Bikes on the road: a TV report and ‘optional’ stop signs
Posted on May 2nd, 2008 – 6:05 AMBy Roadguy
Roadguy doesn’t watch much TV while he’s at work, but numerous alert readers (as well as colleague J.D.) have been discussing the Channel 5 story titled “Bicyclists Breaking the Law?” I’ve finally checked it out and have an observation to share.
In the video, crash stats purportedly from 2005 appear on the screen as the reporter shows what “our investigation discovered.” Moments after watching this, I did a similar investigation right here at my desk:
1) I rotated in my office chair
2) I opened my top left file drawer
3) I pulled out a copy of the state’s “Crash Facts 2006” report, distributed last summer
4) I looked in the table of contents
5) I turned to page 90
6) I “discovered” the statistics
(The figures actually appear to be from 2006, not 2005, unless the numbers didn’t change from one year to the next.)
Say what you will about the aerobic benefits of biking — sweeps month is all about being breathless.
As long as we’re on the topic of the bike-car conundrum again, here’s something to chew on: Idaho’s optional stop signs for bicyclists. An excerpt from that state’s statutes:
A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection.
So, a stop is not always required. Should Minnesota look into this, or would it make things worse between cars and bikes? Share your thoughts below.
149 Responses to "Bikes on the road: a TV report and ‘optional’ stop signs"
Maybe the bicyclers here are all Idaho transplants.
Bikes are bikes. Bikes are not cars. Bike are not pedestrians. Bikes are bikes.
A stop sign law pertaining just to bikes makes sense. It wouldn’t be an “exception” for cyclists; it would be a law pertaining to cyclists.
When I ride a bike, there are countles cars that break laws, drive in a dangerous manner, and drive me nuts.
When I drive a car, there are bikes that break laws, operate in a dangerous manner, and drive me nuts.
It goes both ways and to target one over the other is completely bias and ignorant.
Here is a good one: the day after the Channel 5 story aired, while riding in a residential part of South Mpls I observed a cyclist blowing a stop sign and turning left from the far right, directly in front of a large pick-up. The pick-up honked and rightfully so, as it had to go well out of its way to avoid the cyclist. BUT, just two blocks later, the same pick-up blew a stop sign and turned left without a signal because he wanted to beat a line of cars coming down the cross road, and a car coming from his left honked at him!
If this doesn’t illustrate my points, then I give up.
The Idaho law makes much more sense then current MN law. There’s also some other aspects of MN that need to be better spelled out when it comes to operating human powered vehicles on public roadways.
Regarding the KSTP “report”, it’s funny that the reporter says nothing about the multiple cars that fail to come to a complete stop at the T intersection (with a dedicated bike lane) that he chose to document “dangerous” bicyclists. What a hypocrite. This guy must have had a bad personal experience in his past with a cyclist.
In contrast to KSTP’s waste of air space with this “report”, Fox 9 News
(surprisingly) produced a wonderful news story on the benefits of bicycling to
work (annual savings currently at $8,400 compared to motoring) and highlighting
the Midtown Bike Center which will be opening soon at Midtown Exchange.
Fox 9 video link:
Hey! I am in that Fox9 video. You can see the cross-wind push me over a bit. It was cold and very windy that day, as I recall.
I didn’t even know I was on TV until now. I did see the guy filming, though, and I wondered what was going on. Good thing I wasn’t doing anything illegal!
The solution is to replace most of the stop signs with yield signs. This way, if there is no traffic, you don’t have to stop. Works for everyone.
It’s a big waste of time, gas, break lining, and momentum to have to stop for no traffic.
I think the cosmos are aligning… because I agree with DGB.
Cyclists have long thought they’re above the law. When was the last time a cop ticketed a cyclist for blowing a stop sign? No wonder they don’t think they have to stop!
I might actually agree with DGB on this one. I’ll have to give it a little more thought.
There still are cases where motorists should be required to stop while bicycles should be required to only yield. The bicycle and the motor vehicle are very different vehicles that have very different requirements for them to function properly within communities. These differences need to be taken into account in order to develop effective public policy. The Idaho law does this and it’s a popular law.
Here’s some recent history on the Idaho law posted to the APBP member list serve just a few days ago:
>From a conversation I had with an Idaho legislator and Idaho bicycle
advocates, I learned a little about recent modifications to the law.
To paraphrase, the stop sign law has said for a long time that bicyclists
must approach a stop sign with caution and yield if a vehicle in or
approaching the intersection has the right-of-way. For motor vehicles, the
law said simply, you have to stop.
Also paraphrasing, the red light law said until recently that bicyclists
must come to a complete stop. For motorists, it said (and says) you must
come to a complete stop and wait until it turns green before going. Most
interpreted this to mean that bicyclists could treat a red light law like
a stop sign, based on the explicit requirement that motorists must wait
until the light turns green before proceeding, a requirement that did not
apply to bicyclists. However, Idaho legislators and police felt the law
for bicyclists was ambiguous. They introduced a bill to require bicyclists
to wait until the red light turns green before proceeding. It failed.
Interested mainly in clearing up the ambiguous language, they reintroduced
the bill making it explicit that a bicyclist could proceed on a red light
after stopping. That bill passed.
Heh, who knew anyone cared about bikes in Idaho? Oh well, I don’
Just like most things in these United States, laws for laws for laws for laws….If the legal system would just enforce the existing laws…NO PROBLEM!!! Aren’t bikes suppose to obey the same laws as other vehicles that use public highways and byways?? Bikes get away with obeying “NO” laws at all, let’s start enforcing the laws we have, and then this is “no point”.
not sure what traffic is like in Idaho, but i don’t think their laws would apply in the “big city”.
I laughed and laughed all through that Channel 5 report, in part because I thought it was crummy sweeps-week journalism but it was true nonetheless.
That said, I agree 100% with DGB on this one. About 99% of stop signs are unnecessary, a yield sign would do just fine, and if we actually were in the habit of using yield signs, more drivers might understand what they actually mean.
Instead what we’ve done is we’ve turned the stop sign into a de-facto yield sign, because every driver knows that a complete stop is completely unnecessary and a waste of time and fuel. And there’s no sign left over for when we really actually do need people to stop, where the sight line is totally blocked, etc.
That said, good luck ever getting that changed. Even in a low-speed residential area with two low-volume streets, where you probably don’t even need a yield sign, the neighbors always want an all-way stop sign, even though they probably blow through stop signs in everyone else’s neighborhood.
“Won’t someone please think of the children!” –Helen Lovejoy
These whole bike vs. car debates are entertaining, but pointless. Cars rail on bikes for thumbing their nose at traffic laws and tell them, if they want to have the same rights as cars (ride on the street instead of the sidewalk) they need to obey the same traffic laws. Bikes rail on cars for being inconsiderate boobs, ignoring the laws, and endangering them on shared roadways.
Personally, I feel all stop signs ought to be, as suggested, yield signs. Intersections busy enough to warrent them should continue to have stop lights, and a red light must be honored (photo cop - yes!). But if a car or a bike approaches a stop sign and can clearly see there’s no cross-traffic, it’s pointless to have to come to a complete stop before proceeding. Of course, this would require people be paying attention (ie - no cellphone, no reading, no eating, no texting, etc.).
It’s truly sad that because “some” people are so incredibly stupid and indifferent toward others, that we have to be reduced to the lowest common denominators which are traffic laws. And every “simple-minded” cop out there doles out tickets for breaking those arbitrarily and subjectively enforced laws, rather than using common sense and reason.
As a bike commuter, I once I took a rolling stop through a stop sign to let a car go through and the driver waved her finger at me and screamed, “It’s not your turn!!”
However, it seems that a lot of drivers in my South Minneapolis neck of the woods have been very courteous and yield to bikers all the time, actually. They just assume bikers are going to run stop signs.
Oh, and here’s food for thought: Letting bikers run red lights and stop signs actually makes way for the traffic behind them–we get out of the cars’ way a lot more effectively when given a head start. Think about it.
