Among the big benefits of cycling is an unblocked, wide angle view and better ability to hear what is happening. When I approach a stop sign, even a two way set, I can see or hear cars on the other road. If none, I don't stop for the exact reason you said, it is a pain to plant my feet then restart. Stoplights are different. I mostly stop, then run a red if no cars are coming. Why? Because the lights are controlled by cameras, and when those cameras get dirty, which happens frequently, they don't register a bike at the intersection. As a result, I "legally" have to wait until a car comes to activate the camera. Sorry, no, I just go. Most bike accidents happen because the car doesn't see the bike and violates the bikes space, not the other way around. My worst accident happened when I was pushing my bike across a highway on a crosswalk with the light, and a truck had stopped in the outside lane to let me cross. On the inside lane a car went through the light catching my front wheel and knocked me to the ground. The driver who did it got a hefty fine and had to pay for the wheel. I was fine, but never tried to cross that highway again.
80 yo cyclist here. Been riding for 74 of them. Drivers hate cyclists because they are certain they are getting away with something they are not allowed to do. Drivers hate having to stop every block too, so if they have to do it, the cyclists had better damn well have to do so too.
Here's the deal. If you arrive at a four-way stop before motorists, do they really want you to stop, unclip, look at them, and then proceed costing them another 15-30 seconds?
Actually, they assume, and expect, you to get your Lycrad ass over to the right and the hell out of their way. Roads are for cars, dontcha know, no matter what some do-gooder laws might have to say about it.
You want to see some Tootsie Roll Pops of pure hate? Attend a San Francisco Board of Stupidvisors meeting where they are considering adding bike lanes to some already long-paved street that never had them before.
That's not accurate. The first paved roads were created to facilitate the passage of horses and carriages/wagons, as well as pedestrian traffic. Bicycles came later, along with automobiles.
Read Carleton Reid's Roads Were Not Meant for Cars, from the Guardian:
It wasn’t motorists who began the process of improving roads in the UK and US, after decades of neglect during the age of the train. It was late-19th-century cyclists and well-organised lobbying organisations such as the Cycling Touring Club in the UK and the Wheelmen of America. They first campaigned for properly paved roads, mapped them out and also ensured that politicians took notice. One parade of cyclists in San Francisco in 1896 even carried with it a “gallows, from which hung a dummy representing ‘the first man who will vote against good roads’.”
It was only later that motoring groups were able to start taking credit for the cyclists’ work. They often deliberately distorted history in the process. In 1927 Henry Ford sent out a press release commemorating the 15 millionth Model-T to have rolled off the production line and declaring that “Ford … started the movement for good roads”. In the face of the mass of evidence Reid presents, this untruth seems egregious – although not out of character. Ford appears as a fantastic bogeyman throughout the book, putting almost as much energy into spreading lies as he did into making cars.
As a cyclist who ALWAYS follows the law, I was almost hit by two vehicles within a few minutes of each other in the 1990s. Traffic was WAY calmer then but we had no cycling lanes. Cycling on roads designed for cars was dangerous - and still isn't safe enough.
By law, a cyclist turning left was to use the left-hand turn lane at traffic intersections. So, I was at the front of the left-turn line when the advanced green signal came on. Visibility precautions made me highly visable when I started my turn. Legally, I was to move to the right so I completed my turn beside the curb, however, the van behind me had different ideas.
I noticed the van driver speed up and attempt to pass me on the right. I suddenly ended up face-to-face with the van driver, planted my hand on his windshield and screamed, "WAIT YOUR TURN!!" Then I proceeded and the van sped off. I'd hoped this ignorant driver learned to respect cyclists just a bit.
I was shaken but my senses were on high alert. Then an extra-wide, wheelchair vehicle came up behind me, didn't have room to pass, clearly saw me, but decided to proceed at full speed! The mirror hit my shoulder, I hit the curb and was tossed about 10 ft into some bushes. Luckily, I didn't have serious injuries. No one stopped. My bike was OK and I continued to work. My colleagues were aghast at my bleeding injuries but at least I was alive.
Driver's can complain all they want about cyclists who flaunt the law but there are MANY more driver's who do, and when they break law, they injure or kill innocent cyclists. The person most likely to be injured badly by a cyclist who ignores a stop sign, is the cyclist.
