The Worst Day of the Year Ride is February 11th

No Idaho Stops in Oregon: Bill fails to win necessary support

Posted by on April 20th, 2009 at 2:12 pm

“…they [legislators] had heard from a number of constituents who were very concerned and opposed to giving cyclists what they viewed as special rights.”
–Doug Parrow, Chair of the BTA’s Legislative Committee

An effort to pass the “Idaho Stop Law” in Oregon has officially ceased all forward motion.

I confirmed this morning from Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) legislative committee chair Doug Parrow that they were not able to convince a key legislator to schedule a work session on HB 2690. As a consequence, the BTA will move onto other bills and shelve the Idaho Stop idea for now.

Story continues below


On Friday, we reported that the BTA was under pressure from House Transportation Committee Chair Terry Beyer to confirm support for the bill from at least 31 House members (the number of votes it would need to pass). Chair Beyer wanted to make sure the bill would pass before she committed to a work session.

The BTA’s Doug Parrow
(Photos © J. Maus)

On the phone today, Doug Parrow said that “Unfortunately, as we went around and met with legislators, it became increasingly clear that there were not enough votes to pass the bill.”

Parrow chalks up the lack of support from legislators to a small number of vocal constituents who called and emailed in their opposition to the bill;

“What I perceived from our meetings [with lawmakers] is that they had heard from a number of constituents who were very concerned and opposed to giving cyclists what they viewed as special rights.”

Parrow said the demise of the bill is unfortunate because he felt the BTA was making progress of late. “Perhaps what occurred,” he said, “is we just ran out of time.”

Feeling that the outpouring of early opposition to the bill (perhaps stoked by incorrect and biased news stories), “poisoned the water”, Parrow said the tide got going in the wrong direction early on and that “we weren’t able to reverse that.”

Will the BTA try again in 2011? Parrow says it’s too early to make that decision.

In the mean time, Parrow said he and others on the BTA legislative team will start thinking what they can do to get broader support and “deal with those perceptions that Idaho Stops are somehow or another a strange or unacceptable idea.”

In addition to Oregonians who voiced their opposition to the bill, the Idaho Stop Law idea was almost certainly victim to a sense in Salem that how bicycles treat stop signs simply wasn’t a priority in light of a $4 billion budget shortfall facing our state. I heard from Parrow, former BTA lobbyist Karl Rohde, and their executive director Scott Bricker that legislators were on the hot seat to only spend time on high-priority bills.

On that note, Parrow referred to an opinion article published in the Salem Stateman-Journal newspaper on April 5th that said legislators should be focused on priorities, but instead “they’ve found time to take up inconsequential topics such as prescription tobacco, bicycle stop signs, the state bird — and even bird-seed taxes.”

You know you’re in trouble when your highest legislative priority gets labeled “inconsequential” and is bundled in with bird seed taxes.

Now, with Idaho Stops in the rear view mirror, Parrow says the BTA will focus all of their attention on their Vehicular Homicide Bill (HB 3399). That bill is scheduled for a work session this Thursday, just a day after hundreds of bike advocates will be lobbying in the capitol as part of the Oregon Bike Summit.

— Browse our complete coverage of the Idaho Stop Law.
— Learn more about the rest of the BTA’s 2009 legislative agenda.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Thank you — Jonathan

  • DJ Hurricane April 20, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Just want to send out a big FU to all of you out there who spread the falsehood that the Idaho Stop is unsafe or would create some legal or other ambiguity. Your dishonesty was successful. See you next session.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Harald April 20, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Coming from a country where stop signs are the rare exception to the rule of the yield sign, I never quite understood the American obsession with stop signs.

    I’m not sure how practically feasible it is, but after the Idaho law’s failure maybe it would make sense to adopt more of a grassroots strategy: if the general rules can’t be changed, then why not try replacing stop with yield signs wherever possible, starting with bike boulevards?
    When people see that the frequency of accidents on intersections with yield signs doesn’t increase, in the long term this might help with the adoption of the Idaho law.

    Lots of maybes in here but it seems like a new approach to the problem is required.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Coyote April 20, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    I can’t really blame the pols for not wanting to look like they are fiddling as Rome burns.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike April 20, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    Vehicular Homicide Bill – Finally, something I can get behind and support.

    Of course, we haven’t heard much about it, no garnering of support. I hope the focus that the Idaho Stop has had doesn’t detract from HB3399.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike April 20, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    I’m not sure breaking the law is the best way to change the law. It may work occasionally… but then again, who’s going to risk a felony for that?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tom April 20, 2009 at 2:43 pm

    Bummer, time to continue practicing civil disobedience.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kathleen McDade April 20, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    Mike, I don’t think it’s necessary to break the law — why not *legally* try to get some stop signs replaced with yield signs? They did get the stop sign down by OMSI removed — it could happen elsewhere. That would, indeed, prove that perhaps stop signs are not always needed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kt April 20, 2009 at 2:49 pm

    The BTA messed up in that they billed this as a bicycle-only thing.

    Everyone slow-and-rolls certain stop signs. Cars, trucks, bikes, peds, skateboards…. it’s called a California Stop, folks.

    If the BTA had called for the Idaho Stop (aka stop as yield, aka California Stop) to be legal for ALL ROAD USERS, it probably would have gained much more traction, and this story would be far different.

    Enough with the narrow Portland-centric view, BTA. Look at the rest of the state, or at least the other metroplitan areas, that you currently do NOTHING to represent.

    As for the Vehicular Homicide law: I 100% am behind this law. Finally, more personal resposibility from people behind the wheel! I hope the BTA does much better with this one.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Suzanne April 20, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Bummer. After the initial flood of inaccurate/poorly written news stories, it didn’t have a chance. The simple fact remains that people who don’t ride bikes are never going to even try to understand the concept, and the media reporting that bicyclists will be allowed to blow through red lights certainly didn’t help.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Seager April 20, 2009 at 2:59 pm


    I’m in Eugene and the BTA represents me.

    Oh well, I guess I will continue breaking the law several times a day. *sigh*

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are April 20, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    from the oregonian:

    House Bill 3303 would levy a 10 percent excise tax on wholesalers of wild bird seed, including millet, milo, sunflower and thistle seeds.

    The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Garrett, D-Lake Oswego, says his critics shouldn’t get their feathers in a ruffle.

    “I knew when I introduced it that it was going to get some giggles,” Garrett said. “If people would get over their hang-ups, it’s good policy.”

    The estimated $4.8 million raised by the tax would pay for habitat protection, Garrett says.

    What’s more, Oregon could secure another $4.8 million in matching grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    [end quote]

    at least as significant as the rolling stop.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are April 20, 2009 at 3:07 pm

    re comment 8, I do not want motorists rolling stops, thanks. the better plan is comment 2, replace stop signs with yields wherever feasible.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bahueh April 20, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    yes, please, lets blame it all on the BTA…I mean they are the ones who created the public perception that cyclists can’t obey the laws to begin with, right?

    DJ Hurricane….nice, a big middle finger when you don’t get your way.
    how “adult” of you…let it sink in, this isn’t Idaho. If you want Idaho’s laws, pack your stuff and drive east.

    I fully support the vehicular homocide proposal….hopefully it comes with some actual enforcement teeth.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steven J April 20, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    More Proof.
    Common sense ain’t that common.
    Colorado will more than likely change before OR.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • KruckyBoy April 20, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    Real mature DJ (#1). Way to drive home the notion that cyclists are bad mannered whiners. You’ve just given the anti-bike crowd one more reason to call their legislator the next time a pro-bike bill comes out. Good job!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • RonC April 20, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    Perhaps now the BTA can change it’s focus on this issue, asking that enforcement of stop sign infractions roughly follow the guidelines set forth by the Idaho stop law. After all, enforcement of speed limits generally has some buffer that allows for minor technical violations to pass without citation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • old&slow April 20, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    This was stupid politics 101. The BTA is so politically inept they let the critics define this before they even had a chance to try to pass this. You get some good PR about something you want to pass before you make the attempt. It was just a waste of political capital anyway. Bricker needs to go.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Amos April 20, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    Oh, great… just wait till Steve get’s his BTA hatin’ hands on this one. 🙂

    Sorry to see it didn’t work out. On a positive note, this whole process put stop signs in the front of a lot of cyclist’s minds, maybe folks will be paying a bit more attention and we will all be a bit more safe.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • pedalstrikeforceagentdown April 20, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    too bad…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Oliver April 20, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    The fact that the term ‘special rights’ is still being considered as a valid point for discussion shows how far certain interests have managed to skew the debate.

    Lumping this issue in with those other topics and calling them all inconsequential is simply another political tactic by the same folks who brought us ‘special rights’ and is simply clever if transparent propagandizing being used to marginalize our interests and frame the debate in terms favorable to the opposition. Remember that was in an op-ed.

    To everyone from the BTA thanks for your work on this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Scott Mizée April 20, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    oh….. I’m so disappointed to read this headline.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim Lee April 20, 2009 at 5:32 pm

    We paranoiacs do not deserve the Idaho law.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan Kaufman April 20, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    The concept of rolling “Idaho” stops was unheard of a few months ago.

    Now it’s in the lexicon across the nation thanks to the BTA, Rep. Kopel-Bailey and Spencer Boomhower’s animation.

    Cyclists have an uphill battle when it comes to spin and this bill was off from the beginning. If the video had been produced first and more advance contact was made with the media things may have been different. But this bill was always long shot and hindsight is crystal.

    Even with the failure this was a worthy first step. Now another state may successfully adopt “Idaho stops” or we’ll start getting traffic planners to rethink stop signs at every intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ian Stude April 20, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    I realize this is unlikely, but couldn’t the Portland traffic engineers just decide to install a small “Bikes Yield” sign beneath each stop sign at select intersections? This is a more costly solution than redefining the meaning of existing stop signs, but it would certainly get around all this legislative/media malarky. PBOT could take up donations: “Sponsor a yield sign, make your bike boulevard more efficient.”

    Might need to wait for all the hulabaloo to die down first though…

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • teej April 20, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    legal civil disobedience is riding on main streets with lights like Division, Powell, Hawthorne etc.

    Let’s just annoy them into passing the law to make our travelways as convenient as theirs are.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • KWW April 20, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    This bill was destined to fail. It was too legally vague, nevermind the intentions.

    As Harald said above, just put in Yield signs, case closed; plus you can rely on our friendly PBOT, not ODOT or the state legislature to make things right.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob April 20, 2009 at 6:49 pm

    This law proposal had almost zero chance of passing. Kt #8, is, I think, correct:

    “If the BTA had called for the Idaho Stop (aka stop as yield, aka California Stop) to be legal for ALL ROAD USERS, it probably would have gained much more traction, and this story would be far different.” Kt #8

    There may have been less resistance to a Idaho/(legalized)California stop that would have included all road users, though it still probably wouldn’t have passed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Casey April 20, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    Yield signs. Yes. Perfect.

    We can stop only when necessary and there is no cyclist clause/exemption. Let’s start small and install them on the bike boulevards and places like Ladd’s addition, where complete stops are pointless. And how about those dangerous, uncontrolled intersections.

    Who needs to hear it from us?
    Roger Geller? Scott Bricker?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • NoPoJoe April 20, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    Make sure to stop twice in front of Lars Larson just to make sure he knows you aren’t a scofflaw. Just hope he doesn’t suffer road rage and shoot you though.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mr. Bojangles April 20, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    Yep – move along – nothing to see here …

    All I can fault the BTA on is ( in the retrospect of a previous failed attempt ) they should have waaay out in front in talking to the press and key legislators on this issue. They were not.

    Being killed twice .. this will now just become a dead-horse beaten every 2 yrs.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mr. Bojangles April 20, 2009 at 8:18 pm

    And last comment — if you can’t beat’em then join them. I’m looking forward to stopping – completely – making sure its safe and then proceeding.

    Kind of like in the “Alice’s Restaurant” song ..

    If one person does it they’ll think your crazy…

    If 2 people do it they might just think your queers ..

    If 3 people do it they might think its a conspiracy

    But if 4 people do it they may think its a movement ….

    And like Arlo Guthrie said: I could do this for quite a while … I ain’t proud

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • encephalopath April 20, 2009 at 8:26 pm

    Dan @23 is correct. The idea just got mainstreamed in a way that it wasn’t before.

    Spencer Boomhower’s animation got frontpaged at Kos today. At 900,000 page views on Kos today that is alot of eyes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matthew April 20, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    People, please stop calling riding your bikes through stop signs “civil disobedience”. It is more like protesting. Just because we want to be able to ride through stop signs safely, it doesn’t mean we get to break the law and justify it by calling it civil disobedience.

    For example, as shown by people on this site, places where they removed all signage actually made the streets safer. Now if automobile drivers said that they wanted to have all signage removed, couldn’t get it done, so then just started running stop signs, would you call it civil disobedience? Nope.

    Civil disobedience is for the likes of MLK Jr., not Henry Hipster.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bjorn April 20, 2009 at 9:57 pm

    I’ve spent 3 years working on this so far, having actually started before I moved to Portland so I’m pretty clearly biased in some ways but I have to say that I am extremely proud of the work that I have done, as well as what the BTA accomplished here. For what it is worth I believe that if we could have gotten it out of committee it would have passed in the House just as it did in 2005. The bill was not designed to fail it was modeled after the highly successful law in Idaho.

    It is true that if we had all the information, testimonials, and the video produced by Spencer back in October we might have the law passed by now, but this has been a process over the last three years, and even before that when then representative Prozanski first introduced the bill in Oregon. I admit I think I made some mistakes in how I approached certain strategies around getting it through, but I’m not trained to do any of this and so I learned a lot as I went and now feel better prepared for future efforts.

    I think it is important to actually thank everyone who worked so hard on this bill because they all wanted it to pass and they all did great work, many of them volunteering their time. I’d also like to thank one person who wasn’t actively working on Idaho Style but did do the most accurate and complete reporting on the issue, Jonathan Maus. Without this website it would have been much harder for me to write the FAQ as many of the concerns I addressed within that document were originally brought up in the comments section of this blog.

    I also would say that there were attempts to pass this legislation in at least 4 other states this year and that none of them got as close as we did, largely I believe because we had a larger and better team working on it. I recently listened to an interview with a New Mexico legislator who after more than a decade of trying succeeded in banning the death penalty in her state. She talked about how every year she had a little more evidence and convinced a few more people until this year when they finally won. I found it very inspiring and look forward at the end of the legislative session to helping to package up everything we learned and documented for two years from now.

    That said we have more important things to do now. Contrary to popular belief the Idaho Stop law has not been the main focus of the BTA this year, the vehicular homicide law has recieved much more of our attention and is still going strong. We need some serious help down in Salem on Wednesday though for the Bike Summit Lobby Day and I hope that many of you will join me in Salem to talk bikes with our legislators.

    Bjorn Warloe

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matchu April 20, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    I really don’t mind that it has not passed. It just reaffirms my belief that main thoroughfares are indeed the most expedient routes for cyclists and other vehicles. I will use 20th Avenue, Sandy Blvd, Division, Cully, and other thoroughfares because it is the quickest and most direct way to almost any destination as a cyclist. The failure of this legislation to pass demonstrates that side streets and residential routes are for leisurely excursions whether by car, cycle, or skateboard. When you need to get somewhere by cycle, ‘board, or car then MLK Jr., Sandy, 20th Ave, et al are the routes we are legally encouraged to use and rightly should utilize.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob April 20, 2009 at 11:25 pm

    I’ve never heard anything suggesting that Idaho’s law constituting exemption of bikes from ‘stop means stop’ pertaining to stop signs was in Bjorn’s words, “…highly successful…”. If, as some claim, there haven’t been reports of injury or death associated with Idaho’s Idaho Stop law, the law is ‘highly successful’?

    If Idaho residents haven’t complained about their bikes exempt stop law, does that make it ‘highly successful’? Did the law produce any kind of increase in the number of people choosing to ride bikes in Idaho? If the law resulted in no significant change one way or the other in the number of people riding bikes in Idaho, does that make the law ‘highly successful’?

    Realistically, without any solid information about the impact of the Idaho Stop law on day to day life in Idaho on people in that state, what might be possible to say about the law, is that it hasn’t been a problem(maybe for some people, this meets the requirements of ‘highly successful’). Even that seems like a stretch given that there’s been very little comment from Idahoans about how this law has been received by residents of that state.

    The proposed law was tanked after being approved by the house in 2005. This time, it was tanked in committee before even making its way to the house. Aren’t those backward steps? What percent of Oregonians really support the bike exempting Idaho Stop law? That seems like a very good question to ask before spending a whole lot more time trying again to get this law passed in Oregon.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower April 20, 2009 at 11:36 pm

    Bjorn #33

    I recently listened to an interview with a New Mexico legislator who after more than a decade of trying succeeded in banning the death penalty in her state. She talked about how every year she had a little more evidence and convinced a few more people until this year when they finally won. I found it very inspiring and look forward at the end of the legislative session to helping to package up everything we learned and documented for two years from now.

    Thanks for all the hard work, Bjorn!

    That is a pretty inspiring story, and I agree that there’s a lot to be learned from this last effort.

    Just in the tiny bit of time I was working on this, I was struck at how often this seemingly common-sense idea (people are already doing it! Safely!), with proven success (Idaho has been doing it for 27 years! Safely!) bumped up against a wall of some really irrational bias.

    I could elaborate, but basically when I went to Ray Thomas’ legal clinic down at the BTA, a story he told rang true. He said every time he goes into a jury trial involving a bike rider he has to say to the jury basically: look, I know you all have a story about that bike rider that cut you off, scared you, and made you really mad. So let’s just talk about that story up-front so that we’re not talking about it later during the trial.

    It would have been nice if we could have got to a similar point with this attempt.

    A bike is a spectacular means of transportation, and that its effectiveness and progress as such can be stymied by some really disproportionate anger is… Well, it’s just something we have to work around.

    And not necessarily through bike riders all trying to be less offensive to all those delicate sensibilities out there, either. Sure, it would be nice if we could all be nicer on the road, but badly behaving bikers are hardly the whole of the problem.

    I think there’s some deep-rooted stuff having to do with our vehicles feeling like extensions of ourselves, and roads feeling like territory on some primal, lizard-brain level that feeds into some truely damaging rage. All that psychology is worth mucking around in, and I hope to do some of that mucking in the future. 🙂

    I’m really glad the video did some good, and again, I was tremendously gratified by the response it got here on this site. I’m only sorry I didn’t get going on it sooner. Still, it was exciting to get something out there, and show people what can be done with this medium. I think it’s safe to say it generated a few ideas for other videos. Now I just have to figure out how to gear up for faster, and perhaps more elaborate productions.

    BTW, if you ever want to get some eyes on something, apparently even the bottom of a post on Daily Kos does the trick. The views slowed to a trickle, but then: bam! Biggest day yet, just this afternoon.

    (I just typed that “BTW” as “BTA”. I wonder if that’s a common side effect of working with the BTA.)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bjorn April 20, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    #35 Highly successful was how the law was described to me by IDOT bike/ped leader Mark McNeese. Similar words were used by an Idaho State Trooper talking about the law. I know you don’t necessarily support the law in Oregon wsbob, but I have spoken to a lot of leaders in Idaho about this law and I don’t think it is controversial to say it is successful there. Some may disagree on the point that success in Idaho will equate to success in Oregon, but it has worked there for nearly 3 decades.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • waybigdog April 21, 2009 at 3:07 am

    Way to go Oregon, scaredy cat politics and whining inbred backward ass close minded genetic mishaps strike again.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] No “Idaho Stop” in Oregon Bike Portland […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim Lee April 21, 2009 at 8:09 am

    As I was saying about paranoia…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BicycleMike April 21, 2009 at 9:01 am

    It is a “special right” but who cares? (I guess some) Everybody is soooo concerned that someone else might get or have something better. In my state pedestrians have the “special right” that they always have the right of way but nobody is saying anything about that. such a shallow response that the people are concerned that it gives bicyclist a special right.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob April 21, 2009 at 9:29 am

    Bjorn, the question I had in mind was whether Idaho’s Idaho Stop law was as you said, “highly successful”, not whether or not the law was controversial. The law proposal here in Oregon was clearly controversial.

    You respond by offering the claim of one Idaho citizen, a bike advocate working with IDOT, that the law is highly successful, but nothing to suggest he has said or even knows anything tangible to support his claim that the law is highly successful in Idaho.

    I remember your comment in another thread sometime back with the reference to IDOT bike/ped leader Mark McNeese; an article he wrote or some such thing (which I believe I read. He didn’t offer anything there either to suggest whether the law was successful or not…but of course, he likes the law… .).

