home

BTA would support "roll and go" concept

Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on February 8th, 2007 at 8:50 am

There's a notable addition to the BTA's 2007 Legislation page.

In a section titled "Other Bicycle Bills" (meaning ones they're not working on themselves) is a mention of a local effort -- which I reported on a month ago -- to consider changing how bicycles treat stop signs.

From the BTA website:

"Roll and Go at Stop Signs

A bill to permit cyclists to roll and go at stop signs may be introduced in 2007. In 2003 HB 2768 passed the House, it would have permitted cyclists to proceed “without stopping if the person slows the bicycle to a safe speed” at stop signs.

BTA Supports this concept and would have to Review a Proposed Law Change"

I hope the concept moves forward because new ideas about how bicycles are allowed to treat stop signs is something that deserves more debate and consideration.

But when/if it does, I expect it to be a major political and PR risk for whoever supports it. That being said, I'm glad to see the BTA step up and give it even this small bit of support.

Email This Post Email This Post

Possibly related posts


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • gabrielamadeus February 8, 2007 at 9:42 am

    any mention of STOP and go for stoplights?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jessica Roberts February 8, 2007 at 9:52 am

    I don't think changing the law for cyclists at traffic signals is a good idea. Signals are at higher-volume intersections, so it's much more likely that a car would be crossing. Studies have also shown clearly that cyclist red-light running is one of the top factors leading to bike-car crashes. Traffic signals are also much more visible than stop signs and I believe would cause more backlash from "ordinary" drivers (e.g. even ones who might support a stop sign change).

    Stop signs, on the other hand, are often installed at neighborhood request to address perceptions or complaints that vehicles are speeding. Whether stop signs are really the right response is another topic for debate, but it's definitely true that cyclists are not contributing to speeding in residential neighborhoods, and already do treat many stop signs as gentle yield signs without causing crashes.

    I believe a good argument can be made for treating stop signs as yields, but even I as a cyclist would be uncomfortable with a proposal that allows cyclists to go on a red light.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus February 8, 2007 at 10:00 am

    RE: traffic signals

    I know that the person behind the stop sign effort has mentioned being able to move through traffic lights after waiting for a certain amount of time.

    The reason is for security. At night, when a bicycle may not trigger a light for a long time, we are much more vulnerable than motor vehicle or transit users.

    This reason might be even more compelling given the recent accounts and publicity around attacks on cyclists.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Donna February 8, 2007 at 10:27 am

    Slow and go for stop signs, stop (hopefully assess carefully)and go for reds? I could be ok with that. If they had to do some political compromise, I'd be really happy with slow and go for stop signs. I wonder if municipalities could be given the ok to make a particular light "no go on red", just like "no turn on red". Perhaps also a requirement to stop at a stop sign in a school or hospital zone? That would ease my concerns about some problematic locations.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Burr February 8, 2007 at 10:46 am

    It didn't say anything about this in the write up on the BTA's legislative proposals in the BTA newsletter I just received a few days ago.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • brettoo February 8, 2007 at 10:49 am

    There's precedent for this in Idaho, so it'd be nice to get some reporting from there to find out if the world ended after cyclists were allowed to treat stop signs as Yield signs. Any readers from Idaho here?

    Combined with more bike boulevards, this change in the law might also have the happy effect of diverting more bike riders from bike-laned big streets onto lower-traffic streets, which would become a lot faster for commuting if we could carefully coast through stop signs after yielding.

    I'm not so sure about stop lights, though. It's going to be tough enough to get non-bikers to support allowing us to carefully coast through stop signs; the sight of bikers zooming through light-controlled intersections might be too irritating. And possibly dangerous. I'm willing to wait at traffic lights, or find a lower-traffic street.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • gabrielamadeus February 8, 2007 at 11:34 am

    During my commute I stop and wait for green at about half the lights I go through. Some are just dangerous and hard to tell where cars are coming from. But on the other hand, some of the lights are hard to trigger by bike and may not have any car traffic to trigger them. If I can see a block clear in either direction, I'm going to go for it.

    It would be a much more touchy issue, and not applicable in many intersections, but I still see it as an area for improvment.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • MikeOnBike February 8, 2007 at 11:35 am

    I live and bicycle commute in Boise, ID. Most of the riders that I see utilize the 'roll and go' carefully. A number of our dedicated bike lanes are on low traffic streets that only have 2 or 4 way stop signs and the 'roll and go' fits very well in this environment.

