home

Get an animated lesson in bikes, stop signs, and the Idaho Stop Law

Posted by on April 14th, 2009 at 11:44 am

Screen grab from animation
about bikes, stop signs, and the
Idaho Stop Law by Spencer
Boomhower.
Watch it below.

Lots of stop sign news at BikePortland headquarters today.

I spent my morning out at SE Water and Caruthers where city crews recently removed two stop signs that were deemed unnecessary, I just got off the phone with Traffic Division Lieutenant Bryan Parman about an “enforcement mission” (a.k.a. sting) at a stop sign on SE Clinton this morning, and I have been planning an update on the BTA’s Idaho Stop legislation.

Story continues below

advertisement

Before I get to all those stories, I wanted to share an very cool animation created by Portlander Spencer Boomhower (you might remember him from an article he wrote for BikePortland last month). When he’s not thinking or writing about bikes, Spencer is a freelance computer graphics artist. He masterfully put those skills to use in a video he titled, Bicycles, Rolling Stops, and the Idaho Stop.

Watch it below:

Bicycles, Rolling Stops, and the Idaho Stop from Spencer Boomhower on Vimeo.

Spencer says he hopes the video makes its way to legislators in Salem who are still pondering the Idaho Stop Law.

…speaking of which… stay tuned for updates on that and all your local stop sign news…

Email This Post Email This Post


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • John Lascurettes April 14, 2009 at 11:48 am

    BeeYooTeeFull. This is what the BTA should have commissioned from day one as PR.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Noel April 14, 2009 at 11:48 am

    I love it!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Breesa April 14, 2009 at 11:56 am

    Oh, that is so great. So practical.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Quincy April 14, 2009 at 11:57 am

    georgous!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Zaphod April 14, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Deftly executed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • DJ Hurricane April 14, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    So simple even Legislators can understand!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jason B April 14, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    That is the sweetest bicycle animation I’ve ever seen. It blows me away the amount of hard work people are committing to promote bicycling infrastructure.

    I hope that animation becomes widely distributed or even viral.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bobcycle April 14, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    Enforcement mission dollars should be spent where they can do the most good by saving lives. I don’t have the statistics but I am guessing more people are injured and more dollars impacted by speeding cars and drunk drivers than by idaho stops. Enforcement dollars would be best spent outside bars watching for drunks and on freeways watching for speeders.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • K'Tesh April 14, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    Watched during my lunch break at work, no sound, but looked VERY COOL!!!

    Gonna watch it again tonight!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • sysfail April 14, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    I love it and seems like common sense. Stopping completely at every stop sign is a pain, especially in low traffic neighborhood, it’s just a big waste of energy. Even more so if you are hauling a trailer and have to get momentum back up from a stop.

    My biggest issue riding a bike is cars that roll through stop signs, that scares the hell out of me sometimes. I think the ticket amount should reflect the weight/size of vehicle in use. But that’s a different issue. Rarely do I ever see tickets given to drivers that roll through and well beyond stop signs. You know where they come out not into the car lane completely but it bike path.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • metal cowboy April 14, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    This is outstanding work. If the BTA doesn’t snap you up and put you on the payroll to do all their graphic/pr/explanation projects, they’d be missing the boat. Go shop this around to national organizations to get more bike advocacy work and to state groups considering idaho stop legislation.
    Again, top flight work.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike April 14, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    Spencer-
    While I am not for the law, I applaud your work and effort. That was a beautiful piece; pure art.
    Thank you for sharing your insight and creativity.
    Do you have any other pieces hidden away on a website?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • NB April 14, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    Great, great video, Spencer. The BTA definitely needs to use this in its public relations campaign for the Idaho Stop law. At the very least, the Oregonian should show it to all the readers it has caused to think that the Idaho Stop bill means cyclists will take over the road and sieze the right of way at all times.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tony P April 14, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    Fantastic! I love DJ Hurricane’s comment. Let’s get this to the Legislature immediately. Maybe the Oregonian and KATU could run stories about it too…ok, now I know I’m getting a little carried away.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim Lee April 14, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Very professional, very beautiful.

