Design Template by Bikingtoronto

« Don't take your folding bike on Delta | Main | Arlington, still Silver »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

In what way is a "track stand" not a complete stop? I don't have to put my foot on the ground when I stop my car.

I didn't read that as meaning that a track stand was necessarily a failure to stop; I just read it as them lumping them all together, which could imply that it's not a complete stop or may just have been done for simplicity so they didn't have to figure each incidence out.

I think a track stand can be either a complete stop or a rolling stop. But I can see how a motorist might not understand that a track stand means the cyclist is stopping, which is why I give them a wave-through when I'm doing one.

I track stand is most definitely a complete stop.

Likely a person who does not know what a track stand is and assumes it's a very, very slow yield. They just want to make things more difficult for the cyclists.

The same way drivers think that drivers never yield stop themselves. I would LOVE it they actually used red light cameras more. I'm tired of the drivers whining about cyclists and peds when they yield stop as much as cyclists and treat the speed limit as the minimum and not the max speed.

55% of all bicyclists used rolling stops and/or track stands, 25% failing to stop and only 19% coming to a complete stop

I can understand why track stands get lumped in with rolling stops, if the metric used by the observers is whether or not a foot touched the ground. But then what is the difference between "failing to stop" and "rolling stops"? Is "failing to stop" just blowing through an intersection without looking or yielding? Hard to believe that 1 in 4 cyclists is suicidal.

A real track stand, done correctly, is definitely a complete stop. I can even go backwards, so how is that not a stop? But you can also do one as part of a rolling stop. I think they just lumped them together for simplicity.

25% suicidal does seem high, but maybe some of these were blow-throughs where there wasn't any traffic and the cyclist could clearly see that. Think empty neighborhoods full of stop signs. No cyclist in the world is even going to think of stopping at those when no one is around. Since they saw no "near-incidents" at all during the pilot study, the blow-throughs really must have been with no traffic around.

The PDF of the master's thesis for the second study shows the six locations studied.

(A) Capitol Hill;
(B) Queen Anne;
(C) Greenlake;
(D) Ballard;
(E) the University District; or
(F) Sand Point.

Don't know the city and haven't found any info in the study on traffic levels, but it's 267 pages so maybe I've missed it? She does note gender, helmet use, weather, topography, type of bicycle facility, time of day. She even calculates the influence of observed wind speed on cyclist stopping behavior. Traffic counts missing (or not at least noting the presence of traffic at the intersection) would be odd since traffic would necessarily have an effect of stopping frequency. However, she used volunteers and maybe could only gather so much data.

The uniqueness of the Idaho Stop Law, Id. Statute § 49-720, begged the question are citizens less safe by not being required to stop at stop signs and pause at red lights. This study was not intended to answer this important question, but more specifically, to ascertain if any difference in crash severity between Boise (subject to this special legislation) and Champaign/Urbana (subject to the conventional rules of the road) existed in any meaningful manner. . . Findings of significant difference within the study areas showed no real difference in severity with one exception. Property damage
was significantly different within Champaign/
Urbana if the crash occurred midblock versus

As the designated safety weenie, I hereby declare track stands (and even slowing to a near stop) to be complete stops.

what is the difference between "failing to stop" and "rolling stops"?

Failing to stop means the cyclist doesn't slow down and behaves as though they have a green light. Rolling stop means they slow down and behave as thought they have a yield sign. Figure 1 on page 18 shows the differences.

Personally, I think we should allow rolling stops for all vehicles. If there is no cross or turning traffic, a complete stop is unneeded, wasteful on traffic flow and gas, and its what 80% of people do anyway.

"I hereby declare track stands (and even slowing to a near stop) to be complete stops."

In SF, where legislation has passed the Council (may be vetoed by the Mayor though) to effectively eliminate enforcement against Idaho stops, they have defined such a stop as requiring cyclists to slow to 6MPH or below, as well as yielding.

@SJE: the difference is that a car rolling slowly over someone still causes a lot of harm

Too many drivers are already distracted and not really looking where they're going. A complete stop at least allows time for the subconscious to notice things like pedestrians. Allowing drivers to roll through stop signs just reinforces that that it's okay to not really pay attention.

There would be some who would say that if it's okay for one group it should be okay for another, but a driver is protected by a hunk of metal which allows them to be a bit cavalier. Most sane cyclists won't risk blowing through without looking because they don't want to get crushed.

One cannot legislate safe behavior and enforcement of stop signs for motor vehicles, let alone bicycles, is rare enough to be considered arbitrary and capricious. Hence, the law seems relevant only in assigning fault after a collision. To my cynical mind, this relegates the discussion of safety to the far reaches of weenyism.

...but I'm reading. :)

Mike: The point is whether we can have a workable solution. The problem is not whether someone creeps through a stop, its speeding, distraction, fatigue, ignorance and meanness on the road, and lack of enforcement. Enforcing a complete stop is safety theater, a "do something" that avoids the real issues.

@SJE: no, people actually do get hurt/killed when run over by a slowly drifting car

I can see how a motorist might not understand that a track stand means the cyclist is stopping, which is why I give them a wave-through when I'm doing one.


Nice one, oboe. One hand to the chest, the other extended in the direction of travel, and a humble inclination of the head, I assume.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader