Several things about the Idaho Stop provision in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act

Last week DC's Committee on Transportation and the Environment held a hearing on several traffic safety bills, including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act. One small part of that bill was a provision allowing cyclists to treat stop signs and steady red lights as yield signs. Of course if you watched or read media coverage of this, you might think it was the main change being proposed, or that it was a particularly controversial proposal. Neither is true.

The "stop-as-yield" provision of the 2015 Safety Act is a small part of the bills discussed. The bill is 19 pages long, and this provision is less than one page of it. It's not nearly as important as the complete streets provisions or the mandating of side-under run guards on all District-registered trucks, but it is the "telegenic" part since it allows news reporters - especially TV news reporters - to say "Whaaaat? Let cyclists run stop signs??"

It's also not that controversial - The provision came out of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Working Group, where it originally was approved with only token opposition, but then after the draft report came MPD expressed reservations about it (though Co-chair John Townsend disagrees with this, and says consensus was never reached). The "opposition" was limited to:

1. Wayne McOwen, executive director of the District of Columbia Insurance Federation when speaking for DCIF said only that they wanted to see it coupled with an education effort. But later when, coincidentally, the subject came up during the panel he was on, he said - speaking for himself - that he had concerns about it. That was it. He didn't show up to testify against it, and would not have had it not come up. Nonetheless, Mr. McOwen's testimony was widely covered by the media in part because he was on the first panel and, other than Martin DiCaro, the media had largely left before the hearing was over and MPD spoke against it.
2. AAA never said that they opposed it or were even concerned about it. Townsend, in his role as the Working Group co-chair, noted that MPD was "diametrically opposed to it" and gave MPDs reasons in an effort to clear up what he saw as an inconsistency in that this provision was in the bill even though it was not approved in the final report (the bill was based on the draft report). 
3. The main opposition to the provision came from MPD. They took the position that it was not about safety and was a matter convenience, and that "in fact, in a highly populated setting, this could lead to more bicyclist and more pedestrian injuries by them not stopping at stop signs and red lights" because it would confusing to motorists and other users when taking into consideration young and inexperienced riders.
4. When asked, Leif Dormsjo, said that having two sets of traffic rules for different users is problematic and that he obeys all the laws of the road. Which isn't really a statement against it.

MPD's opposition either isn't relevant or isn't based on any facts.

First of all, during the working group meetings and during the hearings it was repeatedly stated by others that MPD represented experts on traffic safety. No offense to MPD, but I'm not sure that this is true. They're experts on enforcement, and probably have a great deal of relevant field knowledge about safety, but I would not call them experts. DDOT is the experts, and within the working group they supported it. 

The criticism that it is only about making cycling more convenient was relevant on the working group, when we were charged with creating recommendations for ways to make DC roads safer and thus eliminated anything that wouldn't. But Council is not so limited. So, if this only makes cycling more efficient, and I believe that it is more than that, and it has no negative impacts, Council should still support it anyway, since making a more efficient transportation system is something they should support. This unsupported point, thus, is irrelevant. 

As to the safety concern, when pressed by CM Elissa Silverman, Assistant Police Chief Lamar Greene said that he thought it was safer when all road users obey DC laws and regulations. His argument was, then, that the law shouldn't change because it's safer when everyone follows the law. But, of course, if this bill passed as is, then the laws and regulations would change so that cyclists who roll through stop signs when no one else has the right-of-way would be following the law. 

When Silverman (who clearly supports stop-as-yield) asked him what his belief that the "stop-as-yield" change would lead to more crashes was based on and what evidence he had, he offered none but said that some of his colleagues had talked to some in law enforcement in Idaho and that they had shared his concerns. That was it. 

And just to respond to Wayne McOwen's criticism "“We teach our children when the light is red we stop. We teach them when they see a sign that says stop to stop. We teach them to look both ways before they cross the street. We teach them to cross at the crosswalk.  Now we are beginning to say follow those rules except if there’s no one around, you can run across the street anyway" Well, yeah. The only way if no one is coming is if they looked both ways. Basically stop-as-yield is how pedestrians already treat stop signs, since they aren't required to stop unless someone else has the right-of-way. I don't see where the problem is.

There are reasons to believe that it does make cycling safer.

Authorities in Idaho have conservatively said that they have perceived, at minimum, no impact on the number of crashes, injuries or deaths since the law was passed. Furthermore, the only study done showed that bike crashes dropped by 13% following introduction of the law. 

Determining why it makes things safer is somewhat more difficult, but there are several possible reasons. It could be that it makes riding on slower streets, with more stop signs, more appealing since cyclists can travel at a faster average speed, thereby getting them out of harms way. It could be that the safety-in-numbers effect comes into play once biking is more convenient and more people bike. It could be because bikes, unlike cars, are inherently instable at slow speeds and so forcing cyclists to slow to a stop and then restart creates wobbly cyclists at the most dangerous part of the road - intersections. Or that the Idaho Stop at red lights allows cyclists to get in front of traffic, the same way that bike boxes and Pedestrian Leading Interval lights do, where they're more easily seen. Or a combination of these, or something else.

Knowing how it works might be hard to tease out. But aspirin was developed in the late 19th century and had been used for nearly 80 years before researches figured out how it works, so maybe knowing how something works isn't as important as knowing whether or not it does. [I also use this analogy when talking about distracted driving. We may not know WHY talking on the phone is more distracting then talking to someone else in the car, but there is a lot of research indicating that it is nonetheless. So we'd be wise to not wait to figure out why.]

