I wish new drivers were taught that making unexpected moves is a safety issue. Maybe they are-- it has been nearly 30 years since I had any drivers education. Given the wildly unexpected stuff I see other drivers doing, though, it doesn't seem like they are. (I guess this falls under the heading "defensive driving"...)

I assume assume all other drivers are drunk / sleeping / texting / etc. I'm very alert when I do anything conflicting with the "default" behavior other drivers. My suspicion of drivers goes up about 10X when I'm riding a bicycle on roads.

Point being: We've got a bike path here that crosses a fairly busy state route at the edge of a town. Drivers coming into town don't slow down (even though the speed limit changes way back at the city limits and well before the bike path crossing).

When I'm waiting to cross, invariably, some "do gooder" driver coming into town will stop and motion me on. Meanwhile some driver behind them, not expecting someone to be stopped in the road (and going too fast), ends up braking hard to get stopped. I'm not going to put myself in front of that.

The "do gooder" usually doesn't want to "take no for an answer", either, so I end up having to sit for much longer than if they'd just done the correct thing. In some cases I've even gotten exasperated gestures from drivers, apparently miffed that I didn't take advantage of their "charity".

(I'm actually surprised at the amount of squealing tires I've heard, given that anti-lock brakes are on virtually every car on the road.)

As a cyclist, when some driver waves at me to go contrary to the rules, I do something that looks like it's going to take 15 seconds or so like adjusting my helmet, pulling out my phone to check the time, etc. Seems to work with no fuss from the drivers who think they are doing me a favor.

yep, you can do this in cars too when someone is intent on waving you on contrary to the right of way, i usually take an extended sip of coffee or water while looking the other way or at least not directly at the other person (helps to have sunglasses on); works a treat

Lots of negativity regarding someone trying to do something nice for you.

Right of way is an important safety measure and isn't something you should just yield unexpectedly.

I got in a car accident about ten years ago which resulted in my and another car getting totaled. I was going down a 35 or 45 mph four lane wide (two in each direction plus a median) street which was crossed every quarter mile or so by smaller two way residential streets. The cross streets had stop signs at intersections. The larger road I was on had left turn lanes but no stop signs.

I was in the right lane of the larger street going along at the speed limit. As I was passing a backup of several large vehicles waiting to turn left in the lane next to me, a car from a cross street pulled out in front of me from the left. I'm still shocked that I managed to steer so that I hit the back of the car instead of the front. The other car spun completely around, but neither of us had any injuries other than whiplash.

Apparently what happened was that the car I hit was waiting at the stop sign and got waved forward by the driver in the lane next to me. They decided to pull into the intersection despite the fact that they couldn't see the lane I was in, and thus didn't know that there was a vehicle in it.

Obviously, they shouldn't have pulled into the intersection without knowing that there wasn't a car going into it, but also if they'd refused to go until the cars with the right of way had turned it wouldn't have happened either.

As a cyclist, I've often been waved into an intersection by some well-meaning motorist when there's no way for me to be sure that the intersection is clear. I usually just shake my head and motion for them to go on. Usually they smile and go on, but sometimes they get visibly irritated.

I guess-- yeah. Obey the law. Take the right-of-way when you have it. Don't do unexpected things.

I don't want "charity" from drivers (as a cyclist, pedestrian, or other driver). I want them to act predictably and safely.

So many things in the world would be better if people just did the thing they're supposed to do. If that's "negativity" so be it.

They're not doing anything nice. That's my point. They're putting themselves and others in danger for no benefit. I don't want my bicycle to be immediately in front of their car and, more than likely, they're taking more of my time than if they'd just driven on.

I can appreciate that perspective. I am not a cyclist. I think what this really comes down to is people being on the same page, and the many people out there who are not as familiar with right of way and the law as would be ideal.

If the outcome is them inconveniencing everyone involved because they haven't really thought about the situation, who cares what the intention is? GP is supporting the argument that drivers should not do unexpected things, and this is a good example of how that rule trumps trying (ineffectually) to be nice. There are lots of situations where someone simply taking their right-of-way or continuing to do what they're doing is much more efficient and safe than suddenly stopping or changing course in the name of courtesy.

Intent doesn't matter when the result is almost always bad. The name of the game in traffic safety is "predictability", that means taking the right of way when you're supposed to.

