Good Enough for Idaho

It's fair to say that we've all run a stop sign or two on our bikes. Although in my case, saying that I've run "a stop sign or two" would be low-balling it pretty flagrantly. The truth is I run stop signs all the time.

I'm not saying I blast through. I slow down. I make sure the coast is clear. But I'm on a bike. I have excellent visibility. I'm gonna have to speed this thing back up with my legs. And my bike would probably at best only maim a squirrel—not kill a person.

So when I roll up to a totally clear intersection in a quiet neighborhood without a car, or a person (or a police officer) in sight, do I really need to come to a complete stop?

Well, if I lived in Idaho, the answer would be "No, you don't."

Title 49-720, Section 1, of the Idaho code states that a cyclist approaching a stop sign must slow down and yield the right of way to any traffic. But, in the event that a road is clear, they "may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping." And it goes further in Section 2 to add that a cyclist, after stopping at a red light and yielding the right of way (to any traffic), "may proceed through the steady red light with caution."

So if the intersection is clear, a cyclist can treat a stop sign like a yield sign and a red light like a stop sign—thus saving valuable momentum and time, and encouraging people to commute by bike. Fantastic, right?

Well. Hold on.

Several other states and municipalities have considered the "Idaho stop" in the last year. The Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission discussed advising an Idaho stop law to the California Legislature last year, but it never happened. Montana lawmaker Robin Hamilton sponsored an Idaho stop house bill that failed to pass in February. A similar Arizona house bill was voted down in March. Cycling advocates in Oregon made a big push to get another Idaho stop house bill passed through the Oregon Legislature in April—the third attempt in Oregon—but the bill stalled because of lack of votes.

So far no other state or city in America outside of Idaho has passed an Idaho stop law.

Why not?

Well, for one, not every state representative is a stoplight-running bicycle commuter like myself. Accordingly, they have some concerns with the law.

Lawmakers are understandably reluctant to pass a law that allows cyclists to ride straight out into intersections without stopping. The concern is that an Idaho stop law would increase the likelihood of bicyclist accidents.

But Jason Meggs, a UC Berkeley Public Health researcher, concluded after what is probably the most thorough study on the Idaho stop to date that "there is no evidence of any long-term change in injury or fatality rates as a result of the adoption of the original Idaho Law in 1982."

Meggs doesn't think this will only apply to Idaho.

"Best evidence strongly supports the universal adoption of the Idaho Law in pursuit of numerous public policy objectives including safety of all roadway users," Meggs said.

If the Idaho stop law is followed correctly, it doesn't allow for cyclists to act unsafely at intersections. And if Idaho is any example, cyclists will do just fine with the new law.

Many view the Idaho stop law as giving cyclists special privileges. Oregon Representative Cliff Bentz asked during a committee meeting "why bikes should be treated differently than electric cars," for instance. And angry internet commenters have repeatedly either thrown the "same roads, same rights" argument in cyclists' faces, or insinuated that if the Idaho stop were passed, they themselves should be able to roll through stop signs in their cars.

The "special privileges" criers are forgetting something, though: bikes are different from cars. The Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA), who proposed the 2009 Idaho stop bill in Oregon, responds to this argument in their FAQ:

Bicyclists have heightened awareness both visually and audibly. Furthermore, stop signs create an increased physical burden on cyclists.

Also, bicyclists are much less dangerous to pedestrians, drivers and other cyclists.

The Idaho stop might make drivers a little envious, but it wouldn't make them wait. And there's nothing in the law that states that drivers can't ride their bikes and enjoy the Idaho stop themselves.

Bicycle commuters may risk getting saddle sore from their commute, but it seems like some drivers would be te ones getting "butt-hurt" from an Idaho stop law.

Phoenix representative Ray Barnes told the Tucson Citizen, "It would send the wrong message for children to see older bicyclists failing to stop at stop signs... I am not in a position where I want to set bad examples for kids, and I'm afraid that's what this is doing."

The only example it would set for the kids, though, is that it's legal for cyclists to roll through stop signs when the intersection is clear. It wouldn't seem so bad anymore if it were legal. And, as the BTA said in their FAQ,

If a law is on the books and it doesn't make sense, it sends the message that lawbreaking is acceptable behavior. That is the wrong message to send to children especially.

The League of American Bicyclists, one of the largest cycling advocacy and education groups in the nation, is conflicted about the Idaho stop.

"We don't have a formal position on it," Executive Director Andy Clarke said. "And recent discussions about coming up with one identified a wide divergence of views from the political to the philosophical that seem tough to reconcile at the moment."

Education Director Preston Tyree heads up a team of 20 "coaches" who instruct the League instructors across the country. When the League tried to develop a position on the Idaho stop, they went to the coaches for input.

"Out of those 20," Tyree said, "it came down pretty much even on 'it's a great idea' or 'it's a terrible idea.'" Hence the League's lack of a position.

Tyree has his own take, though. "Cyclists have the same rights and should act and be treated as vehicles. If we somehow make them different from cars, we're gonna have a problem." Separate laws for cyclists would probably aggravate drivers, Tryee said, which might very well contribute to the type of tension on the roads that further endangers cyclists.

Well, drivers can suck it up, one might say, cyclists are different from cars. They're certainly less dangerous. Why not just let them do what they do anyway? "While bicyclists and drivers of motor vehicles have different equipment," Tyree said, "they are on the same roads and should act the same to be predictable."

Cyclists fall under the same traffic laws in every state other than Idaho for a reason, Tyree said. "It's the safest way to operate... You can quote me as saying this: I'm very uncomfortable with the Idaho law."

Meanwhile in Idaho, cyclists seem comfortable enough with their Code. "It's been the same ever since I moved here," said Dave Seasons, manager of Ken's Bicycles in Boise. "Since at least '93. And I've never had an instance with traffic."

Idaho Code 49-746, which permitted cyclists to run stop signs, passed in 1982. The red light law went into effect in 2005.

"It certainly makes riding a bike more enjoyable," said Mark McNeese. "Overcoming inertia takes a lot of energy from a cyclist."

The only problem McNeese and Seasons could think of was that most motorists don't seem to know that the law exists.

George Knight, a cycling advocate and philosophy professor at Boise State University thinks the Idaho law makes cycling safer.

"In a way it seems kind of goofy to not give [cyclists] exceptions to laws not created for [them]. At signalized intersections, I'd rather just get the heck out of there."

The distinction between laws for cars and laws for cyclists will be the focus of the discussion surrounding the BTA'a next Oregon legislative agenda, said BTA Executive Director Scott Bricker.

"We didn't make the case [during the 2009 Oregon Legislature] well enough that bikes are different from cars. In 2010, we're going to have a yearlong conversation with lawmakers about what kind of vehicles bicycles are, and what kind of transportation regulations they need. Gone are the days that we think of a bicycle as a little car that we put in a side lane."

Tyree said that bicycles and cars are on the same roads and should have the same laws to be predictable, but Bricker disagrees.

"Predictability is key to an effective transportation system. But you don't need to have the same rules for predictability... It just doesn't make sense for bicycles to come to a complete foot-down stop at every intersection. If there were no cars in a neighborhood, there would be no stop signs. I guarantee no one would want them."

Creating just such neighborhoods and thoroughfares is all part of the plan for Bricker and the BTA.

"The Idaho stop is just one aspect of a much broader ideal functional code for bicyclists. And Portland is one of the best places in the nation to have this conversation."

If the BTA can convince the Oregon legislature that bicyclists need separate transportation rules from cars, getting an Idaho stop bill passed in 2011 might be just the beginning.

Meanwhile, cyclists will have to wait to see which state opens up this can of worms next—all the while waiting at stop signs and red lights.

But fret not, bicycle commuter. You can always move to Idaho.

[This article, which originally appeared in print in Bicycle Times issue  #3, was
written by David Boerner. Click here to subscribe to Bicycle Times.]