insurance agents, librarians, etc.  We need to better humanize who else is on the road rather than objectifying them into something that pisses us off.  

No, the road was built for vehicular traffic, not bikes. Period. And yes, cyclists should have to cover liability insurance, precisely for this reason:

The latest CHP data on car-bike collisions that resulted in injury or death shows, most often, the cyclist is at fault. Take a look for yourself at the CHP statistics covering more than 11-thousand accidents around the bay during the past five years. Sixty percent of the time, the cyclist caused the crash. The most common violations that led to accidents were riding on the wrong side of the road, refusing to yield to an automobile's right of way, unsafe speed and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Cyclists who caused collisions were nearly three times more likely to be under the influence of alcohol, compared to drivers who caused accidents.

http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2007/05/bikes_vs_cars_c.html

Why is the hell are cyclists above the law? I ride and do my best to NOT get on the roads out of respect and for safety. The cyclists I often see in South Tulsa are arrogant and selfish. Yes, Conan. Selfish. Especially at rush hour/high traffic time in speed zones between 40-50 mph. Why pick that time to put on the Lycra dress up and pretend its Tour de France time?

To drive a vehicle on Oklahoma's roads, you have to get licensed, pass tests, carry insurance, obey traffic laws, etc. Cyclists? No need I guess because that's a "straw man". Let's remember that next time a cyclists get's severely hurt or killed on Tulsa's roads, and we have a thread talking about how it's the drivers' fault for not being more aware of the cyclist.     

Townsend's right about this. And Tulsa has built a very nice and lengthy trail for cyclists to use. Use them.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Call it Idaho stop or California stop, it's the same thing and my opinion is that it's a bad idea. The bigger issue for Tulsa, is that yeah there are trails for the recreational riders, but in other cities that have grown and improved their streets in the last 45 years have built in wider streets with bike lanes and sidewalks to accommodate foot and cycle traffic, and have continued to do so. Tulsa has not really improved the streets since they were built other than in areas of new growth.

guido, read the drivers manual for most every state. They all cover how to operate a bicycle in accordance with all traffic laws. They cover all form of transportation, not just motorized.

If more cyclist, and drivers were educated on traffic laws things might be better. Yeah I saw your cite from the CHP, and it's probably the same for every state. I would be willing to bet that 90% of all cyclist/car collisions the cyclist is at fault, and the root cause is they were not following the traffic laws as they apply.