
San Francisco May Let Bicyclists Yield at Stop Signs - ojbyrne
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/us/san-francisco-may-let-bicyclists-yield-at-stop-signs.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
======
birken
As somebody who has biked thousands of miles in SF, this is a fun thing to
argue about but it doesn't make any difference on the streets. Almost every
biker already does this, and as long as the police (correctly) don't enforce
the actual law, whether or not it is legal really makes little difference.

If you are a driver you shouldn't notice the difference anyways. If you get to
the stop sign first, then the biker has to stop. If they don't, they are
breaking the law. If they get there first, they get to go, but by not stopping
they'll get out of your way sooner.

Also major Kudos to The Wigg Party [1] who came up with the idea for the
creative and wildly effective "Stop In" protest. When you compare that protest
to the moronic monthly takeover of the streets by Critical Mass it is like
night and day.

1: [http://wiggparty.org/](http://wiggparty.org/)

~~~
latchkey
I'm an American (San Francisco) visiting Saigon right now for work. The
traffic is insane and the air quality here is horrid (even indoors!). I've
been avid cyclist my entire life and motorcyclist for the past 10 years. I use
either one in SF almost every day of the week.

Everyone here rides scooters and motorcycles. There is almost zero 'law' when
it comes to moving around (walking, biking, car or moto). People drive on the
sidewalks, wrong way, don't stop, 2 people a baby and a lawn mower, etc. The
amazing thing is that while I'm sure there are a lot of accidents (although I
have yet to see one personally), in general things _just seem to work_.

I've rented a moto here and experienced the flow first hand both by myself and
with locals. I actually feel much safer on two wheels than while playing
frogger trying to cross a street on foot.

I also felt safer here on a moto than I do in SF, simply because the culture
here is to accept the insanity and not fight it. In SF the 'us' vs. 'them'
argument has gotten so out of control that I feel like many people in cars
literally have put a target on my back. I get none of that attitude here in
Saigon and it is refreshing.

So if SF wants to let cyclists yield at stop signs because it is actually
safer for the cyclist, then let them do it. If you hit the cyclist with your
car because they did something stupid, you aren't going to get hurt and you
won't be liable (just like before this rule). Many other places in the world
have already figured this out and are working just fine.

~~~
bweitzman
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate)

~~~
latchkey
Interesting numbers. Vietnam is pretty high up there for deaths / 100k people.
I'd attribute that more to the lack of proper safety equipment. Almost
everyone wears helmets (required), but they are a joke in terms of quality and
nobody wears any sort of armor cause it is too hot. Many people also ride two
up which is the max allowed (3 with a baby). The speeds here are also just not
that fast because of the traffic and quality of the scooters. Top speed is
maybe 30mph.

In San Francisco, I strictly follow ATGATT and have had zero accidents, but a
million close calls.

~~~
roel_v
Not to turn this into _that_ discussion again, but helmet do not substantially
improve safety while they do significantly reduce acceptance of bikes as a
mass transport mode.

~~~
mvid
The previous post was talking about motorcycles.

~~~
roel_v
Was it? I took it to mean bicycles and light scooters which don't drive much
faster than bicycles and share lanes with them; drivers of faster scooters
generally do wear helmets, in my experience.

Well if we _are_ talking about motorcycles, then of course, and my previous
post doesn't apply.

------
koenigdavidmj
Lots of people are going to be tempted to rant about seeing bicyclists run
stop signs and red lights, just like the last time an article got posted about
this subject. _That has nothing to do with this law, which applies only when
there is no interaction with cars anyway. What you are seeing is still just as
illegal as before._

~~~
flomo
I live a few blocks away from the Wiggle intersection pictured in the Times,
and have been following the online flamewars (which primarily stem from
conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians, not cars). The issue I see is
that even the proponents of the Idaho Stop often don't seem to understand what
an Idaho Stop actually is. An accident happens and people (including Morgan
Fitzgibbons) immediately jump in and say "This is why we need the Idaho
Stop!", even though it actually has no relevance to the situation.

So the risk I see is that average every day person who isn't imbued with
traffic laws will interpret this as "I don't have to stop." Which is how a lot
of bicyclists currently behave.

~~~
schlumpf
As you say, many cyclists fail to stop at signed intersections. Clearly the
knowledge that "I have to stop" isn't having its desired effect. So who
exactly are you worried about not complying with a relaxed standard?

Surely not the cautious people who stop at the Muni tracks on Church and
Duboce while a torrent of riders streams past them across the middle of the
intersection. The cautious ones already have enough common sense to observe
the laws of physics.

Surely not the people whose goal is never to dab (put a foot down) between
SoMa and Outer Richmond. They don't care much for stop signs -- or red lights,
or lanes, or the product of mass times velocity.

So is there really a constituency of borderline nut jobs who currently observe
stop signs but would suddenly turn into reckless maniacs on two wheels if
yielding were "legalized"? I'm probably in this camp and I can tell you that I
already roll through the Wiggle when the coast is clear...and assuming a car
hasn't already waved me through. Sorry but it's hard to believe that allowing
bikes to yield would turn me into a social menace.

------
mikekchar
I haven't driven a car in many years and cycle pretty much everywhere. I'm not
sure why anyone would advocate not stopping at a stop sign. They are there for
a reason. When I'm riding, I'm usually doing about 30 kph. Hitting a
pedestrian at that speed is going to do some serious damage, both to the
pedestrian and to me. Hitting something more solid like a car would be
extremely bad for me and my bike.

One of the things that has gotten better over the years (especially in Europe)
is that car drivers are starting to take cyclists seriously. They are
legitimate vehicles on the road. When I was cycling in the UK, I was amazed at
how courteous drivers were. Even on back roads, people would patiently wait
behind me until the road was wide enough to pass. Often they would smile and
wave after they passed me. Not everyone is like that, obviously, but this kind
of mutual respect is what you want to go for.

IMHO this idea is a huge step backwards if enacted. What are the counter
arguments (the article was quite vague on the details)?

~~~
utnick
You won't be allowed to roll through a stop sign at 30kph.

Yielding in this context, means slowing down, and going very slowly through
the stop-sign, assuming its nobody else's turn to go. Every cyclist I've seen
pretty much does this already if nobody is around. But the current law is that
you must come to a complete stop, even if nobody is around, before going.

~~~
mikekchar
Hmmm... I admit that I rarely put my foot down if there is no traffic, so I
suppose I am rolling through. If that's what's being described, then I suppose
it makes some sense. I've been surprised a few times in my life and even when
I thought I was going slowly enough to stop, it wasn't the case. Now, I am
pretty careful at stop signs. I haven't really been able to see a good
description of what "treat a stop sign as a yield sign" means in practical
terms, though. "If you hit something or got hit, then you did it wrong"
doesn't seem to be a great way to proceed ;-)

------
thesis
Cyclists here drive me nutty. Granted most places don't have bike lanes but
IMO you shouldn't be on a road where the speed limit is 45 and you're blocking
a line of cars.

The other day everyone was patiently waiting to get around this guy going
15mph on his bicycle, and once we did, at the next stop sign he just cruised
to the stop sign in the 2 foot space between the cars and the curb and blocked
slowed down even more cars.

I know my rant is a little off topic, but my point is that if you want to
share the road you should be held to the same standards. Bicycles yielding at
stop signs isn't right.

~~~
lutorm
_if you want to share the road you should be held to the same standards_

The law treats bicyclists and motor vehicles differently in many ways already.
For example:

* Bicyclists are required to ride "as far to the right as practicable". No such requirement exists for automobiles.

* Bicyclists are prohibited from certain roads, like freeways, unlike automobiles.

Of course, in these cases it is the _motor vehicles_ that are allowed to do
things bicyclists aren't allowed to. I suppose for consistency you are arguing
that these these rules shouldn't exist either?

~~~
Shivetya
there still needs to be laws keeping them off roads over 35 or such; I ride a
bike. Unless there is a dedicate bike lane being on a road with speeds like
that is just asking for trouble even if it is long and straight.

also, tag them like cars. no reason they should not have tag fees if they want
to use the road

~~~
exogen
This would make it impossible to do any bike touring at all. The longest trip
I did was 2,000 miles and I can tell you: you need to go on highways, period.

Not the interstate, which is not allowed in many places (but is in some!) but
highways, which are a different thing.

~~~
exogen
Also, it's simply just not the direction we should be going in (especially in
the US, which is already overrun with cars and sprawl). We need to make the
roads _more_ bike friendly, and that doesn't mean adding bike lanes
everywhere. How about lowering the speed limits?

People just need to get over the goddamn fact that sometimes another traveler
is in your way, and that doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. The person
in front of you turns left and needs to wait for other cars. The person in
front of you turns right and needs to wait for pedestrians in the crosswalk.
The person in front of you uses a slower vehicle.

~~~
toothbrush
Even assuming completely benevolent car drivers (which seems a stretch), i
believe that separated bike and car lanes are the only way it should be done.
It is unrealistic to expect such different modes of transport (i.e., very fast
2-ton metal boxes vs. completely vulnerable meatbags on frames going 20km/h)
to interact well together. If anything gies wrong (again, assume benevolent
drivers: the thing going wrong might be oil on the road, a tyre blowout,
sleeping driver, etc.) then the cyclist is going to come off second best,
_every time_. This is the main point to keep in mind. Cyclists are vulnerable,
and should be kept away from motorised traffic.

(incidentally, i believe the same in the pedestrians vs. cyclists argument:
they too should be separated. But i didn't want to get too off-topic)

EDIT: grammar

EDIT 2: Another point: it's not as simple as you are saying, where people
should just be more patient if they're in a car behind a bicycle. That may be
true, but when a cyclist falls, for example, and a car "rear ends" them, they
are going to be dead with a non-zero probability. The other way around (i.e. a
car stalls and a cyclist rear ends them -- this has happened to me) then it's
_again_ the cyclist who ends up somewhere between just embarrassed and in the
hospital.

------
zeckalpha
Let's make most stop signs into yield signs, even for cars. Being on edge
(alert) causes drivers to be focused, which reduces accidents. See
roundabouts.

~~~
ajmurmann
Yes, please! Those stop signs everywhere are often times unnecessary and a
gigantic waste of fuel. Let's just give one street the right of way and the
other street gets a yield sign. If they are both major streets, there should
be a traffic light or a circle depending on the traffic patterns.

~~~
tabio
circles and lights cost a lot more than signs.

~~~
Symbiote
A mini roundabout in the UK is usually just a big white circle painted on the
road [1].

It means "yield to the right" (driving on the left), and presumably costs a
similar amount to other markings painted on the road.

The one pictured has very poor visibility, so it's expected that drivers will
almost-but-not-quite stop until they can see. [2] is more typical. A driver
where the camera is can proceed, since they can see the other car is turning
out of the junction and none are following it.

Large vehicles like buses can drive over the white dot, since it's just paint.

[1] [http://www.sabre-
roads.org.uk/wiki/images/7/75/Tiny_mini_rou...](http://www.sabre-
roads.org.uk/wiki/images/7/75/Tiny_mini_roundabout_1_-_Coppermine_-_4700.JPG)

[2] [http://thumbsnap.com/i/LKjHG2eP.jpg](http://thumbsnap.com/i/LKjHG2eP.jpg)

------
noobermin
Reading the comments on the article is fascinating. Drivers (of which I am not
one) have a bunch of disdain for cyclists. I agree that some are just plain
stupid, unconcerned for their safety and for others, but many drivers are just
plain stupid, unconcerned for their safety and for others... and stereotyping
in either direction. isn't fair.

~~~
txru
There's a bunch of disdain on both sides, huge amounts of rule-breaking, etc.
People are people, people 'bend' rules toward their own gains.

But the thing I want every car-driver to remember, when they talk about their
dislike of bicycles, is that they are driving a very deadly weapon (as Doc
Brown says in Back to the Future "He's in a '46 Ford, we're in a DeLorean.
He'd rip through us like we were tin foil!"). An angry jerk of the wheel 'to
get back at a that bicyclist' puts the bicyclist in the hospital with
permanent brain damage.

I guess all I'm saying is, be careful out there.

~~~
Fomite
Along those same lines, cyclists should remember that they have both
considerably more mass and velocity than the average unprotected pedestrian.

~~~
ajmurmann
Yes! As a driver I don't have very strong feelings about bicyclists, as a
pedestrian I am terrified. It has happened very often that I had to jump out
of the way of bicyclists that were running red traffic lights and stop signs.

~~~
thrownaway2424
A lot of people say these kinds of things, as if they are constantly dodging
homicidal bicyclists, but the statistics of bicyclist-pedestrian violence show
that it is quite rare, and not particularly violent when it does happen. If
you had a choice, you'd be much better off with the world's most aggressive,
negligent bicyclists than in a city full of average motorists.

~~~
grandalf
I've nearly been hit by cyclists going at least 30 miles per hour running
through red lights. They careen past looking dazed. In many cases I've had to
jump out of the way at the last second to avoid a collision.

~~~
thrownaway2424
OK, you were _nearly_ hit by someone on a bicycle, and you lived to tell
everybody about it on the Internet. Meanwhile, 2.4 million Americans are
injured in car collisions every year, and tens of thousands of them die.

~~~
thrownaway2424
I'll just leave this data here to back up my assertions for future readers.
This, from Streetsblog today:

"From 2000 to 2013 (the most recent year for which official bike crash data
are available), cyclists killed eight New York City pedestrians, according to
DOT. During that time frame, drivers killed 2,291 people walking. There were
two reported incidents in which people on bikes struck and killed pedestrians
in 2014, when DMV data show drivers killed 127 pedestrians.

All told, cyclists fatally struck 10 people in NYC in 14 years, compared to
2,418 pedestrians killed by drivers, making cyclists accountable for .4
percent of pedestrian deaths."

~~~
grandalf
Considering that in NYC cars transport hundreds of thousands of times the
number of people that bicycles do, the pedestrian death toll for bicycles per
useful unit of transit is far higher than that of motor vehicles.

And of course accidents will happen. I am referring to being nearly hit at
high speed several times by cyclists who were blatantly disregarding the
traffic signal. It's just needlessly reckless.

Also, you have not addressed the issue of why someone who is allegedly healthy
enough to cycle would be so lazy as to want to avoid having to stop at a
signal and pedal to get up to speed again.

~~~
thrownaway2424
It's not about saving energy. It is much more dangerous for bicyclists to stop
at stop signs.

By the way, transportation mode share in NYC is only about 10:1 in favor of
cars over bicycles, not 100000:1

------
dspoka
I happen to live in Isla Vista, the college town of UCSB. Although not
explicitly in writing, the rule of this town is that bikes have the right of
way. We have somewhere around 14,000 cyclists that ride to campus and back
everyday. From first hand experience this is a much safer system. The drivers
are much more attentive at the wheel and the heavy bike traffic enforces that
cars really don't go faster than the 25 mph speed limit

~~~
mikeryan
_From first hand experience this is a much safer system_

Right until someone visits thats not aware of this unwritten rule?

~~~
hkailahi
I also live in Isla Vista, and can confirm that this is exactly what happens.

When freshman move in, the first few weeks are filled with crashes. Also,
every time there is an event that draws lots of out-of-towners (Freshman
Orientation, Halloween, etc.) it gets much, much worse.

------
carbide
I live in one of the Colorado counties mentioned in the article as already
having this law on the books. The law works fine up here in the mountains, and
we have a lot of cyclists and a lot of seasonal traffic. Of course, we don't
have the traffic of a big city like San Francisco. Still, we don't have a lot
of bike-car accidents or bike-pedestrian accidents at our intersections.

The thing is, the stop signs are treated as yield signs. If a biker just blows
through the stop sign without yielding right-of-way, they can still be
ticketed. So as far as safety concerns, I don't see it making any difference.
The people who would ignore a "yield" are the people who are already ignoring
a "stop" and are subject to being ticketed if they get caught. If you dart out
in front of a car and get hit by that car, you'll still be found to be at
fault (and you're the one who is going to wind up in the hospital)

------
grandalf
After seeing cyclists routinely disregard safety around cars and buses, and
after being nearly hit many times crossing an intersection at the 'walk' sign
by a cyclist flying through a red light, I have come to believe that cyclists
are generally daredevils who lack the typical common sense about traffic
safety and act like bullies around pedestrians.

If you are riding a bicycle and lack the strength to stop at a red light and
then get back up to speed once the light turns green, perhaps a segway or a
motorized scooter would be a better option (or a public bus).