    Most of my commute is on a dedicated bike path but I do use the 'roll and go' to the path from my house.

    The local highway district has been very responsive to recalibrating light sensors. They use a bicycle and will recalibrate a light within a few days of being contacted about a non-responsive sensor. Their tip is that if you can see the sensor outline in the pavement pull up on the inside edge of it where it is the most sensitive.

    The world hasn't ended here. The system works well and I think has been in place for quite a few years.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Attornatus_Oregonensis February 8, 2007 at 11:36 am

    This is long overdue.

    Traffic laws are designed to keep traffic moving safely. As long as cyclists yield at lighted/signed intersections, they can do so safely without stopping. Remember, this is not about allowing people to go "zooming through light-controlled intersections." This does not allow cyclists to run red lights! It's about acknowledging that cyclists can safely go through such intersections without actually coming to a full and complete stop and putting a foot down each time.

    And traffic laws should safely accommodate cyclists just as they do motorists. This is a great way to do that. Obviously, if this practice had lead to accidents in other jurisdictions such as Idaho, it would have been abandoned.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • pdxMark February 8, 2007 at 11:51 am

    I very much like the idea of relaxed, but safe rules for cyclists at stop signs. Even under the proposed rules a cyclist must stop if the intersection isn't safe/clear. Sadly, I suspect last night's crash in NE will be cited as a counter-argument to this sensible proposal, despite the crash not being relevant because the intersection was not safe/clear to enter.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt P. February 8, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    If such legislation is proposed and passed here in Oregon, I think the hardest part will be to educate motorists as to the change, and to get them to understand *why* it's safer for them and for bikes. I fear that most motorists will have added resentment at the "special treatment" that will have been extended to cyclists.

    I personally am against it, as I believe it undermines the "bicycles ARE vehicles" argument.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • andy February 8, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    I disagree that it undermines the "bicycles are vehicles" argument. After all, bicycles (and other non-motorized modes of transportation) are excluded from some highways; it is just another kind of "special treatment" for one class of vehicles.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bill February 8, 2007 at 1:00 pm

    Educating motorists will take some time but it will happen. When I first got my drivers license, it was illegal to pass another car on the right, even on a four lane street. Making a right on red after stopping was also forbidden. Over time motorists got used to it as they will if HB 2768 passes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Cecil February 8, 2007 at 1:16 pm

    Speaking of cyclists running (or not running) red lights, I thought this might be as good a place as any to note the dramatic increase in cyclists running the red light at SE Division and Ladd Avenue. Around the end of the year, the City changed the sequence of the traffic signals at the 7 Corners intersection, so that the light for traffic on SE 20th heading south turns green before the light for traffic heading south on Ladd does. It used to be the other way around, but it became obvious that pedestrians crossing Division at Ladd were at risk of being run down by westbound drivers on Division trying to beat the lights. By switching the sequence, the crossing became much safer for pedestrians. Unfortunately, it appears that a number of cyclists heading south on Ladd (and pedestrians, and even some drivers!) have developed a Pavlovian response such that as soon as the light turns red for the cars on Division, they assume they will be getting the green and they take off. Or they look at the light, see that it is still red, assume it is "broken" and take off. Or they just don't give a damn, know that it is red and know that it is not broken, but take off anyway. So, for those folks who haven't cottoned on to the sequence change, take a minute next time to verify the green (esp. because PPB motorcycle cops are starting to hang out on that corner . . .).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Boyd February 8, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    Matt P. said:
    I fear that most motorists will have added resentment at the “special treatment” that will have been extended to cyclists.

    Drivers resent not being able to park on sidewalks, drive on light rail rail, having to yield to buses and pedestrians. They resent vehicle taxes paying for schools and the loss of trees to asphalt. They may even resent their auto's complicity in our hollow consumption-is-happiness society.

    I don't fear added resentment, I fear rules that perpetuate the elevated status of the automobile.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt P. February 8, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    andy - they are excluded from limited-access highways, and even then, only in the urban Portland area. That limitation has nothing to do with whether a bicycle is a vehicle, it has to do with a bicycle not being able to maintain a speed higher than 45mph. For the same reason, farm equipment is prohibited from those same limited-access roads.

