A law is in committee in the Oregon legislature right now that, if passed, would allow bicyclists to treat stop signs as "yield" signs:

http://bikeportland.org/2009/01/14/exclusive-bta-will-go-for-idaho-style-stop-si gn-law/

Idaho apparently has had this law on the books for years. But Idaho doesn't have the big cities that Oregon has; Boise isn't Portland.

Many cyclists already treat stop signs as "yield" in my experience, and as a driver I have had near-misses with cyclists who assumed I would yield to them and stop EVEN WHEN I DID NOT HAVE A STOP SIGN and they felt they had the right, I guess, to roll through their stop sign.

If this new law is passes, I feel this sort of thing will become even more common and make the roads more dangerous. It should not be passed in Oregon; I hope it fails.

Otherwise, why not let cars treat stop signs as yields? What's the difference?

One of the things that drove me the most nuts about Portland is the complete ignorance of traffic laws when it comes to bicyclists on the road. They just blow them off, they ALWAYS have the right of way, they can cut and dart across traffic and go the wrong way and ride on the sidewalks and do whatever the hell they want. And the police do NOTHING to stop it, even though bicyclists are under the same laws as me in my automobile.

The same goes for pedestrians, I would get absolutely incensed at people jaywalking, just jumping out in front of traffic and not paying attention to anything, sometimes literally daring me to hit them. Again, lack of action by the police.

I really like and respect that Portland embraces bicycling, and makes it easy and proactive. I don't respect how they let the folks on their Schwinns do whatever they want, because they are "protecting the environment". You do that in Spokane and you get either cited, or run over.

Right of way should not be taken or assumed, only yielded or given. That's basic driver ed.

I bicycle 4 to 5 days a week, and I've seen many other bicyclists ignore traffic signs. Sometimes, in low traffic situations where visibility is clear in all directions, I will slow down and then proceed without coming to a full 0 mph stop. As a driver of an automobile, I am always on the lookout for bicyclists and have to assume they will be ignoring stop signs if they feel they can get across in time. Many automobile drivers do not come to full stops at every stop intersection, especially in the neighborhoods. Whatever the law is, operating a vehicle or bicycle defensively is the only posture that enhances accident prevention. As I see it, there are licensed drivers who are reckless, and there are a lot more of them than similarly deficient bicyclists. Legalizing a California style stop for a bicycle may not be a bad idea, since clearly the bicycler puts his or herself at peril challenging any motor vehicle. Either that, or just redefine a bicycle stop as coming to a near 0 mph speed, which is what many motor vehicles do anyway, especially at low volume intersections where the opposing speed limit is not at highway level.

If you want to ride on the roads with traffic then one set of rules for both! Otherwise get on the sidewalk use pedestrian rules. The problem with some but not all bicyclists is their arrogant sense of "Entitlement"! They feel that automobile rules don't apply because they are not polluting the environment. Same goes with most Prius drivers on the freeways! Good for you now get that slow moving POS out of the fast lane!

end-of-rant

Maybe if they start licensing bicycles like they do cars - it's car license fees, gas tax fees, etc. that pay for the bicycle lanes and bike riders get a free pass from both paying anything, and from apparently following the rules of the road, because they aren't polluting.

Andy, I agree with you that there are some GOOD bicyclists. It's the bad ones that are making you look bad, like idiot drivers that make the whole lot look bad.

For a number of years, I road my bike on a daily basis and was awful about obeying traffic laws (blowing through stop signs and the like). And I wasn’t alone. Most bicyclists though are very cognizant about following the rules. I was not one of them – and I’m surprised the worst thing I ever did was break my wrist. I support keeping the law as it stands. Changing the law would open the door to more recklessness by those who already take a dim view of obeying traffic laws.

If I am approaching another car that is supposed to stop at the stop sign, I will assume it will obey the law and stop at the stop sign. Why shouldn't I do the same for a cyclist? I'm not going to intentionally run into a car or cyclist just because they were breaking the law, but I don't think cyclists should be given a separate set of laws to obey, particularly when they don't even have to take a driver's test to ride on the same streets as cars.

At the same time, I don't think cops should hide in the bushes and try to catch cyclists running stop signs on deserted streets. I have no problem with cyclists blowing through stop signs when there is no one around. But when there's a car in sight on the roads, they need to obey the traffic laws and assume approach traffic is assuming they will.

If it's okay for a bicycle to do that then it should be okay for a car as well.

Hell the cops don't have to hide in the bushes Andrew, the bicyclists are pretty brazen about it down there! They don't care WHO is around.