    But there are circumstances, like crossing a high-speed four-lane arterial that does not stop, where a cyclist does not have enough time to scope all vehicles from both directions, even from a full stop.

    I’m thinking about SE Foster, where all side streets enter at diagonals. PDOT wisely has built crossing zones, some with central islands, some even with signals. Although these primarily are for pedestrians, cyclists are foolish not avail themselves of such improved protection. Almost all motorists honor the right-of-way for pedestrians and for cyclists too. Good for PDOT!

    On the other hand, I am all for nailing idiots who blow through 26th and Clinton at $360 a pop. $10,000 an hour there, easy!

    Meanwhile, I’m still perfecting my “traffic stand.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Neighbor April 14, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    A May Zing.

    Nice work. I especially like the examples given for different intersections/situations and the clarification that this law would not allow us to recklessly zoom through intersections. Nice clear explanation to quell some major concerns about the proposed law.

    Thanks Spencer!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • MikeOnBike April 14, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    Bravo!

    Living in Idaho I just assumed that our way was the law everywhere. Watching Oregon cyclist fight to get this law passed has really been an eye opener. I had better be careful when I come to ride the Oregon coast.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • patrickz April 14, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    Easy to follow and clear from the first second. Very good artwork. (There’s something so friendly about that guitar, also…)
    A fine job.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • DaHoos April 14, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    Very well done. The presentation hits on all levels and is easily understood by the daily commuter as well as someone who has never ridden a bicycle, the pedestrian and auto driver.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steved April 14, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    Excellent! Outstanding! Thanks!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kracken41@yahoo.com April 14, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    Still don’t get the obsession with not stopping… still don’t get what the huge problem is with current law…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John April 14, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    Bravo!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Lascurettes April 14, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    Kracken, you’re welcome to still stop at every stop sign. Nothing in the law says you must roll at a yield.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower April 14, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    Holy moly, thanks everyone for the positive response for the video. Getting a positive reception, especially from a group that I know doesn’t pull its punches with the criticism (and I say this having myself been a criticizer of one or two things in these very forums) is incredibly heartening.

    I hope it adds to the conversation, and helps BTA’s efforts in Salem.

    Thanks to Karl Rohde for expressing enthusiasm for the animation idea early on, and giving me some tips for how best to support the BTA’s mission and message. The feedback from his email list of interested parties really strengthened the message. Thanks also to Scott Bricker and Michelle Poyourow at the BTA for keeping the enthusiasm going, even after Karl left. Also the feedback and props I got from fellow BikePortland contributors was a real boost. Pet projects like this have a nasty habit of fizzling out before they reach the finish line, so the input from all these folks was vital.

    #9 K’Tesh:

    “Watched during my lunch break at work, no sound… Gonna watch it again tonight!”

    Yes, please do, the narration is pretty important. Someone suggested it should have subtitles, but there was no time.

    #21 kracken41

    “Still don’t get the obsession with not stopping… still don’t get what the huge problem is with current law…”

    I don’t know if I’d call it an obsession… Anyway, let me explain: The average bicycle rider gets around on only a hundred watts of propulsion power…

    Wait, let me put it another way: I would say most bike riders ride with immense respect for the spirit of traffic law. They are mindful of safety, and the rights of others. They would not do a rolling stop unless they could first be sure the way was clear, and they had the right of way. I.E., not unless they had first met the requirements of the spirit of the stop sign law. They have respect for what the law is trying to accomplish: safety and equity on the road.

    They only do this rolling stop thing because it’s efficient, and they need efficiency if they’re going to use their bike as a practical form of transportation (as opposed to, say, a form of exercise, or entertainment).

    Despite respecting the spirit of the law, the rolling stop does not adhere to the letter of the law, which makes these safety-minded and respectful citizens who get around via this incredibly healthy and environmentally friendly means of transportation OUTLAWS. Outlaws subject to the same steep fines slapped on far more dangerous vehicles, or on bike riders who don’t give due consideration to their fellow road users.

    And you know what, for all my boosting of this law, I think there’s a place for outlaws, that they perform the vital service of always pushing the boundaries of societal constraints, seeing if those restraints really need to be there. Of course, hurting others is beyond the pale. And I get it, a biker blowing a stop, scaring you, and taking your right of way is infuriating; I’ve been on the receiving end of this behavior, just like most of us have.