Cyclists definitely need more help to keep safe but Premier Ford is too busy ridiculously blaming cycling lanes for traffic congestion. Why does he insist on protecting only the most unaffordable and dangerous transportation options (he similarly supports the most expensive and polluting options for energy in Ontario too?!)? To relieve struggling taxpayers, we need far better public transit that takes cars OFF our streets for good. That would be safer and much healthier for EVERYONE.
Thanks again for your very thoughtful essays Lloyd. Keep writing please!
It seems odd that the same rules should apply to a 5000lb vehicle with a 4 foot high hood, limited visibility and a long stopping distance and a 50lb bike with full view that can't travel over 20mph. I can stop for a turtle; the car can't even see a kid.
But my personal pet peeve is that people who drive 10mph or more over the speed limit then complain about scooters and bikes breaking the law. Cyclists rarely break traffic laws that would injure anyone but themselves. Cars are designed to protect the driver at all costs. This is not the same.
Totally. The consequences of breaking the rules are completely different. I could injure someone pretty badly if I hit them going full speed on my bike, but hitting someone at low speed with my car can easily kill them. It’s like comparing a man with a gun to a toddler brandishing a rock
There’s always the risk a cyclist deflects off the pedestrian across and under a following vehicle. On normal pavements I prefer to stop and allow the pedestrian to walk past.
This is right up there with cyclists literally getting driven over by cars and the first line in the newspiece is whether or not they were wearing a helmet. This makes me crazy! The fucking car killed the cyclist, not the lack of helmet 🤬
We are all great at rationalizing why our particular decision to ignore the rules makes sense and was the right thing to do and that we should not be punished for a inconsequential “bending “ of the rules. Stop signs are a compromise solution whether for cars or bikes or pedestrians. When well placed and respected they can and do save people from injury and death. However, in many scenarios they are the equivalent of swatting a fly with a baseball bat. They are often overkill for large portions of the day and only really serve their true purpose during narrow windows when traffic is a problem. This is true whether they are directed at cars, bikes or pedestrians. The question then arises as how do we deal with the rest of day when they are a brake destroying, gas and time wasting, stress inducing pia. Some will say a rule is a rule. Follow it always or pay a price regardless whether or not following on the particular occasion made any sense. I am willing to bet that while the number of people who preach that approach is not small, virtually none of them practice what the preach. Others have a more permissive approach of applying common sense and assessing the risk situation in real time and making an informed decision in the moment. A few are just idiots who don’t have any respect for anyone else. The bottom line is that a pedestrian is in a better place to make the assessment than a cyclist and a cyclist is in a better place to make it than a car driver and a car driver is in a better place than a large truck driver… In a perfect world we could have specific rules for each. We don’t live there. We make rules for for the group for a lot of very good reasons. The price is that we accept the inconvenience that sometimes entails or we risk the cost of breaching the rule. We make a personal choice in the moment. It works reasonably well most of the time but it requires everyone to take personal responsibility for their actions and we are not always great in that department, especially when things go wrong. Fingers start getting pointed very quickly but our fingers seldom point back at us.
When it works well it is because everyone understands the purpose of the particular stop sign ( or other rule indicator) and respects it to the extent that it serves that purpose. That means, in part, that police enforcement is done with the clear goal of helping ensure it fills that purpose without exacting more of a cost than is necessary to do so. If there is an intersection where time has demonstrated that people are not making smart choices then enforce the rule to the letter of the law. It does not mean setting random traps to catch people doing a rolling stop in places where there is no evidence of a problem. My experience over 60 plus years of walking , biking and driving in a lot of different places is that that is how it works. The problems, almost always, arise when people think the rule shouldn’t apply to them in circumstances where it clearly should. We forget the 10,000 times we carefully made the decision to not come to a full stop because it was safe to do so and nothing bad happened. We remember vividly when something went wrong, usually because we neglected the careful and safe guidelines we followed in the past, and then we look for excuses like “it is stupid that that rule should apply because (fill in your excuse dejour here)”.
I wonder how much of this issue is caused by the types of bicycles we ride. With derailleurs and clips the cost of stopping is very high. With internal gear hubs and regular pedals, which I prefer, the cost of stopping is relatively modest.
