Proposed in SF, bicycles don't need to stop at stop signs.

[PJPR01]

http://www.bicycling.com/culture/advocacy/8-things-top-bike-cities-have-done-to-promote-safer-cycling

When cities go out of their way to make things easier for cyclists, the minimum that cyclists should do is abide by the laws and be grateful for that extra effort the cities are doing to help them out, how bloody hard is it to figure that out....honestly.  There's no real justification for doing anything but, particularly in a crowded city.

It's similar to renegade/redneck 4x4 drivers who drive off the trail, don't tread lightly or ruin access to BLM land for the rest of the responsible 4x4 adventurers, clearly there were a large enough group of cyclists who were not adhering to the rules of the road which caused the severe crackdown...pretty sure the message is being received, and now maybe folks have learned a lesson, so they can "lighten up" the enforcement back to normal.

Back to my coffee now... :)

[HDGoose]

I treat bicycle riders with the same respect I do other vehicles. Run a stop sign and we get into an accident an you'll be praying for the cops and ambulance to arrive quickly.

[travelingbyguzzi]

I don't see 'low priority' a bad thing. Treating a stop sign as a yield is something I do on a motorcycle quite often. If there are good sight lines and the way is clear, I DO NOT put a foot down.
 Who stops at every stop sign every time?
If it is not safe to proceed, you do not proceed. It's not that difficult.
The bicyclist/motorcyclist is responsible for his safety in this situation. I am going to put it in the same category as helmets and lanesplitting and smoking and drinking. Don't like it? Don't do it.
Freedom.

Bill Lovelady    IS
Eskimo Spy

[unclepete]

If you're a cop in the city what would you rather do to keep your numbers up . Ticket bicyclists or chase down criminals ?
btw .. why is public money spent on "No Dumping " signs ? Implies it's OK to dump where there is no sign .

[Mayor_of_BBQ]

I don't see 'low priority' a bad thing. Treating a stop sign as a yield is something I do on a motorcycle quite often. If there are good sight lines and the way is clear, I DO NOT put a foot down.
 Who stops at every stop sign every time?
If it is not safe to proceed, you do not proceed. It's not that difficult.
The bicyclist/motorcyclist is responsible for his safety in this situation. I am going to put it in the same category as helmets and lanesplitting and smoking and drinking. Don't like it? Don't do it.
Freedom.

Bill Lovelady    IS
Eskimo Spy

this guy gets it

[Doppelgaenger]

Motorcycles are far, FAR safer than bicycles.

I've had plenty of people just cut me off at lights, turning right into my path as I try to go straight. I normally try and ride on the sidewalk because of this, either that or I go to a park with roads where I'm very unlikely to get hit by someone going fast. It's just not worth it to ride on the surface streets, too dangerous.

All that said, if I have to ride on the streets, I never respect stop signs on a bicycle if I think it's safe to roll thru them. It's more dangerous in my opinion to stop at a sign and lose your momentum than it is to roll thru it if nothing is coming to endanger you.

Stoplights are a different matter.

[Randown]

I treat bicycle riders with the am respect I do other vehicles. Run a stop sign and we get into an accident an you'll be praying for the cops and ambulance to arrive quickly.

Are you saying you'd make no attempt to avoid striking a cyclist?

[PJPR01]

I never respect stop signs on a bicycle if I think it's safe to roll thru them. It's more dangerous in my opinion to stop at a sign and lose your momentum than it is to roll thru it if nothing is coming to endanger you.

What's the dangerous part of losing your momentum...having to dismount or put a foot down??

[oldbike54]

What's the dangerous part of losing your momentum...having to dismount or put a foot down??

 Analogous to lane splitting , less time exposed in a dangerous situation . I don't really understand why people think San Franciscans are bad drivers , opposite of my experience .

  Dusty

[PJPR01]

Interesting how some folks think that sitting at a stop sign is more dangerous than blowing thru it...mind boggling!  :)

[broondan]

Interesting how some folks think that sitting at a stop sign is more dangerous than blowing thru it...mind boggling!  :)

I don't think anyone is saying that. Blowing though a stop sign, as you put it, is dangerous. Some percentage of riders (and drivers for that matter) will drive recklessly no matter what the rules of the road are. The Idaho Stop, which lets bicyclists treats stop signs like yield signs (and, again, is not being fully proposed in San Francisco right now) does not legalize blowing through a stop sign, any more than a yield sign legalizes someone blowing through an intersection when they do not have the right of way. A biker who blows through a stop sign when they don't have the right of way would still be violating the law.

One possible explanation for why this rule change might make for safer bicycling is that it reduces time spent, and increases the maneuverability in an intersection. The majority of accidents occur at intersections and the amount of time it take a bicyclist to move through an intersection if starting from a complete stop is significantly higher than the amount of time it takes a bicyclist to move through an intersection if they merely slow down-even to a virtual crawl-but don't abandon all forward momentum. Bicycles depend on forward momentum for maneuvering. Even if you don't bike, you should be able to imagine how awkward, slow, and relatively immobile a bicycle is when at a complete stop and for the first few moments afterward. It's not much different from a motorcycle in that regard, except that it takes far more than a flick or the wrist to regain enough momentum to maneuver safely.

Under most circumstances, a bicyclist can yield to traffic at an intersection without coming to a complete stop. It is easy for a bicyclist to slow down enough when approaching an intersection to allow a car, another bicyclist, a motorcycle or a pedestrian through the intersection without coming to a complete stop. They can then move through the intersection more quickly and with greater maneuverability. This seems much safer to me, but rather than take that on good faith, you might look at Idaho, where this rule was first implemented. In the year that the rule was first in effect, cyclist injuries as a result of a collision dropped 14.5%.

[Cool Runnings]

Those dang cleated shoes can be a bitch to clip in after a 'complete' stop. 

[canuguzzi]

I don't think anyone is saying that. Blowing though a stop sign, as you put it, is dangerous. Some percentage of riders (and drivers for that matter) will drive recklessly no matter what the rules of the road are. The Idaho Stop, which lets bicyclists treats stop signs like yield signs (and, again, is not being fully proposed in San Francisco right now) does not legalize blowing through a stop sign, any more than a yield sign legalizes someone blowing through an intersection when they do not have the right of way. A biker who blows through a stop sign when they don't have the right of way would still be violating the law.

One possible explanation for why this rule change might make for safer bicycling is that it reduces time spent, and increases the maneuverability in an intersection. The majority of accidents occur at intersections and the amount of time it take a bicyclist to move through an intersection if starting from a complete stop is significantly higher than the amount of time it takes a bicyclist to move through an intersection if they merely slow down-even to a virtual crawl-but don't abandon all forward momentum. Bicycles depend on forward momentum for maneuvering. Even if you don't bike, you should be able to imagine how awkward, slow, and relatively immobile a bicycle is when at a complete stop and for the first few moments afterward. It's not much different from a motorcycle in that regard, except that it takes far more than a flick or the wrist to regain enough momentum to maneuver safely.

Under most circumstances, a bicyclist can yield to traffic at an intersection without coming to a complete stop. It is easy for a bicyclist to slow down enough when approaching an intersection to allow a car, another bicyclist, a motorcycle or a pedestrian through the intersection without coming to a complete stop. They can then move through the intersection more quickly and with greater maneuverability. This seems much safer to me, but rather than take that on good faith, you might look at Idaho, where this rule was first implemented. In the year that the rule was first in effect, cyclist injuries as a result of a collision dropped 14.5%.

Many bicyclists use pedestrian crosswalks to navigate through intersections. Few drivers or rides of motorized vehicles can react fast enough to a bicycle being behind the limit line on second and in the middle of the intersection the next.

If most bicyclists would obey traffic laws that would be one thing but its hard to say they do. Signaling is another area they routinely do not follow traffic laws. When you allow some leeway and make it a law, then the give an inch take a mile thing sets in.

One reason this proposal is wrong is because it changes a law understood by anyone across the country to mean something else for only one group of people. If approved, anyone from anywhere other than SF would have to know that bicyclists do not need to stop at stop signs. Great. This isn't like having different speed limits, those are posted, it is posting a stop sign but saying it does not apply to certain people.

It would be one thing if such a law would be adhered to by bicyclists but the chances of that are slim.

If bicyclists are so skilled and can really ride as well as claimed by some here, then why can't they also moderate their speed and then at the stop sign do the balancing act waiting their turn. Either they can or they can't.

Here is this comes down to: telling everyone that at a red light, bikes can treat it as a yellow, the effect is nearly the same.

If this proposal makes any sense at all, then why not just remove stop signs and replace them with yield signs so that everyone plays by the same rules of the road? If bicyclists maintain the car drivers disobey traffic laws to a greater degree than bicyclists then spend just a day driving your car or motorcycle among them, you'll see first hand how few bicyclists actually obey any traffic laws.

[Cool Runnings]

The law of the sea...... who get's the 'right of passage'? 

[Bonafide Bob]

 In my many years of riding motorcycles and Bicycle's, I have found that most folks believe that size has the right of way.

 Bob

[Cool Runnings]

In my many years of riding motorcycles and Bicycle's, I have found that most folks believe that size has the right of way.

 Bob

lol 

Tickets for cycling do not accumulate on your driver’s license.

California Vehicle Code 1803 spells out the rules for reporting traffic violations to the California DMV. It has this important exception you should be aware of. CVC 1803 (b) says:


The following violations are not required to be reported … Violations for which a person was cited as a pedestrian or while operating a bicycle or a motorized scooter.


http://www.cyclelicio.us/2014/california-traffic-tickets-while-cycling-points-on-your-license/

[canuguzzi]

In my many years of riding motorcycles and Bicycle's, I have found that most folks believe that size has the right of way.

 Bob

Not in SF.  Just the way it is.

[HDGoose]

Are you saying you'd make no attempt to avoid striking a cyclist?

Never said that.

[Tom]

I'm waiting for this thread to be deleted.

[Randown]

I treat bicycle riders with the same respect I do other vehicles. Run a stop sign and we get into an accident an you'll be praying for the cops and ambulance to arrive quickly.

Are you saying you'd make no attempt to avoid striking a cyclist?

Never said that.

Oh, a self-proclaimed tough-guy then? Women too? Some of those ride cycles & can be pretty tough.