Support NeoGAF

[Dalek]

San Francisco May Let Bicyclists Yield at Stop Signs

SAN FRANCISCO — Hundreds of defiant bicyclists lined up single file here in July to protest, halting car traffic in a one-mile zigzag of streets known as the Wiggle that is popular among riders. Motorists honked and heckled during their stalled evening commute, as cyclists crept along to make their point: that they want the common practice of treating stop signs as yield signs — rolling through them slowly and coming to a stop only if necessary — to be legalized, for practical reasons.

Law enforcement officials had threatened to crack down on cyclists who failed to stop at signs, and the Wiggle “stop-in” protest was in response to their threat. Still, the police made good on their warning, issuing 204 citations over two days in August. Not to be silenced, 100 cyclists showed up at a community meeting to vent, and the crackdown was suspended.

Angry confrontations among bicyclists, motorists and pedestrians are common in many cities, but tensions in San Francisco have been heightened with the introduction of a bill that would permit bike riders to yield instead of stop at stop signs (but not at red lights, which bikers would still have to observe the same way motorists do). The proposed ordinance, backed by a majority on San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, is expected to come up for a vote in December. If it passes, Mayor Edwin M. Lee has vowed to veto it, telling The San Francisco Chronicle, “I’m not willing to trade away safety for convenience.”

If the supervisors prevail over a veto, San Francisco will become the largest city in the United States to pass a stop-as-yield law. Idaho and a few Colorado counties are the only places in the United States that permit the rolling stop, commonly called the “Idaho stop” because of its legality there since 1982. Paris adopted a similar law this summer.

And if bicyclists in this crowded and hilly city succeed, they are bracing for even more resistance from pedestrians and drivers fighting for space on San Francisco’s increasingly congested streets.

“It feels like the Wild West because there are so many people in the city right now,” said Morgan Fitzgibbons, a community activist who organized the protest at the Wiggle. “People say, ‘You are so entitled.’ But if anyone is entitled, it is the drivers who refuse to give up the privilege of having a parking spot. We have battle after battle, and nothing is ever solved.”

There is no shortage of clashes among those who travel by foot, on two wheels and on four. In August, a driver was surrounded by cyclists from Critical Mass, a guerrilla bike group that holds monthly rides that often snarl traffic; when the driver tried to escape, one of the cyclists used a bike lock to smash the car’s windows and hood. The episode was caught on video.

Just this month, a bicyclist named Mark Heryer was killed while riding west on Market Street, the city’s main downtown thoroughfare, when he lost control and was run over by a San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency bus, according to the police. That same day, another cyclist was struck blocks away by a truck towing a horse trailer.

Most people agree that there is carelessness and fault on all sides. “Cars turn and they don’t signal,” said Jean Kao, a co-founder of a start-up who works in San Francisco. She said she felt safe riding her bike to the office, although she had experienced a number of close calls.

But her fellow bikers do not always have the best judgment, either, Ms. Kao said, adding, “I see people trying to pass buses and I think: ‘Whoa. That is not safe.’ ”

Mr. Sadowsky of the Portland bike group suggested that a more palatable legal solution might be something akin to the way seatbelts are regulated — that is, making failure to stop at a street sign a secondary offense. That way, cyclists would not be ticketed for failure to stop, but if they were cited for another violation, the failure to stop would be added.

That, of course, will not overcome the ire aroused by watching someone else get ahead. “In communities where street traffic is horrible, bikes move on through,” Mr. Sadowsky said. And that is frustrating for drivers idling in place, stacked 10 deep in a row, watching cyclists zip by.

“It’s not jealousy,” Mr. Sadowsky said of motorists’ disdain for cyclists. “It’s more like: ‘Why are you whining? You already have it made.’ ”

 

[Deleted member 20415]

So car drivers should be able to treat stop signs as yield signs too right?


That won't end in complete disaster.

 

[Tzeentch]

If the supervisors prevail over a veto, San Francisco will become the largest city in the United States to pass a stop-as-yield law. Idaho and a few Colorado counties are the only places in the United States that permit the rolling stop, commonly called the “Idaho stop” because of its legality there since 1982. Paris adopted a similar law this summer.

I'm from Idaho and have never, ever, heard it called this. It's always "California rolling stop."

