(updated post after Jonathan Maus interpreted this post as not “too supportive of the Idaho Stop”- GEARS hasn’t taken a position yet so I was trying to be a bit neutral, maybe to a fault?)*

GEARS hasn’t officially met to discuss this issue yet but I think that as cyclists we all know the realities of riding our cities streets and the true nature of how cyclists treat stop signs.   Even well intentioned, well trained, and conscious cyclists rarely come to a complete stop at stop signs.  With such great visibility, hearing, agility, and slow approach speeds it becomes clear how different cyclists are in their ability to assess the hazards posed at intersections with stop signs and how this law could actually help cyclists navigate our streets in a safe and legal manner and maybe even allow better enforcement of those who blatantly blow stops signs with no regard for others right of way.

That being said, as an LCI bike educator one of the mantras we live by is that “cyclists fare best when they act like and are treated as drivers of vehicles.”  Because that is what we are, vehicles.  So why should we have different laws that treat us differently?  Is it a slippery slope?  Will it be easier for the legislation to then change laws that restrict us from the roadways?  We already have one example of that type of restrictive “special law” and it’s the “Far Right” law that requires cyclists to ride as far right as “practicable” and also the mandatory bike lane law. Though there are exceptions to the laws they are still special laws that are limiting and are used against cyclists claiming their right to the full lane when they feel it is safer to do so.  Would this law encourage more of these types of laws or would it maker it easier and even safer for cyclists in Oregon?

*I personally think this would be a great change in the legal system for cyclists.  I would like to see more enforcement of cyclists blowing stop signs (by blowing I mean not yielding) and this law would make it so those who are acting as safe and considerate cyclists could continue to act as they do on the roadway; stopping for others when they have the right of way or continuing through if it is safe and those who do not could be penalized.  And maybe be required to take a bike ed class like some of the ones GEARS is offering this summer??

Here is a post from bikeportland.org that gives an idea of the BTAs position on the bill.  For more coverage on the issue see bikeportlands Idaho Stop Law coverage.

Full text of Karl Rohde’s Idaho Stop testimony

Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on March 19th, 2009 at 10:54 am

Below is the full, prepared text of Karl Rohde’s testimony in front of the House Transportation Committee yesterday on behalf of the Idaho Stop law. Rohde is in charge of the BTA’s government affairs and he is their lobbyist in Salem.

(For a full report from that hearing, read our story from yesterday.)

Chair Beyer and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in support of House Bill 2690, the “Idaho Style Stop Law”. For the record, I am Karl Rohde, Government Relations and Public Affairs for the Bicycle Transportation Alliance.

The BTA firmly believes that this law is in the best interest of all users of the road. The BTA is committed to safety and would never support a bill that we felt might jeopardize someone’s safety.

This bill does not decriminalize bad behavior, it decriminalizes good behavior, bad behavior would still be illegal and we will continue to work in collaboration with law enforcement to address the truly unsafe behavior that this law would not protect.

Most cyclists have a high degree of self-preservation and are not going to engage in unnecessarily dangerous behavior. By the very nature of the vehicle cyclists travel on, they have a higher degree of awareness of their surroundings. They sit up higher, they have no blind spots and they are not in an enclosed environment so their hearing is not affected. The letter from researcher Jason Meggs goes into greater detail on this.

The existing law, is a discouragement to cycling. Around 60% of the public are interested in cycling but have concerns for their safety and convenience. They would prefer to ride on low volume, low speed residential streets, however, in the interest of traffic calming, those streets are often loaded with stop signs to discourage automobiles from cutting through neighborhood streets. So the citizen choosing to bike to his or her destination is faced with a difficult choice—do I take the neighborhood street with all it’s stops and starts or do I move over to the high volume street will I can travel at a faster pace amongst all that traffic. Or, worse, do I accept that in order to get to my destination safely and conveniently, I’m just going to have to be an outlaw.

In our original concept of the bill, we had included a provision that would allow local jurisdictions to sign certain intersections that were determined to pose an extreme hazard with a required stop for bikes sign. We were contacted by Legislative Counsel and informed that because such a sign does not exist in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, referencing it in legislation could not happen. We are still willing to entertain this concept and work with the Committee to address it.

Joining me to testify today are

• Attorney Ray Mionskie
• Attorney Ray Thomas
• Corvallis Resident Kris Warloe
• Chair of the BTA Legislative Committee, Doug Parrow [Parrow did not testify]

The Bicycle Transportation Alliance is a statewide non-profit organization that works to open minds and roads to bicycling. We represent bicyclists and the bicycle industry with over 5000 members in Oregon and SW Washington, and have seventeen years of experience in bicycle engineering, planning, education and advocacy.