You seem to have missed what I think is the strongest argument for the Idaho Stop: cyclists are already approaching intersections at a slower speed than motorists and have a wider field of vision, making cyclists are more aware of their surroundings and the risks of yielding at a stop sign than motorists
I agree completely! To me, the key difference is that a cyclist who slows and yields still spends more time at the intersection than a car that brakes to a stop and then accelerates immediately... Plus, as you say, cyclists approach the intersection with eyes and ears open to the world around them, not isolated by glass with the radio playing.
@Steven Clark , glad to hear that. But not all drivers are that attentive, I've had to warn motor vehicle drivers that pedestrians are moving into the crosswalk ahead several times. Also, my original reasoning is with regard to a line of bicyclists, many of whom many know very little about driving.
I’m a daily commuter who recently found your channel. I live in Idaho and I’m so grateful for the Idaho Stop. It gets me out of the way of motor vehicles and is safer than having to compete with getting through an intersection and/or the danger of cars turning left across the bike lane. Not only do cyclists yield at stop signs, we treat red lights like a stop sign - stopping and proceeding when it’s safe to cross.
Truth be told, I've always done the Idaho Stop and treat red lights as stop signs. I admit, I'm ignorant to whether this is legal in my city. But I do it anyway because it's easier and safer I think. If it's safe for me to yield at a stop sign and take off without stopping, I'll do it. If I'm on a street at a red light and there's no cross traffic, I'm taking off to put distance between myself and cars, especially if I don't have a bike lane and have to ride the street lanes. I hate being the guy to hold up traffic and am only riding in the car lane because there's no designated bike lane. When I'm downtown, I often can stay a block ahead of traffic doing this and I'm sure cars appreciate not being held up by me.
One important detail, is that if a car runs a stop sign and hits a bike, the car driver is in little danger, while if the biker runs it and hits a car, then he has a lot more to lose, and has a greater motivation to be careful, and watch for the safest moment to go thru the intersection.
@Marcus Fenix many stop signs exist just so that vehicle drivers feel safe to go faster than if no stop signs existed. If a stop sign could be replaced with a speed bump should there be a stop sign at all?
@@jellybeansi - He can use whatever pronoun he wants in his hypothetical scenario. If you want to use they or she, feel free, but to dictate how someone else should speak, it gives images of dystopian societies that I thought we left in the past. But I guess there are mini tyrants in every generation.
I can get through a four-lane divided intersection in about 3 seconds if I don't stop, but if I have to stop, it takes closer to eight seconds. Because of that, I need a larger hole in the traffic, which often doesn't exist during my commute. Not stopping is actually safer.
I live in Utah and we switched to the Idaho-style stop law a few months ago. Also cyclists are allowed to treat a red light as a stop sign, since the sensors usually don't activate for bikes.
The problem starts by having too many stop signs to begin with, most of your stops signs should be turned into yield signs. Stop signs should only be used where absolutely necessary and not as the default.
It seems like the Idaho Stop Law is very similar to right turn on red laws. It takes advantage of the fact that people generally try to avoid accidents. I've never really considered it, but it makes sense.
Tbh most stop signs in North America should be yield signs to all traffic users. Most drivers just yield at them as is. Here in Norway we almost exclusively use yield signs, and it works great. When you encounter a stop sign here, you know that this intersection is particularly dangerous and drivers therefore take extra care.
There are some intersections in Saskatchewan, Canada that have not traffic signals for any direction of traffic. It's up to the drivers to proceed safely.
Iʼve been watching your videos after seeing your collaboration with Not Just Bikes. Your content is great but Iʼm not sure I can keep watching with the loud music you sometimes add, and inconsistent video volume. I have to turn some videosʼ volumes up to hear you at all, and then I get this video which is loud and you have music even louder than when youʼre talking.
I think some people don't know what yield means. Yield to the right of way, is the complete clear statement. If the one cycling would have the right of way after they stopped at a 4-way stop, there was no one to yield to, and any stopping laws are silly, providing sidewalks are clear.
There are definitely nuances to this. At a 4 way stop, I have seen a car come to a stop, and then attempt to accelerate through the intersection only to have a biker fail to stop from the right and attempt to ride across the front of the car's path. Yes, this is a stupid choice by the biker, but in our litigious society, if the biker is injured and dies, the driver of the car, who was obeying all the traffic laws, could go to jail. This is clearly wrong. This scenario is compounded when we introduce e-bikes that can go twice as fast, yet their riders feel that stopping at a stop sign is still unnecessary. Even when the acceleration argument is refuted by an electric motor. We definitely need to start discussing real road laws when bikes and cars are mixed.
I think the Idaho/yield law makes a lot of sense for bicyclists. But only if they are properly doing so. Assuming the bicycle has the right of way is what I see, and the bicycle will assume everyone will stop. It gives the rest of the bicycle world a bad reputation. If there is already low traffic there, then do a proper yeild and go about the ride. But if you see it's a busy intersection, you might want to properly stop, or yield, because not only is it for your own good, but also you're an easy to miss target when you're hidden behind other cars that incoming traffic cannot see. Good video!
I've been doing this for years and didn't realize it was actually legal until very recently (Washington) at the end of the day I just use common sense when commuting and I'm not gonna stop at a stop sign when there are no cars around or if I'm gonna beat them to the stop. If I do stop when I'm gonna beat them there it turns what otherwise would be me passing through quickly into a driver having to wait on me.
But cars have to stop, but you want the same protections allotted to cars, you know, stop at a frecking STOP sign so you don't hit others or get hit, hence the need for a STOP sign. DUH.
I’m totally in favor of this law as I see other comments have the same opinion. But then again most people who watch your videos are bicycle enthusiast.
