California to consider Idaho Stop provision today

The frequency with which Idaho Stop bills have been proposed (and unfortunately killed) across the country have significantly increased lately. In the last 3 years, San Francisco, Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Colorado and even Washington, DC have introduced Idaho Stop laws, only to see them all fail. But today, California will hold hearings on AB-1103, a bipartisan bill to bring the Idaho Stop to the Golden State. 

While it faces significant opposition, primarily from the California Police Chiefs Association and AAA of California, it also seems to be getting more support than bills like these normally do. For example, the LA Times has endorsed the bill. It could really pass.

It may seem counterintuitive, but letting cyclists safely roll through intersections may actually improve the traffic flow on residential streets. Consider this scenario: A bicyclist reaches a four-way intersection before a car approaching from her left, and she has the right of way. The car driver must wait until the law-abiding bike rider comes to a full stop, then slowly gets going again. If the bicyclist had been allowed to slow but not stop, it would have cut the car’s waiting time — not by a lot, but enough to make a difference on heavily trafficked residential streets in cities like Los Angeles.

Both supporters and opponents agree that there’s a lot of confusion among motorists about the rules regarding bicycles. Many don’t realize that bicycles have as much right to the road as cars and that state law allows them to take up an entire lane of traffic when there’s not enough room on the right side of the road. Would loosening the rules about stop signs make the confusion worse? Would it incentivize cyclists to break other laws and make it harder for police to issue tickets for running stop signs? Or would it improve traffic flow and encourage more people to ditch their cars for bikes?

Let’s find out.

Passage by California - assuming the law would result in fewer or no more crashes - could eventually open the floodgates and allow more places to change their law. We'll see.

Update: I should have mentioned that the California bill would only change stop sign behavior, not stop lights, so more like the Colorado Stop if you will. Here's part of the summary for the bill.

This bill is intended to further encourage bicycling. According to the author, “AB 1103 will allow bicyclists to maintain momentum when approaching an intersection with stop signs. By maintaining momentum, bicyclists can keep better control of their bikes and avoid unnecessary collisions with vehicles. This practice will also divert cyclists away from busier streets with stop lights onto less hazardous side streets. This bill would also help California meet green energy goals by encouraging bicycle use.”

As evidence that the Idaho stop is safe, the author cites a study conducted in 2010 by Jason Meggs, a graduate of the UC Berkeley, School of Public Health, that looked at cycling behavior and the effects of the Idaho law. The study compared the accident rates in Boise to similar sized cities in California, including Sacramento and Bakersfield. In Idaho, researchers found that the year after passage of the law bicycle injury rates in the state declined by 14.5%. The study looked at aggregate injury rates, including numerous types of collisions.

Writing in support of this bill, the California Bicycle Coalition notes that side streets are often punctuated with stop signs at every intersection, making them less attractive for people bicycling if they are required to stop every block and lose valuable momentum. It asserts that a typical person bicycling safely will use reasonable judgment when there is no oncoming or crossing traffic at an intersection, and often roll through stop signs on these side streets to maintain their momentum and will still yield the right-of-way and come to a full stop if necessary if they encounter other vehicles or people walking or bicycling as they approach the intersection.

The coalition further states that, “penalizing this safe bicycling practice with unnecessary enforcement at stop signs is counterproductive to the larger goal of increasing bicycling, and discourages people bicycling from using side streets if they are required to come to a full stop every block. AB 1103 would make this reasonable practice of treating stop signs as yield signs while bicycling explicitly legal, ensuring that law enforcement do not unfairly penalize this behavior and discourage people from bicycling.”