I think it should work like it does in Amsterdam:

Pedestrians yield to bikes, cars, and trains, or they get run over. Bikes yield to cars and trains, or they get run over. Cars yield to trains or they get run over. This way everyone knows where everyone stands and there's no questions.

I get sick and tired of listening to the biker crowd complain, yet they are the ones causing half the problems. As a biker on the road, you should always yield to cars as they should have the right of way. A biker is a GUEST on the road and should behave like one.

"yield to cars as they should have the right of way."

I agree with your yield algorithm, but remember that "right of way" is not something anyone has, rather it is a courtesy that you extend. In a court of law, claiming non-fault because you "had the right of way" is not a strong position. You have to set out to prove that the other involved driver failed to yield right of way. It sounds the same, I know, but in court there is a distinction.

I didn't know any bike operators ever followed the rules. By the way, I only have one eye. And try to very drive carefully. But back in Pdx there are several bike riders who were VERY LUCKY. I saw them in time and missed them.

You know, up yonder in the great white north during winter, when there are 10 foot drifts and plows run the tracks to clear them, a bull moose will get down in there, thinks he has the right of way while there, then along comes a train and he presses his point, guess what, HE LOST!

If something can run you over and squish you like a bug, is it worth it to press a point and get hurt or killed?

stevethedj,

You shouldn't be driving then. What if it was a child wandering in the street? If you're missing things normal people can see, then turn in your NDL.


I'm not going to get sucked into this debate. There are other pdx bike websites where motorists rant for hundreds of post each time this topic is brought up.

Everybody has to get along. People in cars are just generally pissed that bikers are getting somewhere and they're not.

Put your money where your mouth is. Either pay for stepped up police enforcement or quit whining I say.

"Everybody has to get along. People in cars are just generally pissed that bikers are getting somewhere and they're not."

No, people in cars are sick and tired of the hypcocrisy and holier than thou attitude from bikers. Remember, roads are for cars, bikes are guests. If you want the use of the road, follow the rules, otherwise you belong under the tire as far as I'm concerned.

IMHO, this is simple physics.

Bike and rider don't have the mass. If something bad happens, they are gonna see the worst of it.

This is true for motorcycles as well. We can write the law any way we like, but the physical realities of the world are not gonna change. This means, even if bikes get some special consideration, a motorist not doing their part can kill, law or no.

So then, anyone on a bike, with an issue like this, runs a higher risk and they will pay for it. Again, law or no.

It's not about intent, superiority, or any other thing. Just physics. Either people grok that, or they do not, and their life risk is a function of that.

The way I was taught to ride a motorcycle was basically to navigate as if the car does not see you. In fact, some night riding, no lights, black clothes teaches that lesson perfectly, the very first time.

Was dangerous, but I'm glad I had that experience. I personally will NEVER have a problem with this, CAR, BIKE, MOTORCYCLE. The reality is simple. You deal. That's it.

Everybody needs to watch what they are doing and be defensive as they can. Arguing about who should and shouldn't do this is the wrong approach.

Stating who has the right of way is the wrong approach. (and the drivers ed deal of yielding to grant it is the right approach)

Nobody owns the road.

If anybody entertains risky behavior on the road they put themselves and others at risk. It's really that simple.

And consider a biker doing something goofy, motorist doesn't want to hit them, veers and does a header with another car. That's risk all around, bike or not.

If it were me, that would be stated as close to law as possible and people can then deal.

I like to bike, I like to drive, I like to ride motorcycles. I never, ever make assumptions and always try to give it my full attention.

This is how it should be, no matter your transportation mode.

To answer the thread, the rules of the road are the rules of the road. If you use the road, then you need to follow the rules.

The more rule variations we must parse before making decisions, the higher the latency we will see between thought and action, or we will see action without thought more. Both are bad things to be avoided.

One set of rules, all users of the road follow them, everybody deals.

Mising_Kskd: IMHO, this is simple physics.

Bike and rider don't have the mass. If something bad happens, they are gonna see the worst of it.

Not necessarily true. Suppose for example a cyclist runs a stop sign in front of me and I swerve to miss her and hit a pole? My fault or the cyclist's? Who got hurt worse?

Once, my neighbor pulled out of our complex past my townhouse (which is at the end of the street) and stopped at the street before pulling out. Unfortunately, a cyclist riding (illegally) on the sidewalk on the pedestrian side blowed right into him. The ignorant cyclist was pissed (but unhurt) and walked away carrying his bike - but it was his fault. My neighbor submitted a $400 bill to his insurance company to have his Lexus fixed. Who's fault?