Living in uptown one would have a different opinion. Everyday I see careless bikers who risk their lives in cutting in front of oncoming traffic and darting in and out of cars. They not only risk their own lives with this LAW BREAKING behavior but they risk other people’s lives as well. What about the car that has to swerve to avoid a biker. I have been driving many times and had bikers come out of nowhere and I have to slam on my brakes. They are a vehicle on the roads and have to follow the same laws that cars do. If the police dont ticket them or stop them in some way bikers will continue to die and get hit by cars and the car will always win. What should I do next time a biker almost hits me? Swerve and risk my life, or try and stop and if I cant, at least its not my fault.
Enough “special” for cyclists. We build expensive bike paths, they still ride on the side of the row, in packs at times. Ever try driving on the old 212 when the cyclists are out? They did the old rail line so you can walk and bike on that. Same with Pioneer trail west of 212. Learn to obey the rules.
DGB says “The solution is to replace most of the stop signs with yield signs. This way, if there is no traffic, you don’t have to stop. Works for everyone.”
The only problem with this is when there is traffic, then the people will have to know what a Yield sign means. I have yet to see anybody even slow down for a Yield sign let alone Yield the right-of-way.
[Ugh, fat fingers lately.. Hit the Tab and then the Space, and suddenly the comment is submitted!]
Heh, who knew anyone cared about bikes in Idaho? Oh well, I’ve never been there, so maybe they’re a bigger component of daily life out there than I’d expect.
Well, being the gullible/obedient kid that I was, I usually came to a full stop when I was on my bike, and never liked seeing other bikes that wouldn’t stop or at least slow down to walking pace. But on a bike you’ve got a lot more visibility than you have in a car.
True, but again, if yield signs were more common than stop signs, people would know what they meant.
Don’t forget that the laws are a societal method for helping people work together and to get along. Once breaking stop sign laws becomes “okay” for bikes AND cars, what’s next. No one seems to be thinking about the slippery slope here. Where does it end? Who’s allowed to do it? I try to stop at all stop signs, but I see others blow right through them, so I feel upset that either I’m an idiot for caring about getting along and following rules or the other person doesn’t respect me or anyone else on the road.
Can we try to work politically and get enough people together to work with our congressional representatives to change the laws rather than taking the matter into our own hands and just observing them when it suits our needs?
Most people, be it bicyclists or drivers don’t know the laws. Complicating that fact is that there is no need to get a license to drive a bike, as there is for cars, so you don’t even need to know the rules. Drivers learn the rules at 15-16 but usually forget them in a few years and rarely keep up with new laws.
Bicyclists don’t like to stop at stop signs because it takes a lot of energy to get started again and is slow, but in Minnesota a bicycle is required to follow the same laws as motor vehicles. That means bikers can drive on the road, enter the middle of turn lanes at stop signs, and are required to follow all traffic signs. Usually a bicyclist can use a path or sidewalk if one exists, but some areas like Dinkytown prohibit bikes on the sidewalk.
I said drivers were equally at fault, and there’s a reason I spelled out some of those locations and rules above - I’ve been honked at, told to get off the road and drive on the sidewalk in Dinkytown (where it is against the law to bike on the sidewalk), and told by a driver in Brooklyn Park that I couldn’t enter a turn lane at a stop sign when I had entered the lane, stopped, and signaled my left turn with a hand sign. The driver was incorrect in every case. Slow moving vehicles like bikes need to try to get as far right as possible and still be safe, but they have equal street rights as any car. The exception is any place with minimum speed limits like freeways (an law actually prohibits bikes and even some motorized vehicles like scooters on freeways).
I treat all stop signs as yield signs. If I see one, I assume I will have to stop unless I get to a point where I can see there’s no oncoming traffic in either direction.
I have never understood the mentality of assuming you can blow through traffic control signs and signals without harm. Why would you want to risk being injured and unable to use the mode of transportation you find so superior to the cars you thumb your nose at?
Even when you have the right of way, you still have to be defensive. (Bikers and drivers alike.) As my grandfather use to say, “it’s good to be right, but what good is it to be dead right?”
It’s quite apparent that bicyclists are nothing more than white-tailed deer in spandex.
They operate with no regard for others’, or even their own safety. And it’s equally meaningful to have a conversation with one regarding laws or manners.
That said, a word to motorists: do not keep a ‘bicylist’ you have hit as a trophy. Call the DNR and wait for them to arrive.
Sounds good, but I doubt it would ever happen. I decided that I am no longer going to watch KSTP news though.
Maybe they should do a story on cars and trucks that speed, roll/ignore stop signs, or fail to signal turns. Or, pedestrians that jaywalk and don’t pay attention to cross traffic. The police don’t enforce all kinds of laws and make a judgment call for the situation.
When I am on my bike I am extremely careful and defensive. If I don’t anticipate some erratic driver, I am the one that will be sorry-not the auto. This on top of the people who try to clip bikes, and my observation is that they are usually driving trucks. There’s a story for KSTP: Aggressive driving and endangering bikers. Or, how about: Sound laws not enforced on Harleys screaming through my neighborhood at all hours.
At least spuzzz makes soem sense. I can see it now, get rid of stop signs and instead of coming to a four way stop sign and getting angry at the person who takes off out of turn with no consideration for the other three drivers at the stop signs we will all be nice drivers and just yield to everyone else. I think I’ll on the sidelines and watch the fun when we “fix” the problem with yield signs…
Idaho is full of Californians in exile. The natives are more like barefoot hillbillies from the south.
Obviously the KSTP-5 report was a ratings week piece of fluff. Bike blowing through stop signs is not the real issue here. I think a much greater safety issue is bike riders who whiz down sidewalks with total disregard for pedestrians, and then dash from seemingly nowhere (in the visiblity range of motorists) into a crosswalk and expect to be treated like a pedestrian. Bikes should be on streets and yield to peds just like cars.
I don’t know what a 4-way yield would look like, but I bet it would increase collisions. Stop signs are often added after intersections prove to be unsafe without them, and yields wouldn’t help much. Ask the cops who investigate. I do get tired of bikers who believe that traffic laws don’t apply to them. I like bike lanes and bikeways, but if I share the road with cars, I play by the same rules - no exceptions.
I vote for yield signs too … stop signs are as confusing as the “stop for pedestrians” in (approaching?) the crosswalk. Many drivers stop for bikers even when the driver has no stop sign (or stop when the pedestrian is 5 feet from the crosswalk) … what to do? Bikers do expend a lot of excess energy to stop and get started again. When I stop at a “bike stop sign” because cars are in the street and then THEY stop it gets very frustrating. (If there are 2 lanes each way, often other cars zoom through while the first car is waiting for someone to cross.)
If we required people to actually learn the traffic laws, and if drivers (and bikers) in general followed those laws I might get behind the idea of yield signs in place of stop signs. As it is I can’t see depending on people’s common sense given that many drivers display none at all in their dealings with peds, bikers or each other.
I tried doing a yield at a stop sign once…(in a car) 3 way stop (T intersection), I was making a right hand turn, no cars around…. 1/2 block later, I was $140.00 lighter in the pocket book because the police had decided to crack down on that intersection.
Did the court thing, officer showed up (not happy) and the judge said, doesn’t matter if there’s no cars coming or not, stop sign is a stop sign, and the law requires you to STOP for 3 seconds.
Since then, I’ve not “California’d” a stop sign.
Bike riders need to learn that the laws of the road apply to them too. If they don’t follow them, then they learn the hard way that Mass * Velocity = DOA or road rash.
I’m okay with the idaho law, but I think it would be a bad idea to replace all stop signs with yield signs for cars. I have come close to being hit by quite a few inattentive drivers who have stop signs - make those stops yields, and I bet half of those near misses become hits.
On top of that, can you imagine what would happen at a four-way yield? You’d either get a four way crash, or you’d get four cars, each unwilling to go until everyone else has, so no one goes. I can see it getting ugly real fast.
when biking I always treated stop lights as optional because they SHOULD be optional for cyclists just as they are optional for pedestrians. If you expect cops to ticket cyclists for this then cops should ticket jaywalkers too.
