23

I've been bike commuting in the East Bay Area of California (5mi/day, plus public transport) for a few weeks now.

I recently attended an in-class safety course, where I learned the fine for not stopping at a stop sign is $250, AND a point on your drivers license (some people were there to remove this point, so people do get cited).

Since then, I've been mostly obeying the stopping laws. But, another takeaway of that class was the importance of predictability.

I feel like stopping puts me in danger when I seem to be the only one to do it. If no one expects me to stop, I am worried about bikes and cars not properly anticipating it, and my being involved in a collision. I know, it wouldn't be my fault legally, but it sort of is my fault because I'm knowingly being unpredictable by stopping, yet do it anyway. And of course, it doesn't matter who was right, I don't want anyone to get hurt!

My plan is just to continue to stop, per the law, but I thought I'd check with you all. I don't have enough experience to know whether this is a valid concern.

Thanks!

(Idaho Stop: Treating stop signs as yields, and less pertinent to this question, stop lights as stop signs.)

Ada Richards
  • 341
  • 2
  • 8
  • Really no one expects you to stop at a stop sign? – paparazzo Aug 20 '15 at 22:24
  • 1
    Well, I don't think I've seen another bicyclist do it yet, save for when there are other cars/bikes at the intersection. I am the odd man out here! – Ada Richards Aug 20 '15 at 22:29
  • 3
    Well I would like to be on the side of the law and the truck doing 40 mph on the cross street that does expect me to stop. – paparazzo Aug 20 '15 at 22:33
  • 1
    @Frisbee I live in SF. The Idaho Stop is de facto in full force. – Stephen Touset Aug 20 '15 at 22:45
  • 2
    @StephenTouset And so is that truck doing 40 mph. – paparazzo Aug 20 '15 at 22:46
  • 4
    To OP, yes, you can get a ticket. But the odds of getting a ticket are vanishingly thin. That said, you should ride in whatever manner makes you safest. I tend to go with the Idaho Stop, because I believe it isn't inherently any less safe (especially when other cyclists who may be behind you expect you to behave similarly). That said, I will always let a car go if they have the right of way (not to mention if they don't, if it looks like they'll go anyway). – Stephen Touset Aug 20 '15 at 22:48
  • @StephenTouset Do you use the "braking" hand signal when stopping? I use it myself but am curious whether people know what it means. – lmjohns3 Aug 20 '15 at 23:26
  • 1
    You are probably required to use the "stopping" hand signal when stopping. I almost always do. This should provide people behind you an idea that you are going to stop. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c6/22111 – Michael Hoffman Aug 20 '15 at 23:38
  • 1
    Only when riding with other cyclists, or signaling an "unexpected" stop (e.g., not at a stop sign or light). I also don't use the "official" right-hand turn signal (I simply point where I'm going). The hand signals were designed for drivers of cars prior to the existence of brake lights and blinking turn signals — they make no sense for a cyclist. Worse is that nobody but cyclists have any idea what they mean. Everyone understands pointing in a direction. – Stephen Touset Aug 21 '15 at 00:45
  • 4
    What the flip is an "Idaho stop"? – TRiG Aug 21 '15 at 09:13
  • 2
    @MichaelHoffman I have never in my life (which has included 12+ years of living in towns where a large proportion of the population cycles) seen any cyclist use the "I'm stopping" signal on the road in the UK. I doubt anyone would know what it means: if I start waving my arm around, people will assume I'm making some kind of emphatic turn signal. Also, it's a dumb signal: I'd rather use my hands for braking. – David Richerby Aug 21 '15 at 12:35
  • 1
    @TRiG: Apparently the “Idaho stop” allows bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. – Michael Aug 21 '15 at 13:34
  • I use hand signals, so the folks behind me should have some idea that I'm going to be stopping... – Wayne Werner Aug 21 '15 at 14:02
  • @Frisbee If there is anyone else at the intersection, I'd yield :) Thanks for replying :) – Ada Richards Aug 21 '15 at 14:50
  • Unfortunately, I would say there are many cyclists in the Bay Area that go well beyond the Idaho Stop. Or else they have very strange ideas about how "yeild" signs actually work. I believe the Idaho stop is actually safer since you spend less time in the intersection, but only if you use good judgement. – Fred the Magic Wonder Dog Aug 21 '15 at 14:50
  • @DavidRicherby I try to signal before I brake and before I turn. 1) stop pedalling 2) use one hand to drop the hand and show the palm of my hand to what's behind me, as if I were saying "shoo! off my tail!" 3) put the hand back on the bars and begin to brake. In an emergency brake you need both hands, but in a non-emergency you have time to signal before you alter direction or slow down, and a signal is safer than none (assuming you're a strong enough cyclist to cycle with one hand for a few seconds, which you ought to be in order to signal lane changes and turns). – ChrisW Aug 21 '15 at 14:51
  • 2
    @FredtheMagicWonderDog I answered a question about this on Skeptics.SE ... I think the reason it's safer is because it encourages commuters to change the route they choose and to cycle through residential areas which have lots of stops signs, instead of expecting them to take the main roads which have fewer stops. Residential areas have many stop signs to discourage through traffic, but they're relatively safe for bicycles. – ChrisW Aug 21 '15 at 14:53
  • @StephenTouset Thanks for your contributions! I think you have the sensible balance here, though I will probably not take my legal chances on the Idaho Stop, I don't find it inherently unsafe, if one actually yields! – Ada Richards Aug 21 '15 at 14:54
  • @ChrisW do you brake-signal at stop signs and lights? Thanks :) – Ada Richards Aug 21 '15 at 14:55
  • do you brake-signal at stop signs and lights On a city street, yes: unless I know there's nothing behind me; just as I also signal when changing lanes or turning a corner. – ChrisW Aug 21 '15 at 14:58
  • FYI that's the letter of the law in Ontario where I learned to drive: "... if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle ...". – ChrisW Aug 21 '15 at 15:19
  • 1
    I lived in the UK for years and used these signals there too. But this is not about the UK. It is a question about California where it is likely the law to use these. I was taught these signals in driver's education in the U.S. And even if other road users don't remember the meaning of particular signals, they are a pretty obvious sign that the cyclist is about to do something.