Should Oregon cyclists be able to obey different traffic laws?
One word answer from me here: no.

If this new law is passes...
Another one word answer: referendum.

The problem with some but not all bicyclists is their arrogant sense of "Entitlement"!
100% agreement here! They think the motor vehicle traffic lanes and sidewalks are all dedicated bikeways, along with the bike lanes. I've even been flipped off by bikers (as a pedestrian, no less) as they blow through red lights, zip past stop signs, completely disregard direction/flow of traffic, etc.

I get sick and tired of listening to the biker crowd complain, yet they are the ones causing half the problems.
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

No, people in cars are sick and tired of the hypcocrisy and holier than thou attitude from bikers.
Again, I agree here.

Recently, the Portland Police started to crack down on, of all things, buses. All the while, this morning at Killingsworth and Albina, traffic through the intersection was impeded by... a Coke delivery truck! Something tells me the driver wasn't ticketed/cited there.

I realize this goes both ways... later this afternoon, I refused to jaywalk across the street and cross against the signal, so I waited 15 minutes for the next MAX. Pulled out my radio, and enjoyed 15 minutes' worth of 1450 KBPS. Haven't heard "Twist of Fate" in some time.

Finally, I tell people all over the place that the reasons bikers are such a loud voice is they're organized, they have non-profits, websites, etc., dedicated to their cause, even though the same people also have full-time jobs, mortgages, kids, healthcare needs, etc. However, they realized they needed to organize in order to be heard, and it's paying off for them.

What a stupid idea. If Oregon wants bikes to be in the road with CARS, (BIKE LANES) then they should obey the same rules as cars. I don't even live in Portland any more and HIGHLY doubt that the police even enforce the BIKE LAW NOW! What a waste of time Along with visiting downtown Portland. What a f'd up place that has become. I was appalled on my wife and I's last visit to Portland when we visited downtown. ONE of the Parking Police is about the most f'd up person I have ever known.
Anyway, Sorry about the rant! At least I'm done.

Andrew, perhaps not swerving would happen also.

It is easy to come up with scenarios where bikes add a new twist to things.

I don't see how adding to the sets of laws helps!

Write the law anyway you want to, all of the scenarios we both just posted up still are ugly. They still could (and probably will) happen.

Frankly, if the expectation is set that a driver might NOT be able to swerve, then it's a very real reminder that riding that bike comes with risk of getting hit.

Your first case is the most worrysome because that's gonna come down to a biker said, motorist said bit. Without a witness, they are simply going to say you failed to maintain control of your vehicle.

This kind of crap happens with cars too. It sucks, and there isn't any legislating it. If there are witnesses, it's going to go down as it should. If not, somebody is gonna be pissed.

That's just how it is.

The second case is clear. Biker failed to deal with the conditions of the road, and didn't follow the rules. Their fault, even though they got somewhat hurt.

A lot of this stuff comes down to what is reasonable. Pulling out, stopping to check the street is reasonable. Expecting that a biker would be on the road is reasonable. Being on the side walk sucks, but being there and seeing where they are going is reasonable.

All of those expectations lead up to the biker being able to avoid the car. They flat out didn't control their vehicle.

My point about the mass stands though. If it comes down to a header, or grazing a bike, I'm not sure I'm doing the header!

Law or no, the header is really brutal for me. Grazing the bike just isn't.

And go ahead and be pissed off. In a snap moment, these are the kinds of things people consider. Not saying it's right, it just is.

Once I was parked behind somebody and saw a car coming fast. I could see they were just checked out, so I changed lanes. *BAM!* The driver in front of me, and the moron were both pissed off that I had moved.

What? Sit there and take it? Both wanted my insurance, I denied them that, however I did give contact info to act as the witness I was.

In the end, there are lots of ugly scenarios. We don't have law for all scenarios, just most of the scenarios and to act as a guide.

It is my opinion that law needs to be common to all vehicles so that all drivers experience the same burden to deal with road conditions and each others in the safest way possible. Carving out exceptions is only going to complicate that, and for each scenario that might address, new ones will be an artifact of the legal exception.

The core elements of using the road apply no matter what it is you are using on that road.

Pay attention, be aware of other drivers movements, maintain your safety bubble, anticipate alternative actions every few seconds, blind spot checks, lights and reflective gear, etc...

If people are not doing that, then they have trouble. Allowing bikers to not do that, just sets the expectation that they somehow are different when that is simply not the case.

What? We let little cars break the rules, but make sure the larger ones don't? That sounds silly right? Sure it does.

Well, a bike is no different.

And again, I like bikes. When I ride mine, I consider the road, because I am a user of the road and bad things happen on the road.