About a year ago I crossed to a bus stop near a 3-way stop. I was almost clipped from behind by a driver who did an "American Stop" turning right. I decided to count the drivers who actually stopped at the signs. In 10 minutes, I counted 3. Two of them were drivers who were turning left & had to wait for traffic to make their turn. This spring I was driving near this same intersection it's a 30kph school zone. As I came to a full stop at stop sign, the pick-up driver tailgating me honked for me stopping.
Speaking as a long-tine Toronto pedestrian, I will get upset about bikes having to stop frequently at neighborhood stop signs - yes, I walk along Palmerston quite often - when they stop going at speed along sidewalks and endangering pedestrians. A cyclist isn't as fast or as heavy as a car, but they are still a danger.
While drivers are hypocrites about safety, many cyclists are too.
Copenhagen and other bike-oriented locales do a lot right but almost nowhere in North America is there political support for similar infrastructure, so its utility as an example seems limited.
I bike daily in one of the mostly densely populated areas in the US. Its cycling infrastructure is improving but often rendered useless, or worse, by double-parked vehicles, construction and hostile or distracted drivers. I have to stop unexpectedly or weave suddenly every time I go out. Using clips is quite risky except very early.
Generally, I slow for stop signs and stop for lights. There are too many pedestrians and bikers on cross streets to just blow through. That said, I see many cyclists do just that. A huge proportion of cyclists run every stop sign or light they can, go the wrong way on one-way streets, ride on sidewalks and generally act with impunity. Those on short term rental bikes are particularly prone to stupid behavior. That’s just the recreational and commuting cyclists; delivery people do the same at higher speed, although recent crackdowns have many of them stopping much more.
The increased prevalence of ebikes is going to result in cycling being treated more like driving. There are now delivery ebikes, blurring the line between bike and vehicle even more. The stand-up scooters are also using the bike lanes at great speed.
The conflict between bikes and cars is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Brooklyn is not going to be Copenhagen anytime soon.
I agree with you about the conflicts getting worse because of e-bikes. But I don’t think the proportion of cyclists who are awful is anywhere near as high as that of drivers.
Right of way is exactly the problem. I don't have issue with cyclists who slows down to roll past a stop sign if that's safer for everyone.
However many cyclists decide they would just transition into a pedestrian and use crosswalks at their convenience without dismounting. That endangers everyone including themselves. Sadly many, many cyclists do that where I live.
When I bike and when I need to use a pedestrian facility, I walk my bike.
Lloyd: "Four-way stops waste gas and might cause more accidents because the right-of-way is not as clear."
Lam: "Right of way is exactly the problem."
You are right and Lloyd is wrong. The general rule in the US is that in a 4 way stop sign intersection, the first car at the stop has the right of way. Secondarily, in a real busy scenario, it is the car to your right that has the right of way to proceed.
Great article! I'm a bit surprised that the "Idaho Stop" isn't mentioned. It was considered in Ontario 16 or more years ago when the law was amended to REQUIRE all motor vehicles to allow 1 meter space for bicycles. The reason Idaho Stop wasn't included was to avoid the backlash on the crumbs we did get. What I wanna know is why the 1 meter rule is never enforced?
I have personally adopted the “Idaho Stop “. I slow down. But if I don’t see a car , I keep going. I get to my destination faster, and I don’t risk being hit from behind.
Also if I see no pedestrians ( very common on all of York Mills Road between Yonge Street and Scarborough in Toronto, just to pick one example) , why would I risk my life on such a terrifying road? Like most cyclists, I’m just trying to reach my destination without getting killed .
That is probably true, are they being taught what the rules are with bicycles? Here is a question, when a bicycle is riding on a sidewalk, do they have the right of way through the crosswalk? And why?