I don't know at your place, but here stop signs are put where you can't see the road you're intersecting with before the stop sign. You can see and hear way better on a bike than in a car but for good manner of safety, law enforcing or not, it's probably still better to STOP on a stop sign and take a good second look. In a car/bike accident the one on the bike has the most to lose, don't do it for the driver's sake do it for your own.
This is the unofficial law for ever bicyclist everywhere. It is the same for smart motorists in snowbelt states every winter as well. (And for the same reason, it preserves momentum. )
I think the police kind of don't bother cyclists if they slow down at stop signs where I come from. I once had a police car behind me and I didn't realize and I didn't stop at any stop signs and they didn't say anything...
I live in Florida and I roll at stop signs and red lights while I am my riding bike and have been doing so for the last 13-15 years in various muncipalities including Broward county, Jacksonville and Tampa- Hillsborough county more like common sense just like if I was walking or running down the street. The only time I come to full stop are on unknown or busy intersections.
The TH-cam channel 'Not Just Bikes' also makes the point that one of the reasons for stop signs is so drivers can check blind spots...cyclists don't have blind spots.
Bicyclists don't have blind spots? Not so! When I'm bicycling on a busy street, I sense that I have a 180 degree blind spot behind me. I have a mirror on my bike, but it isn't nearly as good as the three on my car. And while I can turn around while driving with no fear that I'll turn the car as I turn my body, I do fear doing that on a bike. And finally, in a car I'm typically moving with the flow of traffic, so almost all my safety lies in keeping in my lane. On a bike, the traffic is faster than me. It is coming up from behind, and even when there's a marked bike lane, it isn't that clear which of us is in the proper lane.
Bikers have semi blind spots, but we also have partial deaf spots. Traffic behind you at 30mph is LOUD so you can know when definitely traffic is coming. You still have to look before you move
I live in Nampa Id. 10 miles west of Boise Id. I used to live in Vancouver Wa. just across from Portland Or. Both of these cites were very good to bike in. Nampa is a disaster as far as bike commuting. It's true that you can glide through stops signs when there is no on coming traffic, but this town has almost no bike lanes. You are allowed to ride on sidewalks. Most people here believe riding on the streets in their own neighborhood should be for kids, not adults. Welcome to Idaho!!!
I live in NYC where cops like to follow bicyclists through multiple stop signs so they can give them multiple tickets at the same time. Bc the penalties for each ticket after the first are multiple times higher, it can mean fines into the thousands.
What you said about making the law reflect reality really makes sense to me. The law where I live is that you must stop, but I and everyone I know definitely do rolling stops.
I think North America uses stop signs far too much. In the UK stop signs are only for specific places with poor visibility, everywhere else is just a give way (yield) junction. Having to stop slows everyone's journey, and causes more air pollution, noise pollution, and vehicle wear from stopping and starting so often. It should be easy to tell at a junction whether to go at a safe speed, or wait for others to go.
It's much more pleasant cycling now that Colorado has adopted it. And since I make a point of checking for cross traffic, the safety is just fine. I've not seen any bad behavior in others either.
Perhaps someone should come up with an official sign that can be installed under most stop signs that says "Bicycles Can Yield." That would not be at every stop sign, only for those with enough visibility in both directions for a bicyclist to make sure the way is safe. In fact, in blind intersections there might have a sign that says "Bicyclists Must Stop." And keep in mind that the issue goes beyond whether a bicyclist can physically injury a motorist. I attended a memorial service for a bicyclist who ran though a stop sign at high speed, crashing into a van and getting killed. The driver of that van was not held legally responsible, but I suspect that he did feel guilt.
Bicyclist will just blow through stop signs.... Really? If I make a mistake, I am dead. If the car driver makes a mistake, I am still dead. And if I am stopped, I am a lame duck.
@@stuartperry8141 that goes without saying. At issue is not whether I should yield to traffic that has priority (or is simply really really really big and wants to roll over me). At issue is whether a pre-emptive stop is necessary from the vantage point of a cyclist.
I ran a stop sign on an ebike.... 188 dollar traffic citation and a visit to the ER + a nice case of PTSD later and I'd say that stop signs are necessary.
@@ericschaefer7378 Common sense is very necessary. I get PTSD just from watching other people in their cars run through stop signs and stop lights just freaks me out
Have any of you actually read any of these studies? I just did and OMG it’s manipulated. It’s almost as if they’re using bicyclists as cannon fodder to change traffic laws. One study reported a drop in accidents or injuries but they were comparing years that included the pandemic lockdowns to years prior. The Idaho study didn’t actually show reduction due to stopping… they don’t tell you that fatalities stayed the same. They also don’t tell you that the Idaho stop thing was one portion of a larger overhaul in laws. They don’t tell you that the reduction in injuries was due to other changes in the laws. They also don’t tell you that minor injuries weren’t reported, which probably means accidents went up as a result. The whole point of allowing bicyclists to blow thru red lights and stop signs was to increase bicycling by making it easier. They found that one of the reasons people didn’t bicycle was because stopping and starting was hard. They reasoned that if they could make it easier they could get more people to bicycle it would increase visibility which would make it safer in safety thru numbers. It’s a theory that they used manipulated studies to justify. Now you have bicyclists who don’t read and believe anything that supports them and they go out and get pulverized out there and everyone blames the cars and politicians get to use this for power. Why do bicyclists sacrifice themselves like this? Insane.
Cycling is more like walking than it is driving. A cyclist could easily dismount and walk across the intersection like any other pedestrian. The driver does not have that option. Therefore, its is reasonable to treat stop signs as yield signs on a bike. Remember, a cyclist is the most careful person on the road. They have a lot to lose if hit!
judges are not allowed to create laws, only the legislature has that right. im not saying its a bad idea, just get the law passed legally and save us a lot of hassle later.