 

[JesseZao]

I'm from Idaho and have never, ever, heard it called this. It's always "California rolling stop."

I've always called it the "California roll."

 

[SecretMoblin]

It's absurd.

Bicycles are vehicles and should be treated as such.

 

[Dalek]

It's absurd.

Bicycles are vehicles and should be treated as such.

I feel the same way-I don't know why this is even necessary.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I've always called it the "California roll."

I love those

 

[pigeon]

People keep saying they want to treat the stop sign as a yield sign.

That would be fine with me if it meant they would actually yield to cross traffic. The whole problem is right now they're treating stop signs as speed boosters.

 

[Paskil]

Glad I don't live in San Francisco.

 

[travisbickle]

I think it's fine. Vehicle owners can go buy a bike if they think the change in rules are so great.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

So car drivers should be able to treat stop signs as yield signs too right?

They already do.

 

[way more]

This might work. Cyclists have the most to lose if they do this improperly (like their life) and they will be the most cautious and only use the option judiciously. It's like the principle of taking out too many stop signs in neighborhood and seeing the car crash rate decrease. Sometimes putting people on edge is what makes them better drivers. They should do it for a probation period and if cyclist deaths and injuries drop keep the idea.


Reading the past posts, cars and bikes are the same thing? Do you all have some neurological disorder and can't differentiate size?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

San Francisco in 30 years will be a Fist of the North Star style dystopia. Or worse, a Deus Ex style misanthropia. Only sense of community is shared by SF Giant thugs fans.

I did crack up at the idea that 100 people in bike helmets were able to successfully stop a police crackdown just by asking really, really nicely.

Edit: and seeing how brazen the bikers have gotten in Cambridge recently, I pity the SF drivers more than anything. Some of these idiots have no sense of self preservation, and on top of that have the brainless idea to wear headphones.

 

[Zoe]

It only makes sense to me for it to be treated as a yield when no one else is present.

 

[numble]

It only makes sense to me for it to be treated as a yield when no one else is present.

That is what yield means.

 

[way more]

It only makes sense to me for it to be treated as a yield when no one else is present.

Hmm. Maybe they just need a education initiative.

 

[lastflowers]

“California deserves whatever it gets. Californians invented the concept of life-style. This alone warrants their doom.”
― Don DeLillo

 

[Zoe]

That is what yield means.

I dunno, I've seen cyclists who consider it to just mean the lack of cross traffic.

 

[SilentRacoon]

Ridiculous, they are using the same road as everyone else, why should bicycles be treated any different than motorcycles?

They want to be able to ride on sidewalks while also not abiding to road rules? GTFO

 

[Apath]

Maybe one out of twenty bikers I see actually stop at stop signs, if that. So I'm not sure how this would change anything, as the police already don't do shit about it anyway. May as well make it official.

I dunno, I've seen cyclists who consider it to just mean the lack of cross traffic.

They treat them two ways:
1. No cars. Go right through without slowing down.
2. Car. Ignore the stop sign and roll out until you're about three feet from the car. Wait for it to completely pass, keep going.

 

[EviLore]

“We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run.” - Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

 

[Crazymoogle]

I want to trust bicyclists somehow, but every day I see the "Montreal stop", which is where if there's a red light on a T-intersection, the cyclist just plows through despite the light or any pedestrians crossing...

 

[FyreWulff]

Nah. It's safer when everyone crossing the intersection acts the same way. I get really tired of cyclists that just roll through 4 way stops.

Our next door neighbor Iowa has 4 way no-stops. Needless to say I avoid those intersections.

 

[SecretMoblin]

Reading the past posts, cars and bikes are the same thing? Do you all have some neurological disorder and can't differentiate size?

Nobody is claiming they are the "same thing".

When on the road, they are vehicles. They have to signal turns, they have to follow road signs, they have to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks. When a bike collides with a pedestrian, it's not treated like two individuals accidentally running into each other. This is not a controversial concept.

Should motorcycles also get this privilege? What about motorbikes, or scooters? What about smart cars?

Something like this would make things worse and considerably more dangerous for cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians.

 

[HUELEN10]

They already do.

But it's easy to tattle. All you gotta do is sustain your horn at the jerks and watch them get a ticket.

