I'm not sure I see the point. Is bicycling so hard that the extra burden of having to stop at a stop sign and then get back up to speed stopping people from bicycling?
For a long time I thought "A bicycle is vehicle" is common sense and completely workable, and it is the law of the land in most places although judges and the police are often ignorant. (e.g. I see bicycle cops riding in groups on the sidewalk on the wrong side of the street three across... I'd have no trouble with them doing anything to get to an active crime scene or chase a suspect but they should be setting a good example otherwise.)
As it is bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists.
I see at least four reasons this is the reasonable policy - Bicyclists:
* have a much better communication with their surroundings: unimpeded sight lines, and typically less sheltered from surrounding sounds
* suffer more risk and do less damage in a collision
* lose momentum in stopping that must be spent getting back up to speed - as to the significance of that last point, it affects the speed at which you arrive and the exertion you expend doing so - you can look to the preferential user experience of electric bikes as an example of how different cost/benefit energy/velocity trade-off influence use patterns
Finally, it is in society's interest to incentivize bicycles over cars, as they exhibit far fewer costs on society, in the form of parking, pollution, and physical violence.
> lose momentum in stopping that must be spent getting back up to speed - as to the significance of that last point, it affects the speed at which you arrive and the exertion you expend doing so
Actually this is significant for a different reason. Starting up again slowly means you're slowly crawling through an intersection, and intersections are the most dangerous places to be.
The article and provided information answers all of your questions. The point is to get the cyclist out of a danger zone as fast as possible.
Why make this legal statewide?
Intersections are by far the most dangerous locations for bicyclists, in Colorado and elsewhere. The most recent data we have from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), which is comprehensive for the state from 2017-2019, indicates that in that time frame 72.2% of reported crashes between bicyclists and drivers took place at intersections or were "intersection related." When bicyclists are able to get out of the intersection and away from that conflict zone before a potential crash can even occur their safety improves.
The Safety Stop is safer for bicyclists and motorists alike. Research shows that the Safety Stop:
● Reduces interactions between motorists and bicyclists in intersections.
● Reduces crashes in intersections.
● Increases the visibility of bicyclists in the intersection.
● Reduces the number of bicyclist-only injuries associated with starting and stopping on a
bicycle.
"I'm not sure I see the point." "Is bicycling so hard..." ... "bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists."
You see how you brought a level of animosity towards this relatively benign measure to increase cyclist safety? Yeah, that's why stuff like this is important. People with a "cars first" mentality have no appreciation for the vulnerability of cyclists and often go out of their way to ridicule them.
Despite the predominantly helpful info in your comment, you are also making assumptions about the parent commenter having an animosity and "cars first" mentality that may not be accurate or justified. See their comment elsewhere in the thread:
> I've been riding bikes in the city since I was 6 years old.
It's not an assumption, it's very obvious in his rhetoric that he prioritizes cars and the laws built for those cars over cyclists and any potential laws built for them. Hence, cars-first.
Even if he rides his bike everyday, he still views the world from the perspective of someone driving a car.
I'm the grinch of cycling ever since I blew my knees from doing rides that went up a mile vertically when I was 20. There was that time I was in agony riding home from a Ross Perot rally.
I went through a phase when my knees hurt just looking at a bicycle. Even today I avoid any hills, off-road or anything challenging.
I'd just like to point out the subtle use of language to objectify motorists and thus make it easier to ignore their side of the issue when these discussions come up. You can see it very clearly here:
"laws built for those cars over cyclists"
If one wishes to engage with people who like using cars, instead of dismissing or ignoring them, use motorist instead of car. I hope our societies are still human centered enough that we can agree that cars are used by people to do things, not the other way around.
It ignores motorcycles, who at least in my head is why the term "cyclist." is used. Trucks, Cars, bikes, cyclists. Last two slightly more humanized because you can see the human fly off of the thing in an accident, trucks and cars, driver wearing a seatbelt is part of the machine.
Stop signs are designed for cars - because of the built in obstructions to their sight lines (e.g. pillars, trim, maybe passengers) that a cyclist doesn’t have, the speed at which cars approach the intersection (much faster, so less time to look, plan and react), etc.
But the issue for the bike (apart from the fact that stop signs mostly aren’t necessary even when they are for cars) is that it takes much longer for a cyclist to take off, so they spend longer on what you could call the ‘danger zone’ of the intersection (where they are crossing the path of traffic) if they have to stop.