    However, the safety-minded bike rider who safely rolls a stop to keep his or her bike an efficient enough means of transportation? That’s not an outlaw. Or shouldn’t be, anyway.

    Branding a person a criminal when it shouldn’t ougta be that way is an injustice. In this case it’s only a teeny-tiny injustice, really, but even a little injustice is galling, and that erodes the usefulness of laws.

    If you KNOW you’re riding in a way that’s safe and respectful, but you’re looking at a $242 ticket you just got slapped with in a sting, you lose respect for law. Doesn’t it seem like a problem if safety-minded, conscientious people lose respect for the law?

    I think maybe it didn’t use to be a problem because there were so few people riding bikes. But now there’s lots more, and this heretofore overlooked bending of the rules is no longer being allowed to bend. Thus the stings, and thus the people feeling like the law is treating them unfairly.

    This can and should be sorted out. We should always be trying to make our laws more fair, and the great thing about a democratic society is that it’s designed for this. It’s designed for the laws to adjust such that they correct inequities, and to allow for changing conditions (which is why car drivers are no longer required to turn off their engines at every stop sign).

    Right here, right now, in Oregon, we’re in the midst of conditions changing in a big way when it comes to bikes on public streets. We have the opportunity to adjust to these changes in a way that makes sense.

    Anyway, I could go on and on. And I do (obviously).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kris April 14, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    Brilliant. If metal cowboy doesn’t snap you up and put you on his payroll to show our elected officials what’s wrong with a 12 lane CRC bridge, he’d be missing the boat.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • metal cowboy April 14, 2009 at 6:49 pm

    What payroll? ;-) But I will be talking to Spencer about how he might be able to help the CRC effort. In exchange I’d make introductions to national and state ped and bike organizations who could use his talents and do have budgets.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower April 14, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    I’m already off and running with a CRC project :). I actually put it aside to work on this, because this seemed more time-critical. But I’m even getting help on the CRC project from a fellow CG guy who’s also interested in this stuff.

    Which reminds me, I forgot to answer:

    Mike #12

    “Do you have any other pieces hidden away on a website?”

    I do, but this is the first thing of its kind that I’ve done. The rest has been mostly for games – and nothing even slightly bike related :). So it’s probably not what you’re looking for. Thanks for the interest, though, and keep an eye out for more stuff like this. It was a pretty satisfying project.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Seager April 14, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    Lets get this on real TV!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan Kaufman April 14, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    This is great, Spencer!!! I was thinking the Idaho Stop bill was a long shot until I saw this.

    BP readers, please forward, blog, and FB the video to every one you know.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Casey April 14, 2009 at 9:05 pm

    I love the animation and I hope the law passes, but if it doesn’t…there is another viable solution to this volatile issue.

    Yield signs allow a person (no matter the means of transport) to get through without wasting time/energy on a complete stop. In practice however, this means that cars still need to make a complete stop, due to their obstructed vision and longer stopping distance. While a cyclist can look both ways and keep going.

    Why do we choose frivolous stop signs and dangerous uncontrolled intersection instead of a simple, logical, YIELD?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Scott Mizée April 14, 2009 at 9:07 pm

    Ditto what Dan and others have said.

    Regarding Facebooking the video. Is it part of the Facebook Idaho Stop Law Group? If not it should be.

    Excellent work, Spencer. I look forward to seeing what you produce regarding CRC. Can you make that guy on the bike look like the Metal Cowboy?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower April 14, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    Hey Dan #29, thanks a bunch for the pro advice along the way, and I’m looking forward to any input you can offer future revs.