    In any case, there are many intersections in Portland where treating a stop as a yield is unsafe, due to limited visibility or other factors. One example of this is in Sellwood, at SE Umatilla and 8th, IIRC.

    John - I agree, but this change would take the equal status of bikes and cars and privilege the bicycle. I'd rather see everyone on equal ground, so to speak. Then again, I also think that the fines and punishments for breaking the law should be based on vehicle weight, and I believe motorists should have a mandatory road test every 5 years. Put both of those in practice, and the playing field becomes a lot more level, IMO.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rixtir February 8, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    Interesting timing, this news coupled with the news of a near-fatal accident when a cyclist ran a stop sign.

    I have mixed feelings about the proposed legislation. On the one hand, it has the potential to be a foolish mis-step, further alienating the non-cycling public, which happens to be most people. Furthermore, the practice is clearly dangerous, at least if not done with attention to caution, as last night's accident demonstrates.

    On the other hand, I agree with the notion of elevating the status of bicycles as "privileged vehicles"; the downside to elevating the status of bicycles, of course, is creating further motorist resentment of cyclists.

    Regardless, this proposed bill is pointless, in my opinion, because cyclists who run stop signs also run red lights; this bill will not legalize red light running, and cyclists will continue to run red lights-- i.e., cyclists will continue to engage in law-breaking behavior at intersections whether this bill passes or not-- so I can see no rational argument for changing the current law.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • revphil February 8, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Legislation that encourages more personal responsibility?

    If we dont trust people to keep themselves alive we should not let anyone outside, or sharp objects, or spicy food.

    /playing with scissors covered in hot sauce in traffic

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rixtir February 8, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    What about letting people endanger other people's lives/property as they see fit?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Burr February 8, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    "...cyclists who run stop signs also run red lights..."

    Sorry rixtir, but you're way off on this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rixtir February 8, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    Burr, people regularly post about the practice, and even if they didn't, I see it every day.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tom February 8, 2007 at 7:00 pm

    i think its a baaad idea.....hipsters are already terrible bike riders as it is...please don't make it any easier for them to blow stop signs and red lights...are we all in such a rush that we can't come to some semblance of a stop...you are on a bike for pete's sake, its not like you chose your mode of transit because its the fastest means.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Donna February 8, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    Burr, I'm not sure where you're riding, but when I'm behind a habitual stop sign runner on my Ladd's Addition commute headed southeast, I'd say about 50-60% of the time they also run the 7 corners light. They also most likely ran the red way back at Hawthorne and SE 11th. Perhaps the stop sign runners are different where you travel.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Burr February 8, 2007 at 9:53 pm

    My practice is simply to avoid as many of the traffic lights as possible, it's not that hard to do. The few I encounter I wait for. Anyone that hits the light at 7 Corners or Hawthorne and 11th and is unwilling to wait is simply an amateur cyclist.

    But I do jaywalk if the coast is clear; IMO if motorists can be trusted to turn right on red, pedestrians should also be trusted to jaywalk and cyclists should be trusted to ride on red as long as it's safe.

    Let's just call a spade a spade, right turn on red is nothing more than a clear example of the motorist-first mentality of our road user hierarchy.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • mykle February 9, 2007 at 12:09 am

    I think the really sensible way to think and talk about this is how I've heard it described in Idaho:

    "Stop as Yield".

    That is, bicyclists can treat a stop sign as a yield sign. Therefore, if there's a car coming into the intersection, you stop -- that's what you'd do with a Yield sign. Motorists don't need to be re-educated at all; they should see no difference. If a car is there, the bike has to stop; but if the intersection is clear, the bike can just roll.

    This is ultimate common sense to me. It's legalizing what bicyclists everywhere have always done and will continue to do, safely.

    The only education issue I can see is that Yield signs are so rare in Portland that we might have to teach some bicyclists what they mean. =)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Boyd February 9, 2007 at 8:35 am

    "Stop as Yield" has legal semantic advantages over "Roll and Go" except that drivers may think that bikes MUST yield, meaning cars always have the RoW at a four-way stop, and bikes have to wait until there are no cars before going. This could prob be handled in the language of the rule though.