The opposition consists of drivers like the Teamsters

“much of highway safety is based on predictability. Our traffic laws are designed to instill predictable vehicle and pedestrian behavior. Unfortunately, this bill would insert unpredictability into the traffic safety equation, and our members, driving 80,000 pound vehicles, would be left to wonder whether any approaching bicyclist is going to stop or dart out into the intersection.” Similarly, the Automobile Club of Southern California and AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah believes that any change in traffic laws that give drivers room for personal interpretation of traffic control devices can unsafely erode their effectiveness at a macro level."

the blind 

There is also concern regarding the affect this bill would have on pedestrians, the California Council of the Blind offer, “the ability to travel safely is an essential ingredient to our ability to live independent and productive lives. If AB 1103 is enacted, it will dramatically affect this safety and will severely compromise our ability to continue to lead independent lives without fears of injury or death.”

And the insurance companies

Finally, the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority believes that the potential consequence to a public entity of the passage of the bill would be increased exposure to litigation as a result of traffic accidents.

The opposition seems more organized:

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support
California Bicycle Coalition
California Delivery Association
1 Private citizen

Opposition
AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah
Amalgamated Transit Union
Automobile Club of Southern California
Bay Area Transportation Working Group
California Council for the Blind
California Police Chiefs Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority
San Francisco Aging and Adult Services Advisory Council
1 Private citizen

Comments

[Crickey]

It's a pilot program, not a law permitting Idaho stop statewide. And it will fail anyway.

We have so many higher priorities in advocacy. This is such a waste of time and energy.

[DE]

Idaho stop is a priority, in my book. To have the law allow what almost everyone does (including police officers on bikes, if you notice) so that we could spend our times on other matters would be a huge plus. Teach people to yield the right-of-way, and penalize them if they don't, but stop giving people stupid citations because they came to a rolling stop, just like most drivers do.

[washcycle]

The LA Times is advocating a pilot, but the bill would change the law statewide. It is only for stop signs though, so not a full Idaho.

[drumz]

A pilot is a good idea. I don't know why anyone would disagree to a pilot unless they're just reflexively anti-cycling.

[Crickey]

Thanks for the clarification. I suspect that does not improve the bill's chances. Perhaps they should have tried for a pilot program first.

[DE]

Stops sings are what make the most sense anyway. Allowing people to proceed on a red light will just lead to poor decision making resulting in accidents. And more cyclists stop for stop lights than stop signs, at least from my anecdotal observation.

[Crickey]

I see a self administered Idaho Stop pilot program every day downtown. It seems to have a high rate of poor decision making.

[ACyclistInThePortCIty]

Definitely more people do stop as yield, than Idaho reds, in my observation. This is a good thing, because almost everything else we do in advocacy gets tangled with the "scofflaw" meme - having something that almost everyone does be illegal has many negatives.

As for predictability, this will NOT legalizing scooting out in front of a truck. That is not treating stop as yield. Those who would do that already Idaho stops.

[DE]

All driving downtown seems to have a high degree of poor decision making.

Stop as yield is no different than some intersection rules we have now so would be easy enough to enforce--if you didn't yield the right-of-way, you didn't yield the right-of-way, same as for yield signs. I think it would reduce law breaking and increase safety, and then law enforcement could spend its resources going after the people who actually cause dangerous situations by failing to yield (if law enforcement so desired, ha ha).

[Crickey]

1 Private citizen on each side? I wonder if they need that for procedural purposes.

[Smedley Burkhart]

This is a concept I have never been able to grasp. How many cyclists--or drivers for that matter--come to a full stop for stop signs where there's no traffic and good visibility? Isn't this argument like proposing formal recognition that drivers can exceed the speed limit within reason when it's safe? It seems to me, in my evident confusion, that this change would alter only the behavior of the small minority of cyclists obsessed with the letter of the law and certainly not the flocks of commuters I see flouting the laws and common sense every day.

[Jonathan Krall]

The value of the Idaho Stop (for stop signs) is that it forces police to focus on the real problem, which is right-of-way violations. With the Idaho Stop in place, stop-sign enforcement is more likely to be effective, in terms of getting riders to ride more safely.

This isn't the same as allowing drivers to speed. Most drivers believe that slower is safer. Few people who ride bicycles do believe that stopping when there is no cross traffic is safer.