I bike to work 3-4x per week during the “warmer” months (right). Both cars and bikes blow thru stop signs on East and West River Rd. Every morning, every afternoon, every day. Big deal. But auto drivers sometimes get it in their head that they need to point out or correct ‘bad’ cyclist behavior. Do they extend this legal lesson to the moron in the SUV yakking on his mobile. Ummm no - cuz he might crush them. So it really comes down to a I’m bigger than you mentality, so get out of my way… and why are you %$#* bikes on the road anyway? (and boy does it make cars mad when they are waiting in line for a SS and I just go to the front, wait for my turn, and go — ha ha ha)
Listen, I am burning a few gallons less fuel a day (rather than driving my Yukon), generally not clogging up the roads and I’m thinner and smarter than most of you fat slobs in cars. Your just jealous. The truth hurts.
Ok - continue your rant against cyclists. Most of us will be burying you when you die of diabetes.
when biking I always treat stop lights as optional because they SHOULD be optional for cyclists just as they are optional for pedestrians. If you expect cops to ticket cyclists for this then cops should ticket jaywalkers too.
“Say what you will about the aerobic benefits of biking — sweeps month is all about being breathless.”
Yeah, and all of a sudden KSTP seems to be the worst of the bunch. Hard to believe they could vault over CCO and Fox9, but they might have.
A recurring theme seems to be that cyclists use the road because the trails are too slow.
So why couldn’t we simply raise the statutory speed limit on bike trails to something closer to 25 or 30 (or more)? 10 MPH seems a bit ridiculously low to me… especially for a road exclusively dedicated to bicycle use.
At least then if a bicyclist wants to go that fast and wipes out and gets injured, no one else is affected.
PS - Attention pedestrians: Stay the bleep off of the bike paths already, would you?
I like the yield sign idea being tossed around, but I like the idea of roundabouts even better.
Hey subgenius - why don’t cars just stay on the interstates? Cuz they can’t get to where they want to go and the freeways are too clogged….. same for bike trails. Duh.
If we all rode bikes there would be no need for stop signs, we would save billons on gas, and cut pollution. Maybe that’s what we should do. Plus I would have like to see the cameraman and reporter doing this story while riding bikes.
I think the Idaho law is a good idea.
When I ride, it’s usually in the country, where there are rarely cars. For stop signs, I slow down sufficiently to see if there is traffic coming, and if there is, I stop. When there is a line of cars where I am going, I get in line and don’t blow by on the shoulder. I try to remember that I am part of traffic. Also, if I do get hit by a car, it might very well be their fault, but I still have a mangled bike and broken bones while they have a scratched paint job.
While I do know that I have the same right to the road as cars do, I’m not going to be an ass about it. Cars weight at least 10 times as much as I do. In a confrontation, saying, “Okay, it’s yours” prevents a lot of problems.
We shouldn’t replace all stop signs with yield signs. That would cause all kinds of trouble with people not understanding that “Yield” is only the first part of a phrase which ends “the right of way”.
You ride in traffic, you obey the traffic laws. Is there something you don’t understand?
You can’t raise the speed limit on the bikeways because they are used by young children and families that are not able to ride at 20+ mph. I have tried to use the trails at a higher speed but realized that I was not only in violation of the law, but seriously jeopardizing the safety of others. The solution is for all to obey the existing laws, something that is most unlikely to happen….
Yes botski, brilliant (sarcasm)
tax dollars to replace signs or tax dollars to install roundabouts….
A bicycle has been my main transportation for four years. I treat stop signs as yields (and I’m very careful about it). I have never had a close call as a result of this behavior. Almost all of my close calls were because motorists talking on cell phones were distracted from the task at hand and rolled through intersections inattentively.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting a “four-way yield”. The yield sign means that you don’t have the right-of-way, and if you gave that same sign to all four approaches, it would make no sense at all. I’m talking strictly about replacing normal stop-signs, not all-way stops.
All-way stops would still have their place, but they’re an incredibly inefficient form of intersection control. Roundabouts are probably the most efficient (save for an interchange), but people still freak about those.
And as far as drivers not knowing the law, I’m fully in support of requiring people to take a written test each time they renew their license. If they forgot the rules, they shouldn’t be driving until they re-learn them.
I had a person on a bike run a stop sign and hit my truck, he had no insurance and he was able to claim o fault on my insurance for hurting himself, and then it went on my record and raised my insurance rates! what a joke! I work in se mpls, and have seen bikers run lights and stop signs right in front of cops, but they dont want to waste their time because they’ll have the rediculous critical mass group mad at them! rules are rules, bikes or cars, its time for bikers and the police to start enforcing the laws
Attn: subgenius - just like we have to share the road with self-righteous indignant bicyclists, they have to share the bike paths (Mpls. lakes specifically) with slower kids on bikes, rollerblades, etc. Agree that peds need to stay on their paths, but if my 4y.o. gets run over by a cyclist going too fast on the path, they’re going to end up w/ a broken nose in the lake. BTW, for those of you that go two or three abreast on the parkways, it’s the same as two side-by-side motorists going 45mph on the interstate. GO SINGLE FILE
It would not be a good idea to indiscriminately change all stop signs to yield signs. As botski suggests, some intersections would be best transformed into roundabouts without traffic control signals while others (think residential areas) would best be served by traffic circles rather than stop or yield signs.
There are many different intersection treatments to choose from. When we choose between treatments we should consider the needs of all public right of way users. This is known as a Complete Streets design strategy.
Sell the car, sell the house, sell the kids.
And I should add that there is, in a sense, such a thing as a four-way yield. If four roads meet and there’s no signs in any direction, you yield to the vehicle on the right.
Of course, this doesn’t work very well with heavy traffic, and it wouldn’t work with yield signs, which means you yield to everybody, left and right.
not sure what traffic is like in Idaho, but i don’t think their laws would apply in the “big city”.
I was in Boise last summer and was amazed by the number of cyclists there. While it may not be the “big city” (population about 190k) traffic seemed to flow very well with bikes and cars. And talking to the locals who bike, they didn’t seem to have near the contention we have here in the Twin Cities. Food for thought…
As an avid cyclist for years, the argument is nothing new. It only becomes problematic when you micro-debate the issue. Replacing stop signs with yield signs would be disastrous. The cycling community needs to learn to properly exert their right to co-exist with motorists without unnecessarily impeding traffic. The road is a far safer place to be than bike paths. Bikes need to STOP at stop signs IF vehicles are visibly encroaching the intersection. Apply a dose of common sense.
I’m not saying switch all stop signs to yield signs, you’d have to have some criteria. But your standard “T” intersection in a residential neighborhood or rural farm fields, there’s no reason for a complete stop. Drivers know this, that’s why there’s such disregard for stop signs.
And then when they get to a stop sign where they really do need to stop for safety reasons, they’re trained to slow-and-go from all the unnecessary ones, and then it becomes a safety hazard.
No way! I am a biker, so I bear no special prejudice toward bikers, but the majority of them seem to think ignoring all traffic laws are OK. This defiance of the law simply increases the grudge against bikers.
Second, the biggest city in Idaho is Boise with a population of 650000. Comparing that to the Twin Cities is asinine. If roadguy wants increase his job security by stirring the pot and drawing attention, he has done a good job, but I challenge him to better serve the community by producing solutions rather than problems.
