Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 56

Thread: Idaho comes to Delaware

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hozn View Post
    I always ensure that I can stop and I stop and yield to cars that get to their stop sign first; often they wave me through, sometimes they treat me like a vehicle and go ahead;
    I typically wave those cars through. I don't want anyone to do me a favor. I want everybody to do what they have the legal right to do. The car beats me to the 4-way stop on Van Buren...I wave them through. In doing this I'm also thinking about the Predictable component of PAL. If everybody acts predictably we should all be safe.

  2. Likes Subby, Tania, Steve O, Judd, hozn liked this post
    ELITE sjclaeys ELITED this post
  3. #12
    Steve O's Avatar
    Steve O is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dominion Hills in Arlington VA
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hozn View Post
    Every now and then there is someone who completely stops and puts a foot down at the stop sign even when there's no traffic. In a car that is normal, but on bike it is weird.
    In a car, that is not normal. Unless there is cross traffic or pedestrians, cars never come to complete stops. Watch the front wheels and you'll see. I think 3-6mph is about the normal speed at which cars go through stop signs.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Rosslyn
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve O View Post
    In a car, that is not normal. Unless there is cross traffic or pedestrians, cars never come to complete stops. Watch the front wheels and you'll see. I think 3-6mph is about the normal speed at which cars go through stop signs.
    Which has to be the internal combustion equivalent of a clipped-in slow-roll.

    But yeah, while it feels like I'm more cautious than most of my fellow commuters, and try to be a PAL/WABA rep, I am a consummate scufflaw when it comes to treating stop signs as yields. I always slow down and look, but don't put the foot down if the coast is clear--it feels safer to not loose all momentum when there's a big ol' car breathing down your neck.

    I do like how this notion is expanding to other states, and is part of an inclusive package! I am not sure how they'll enforce the honking thing though...

  5. Likes Emm, hozn, Steve O, huskerdont liked this post
  6. #14
    Steve O's Avatar
    Steve O is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dominion Hills in Arlington VA
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitty View Post
    Which has to be the internal combustion equivalent of a clipped-in slow-roll.

    But yeah, while it feels like I'm more cautious than most of my fellow commuters, and try to be a PAL/WABA rep, I am a consummate scofflaw when it comes to treating stop signs as yields.
    Treating stop signs as yields is what drivers do, too. Which is why I get annoyed when police require people on bikes to put a foot down, but allow drivers to roll through at 5mph. If it's standard practice to allow cars to roll through at 5, then it should be for bike riders. If anything, the standard should be more stringent for drivers, since they are more dangerous.
    I asked a police officer once if he had ever ticketed a driver for slow rolling a stop sign (as vs. blowing through one), and he said no.

  7. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Living in the world
    Posts
    429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Excellent news! At this rate, we'll have national coverage by the year 3217!

  8. #16
    hozn's Avatar
    hozn is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    3,258
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve O View Post
    Treating stop signs as yields is what drivers do, too. Which is why I get annoyed when police require people on bikes to put a foot down, but allow drivers to roll through at 5mph. If it's standard practice to allow cars to roll through at 5, then it should be for bike riders. If anything, the standard should be more stringent for drivers, since they are more dangerous.
    I asked a police officer once if he had ever ticketed a driver for slow rolling a stop sign (as vs. blowing through one), and he said no.
    This is not my experience. --I have been ticketed for slow rolling a stop sign. While I agree that cars don't always stop completely, slowing down to a virtual stop is quite different behavior than most cyclists, including myself, which is to (hopefully) slow down and look and treat it as a yield. Cars are expected to stop even if there is perfect visibility and no other vehicles are present. I never put a foot down, but the law doesn't explicitly require you to do that if you stop, does it?

  9. Likes vern, Tania liked this post
  10. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hozn View Post
    This is not my experience. --I have been ticketed for slow rolling a stop sign. While I agree that cars don't always stop completely, slowing down to a virtual stop is quite different behavior than most cyclists, including myself, which is to (hopefully) slow down and look and treat it as a yield. Cars are expected to stop even if there is perfect visibility and no other vehicles are present. I never put a foot down, but the law doesn't explicitly require you to do that if you stop, does it?
    1. I think most vehicles (bikes but especially cars) go faster than 5 MPH when proceeding through a yield sign, so I agree. So I think the Delaware stop legalizes going faster than a typical slow roll (but maybe I need to read the actual text?)

    2. Alexandria police have in the past told BPAC that in their enforcement campaigns such as on Union they will not ticket someone riding a bike at walking speed, though I do not think they gave us a precise speed.