    Scott #31 I’m embarrassed to admit I didn’t even know there was a FB group. Now joined, with a first post saying: “how do I embed a video here?” I’ll throw that same question out here, because I’m hesitant to experiment with someone’s FB group page.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Efren April 14, 2009 at 10:31 pm

    This would be GREAT in OREGON!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are April 15, 2009 at 8:31 am

    casey 30 is onto something here. if we do not have the political clout to get a rolling stop law passed at the state level, we may nonetheless have the clout on a much lower level to get rid of badly placed stop signs. let’s pick them off one by one. what’s the skinny on southeast water and caruthers? who said what to whom to make this happen?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are April 15, 2009 at 8:32 am

    oh, and excellent video. tiny quibble, where you say a cyclist blowing through a stop in idaho would be fined $x, higher than currently (in oregon), you should say “in oregon.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Yokota Fritz April 15, 2009 at 10:05 am

    Another ‘well done’ from me to Spencer. I love how you illustrated how this law would work at different kinds of intersections.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bikieboy April 15, 2009 at 10:23 am

    fantastic! The discussion of this legislation has been fraught throughoutwith misunderstanding, and this should help in a major way.

    From the MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the traffic engineer’s bible)definition of what a Yield sign mean:

    “Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need to slow down or stop when necessary to avoid interfering with conflicting traffic.”

    Slow down, and stop when necessary. Simple.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Amos April 15, 2009 at 11:03 am

    They threw this up on the PGH blog, urbanvelo.org this morning.

    Good work.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter April 15, 2009 at 11:19 am

    fantastic animation!

    i’d be curious to see what it would have been like if we squeezed in something a bit more explicit about cars’ ability to murder people, but not bikes, but i love the video.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matty Lang April 15, 2009 at 11:37 am

    Regarding the comments on yield signs, stop signs are the sacred cow of lazy traffic calming (in Minneapolis at least). I would bet you’d have a tougher time changing stop signs to yields than you would getting an Idaho Law passed at the state level.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower April 15, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    #35 are

    “tiny quibble, where you say a cyclist blowing through a stop in idaho would be fined $x, higher than currently (in oregon), you should say “in oregon.”

    That’s a good suggestion. I get into the habit of calling it the Idaho Stop on the assumtion that everyone knows what I’m talking about, but I could see how it would be worth pointing out that it’s an Oregon law more frequently.

    #36 Yokota

    Thanks, and I appreciate the post on your blog!

    #37 bikieboy

    Thanks much, and you’re right, it really needs to be driven home to people: JUST. LIKE. A. YIELD. Everybody knows how a yield signs works, right? (Though to be fair, I can’t think of anyplace where there’s a 4-way intersection where one sign is a yield and the other 3 are stops. That could be tripping people up.) In the demonstration section, I wanted to keep up the thought-bubble-with-the-yield-sign-over-stop-sign motif, but eh… Time constraints.

    #38 Amos

    Thanks, and thanks also for the pointer to the blog.

    #39 Peter

    Much appreciated, and I did want to include the relative danger of cars, in some symbolic means akin to the 1000 lightbulbs to 1 lightbulb. (40,000 coffins for the 40k + who die per year?) But remember this was primarily intended to go in front of legislators. And one piece of advice I got was that pointing out the destructive power of cars would read as car-bashing, and might not play well to that particular audience. Which on one hand is baffling, but on the other hand makes sense, but on… let’s say a third hand, pointing out the extreme *lack* of danger bikes pose to other road users without also pointing out the relative extreme danger posed by cars seems like it would be ineffective.

    And safety is the primary goal of stop sign law in the first place.

    #40 Matty

    Agreed. And that’s another point I didn’t have time to make well: with all the stop signs on quiet side streets – put there, as you say, for traffic calming purposes – and with the unlikelihood of the signs ever coming down, bike riders who really want to get somewhere – who are using their bikes as transportation – are motivated to use the busier arterial routes.

    See: “Why Bicyclists Hate Stop Signs”

    http://www.sfbike.org/download/bike_law/why_bikes_hate_stops.pdf

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andy B from Jersey April 15, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    An excellent video however I’m surprised Spencer, you didn’t quote the study (I can’t find the source) that revealed that the energy lost stopping a bicycle from 12mph is enough to propel the bicyclist over 300 feet. When quantified in this way people begin to understand why bicyclist don’t want to stop. Stopping at 20 stop signs consumes enough energy to ride a bicycle over a mile!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andy B from Jersey April 15, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    Ahhh… There’s that report (directly above my first post, go figure). I thought the report was done at UC Berkley.