How about this bikers, get out of the way when you’re on the road. If you do that then no one will care if you roll through a stop sign that really doesnt pertain to you. Why must you ride in the middle of the road and refuse to let traffic pass you?? 95% of the bikers out there are good its the other 5% that make the bikers look bad.
i bike commute. i am extremely careful and obey ALL traffic laws, since together my bike and i weigh less than 200 pounds. i’m no idiot. i realize that a mistake on my part will lead to serious personal injury. those of you who make the claim that “all bikers think they own the road” are definitely exaggerating your claims. you have probably passed hundreds of bikers who obey the laws of the road and paid them absolutely no attention. one biker pisses you off, and suddenly you’re on a witch hunt. such overreaction is becoming more and more typical of road-rage crazed drivers (this is true of bicyclists who think every driver is on a cell phone and trying to run them off the road). everyone needs to take a chill pill an relax. the fact is the rising price of gas is going to lead to more bicyclists on the road. deal with it.
i have also heard a number of bike-haters making claims like “a law is a law is a law,” and that the police need to start “cracking down on bikers who think they own the road.” what if the police were to start “cracking down” on law breakers on our highways? what do you suppose would happen if cops ticketed everyone going over 55 mph on 94? i don’t think a single car drives under the speed limit on most of our highways, but i don’t see any news program doing an “investigative report,” or anyone on these forums calling for increased ticketing of these infractions. why? because laws aren’t always pragmatic. cultural norms often result in the decriminalization of laws. in the case of the bike story, the reported was recording bikers on the river road blowing stop signs. since these signs are at t-intersections, with little to no traffic merging in and out of the bike lanes, the signs are not practical. in fact, absolutely no car is affected by a biker blowing these signs since they never actually enter a car lane.
More signs are absolutely the LAST thing this city needs. The streets are already lined, saturated, polluted with signs and people are ceasing to pay attention.
I’d say that 80% of the stop signs in the city should simply be removed. Safety would not be affected, air pollution would decrease.
As a biker, myself, I can say that most of the time I and my fellow bikers consider stop signs optional anyway. I/we slow down enough to be able to stop if necessary, but most of the time it’s not necessary. I’d say that when I’m biking, a stop sign is a yield sign, and a red stoplight is a stop sign.
People can slam me all they want for having this opinion, but I’ve never been involved in or caused any vehicle accidents using this policy. And I’ve never been pulled over by a cop for it either.
I strongly disagree with DGB. What he(she?) utterly fails to take into account is the fact that people tend to ignore yield signs. They get used to them and after a while they become invisible. My intersection had them on the cross street and every lawn on my corner had cars up on it at one time or another, even though there was only heavy traffic for two fairly short periods a day. I even had one person after a wreck tell me flat out he never paid any attention to the Yield sign. It has been 15 years since the corner was changed to a two-way stop and there hasn’t been a single accident since.
Don’t switch to Yield signs, switch to NO signs (none, not any). It’s been done to positive effect
here.
sorry my html sucks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4451623,00.html
My concern with the Idaho law is that cyclists will never yield and disrupt traffic patterns at busy intersections. (Then get angry at drivers who are following traffic laws at these intersections and taking their proper turn to cross the intersection.) At least now they stop at busy stop signs even if they blow through the rest.
I guess you could throw me in the camp of a bicyclist that selectively breaky the law. The stretch of road in the story is the downriver side of River Road. I ride that direction constantly so I can go fast and have few stops as that entire road is a t intersection. Do I realize that this is illegal, yup. Do I do it with reckless abandon, nope. Do I do it on any other street, nope.
I am generally not one for moral ambiguity but freely admit that I make an exception here. Oh yeah, if I am riding the opposite way on River Road I do stop at the stop signs.
All in all I guess the story was a huge setup. I think they could have gone a few blocks north and filmed Summit Ave with every biker stopping at every stop sign. Just my humble opinion…
“About 99% of stop signs are unnecessary”
I agree with this. As a bicycle rider who follows the rules I have no problem with ticketing violators of the vehicle laws, but apply it both ways. There would be many, many, many more car violations then bike if the police started this practice. What I have a real problem with is the attitude of drivers. Do they get belligerent when a car rolls through a stop sign when they are following that car? Absolutely not; it is just the cyclist that is doing something wrong. I think it is a combination of jealousy and power that drives these attitudes. When is the last time you saw a motorist yell, curse, pass and then run another car or motorcycle off the road because they were going 15-20 MPH on the parkway. It happens all the time to cyclists.
A good alternative to the parkway problem is to eliminate the stop signs and put in rolling speed bumps like they have at the University hospital river road or the Bohemian Flats section. They slow the traffic to the point that cyclists are never overtaken and the friction between the riders and drivers isn’t an issue. Traffic calming is the answer, because the River Roads in general have become an alternate rush hour route that wasn’t meant to be. These roads were developed for park access, period. As of late frustrated commuters have turned it into a dangerous situation for the original primary user; park patrons.
Can we set up more special interest groups that have their own little set of rules? Lets see. We could set up a minority of left handed people of Swedish decent that was born in west central Minn, in the 50’s. Oh my gosh, that’s me.
This discussion is quite silly. 17,000 people were killed by drunk drivers last year, and here KSTP whines about bikes blowing through stop signs. I ride to work year-round, through all weather, and I don’t have to blow through stop signs to be to work on time. Motorists don’t like bikes on the road? Now I make them cry even more: I spent $118.00 on gasoline last year, for the whole year. Keep driving your car, keep whimpering about bikes. I’m laughing all the way to the credit union, and I do make complete stops.
I have found that many bicycle riders have no regard for the traffic laws, and feel that they can do as they please.
The most disturbing part of this is that of there were to be an accident involving a car and a bicycle, the car driver is going to always be at fault, irregardless of who was following the traffic laws. Not to mention the emotional distress caused to the driver of the automobile.
I can’t remember the last time I saw a car come to a full stop unless to avoid an accident.
I am a cyclist and car driver… guilty of rolling through from time to time. However, I always slow down and if you blow a stop sign biking or driving with out slowing then you deserve a ticket.
After reading this article I went to a busy intersection with 4-way-stop and in 10 minutes only about 10% of the cars came to a complete stop… no cyclist’s were observed as it was raining.
Forget everything you know (or think you know) about traffic laws. Now, think about what is reasonable. While purely recreational cyclists may be happy to stay on bike paths, commuters (just like cars) are going to follow the most efficient path, which is the street. So, the argument to keep bikes off the streets is moot. Since bikes and cars share the street, a balance must be found between inconveniencing vehicles from slower-moving cyclists, and endangering cyclists from vehicles. The ‘law of the jungle’ dictates the weak defer to the strong - so, cyclists ought to defer to motorists at intersections for obvious reasons. Civilized society says motorists ought to be considerate toward cyclists (and pedestrians, for that matter) by not passing too closely to them, or pulling out in front of them, etc. They may be momentarily inconvenienced by having to slow down until it’s safe to pass, but a certain amount of compromise is necessary. Why are these concepts difficult to grasp?
In Mexico, no one stops for “Stop” signs unless necessary. It’s all about personal judgment and responsibility. This concept drove me crazy at first but in observing this phenomena for 3 years, it works well. If there is an accident however, there is no doubt who is at fault.
The Idaho law makes the most sense, of the alternatives offered here. For one thing, it codifies in law what people are already doing. Recently speed limits were raised on some metro highways for the same reason.
As much as the yield signs approach initially sounds better, it would create new problems. In Minneapolis, stop signs generally appear every two blocks on residential (non arterial) streets. If you replace those stops with yields, traffic speed on those streets will increase, which I’m imagining will not be pleasing to local residents. In the areas where stop signs appear on every corner, its usually done to address the problem of people trying to speed through neighborhoods as alternatives to clogged arterial roads. Replacing some or all of those stops with yields would undo the traffic-calming intent.
Returning to the Idaho alternative, another aspect of the law is that it recognizes the extreme difference in the dangers posed by a 200 lb bicycle & rider blowing a stop sign, vs. a 4000 lb car doing the same thing.
sean makes excellent points- you can find automobile drivers that break law after law (turn signals, speeding, lights on in the rain…etc.) and you can find bicyclists who break law after law. i do have to say however that when I’m riding my scooter I find bicyclists often far more hazardous than cars. i wonder if some of the bicyclists even know they are required to follow the laws of the road…
“some intersections would be best transformed into roundabouts . . .while others (think residential areas) would best be served by traffic circles”
What, precisely, is the difference b/t a roundabout and a traffic circle?
The thing is though, that stop signs have been consistently shown NOT to reduce speeds, and actually increase speeds in between the signs, not to mention all the fuel wasted in the process.
