While true, in the status quo, blowing through stop signs when other users have the right of way increases the probability of accidents. It puts the responsibility squarely in the person that has to decided whether to stop or not. The one that doesn’t have to stop is simply going their way. If there’s a monetary lapse of judgement on the cyclist’s side, they become a pancake. I’m staying this as someone who regularly “Idaho-maneuvers” in certain places.
Except that data from states which permit Idaho Stops (i.e. treating a stop sign as a yield, and a stop light as a stop sign) has not shown any increase in cyclist danger. The inverse is true, which is why Idaho Stops have been expanding into other states.
Do the drivers in Indaho know that cyclists are expected to be treating stop signs as yield? My guess is yes. That could be making a difference in the safety profile.
Idaho, Delaware, Arkansas, Oregon, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, Washington, DC, and Minnesota :)
I don’t know what motorists know or don’t know, but why would that make a difference?
An Idaho stop has to do with cyclists not having to needlessly wait at stop signs or red lights, so drivers don’t really have to think about it, since they likely won’t even be at those same intersections where an Idaho Stop is used. It **decriminalizes ** inefficient, dangerous, nonsensical stops for cyclists.
The only interaction with cars is if a cyclist and car arrive at the intersection at the same time, the cyclist gets priority. That’s it. And most of the time when I stop at an intersection, the other car waves me through anyway (which is super annoying because it changes the normal flow).
If cars are respecting stop signs, there’s literally no conflict.
From safety point of view, none of this is important for when everyone follows the rules. If everyone follows the rules people won’t get hurt both in the status quo and under a stop-as-yield regime.
I think the interesting questions lie in the grey area when not everyone follows the rules because that’s the reality.
What if it’s not a 4-way stop but a 2-way stop where the driver has the right of way? In the stop-is-a-stop status quo, their expectation is that they can drive at a constant speed on such a road, without having to prepare for emergency braking at every intersection. In a stop-as-yield regime the driver should have the expectation that cyclists might make a mistake and show up from some intersection. Assuming a constant rate of errors from cyclists, I’d expect to see a decrease in injuries in such cases. 🤷
Research shows that stop as yield doesn’t increase cycling incidents (see states in the US where it’s the law). The law only impacts those who follow it, and the harder/more annoying it is to follow the law (starting is hard on a bicycle), the less likely people are to follow it. For example, I see people jaywalking all the time in my area because crosswalks are rare, and jaywalking is rare downtown where there are plenty of crosswalks. So I think stop as yield has a very good chance of being a net positive.
At least I’m my area, drivers don’t seem to be aware of the stop as yield law despite it being the law here, so I don’t think we should expect much change in driving behavior.
Well I’m not arguing it’ll be worse. The opposite. I’m speculating on the mechanism. Personally I’d argue in favour of replacing the damn stop signs with yield. Then you leave less to the road users’interpretation. Every car driver passing through the yield sign will also be aware it’s a yield for the next time they drive on the orthogonal street.
Maybe. I just imagine that there are a lot of streets where a yield sign isn’t appropriate, such as an intersection where one direction is high speed and the other has poor visibility. Bicycles can stop much more quickly than cars, so perhaps it’s less safe to make more intersections into yields.
Then again, we could probably use a lot more yields than stop signs in general.
Realistically, I usually stop if I see a car even if I have right of way, because I’m the one who gets hurt if they roll through. Modern cars’ A-pillars are thick and I know I’m hard to see. I only exercise my right when there aren’t cars near the intersection, or I made eye contact with the driver and they waved me through.
But why would a driver have to know I’d treat it as yield? If they arrive first, I have to stop—same as if it were a stop sign—and if I arrive first, they have to stop: same as if it were a stop sign.
The only difference a driver will see happens if I arrive first and don’t stop, and then they’ll either know the law and appreciate me getting out of the way faster, or not know the law and think I’m one of those aloof cyclists. But they still had to stop.
While true, in the status quo, blowing through stop signs when other users have the right of way increases the probability of accidents. It puts the responsibility squarely in the person that has to decided whether to stop or not. The one that doesn’t have to stop is simply going their way. If there’s a monetary lapse of judgement on the cyclist’s side, they become a pancake. I’m staying this as someone who regularly “Idaho-maneuvers” in certain places.
Except that data from states which permit Idaho Stops (i.e. treating a stop sign as a yield, and a stop light as a stop sign) has not shown any increase in cyclist danger. The inverse is true, which is why Idaho Stops have been expanding into other states.
Do the drivers in Indaho know that cyclists are expected to be treating stop signs as yield? My guess is yes. That could be making a difference in the safety profile.
Idaho, Delaware, Arkansas, Oregon, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, Washington, DC, and Minnesota :)
I don’t know what motorists know or don’t know, but why would that make a difference?
An Idaho stop has to do with cyclists not having to needlessly wait at stop signs or red lights, so drivers don’t really have to think about it, since they likely won’t even be at those same intersections where an Idaho Stop is used. It **decriminalizes ** inefficient, dangerous, nonsensical stops for cyclists.
Exactly.
The only interaction with cars is if a cyclist and car arrive at the intersection at the same time, the cyclist gets priority. That’s it. And most of the time when I stop at an intersection, the other car waves me through anyway (which is super annoying because it changes the normal flow).
If cars are respecting stop signs, there’s literally no conflict.
From safety point of view, none of this is important for when everyone follows the rules. If everyone follows the rules people won’t get hurt both in the status quo and under a stop-as-yield regime.
I think the interesting questions lie in the grey area when not everyone follows the rules because that’s the reality.
What if it’s not a 4-way stop but a 2-way stop where the driver has the right of way? In the stop-is-a-stop status quo, their expectation is that they can drive at a constant speed on such a road, without having to prepare for emergency braking at every intersection. In a stop-as-yield regime the driver should have the expectation that cyclists might make a mistake and show up from some intersection. Assuming a constant rate of errors from cyclists, I’d expect to see a decrease in injuries in such cases. 🤷
Maybe?
Research shows that stop as yield doesn’t increase cycling incidents (see states in the US where it’s the law). The law only impacts those who follow it, and the harder/more annoying it is to follow the law (starting is hard on a bicycle), the less likely people are to follow it. For example, I see people jaywalking all the time in my area because crosswalks are rare, and jaywalking is rare downtown where there are plenty of crosswalks. So I think stop as yield has a very good chance of being a net positive.
At least I’m my area, drivers don’t seem to be aware of the stop as yield law despite it being the law here, so I don’t think we should expect much change in driving behavior.
Well I’m not arguing it’ll be worse. The opposite. I’m speculating on the mechanism. Personally I’d argue in favour of replacing the damn stop signs with yield. Then you leave less to the road users’interpretation. Every car driver passing through the yield sign will also be aware it’s a yield for the next time they drive on the orthogonal street.
Maybe. I just imagine that there are a lot of streets where a yield sign isn’t appropriate, such as an intersection where one direction is high speed and the other has poor visibility. Bicycles can stop much more quickly than cars, so perhaps it’s less safe to make more intersections into yields.
Then again, we could probably use a lot more yields than stop signs in general.
Realistically, I usually stop if I see a car even if I have right of way, because I’m the one who gets hurt if they roll through. Modern cars’ A-pillars are thick and I know I’m hard to see. I only exercise my right when there aren’t cars near the intersection, or I made eye contact with the driver and they waved me through.
But why would a driver have to know I’d treat it as yield? If they arrive first, I have to stop—same as if it were a stop sign—and if I arrive first, they have to stop: same as if it were a stop sign.
The only difference a driver will see happens if I arrive first and don’t stop, and then they’ll either know the law and appreciate me getting out of the way faster, or not know the law and think I’m one of those aloof cyclists. But they still had to stop.
That’s where “as if they were yield signs” and not “as if they weren’t there” comes into play