Any reason why three-way intersections like this don't allow bikes to ride through?
Any reason why three-way intersections like this don't allow bikes to ride through?
Ignoring that my country doesn't allow Idaho Stops, or that my Provincial Government wants to actively kill cyclists by removing safe cycling infrastructure, I've always wondered if there's a reason why cyclists aren't allowed to simply ride through an intersection like the one in the photo.
I'm talking about the right side, where the bike lane could extend through the intersection without interfering with other vehicles, including those that are turning left.
This would not only keep those stops safer (clears the cyclist out of the intersection), but would just make sense from a transportation efficiency standpoint.
Is there something I'm missing, or do cyclists have to stop only because motorists would take a tantrum if they weren't required to?
I can imagine any reasonably size truck, semi etc turning left may need to use the bike lane to avoid clipping the front of a vehicle in the lane coming through from the other way. That portion (the passenger side of the semi) of the road would be in a massive blind spot for the driver, so they'd probably be relying on bikes to have stopped according to the standard rules of the road.
Probably a pretty rare scenario, and easy enough for a cyclist to see and avoid, but rules are built around worst case scenarios, not most frequent scenarios.
I can imagine any reasonably size truck, semi etc turning left may need to use the bike lane to avoid clipping the front of a vehicle in the lane coming through from the other way.
That's a reasonable concern. In areas where large trucks are expected to turn, you'd see traffic lights (not stop signs). At least, that's what I've noticed, since the intersections themselves need to be large enough to accommodate large trucks like that.
But three ways in areas where you'd only expect small vehicles are very common around here, and stopping doesn't make sense.
Really, we just need to permit the Idaho Stop so a question like this one becomes irrelevant. 😂
Idaho Stop is permitted at every location lacking a police officer. I see perhaps 2 in 10 not Idahoeing in my part of TO. The TO maneuver is, look for cars, look for police, if neither is present, proceed through the stop sign. I stop these days because I'm riding electric assist and starting from a stop isn't that big of a deal and I don't have to pay as much attention this way.
I'd be riding through this like it didn't exist pretty regularly
I'd ride through it if nobody is around.
I'm not taking chances that someone won't swing too wide and smash into me if there's traffic though.
Exception is oncoming traffic, because they won't be closer than 20ft to me unless they're aiming
People are dumb. Expect them to do dumb things and you'll live longer.
So, respect cyclists as much as car drivers, except when it's inconvenient for you to follow the rules of the road?
Intersections are probably the most dangerous place on the road, or at least that's what I was taught in motorcycling class 40 years ago.
If a cyclist can ride right through this, why can't I on my 125 motorcycle?
And yes, I disagree with filtering. I understand the arguments for it, but it introduces so much risk as cagers aren't looking for you.
So, respect cyclists as much as car drivers, except when it’s inconvenient for you to follow the rules of the road?
Just to put this out there: this isn't really about convenience, but safety. My question is basically "why isn't an Idaho Stop permitted at a 3-way shown in the photo?".
Since we know that Idaho Stops are SIGNIFICANTLY safer for cyclists (and yes, it can be more convenient as a secondary benefit), it's not really about respecting or following rules, but "does this rule make sense for a cyclist, when it offers no benefit to safety?".
Intersections are probably the most dangerous place on the road, or at least that’s what I was taught in motorcycling class 40 years ago.
Yes, if you are driving in the middle of the road, not in the gutter lane. And usually at 4-way intersections where vehicles cross each other's path. You get none of that in this context.
If a cyclist can ride right through this, why can’t I on my 125 motorcycle?
As above, that would be dangerous. Unless you can provide evidence that blowing through stops on a motorcycle is actually safer for you.
If a cyclist can ride right through this, why can’t I on my 125 motorcycle?
Perhaps it should be allowed! Cars already treat stop signs as yields ("California Roll" is the car corollary to the "Idaho Stop"). Why would you stop if the car behind you isn't planning to? (I'd love to see motorbike studies on this; please link me to some if you know any.)
Studies have shown that cyclists treating stop signs as yield signs leads to fewer accidents, both with cars and pedestrians.
Yielding also decreases time spent in the intersection. You have a motor underneath you. Cyclists don't. Clearing the intersection quickly prevents cross-traffic from splatting you. That's why slowing down, checking for traffic, but not stopping is so important for momentum vehicles.
The NHTSA (the US road safety org for my Canadian friends) has a good two-pager overview. It's a good place to start if you're still curious about the reasoning behind the Idaho stop.
Probably because a lot of people have poor driving skills and will “swing wide” when making the turn.