    As for the right turn signal, in most places I'm familiar with, the "pointing to the right" method is official. See the link to California law I provided in the last comment.

     – Michael Hoffman Aug 21 '15 at 15:21
  • 1
    I find it amusing that someone from CA calls what sounds like what I call a California Roll an Idaho Stop (and Urban Dictionary agrees with me: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=California+roll). I suppose this is like the Spanish Pox... – Foon Aug 21 '15 at 17:04
  • Funny to hear everyone claim they use hand signals when I have never seen any bicyclist ever use them. Much like breaking other traffic laws like stop signs. – Hannover Fist Aug 21 '15 at 17:43
  • Hand signals are frequently used by road cyclists when riding in groups, to signal to the other riders with them. Turning or stopping without indication when you're riding with 5–100 other people is a fantastic way to wind up with road rash. For typical commuting, where speeds are slower and other cyclists aren't as closely bunched, it's not as big a deal — and I doubt anyone anywhere is actively ticketing cyclists for failing to use proper hand signals. That said, simple "I'm going over here" pointing hand signals are useful when you're changing lanes or at intersections with other traffic. – Stephen Touset Aug 21 '15 at 19:35
  • @MichaelHoffman I know it's not a question about the UK: I mentioned my experience there because it's the experience I have and I have no reason to believe that it's atypical. If people start telling me that cyclists in California do tend to signal that they're going to stop, then my experience is obviously irrelevant and I'll delete it. In the UK, the signals are to stick the left/right arm straight out to indicate a turn and to stick the right arm out at shoulder height and move it up and down to indicate stopping. The last one is the signal I claim nobody would understand. – David Richerby Aug 21 '15 at 20:19
  • 1
    @HannoverFist I've no idea where you live but I've spent a lot of time cycling in the UK and there are plenty of people who signal there. I'm not going to claim it's a majority but it's at least a large minority. – David Richerby Aug 21 '15 at 20:21
  • 2
    @Foon No. A California stop/California roll is slowing down instead of stopping at a stop sign; an Idaho stop is a provision in Idaho state law that allows cyclists to treat red traffic lights as stop signs (you must stop but may continue before the light changes to green, if the road is clear) and stop signs as yield signs (you don't need to stop if there's no opposing traffic). – David Richerby Aug 21 '15 at 20:34
  • "right arm out at shoulder height and move it up and down to indicate stopping". Ah. That's not the signal in the U.S. – Michael Hoffman Aug 21 '15 at 21:37
  • How can you get a point on your driver's license for a violation on a bicycle? Is a driver's license required to bike in the streets or something? – alexw Aug 21 '15 at 22:57
  • In the Bay Area, not only can you get a ticket for rolling through a stop sign, you could end up on TV. See also 1; 2; 3; many more can be found... – Michael Hampton Aug 22 '15 at 03:16
  • @alexw As far as I know, you get a point if you're driving a car, but not if you're driving a bicycle. – Michael Hampton Aug 22 '15 at 03:33
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – jimchristie Aug 22 '15 at 20:06

5 Answers5

28

When it comes to stop signs, I live by some simple rules:

  1. If it's a multi-way stop and there's another car waiting or just arriving, I stop.
  2. If I can't clearly see or judge what I'm riding into, I stop.
  3. If it doesn't feel right for some reason, I stop.
  4. If there's a cop there (or a history of cops), I stop.