What about traffic signals? I have heard in Idaho you can stop and proceed on red. I am never sure if actuated signals can detect me on a bike or should I push the crosswalk button or what.
I don't believe Canada is that progressive. Bicycles are still in the 'Dark Ages' here. In Nova Scotia, when an interactive traffic light ignores a cyclist the legal way to proceed is to push the crosswalk button. But just how do you do that without increasing risk if you're turning left on a 4 or more lane roadway?
I like how most arguments against cyclist seem to assume they have a death wish. Do people driving their motorized cages actually fear a bike hitting them? Because the bike will lose badly. So I slow down when approaching a stop sign and make all sorts of assessments. Best one is no vehicles. Next, only one vehicle and it is already proceeding through the intersection before I arrive. Next is tricky and only works sometimes, arriving at intersection with some speed as the vehicle ahead of you next in line to go riding next to them as they go through the intersection (to hit me would be to hit that car as well) Those are 3 times I will go through a stop sign without stopping, just slowing down. I also go through stop lights, after I stop, if no other traffic is there as lights don't always change. Intersections are high on list of where cyclist are hit, having momentum allows for cyclist to get out way, less time at intersection is less time to get hit. So I am for this law. Also at T intersections I think bikes should be allowed to go through as cars would have to out of control in order to hit the cyclist and end up on sidewalk or embankment.
Would love to see it happen but I'm not holding my breath. I am more optimistic under the current, progressive government. Not so much if the upcoming election brings change.
I remember watching a special on television, where a police officer stayed back, and followed from a distance; a bicyclist; as the cyclist slowed, but didn’t completely stop at each stop sign. once the cyclist reached the tenth stop sign the officer quickly pulled over, the cyclist. the officer stated that he will be writing a ticket for running ten stop signs. i cannot imagine how irritated a judge may be by this ticket. in the video, it showed no other traffic nor vehicles on the road anywhere. and the cyclist did still slow down, while passing each stop sign. i will need to look this up, but i imagine that california would be very interested in a yield at stop signs for cyclists. especially with a well documented track record of reduced injuries to cyclists, and improved efficiency of travel, for cyclists, which encourages more to join the already popular form of travel, for commuting.
Before cars, we didn’t need stop signs. Stop signs are for cars. Pedestrians and cyclists are not in a cabin with obstructed views, they can hear, see and smell vehicles well before a driver in a car.
The best part the law here in Idaho is treating red lights as stop signs. We can clear the intersection after a stop and get situated before 20 cars accelerate next to us. Also, a “stop” doesn’t require putting a foot down. It does aggravate those who don’t know it’s legal but such is life.
Yielding on a bicycle should be internationally recognized by standing on one of the pedals and slightly tilting one leg to the side. This way you have a greater viewing distance and can be seen better, your motions are more predictable since you are slowing down, and drivers know you are yielding because you are standing with one leg out.
Can't say I'm a fan of the 'Idaho Stop'. But can definitely see the argument regarding law enforcement of triviality. Tom, does Calgary have interactive traffic lights? Do they consistently recognize bicyclists & pedestrians? Anybody lobbying to have their 'timing' changed to allow human power transportation to keep rolling?
Calgary has a couple, but not a lot. I suspect we'll get more in the coming years, but frankly I've been a but underwhelmed by them. Cars still take priority.
Tom, if you get a say about interaction traffic lights, request the city install those that use some sort of optical sensor rather than the wire induction loop imbedded in the roadway. Sounds like the few you've encountered are of the induction type. It has been a while, but I've heard that the induction kind can be made to work better for bicyclist & motorcyclist by painting a series of dots over the indiction wire. As a bicyclist if you can find the cut lines used to slide in the wire try stopping over the cut, many induction traffic light should activate that way.
Oregon has the stop as bike yield this year. I just broke the law all those years. I think this law is a lot safer. It gets the cyclist through the intersection in 1/4 of the time from a total stop. When you have to go uphill through the intersection which happens a lot in Portland the time going through the intersection horribly slower
If its downtown then running red lights is generally safe but that depends on how busy the intersection is. Either way all vehicles should follow the rules of the road.
I live in Berkeley California. There's kind of an unwritten law here where the bicyclist don't treat stop signs as yield signs but as green lights. I would be kind of nice if they even bothered to turn their heads to see if there was anyone coming. You know like other cars, other bicyclists, children, women with baby carriages. That sort of thing.
I have never seen a cyclist yield at a stop sign. 99% of them just blow right through them like its not there, and look at motorists who almost hit them like they’re not supposed to be on the road. The fact that it’s a law because they are too many people getting tickets just shows what type of people cyclists are.
I my opinion this discussion and the law itself shows a much deeper problem: Most of North America abuses stop signs as yield signs and then wonders, why nobody cares for them. Stop signs are for the extreme cases, when you have to stop under *all* circumstances. If there is a (very rare) stop sign in at least most of Europe, everybody will stop. And "everybody" doesn't mean cars and bikes. It's very normal to see an ambulance coming to a complete stop at these signs. And even if you are the president of the nation, you have to stop independent from your escort vehicles (that's why the police fully blocks of the side streets in these cases). So instead of creating silly exceptions, get rid of useless stop signs and keep them for places, where they are actually necessary. Because "STOP" is the most fundamental rule of the road.
Where I live cyclists don’t roll through them, they totally ignore them. Same with traffic lights one way streets and pedestrian crossings. I would like to see separate roads for cyclists away from cars and pedestrians.
I have an old motorcycle buddy in Austin TX. One day he had an accident with a bicyclist - the bicyclist had blown through their red light and voila! An Accident and my buddies motorcycle was totalled. My old buddy got a high velocity education from his insurance company that in accidents involving motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles (pedestrians & bicyclists) The Motor Vehicle IS ALWAYS WRONG, period, end of discussion. They don't even care if you have a video of the event. I suspect the issue is on one side of court you have a motorist - most often a four wheeler, who may have suffered some scratches to their paint. On the other side you likely have someone who got an ambulance ride to the hospital. And that is likely the easiest and fastest sympathy vote in the world from a jury. And that goes double if they know there is an insurance company anywhere in sight to handle the payout. P.S. My buddy doesn't ride a motorcycle anymore. Or at least not on the street.
I idea that cyclists applying the "Idaho stop" will simply and always blow through stop signs without slowing or looking is ludicrous. For that to be true, cyclists would have to have a death wish, which we do not. I apply the "Idaho stop" as a rule because it is safer and more efficient for me and for the motorists around me. I've never hit anyone, nor have I caused anyone any inconvenience by doing so, yet I have saved my myself about a million times clipping in and out, itself a potentially dangerous maneuver. The principle should be applied universally.
My real pet peeve is four way stops in places where a cycling track crosses a road or a the entry way of a business. Why does everyone need to stop! Either car stops or cyclists stop but both is so inefficient! When going straight the cyclists should have right of way so why do we make them stop
It might work in Idaho where there's only about 17 people, but in the San Francisco Bay Area it won't fly. Too many people trying to figure out what to do at an intersection...no way. We all need to STOP.
OF course considering the idiot drivers out there, in large trucks more than anything else, having either sight problems or contempt problems about bicyclists at intersections, the bike riders already have to yield if only for self-preservation. What actually makes more sense is for the drivers to have to yield all the time to the bikes. There are generally very few comparatively and they're (we're) most at risk.
Their is a problem with the Idaho law; here specifically in Calgary, bikes roll through stops signs and pedestrian cross walks. The issue is pedestrians are crossing while bikes do this and that’s with a stop law in effect. Cyclists in Calgary push the limits of what’s acceptable at every opportunity. I am a cyclist along with my family, cyclists are not good ambassadors in Calgary. Sorry to have a different opinion to most.
Looks like someone had enough of the entitled cyclist in Show Low, AZ June, 19th, 2021. Ended up with several bikes in the grill of the big truck. Payback suckers.
Hitting a Stop-sign-runner should therefore be a non-offense as well. Stop signs are to protect the crossing. Crossing traffic is not protected if Stop doesn't mean Stop. Most U.S. Americans think Stop signs are just Yield signs (and that Yield signs are non-existent). Those who get run over by those who think the same way get their just reward for such thinking.
The bike rider is still responsible for not entering a busy intersection and slowing to a speed slow enough to determine if rolling through the stop sign is safe or a full stop is required.
@@ghz24 And yet the car driver will still have the liability, because unless you get a great judge AND have good dashcam coverage it's always the car driver's fault.
1:58 no shit sherlock. If i didnt have to stop in a car at stop signs either my commute would be shorter too 2:06 then dont complain when a cyclist rolling through an intersection get smashed by traffic that actually has a green light. If a bike is so much safer why arent more people biking out of safety reasons? Why cant cyclists just admit what they really want is preferential treatment
You want to share the road follow the law. The very fact you want a pass and still be on the road says everything we need to know about cyclists. Don't cry for equality on the road then want special laws just for you.
@Steven Clark - not just at stop signs.How about we 'take the lane' at _all_ times rather than hugging parked cars? Would drivers really like to travel through town behind me at 10-12 mph?
You seem to have missed what I think is the strongest argument for the Idaho Stop: cyclists are already approaching intersections at a slower speed than motorists and have a wider field of vision, making cyclists are more aware of their surroundings and the risks of yielding at a stop sign than motorists
I agree completely! To me, the key difference is that a cyclist who slows and yields still spends more time at the intersection than a car that brakes to a stop and then accelerates immediately... Plus, as you say, cyclists approach the intersection with eyes and ears open to the world around them, not isolated by glass with the radio playing.
But your both missing the follow the leader action. The next in line and there after may not even notice the traffic control.
@Steven Clark , glad to hear that. But not all drivers are that attentive, I've had to warn motor vehicle drivers that pedestrians are moving into the crosswalk ahead several times.
Also, my original reasoning is with regard to a line of bicyclists, many of whom many know very little about driving.
Also the cyclist gets closer to the stop line before crossing the line - so they can see better.
I’m a daily commuter who recently found your channel. I live in Idaho and I’m so grateful for the Idaho Stop. It gets me out of the way of motor vehicles and is safer than having to compete with getting through an intersection and/or the danger of cars turning left across the bike lane. Not only do cyclists yield at stop signs, we treat red lights like a stop sign - stopping and proceeding when it’s safe to cross.
Amazing! Thanks for sharing
Truth be told, I've always done the Idaho Stop and treat red lights as stop signs. I admit, I'm ignorant to whether this is legal in my city. But I do it anyway because it's easier and safer I think. If it's safe for me to yield at a stop sign and take off without stopping, I'll do it.
If I'm on a street at a red light and there's no cross traffic, I'm taking off to put distance between myself and cars, especially if I don't have a bike lane and have to ride the street lanes. I hate being the guy to hold up traffic and am only riding in the car lane because there's no designated bike lane. When I'm downtown, I often can stay a block ahead of traffic doing this and I'm sure cars appreciate not being held up by me.
One important detail, is that if a car runs a stop sign and hits a bike, the car driver is in little danger, while if the biker runs it and hits a car, then he has a lot more to lose, and has a greater motivation to be careful, and watch for the safest moment to go thru the intersection.
I bet you've never rode a bike before.
Ooooh, The truck driver most get really worked up by pressing the gas pedal to gain back his speed
@Marcus Fenix many stop signs exist just so that vehicle drivers feel safe to go faster than if no stop signs existed. If a stop sign could be replaced with a speed bump should there be a stop sign at all?