    3. I still believe that it is reasonable to have a different standard for how bikes behave at stop signs than cars - because of lower risk to people other than the stop as yielder, due to better visibility from a bike, and due to the potential for a cyclist to get away from a dangerous or uncomfortable situation. I am eager for more data to see how the new law effects safety.

  11. Likes hozn liked this post
  12. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    You all are going to bike jail.

  13. Likes Kitty, hozn liked this post
  14. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    MoCo
    Posts
    877
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Uggh. I hate Idaho Stop. It's a gaudy bauble that distracts the cycling community from real, meaningful issues. It's bad policy and worse politics. There is no logical reason for treating bikes differently at stop signs. Idaho Stop and its Delaware Stop variant are based on a calculus that bikes are simply such a small modal share that nothing they do will significantly affect overall safety or flow.

    * Lower risk is not no-risk (especially with regard to the vehicle operator), and safety is not the sole criterion. Flow is another goal of traffic control devices.

    * It's an unproven theory that cyclists have better visibility. Certainly not when there's precipitation, and often in very high or low temperatures cars have the advantage. I would venture to say that in intersection collisions (which usually involve moving objects), it's rare to say that obstructed vision is commonly a cause of accidents. Not that I need to prove anything. It's not my theory.

    * It's also an unproven theory that Idaho Stop is more suited to cyclists "due to the potential for a cyclist to get away from a dangerous or uncomfortable situation". I'm not sure I even know what that means.

  15. Likes Judd liked this post
  16. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Uggh. I hate Idaho Stop. It's a gaudy bauble that distracts the cycling community from real, meaningful issues.


    I was at a meeting of Alexandria BPAC last night. We discussed many issues of concern to cyclists and pedestrians. Idaho stop was not mentioned once. I see no such distraction.

    It's bad policy and worse politics.

    I see no evidence that bike advocacy has been set back in Idaho or Delaware - indeed the new law in Delaware ALSO does the following:

    "Bicycle traffic signals defined and enabled as an engineering tool for DelDOT (specifically enables the Delaware Avenue Separated Bikeway in Newark). Most serious bicycle crashes occur at intersections in Delaware. There is no more important safety countermeasure that Delaware could adopt to reduce serious bicycle crashes than the widespread adoption of bicycle traffic signals.

    Requires motorists to change lanes (including when there is a double yellow line) when passing bicycles when travel lanes are too narrow for side-by-side sharing (making “Three Foot” passing a requirement only in the special case of wide lanes).

    “As close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway” (the dreaded “AFRAP”) also disappears from state code (replaced by “far enough to the right as judged safe by the operator to facilitate the movement of such overtaking vehicles unless the bicycle operator determines that other conditions make it unsafe to do so“) and, again, only as a special case for wide lanes.

    Motorists forbidden to honk horns at cyclists when passing except for imminent danger.

    General clarification of “where to ride” laws, including specifically permitting two-abreast riding within the lane in a narrow lane. . "

    Now the current status of having so many cyclists be scofflaws may be bad politics, but that would suggest a benefit of laws that legalize what what most already do.


    There is no logical reason for treating bikes differently at stop signs. Idaho Stop and its Delaware Stop variant are based on a calculus that bikes are simply such a small modal share that nothing they do will significantly affect overall safety or flow.

    I see no evidence that that is what they are based on. Its certainly not an argument I have seen. Of course we will not know if legalizing Idaho (or Delaware) impedes or improves flow (or neither) until its legal in a place iwth higher bike mode share.

    Flow is another goal of traffic control devices.


    This AM I was at the intersection of 30th and Buchanan in Arlington. A fourway stop. Proceeding EB on 30th. There was zero traffic on Buchanan. The only traffic other than my bike was a car, also proceeding EB, behind me. Please explain how my Delawaring the stop sign impeded traffic flow.


    * It's an unproven theory that cyclists have better visibility. Certainly not when there's precipitation, and often in very high or low temperatures cars have the advantage. I would venture to say that in intersection collisions (which usually involve moving objects), it's rare to say that obstructed vision is commonly a cause of accidents. Not that I need to prove anything. It's not my theory.

    Really? NACTO disagrees with you. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-...ight-distance/

    * It's also an unproven theory that Idaho Stop is more suited to cyclists "due to the potential for a cyclist to get away from a dangerous or uncomfortable situation". I'm not sure I even know what that means.

    If you had ridden with me this AM, I could have pointed out some examples.

    In any case, its hard to prove the effects without data, and hard to get data on something that hasn't been tried (IE legalizing the Delaware stop)
    Last edited by lordofthemark; 10-10-2017 at 02:01 PM.

  17. Likes secstate, bobco85 liked this post

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •