Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by cabotp

However if they make it so that a certain mode of transportation doesn't have to come to a full stop. Then suddenly that black and white view of the stop sign goes out the window. We would then live in a world were a driver or even another cyclist would not know whether or not the other cyclist is going to stop.

There's no additional uncertainty created, because the rules of priority at an intersection do not change. If you have the right of way, go ahead because everyone else will yield for you. Nothing changes for drivers. Behave as you have always behaved.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cabotp

However if they make it so that a certain mode of transportation doesn't have to come to a full stop. Then suddenly that black and white view of the stop sign goes out the window. We would then live in a world were a driver or even another cyclist would not know whether or not the other cyclist is going to stop.

I'd have more sympathy for your position if people really did stop at stop signs, but the future you describe is in fact the world we live in today. You never really know if someone's going to stop at a stop sign, and the reality is that you have to watch out for the idiots (both drivers and cyclists) who blow through them when it conflicts with other traffic.

In practical terms, as long as there is a clearly defined right of way so that the person who violates it can be held responsible, I see no downside to changing the rules.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

There's no additional uncertainty created, because the rules of priority at an intersection do not change. If you have the right of way, go ahead because everyone else will yield for you. Nothing changes for drivers. Behave as you have always behaved.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'd have more sympathy for your position if people really did stop at stop signs, but the future you describe is in fact the world we live in today. You never really know if someone's going to stop at a stop sign, and the reality is that you have to watch out for the idiots (both drivers and cyclists) who blow through them when it conflicts with other traffic.

In practical terms, as long as there is a clearly defined right of way so that the person who violates it can be held responsible, I see no downside to changing the rules.

My answer is for the both of you.

You are correct that there are people who don't stop at a stop sign right now. Just as there are people who speed. But just because a lot of people speed does not mean we should raise the speed limits. Same goes for a the stop sign. Just cause some people don't fully stop at them, doesn't mean we should suddenly make it legal to not come to a full stop if you are a cyclist. Right now most people do stop even though it might not seem that way because they understand that the stop sign means stop.

While most cyclists will understand that if they approach a stop sign and another vehicle or cyclist is coming from another direction. That they must stop and give way. The problem with this idea is there will be some cyclist who will be a bit more daring and will try and get across. Now they might get across once in a while. But what about that one time when they miss judge things and I end up hitting them. Even though they had the stop sign. I'd still be partly to blame for not driving with undue care and attention. ICBC almost never puts 100% on one party.

I just feel that is leaves too much guessing as to what each party will do when approaching an intersection and that can potentially create problems.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cabotp

The problem with this idea is there will be some cyclist who will be a bit more daring and will try and get across.

Those types of cyclists aren't deterred by the stop signs and the law as it exists now, I fail to see how changing it would make things any worse.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Those types of cyclists aren't deterred by the stop signs and the law as it exists now, I fail to see how changing it would make things any worse.

Because you would then get some cyclists who right now will come to a full stop and wait, but with the new rule might not come to a full stop or might come to a full stop and then cross, even though they don't have the right away.

I'm not saying all cyclists would do that and the vast majority would still come ot a full stop and wait. And there is that small group that don't obey the stop sign right now as you said. It is that group in the middle the ones that we don't know what they would do.


Keep in mind the stop sign is about who has the right of way at an intersection.

It kind of amazes me how certain groups of cyclists think they shouldn't have to obey the laws and thus fight to have those laws removed or changed. Whether it be something like a stop sign or wearing a helmet or riding on the sidewalk etc.. When those laws are in place to protect all of us from potential accidents.

[makr3trkr]

I understand cyclists don't like stopping completely because it takes a lot of effort to get momentum again, and because you risk getting rear ended. I get it.

I think ticketing people is a waste of time. I also think Darwin will sort out the really stupid cyclists.

Lately, though, drivers in particular seem to have become totally numb to the idea of actually looking both ways at a stop sign.

I have a noticed a definite uptick in the number of drivers blowing through stop signs without even looking.

If you're not going to stop at the sign, fine. But for the love of god, please look both ways at least. Maybe we could use those flashing LEDs on stop and yield signs or something.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Because you would then get some cyclists who right now will come to a full stop and wait, but with the new rule might not come to a full stop or might come to a full stop and then cross, even though they don't have the right away.

You cannot prove that would happen, but then I cannot prove that it would not. Evidence is needed.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Because you would then get some cyclists who right now will come to a full stop and wait, but with the new rule might not come to a full stop or might come to a full stop and then cross, even though they don't have the right away.

That doesn't make any sense. The type of cyclist who under today's laws actually does come to a full stop is not the idiot who will proceed without the right of way even if the rules change. The law abiders aren't the problem, it's the ones who try to "get away with it" that cause curses and accidents. And that's not going to change if the law is relaxed.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That doesn't make any sense. The type of cyclist who under today's laws actually does come to a full stop is not the idiot who will proceed without the right of way even if the rules change. The law abiders aren't the problem, it's the ones who try to "get away with it" that cause curses and accidents. And that's not going to change if the law is relaxed.

Remember though the new rule would allow a cyclist to go through the stop sign slowly so long as it is done in a safe manner and they have the right of way. Right now the majority of cyclist do obey the law and come to a full stop and look both ways before proceeding. Because they know that is what the rule states. The safer manner part of of the new rule, I do feel, will lead to some cyclists taking risks that they might not of taken with the old rule.

But then again what do I know. If you want to see the new rule well go ahead and have fun with it. But don't complain if there is an increase in cyclist injuries or deaths. I do feel though that the new rule is unsafe, but that is my thought

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Right now the majority of cyclist do obey the law and come to a full stop and look both ways before proceeding.