I used to ride my bicycle to work most days. I like to ride. I am all for "a bicycle is a vehicle", but I still think this adjustment makes sense.
Being able to treat a stoplight like a stop sign is great. It's pretty common for stoplight sensors to not detect bicycles. It's also common for polite folks in cars to stop far enough behind a bicycle that their cars don't get sensed. It's not a good feeling to sit on the sensor loop, watching the walk lights cycle and reset, knowing that if you don't run a red or walk out of the intersection, you'll be stuck.
As for treating a stop sign like a yield sign, I agree with a lot of other posters who come citing sources: bicycles move slower and are at a lot of risk from cars coming up from behind. It's not about the extra effort to get started (though in a hilly place, I could see that being a problem for some riders).
As a cyclist, bike safety is hard. You're squishable and very aware of it, surrounded by big, fast, solid cars whose drivers often aren't paying close attention.
As a driver, bike safety is hard. A lot of drivers get weird around bikes (e.g., they yield the right-of-way when they shouldn't). Cyclists often aren't well-trained in the rules of the road. And the rules of the road often force bikes and cars to intersect in ways that aren't ideal.
So I think making it clear that yes, bikes are vehicles, but making a few exceptions to improve safety by reducing the chance of bicycles getting unintentionally hit from behind--seems like a win to me!
Prior to Oregon's passing of a similar law, I lawfully stopped at a 4-way intersection on my normal bike commute home and was rear-ended by a car who "didn't see me" and was presumably planning to blow through the intersection. Given my experience, I see laws like this as a safety thing rather than a "reduce the physical burden" thing.
I'm a big believer in letting different conveyances enjoy their superpowers. Cars can transport you at 80mph with a cage and climate control, motorcycles can lane split and filter, and bicycles have better environmental awareness (importantly because they are slow and can hear) and are less likely to cause serious injury or property damage so they can ride where cars and motorcycles cannot.
They're not the same and we don't have to give them exactly the same rules. In fact, we never have.
> Is bicycling so hard that the extra burden of having to stop at a stop sign and then get back up to speed stopping people from bicycling?
yes, along with other safety considerations.
>For a long time I thought "A bicycle is vehicle" is common sense and completely workable
no, the "vehicular cycling" doctrine is terrible. bicycles are obviously not the same kind of thing as motor vehicles; treating them the same is a foolish consistency. in countries that recognize this fact (netherlands, denmark), cycling is many times more common and far safer than in the US.
>As it is bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists.
pilots of heavier and faster moving vehicles have a greater propensity for harm and therefore should take greater responsibility for the safety of more vulnerable road users.
To answer your "question," no, probably not, but it's harder work than a cyclist needs or deserves to put in, since the whole reason society decided stop signs and signals were needed in the first place is because they noticed all the collisions of larger vehicles that were harder to stop and did orders of magnitude more damage when they would hit things. If none of those are around, things are pretty safe.
Not all vehicles are equal. Bicycles pollute less, are quieter, safer for pedestrians, cause less road wear. They should be given preferential treatment over cars in places where people live and gather.
In places where bikes are common, cars should yield to bikes.
In a purely moral dimension, it's hard to disagree. On the other hand from an environmental perspective the best thing to do with a car is to get it up to speed as soon as possible and keep it there to the journey's end. Cars that repeatedly slow and idle use their resources (brakes, fuel, etc.) less efficiently, and emit worse fumes. This is of course somewhat mitigated with electric cars, but not entirely.
On bike or foot, I especially hate to see the one last car in a line slow, stop, and wait for me. It would be less polite perhaps but big-picture preferable for them to just keep rolling.
Stop signs are located based on traffic studies of automobiles. They aren't necessarily appropriate for bikes.
Of course bikes coexist with those automobiles but other comments parallel to mine talk about some of the factors that differ from cars (e.g. open sight lines).
I don’t see the point because it my experience this is how bicyclists behave and always have. I’ve rarely ever seen one stop at a stop sign, they always coast through. As a rider myself I’ve done this but I can control my speed leading up so as to time it with the other traffic and cause minimal disruption. I’m also usually very clearly waving someone by and indicate given right of way as most drivers freeze at an intersection with a bike. It’s like the pedestrian rules apply and they have right of way by default with not other rules but that just cogs everything up. Anyways, I’m for a unified approach. Educating and changing people’s behaviors is going to be the most difficult part of this. Signing in a new law is the starting line and they seem to thing they reached the finish line.