Among the big benefits of cycling is an unblocked, wide angle view and better ability to hear what is happening. When I approach a stop sign, even a two way set, I can see or hear cars on the other road. If none, I don't stop for the exact reason you said, it is a pain to plant my feet then restart. Stoplights are different. I mostly stop, then run a red if no cars are coming. Why? Because the lights are controlled by cameras, and when those cameras get dirty, which happens frequently, they don't register a bike at the intersection. As a result, I "legally" have to wait until a car comes to activate the camera. Sorry, no, I just go. Most bike accidents happen because the car doesn't see the bike and violates the bikes space, not the other way around. My worst accident happened when I was pushing my bike across a highway on a crosswalk with the light, and a truck had stopped in the outside lane to let me cross. On the inside lane a car went through the light catching my front wheel and knocked me to the ground. The driver who did it got a hefty fine and had to pay for the wheel. I was fine, but never tried to cross that highway again.
80 yo cyclist here. Been riding for 74 of them. Drivers hate cyclists because they are certain they are getting away with something they are not allowed to do. Drivers hate having to stop every block too, so if they have to do it, the cyclists had better damn well have to do so too.
Here's the deal. If you arrive at a four-way stop before motorists, do they really want you to stop, unclip, look at them, and then proceed costing them another 15-30 seconds?
Actually, they assume, and expect, you to get your Lycrad ass over to the right and the hell out of their way. Roads are for cars, dontcha know, no matter what some do-gooder laws might have to say about it.
You want to see some Tootsie Roll Pops of pure hate? Attend a San Francisco Board of Stupidvisors meeting where they are considering adding bike lanes to some already long-paved street that never had them before.
Thanks; as a mostly retired cyclist, l really enjoyed this!
The irony is that smooth road surfaces were originally laid to accommodate bicycles, and then hijacked by automobiles.
That's not accurate. The first paved roads were created to facilitate the passage of horses and carriages/wagons, as well as pedestrian traffic. Bicycles came later, along with automobiles.
Read Carleton Reid's Roads Were Not Meant for Cars, from the Guardian:
It wasn’t motorists who began the process of improving roads in the UK and US, after decades of neglect during the age of the train. It was late-19th-century cyclists and well-organised lobbying organisations such as the Cycling Touring Club in the UK and the Wheelmen of America. They first campaigned for properly paved roads, mapped them out and also ensured that politicians took notice. One parade of cyclists in San Francisco in 1896 even carried with it a “gallows, from which hung a dummy representing ‘the first man who will vote against good roads’.”
It was only later that motoring groups were able to start taking credit for the cyclists’ work. They often deliberately distorted history in the process. In 1927 Henry Ford sent out a press release commemorating the 15 millionth Model-T to have rolled off the production line and declaring that “Ford … started the movement for good roads”. In the face of the mass of evidence Reid presents, this untruth seems egregious – although not out of character. Ford appears as a fantastic bogeyman throughout the book, putting almost as much energy into spreading lies as he did into making cars.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/dec/23/roads-were-not-built-for-cars-carlton-reid-review
As a cyclist who ALWAYS follows the law, I was almost hit by two vehicles within a few minutes of each other in the 1990s. Traffic was WAY calmer then but we had no cycling lanes. Cycling on roads designed for cars was dangerous - and still isn't safe enough.
By law, a cyclist turning left was to use the left-hand turn lane at traffic intersections. So, I was at the front of the left-turn line when the advanced green signal came on. Visibility precautions made me highly visable when I started my turn. Legally, I was to move to the right so I completed my turn beside the curb, however, the van behind me had different ideas.
I noticed the van driver speed up and attempt to pass me on the right. I suddenly ended up face-to-face with the van driver, planted my hand on his windshield and screamed, "WAIT YOUR TURN!!" Then I proceeded and the van sped off. I'd hoped this ignorant driver learned to respect cyclists just a bit.
I was shaken but my senses were on high alert. Then an extra-wide, wheelchair vehicle came up behind me, didn't have room to pass, clearly saw me, but decided to proceed at full speed! The mirror hit my shoulder, I hit the curb and was tossed about 10 ft into some bushes. Luckily, I didn't have serious injuries. No one stopped. My bike was OK and I continued to work. My colleagues were aghast at my bleeding injuries but at least I was alive.
Driver's can complain all they want about cyclists who flaunt the law but there are MANY more driver's who do, and when they break law, they injure or kill innocent cyclists. The person most likely to be injured badly by a cyclist who ignores a stop sign, is the cyclist.