    "Roll and Go" is only slightly better than "Blow and Go", ..."Slow and Go"
    I just don't like "Roll and Go". Rolling is Going, why the "and"?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • MikeOnBike February 9, 2007 at 10:30 am

    Here is the relevant Idaho Code section:
    http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=490070020.K

    It seems we have 'slow, yield, go' for stop signs and 'stop, yield, go' for stop lights.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay February 9, 2007 at 11:09 am

    There is nothing incompatible about the two following statements: "bicycles are vehicles," and "cars and bikes are not the same."

    There are different laws for large trucks than there are for passenger cars, because they are different enough in their performance, operability, use, and impact to their surroundings that they require different rules to operate. What's so hard for people to understand that bikes need different rules also? It doesn't require any implications about which is more favored or privileged, it's just an understanding of the physics and technology. Bikes are operated at a different range of speeds than motor vehicles, they weigh far, far less (remember that the force of impact is the product of mass and acceleration - or in the case of a collision, deceleration), they afford their operators better vantage to observe the surrounding conditions, and - most importantly - collisions between the two types of vehicles result in extremely disproportionate damages to the operators and passengers of each type of vehicle.

    If you can see better, go slower, maneuver better, stop faster, cause far less damage if you crash, you should be allowed to treat stop signs differently than cars.

    It can also be argued that regulations can be used as an incentive - or disincentive - to certain types of behavior. Now that the link between the use of hydrocarbons and rapid change to our climate is proven beyond doubt - and a host of other reasons society might wish to discourage car use - it seems quite reasonable that we might reward bicyclists with laws that encourage their use. Why not give some advantage to bikes if it means more people might ride them?

    So, safety AND the common good benefit from different stop sign and traffic signal regulations for bikes. However, one does not have to agree to the second argument, just the first, to support "slow-and-go.".

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Carl February 9, 2007 at 11:44 am

    Now that others are working on drafting and finding support for this bill, it's nice to know that the BTA is willing to "support this concept..."

    But I have a question for a couple of you commenters:
    Who ARE you people? Why have I never seen you riding? Are you aware that stopping means stopping all forward motion?

    Even the safest riders with whom I ride roll through stop signs. They slow down and look both ways but if there's no one coming, they roll through the stop sign without stopping. I don't think this reflects on the folks with whom I ride. This is what I observe cyclists doing at stop signs every day. ALL cyclists. Not just messengers or those in messenger costumes, but cyclists who fit every other stereotype including blinking, helmeted commuters with mirrors and orange vests.

    Why? Because it's safe and efficient.

    All "Stop as yield" would do is make it legal to ride our bicycles the way most of us already do.

    Admit it. You don't always stop at stop signs. That doesn't make you reckless or, God forbid, a "hipster."

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • adam February 9, 2007 at 11:59 am

    these are good points. I am a little confused as to why some people spend so much time wondering "why they hate us". Maybe this is worth a separate post so that we can all chime in as to why they hate us.

    I will go first - They hate us because we have nicer legs, more fun, and more enjoyable/better lives.

    anyone else?

    and, no, legislation has little impact on how this neohipster lives nor rides...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt P. February 9, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    "There are different laws for large trucks than there are for passenger cars, because they are different enough ... that they require different rules to operate. What’s so hard for people to understand that bikes need different rules also?"

    Because some laws apply to weight (like the slower speed limit for trucks) and some do not. All vehicles are required to stop for stop signs and traffic signals. Where bikes differ is in the laws that pertain to their physical size or weight: e.g. "Do Not Enter - except bikes". There are laws that should be different, but I personally don't think that traffic signs and signals should be among them.

    Burr said, "Let’s just call a spade a spade, right turn on red is nothing more than a clear example of the motorist-first mentality of our road user hierarchy."

    Right on! As a driver, I'd hate to see that go, but I think it'd be a lot safer to probibit turning on red at ALL intersections, not just selected ones. When turning right on red, a driver is presented with having to maintain a watch in two opposite directions - one for cars which could impact him, the other for pedestrians and cyclists he could possibly hit and run over. Which of those two is the greater threat to him? Which of those two are greater able to avoid the collision? It's purely for the convenience of the motorist, who can't bear to wait 30 seconds or a minute for the light to change. This may have made sense when all signals were timed, but does it really make sense to continue it today, when the vast majority of signals are "smart"?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt P. February 9, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    adam - They also hate us because we don't get winded while climbing stairs, we can see and hear everything arounds us, and we're not in so much of a hurry to even notice our surroundings.