I think the issue is doing something nice here is unexpected and while driving or using the roadway, anything unexpected is TOUGH to deal with and causes both parties to have to navigate a situation with limited communication.

I believe that law takes it into account. If you approach the intersection and there is an approaching vehicle that has a reasonable chance to collide with you if you proceed, then - by definition - intersection is not clear and you are obliged to stop. Let alone the fact that in the absence of 4-way stop that vehicle may have the right of way.

If restricted visibility does not allow you to assess whether the intersection is clear - stopping always is also the right thing to do.

This is actually what this law is about. The difference between a cyclist at a stop sign and your average vehicle is visibility. Cyclists don't have blind spots the way cars & trucks do.

So if you can reasonably see that there is no immediate traffic, you don't have to wait at an intersection and risk hoping that another driver at a 4 way stop will respect the stop sign. This whole law is being called the "Colorado Safety Stop" but was initially called an Idaho stop [1][2]. It resulted in a 23% reduction in bicycle crashes in intersections with STOP signs only [3].

Even if you think the results are not intuitive, they are certainly backed by data. Making this a law just means cyclists won't be harassed by law enforcement for doing what is statistically known to be safer.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT_KdFCVEdc

[3] https://www.bikede.org/delaware-yield-crash-data/#page-conte...

I am confused by how an impatient driver would put you in danger with this law… the law says that you should treat stop signs as yield signs, which means if there is already a car stopped ready to go forward, you would have to let them go first anyway to yield to them.

I find the whole "you go" thing annoying too. Someone in a vehicle can simply modulate their acceleration pedal and be out of there in a few seconds. Getting out of an intersection with a bike isn't as quick.

In states where right of way is codified and well defined in law, generally, "you go" is a ticketable offense (you are instructing someone to break the law, technically, by telling someone else to violate right of way). Additionally, as I once saw it noted, "By not taking your right of way, you are not being courteous, you're being unpredictable."

I'm not sure I follow your logic. If the other vehicle has stopped and the driver is requesting you to go, they are not attempting to travel into your path, and so there is no conflict of right of way. Right of way laws aren't written to tell drivers when they must go, but rather to tell drivers when they must yield.

You don't know that they're not attempting to travel into your path. Once they ignored the rules of the road and became unpredictable, you need to treat them as possibly doing the stupidest thing for the given moment.

Many a time I've come up to a stop right after someone else, and they start waving me on. But almost invariably, unless I immediately go (basically without even waiting for the 'go on' wave) they will wave me through, and then start driving through the intersection.

The point is these 'go on' people _are_ ignoring the laws about when a driver must yield. They're trying to tell a driver that must yield that its okay if they don't.

This would make a lot of sense, since as mentioned elsewhere, it can cause accidents when people don't drive predictably. Great summary as well.

Also, it's hard to see through windshields. When you're not sure if that was a wave or a weird reflection, you err on the side of caution.

The correct term for this behavior is "nicehole."

If it’s for commuting then yes, it makes sense that exercise isn’t the goal.

But if this is recreational exercise based biking then stopping and starting are perfect additions to the bike workout regimen!

Well technically riding a bicycle around in the grass in your own yard is also good exercise. Doesn't make it pleasant though.

If you can't assess an intersection at 5 mph with good visibility on a bike then that seems wise.

Cycling should be for people of all ages, skill levels, and risk tolerances. I don't think it's sensible to be snarky to someone because you judge them to be taking too many precautions for their safety.

Just like there is a speed that is too low on most roads, there absolutely should be a floor for skill level and risk tolerance. People who are very unskilled or too scared to bike normally, such that they impede the flow of traffic or put others at risk, should not be biking. Obviously step 1 is help them correct their behavior, of course--better to have them biking in the end.

I don't think "stopping at stop signs" is anywhere near that floor. On top of that, cycling is inherently so much less dangerous to others that the floor can safely be a lot lower than it would be for motor vehicles.

For people at the extremely low ends of skill and risk tolerance - most of those people aren't cycling, especially not in the U.S., where driving is considered the "default" mode of getting around. The single best way to help them improve is putting in better bike infrastructure since people need a low-stakes place to gain experience and confidence.

> I don't think "stopping at stop signs" is anywhere near that floor.

Sure, but I'm responding to a comment that made a much broader claim. I think the claim I'm responding to is wrong.

Americans in particular don't really have a mental category like "road for bikes". I see it all the time...if it's for bikes, then that means it's really for pedestrians too, right? For kids learning to bike? For prams?