You seem to be living in a different Vancouver than I am. In my travels it's very rare to see a cyclist actually stop at a stop sign unless there's conflicting traffic that has the right of way. Slow down - yes. Look both ways before proceeding - yes. Be able to stop if necessary - yes. But full stop even with no conflicting traffic? No.

In other words, what most cyclists are doing right now is what the new law would make legal.

Now the new law may cause some cyclists not to slow down as much, so I suppose there could be some increase in accidents. But I doubt it would be very significant and I think it's something that ought to at least be tried rather than just assuming it won't work.

[DKaz]

How many drivers come to a full stop before proceeding?

It should be like Edmonton, replace stop signs for intersecting quiet residential streets with yield signs.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You seem to be living in a different Vancouver than I am. In my travels it's very rare to see a cyclist actually stop at a stop sign unless there's conflicting traffic that has the right of way. Slow down - yes. Look both ways before proceeding - yes. Be able to stop if necessary - yes. But full stop even with no conflicting traffic? No.

In other words, what most cyclists are doing right now is what the new law would make legal.

Now the new law may cause some cyclists not to slow down as much, so I suppose there could be some increase in accidents. But I doubt it would be very significant and I think it's something that ought to at least be tried rather than just assuming it won't work.

I suppose the definition of a full stop could mean different things to different people. To one person that might entail putting both feet on the ground, while another might consider keeping both feet on the pedals with no movement as a full stop. So everyone could watch a stop sign and all the cyclists and come to different conclusions on who stopped and who didn't.

And maybe this would work, as you said in your view most people just act like the new rule would allow. But is that because they are just pushing the law to the limit and slightly beyond. That if you raise that bar that they will push it even further.

Right now the speed limit for traffic on Knight street is 50km/h. Yet everyone knows the traffic normally moves at around 60-80km/h. Depending on time of day and volume. With the odd person keeping right to the speed limit. Now if they were to raise the speed limits to say 70km/h, since that is the average. Drivers wouldn't just keep their speed below 80km/h, because that is what they did before. Chances are they would then start driving between 80-100km/h. Same idea but different circumstances would apply to cyclists and a stop sign.

Yet I can't prove this would happen just as no one else can't prove it wouldn't happen. But I can say that I just don't like the idea of this new rule based on how I've seen people behave with laws in general.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by DKaz

How many drivers come to a full stop before proceeding?

It should be like Edmonton, replace stop signs for intersecting quiet residential streets with yield signs.

I thought of that idea and I like it more than a rolling stop at a stop sign. That way everyone knows the intent when approaching.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I thought of that idea and I like it more than a rolling stop at a stop sign. That way everyone knows the intent when approaching.

I got a drivers assessment from the Justice Institute today (we have it every 2 years at my work) and my assessor liked the idea of the Idaho stop line. He also liked the yield signs for residential streets.

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

.... Evidence is needed.

Like the data from Idaho showing no increase in collisions or injuries?

There are also cities in Eruope that have adopted this rule but the time period is shorter so less data is avialble.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by DKaz

How many drivers come to a full stop before proceeding?

It should be like Edmonton, replace stop signs for intersecting quiet residential streets with yield signs.

Or not. I saw a cyclist sail through a stop sign in my neighbourhood to day, narrowly missing getting hit by a car he either didn't see or misjudged the speed of.

[twoNeurons]

Why is this even an issue?

Just don't ticket people. They don't really ticket cars that don't come to a full stop unless they don't even slow down. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of drivers don't stop at 4-way stop signs when there are no cars waiting at the intersection. The same lax rules apply to bicycles.

The only difference is that for a bicycle, it's externally obvious when you're stopped as one or two feet are on the ground. For a car, it can be slightly rolling and still be considered "stopped" for practical reasons by every single police officer out there.

The whole is silly. Were there really problems with cyclists rolling through intersections before? It seems like this is something that is best left to the judgment of an officer.

It's like school zones. I'm pretty sure the last time most drivers fastidiously followed the 30km/h for an entire school zone was the day that they took their driver's test. Why? Because the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. The numbers on the sign are really just to allow a clear guideline to base a fine on.

Just as won't get a ticket for traveling 32km/h you won't get a ticket for rolling through an empty intersection.

[WarrenC12]

^^^^^

I don't really like that attitude. Rules are rules and I'd much rather see enforcement go way up. If it's something we (as a society) think is dangerous, we need to punish the people who are doing it.

If we don't see it as dangerous (and I think stop signs as yield is a good idea), then we should alter the law or take it off the books.

Far too many people flaunt all kinds of rules as it stands.

[s211]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

It's like school zones. I'm pretty sure the last time most drivers fastidiously followed the 30km/h for an entire school zone was the day that they took their driver's test. Why? Because the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. The numbers on the sign are really just to allow a clear guideline to base a fine on.

Just as won't get a ticket for traveling 32km/h you won't get a ticket for rolling through an empty intersection.

You've obviously never been to Calgary. They enforce school zones so much that you'll see almost everyone doing 30 or less.

The whole thing comes down to enforcement. Frankly, in Vancouver's libertarian paradise/hellhole, aside from the odd speed-trap on Granville or Oak, I'm pretty sure I've never seen any other police enforcement here.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by s211

You've obviously never been to Calgary. They enforce school zones so much that you'll see almost everyone doing 30 or less.

I have lived in Calgary, and this is not true. I've rarely seen enforcement, apart from the first week of school, and you will be tailgated if you go 30km/h.