Great, sounds like bikers other than men don't have anything to worry about then! Come on, use "they", it's not that hard.
@@jellybeansi - He can use whatever pronoun he wants in his hypothetical scenario. If you want to use they or she, feel free, but to dictate how someone else should speak, it gives images of dystopian societies that I thought we left in the past. But I guess there are mini tyrants in every generation.
I can get through a four-lane divided intersection in about 3 seconds if I don't stop, but if I have to stop, it takes closer to eight seconds. Because of that, I need a larger hole in the traffic, which often doesn't exist during my commute. Not stopping is actually safer.
It may be safer, in the same sense that Russian roulette with one live round is safer than with two live rounds.
@Marcus Fenix I really don't know what you think I said but your reply doesn't relate to what I said at all.
Hopefully, that is the stupidest thing I'll read today!
I in a car can also get through an intersection faster if i dont stop
I live in Utah and we switched to the Idaho-style stop law a few months ago. Also cyclists are allowed to treat a red light as a stop sign, since the sensors usually don't activate for bikes.
Also the fact that if you have a separate bike lane any cross walk buttons which would activate the light are nowhere near where the cyclist stops.
The problem starts by having too many stop signs to begin with, most of your stops signs should be turned into yield signs. Stop signs should only be used where absolutely necessary and not as the default.
So, the Idaho Stop is like the California Roll but for bikes.
In support here in Edmonton!
It seems like the Idaho Stop Law is very similar to right turn on red laws. It takes advantage of the fact that people generally try to avoid accidents. I've never really considered it, but it makes sense.
Oregon adopted this 2 years ago, I always was doing it though
Tbh most stop signs in North America should be yield signs to all traffic users. Most drivers just yield at them as is. Here in Norway we almost exclusively use yield signs, and it works great. When you encounter a stop sign here, you know that this intersection is particularly dangerous and drivers therefore take extra care.
Same in the Netherlands. Most European countries I guess.
@@peter1062 Yeah. I was going to say the same thing. I'm sure we just yield (car or bike) and only really stop at red traffic lights
It makes sense that if every intersection is a Stop sign, it desensitizes you to the important ones, never thought of that.
There are some intersections in Saskatchewan, Canada that have not traffic signals for any direction of traffic. It's up to the drivers to proceed safely.
100% agree and THANK YOU for bringing attenttion to this movement.
I live in idaho right now, so this is useful information.
Iʼve been watching your videos after seeing your collaboration with Not Just Bikes. Your content is great but Iʼm not sure I can keep watching with the loud music you sometimes add, and inconsistent video volume. I have to turn some videosʼ volumes up to hear you at all, and then I get this video which is loud and you have music even louder than when youʼre talking.
Excellent post! Thanks for sharing. I was ignorant of this law until today. I hope Canada adopts it.
I think some people don't know what yield means. Yield to the right of way, is the complete clear statement. If the one cycling would have the right of way after they stopped at a 4-way stop, there was no one to yield to, and any stopping laws are silly, providing sidewalks are clear.
There are definitely nuances to this. At a 4 way stop, I have seen a car come to a stop, and then attempt to accelerate through the intersection only to have a biker fail to stop from the right and attempt to ride across the front of the car's path. Yes, this is a stupid choice by the biker, but in our litigious society, if the biker is injured and dies, the driver of the car, who was obeying all the traffic laws, could go to jail. This is clearly wrong. This scenario is compounded when we introduce e-bikes that can go twice as fast, yet their riders feel that stopping at a stop sign is still unnecessary. Even when the acceleration argument is refuted by an electric motor. We definitely need to start discussing real road laws when bikes and cars are mixed.
I think the Idaho/yield law makes a lot of sense for bicyclists. But only if they are properly doing so. Assuming the bicycle has the right of way is what I see, and the bicycle will assume everyone will stop. It gives the rest of the bicycle world a bad reputation. If there is already low traffic there, then do a proper yeild and go about the ride. But if you see it's a busy intersection, you might want to properly stop, or yield, because not only is it for your own good, but also you're an easy to miss target when you're hidden behind other cars that incoming traffic cannot see. Good video!
Motorists where I live would lose their minds but not bat an eye if the speed limit is raised then roll around the corner on red.
I've been doing this for years and didn't realize it was actually legal until very recently (Washington) at the end of the day I just use common sense when commuting and I'm not gonna stop at a stop sign when there are no cars around or if I'm gonna beat them to the stop. If I do stop when I'm gonna beat them there it turns what otherwise would be me passing through quickly into a driver having to wait on me.
But cars have to stop, but you want the same protections allotted to cars, you know, stop at a frecking STOP sign so you don't hit others or get hit, hence the need for a STOP sign. DUH.
@@trex2092It's always funny watching dumb people be upset over nonsense. Thanks for making my day better.
@@YaBoiShining Future Speed Bump
@Marcus Fenix you’re about as sharp as a butter knife
Oregon got the Idaho stop a couple years back, it has been a non-issue. It makes my commute a bit nicer, and agree it is a slight increase in safety.
Amazing that a politically red state like Idaho has progressive bike safety laws.
I’m totally in favor of this law as I see other comments have the same opinion. But then again most people who watch your videos are bicycle enthusiast.
I don't know at your place, but here stop signs are put where you can't see the road you're intersecting with before the stop sign. You can see and hear way better on a bike than in a car but for good manner of safety, law enforcing or not, it's probably still better to STOP on a stop sign and take a good second look.
In a car/bike accident the one on the bike has the most to lose, don't do it for the driver's sake do it for your own.
Stop signs in general are bad. Roads can be designed to not use them.
This is the unofficial law for everybody in my hometown, Houston. Nobody stops for stop signs.