    Still I’m surprised you didn’t use that example.

    And yes, people in New Jersey will see your video (I have means).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower April 15, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    “that revealed that the energy lost stopping a bicycle from 12mph is enough to propel the bicyclist over 300 feet”

    That’s a really good way of framing it, and even though I read the paper, I somehow missed that. All the wattage stuff came from that source, though.

    Well, I’m still compiling ideas for a revision if it comes to that, and complete stop = 300 feet might make for a good visual.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andy B from Jersey April 15, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Your right! It’s not in there. I was sure that it was. I did come across an article from The Times (UK) that mentions this tidbit (http://tinyurl.com/b58ehl).

    Still, this should be easy to test. Just ride a bike at 12mph on level ground (do you have any of that in PDX?), let it coast and see how far you go. 300 feet seems about right to me.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are April 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    pretty sure it would be more than 300

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ed from Tampa April 15, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    Spencer,

    You do outstanding video. I someone will find a way to support you to work on some short defensive/safe riding videos based on the Street Smarts guide that Rodale published. There are so many people who won’t read but who would probably watch video. Best of luck with the Idaho Stop Bill, and in general.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John T. April 15, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Great production quality, but typical bike utopia approach the problem. Stop signs are necessary to control the portion of society that otherwise would exercise horrible judgment at intersections. That statement applies equally to drivers and cyclists.

    It’s laughable that the cornerstone of the cyclist Stop Law argument is energy efficiency for the rider. You should read up on an invention called THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE if you are lacking horsepower.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower April 16, 2009 at 12:46 am

    #48 John T:

    “Great production quality,”

    Thanks!

    “but typical bike utopia approach the problem.”

    oh…

    “Stop signs are necessary to control the portion of society that otherwise would exercise horrible judgment at intersections. That statement applies equally to drivers and cyclists.”

    I appreciate the even-handedness, but I have to disagree. For a number of reasons:

    For one, I’m sitting in a neighborhood surrounded by those peculiar intersections I’ve only ever seen in the Northwest: four-way with NO signs. No stops, no yields. And they actually work pretty well. The only hitch is that some intersections further down the street just got stop signs, which sends more short-cutters down our street. But still, these intersections remain (knock on wood) incident-free.

    Also, it’s worth pointing out that the whole rolling stop thing is pretty much how most bike riders get around already. The law would simply decriminalize this common, SAFE practice. And I mean safe: this year we had the fewest bicycle deaths since they’ve been keeping records! (I’m pretty sure it was zero deaths, but I forget exactly.)

    Finally, there’s really no need to speculate how this law might work, because it’s already working. In Idaho, where it’s been working great for 27 years, since 1982. (That’s the year Thriller came out! And I really wanted to get a Michael Jackson reference in there but, alas it was another thing cut for time.)

    There have even been law enforcement professionals from Idaho coming to Oregon to say: yup, it works fine. Has been for years.

    “It’s laughable that the cornerstone of the cyclist Stop Law argument is energy efficiency for the rider.”

    In a time of looming global warming, peak oil, and economic crisis, efficiency is laughable? Again, I have to disagree. Personally I’m very interested in efficiency.

    I wanted to get this set of facts into the video, and might still in a future rev:

    Energy used per passenger-mile (calories):

    Auto 1,860

    Bus 920

    Rail 885

    Foot 100

    Bicycle 35

    Found here: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4057

    That’s an AMAZING disparity in efficiency. Bikes are 3 times more efficient than walking!

    “You should read up on an invention called THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE”

    Talk about inefficient. But I have an internal combustion engine, and I occasionally take it out for a spin. And whenever I do, I think how bizarre it is that I’m having this thing haul around its own several hundred pounds of weight along with another two thousand pounds or so of metal and plastic, just to get me from point A to point B.

    It makes me glad I’ve figured out a way and place to live in which the vast majority of the time it’s easier and more enjoyable to just take my bike. (As long as I’m rolling stops though, because there’s a ton of them between me and stores and banks and whatnot.)

    Also, it makes me reflect on how insane it is to be using our rapidly dwindling stockpile of available oil – this amazing substance that represents who knows how many thousands of years worth of solar energy harnessed and concentrated into this remarkably stable and portable form – for doing trivial things like running errands and getting to work.