I also once heard anecdotally that Minneapolis public works, rather than fighting council members over stop-sign requests, instead worked a deal where each council member gets one stop sign in their ward per year, no questions asked. I’m sure it cuts down on the staff time of actually analyzing it, but the logical end result is that someday every intersection in Minneapolis will be a four-way stop. Not sure if this is true or if I got the details exactly right, but I heard it on good authority.
As a cyclist I think we need to obey the laws as much as we can. But, honestly, rolling past a stop sign or jumping off on a red when NO cars are coming just makes sense. Weaving in and out of traffic does not. But most of this BS being spouted off here is by angry drivers. Face it, in a car you’re a tank compared to us. Use your brains and try not to hit cyclists. Moreover, why don’t you try riding a bike once and a while? Maybe if drivers did that then they wouldn’t be so angry at us cyclists who aren’t polluting or taking up much space. And I agree with the above comment on upping the speed laws on bike paths but who follows those anyhow? I have no idea how fast I am going on those things, just fast!
Mixing topics here: Why do bikers bike on the road when there are bike paths?
Many reasons. I can name a few and I am sure others can name things that I have never thought of.
First, the trails along the parkways in Mpls are RECREATIONAL trails. There is a speed limit of 10 mph, which I find completely appropriate given the amount of people on the trails, the type of people on the trails (kids, familes, etc), there are blind spots galore, and the fact that peds are going to walk on the bike-only trails will go on for the rest of our lives, which is a huge danger in itself.
Sometimes the trails do not go where the cyclist is going. This is the reason that I, personally, take the road vs. the trail. For my instance, there is a three block section of parkway that I take regularly, but I take the road. Why? Because there are no trail heads where I enter and exit the road. I would have to illegally cross traffic lanes, jump a curb, and ride across grass to get to the trail to enter and exit it. I keep up with traffic on the parkway as it is, so I ride those three blocks and no one even has a reason to care.
I had about 8 reasons for defending cyclists riding on the road vs. the trails, but I don’t want to waste too much time here and others can likely be more eloquent than I can anyway.
This is the topic that gets me going, though, because on the one hand, it is complete ignorance of the scenario to assume bikes should be on the bike path instead of the road, but at the same time, I don’t blame drivers for thinking that, either, because unless they ride regularly for purposes other than putting along or with their own families, how would they really be aware or know?
If you raise the speed limit on the bike trails, where are the families and the riders who are in practice for the Tour de France suppose to ride? The city streets with Grille Gaurd?
Being a Minnesota Native in the land of potatos and mormons… I have to say that if you can dodge the pitbulls, jacked up trucks, and general knuckle dragging of the natives (see wisconsin). The bike laws here are very useful for the much more rural communities. This is directly related to much lower traffic levels in than in Minneapolis, where there are more dangerous and often blind intersections with higher speeds and potential for serious consequences.
I have less concern about the commuter cyclists out there, who, although sometimes dangerous, I think are generally sophisticated enough to know the rules and make calculated judgments about their actions. But the other day, I nearly obliterated a young teenager on a bike who completely ignored a stop sign and flew into the intersection in front of me. Some of that is just careless teenage-ness, but if we change the rules so that bikers in general don’t have to follow the same rules as drivers, what message does that send to young cyclists?
Sean asks
“Why do bikers bike on the road when there are bike paths?”
Why do people take Portland & Park (or Nicollet, or Lyndale, or Blaisdel) instead of 35W?
There are several reasons. 1) 10 mph speed limit on many bike paths; 2) pedestrians walking on bike paths; 3) high traffic volume on bike paths; 4) bike paths don’t go where biker needs to go (i.e. paths are one-way around the lakes, whereas the roads, when one way, usually go the other; see Lk Harriet).
ha! I see now that sean’s question was rhetorical. I read the first line & responded, rather than reading the whole post…
I don’t see the difference between a traffic circle and a 4 way yield.
At a 4 way stop, all the drivers are doing is yielding, hopefully in a polite manner.
To all of those that hate bicyclists: I would love to see all of the bicycle commuters not bike for one day and drive everywhere. Somewhere out of the story I saw a figure of over 10,000 people bike as transportation daily in the cities. I can only imagine what traffic would be like that day! I have to agree that people have no idea what to do with a yield sign in this state. They would learn quickly though after everyone crashed after a change like that was done. I personally stop at signs and lights that are major. When I am all by my self riding through the city back streets on my commute, I slow down and roll through stop signs. Something needs to be done in the twin cities to either educate motorists on cyclist’s rights, enforce the law on psycho cyclists, or both (preferably). Sounds like a major undertaking that I don’t see happening in the near future.
“About 99% of stop signs are unnecessary”
I agree with this. As a bicycle rider who follows the rules I have no problem with ticketing violators of the vehicle laws, but apply it both ways. There would be many, many, many more car violations then bike if the police started this practice. What I have a real problem with is the attitude of drivers. Do they get belligerent when a car rolls through a stop sign when they are following that car? Absolutely not; it is just the cyclist that is doing something wrong. I think it is a combination of jealousy and power that drives these attitudes. When is the last time you saw a motorist yell, curse, pass and then run another car or motorcycle off the road because they were going 15-20 MPH on the parkway. It happens all the time to cyclists.
A good alternative to the parkway problem is to eliminate the stop signs and put in rolling speed bumps like they have at the University hospital river road or the Bohemian Flats section. They slow the traffic to the point that cyclists are never overtaken and the friction between the riders and drivers isn’t an issue. Traffic calming is the answer, because the River Roads in general have become an alternate rush hour route that wasn’t meant to be. These roads were developed for park access, period. As of late frustrated commuters have turned it into a dangerous situation for the original primary user; park patrons.
If you think that bikes get special treatment because they have paths does that mean cars get special treatment because they have highways?
I drive and I bike and I agree with Pete@ May 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 am above.
This is pointless.
I commute to and from work and treat stop signs differently than lights. I always obey stop lights, which occur mostly downtown with heavy traffic for me. I treat the stop signs in my residential neighborhood more like yield signs.
And since the law says I have the same rights as any vehicle, when I ride downtown I behave like a car. I take up an entire lane and do not move aside to let cars pass. They aren’t much faster and by staying in the lane, I am far more predictable. I am sure it upsets some drivers, but it also makes me safer.
I find “bikers” to be a complete nuisance on the roads! I agree that not all drivers follow the posted laws, but the amount of arrogance that cyclists have when it comes to said laws seems to be abundant.
“Bikers do expend a lot of excess energy to stop and get started again.”
This comment by JB seems a little silly to me. Is this not one of the reasons you ride a bike, for the excercise!
My last point would be that cars pay to use the roads through the purchase of “tabs”. That money is then used for the upkeep of the roads (allegedly). Unless the “bikers” contribute to that fund they have no right using the roads. Please go back to the sidewalk where it is much safer for you and the car driver.
I saw the channel 5 fair weather journalistic report. I wrote to them in response with a few questions, no reply from them. I had figured their report would cause some issues on the road (I am a full-time bike commuter, not the fair weather variety that they were “busting”) but at this point I haven’t run into anything bad, yet. There are so many issues that can be discussed on this topic and the car drivers always say the bikers are wrong.
And the bikers say the car drivers are wrong. But since the report I have been journaling my biking experience and in the last two days (I’m on the road 2 1/2 hours a day and cut through Hennepin everyday) I have seen one biker try to blow through the train stop only to skid to near miss halt. And the few bikers I have seen for the most part aren’t getting in the way of traffic. But in the mean time I’ve experienced cars in the crosswalks blocking ped’s, talking on their celephone while blowing through WALK signs and in some cases peds are in the cross walk, I’ve seen cars parked in the middle of the street, on Hennepin cars are stopping in the middle of intersections blocking through traffic and if I could actually keep an accurate count of cars not signaling turns (mostly because is appears their hands are full) and rolling through stops much like the KSTP van on River Road it would be a substantial number. Keep in mind the report is 2 days old and I am only on the streets 2 1/2 hours a day and not always in heavy traffic. I will say for the most part car drivers don’t bother me that much, occasionally I get squeezed on the Hennepin bridge and when that happens I move from the curb to the center of the lane and force cars to go around me. The worst of it downtown I feel is when cars decide to use the bike lane for a through or a turn lane. Is it arrogance or ignorance? Hard to say but before car drivers jump on bikers about their driving they should stand at 4th and 1st SE and watch the steady flow of car traffic roll through the stop light regardless of pedestrians or just drive down any South Minneapolis street for some stunning examples of driving.