    Not to mention the fact that we're brave enough to ride in the face of The Car Nation, 20 degree cold, Portland rain, or at night.

    And because sometimes we make better time than THEY do.

    I'm sure we can think of at least another few dozen reasons.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay February 9, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    Matt P,

    Clearly you are a thinking person, and a strong supporter of the bike community. But I disagree with you on this issue.

    If I understand you correctly, your objection is that existing differences in regulations are somehow of a different nature than how one treats a stop sign, and that since currently all vehicles must treat stop signs the same, we should continue to do so. That's just not convincing enough.

    Currently, there are different laws regarding both speed (limiting trucks to a lower top speed), and lane access (some states ban trucks from the leftmost lane on some highways when there are at least three lanes in each direction, bike lanes themselves), but also access to entire roads (no oversize vehicles at all on certain roads, no bikes on some roads, sometimes no motorcycles!?), but also types of behavior allowed (sometimes trucks cannot pass when cars are permitted to), and sometimes different behaviors in different lanes (left turn from left lane only, right lane must turn right, etc.). So, there's a wide range of different rules, not just for different types of vehicles, but for where the vehicle is located. This is important when you consider bike lanes as just another lane in the road.

    You may also believe that allowing different types of actions at stop signs may confuse drivers. Well, I don't believe that a car driver is going to fail to stop completely because they saw cyclist do it. People intuitively know there's a difference.

    As Carl said, the vast majority of cyclists already perform some sort of slow-and-go through stop signs. Ask yourself: do YOU come to a complete stop, put your foot down, and count to three before continuing? Of course not! So why not codify this behavior? It would protect us legally to have the laws match reality.

    If you're concerned about drivers' perception of fairness, and giving them another reason to hate us, both adam and you yourself better expressed why they really hate us. I always remind people that the more bikes there are, the less car traffic there is. If they remain unconvinced, there's little we can do to change their attitudes. It goes beyond reason and enters a world of guilt and fear. These people resent that emergency vehicles get to blow stoplights too.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • brettoo February 9, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    So glad to hear BTA is considering adding this bill to the package. I think adopting the Idaho law and calling it "Stop as Yield" will forestall a lot of opposition because it sounds safer and more responsible than "roll and go" or whatever, and also because we can point to another state where it's worked without (I hope) problems, so it doesn't sound so radical to nonbikers.
    And yes, we do have consider their opinion because there's of them than us, and politicians will listen if too many of them complain.
    Now what we need is evidence of success (I hope) and statistics from Idaho and anywhere else that has tried this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave Thomson February 9, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    I would rather see this brought up in a legislative session where cyclists didn't have other bills trying to pass. I do believe it could backfire not just on the sponsor, but on other bills and funding proposals.

    I think the general approach of Bikes are vehicles and should get equal treatment (safety, roadway space, etc.) is a lot more likely to succeed with non-cyclists than anything that sounds like a special rule.

    I would like to see a "stop and go" for traffic lights when the light doesn't change. I have been yelled at three times (but not cited yet) by Washington County motorcycle officers for turning left on a red at an intersection next to their substation where the light never detects cyclists. This could also address the safety issue raised in a previous comment. Something like "if the light doesn't turn within 1 minute after the cyclist stops the cyclist may assume they have not been detected and proceed after yielding to traffic with a green light".

    Personally I don't think the stop sign issue is such a big deal. Don't blow through stops when there is a cop watching you. If you are indeed slowing then you have time to check for an enforcement action before proceeding. I've been doing it for many years and haven't been ticketed or even warned.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mr. Know it All February 9, 2007 at 11:19 pm

    I agree. The law needs to change to "roll and go" for signs, and "stop and go" for lights. There are no legitimate arguments for not making these changes.

    Those who are uncomfortable with these changes can wait with the cars and take their chances when the light turns green.

    Either way, everyone wins. Everyone gets to ride the way they feel safest and the cars will have fewer bikes in their way when the lights change.