Also works for people that blaze through red lights.

 

[Mechazawa]

Is there some incredibly obvious detail I'm missing here for why this is beneficial in terms of safety for cyclists/drivers?

 

[Dalek]

Is there some incredibly obvious detail I'm missing here for why this is beneficial in terms of safety for cyclists/drivers?

The article never mentions it other than the cyclists want it. Well of course they do, but how does that benefit the city as a whole?

 

[xenist]

Fuck them. Stop means stop. Are they worried they will fall off their fixed gears?

 

[titiklabingapat]

You guys realize this doesn't change anything when there are other vehicles at the intersection, right? Bicycles would still be required to a full stop when a vehicle is present at a stop sign.

Sometimes taking out limits actually decrease accidents (bicycle helmet laws and roundabouts are prime examples of this) and improve road safety for everyone.

 

[Dalek]

You guys realize this doesn't change anything when there are other vehicles at the intersection, right? Bicycles would still be required to a full stop when a vehicle is present at a stop sign.

I'm sure that's exactly what will happen.

 

[titiklabingapat]

I'm sure that's exactly what will happen.

That's besides the point. Like everything else, a majority of people on bikes will obey, while a few bad apples will disregard it. Why punish everyone else when you can just ticket the very few bad ones? People in cars break rules all the time too. Do we punish everyone who drives, especially considering that the thing they are driving can result in more severe injuries and fatalities?

 

[way more]

You guys realize this doesn't change anything when there are other vehicles at the intersection, right? Bicycles would still be required to a full stop when a vehicle is present at a stop sign.

That's not how the law works. OH, whats that? This is just coming in. Yes, yes, I'm being told now that is in fact how it works.

 

[Amory]

god bicyclists are so annoying.

 

[sir_kevith]

They made a strong case:

http://abc7news.com/traffic/san-francisco-bicyclists-protest-outdated-traffic-laws/892465/

The majority of both bicyclists and cars dont make legal stops at stop signs on residential streets. Study after study shows this. Bicyclists dont have the convenience of simply stepping on the gas. This will work out better for all.

 

[Lesath]

Shit, San Francisco's terrible bicyclists already treat stop signs as yield signs, and are hardly punished for it. I say this is just a formality.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Shit, San Francisco's terrible bicyclists already treat stop signs as yield signs, and are hardly punished for it. I say this is just a formality.

Every vehicle does this.

 

[Lesath]

Every vehicle does this.

Yeah, no.

 

[SecretMoblin]

That's besides the point. Like everything else, a majority of people on bikes will obey, while a few bad apples will disregard it. Why punish everyone else when you can just ticket the few bad ones.

Drivers break rules all the time too. Do we punish everyone who drives?

How on earth does the current requirement that cyclists follow road signs qualify as "punishment"?

We had this fight with seatbelts. There's a massive, important psychological advantage to making certain safety measures a requirement, even if many disregard it. Telling cyclists that they suddenly have more freedom when it comes to stop signs would have a huge, immediate impact on road safety -- most importantly, for them.

http://abc7news.com/traffic/san-francisco-bicyclists-protest-outdated-traffic-laws/892465/

A group of buddies could hop on the freeway and never top the speed limit to "prove a point", and cause quite the traffic headache doing so. That doesn't mean speed limits should be relegated to mere suggestions.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Yeah, no.

The post right above yours.

They made a strong case:

http://abc7news.com/traffic/san-francisco-bicyclists-protest-outdated-traffic-laws/892465/

The majority of both bicyclists and cars dont make legal stops at stop signs on residential streets. Study after study shows this. Bicyclists dont have the convenience of simply stepping on the gas. This will work out better for all.

Bronx Man Films 41 Drivers Blowing Through Stop Sign In 25 Minutes
http://gothamist.com/2012/01/04/bronx_man_films_41_drivers_blowing.php

Unfortunate that the video is gone, but there's that.

 

[FrenchToastDisciple]

Jesus, it didn't take long for people to start ripping on bikes. Guess what people, it makes no sense to treat vehicles the same just because they're vehicles, so the "stop means stop" crowd just comes off as some unnecessarily strict adherence to rules for rules' sake.