I drive - I ride - as mentioned before this is pointless. If KSTP was so concerned about safety why were they engaging bikers while they were riding. Shouldn’t this be considered a major risk?
KNEE JERK, anyone, anyone!
To repalce all stop signs with yield signs, or to turn all four way intersections into round-abouts is not only a a complete waste of time but also MONEY! Almost as good as spending a BILLION dollars on a light rail that travels from downtown to the mall of america! GOOD IDEA
The problem here are all of the single speed, BPR drinking hipsters who feel like they are making a point by breaking all the laws possible. I wont even go into the critical mass b.s.
if the stop signs were replaced with yield signs, where would the anti-Bush vandals put their Bush stickers?
We’re at a viscous circle. Bikes are mad at cars–it’s clear that many drivers are not paying attention, talking on cell phones, especially. Cars hate bicyclists who ride five feet from the curb–it’s stressful to have to pass those idiots. Stop-rolling-stop-yield signs all won’t reduce the frustration significantly. People need to be courteous, considerate and tolerant. Don’t hold your breath waiting for everyone else to change, but if YOU try it, the frustration levels decrease. Laws don’t change people. We are all exclusively responsible for ourselves and our reaction to others–as idiotic as they will always be. The things we hate most in others are the exact things we need to deal with within ourselves. Scary.
If bikers can decide to go on roads because of their version of traffic jams (pedestrians, high volume on bike paths), does that mean I’m free to take my car down the Midtown if the road is slow?
I’m with Pete. This is pointless.
I’m also with Sean - it’s about courtesy and the lack thereof.
You Minnesotan drivers don’t know how to stop at 4 way stops, let alone a roundabouts. Its absolutely obsurd. Secondly, you drivers out there that are upset that cyclists “roll through” stop signs, when was the last time you signaled a lane change properly, or DIDN’T speed on the way to and from work, or DIDN’T come to a complete stop at EVERY stop sign you encountered? Thats what I thought.
There are many of us 10,000 or so cyclists who DO stop at stop signs, obey traffic signals, and ride how we are supposed to ride. KSTP failed (as they often do) to see the other side of the story. A city that is second in the nation in bicycle commuting better start to realize that we aren’t just going to disappear when gas prices drop back down to 1.50 a gallon. Oh wait, that won’t happen either. So get used to us on the road, drivers. You watch out for cars, you should be watching out for us, too.
Bicyclists can ‘decide’ to go on roads because they are intended users under Minnesota state statute (169.222). They are, however, banned from marked roadways (such as I35W).
Motorized vehicles cannot decide to use the Midtown Greenway because it is marked for use solely by non-motorized vehicles.
Truly, simple.
A bike blowing a stop sign usually puts one’s own life in danger.
A car blowing a stop sign usually puts another’s life in danger.
I believe that is why a car blowing a stop sign usually results in a police officer asking them for proof of license, proof of registration, and proof of insurance.
That said we would all be better off if all cars and all bikes signaled their turns even when “there’s no one else around”.
Sue wrote “Enough “special” for cyclists. We build expensive bike paths, they still ride on the side of the row, in packs at times. Ever try driving on the old 212 when the cyclists are out? They did the old rail line so you can walk and bike on that. Same with Pioneer trail west of 212. Learn to obey the rules.”
One of the rules is that bicycles are vehicles and are legal and intended road users, the exception being limited access highways suchas the Interstates. Most bicyclists are also car owners, have jobs, own or rent homes and thus pay the same taxes everyone pays.
Generally speaking, bike trails and particularly side paths- which are indeed expensive- are also poorly designed and as dangerous or more dangerous than riding on the roads. These trails and paths also rarely go where I need to go on my bike.
The simple and most effective answer to the conundrum is for people to learn to share the road. It’s a matter of personal responsibility.
Clearly, the people who make sweeping generalizations about either cyclists or motorists, are simply exercising their bias. I’ve commuted by bike for years, and I observe wrong behavior from cyclists and motorists alike. I’ve made occational errors while driving and cycling as well. I’ve been hit while riding my cycle, 2 times in the past 4 years. In both cases, by motorists who ran stops. Far more often, I wave in appreciation to motorists who give me deference to let me cycle through. Cycling does good for everyone, and deserves courtesy and respect from all road users. Cyclists are not excused to take over the road however, and I only occationally see that kind of behavior. I do encounter many other cyclists and motorists on a typical day, and they are usually well behaved- lawful operators. Please quit trying to paint with such large brushes.
I am sure every driver commenting on this subject has never once come to a rolling stop at a stop sign or right hand turn. I am sure each and everytime they come to a complete stop. Yea right. I cant believe people actually think we dont have a right to ride on the road with our bicycles.
Also, all you drivers out ther complaining about all the laws we cyclists break, how about checking this law out…
Did you Know when you are in a car and passing a cyclist, you need to not come wihtin 3 feet of the cyclist.
See Subdivison 3 (3)
Most bad bicycle riders are bad motor vehicle drivers, for the same reasons: Bad training or no training concerning the rules of the road; No concern for others on the road; And complete ignorance of or concern for what is happening immediately behind them (out of sight). In Minnesota, bicycles are legally defined as vehicles of the road and must follow the same rules of the road as motor vehicles, and motorists must respect cyclists in the same manner as they should respect other motorists. Even cops tend to forget this last point. Also, the default law in Minnesota (and most cities) makes it illegal for bicycles to be used on sidewalks.
What is all the fuss about speed limits on bikeways? I have yet to see a cop with a radar gun on a bikeway (and I have ridden most of the bikeways in the city).
There may be valid reasons for preferring the street to the bnike paths, but speed limits aren’t one of them.
Part of this debate is the overall mindset in the community that bike are “recreational vehicles”, not transportation. Cars assume that everyone riding a bike is out there just for fun or the heck of it (this is the ‘why don’t they just use the trails’ attitude). My bike is transportation. I need to go from point A to point B, just like everyone else. I don’t want to go any further than I have to, but i will use a trail when it is an alternative and goes where i need to go (i.e. the midtown greenway). I’ve paid for the roads, as an auto owner and driver and taxpayer just as most anyone. I choose to use them in a safe, legal, and human-powered manner.
Randy, have you ridden the path along the Theo Wirth Pkwy? It doesn’t follow the road (inefficient), it has lots of curves and trees/shrubs obstructing the view (dangerous), and is in horrible condition (dangerous). I ride in the street to avoid joggers, babies in strollers, and dog-walkers - but have people yell at me that I should be on the bike path. I’m far exceeding the 10mph path limit. Oddly enough, they don’t seem to notice they’re far exceeding the posted speed limit.
Actually, I’ve seen riders get a ticket for speeding on the path near the Guthrie.
I’ll tell you one reason why cyclists (ok, at least myself) don’t want to ride on the bike paths, especially the ones parallel to city streets - I think they’re dangerous. I commute from NE Mnpls to St. Paul by bike - we have a nice new bike path along Stinson Blvd between New Brighton Blvd and E. Hennipen Avenue. I refuse to ride on it. Each time I did ride on it last summer, I had to dodge cars coming out of driveways, motorists not yielding the crosswalk at intersections - I was almost killed last fall by a guy in Mercedes who failed to stop for a red light when I was crossing in one of the many crosswalks along that route. Crossing in crosswalks puts cyclists in that nebulous “not really a pedestrian, but not really a vehicle either” zone that usually results in trouble. I’d much rather take my chances on the street, where people can see me, and I’m moving along with them, away from the driveways and crosswalks.