This is the unofficial law for ever bicyclist everywhere. It is the same for smart motorists in snowbelt states every winter as well. (And for the same reason, it preserves momentum. )
I think the police kind of don't bother cyclists if they slow down at stop signs where I come from. I once had a police car behind me and I didn't realize and I didn't stop at any stop signs and they didn't say anything...
I live in Florida and I roll at stop signs and red lights while I am my riding bike and have been doing so for the last 13-15 years in various muncipalities including Broward county, Jacksonville and Tampa- Hillsborough county more like common sense just like if I was walking or running down the street. The only time I come to full stop are on unknown or busy intersections.
The TH-cam channel 'Not Just Bikes' also makes the point that one of the reasons for stop signs is so drivers can check blind spots...cyclists don't have blind spots.
Bicyclists don't have blind spots? Not so! When I'm bicycling on a busy street, I sense that I have a 180 degree blind spot behind me. I have a mirror on my bike, but it isn't nearly as good as the three on my car. And while I can turn around while driving with no fear that I'll turn the car as I turn my body, I do fear doing that on a bike. And finally, in a car I'm typically moving with the flow of traffic, so almost all my safety lies in keeping in my lane. On a bike, the traffic is faster than me. It is coming up from behind, and even when there's a marked bike lane, it isn't that clear which of us is in the proper lane.
Bikers have semi blind spots, but we also have partial deaf spots. Traffic behind you at 30mph is LOUD so you can know when definitely traffic is coming. You still have to look before you move
I live in Nampa Id. 10 miles west of Boise Id. I used to live in Vancouver Wa. just across from Portland Or. Both of these cites were very good to bike in. Nampa is a disaster as far as bike commuting. It's true that you can glide through stops signs when there is no on coming traffic, but this town has almost no bike lanes. You are allowed to ride on sidewalks. Most people here believe riding on the streets in their own neighborhood should be for kids, not adults. Welcome to Idaho!!!
Love that this inspired me to look up my WA state laws. Found out that as of 2020, we're the same.
I live in NYC where cops like to follow bicyclists through multiple stop signs so they can give them multiple tickets at the same time. Bc the penalties for each ticket after the first are multiple times higher, it can mean fines into the thousands.
Yet another reason, among hundreds, to avoid NYC.
They are America's shittiest police, so not surprised
Good.
Looks like the Temperatures are warming up a wee bit in Calgary judging by the jogger in the background sporting a pair of shorts.
Yes, it sure is!
What you said about making the law reflect reality really makes sense to me. The law where I live is that you must stop, but I and everyone I know definitely do rolling stops.
Just convert all stop signs to yield, for all vehicles.
I think North America uses stop signs far too much. In the UK stop signs are only for specific places with poor visibility, everywhere else is just a give way (yield) junction. Having to stop slows everyone's journey, and causes more air pollution, noise pollution, and vehicle wear from stopping and starting so often. It should be easy to tell at a junction whether to go at a safe speed, or wait for others to go.
It's much more pleasant cycling now that Colorado has adopted it. And since I make a point of checking for cross traffic, the safety is just fine. I've not seen any bad behavior in others either.
Perhaps someone should come up with an official sign that can be installed under most stop signs that says "Bicycles Can Yield." That would not be at every stop sign, only for those with enough visibility in both directions for a bicyclist to make sure the way is safe. In fact, in blind intersections there might have a sign that says "Bicyclists Must Stop."
And keep in mind that the issue goes beyond whether a bicyclist can physically injury a motorist. I attended a memorial service for a bicyclist who ran though a stop sign at high speed, crashing into a van and getting killed. The driver of that van was not held legally responsible, but I suspect that he did feel guilt.
Bicyclist will just blow through stop signs.... Really?
If I make a mistake, I am dead. If the car driver makes a mistake, I am still dead.
And if I am stopped, I am a lame duck.
rolling through a stop sign means slowing down and if it is clear moving forward, if traffic is coming you should stop and yeld to it.
@@stuartperry8141 that goes without saying. At issue is not whether I should yield to traffic that has priority (or is simply really really really big and wants to roll over me). At issue is whether a pre-emptive stop is necessary from the vantage point of a cyclist.
I ran a stop sign on an ebike.... 188 dollar traffic citation and a visit to the ER + a nice case of PTSD later and I'd say that stop signs are necessary.
More like common sense is necessary lol.
@@ericschaefer7378 Common sense is very necessary. I get PTSD just from watching other people in their cars run through stop signs and stop lights just freaks me out
Have any of you actually read any of these studies? I just did and OMG it’s manipulated. It’s almost as if they’re using bicyclists as cannon fodder to change traffic laws.
One study reported a drop in accidents or injuries but they were comparing years that included the pandemic lockdowns to years prior.
The Idaho study didn’t actually show reduction due to stopping… they don’t tell you that fatalities stayed the same. They also don’t tell you that the Idaho stop thing was one portion of a larger overhaul in laws. They don’t tell you that the reduction in injuries was due to other changes in the laws. They also don’t tell you that minor injuries weren’t reported, which probably means accidents went up as a result.
The whole point of allowing bicyclists to blow thru red lights and stop signs was to increase bicycling by making it easier. They found that one of the reasons people didn’t bicycle was because stopping and starting was hard. They reasoned that if they could make it easier they could get more people to bicycle it would increase visibility which would make it safer in safety thru numbers. It’s a theory that they used manipulated studies to justify.
Now you have bicyclists who don’t read and believe anything that supports them and they go out and get pulverized out there and everyone blames the cars and politicians get to use this for power. Why do bicyclists sacrifice themselves like this? Insane.
Being able to clear the intersection faster makes it so much safer and there really isn't any excuse to not implement these laws.
Do you have sign that allow to go through a red light? it's developping in Europe now.