I don't necessarily clip out and put my foot down, but I stop. These rules have worked for me pretty well. But one thing I've never worried about is my safety, when I stop. I've easily ridden 100,000 miles on the roads, including the East Bay, in all kinds of conditions. I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I felt less safe stopping than not stopping. There are plenty of things out there to worry about, but that isn't one of them.

Mohair
  • 1,198
  • 1
  • 9
  • 12
  • 1
    I think this is the best answer. The only normal worry for cars is if you are taking the lane and they only slow down enough to stop at the sign, not enough to stop one bike length behind it. If you are a bike in a pack, you should have ways to communicate that you are going to stop. If there is an unknown bike behind you, a hand signal is a good idea. The chance of an unknown bike behind you who doesn't notice you slowing down is small, probably smaller than the chance a car will run the stop sign the other way. – Ross Millikan Aug 21 '15 at 03:43
  • Of course there are parts of the country where no one stops at stop signs, and they often don't even slow down. – Daniel R Hicks Aug 21 '15 at 12:27
  • 2
    @RossMillikan - If there's a bike behind me I don't rely on hand signals. I yell out "Stopping!" in a loud voice. – Daniel R Hicks Aug 21 '15 at 12:28
  • 1
    I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I felt less safe stopping than not stopping.

    I like this! And overall, the accepted answer, thanks!

     – Ada Richards Aug 21 '15 at 15:10
  • @DanielRHicks Do you also turn your head so as to direct your exclamation at them? Because otherwise, the sound might not bounce off much and they might just hear a shout but not know what it was. – Michael Aug 21 '15 at 18:23
  • @Michael - If you use a loud enough voice it's not a problem. – Daniel R Hicks Aug 21 '15 at 18:59
  • "4.If there's a cop there (or a history of cops), I stop." This is actually Rule 1, CYA, aka Cover Your Self. (not that much of self, but you can guess what it is) – ave Aug 21 '15 at 21:08
16

I'm not sure why you think it puts you in danger.

My rule of thumb is that I will only do the Idaho stop when I can see all the roads at an intersection far enough to know that a car won't show up before I get through the intersection and I can't see any cars.

I've been riding in the East Bay for 15+ years and I've never felt like my stopping at stop signs has endangered me in any way. The most dangerous part of your ride is always going through the intersection, not what happens before or after.

In general the less urban parts of the East Bay are cycling friendly, but if you go by the rule of invisiblity1, I think you'll be fine.

FWIW, there is an effort to make the Idaho stop legal in California that has fairly serious backing in the legislature.

1 Rule of invisiblity: Never assume a car will see you and yield the right of way. The traffic laws may be on your side, but the laws of physics are not.

yo'
  • 333
  • 1
  • 6
Fred the Magic Wonder Dog
  • 10,151
  • 26
  • 33
  • 3
    "I'm not sure why you think it puts you in danger" - it put me in danger once. I was driving on a bike lane, nearing a large intersection with a red bike traffic light, and stopped somewhat suddenly. The bike behind me almost piled onto my back. I realize that my own behavior was suboptimal that time. But in the general case, if the guy behind you assumes you'll be zipping through the intersection at your highest speed, stopping is dangerous. And if that's the default behavior of bikers in the area, the OP's fear is well founded. – rumtscho Aug 21 '15 at 10:16
  • @rumtscho If you think your experience is relevant to the question then you should post it as an answer where people can vote on it. – ChrisW Aug 21 '15 at 10:24
  • 1
    @ChrisW I saw it as relevant to your answer. The OP says "there is danger in both choices, which is the better", you say "I don't see danger in stopping, so you should always stop", I confirmed that there is danger in stopping. I cannot say myself if stopping is better than non-stopping, so I don't have an answer, just a comment that the premise of the question is not as wrong as your answer represents it. – rumtscho Aug 21 '15 at 10:37
  • I was trying to think of why it would be dangerous wrt cars, not other cyclists. – Fred the Magic Wonder Dog Aug 21 '15 at 14:41
  • @FredtheMagicWonderDog Around here, it seems cars don't stop at stop signs either! If they habitually do not prepare to stop at a sign, and they know bikers habitually do not stop, I think there is risk of an accident when a biker does actually stop! I hope that example helps. (Ah, assuming I'm taking the lane, too). – Ada Richards Aug 21 '15 at 15:00
  • @rumtscho Thanks for the anecdote! Justification in asking what I thought might be a silly question :) One thing to think about is how quickly bikes can decelerate, which can catch others off guard when one (as I tend to do) comes full-speed up to a stop. Thanks! – Ada Richards Aug 21 '15 at 15:02
  • @FredtheMagicWonderDog Your rule of thumb sounds like yielding, which is, strictly speaking, a proper idaho stop :) Your comfort with the condition of the question begets my own comfort. I appreciate your contributions throughout this thread, thanks! – Ada Richards Aug 21 '15 at 15:04
10