> As it is bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists.
As it is, car activists seem to think that everybody is responsible for the hazard their chosen mode of operation imposes on the safety of less dangerous road users except for car drivers.
I think a lot of people might be confused by the term "car activists" because the car, as well as the attitude permitting its dominance, is so pervasive in the status quo, and passive/active support for the status quo doesn't register as activism in everyone's mind.
So to be clear: The U.S. is a country where, in many many places, the "car activists" won and successfully channeled untold billions and billions of dollars into imposing their ideology. The U.S. has built incredible amounts of roads, highways, parking lots, and interchanges exclusively for cars, which it has done at great expense by taking on debt and bulldozing existing neighborhoods. It has lax police enforcement and penalties for injuries and fatalities caused by motorists. It has tons of laws requiring businesses and housing to make accommodations for cars. And society passively tolerates the environmental, noise, and visual pollution cars cause, as well as the congestion they create and the people that they kill.
In college I raced bicycles on a team, and I would go out riding through the large city that I lived in all the time without problem. I think the issue is both sides don’t respect each other.
Drivers pass way too close, and treat cyclist like an annoyance. I see so many people online complaining about cyclist riding in the middle of the road. They do that so the cars will not blow past them closely pushing them off the road.
As for the cyclists, I think a lot of them have a mentality of invincibility, and they don’t think traffic laws apply to them.
A bicycle is a vehicle, and both cyclist and drivers should treat each other as if they are vehicles on the road and obey all laws.
Not only do many cyclists not think traffic laws apply to them, but where they have to share with pedestrians many display the same disregard for the safety of pedestrians that they claim drivers show towards them.
I vaguely remember a car ad, think it was Honda, and the crux was that trucks hate cars, cars hate cyclists and cyclists hate pedestrians. I can't rememeber but, maybe , pedestrians hate all of the above?
In other words, it's bullying. Today I was delayed by a lone cyclist, I didn't risk his life or risk hitting another car to get past him. I just accepted that he has the same right to be on the road as I do. I got home a few minutes later than I would have done otherwise and saved the same few minutes not being bored with nothing else to do.
I have news for you: drivers don't think laws apply to them either. I've nearly been killed several times because of it, and I know people who have been killed.
Thanks to Bicycle Colorado's advocacy, perhaps I won't have drivers intentionally trying to side swipe me next time I ride through stop signs in a safe (and legal!) manner.
I always try to give cyclists a wide clearance when passing them on the street and slow down behind them if it’s not practical to pass at the moment. I don’t really mind sharing the road with road bikers, they seem to be thoughtful about the impacts they are having on other traffic.
The cyclists that bother me are the ones riding fast and recklessly on the running trails around town. They can be a significant hazard to the joggers.
I'm just over the attitude I see from the decked-out "racing" cyclists that nearly run me over, yell at me, and generally act like the trail system was built for them and that as a pedestrian, I'm an obstacle on their turf. It makes me extremely hesitant to support changes that would encourage them to ride on the roads.
Oh, they're not all like that, I'm sure. It's enough of them that I end up just sticking to recreation areas and stay off the main line that runs through the metro area.
I live near a path like this. Its official name is the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway, which is unfortunate because it has always been multi-use. Neither the MBTA which owned the right of way at the time nor the four towns it passes through would ever have supported it as a bicycle-only resource. There are signs everywhere reminding people of the law that says cyclists must yield to pedestrians. That's Massachusetts General Law I.XIV.85.11B in case anyone is wondering.
Nonetheless, a significant number of cyclists constantly force pedestrians to yield to them, and almost always point to the name when the subject comes up in online discussions. Maybe a third or less of cyclists give audible warning when passing pedestrians, even though the aforementioned law also requires that and a pregnant woman was killed on that path after being run down from behind by a cyclist only a few years ago. (Interestingly, there's a strong gender divide on that one, and I think you can guess which gender is significantly worse.)