Cyclists definitely need more help to keep safe but Premier Ford is too busy ridiculously blaming cycling lanes for traffic congestion. Why does he insist on protecting only the most unaffordable and dangerous transportation options (he similarly supports the most expensive and polluting options for energy in Ontario too?!)? To relieve struggling taxpayers, we need far better public transit that takes cars OFF our streets for good. That would be safer and much healthier for EVERYONE.
Thanks again for your very thoughtful essays Lloyd. Keep writing please!
thanks for the thoughtful comment!
It seems odd that the same rules should apply to a 5000lb vehicle with a 4 foot high hood, limited visibility and a long stopping distance and a 50lb bike with full view that can't travel over 20mph. I can stop for a turtle; the car can't even see a kid.
But my personal pet peeve is that people who drive 10mph or more over the speed limit then complain about scooters and bikes breaking the law. Cyclists rarely break traffic laws that would injure anyone but themselves. Cars are designed to protect the driver at all costs. This is not the same.
Totally. The consequences of breaking the rules are completely different. I could injure someone pretty badly if I hit them going full speed on my bike, but hitting someone at low speed with my car can easily kill them. It’s like comparing a man with a gun to a toddler brandishing a rock
There’s always the risk a cyclist deflects off the pedestrian across and under a following vehicle. On normal pavements I prefer to stop and allow the pedestrian to walk past.
This is right up there with cyclists literally getting driven over by cars and the first line in the newspiece is whether or not they were wearing a helmet. This makes me crazy! The fucking car killed the cyclist, not the lack of helmet 🤬
Maybe, maybe not.
We are all great at rationalizing why our particular decision to ignore the rules makes sense and was the right thing to do and that we should not be punished for a inconsequential “bending “ of the rules. Stop signs are a compromise solution whether for cars or bikes or pedestrians. When well placed and respected they can and do save people from injury and death. However, in many scenarios they are the equivalent of swatting a fly with a baseball bat. They are often overkill for large portions of the day and only really serve their true purpose during narrow windows when traffic is a problem. This is true whether they are directed at cars, bikes or pedestrians. The question then arises as how do we deal with the rest of day when they are a brake destroying, gas and time wasting, stress inducing pia. Some will say a rule is a rule. Follow it always or pay a price regardless whether or not following on the particular occasion made any sense. I am willing to bet that while the number of people who preach that approach is not small, virtually none of them practice what the preach. Others have a more permissive approach of applying common sense and assessing the risk situation in real time and making an informed decision in the moment. A few are just idiots who don’t have any respect for anyone else. The bottom line is that a pedestrian is in a better place to make the assessment than a cyclist and a cyclist is in a better place to make it than a car driver and a car driver is in a better place than a large truck driver… In a perfect world we could have specific rules for each. We don’t live there. We make rules for for the group for a lot of very good reasons. The price is that we accept the inconvenience that sometimes entails or we risk the cost of breaching the rule. We make a personal choice in the moment. It works reasonably well most of the time but it requires everyone to take personal responsibility for their actions and we are not always great in that department, especially when things go wrong. Fingers start getting pointed very quickly but our fingers seldom point back at us.
When it works well it is because everyone understands the purpose of the particular stop sign ( or other rule indicator) and respects it to the extent that it serves that purpose. That means, in part, that police enforcement is done with the clear goal of helping ensure it fills that purpose without exacting more of a cost than is necessary to do so. If there is an intersection where time has demonstrated that people are not making smart choices then enforce the rule to the letter of the law. It does not mean setting random traps to catch people doing a rolling stop in places where there is no evidence of a problem. My experience over 60 plus years of walking , biking and driving in a lot of different places is that that is how it works. The problems, almost always, arise when people think the rule shouldn’t apply to them in circumstances where it clearly should. We forget the 10,000 times we carefully made the decision to not come to a full stop because it was safe to do so and nothing bad happened. We remember vividly when something went wrong, usually because we neglected the careful and safe guidelines we followed in the past, and then we look for excuses like “it is stupid that that rule should apply because (fill in your excuse dejour here)”.
I wonder how much of this issue is caused by the types of bicycles we ride. With derailleurs and clips the cost of stopping is very high. With internal gear hubs and regular pedals, which I prefer, the cost of stopping is relatively modest.