    I think this will take some pressure off the police to give frivilous tickets and will go A VERY LONG WAY to making relations between police and cyclists better - and between motorists and cyclists also.

    It should be pushed through ASAP. I am very disappointed at even a HINT that the BTA was reluctant to support this needed change.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • trike February 10, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    i didnt read this whole thread and will do so when i can but this is just going to get the tension even higher between cars and bikes; this is also the reason i dont ride eugne at all. dieing is not a good thing due to a pissed off driver

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave S February 12, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    I think it's a good idea for both cars and bikes.... I have a fast car and I can actually be through that intersection faster than your bike after slowing to see if the intersection is clear!

    Let's do it for all Vehicles!

    I'm all in for this new law if autos are included!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • tonyt February 13, 2007 at 2:18 am

    You're right Dave, cars are JUST like bikes.

    No doubt!

    A 3,000 lb portable room, which insulates the operator from cold, heat, rain, sound and smell, which is for all intents and purposes capable of doing any speed the operator would like. Newer portable rooms come with computer controlled braking and acceleration and some even have a computer that will moderate the steering if the driver has bitten off a bit more than he or she can chew. Oh and don't forget those explosively inflated cushions that deploy upon impact and auto-tightening seat belts.Then the seats! Leather. Heated. Lumbar support for your lower back and a headrest in case your neck gets tired! And some of these cars will even filter your air, and I saw a commercial last night for one that will chill your beverage! And now some even park themselves!

    Compared to . . .

    25 pound metal frame with two wheels and no motor. Sometimes they have gears!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • tonyt February 13, 2007 at 2:20 am

    =:-)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • DK February 13, 2007 at 9:58 am

    Red lights are a great place to stop, take some time and wonder if the driver in the car next to you is; A) jealous because they wish that they had time or energy to do what we're doing; B) checking out the rad person on the cool bike and just hoping to make eye contact; C) looking down at their lap and wondering if it's o.k. to take a bite of that drippy big mac, for fear of being spotted by us; or better yet C) making up their mind to venture into a bike shop and seeing what it would take to get on two wheels. Or maybe they are just pissed off at everything and don't give a rip about anyone.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Marc May 14, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    As someone who does 30-mile round trip commutes 2-5 times per week, and trains on top of that, I think the slow and go at stop signs and stop and go at lights is basically great. Partly because it's basically what I do. And as stupid as I still am from time to time, I found it hard to believe that cyclists speed through reds at Seven Corners. That's by the New Seasons, right? I mean, faced with so many directions of traffic, the least you could do if you just couldn't bear to wait for green would be to go through the intersection VERY carefully. Any cylist who gets a big fat ticket for speeding through there deserves it. There are also many intersections downtown for instance where the visibility is very bad as far as cross traffic. So I must admit that even my almost-stop-and-go (in cleats) can be dangerous there. So perhaps, as someone else said, should certain intersections have 'no cylist stop and go' rules if some kind of stop-and-go at lights is allowed? AS LONG AS THERE WEREN'T TOO MANY I'd be happy to abide by this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Cecil May 14, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    "And as stupid as I still am from time to time, I found it hard to believe that cyclists speed through reds at Seven Corners. That’s by the New Seasons, right? I mean, faced with so many directions of traffic, the least you could do if you just couldn’t bear to wait for green would be to go through the intersection VERY carefully."

    Marc - I live right by that 7 Corners intersection and walk to New Seasons daily - every evening as I am waiting for the ped signal to cross, I see at least 3 cyclists run that red light. I also see innumerable cars and bikes turning right against the red light even though there are very large, very visible signs reading "no turn on red," precisely because it IS such a dangerous intersection. I also see innumerable pedestrians jaywalking, either by going against the red or by crossing from the northeast corner of 20th across to the quicki-mart. I have to admit that I am surprised not to have witnessed an injury accident at that corner yet. Lots of near misses, though.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

- Daily bike news since 2005 -
BikePortland.org is a production of
PedalTown Media Inc.
321 SW 4th Ave, Ste. 401
Portland, OR 97204

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Clemens Orth.
Subscribe to RSS feed


Original images and content owned by Pedaltown Media, Inc. - Not to be used without permission.