Comments

[DaveS]

I really don't pay close enough attention to know if this was normal or not, but at the hearing Dormsjo gave his introduction as "speaking for the Mayor's Office".

I know, I'm probably reading too much into it, but: why was it necessary to communicate to the committee who he reports to? Certainly they're aware of the shape of the org chart. I can't quite shake the idea that this introduction was meant to clarify that, despite his role as director of DDOT, he was not speaking for the rank-and-file of his agency as much as for his boss.

[DE]

As to why, other possible reasons might be that a moving cyclist can get out of harm's way, whereas someone straddling a bike is practically helpless. For those who clip in, like me, there's also the fumbling/looking down at the pedals/missing the lock-in that can potentially happen, which can leave one prone or unstable.

[Crickey7]

It'll die quietly, or I'll eat my words spelled out in French fries.

[jeffb]

My guess is passing this provision won't make much difference in safety one way or another given the widespread ad-hoc adoption of Idaho stops by most cyclists already.

However if it does pass then the first time a cyclist, injured in an intersection collision, tries to use this as a defense I bet a huge stink will erupt.

I would trade Idaho stop for eliminating right-on-red any day of the week.

[David R.]

@ Crickey7

That sounds like an inducement to offer all kinds of propositions that prove untrue.

[washcycle]

jeffB, one of the things DDOT will be able to/likely to do in the planned bike/ped priority safety zones is eliminate right on red.

[contrarian]

Basically stop-as-yield is how pedestrians already treat stop signs, since they aren't required to stop unless someone else has the right-of-way. I don't see where the problem is.

Not to be pedantic, but at an intersection controlled by a stop sign, pedestrians always have right of way. A stop sign is not a traffic control which applies to pedestrians. Stop signs only apply to vehicles operating upon a roadway (which means they don't apply to cyclists operating on the sidewalk, under the duties and rights of pedestrians, either).

This is a hobby-horse of mine because of the rampant mis-application of stop signs where trails cross roads. A stop sign for trail traffic has no meaning: it's a traffic control for vehicles upon a roadway. Plus it contradicts the crosswalk, which is a traffic control that gives right of way to pedestrians. If the intention is to give right of way to vehicles then the correct traffic control is to remove the crosswalk and put warning signs on the trail that cross traffic does not stop.

While I'm ranting, another bee in my bonnet is the "safety patrol" at my kids' elementary school. These are kids who are trained -- in a course sponsored by AAA! -- to help younger kids across the crosswalk. Their training is to hold back all pedestrians until all cars have gone through the stop sign. As you can imagine, this just results in deadlock, as the car traffic is mostly parents, and nobody wants to be that person who blows through the crosswalk in front of the school.

[Atlas Cesar]

"We teach them to look both ways before they cross the street. We teach them to cross at the crosswalk. Now we are beginning to say follow those rules except if there's no one around, you can run across the street anyway."

Between two intersections that are controlled by traffic signals, it is illegal to cross the street. Everywhere else, it is legal provided that you yield to oncoming traffic. His example is not even based on fact.

[Mike]

@jeffb: you can't use "I only yielded and didn't stop" as a defense from hitting someone, pretty much by definition. In the event of a collision this law is completely immaterial. Essentially all it does is keep police from issuing tickets for behavior that already happens.

@contrarian: that's actually not true at random points in virginia, where the assembly made trail stop signs legal in certain cases. Now it's like biking in DC on the sidewalk, except instead of one invisible law there's potentially one in every jurisdiction you pass through while on a trail.

@Atlas Cesar: "think of the children" is also why it's illegal to enter the crosswalk on the countdown, because kids might be confused. Apparently there are parents who are unable to set rules for their own children, and can only follow what they see other people doing.

[Atlas Cesar]

@Mike, are you referring DCMR 18-2302.3? Could be wrong here, but DC's special pedestrian signals no longer exhibit the words "WALK", "DON'T WALK", or "WAIT", which is required via 18-2302.1. Unless there is a clarification elsewhere I've missed.

[JimT]

@contrarian: The legal significance of stop signs on trails varies by state. In Maryland, bikes are vehicles, so the stop sign governs bikes, while the painted crosswalk gives the right of way to pedestrians, including people who decide to walk their bike across the road to obtain the right of way.

In Virginia, absent any special-case laws, the stop sign simply means that the cyclist has to stop, after which it has the right of way. While one might quibble with a traffic engineer's preference that bikes stop before proceeding, using stop signs to calm traffic is not unprecedented.

[Zack Rules]

@DE your clipping/unclipping is ptimary reason why injuries went down Idaho. There was a study a few years ago.

It is funny that MPD is opposed to this bill because their actions actually endorse it. Many of the Bicycle patrol officers I have seen or rode with already do the Idaho stop. Unfortunately, many of their patrol car counterparts do the same but that is a different issue...

[washcycle]

Yeah, in the working group, MPD said they would only ticket cases where a cyclists was "really bad." When pressed they said that would be failing to yield the right-of-way. So, the de facto Idaho stop.

[Fong Fong]

On the last point, why didn't MPD testify that they are only enforcing an Idaho stop? And why didn't Cheh ask? Seems like a no brainer to change the law to what actually is being enforced.

Perhaps there is a way to get that testimony into the record, which would help immensely in getting that provision through.

[Mike]

@Fong Fong: because they want to leave open the possibility of harassing enforcement?