    As finite resources go, oil seems meant for better things.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower April 16, 2009 at 1:00 am

    Andy B #45:

    “Your right! It’s not in there. I was sure that it was. I did come across an article from The Times (UK) that mentions this tidbit (http://tinyurl.com/b58ehl).”

    Great article, thanks! These are some good points:

    This means to reach a steady cycling speed four times that of walking, requires a 16-fold increase in energy (plus about 25% more for the added mass of the bike).

    So here it is: the cyclist has to expend about 20 times as much energy as a pedestrian to reach his normal journey speed again.

    And I like this phrasing:

    “This is not a peculiar cussedness of cyclists,” says Juden. “Let anyone ride a bike and they immediately discover that stopping is a grievous waste of hard-earned momentum.”

    Andy B again:

    “Still, this should be easy to test. Just ride a bike at 12mph on level ground (do you have any of that in PDX?), let it coast and see how far you go. 300 feet seems about right to me.”

    We’ve got plenty of level ground. Now all I need is a speedometer… But it does sound about right to me.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • [...] the folks at BikePortland.org (a terrific and prolific transportation blog) have managed to use an animated online video to make [...]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Streetsblog » Today’s Headlines April 16, 2009 at 7:36 am

    [...] Bike Portland Animation Explains Idaho’s Rolling-Stop Law [...]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike McNeal April 17, 2009 at 9:19 am

    Congratulations to Spencer Boomhower for an excellent video!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ryan April 17, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    Phenomenal animation! Rolling stops are great and definitely more efficient, hope it works its way over to the East Coast!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • [...] a cyclist slows and yields at intersections, rather than coming to a complete stop as a car must. This animation by Spencer Boomhower shows beautifully why this law makes sense, and how it will encourage efficient cycling while still [...]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • [...] a cyclist slows and yields at intersections, rather than coming to a complete stop as a car must. This animation by Spencer Boomhower shows beautifully why this law makes sense, and how it will encourage efficient cycling while still [...]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • PCC April 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    150 hp might be somewhat average for a new car, but many “turbo” SUVs have more than 400+ hp. Jeep now has a 900 hp monster in showrooms. Horsepower isn’t all of the equation, either; because cars are lighter than they used to be, they accelerate faster. A Camry today goes 0-60 just as fast as a supercharged 1970 Mustang!

    All that is to say that the power difference between bicycles and cars is astonishing. You wouldn’t set up a race between a housecat and a cheetah, yet every single day I find myself racing cars between stop signs set 330′ apart (a typical block in Chicago).

    One also has to keep in mind that the law was set up to protect people from cars. Stop signs (and lights) DID NOT EXIST until cars were overrunning the streets and threatening pedestrians’ ability to cross the street. Back when bicyclists, pedestrians, and horse-drawn vehicles shared the streets (less than 100 years ago; your grandparents might remember), there was no need for any type of formal traffic regulation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Sophie April 22, 2009 at 10:31 am

    Why don’t we have more roundabouts in this country??? You go to any place in Europe and they have roundabouts… basically a huge yeild sign. France particularly has some nice ones with bicycle lanes, and this basically serves the same purpose of rolling stops. A driver (or cyclist) won’t enter the roundabout until its safe to do so… its self preservation and common sense. If there’s no oncoming traffic, no need to stop and waste gas or pedal power.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ben July 20, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    Did this get voted on yet?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Scott Mizée July 21, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    nope. didn’t make it far enough to get a vote… maybe next year…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • David Bogenhagen August 31, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    An excellent work to explain the common sence approach to orderly flow of traffic. “Heightened awareness” and the “most to lose” makes this practicle approach so logical. I would hope that more states get this type of law passed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • [...] Simply put, the Idaho Stop Law allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. It is called the Idaho Stop Law because it has been in effect in Idaho since 1982. Take a few minutes to look at this well made video about why the Idaho Stop Law might be good for us too! http://bikeportland.org/2009/04/14/get-an-animated-lesson-in-bikes-stop-signs-and-the-idaho-stop-law… [...]

    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.