So anyone who tries to say claims about cyclists breaking the law are "myths" is simply not telling the truth. The vast majority of cyclists are sane and considerate. Some of them, such as the ones I've worked alongside on maintaining parts of that path, are even better than that. But there's also a substantial contingent of "bike bros" who absolutely personify the worst stereotypes. I see them every day. Real cycling activists (not those merely claiming the mantle here) don't deny that reality, or try to exclude pedestrians from the discussion. They try to educate and improve everyone's behavior, including their fellow cyclists'. That's how we'll get better bicycle-related laws and infrastructure - not by an entitled few putting their hypocrisy on display any time cyclist/pedestrian interactions come up.
I don't want to expect "true cyclists" to kow-tow to my superior vehicle. I just want to move through the sort of areas where folks bicycle without a mess and walk on the multiuser trails without a mess and drive/cycle/stumble down 50 of it comes to it, with nobody getting hurt. I've chosen a workpla e a way from my house and I take that on myself.
published some stats back in the 1980s that pointed to remarkable high risks from hitting pedestrians, parked cars, other bicycles, dogs, and everything other than the fantasy cyclists have that a driver is going to crash into them from behind either from obliviousness or as a hate crime. (My worst bicycle accident was when I was riding in a thunderstorm at 1 am had no visibility and hit a parked car.)
He was influenced by the dangerous bike lanes of San Luis Obispo and experiences in California and the Northeast.
More recent statistics seem to show that drivers in the U.S. South are astonishingly bad and really do crash into cyclists from behind.
> More recent statistics seem to show that drivers in the U.S. South are astonishingly bad and really do crash into cyclists from behind.
Yes, I stopped road biking because of them. I'd deliberately stay in the shoulder (just right of the white line) and they'd swerve into the shoulder next to me. At times they also crossed into the oncoming traffic lane to fuck with me. Not a pleasant experience to share the road with those morons.
Almost everywhere it is illegal for bicycles to ride on the sidewalk without dismounting but everybody from parents to judges and police make excuses for this behavior.
Cyclists crash into pedestrians at high speed all the time going down hills and going around corners.
In my mind it is a perfectly fair bit of judo to firmly grab the handlebars and dismount them forcibly if they are endangering the public this way.
The problem is that some people just don't feel safe riding on the street - and that's with good reason! I was riding in the bike lane probably going 25-30mph and was struck by a school bus who ran a stop sign. These drivers are supposed to be well trained.
These days, I almost always ride on the street but sometimes will cut over to the sidewalk in the case of a one lane bridge, dangerous intersection or a traffic jam. I always stop for red lights and usually wait for them to go green. In the case of rush hour traffic, there are certain intersections that are particularly dangerous. At these intersections, I often get cut off drivers who pass in the intersection and turn in front of me.
I've learned that stopping for the light and proceeding through mitigates these circumstances.
Riding on sidewalks is a lot more dangerous than riding in the street.
Cyclists imagine they get killed because somebody comes up behind them and runs them over either out of ignorance, hate or both.
That really happens in Georgia, Florida and places like that but in civilized places cyclists really get killed at intersections and when they transition from being invisible to being visible.
Bike paths were built in San Luis Obispo, CA and got a reputation for being astonishingly dangerous because from the viewpoint of cars bicyclists would "come out of nowhere" and they couldn't brake in time to stop them. Oppose that to a bicycle that is operated like a vehicle and is visible and predictable like all the other people.
The first thing many people note about the Netherlands is that they have separated bike lanes, but the most remarkably thing is that all of the intersections are designed with many different transportation modes in mind. Separate paths that connect randomly to the roads are dangerous, but separate paths that form a meaningful composition with the roads are priceless.
Right but that cyclist didn't crash into anybody. Some dude grabbed his handlebars, clearly gonna be a fight since the cyclist would be long gone otherwise. Streetfighting is stupid at the best of times. Don't do this thing. Act, don't react. Some people, I guess you might be one, live for this kind of situation. Can't you just spit at the guy?
I've been riding bikes in the city since I was 6 years old. I was taught to obey the traffic laws and be respectful to other people who use the road although it seems like I'm the only one.
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
For a long time I thought "A bicycle is vehicle" is common sense and completely workable, and it is the law of the land in most places although judges and the police are often ignorant. (e.g. I see bicycle cops riding in groups on the sidewalk on the wrong side of the street three across... I'd have no trouble with them doing anything to get to an active crime scene or chase a suspect but they should be setting a good example otherwise.)
As it is bicycle activists seem to think everybody is responsible for the safety of cyclists except the cyclists.