What I want in bicycle infrastructure is a means for regular people to get around. What I don't want is people learning to bike in traffic (where "traffic" means regular people on bikes just trying to get around!). If you're not a confident bicyclist, the road is not the place to learn. You should not be taking your little kids with their trikes on bicycle roads. You should be performing to some minimum standard of competence, such that you're not going to hurt or delay others.

> For people at the extremely low ends of skill and risk tolerance - most of those people aren't cycling, especially not in the U.S., where driving is considered the "default" mode of getting around. The single best way to help them improve is putting in better bike infrastructure

We agree!

>since people need a low-stakes place to gain experience and confidence.

Except this bit. I think making it seem safer is certainly a thing that will result in more people bicycling. Part of it is affecting decisions made by people who are already competent cyclists ("Should I continue to cycle to work?"), and part of it is affecting the decision to start cycling for newbies. But you really shouldn't be on the road until you're some minimum level of competent; find a parking lot.

If you want to stop at stop signs, that's totally fine.

> Americans in particular don't really have a mental category like "road for bikes". I see it all the time...if it's for bikes, then that means it's really for pedestrians too, right? For kids learning to bike? For prams?

I'll cop to the claim being so broad that it includes the extremely, extremely low end of skill ("unable to reliably operate a bicycle"), which is a level where most people do not stay for long, especially in places where cycling is common for everyday tasks.

I can't think of a pithy way to rephrase the original claim, so I will nuance it instead, that any cyclist who has mastered the basics of a bicycle should feel free to continue their learning in public places.

After acquiring a basic ability to stay balanced, pedal, turn and brake, learning how to cycle and conquering the anxieties people have around negotiating their environments on a bicycle is trial-by-fire with (hopefully progressively) larger fires. This is even true for a lot of people learning to drive: many people in car-dependent suburbia figure out how to operate the steering wheel, pedals, and gears in a deserted parking lot somewhere, and then have to spend time on an actual road with cars to figure out how to interact intelligently with traffic. If learners weren't supposed to interact with traffic before they knew confidently how to interact with traffic, they'd be caught in a chicken-egg problem since it's fundamentally a trial and error process.

Ultimately cycling is by its nature much more forgiving to people who are still figuring it out since the probability of an accident is much lower, as is its expected severity. It's much easier for competent cyclists to identify people who are clumsy or slow in a timely manner, and navigate around them.

they were viciously attacking me for my risky behavior in light of dastardly drivers, I was merely defending my honor, sir or madame.

Please do! It's a choice to yield at stop sign, stop at lights - you shouldn't feel any pressure to do so.

I've been cycling in urban environments for 20+ years, and the only time I've been hit by a car was when I was rear ended at a stop sign. There's also been a half dozen or so other times where I've heard cars come to a quick stop behind me, or that I've pulled into the crosswalk to avoid being hit.

I was literally "rear-ended" by an 18 wheeler at an intersection in downtown Chicago. Orleans and Grand iirc.

The guy had pulled up so close to my back wheel, and then "forgot" I was there. When the green turned, he immediately impacted my back wheel.

I was able to exit the bike in the brief second between that tap and when he seriously hit the gas. My bike proceeded to be crushed by the semi along with all my electronics in my bag strapped to the back. I was so lucky to get off the bike (admittedly I was incensed that someone had bumped me and I was about to get into a fight with the person), if I had tried to stay on that bike I would've definitely died!

The woman who hit me got out of her car and said "I'm so sorry! I saw you but I just didn't stop in time!"

Being rear-ended is one of the most common accidents for cyclists and motorcycles. When I rode in California, it was less of an issue because I was between cars side to side, not front to back. I felt much safer there than I do in Iowa where I'm forced to queue behind cars and hope the people behind me see me and stop for me. That combined with the much shortened riding season means drivers also aren't as aware of motorcycles and cyclists as they are in areas where people ride year round. I literally rode everywhere in SoCal. It was my primary means of transportation. I ended up getting rid of my motorcycle not long after I moved back to Iowa because of those safety reasons.

The only other time I really got hurt was when a very aggressive driver (again downtown chicago)( became incensed that I was riding in the car lane (no bike lane) and got within inches of my back wheel and started honking like crazy, scaring the shit out of me and causing me to slam into the curb and fly off my bike.