Many or most other cyclists don't stop: but, other cyclists can get into 'accidents'.

One advice, if there's a car or bike behind me then I use a hand signal (in lieu of a brake light) to indicate that I am about to slow to a stop.

Unusually once on my commuting route (in Toronto), there was some bicycle police (who were giving traffic tickets to any cyclists who weren't stopping at a four-way stop sign). I figured that these police, being professional city cyclists themselves, could answer my question and so I asked one of them,

How much stop do you want to see, in a bicycle?

I wanted to know whether he expected to see a dead stop, or a rolling stop. His answer was,

Intersections are the most dangerous place when you're a cyclist. I see cyclists blowing through a stop sign without even looking. What I want to see is people looking, before they enter an intersection: so look, both ways! Twice! And if you see a policeman, then come to a complete stop.

I thought that was a really good answer, explaining the reason for the law, not just repeating the letter of the law.

  • So, primarily: Look both ways (twice), before you enter the intersection. If you have to slow down or stop in order to have enough time to take a good look, well them's the breaks.
  • Secondarily: If you wouldn't even notice a policeman you weren't looking hard enough; and if you do see a policeman and don't come to a complete stop, then you're just making their job harder.
ChrisW
  • 12,033
  • 12
  • 60
  • 95
  • 8
    Intersections are the most dangerous place when you're a cyclist. This should be in bold 40 pt font. Novice cyclists seem to worry most about cars overtaking, but by far and away most bike/car accidents are side impacts at intersections. – Fred the Magic Wonder Dog Aug 21 '15 at 14:44
  • 2
    @FredtheMagicWonderDog - But many, perhaps most intersection accidents involve a bike with the right-of-way and no stop sign/light. – Daniel R Hicks Aug 22 '15 at 12:29
  • 1
    @DanielRHicks I once posted on Skeptics.SE to reference an old study of motorcycle accidents. It said that it was usually the driver's fault (e.g. the driver not seeing the motorcycle and turning across their right of way) however that the motorcyclist often contributed somehow (e.g. not wearing goggles and so squinting into the wind, travelling fast, no headlight on in the day time, no evasive manoeuvre nor even putting their brakes on etc.): i.e. I'm not surprised if it's often the driver's fault with a cyclist, even so a cyclist might be able to avoid that (e.g. by looking for eye contact). – ChrisW Aug 22 '15 at 12:37
  • 1
    @ChrisW - And, of course, the most dangerous intersection is a sidewalk crossing a driveway. Even when it's technically legal to ride on the sidewalk it's extremely dangerous to do so, both because of the driveways and because the cyclist tends to continue across intersecting roadways where approach riders may or may not notice you. Far safer to ride in the street. – Daniel R Hicks Aug 22 '15 at 12:45
8

Stop.

Or at least slow down a lot, so that you look like you're taking care.

Such signs are not really cyclist friendly. But if you don't take any notice of them then it reinforces the negative view many of the motor vehicle drivers have of us. Also, police officers generally have some discretion. It's only if they're bored or what you do is particularly blatant that they'll take the time to book you.

If you are doing what the sign says, I think that's behaving predictably.

For other's reference: Idaho stop.

andy256
  • 17,273
  • 4
  • 51
  • 82
4

If you don't want to break the law... stop. If you want people driving cars and trucks to respect you... stop. If you don't want to risk a minor mistake of attention getting a cyclist killed... stop. If you are riding your bicycle to get exercise... stop.

Just because you are pedaling your ass somewhere does not give you the right to run stop signs.

Just because other people don't stop at stop signs, that does not give you the right to run stop signs.

Get the laws changed, until then, stop.

user21187
  • 49
  • 1
  • I appreciate the reply, very logical and sort of empowering for me to obey the law and stay safe without feeling... weird at all :) – Ada Richards Aug 21 '15 at 15:08