VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) – Should cyclists be able to bend the rules of the road? A local coalition believes they should be allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs.
It’s idea that might not float so well with drivers, but Erin O’Melinn with cycling group HUB in Vancouver says it would only be done in certain situations.
“They’ve done this already in Idaho; it’s been happening for years now,” she points out. “It’s a law that says if you’re on a bicycle and you get to a stop sign, you can treat it as a yield sign.”
You don’t have to sit at an intersection in Vancouver very long to see it happen: A cyclist sailing right through a stop sign with barely a tap on the brakes. Even HUB admits on its website that a ‘stop-as-yield’ law would “permit behaviour that is already very commonplace, thus improving relations between cyclists and other road users.”
“You still would have to stop for any other traffic that has right of way,” notes O’Melinn. “But if there is no other traffic that you should be stopping for, you can continue on if it is safe.”
She argues it’s safer for cyclists not to come to a full stop because starting up again can mean losing balance mid-intersection. “It’s less safe for a cyclist, sometimes, to stop and then start at a very slow speed, when it’s harder to balance as they’re going through the intersection.”
“It makes people safer because when you’re cycling, you’re paying more attention to whether things are actually coming versus ‘I’m going to stop and then go because that is what’s supposed to happen even though not all of the other road users are necessarily doing what they are supposed to be doing,” she adds.
“It’s kind of like jay-walking; jay-walking is often safer than crossing in a crosswalk because you’re paying more attention.”
While there’s no campaign yet for such a law, O’Melinn also says it has worked in Idaho for 30 years, encouraging more people to bike and letting police focus on drivers breaking the law. The group is studying the idea for future consideration.
“We’re quite curious to see if there are other benefits, other challenges, in the long term. Are there negative or positive impacts?”
O’Melinn adds HUB always encourages cyclists to obey the law, wherever they happen to be.
ICBC says it frequently receives requests from HUB to make changes to road testing procedures, to which it has responded many times. It will not comment on the ‘stop-as-yield’ idea.
Home Improvement Profiles
News1130 Apps
Tell us what you think!
News1130 Business Profile
As an avid cyclist, who follows the rules of the road, special treatment for cyclists might be nice, but, why are we any better than other drivers? In fact, from what I see many of us are creating a lot of problems for other cyclists, enraging motorists with stupid and elitist behaviors. We have the same rights and responsibilities as all drivers and we need to take that seriously. Bike lanes and shared pathways aside, stay off the sidewalks and out of crosswalks (unless walking), quit passing on the right, start stopping at red lights and stop signs (and stay stopped), and use lanes properly. Yes it slows us down, but, it keeps us on a level playing field. What cyclists really need is support from police, enforcing the law, by ticketing offending cyclists and drivers whose disregard for us results in dangerous situations. Let’s get serious and do this properly, for all road users!
Just had a close call this evening with a bicyclist who decided to ignore a stop sign and roll through.
Notice that if she had gone any faster that she could have become a hood ornament or something worse. Also she had no helmet and with the natural light fading she had no light either.
I have a car cam and it caught the incident. I even sent a copy to ICBC for fun.
Here’s the link:
Yield signs. Simple as that. They’re a dime a dozen in other places, but not in Vancouver.
If bicycles don’t want to run stop signs, then they should petition the city to replace certain stop signs with yield signs where sight lines allow to allow ALL drivers to safely navigate these intersections.
I’m not in favour of cyclists being permitted to run stop signs. They don’t care about the rules as it is now, why should we reward that behaviour with the right to perform even more dangerous stunts?
When cyclists can prove they are safer drivers, then I’ll be first in line to demand special rules for them. As it is now, I’d sooner want them banned entirely. When cyclists learn what a stop sign is, I’ll take that as a sign to stop my vitriol.
What’s next?
What many hope is next is that the city will be better designed for multi-modal use and there will be fewer conflicts. That people will no longer be forced into breaking the law just to move around. That all people have multiple options for transportation.
I just checked into them and Hub is officially against riding on sidewalks and in favour of following laws. Vision Party’s ideas coincide with some of Hub’s positions as it does with the global livable cities movement that is not unique to Vancouver but happening all over. All the municipal parties are in favour of cycling. No matter who is in power, there will be the movement to incorporate better cycling infrastructure simply because that is what people want. Some people don’t yet get it. They will someday or not.
Any us-vs-them ideas have not been created by Hub or by cyclists. It’s been mostly news media creating the impression of that. People who cycle do not have a sense of entitlement. This is a myth.
I have a better idea that benefits other types of vehicles as well.
Just have fewer stop signs and more yield signs.
Years ago there were yield signs all over. They seemed to work well. Now there seems to be a four way stop in places that have very low traffic volumes. This causes everyone, in a car, on a bike, on a skateboard, to learn that it’s unnecessary to bother fully stopping and so people look both ways and go through.
I see no problem with this and think that the intersection should be signed to fit the reality of the traffic volume. Save the stop signs for the genuine high volume intersections where it’s important to look out. With stop signs all over the place we become trained to ignore them.
News1130… always trolling the bike haters… LOL.
You are so wrong, but I bet you’re the same goof that posts on CKNW’s board a lot. Cycling is not a right, it is a privilege. Yes, it’s not as dangerous as driving to the public, but it’s still dangerous and can still harm people (there was a pedestrian killed in Toronto because of a cyclist riding on the sidewalk). If you think that cyclist shouldn’t be prevented from riding his bike because of their actions, you are an absolute problem to this world. It should always be a privilege to be able to manage something in public that can harm others.
Slider29:
So let me get this straight. Someone should be prevented from riding a bike because of the actions of a single person somewhere else? Is that what you’re saying?
Where does this logic end? Someone wears a blue hat and murders somebody, therefore all other people are not allowed to wear blue hats?
Did you mean just that individual? If so then, he should be tried for manslaughter as anyone else regardless of method. In fact what does this even have to do with the topic of this article? If there’s an article about carpentry is it relevant to bring up someone somewhere else who killed someone with a hammer? It’s off topic.
In any case you’re wrong about the privilege and not right thing. Cycling is considered an extension of walking.
That’s dumb – that was meant for Ken O’s comment about whether cycling is a privilege or a right, but it ended up towards the end. What a goof.