Both were accidents I made while a newb biker, I became a lot more "seasoned" after these two events and became a way more defensive biker

what would you have done with experience/hindsight here?

sounds like you'd already taken the lane and didn't have a good out; would you just try to avoid the panic now?

In many cases it is safest for a cyclist to get through an intersection as quickly as possible. Many times I have waited at red lights at empty intersections, only to have a bunch of cars come up and stop at the intersection while I was waiting. That is a much riskier situation than if I had just stopped briefly and proceeded through while empty.

Visibility can be partially obstructed for drivers at an intersection due to surrounding cars. This can create a situation where a car that is stopped 5 cars behind me, or is coming from the opposite direction, might not be able to see me. The risk is compounded at intersections with multiple lanes, where visibility is further decreased, and I may need to wait in the middle lane due to the presence of a dedicated turning lane.

The act of just starting a bicycle from a full stop also increases risk. I wear pedals that require me to unclip when stopping, and clip my feet in again when starting. This can take a couple seconds (I don’t always get it on the first attempt), during which time my maneuverability is severely limited, and I may need to look down at my feet for a moment instead of watching other cars in the intersection. Even for people using flat pedals, it can require more effort to turn the pedals when stopped vs. moving slowly, which decreases maneuverability and increases time spent in the intersection. Riders are also more likely to wobble when starting from a full stop.

So it’s not really about saving time, although that is certainly a nice benefit, but rather about improving safety for cyclists.

This is my experience as well! On several occasions, when going straight in an intersection, I’ve almost been hit by left turning cars with drivers who haven’t seen me until last second.

Coming to a full stop and then slowly crossing the intersection puts you at way more danger than clearing the roads as you approach and rolling through. I like to get out of harms way as soon as I can.

Just like when I'm on my motorcycle, I like to pass cars on the highway, not chill next to them waiting for them to merge into me. Keep moving and limit your time spent in dangerous situations.

> Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and stay stopped on my bike at stop lights and stop signs.

Premised by a false dichotomy. There are more choices than 1. harm and 2. servile obedience to signs.

I think the dangerous situation this is trying to fix is when drivers turning right fail to see you stopped there, ready to go straight. Drivers are usually looking left or ahead when turning right, and often fail to look right. I’ve been hit this way myself. Being able to legally go straight on those reds would help a lot.

The alternative, which does help, is to wait in line behind a car, but often drivers dislike this more (have been shouted at for this as well).

> wait in line behind a car, but often drivers dislike this more

Yes, it can also cause you to miss the light or be in the intersection when red, if it is a quick one and the driver up front is not paying attention, since the bike can't accelerate as quickly from the stop. But I will do this, if it seems safer for the intersection. It's all contextual…

There's lots of stop lights that won't change until a car is over the magnetic sensor. This means staying stopped at the light on a bike will never get you the green (until some car pulls up anyway, but where I live that can be a long time).

You can get around this sometimes with a bunch of strong magnets stuck to your lower bracket, but only sometimes and it depends on the sensors' calibrations.

Point being, this change does have some practical benefits if you have to deal with such traffic lights - running the red in sight of the wrong cop is no longer a concern.

I've had the same thing happen with smaller motorcycles, so I can imagine it's a huge problem for bicyclists.

From what I read the law stems from exactly that, though I don't fully see it either. Most bikers get slammed while they're waiting at intersections by drunk, tired, or impatient drivers. This gets them through more quickly.

This doesn't change anything in situations where you're considering being a meat sack against a metal box.

This is great for slow roads and neighborhoods - where many people prefer to be riding their bikes anyways.

The idea is that if the bicyclist doesn't see any cars, they can go. If a bicyclist is not able to see a car irrespective of the driver's condition, they probably should not be on the roadway.

It's very often safer to cross during a red light when you don't have to do so with a bunch of cars. Often the intersection is empty. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Somehow I don't believe that you come to a full stop same as cars every time at every intersection with a stop sign or red light. Maybe it's just that I've just never seen a bike do it at intersections where an Idaho stop would be safe enough, so I'm extrapolating from that.

I don't think that's what the OP is saying re: simultaneous stopping.

In my experience drivers with the right-of-way will yield to cyclists, unpredictably, because they think they're being courteous. I see this at road crossings and intersections all the time. The driver has the right-of-way but they'll be "helpful" and try to let the cyclist go first.

It's not just "because they think they're being courteous". Drivers also have come to expect bicyclists to not stop.