Comments on: When Is a Stop Sign Not a Stop Sign

By: Ben B

Ben B — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:53:34 +0000

One thing that most drivers don’t seem to understand when they complain of cyclists not stopping for stop signs is the basic physics of the situation and how it relates to safety. Put simply, a 3000 pound car (passengers included) is 20 times more massive than a 150 pound cyclist (bike included). This means, that a 150 pound cyclist would have to travel at 400 mph to contribute as much energy to a collision as a 3000 pound car would at 20 mph. Similarly, a car at 1 mph is like a bike at 20 mph and a car at 40 mph is like a bike at 800 mph. A cyclist is much closer to a pedestrian in terms of mass and it would be ridiculous to suggest that a pedestrian (or bicyclist) puts passengers of conventional motor vehicles at risk when simply yielding rather than stopping.

By: Thom P.

Thom P. — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:06:22 +0000

I think you’re spot on with the yield not stop concept.
I’ve argued on my own blog about not stopping completely at stop signs.
Cyclists have 360 degree unobstructed vision, superior hearing capabilities compared to drivers, and are less likely to act like morons at a four way stop simply due to the laws of self-preservation.

Drivers get irate at Cyclists for rolling through stop signs because they are jealous. Don’t be jealous, get on a bike yourself and we can all roll through stop signs together like one big, happy family.

By: km

km — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:36:31 +0000

“Drivers are annoyed by superfluous stop signs … So annoyed, they speed up even more between stops. Average speeds are not reduced, top speeds midblock are higher, and the overall scene of drivers braking, accelerating and being annoyed does not increase safety or ‘calmness.’ ”

Also, coming to a complete stop and then starting up again is not very Green.

By: MikeOnBike

MikeOnBike — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:16:32 +0000

What exactly do we mean by “yield” at a stop sign?

Does it mean passing through the stop sign at any speed, as long as cross traffic is not affected?

Or does it mean slowing to an almost-stop, maybe a couple MPH, but not being required to make a perfectly still stop?

I think some people are asking that cyclists be allowed to do the former. Or, we could allow all drivers to do the latter.

If we can tolerate people driving a couple MPH over the speed limit, perhaps we can tolerate people going a couple MPH through a stop sign.

This would be a rule change or enforcement change that applies to all drivers, not just cyclists.

By: A

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:56:18 +0000

100% true.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:37:03 +0000

Stop signs are defacto yield signs in a lot of places. Riding a bicycle in Providence, at 4-way stops I do find nearly all drivers nice enough to yield to me so I need not stop, even if it would be my turn to yield were I driving a car. Without eye contact however, I know I had better stop.

The commenter above thinks stop signs are there to slow automobile traffic. I think this is a bad idea. Drivers are annoyed by superfluous stop signs as exemplified by most 4-way stops. So annoyed, they speed up even more between stops. Average speeds are not reduced, top speeds midblock are higher, and the overall scene of drivers braking, accelerating and being annoyed does not increase safety or “calmness.”

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:09:18 +0000

I really like the idea of letting cyclists use stop signs as yield signs. Under this law, they still have to stop for an automobile at the intersection if the automobile has right of way, however, it would, as you said, allow them much greater freedom to keep moving and not have to exert the extra effort in stopping and starting again. Under the law, there would also be provisions for making certain stops required for all road users.

Because cyclists are not enclosed in cars, they can see better and hear better, therefore (if they’re paying attention), they can often see or hear a car or even another cyclist approaching an intersection before it gets there, and therefore are prepared to stop if they need to, or to ride carefully through the intersection.

I wouldn’t extend the yield to automobiles for a number of reasons. Firstly, I think it’s important in the car-centric world we live in here in the US to sometimes say with policy “we’re not *all* about cars.” By giving bikes or transit priority in at least some situations, I think we make an important statement that we’re at least willing to consider another form of transportation.

Secondly, if you let automobile drivers treat stop signs as yields, you will increase the speed of traffic on a street, and I would bet, increase the number of automobile collisions at intersections. In any case, stop signs are there to slow automobile traffic, and allowing cars to treat them as yields defeats much of that purpose.

Thirdly, because people in automobiles are enclosed and have reduced visibility and hearing, I think it’s more important for them to have to come to a complete stop, to be able to assess what is going on around before they just head through the intersection. As a person who regularly drives an automobile, I’m happy to stop at an intersection to make sure I’m not going to cut anyone off by proceeding. It costs me almost no effort, and is much better than rolling through and getting nailed by another car, hitting another car, or hitting a cyclist I didn’t see.

By: Terry

Terry — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:17:27 +0000

At particularly dangerous four-way stops, such as when a line of car commuters are taking a residential short cut, I often get off my bike and walk in the crosswalk. Yes it slows everybody down, but there is no question of who has the right of way.

By: Brad Templeton

Brad Templeton — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:58:58 +0000

In the past I have proposed a concept of “smart” stop signs, using LEDs and solar power and talking a radio protocol (like 802.11p) to cars and possibly cyclists.

In such a system (cheap if mass produced) a cyclist would transmit a request for a green light at a stop sign. The stop signs computer would confirm it and show the cyclist a green light on his bike (not on the sign.) However, the stop signs would show a blinking red bright LED of “bicycle coming” to warn motorists to be extra cautious, though they still have to stop at the stop signs like always.

Cyclists could, given this green signal, proceed through the stop sign at about 10 km/hour, still checking for cars and stopping if need be. If two cyclists both are coming from different directions, they need not stop but will get a signal on their computer telling them the other directions to look out — ideally a map showing the intersection and the location of other bicycles or equipped cars.

I originally thought of this for cars, so cars with the gear could just blow through 4 way stops in areas where we don’t really want to slow traffic but we have to deal with an intersection. But no reason not to have it apply to bikes at all intersections, even ones where the 4 way stop is to calm car traffic.

By: aaron

aaron — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:38:25 +0000

How about just getting rid stop signs and making them all yields.

One thing I realized since getting into mountain biking is that the priciples carry over to driving very well. Brake on straight aways not turns, push a little harder at the bottom of hills, avoid braking, getting up to speed quicker is more efficient… Stops are huge enegy wasters for cars. They should slow down to be albe to stop if necessary, but shouldn’t stop otherwise.