Often times when this law is discussed it's also treated that bikes can treat reds as stops.
Actualy: read the statute and its' that you can roll through any controlled intersection at a reasonable speed
Cycling is more like walking than it is driving. A cyclist could easily dismount and walk across the intersection like any other pedestrian. The driver does not have that option. Therefore, its is reasonable to treat stop signs as yield signs on a bike. Remember, a cyclist is the most careful person on the road. They have a lot to lose if hit!
If cycling=walking
Use the sidewalk
judges are not allowed to create laws, only the legislature has that right. im not saying its a bad idea, just get the law passed legally and save us a lot of hassle later.
Oh so a judge came up with it?
Its not an actual law then. The judge was legislating from the court which isnt the courts duty or power.
What about traffic signals? I have heard in Idaho you can stop and proceed on red. I am never sure if actuated signals can detect me on a bike or should I push the crosswalk button or what.
I’m not sure about Idaho, but Paris has a law that lets cyclists jump the red lights in certain situations.
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33773868
I don't believe Canada is that progressive. Bicycles are still in the 'Dark Ages' here.
In Nova Scotia, when an interactive traffic light ignores a cyclist the legal way to proceed is to push the crosswalk button. But just how do you do that without increasing risk if you're turning left on a 4 or more lane roadway?
Swear i ran such a light the other day, got bored waiting
Studies in Idaho do not have a great deal of relevance to more populated urban areas. Their largest city is under 1/4 million.
Idaho stops are legal in 9 states and anything that works in a city the size of Boise will work the same in a larger city.
I like how most arguments against cyclist seem to assume they have a death wish. Do people driving their motorized cages actually fear a bike hitting them? Because the bike will lose badly. So I slow down when approaching a stop sign and make all sorts of assessments. Best one is no vehicles. Next, only one vehicle and it is already proceeding through the intersection before I arrive. Next is tricky and only works sometimes, arriving at intersection with some speed as the vehicle ahead of you next in line to go riding next to them as they go through the intersection (to hit me would be to hit that car as well) Those are 3 times I will go through a stop sign without stopping, just slowing down. I also go through stop lights, after I stop, if no other traffic is there as lights don't always change. Intersections are high on list of where cyclist are hit, having momentum allows for cyclist to get out way, less time at intersection is less time to get hit. So I am for this law. Also at T intersections I think bikes should be allowed to go through as cars would have to out of control in order to hit the cyclist and end up on sidewalk or embankment.
Would love to see it happen but I'm not holding my breath. I am more optimistic under the current, progressive government. Not so much if the upcoming election brings change.
You were right to be pessimistic. Sigh...
I remember watching a special on television, where a police officer stayed back, and followed from a distance; a bicyclist; as the cyclist slowed, but didn’t completely stop at each stop sign. once the cyclist reached the tenth stop sign the officer quickly pulled over, the cyclist.
the officer stated that he will be writing a ticket for running ten stop signs.
i cannot imagine how irritated a judge may be by this ticket.
in the video, it showed no other traffic nor vehicles on the road anywhere. and the cyclist did still slow down, while passing each stop sign.
i will need to look this up, but i imagine that california would be very interested in a yield at stop signs for cyclists. especially with a well documented track record of reduced injuries to cyclists, and improved efficiency of travel, for cyclists, which encourages more to join the already popular form of travel, for commuting.
Before cars, we didn’t need stop signs. Stop signs are for cars. Pedestrians and cyclists are not in a cabin with obstructed views, they can hear, see and smell vehicles well before a driver in a car.
The best part the law here in Idaho is treating red lights as stop signs. We can clear the intersection after a stop and get situated before 20 cars accelerate next to us. Also, a “stop” doesn’t require putting a foot down. It does aggravate those who don’t know it’s legal but such is life.
Ok, it seems like your statement has nothing to do with mine. But, hey go have fun with that.
@Marcus Fenix if you’ve almost hit 20 people in a year, then you are the problem and you need to have your license confiscated 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️😂
So glad we only have yeald for traffic from right, here. No stop signs.
Yielding on a bicycle should be internationally recognized by standing on one of the pedals and slightly tilting one leg to the side. This way you have a greater viewing distance and can be seen better, your motions are more predictable since you are slowing down, and drivers know you are yielding because you are standing with one leg out.
If I'm yielding, I do pretty much that and exaggerate my down foot out and ready to land on the ground.
Can't say I'm a fan of the 'Idaho Stop'. But can definitely see the argument regarding law enforcement of triviality.
Tom, does Calgary have interactive traffic lights? Do they consistently recognize bicyclists & pedestrians? Anybody lobbying to have their 'timing' changed to allow human power transportation to keep rolling?
Calgary has a couple, but not a lot. I suspect we'll get more in the coming years, but frankly I've been a but underwhelmed by them. Cars still take priority.
Tom, if you get a say about interaction traffic lights, request the city install those that use some sort of optical sensor rather than the wire induction loop imbedded in the roadway.
Sounds like the few you've encountered are of the induction type. It has been a while, but I've heard that the induction kind can be made to work better for bicyclist & motorcyclist by painting a series of dots over the indiction wire. As a bicyclist if you can find the cut lines used to slide in the wire try stopping over the cut, many induction traffic light should activate that way.
Oregon has the stop as bike yield this year. I just broke the law all those years.
I think this law is a lot safer. It gets the cyclist through the intersection in 1/4 of the time from a total stop. When you have to go uphill through the intersection which happens a lot in Portland the time going through the intersection horribly slower
If its downtown then running red lights is generally safe but that depends on how busy the intersection is. Either way all vehicles should follow the rules of the road.
Where I live this would be instant death in some areas
This is how cyclist all over the country and world already ride. It would change the law, not people’s behavior.
