SF to allow stop and roll for cyclists

[SVOboy]

Interesting news: cbs5.com - New Plan May Let CA Cyclists Ignore Traffic Stops

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) ― An idea is gaining momentum to allow bicyclists to pedal through stop signs, without stopping.

Bicyclists claim that it can be tough to stop a bike at a red light or a stop sign, only to start pedaling all over again.

The state of Idaho changed its law, and now California is considering the same idea. The vehicle code would be modified to allow what's known as a "stop and roll." Bicyclists could treat stop signs as yield signs instead, and red lights as stop signs.

"Bicycles would still have to yield if there was a car at a stop sign. They would still have to stop for that car and let them go through," explained Rachel Kraai with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. "At a stop light they would still have to stop and look both ways, but then they could go through."

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission will explore the idea Thursday afternoon, and consider asking state lawmakers to consider it.

Kraai says the number of bicycles outnumbers cars on a regular basis, during morning rush hour on San Francisco's Market Street, giving added weight to the proposal. "The laws need to change with the growing numbers of cyclists."

"I just don't think that should work. I mean, they should obey traffic laws like the rest of us," argued driver Tim Blevins. "I think it's kind of silly actually. I can just see lawsuits if a bicyclist does that and then gets hit by a car and who's going to be at fault?"

"It's what they're doing already," pointed out David Lee. "I never see, rarely see, a bicyclist stop at a stop sign completely or a red light. So I'd rather have a law that's more practical, one that might actually be enforced. So I would tend to be for it."

[Red]

Yeah lets do that in SF of all places. A place where cyclists already don't follow traffic rules and you have a bunch of ticked off people driving cars in a very confined area. Its just asking for an accident.

[azraelswrd]

Agreed. SF? OK, as a former biker back in college I've got two problems with this:

1) Why? Sure taking off from a dead stop is slow... but only for a few seconds and if you have the right of way or pedestrian/crosswalk cover, its more than enough time.

2) Because there are more cyclists? Does this mean that where I live now, that since cars outnumber bikes that cars can blow through stop signs but bikes must stop? OK, maybe that's too extreme/stupid but I don't see (or feel) the need to create a legal loophole just for bikes. Worst case, car drivers will misinterpret a bikers actions and do it themselves unaware of the new law... uh oh.

The potential for chaos is high and how often will there be no cars around to allow this to happen? Maybe I've been away from SF for too long... but its busy in the wheel traffic last I saw.

[jamesqf]

Let's be serious: does anyone actually come to a full stop at a stop sign, if there's no traffic?

[SVOboy]

If I can see traffic I rarely drop below 17 mph for stop signs (unless I need to stop for a car), but I never stop, . I think it's a good idea, but I do think we need safer riders in general. A lot of commuters I see around here have no idea how to ride.

[dcb]

So what if a bike rolls a stop sign when there are no cars around?!? Yah, good idea, one less silly thing needing enforcement.

[azraelswrd]

I always slowed down to the point of almost stopping, give the left-right look because "me vs car" is not a fight I want, and advance. In Davis (go Aggies!), police were pretty tight on bicyclists in terms of moving violations so I didn't want to roll the dice and break the law so blatantly. But that was Davis. Not SF or that kind of traffic scenario.

I'm just not sure why they did it at all (Idaho or elsewhere) for the stipulated reasons. Were cyclists taking too long to get through an intersection? Were too many getting burned on tickets for blowing through empty stops? Were they eating road trying to stop at the stops?

[AndrewJ]

Bad Idea.

IMO there are two ways to do things:

1.) segregated bike infrastructure. Seperate lanes, signals, etc. (the Copenhagen model)
2.) integrate bikes into car infrastructure. Same rules & rights for everybody.

[cfg83]

AndrewJ -

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Bad Idea.

IMO there are two ways to do things:

1.) segregated bike infrastructure. Seperate lanes, signals, etc. (the Copenhagen model)
2.) integrate bikes into car infrastructure. Same rules & rights for everybody.

I'll agree with this. Today, at a *busy* residential intersection, a bicyclist never feigned stopping, and a huge SUV cop car just sat there and did nothing.

CarloSW2

[elhigh]

As a cyclist I never regarded a stop sign as anything but a hazard against which I might hit my head. No cop ever stopped me, either.