I don’t condone the dangerous riding that some cyclist engage in. I also don’t condone the dangerous driving that some motorist engage in.
Like the above post stated - it’s about courtesy, and the lack thereof - on both sides of this issue. Let’s try to get along. The cars aren’t going away any time soon, and neither are the cyclists.
I know of cyclists being ticketed for speeding around Lake Harriet on the bike paths, and I know cyclists that have received tickets from running red lights - so yes, enforcement does happen. The fine for running a red on a bike is the same as running a red in a car.
I’m happy to share the road with a cyclist, as long as he follows the rules. Unfortunately, all too few do. I have to follow the rules. Cyclists should, too.
People do get speeding tickets for speeding on the bikeways. I haven’t personally, though. Google for local cycling forums and it is discussed regularly. I also know many, many people personally who have gotten tickets for running stop signs, speeding on roads, running lights, etc.
Those who claim that cyclists don’t get stopped for breaking the law either don’t know many cyclists, or the ones they do know are all law-obeying riders.
Remove the speed limit aspect from those trails and it’s still about the safety. The only way to understand this is to take your bike out on a nice evening or weekendand and ride on the recreational trails for 7 miles and try to ride in what would be considered as a non-dangerous manner. It will become obvious if you are a cautious, attentive, and sensitive rider what the fuss is all about.
Now, take that ride, extend it to 15-30 miles one way, every day, any time of day, and see how well it works out. If you are not a commuter, try to sustain 25+ mph with a polished cadence without killing a rabbit or riding into the creek. Make sure to watch out for the kids with training wheels, peds with dogs on 10 foot leashes, other cyclists coming at you doing 18mph while trying to pass someone on a blind corner, and then provide your perspective.
In my own defense, safety and YES speed limits on the trails keep me off on them for the most part. I do ride the trails, sure, but at ~10mph and usually as a cool-down to a 40+ mile ride.
I ride about 4000 miles a year for recreation not for transportation. I’ve ridden that may miles for about 30 years. I raced the two wheel devices for about 20 years. Two observations. Bicyclists feel and act morally superior to motorists. Most are left wing loonies. Second, bicyclists bring on most aggressive actions by motorists themselves. Ten percent of us are threatened by the ninety percent.
Jim,
Those conclusions are based on what observations? Your anecdotal observations and/or feelings I suppose.
Jim:
I have been cycling rather seriously for over 35 years and most recently have made no steretype regarding the political vent of motorists. I will say that most of them that run stop signs, red lights, speed are Total Idiots, however. Funny how politics have to be the basis for everything. I am a moderate, do not feel superior to motorists and obey the laws, both in my car and on my bike……
PJ says
” Cars hate bicyclists who ride five feet from the curb–it’s stressful to have to pass those idiots. ”
This is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t subject. Personally, I hug the shoulder 90% of the time I ride on the road. What happens is that passing auto traffic has an easier time squeezing by - but they’re more likely to attempt a ’squeeze’ and not allow the 3 feet required by law. That 3 feet of space is designed to give cyclists room to swerve around obstacles - potholes and debris - without swerving in front of a car.
On the other hand, if I take the lane - which is a legal maneuver, as bicycles are legal on the road - cars tend to tailgate, waiting for the opening to pass. This too is a dangerous situation for the bicyclist.
Each rider ends up having to decide which risks they want to live with - the impatient tailgating driver, or the impatient squeezing driver. Its certainly not fair to characterize all drivers as falling into one of those categories. But I guarantee that on a 30 minute bike ride anywhere in the metro, you’ll encounter plenty of them.
Jay Maynard writes, presumably as a car driver
“I’m happy to share the road with a cyclist, as long as he follows the rules. Unfortunately, all too few do.”
Jay, when I bike somewhere, I’m happy to share the road with automobiles, as long as they follow the rules. Unfortunately, all too few do.
Someone said: “I don’t see the difference between a traffic circle and a 4 way yield.”
There’s a huge difference. At a four-way stop, there’s three other directions to contend with. At a roundabout (which I assume is what you meant by “traffic circle”), there is only one other direction to contend with. The car entering has the yield sign, and must yield to the cars already in the circle. It’s as simple as that.
Here’s another vote for the proposition that, in theory at least, almost all stop signs could be yield signs if all motorists/bicyclists were to slow down enough to make sure it was clear to proceed and yield to others if need be. Sadly, theory doesn’t always hold up in the real world.
I’m always amused when people suggest the use of speed bumps and then refer to their purpose by the euphemism “traffic calming.” Call them what they really are: a half-hearted, non-solution to poor roadway design. How impeding the efficient flow of traffic is “calming” is beyond my understanding.
When I ride, I keep as far to the right as possible and is safe. The reality of it, though, is there are plenty of hazards near the curb (broken glass, small tree branches, drain covers put on with the grill slots not running perpendicular). Then there’s the cretin who flings open their parked car door without first checking mirrors.
Come on, people. Some of these comments are really juvenile.
Let’s recognize there’s a minority of bike riders that are complete jerks and a minority of automobile drivers that are complete jerks.
Same goes for snowmobile riders, boaters, skateboarders, balloonists, railroad engineers, dentists, Iowans, women, Swedes, gays, football players, journalists, Methodists, plumbers, tall people, etc.
I’ll preface this by saying I am a bike commuter who rides at least 4,000 miles a year in all seasons. I also roll through stop signs and red lights after slowing to a reasonably safe speed and determining that the intersection is clear and I can safely cross.
The fact of the matter is that it is not practicle to come to a complete 3 second stop at every stop sign every time. Just as it is not practicle to drive your car down 35W at 55 mph or less all the time.
Many drivers are critical of every biker they see, but don’t blink an eye about speeding, rolling through stop signs, turning right on red when it is posted “No Right Turn on Red” and breaking other misdemeanor laws.
If a cyclist or motorist breaks a law that results in an unsafe situation, they should be held accountable for their actions.
What I don’t understand is the hostility I see from many drivers in regards to bicyclists. Is it our well toned/in-shape muscles that elicit feelings of jealousy from those too lazy to pedal a bike to get where they’re going? Is it the fact that they are making oil companies and Middle Eastern royalty rich by overpaying to fill up their ineffecient vehicles?
Be careful, courteous and calm down, whether on a bike or in a car. There will be idiots … we’ll never change that.
And, D (May 2nd, 2008 at 11:41 am), when I bike an hour each way to work and home, stopping and starting at every stop sign is more exercise than I need, thank you.
I applaud all who both bike and drive. It certainly gave me a better perspective on biking when I found out all of the hazards that need to be avoided in the streets AND on the paths.
Ed - I agree with your entire post.
Some of us are bad bikers/drivers/pedestrians etc…..
But we are all human beings and deserve respect.
Let’s keep it civil.
carfreeiscarefree says: “What I don’t understand is the hostility I see from many drivers in regards to bicyclists. Is it our well toned/in-shape muscles that elicit feelings of jealousy from those too lazy to pedal a bike to get where they’re going? Is it the fact that they are making oil companies and Middle Eastern royalty rich by overpaying to fill up their ineffecient vehicles?”
Arrogant, self important, I’m better than you statements like this make me see red! Jim Benson’s statement rings true. “Bicyclists feel and act morally superior to motorists.”
sorry yuki, respect has to be earned.
Pessimisticguy wrote: “sorry yuki, respect has to be earned.”
Wow…
Just wow…
Pessimisticguy-
You don’t know me from Adam but it’s okay to tell me that I act morally superior to motorists just because I bike to work?
And it goes both ways- I don’t agree with bikers who make snarky “fat slob” remarks about motorists.
But okay, I guess I haven’t earned your respect, so go ahead and call me names.
This is a pointless conversation.
I always find name-calling in blogs so intellectual and kindergartenish…. Grow up P-guy and Jim B. No opinion without fact….
jbd, post your email and I’ll sent you the facts, along with some that you probably really don’t want to hear. I suspect you’re one who suffers from terminal moral superiority.
