As a cyclist yourself, I'm sure you're familiar with intersections where the sensors controlling the lights do not sense bikes. I think the best way forward is for more states to adopt Idaho's policy: cyclists can treat stop signs like yield signs, and treat red lights like stop signs. [1]

If I'm riding toward a stop sign at a clearly deserted intersection, I would very much like to roll through at 10~15 MPH without risking a ticket. If I'm stopped at a red light and there are no cars making use of the green, I'd rather not dismount, walk over to press a pedestrian crossing button, walk back into the road, and wait. Or stay in the road, wait, and hope that I'll get a green light from a timer instead of a sensor.

It's possible to implement these changes and still be safe on a bike (it has worked for nearly 30 years in Idaho). I think we agree that flagrant violations, especially those that put pedestrians at risk, deserve fines.

[1] https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title49/T...

I also follow the "red light stop, stop sign yield" rule. I'm as annoyed by bikers who just zip through stop signs as everyone else, but when riding attentively and respectfully, I believe the Idaho stop safer and more efficient for everyone, not to mention waaayyy more considerate of bikers (who, until recently, have just been given the finger by norms, laws, and infrastructure in America).

Couldn't agree with you more, and I think the only part of my post that hit a nerve with you was related to fines for running red lights, which I should have been clearer about. (in Chicago we don't have those fancy stop light sensors) I too do an Idaho stop when approaching a 4 way stop that has no traffic, it makes the most sense. My main complaint as I live on one of the main bike corridors of Chicago is after a light turns red there are normally a herd of bikers that roll through causing traffic to sit still while waiting for them to exit the intersection. This screws up traffic and makes me irate, just as it would seeing car after car run the red light. We also have a lot of street retail which leads to a bunch of crosswalks, with tourists and children abound. Bikers come flying though crosswalks here and I've seen multiple accidents because of it. When a car hits a bike, the bike always loses, just the same as when a bike hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian always loses. I don't understand how my fellow cyclists can't see that as we complain about cars and their behavior.

Milwaukee Ave I guess? Yea as someone who bikes everywhere in Chicago, I hate going down Milwaukee on a bike too (partly because of all the bikers, definitely the pedestrians and cabs, partly the cars on a relatively narrow strip). At peak times Elston is faster and less stressful for a trip of decent distance anyway.

While we're complaining though, cars need to use their effing turn signals. I always check the signal as I pass through a line of cars at an intersection to let them get over in front me, but usually they'll just cut me off. So far no real issues, but I do have a policy of slapping the car hard as I can as I jerk around it. They're still full enough of that weird baseline road rage/driver anger to cuss at me rather than apologize though. (For those who don't live in Chicago, we have bike lanes on most main streets now, and my complaint is about cars turning into bike lanes without warning...)

> If I'm riding toward a stop sign at a clearly deserted intersection, I would very much like to roll through at 10~15 MPH without risking a ticket

Surely that should apply for cars then int his case. If the intersection is clearly deserted, cars should be able to clear the junction too.

I agree, and judging from the many rolling stops they undertake, so do drivers. When any vehicle has to come to a complete stop for absolutely nothing, they're just putting wear on their brakes and wasting energy. I'm happy to see 4-way stops (which people are terrible at) being replaced by more roundabouts. A roundabout features the desired intersection rules without having to wait for the state to enact Idaho-style bike laws.

As a cyclist, I'm in a very good position to assess how empty an intersection is: no windows isolating me in a sound bubble; low speed, so not much wind noise in my ears or tire noise on the ground; no A pillars obscuring my vision ahead; and my eyes are usually about as high off the ground as those of an SUV driver.

Motorists will tend to be in a worse position for assessing the emptiness of an intersection, and their vehicle is much more dangerous, so the onus to slow down is greater, but coming to a complete stop is often unnecessary. Slowing down to make sure there really is nothing there is sensible.

If I were on a recumbent bicycle, or in a little sports car, I'd have to be more cautious when approaching an intersection because my eyes are lower, and farther back from the front of the vehicle. (I hate riding recumbents in the city, but they're pretty awesome on long distance rides).

> As a cyclist, I'm in a very good position to assess how empty an intersection is: no windows isolating me in a sound bubble; low speed

Also: your head is closer to the front of your vehicle and thus to the intersection.

You can assess the situation long before any part of you or your bicycle enters the intersection.

You can also hear.

If that were to apply to cars, drivers would interpret it as 25-35 mph being okay.

In many circumstances, drivers could easily defeat a failure to stop ticket in court based on lack of hard evidence that you were going over 15 mph.

It should, and in most places it essentially does... as they don't have the American obsession with stop signs, and will indeed mark the sort of low-traffic residential intersection with....nothing at all most of the time.

No, it shouldn't. If the junction is marked as a stop, all users should stop. If you have a low traffic junction like that, then the stop sign Shouldn't be there. But that's a different argument to allowing vehicles/bikes to blow a stop sign.

Unlike bicycles, cars have significant blind spots with the A-pillar and such. Also unlike bicycles, cars are significantly more able to seriously injure other road users.

Cars aren't reliant on the driver's own power to get going again after an intersection and don't tend to fall over sideways if stopped.

If you can't stop your bike without falling over, you have no business cycling on roads.

"sensors controlling the lights" -- yeah, Chicago doesn't have those.

> where the sensors controlling the lights do not sense bikes

Not real bikes, anyway; they might be able to sense some 75 pound piece of pig iron from Walmart.

It's a struggle sometimes as a biker on a daily commute when you get to really know your route. There are a bunch of lights and stop signs on my route that very rarely have pedestrians and cars so I'll take it slow through them (about the same speed as a car not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign), but usually not stop. I'm very thankful that 90% of my commute has bike lanes, but would definitely love for them to be more protected and maybe even get some lights devoted to the bike lane like NYC has down a few of its avenues.

Bicycles do not need to come to a full stop at most stop signs, due to their slow speed.

On a bicycle, by the time I'm at the stop line, I have already checked that everything is clear. My face is closer to the intersection than that of a driver. I'm still coasting and have plenty of time to come to a full stop, if necessary, before entering the intersection.

Why would I stop, other than to obey the law on paper?

[Edit: just saw mohn's sibling comment revealing that Idaho codified my above reasoning into law: cyclists can treat stops like yields.]

I brought my bike to Chicago during a conference... you're not kidding. I don't mind rolling a stop sign carefully when there's no traffic, but cars, bikes, and pedestrians alike in Chicago seemed to be making up their own rules.