I just want know how many cars rolled the stop sign while police were giving that cyclist a concussion.
About a year ago I crossed to a bus stop near a 3-way stop. I was almost clipped from behind by a driver who did an "American Stop" turning right. I decided to count the drivers who actually stopped at the signs. In 10 minutes, I counted 3. Two of them were drivers who were turning left & had to wait for traffic to make their turn. This spring I was driving near this same intersection it's a 30kph school zone. As I came to a full stop at stop sign, the pick-up driver tailgating me honked for me stopping.
Speaking as a long-tine Toronto pedestrian, I will get upset about bikes having to stop frequently at neighborhood stop signs - yes, I walk along Palmerston quite often - when they stop going at speed along sidewalks and endangering pedestrians. A cyclist isn't as fast or as heavy as a car, but they are still a danger.
While drivers are hypocrites about safety, many cyclists are too.
Copenhagen and other bike-oriented locales do a lot right but almost nowhere in North America is there political support for similar infrastructure, so its utility as an example seems limited.
I bike daily in one of the mostly densely populated areas in the US. Its cycling infrastructure is improving but often rendered useless, or worse, by double-parked vehicles, construction and hostile or distracted drivers. I have to stop unexpectedly or weave suddenly every time I go out. Using clips is quite risky except very early.
Generally, I slow for stop signs and stop for lights. There are too many pedestrians and bikers on cross streets to just blow through. That said, I see many cyclists do just that. A huge proportion of cyclists run every stop sign or light they can, go the wrong way on one-way streets, ride on sidewalks and generally act with impunity. Those on short term rental bikes are particularly prone to stupid behavior. That’s just the recreational and commuting cyclists; delivery people do the same at higher speed, although recent crackdowns have many of them stopping much more.
The increased prevalence of ebikes is going to result in cycling being treated more like driving. There are now delivery ebikes, blurring the line between bike and vehicle even more. The stand-up scooters are also using the bike lanes at great speed.
The conflict between bikes and cars is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Brooklyn is not going to be Copenhagen anytime soon.
I agree with you about the conflicts getting worse because of e-bikes. But I don’t think the proportion of cyclists who are awful is anywhere near as high as that of drivers.
Right of way is exactly the problem. I don't have issue with cyclists who slows down to roll past a stop sign if that's safer for everyone.
However many cyclists decide they would just transition into a pedestrian and use crosswalks at their convenience without dismounting. That endangers everyone including themselves. Sadly many, many cyclists do that where I live.
When I bike and when I need to use a pedestrian facility, I walk my bike.
Lloyd: "Four-way stops waste gas and might cause more accidents because the right-of-way is not as clear."
Lam: "Right of way is exactly the problem."
You are right and Lloyd is wrong. The general rule in the US is that in a 4 way stop sign intersection, the first car at the stop has the right of way. Secondarily, in a real busy scenario, it is the car to your right that has the right of way to proceed.
By right of way I mean a cyclist trying to obtain a pedestrian's right of way by riding on a crosswalk.
A pedestrian's right of way can only be granted to someone who is walking.
In your example, though, at a 4-way, the right of way is given to the first car that actually stops, not the first car arriving at the stop.
Great article! I'm a bit surprised that the "Idaho Stop" isn't mentioned. It was considered in Ontario 16 or more years ago when the law was amended to REQUIRE all motor vehicles to allow 1 meter space for bicycles. The reason Idaho Stop wasn't included was to avoid the backlash on the crumbs we did get. What I wanna know is why the 1 meter rule is never enforced?
I have personally adopted the “Idaho Stop “. I slow down. But if I don’t see a car , I keep going. I get to my destination faster, and I don’t risk being hit from behind.
Also if I see no pedestrians ( very common on all of York Mills Road between Yonge Street and Scarborough in Toronto, just to pick one example) , why would I risk my life on such a terrifying road? Like most cyclists, I’m just trying to reach my destination without getting killed .
The problem is that most motorists have no idea there are any laws governing the behavior of cars versus bicycles in the first place.
That is probably true, are they being taught what the rules are with bicycles? Here is a question, when a bicycle is riding on a sidewalk, do they have the right of way through the crosswalk? And why?
An excellent essay. Thank you.