@@thelazyreconnoiter583 not the biking lol just because of the awful infrastructure of my area
Makes sense to me. Good video - learn something for those outside US.
Fantastic idea...if you're going the extra mile to piss off motorists who already have a very low tolerance for cyclists!
Grand Porterville California cars do the Idaho stop they don't even pay attention to the stop sign list of the cop standing there
I live in Berkeley California. There's kind of an unwritten law here where the bicyclist don't treat stop signs as yield signs but as green lights. I would be kind of nice if they even bothered to turn their heads to see if there was anyone coming. You know like other cars, other bicyclists, children, women with baby carriages. That sort of thing.
Annoying background noise.
I have never seen a cyclist yield at a stop sign. 99% of them just blow right through them like its not there, and look at motorists who almost hit them like they’re not supposed to be on the road. The fact that it’s a law because they are too many people getting tickets just shows what type of people cyclists are.
I my opinion this discussion and the law itself shows a much deeper problem: Most of North America abuses stop signs as yield signs and then wonders, why nobody cares for them. Stop signs are for the extreme cases, when you have to stop under *all* circumstances.
If there is a (very rare) stop sign in at least most of Europe, everybody will stop. And "everybody" doesn't mean cars and bikes. It's very normal to see an ambulance coming to a complete stop at these signs. And even if you are the president of the nation, you have to stop independent from your escort vehicles (that's why the police fully blocks of the side streets in these cases).
So instead of creating silly exceptions, get rid of useless stop signs and keep them for places, where they are actually necessary. Because "STOP" is the most fundamental rule of the road.
I do the Chinese stop. I mount an airzound, lay on the horn, and just go for it.
😆😆
Where I live cyclists don’t roll through them, they totally ignore them. Same with traffic lights one way streets and pedestrian crossings. I would like to see separate roads for cyclists away from cars and pedestrians.
I have an old motorcycle buddy in Austin TX. One day he had an accident with a bicyclist - the bicyclist had blown through their red light and voila! An Accident and my buddies motorcycle was totalled. My old buddy got a high velocity education from his insurance company that in accidents involving motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles (pedestrians & bicyclists) The Motor Vehicle IS ALWAYS WRONG, period, end of discussion. They don't even care if you have a video of the event.
I suspect the issue is on one side of court you have a motorist - most often a four wheeler, who may have suffered some scratches to their paint. On the other side you likely have someone who got an ambulance ride to the hospital. And that is likely the easiest and fastest sympathy vote in the world from a jury. And that goes double if they know there is an insurance company anywhere in sight to handle the payout.
P.S. My buddy doesn't ride a motorcycle anymore. Or at least not on the street.
I idea that cyclists applying the "Idaho stop" will simply and always blow through stop signs without slowing or looking is ludicrous. For that to be true, cyclists would have to have a death wish, which we do not. I apply the "Idaho stop" as a rule because it is safer and more efficient for me and for the motorists around me. I've never hit anyone, nor have I caused anyone any inconvenience by doing so, yet I have saved my myself about a million times clipping in and out, itself a potentially dangerous maneuver. The principle should be applied universally.
My real pet peeve is four way stops in places where a cycling track crosses a road or a the entry way of a business. Why does everyone need to stop! Either car stops or cyclists stop but both is so inefficient! When going straight the cyclists should have right of way so why do we make them stop
It might work in Idaho where there's only about 17 people, but in the San Francisco Bay Area it won't fly. Too many people trying to figure out what to do at an intersection...no way. We all need to STOP.
OF course considering the idiot drivers out there, in large trucks more than anything else, having either sight problems or contempt problems about bicyclists at intersections, the bike riders already have to yield if only for self-preservation. What actually makes more sense is for the drivers to have to yield all the time to the bikes. There are generally very few comparatively and they're (we're) most at risk.
Their is a problem with the Idaho law; here specifically in Calgary, bikes roll through stops signs and pedestrian cross walks. The issue is pedestrians are crossing while bikes do this and that’s with a stop law in effect. Cyclists in Calgary push the limits of what’s acceptable at every opportunity. I am a cyclist along with my family, cyclists are not good ambassadors in Calgary. Sorry to have a different opinion to most.
Looks like someone had enough of the entitled cyclist in Show Low, AZ June, 19th, 2021. Ended up with several bikes in the grill of the big truck. Payback suckers.
Hitting a Stop-sign-runner should therefore be a non-offense as well. Stop signs are to protect the crossing. Crossing traffic is not protected if Stop doesn't mean Stop. Most U.S. Americans think Stop signs are just Yield signs (and that Yield signs are non-existent). Those who get run over by those who think the same way get their just reward for such thinking.
The bike rider is still responsible for not entering a busy intersection and slowing to a speed slow enough to determine if rolling through the stop sign is safe or a full stop is required.
@@ghz24 And yet the car driver will still have the liability, because unless you get a great judge AND have good dashcam coverage it's always the car driver's fault.
1:58 no shit sherlock. If i didnt have to stop in a car at stop signs either my commute would be shorter too
2:06 then dont complain when a cyclist rolling through an intersection get smashed by traffic that actually has a green light. If a bike is so much safer why arent more people biking out of safety reasons?
Why cant cyclists just admit what they really want is preferential treatment
Well if a guy you called in Idaho said so ...........
You want to share the road follow the law. The very fact you want a pass and still be on the road says everything we need to know about cyclists. Don't cry for equality on the road then want special laws just for you.
You sound like a guy who doesn't understand what it's like to commute on a bike.
@Steven Clark - not just at stop signs.How about we 'take the lane' at _all_ times rather than hugging parked cars? Would drivers really like to travel through town behind me at 10-12 mph?
Next time I make a car stop while I’m rolling through a stop sign I’ll be thinking of you 😂