This law makes sense. Bikes go slower than cars and can thus gauge whether or not anybody's coming up to the intersection at much greater certainty than cars at stop signs. They also take longer to speed up and are hence more burdened by having to come to a complete stop. Let's try to not make this some stupid vehicle war divorced of actual safety and practical concerns.

 

[Lesath]

The post right above yours.

Okay, I've read the article. I'm terribly sleepy, but point out to me where it substantiates the poster's claim that the majority of cars don't make legal stops.

EDIT: Your article is the Bronx. That's totally San Francisco.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Okay, I've read the article. I'm terribly sleepy, but point out to me where it substantiates the poster's claim that the majority of cars don't make legal stops.

EDIT: Your article is the Bronx. That's totally San Francisco.

At this point I'm not understanding why you doubt others' anecdotal experiences but expect us to accept yours.

Every vehicle type rolls through stop signs.

 

[sir_kevith]

How on earth does the current requirement that cyclists follow road signs qualify as "punishment"?

We had this fight with seatbelts. There's a massive, important psychological advantage to making certain safety measures a requirement, even if many disregard it. Telling cyclists that they suddenly have more freedom when it comes to stop signs would have a huge, immediate impact on road safety -- most importantly, for them.



A group of buddies could hop on the freeway and never top the speed limit to "prove a point", and cause quite the traffic headache doing so. That doesn't mean speed limits should be relegated to mere suggestions.

So youre fine with cars breaking the law but not bikes for some reason. Nice argument.

 

[Balphon]

Having endured the cyclist community in SF in the past makes me extremely disinclined to care about what they want, but there is probably a compromise to be made here.

 

[SecretMoblin]

So youre fine with cars breaking the law but not bikes for some reason. Nice argument.

huh

 

[dorkkaos]

So youre fine with cars breaking the law but not bikes for some reason. Nice argument.

I say ticket them all, both cars and bikes, who roll through stop signs.

 

[devilhawk]

I swear every other sentence from cyclists in these threads start with "but, but cars..."

Meanwhile I saw yet another (only 4 today) cyclists blow through a stop light today as I was waiting at a bus stop. The dude blew right by the stopped car in the other lane. Granted, there were no other cars as cross traffic. The reason the light was red was because of the pedestrian crossing the street. The pedestrian was in front of the car which obscured the cyclist's vision and luckily the bike missed the girl by a couple of feet.

You should not be above the law. Just like drivers in cars pay too little attention to things other than cars, so do bikers. That is why the laws are in place.

 

[black_13]

I'm for this to be honest. Especially for intersections where it's uphill. It's alot easier for a car to stop and go than for a cyclist.

 

[titiklabingapat]

How on earth does the current requirement that cyclists follow road signs qualify as "punishment"?

We had this fight with seatbelts. There's a massive, important psychological advantage to making certain safety measures a requirement, even if many disregard it. Telling cyclists that they suddenly have more freedom when it comes to stop signs would have a huge, immediate impact on road safety -- most importantly, for them.

Seatbelt laws are undoubtedly effective. Laws regarding bicycles however, especially mandatory ones are a lot more dubious. I suspect it is because the fundamental difference between the two is weight and size. Current bicycle laws we have today seems to assume that bicycles are the same as motor vehicles, which they clearly are not so the effects are fundamentally different.

Mandatory bicycle helmet laws, for instance seem to have the opposite effects from thier intended purpose of increasing safety for people on bikes: it decreases cycling rates and therefore reduces driver exposure to bicyclists. This has the negative effect of actually increasing bicycle collisions and increased bicycle injury rates because drivers are exposed to less cyclists on the streets. Studies have also shown that drivers make more reckless decisions around people who are wearing bicycle helmets compared to those who aren't. They probably assume that people wearing helmets are more protected and so they are less cautious around them.

Again, this point is moot anyway. People on bikes are still required by law to do a full stop when other vehicles are present.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Every vehicle does this.

I stop fully at stop signs. I drive defensively and with the flow of traffic. Well maybe 5-10 over on open expressways. Probably why I've done a good job of never in my life being pulled over or ticketed. Even as a black man in FL!

But if they are cool with people yielding illegally through stop signs, why not replace stop signs with yield signs? That way nobody is confused of what's going on.