Jim
What a stand-up self-centered know-it-all. I would love to post my email, but then I would end up getting emails from nut-jobs like you all the time, telling me how good you are and how you know how to solve all the world’s problems. I have no delusion of being morally superior to anyone. I respect those who don’t label or name-call in order to justify their point of view or opinion. You on the other hand want to call all bike riders “lef-wing loonies”. Sorry Rush Jr, but I am a moderate Republican who happens to bike a lot and respects others that are also avid bikers. Take your rant somewhere else, like Iran….
i think i would be alright for bikes to just slow down and check before proceeding rather than come to a complete stop. they don’t weigh what a car does and don’t cause the amount of damage that a car colliding with something or someone does.
I do have an issue with bicyclists speeding near pedestrians though. or riding in crowded conditions on sidewalks. knock that off. weaving or riding between busses on nicollet mall
Risen Lord Jesus’ Peace!
e.t./sue >*:D (: +
jbd, name calling? You have called Jim Benson a “stand-up self-centered know-it-all”. Who is kindergartenish?
jbd & yuki, if you exam my earlier post, you will see that my description’s were directed at carfreeiscarefree’s statement and not at her/him. I have not called ANYBODY names!
fatguy says: “Wow… Just wow…” Care to elaborate?
My 2 cents: Drive, walk, bike, or whatever defensively.
Yep, we have lots of laws and we pay a lot for people to enforce them. Same thing with signs.
I, for one, am not going to depend on the other person to know and/or obey the law or sign. I assume they won’t and act accordingly. I also note that a little respect goes a long way on the road.
For me, I face reality. 180 pounds of me on a mountain bike is not going to win against a car, no matter what the law is.
Peace
I bike to and from work several days a week, and I’m really a pretty law-abiding cyclist. I agree that cyclists should mostly obey the existing laws, especially in regards to stopping at red lights. However, I roll through stop signs routinely. I slow down drastically, to the point where I could stop if needed, check, and then go if there’s no traffic. I do pretty much the same thing when driving my car.
As far as the KSTP report, I think it’s sensationalized and silly. It’s also pretty funny that they chose an intersection where bikes ignoring a stop sign harms exactly nobody.
I do really wish that a lot of drivers would just try biking in the roads a bit to see what it’s like. There are things that I do even though I know it might piss off the car behind me, because it really is the safest option. Someone upthread brought up cyclists not hugging the curb enough, for example - if I’m approaching a driveway and I see someone getting ready to pull out, I will move towards the center of my lane if I can so as to be more visible to the car in the driveway. Or maybe there’s a bunch of giant potholes or broken glass by the curb. Or maybe I’m going straight and there’s a right turn lane coming up. There are all kinds of reasons why the curb might not be the best place for me, but you might not realize it if you’ve never ridden a bike.
Overall, I think we need to just all respect each other’s right to be there. I slow down when I’m behind pedestrians on the bike paths, it’s even less difficult for a car to slow down for a bike on the road. Just hold on a sec, pass when it’s safe to pass, and we’ll all be fine.
Driving and riding defensively is not good enough nowadays. My rule is to drive and ride paranoidly. That is, not only can I not assume I know what the other drivers and riders are doing or will do, I assume even THEY do not know what they are doing or will do. That attitude has saved my rear end hundreds of times over the decades from the accidents that surely would have happened had I not acted in a preventative manner to avoid them.
The yield signs won’t do it. Sorry, but I feel that many folks see a stop sign and think, “How can I get away with not stopping?” Then they see a yield sign and say, “Gee, what the heck is that?”
The bike-car debate will rage on and on, unless maybe the media can come up with something more educational and less sensationalized than Ch-5’s little hype-up. I agree with the concept of stopping at a stop sign, bike or car… But they really should have shown all sides to this story. Must be hard-up for ratings?
“How impeding the efficient flow of traffic is “calming” is beyond my understanding.”
Amused are you? Rolling speed bumps don’t impede traffic, they keep it at a reasonable speed. The speed limit on the parkway is 25MPH MAXIMUM (sometimes 20). If I am cruising along on my bike at 22 MPH I should rarely even be overtaken by a vehicle. I test this theory almost everytime I’m on the bike. I’ll look back and see no one for a 1/4 mile, but in a very short time
there will be a car pulling up behind me, and about 50% of the time it will want to get by me in some sort of hurry. What’s the point of the PARKWAY? There are county roads and freeways and arterial streets if you’re in such a damn hurry. Relax and enjoy the beautiful system that Theodore Wirth installed 100 years ago. If you want endless concrete and cement move to Chicago or New York.
And, for motorists who feel justified in swerving at a biker, you may be seen by another motorist–and not even realize it…
Last time I witnessed someone in a big car playing chicken with a bike, I was in my car… And I chased the offender for a mile, pulled up right behind him and phoned him into the Minneapolis police.
Pessimistic guy - read your posts before you hit the send key. You are the one acting arrogant and self-righteous. You must be a generation-me type you has every answer for every situation like J Benson…..
On the way home today on Minnehaha Pkwy I had the pleasure of a tailgater who was unhappy that I was doing 29 mph on 25 mph street. When I turned off on my street, they rolled down the window, shouted something and flipped me off. Was it you or Jim B?
Pessimisticguy wrote: fatguy says: “Wow… Just wow…” Care to elaborate?
If I need to elaborate then I will be wasting my time.
Let’s just say that if you insist that respect be earned, then you will get none from me.
Some would see this as satire. Reading some of the posts in the blog make me believe some would see it as the God given truth.
(language not entirely safe for work, depending on where you work of course)
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_get_the_fuck_outta_the_road
“a mascot called Tire-Tread Teddy”. Oh the humanity!
Upon further review, I see the link isnt very family friendly either, to say the least. You can delete that if you want, RG. Sorry.
Hey botski,
I think it’s a good link.
I grew up in Philly, and my old man had an extensive vocabulary for unaware drivers, and pedestrians.
My favorites were: “they drive just like they walk”, and in the super market “they push that cart just like they drive”. Those folks who would park their cart in the middle of the aisle, and stand back scanning the shelf for what seemed to be an eternity. Once in a while my old man would give them a choice quote or two.
As someone who rides the bus on Nicollet mall I got a good laugh out of the article. We could certainly use a “For the love of Christ, don’t just wander in front of the freaking bus you moron!” safety campaign around here.
The best was today when a car turned right on red at the 50th and Minnehaha pkwy right in front of a MPLS traffic cop who did nothing, that is right nothing. Must have been donut time.
Finally got around to watching the piece. Did you notice in the last shot when the cyclist comes to a complete stop the car rolls through the intersection? Guess the reporter didn’t notice either. Bikers are easy targets, and there are many flagrant violators. However, drivers are just as bad, and they’re way more dangerous with that 3000 lbs of metal.
I recall reading once that between the paperwork onsite and the paperwork back at base, a cop can spend 45 minutes to an hour on each traffic stop. I don’t know if it was true, but it would explain why I sometimes see officers ignoring traffic infractions, particularly toward the end of a shift. Few cops would be terribly happy to spend an extra 45 minutes on the clock to finish the paperwork on an illegal U turn ticket.
Thanks for the copy of Idaho’s statue on optional stopping. It makes sooo much sense that it hard to believe it’s actually a law! As a cyclist that is EXACTLY how I treat stop signs. If there is no other vehicle at the intersection what would I be stopping for?? However, I have seen cyclists blow stop signs when there are other vehicles at the intersection. This is a major no no and if we, as cyclists, want to share the road we need to stop this behavior. From reading the comments at the KSTP site there appears to be some very pissed off drivers in MN. Good luck riding a bike there.
When was the last time anyone saw a cop pull over a car for rolling a stop?
When I stop, cars do not stop behind me they roll right up next to me. So when I am clipping in, getting back up to speed and wobbling a little, I have the car right there. If I can keep a little forward momentum I stay in a straight line and am much safer.
When I roll through stop sign on my bike it is to keep up with the pace of traffic and not have to make a line of cars pass me as Im speeding up from a complete stop. Sure it may not technically be legal but it is ‘Sharing the Road’.