~~~
mirimir
Maybe pedestrians will start using canes and walking sticks ;)

~~~
grandalf
Indeed.

------
panglott
The answer isn't to let cyclists run stop signs, because the problem is that
there are _too many stop signs_ in the US.

Don't put a four-way stop on every corner and this won't be a problem.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#Placement_and_standa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#Placement_and_standardization)

------
salimmadjd
This is a very bad idea! It'll cause far more accidents as the result. You'll
have some crazy bicyclist who'll fully ignore the stop sign and fly through
them.

The problem is that you have some minority of cyclists ruining it for everyone
else. I have arrived on a stop sign in SF on many times. I do my full stop, I
have the right of the way, only to see a cyclist just fly by. And then give me
the birdy when I hunk at him.

At the same time, many of them just fly through pedestrians. For those who are
not familiar with SF, the cult of cyclist in SF is becoming rather entitled.
They have (not sure she is still there) a PR women that make the perfect
deputy for Karl Rove.

The SF cyclist are basically the NRA of SF, IMO. They have a strong lobby and
are getting everything they want. Including having a special privilege that
puts them above cars and pedestrian.

~~~
bgentry
_This is a very bad idea! It 'll cause far more accidents as the result.
You'll have some crazy bicyclist who'll fully ignore the stop sign and fly
through them._

What you describe is illegal now and will remain illegal if this law is
passed.

The proposal is for cyclists to be able to yield, but not fully stop, if it is
safe for them to do so. Blindly flying through an intersection at full speed
is and will remain illegal.

~~~
ajmurmann
The rule we have right now is much easier to follow and leaves nothing up to
interpretation, yet SF cyclists seem unable to follow it as it is. I doubt
that replacing that with a rule that makes things much fuzzier will do much
good. If the existing easy rule is neither followed not enforced, how is the
new fuzzy rule gonna be anything than a permission to do even more problematic
stuff. I am really not worried about cars here, but am terrified as a
pedestrian.

~~~
salimmadjd
Exactly right. Stop sign is a simple rule to follow. You make full stop and
then you go. yield is open to interpretation.

~~~
QuercusMax
How is yield a fuzzy rule? It's simple: if nobody is in your way, then go. If
they are, you need to wait till it's clear, then go.

It's basically the same as a stop sign, except you aren't forced to
artificially stop.

In practice, many people treat stop signs as if they were yield signs
("rolling" or "california" stops). The real problem is when people treat yield
signs like they just plain don't exist. Or when they treat them like a stop
sign at freeway on-ramps.... but that's a whole other discussion.

~~~
corin_
I support this change - and am glad it became legal here in Paris a few months
ago, since most people here already went through red lights - but it clearly
is more subject to interpretation.

If a vehicle is already in the junction as you speed through at 30mph on your
bike and swerve to avoid the vehicle, you could argue "I got through so
clearly there wasn't anything in my way so I didn't need to yield". In this
example sure we can all agree the cyclist is in the wrong, but for every metre
further away the car is, and the slower the bike is moving, the more
reasonable the cyclist's argument to continue becomes.

<Comment transitions here to personal anecdotal experience>

Personally I'm pretty good at keeping an eye out for pedestrians, I always
slow down for stop signs unless I have a literally unblocked view of
everywhere somebody could step/drive out from (in 6 months living here and
cycling at least once most days I've only fucked up once, and even then I was
perfectly safe avoiding people, just possibly gave them a slight surprise to
see me curving around them as they crossed - and that was completely a case of
mea culpa, I fucked up). But many cyclists here are pretty terrible road
users, even when not going through red lights.

Then again, pedestrians here are just as bad - if I'm cycling near them I am
constantly paying attention to where they are and whether they might step out
in front of me, I've never known a city so full of people willing to walk
backwards into a road without looking around first, it's astonishing. And
drivers are even worse... and motorbikes are the worst yet. Seriously, it
doesn't matter what vehicle / lack of vehicle you use in Paris, the majority
of people seem to follow a "fuck everyone else, I'm the priority" mindset when
it comes to getting around.

------
ZeroGravitas
What's the context for the video link where some cyclists and a zipcar are
having a standoff? I'm not sure I understood what was happening there.