Because you still need to yield for pedestrians.
Stop signs aren't just to control traffic but to make sure everyone takes the time to take in their surroundings and not make hasty decisions.
If bikes could ride through without stopping, they may fly by a vehicle that's stopped there and not see that it's stopped to let a pedestrian cross the street and then it's too late for the bike to stop before hitting them as they step out front in front of the truck.
That's at least one reason I can think of.
Because you still need to yield for pedestrians.
Of course. I'm not suggesting that you blow through the stop sign while other people are there! That's not how an Idaho Stop works.
Honestly most stop signs in rural areas and subdivisions should probably just be yield signs, for bikes and vehicles alike.
The overuse of stop signs makes it so people get used to just doing rolling stops at the intersections where it's 99.9999% safe to do so and then start doing them unconsciously at intersections where it really isn't safe to
Are cars allowed to park in the intersection there? A bicycle could get hit on the rare occasion someone coming from the other road swung out to park there.
I can’t think of any other reason. And this one sucks, too.
Are cars allowed to park in the intersection there?
Generally speaking, cars are usually not allowed to park within a certain distance of any intersection. Do they abide by those laws, designed to keep other road users safe? Of course not.
I've come across so many of these three-ways where it really doesn't make sense for cyclists to have to stop. Even more so when you are forced to stop at a light (that will never change due to no cars being around you), and simply permitting cyclists to ride through in the bike lane just seems like a no-brainer.
My guess is because it's a crosswalk.
In that example, you're right. Not that it would make a difference, since there are crosswalks in places that permit Idaho Stops. But in other 3-ways, especially in residential areas, crosswalks are absent (so are sidewalks on the right side), so stopping feels... off.
Take this example:
Ignore that the bike lane "'continues" through the stop, as this stop sign is pretty new and the lines were already painted.
There's no sidewalk on the right side, and no crosswalk at those stops (only on the left side). This particular area is part of our waterfront trail, an extremely popular bike route. It would make sense for cars to stop there (they speed down this road on a regular basis), but bikes?
I wouldn't take my bike onto the road with a sidewalk right there. If there wasn't a sidewalk I'd ride in the grass. If there was no grass I'd find another way. If even that's not an option I just live in America.
Seriously tho. People who talk about bicycles online aren't representative of those who use them.
There still being a crosswalk there is a reasonable excuse, but I think it's more simple. The less complex the traffic rules are the easier they are to build signage for, learn, and follow. Everyone stops at the stop sign. Plain. Simple. Easy. Safer.
There still being a crosswalk there is a reasonable excuse
Do they not have crosswalks in States that permit Idaho Stops? How are those intersections managed (all of them, really)?
Cars are the danger at any stop, not bikes in the very far right of the road. But yes, if pedestrians are crossing, everyone should be stopping.
The less complex the traffic rules are the easier they are to build signage for, learn, and follow. Everyone stops at the stop sign. Plain. Simple. Easy. Safer.
That would be nice, except that motorists aren't following those simple rules, and they are the ones running people over. When cyclists follow rules designed for large vehicles, it actually doesn't make them safer.
This is why having the same rules for "everyone" doesn't work. Everyone should understand the responsibilities of other road users (including when pedestrians should be given the right of way and what that looks like), but not everyone should have the same rules if it doesn't make sense or puts them at greater risk.
Ah, yes, everyone should do the right thing.
But here's the issue, - everyone is human. We make mistakes. So the rules of the road are about mitigating risk.
As some who's driven, cycled, and motorcycled something around a million miles in my life, I've had many circumstances where I avoided problems because I was (fortunately) being conservative.
And I've been lucky, many, many times where I wasn't being as attentive as I should be, but the other person was.
You're saying we should clip those corners, reducing the margins.
Because them some driver's feelings are going to be hurt that they can't also do it.
Except they do run stop signs, all day, every day; I see it all the time. But, you know, evil cyclists.
Is there something I’m missing, or do cyclists have to stop only because motorists would take a tantrum if they weren’t required to?
Motorists would make a tantrum regardless, and they don't stop too! Rolling through is very common; indeed expected in many areas. After all, how is a town supposed to enforce all of their intersections? For example, San Francisco has 18,525 intersections and 2,140 officers. Assigning 10 intersections per officer and to ignore all other police needs would be insanity. They're trying their best but it's an uphill battle.
I love that you think any cyclists will actually stop.
Well, I do.
But since you think that way, it sounds like permitting an Idaho Stop is the answer here. It would keep cyclists safe, and make it easier for them to travel through these areas.