That is what the law is for in the first place.

people in cars are sick and tired of the hypcocrisy and holier than thou attitude from bikers.

Ha ha. Its soooo much eaiser to rant at a 25 pound bike than it is to vent at another as$-hole motorist in his 6,000 lb SUV with the same holier than thou atitude.

If you're yelling and cussing at a 25 lb bike, you've got serious issues and are somewhat of a yellow chicken.

Stupid.
As I've said before... a person on a bike,versus a 2-ton car..it doesn't take many braincells to figure out who's gonna win that battle.

Many cyclists already act like they own the road,maybe they need a bit of a 'bumper check' to bring them back to reality.

There's NO getting around the laws of physics.

That's it!

EVERYBODY WALKS.

You know something i've noticed that is sort of ironic, it's that the more expensive the car the less often the turn signals work. Geeeeesh, you'd think when you buy a $60,000 Lexus or Mercedes the frickin turn signals would work!

I think the biggest point in all of this is that many drivers AND cyclists are jerks who care more about their own convenience than about other drivers...which I think is a big reason we need to keep consistent traffic laws for both drivers and cyclists.

I'm thinking of testifying in front of the Oregon House on this - I think there is an open hearing next week. Of course, I have a lot of friends who are cyclists and who support this bill, so I'll take a lot of flack if I do!

Yeah, that's spot on. Of course, we could go and try what Beaverton did and pass an "aggressive driving" law. LOL!!! I get flipped off, cut in front of, yelled at and god knows what else more in Washington County than anywhere else!

Maybe they need the "REALLY WE MEAN IT THIS TIME NO AGGRESSIVE DRIVING" law. Or something.

The road really is the road. What vehicle you operate on it comes with trade-offs. Bikes are really easy, fun, and can maneuver well. But, they are dangerous in that they offer almost no protection.

Cars are kind of heavy, still fun! and don't maneuver well at all. Trucks are worse.

Motor cycles are somewhere mixed in.

Soon there might be Golf Cart / Electric City Car kinds of things mixed in there too.

Exceptions made now are just gonna snow ball. That's my big worry.

Have fun at the House. I've done that, and it's a great experience.

Maybe you could get Sam Adams to testify with you and urge them to use good judgement and not pass this!

Include riding lawn mowers too!!!!!and kiddie size tricycles!!bigwheels!

(still cracking up at "That's it! Everybody walk")

Hopefully Sam won't have any big "urges" with Andrew. Stay out of the men's room if he's in there, big guy!

alot of bicyclists can't read signs or see lights!! impose big fines!!!Punish them !!!

"we need to keep consistent traffic laws for both drivers and cyclists. "

Good idea but unfortunately many people translate "consistent" to mean "identical." Even trucks have different road rules than passenger cars. Different posted speeds and passing/lane rules being the most obvious. Bicycles need to be considered more like a pedestrian on roller skates than a car.

Positive traffic control is the most serious of all goals in traffic engineering. All vehicles and pedestrians are required to behave the same way for traffic control signs and devices. A stop sign is a stop sign regardless of whether you are walking, bicycling, driving a car, truck or bus. It means come to a complete stop.

If the legislature wants to change that interpretation for bicycles then there needs to be a tag sign (like the one's that tell you 4-way-stop) at the bottom of the sign warning drivers that bicyclists do not stop. There are lots of stop signs and those additional tag signs are an expense that will add up.

{RANT ON}
If the legislature is serious, they should require all jurisdictions to run traditional traffic engineering warrants on all installed stop signs and require those not warranted to be removed within 1 week of the warrant analysis. The reason why bicyclists and drivers roll through stop signs is that the need to come to that complete stop is not obvious and it is usually not obvious because the stop sign installation was unwarranted and a political sop to a neighborhood that whines about traffic speed.

STOP SIGNS ARE NOT SPEED CONTROL!
Arrgh... This has to be one of my peeves...
{RANT OFF}

The reason why bicyclists and drivers roll through stop signs is that the need to come to that complete stop is not obvious and it is usually not obvious because the stop sign installation was unwarranted and a political sop to a neighborhood that whines about traffic speed.

There we go.

at some point, there will be a video of a bike not stopping at red lite or stop sign,and then be hit by car or truck or bus,shown over and over on tv news!!!!

Most likely it will be a cop-car cam tape of you getting busted for harassing bikers with your car.

This takes less than 1 minute http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPPuDvyarvI

Huh....there seems to be nothing there.........

Just enter "Fiat Palio", "Annoying cyclist" or "Don't touch my car" into YouTube!