    If it’s so, show us something that truly establishes that Idaho’s bike exemption from ‘stop means stop’ law, the Idaho Stop is ‘highly successful’ before imagining that people with doubts about such a claim will be persuaded that the Idaho Stop law is a good thing for Oregon.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ignatz April 21, 2009 at 9:37 am

    Are the police exempt from pressure regarding enforcement prioritization? Why? They are enforcing laws that our elected representatives created. How do we convince them to pay attention to more dangerous violations? (e.g. the fool in the blue pathfinder that ran the stop at 16th/Salmon last thursday who nearly clobbered me because he was too busy talking on the phone to responsibly drive his CO2 machine and obey traffic signals.)
    When I talk to police, they always seem to bring up their concern for encouraging “the flow of traffic”. By enforcing non-theatening violations like bike yields, they are impeding the flow of traffic. Seems like an insincere concern.

    So if we each look critically at the stop signs along our daily routes and make suggestions to the following people for sign removal/replacement, maybe we don’t need this legislation and the BTA and the police and others can get on with all the other work there is to do:

    Transportation Safety & Neighborhood Livability Hot Line

    Oregon Traffic Roadway
    Phone: 503-986-3568
    Fax: 503-986-4063

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • sabernar April 21, 2009 at 9:45 am


    Now, if you wanted to change out street signs so that certain signs were Yield for bikes, I would be fine with that. But declaring that Stop signs now have different meanings for different modes of transportation? That’s just assinine.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Zaphod April 21, 2009 at 9:53 am

    All of this politicization of the Idaho law has changed my riding. I’ve personally adopted the rule knowing the (legal) risks I take. As I see it, I ride simultaneously thinking about safety and respect for all road users. There is no safer way to ride than the way I ride. I’ll choose safety over the law every time.

    A complete stop (when not necessary) is unexpected and starting from absolute zero increases exposure.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Tay April 21, 2009 at 10:28 am

    Meanwhile, Oklahoma HB1795, allowing bikes to roll reds, is still ALIVE, suckaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • fredlf April 21, 2009 at 10:43 am

    wsbob, here’s what Joe Rose said in the O on April 6 re: the success of the Idaho law:

    “In fact, according to new research from the University of California’s School of Public Health in Berkeley, the [Idaho] law has made roadways safer, while getting more people to commute by bike.

    But the year after the Idaho Stop became law, bicycle injuries in the state actually declined by 14.5 percent.”

    And here’s the link:


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • M Twain April 21, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    A decline in bicycle injuries may or may not have been due to the enactment of the law.

    Are these numbers based on accidents at intersections only, where the law applies or across the board?

    This reduction could be based on increased helmet use, or maybe the weather that year was horrible and fewer people were riding fewer miles.

    Without context this number is meaningless.

    There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • KruckyBoy April 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    A complete stop (when not necessary) is unexpected

    Only a Portland cyclist would consider a complete stop at a stop sign as ‘unexpected’. As for exposure, it seems to me that all the cyclists that consistently move in front of other cars or cyclists with the right of way are as exposed as possible.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Evan Manvel April 21, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    As I’ve said a few places, people need their own experience. Nothing the BTA did (and they did great research and testimony) can change that.

    The most telling point of the debate was Rep. Nick Kahl (D-Awesome) who said at the hearing more or less “I was opposed to this bill last week. Over the weekend I went to Bike N’ Hike to test ride a bike. And as I rode through the neighborhood, I was amazed at how many stop signs there are and how difficult it would be to completely stop at each one.” (he continued and told another great story)

    Legislators need to take the time to try it out. Hopefully during the interim we can get legislators all on bikes riding through over-stop-signed neighborhoods and have them discover for themselves what this bill is about.

    Without that, they’re stuck relying on misperceptions, angry constituents, and soforth. Personal experience is the way to go, and hopefully we can get there.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Evan Manvel April 21, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    And of course, Rep. Kahl concluded his story by saying, “Now I fully support this bill.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Michael M. April 21, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    Interesting that the Portland Mercury is reporting that one reason for the failure to move this legislation might have been the nasty comments many legislators got from cyclists about the proposed bicycle registration bill.

    Quote from Scott Bricker:

    “When you start getting real personal—making nasty comments or using foul language, that really starts to irk the legislators.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • fredlf April 21, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    MTwain @ #49. All I know is what Rose cites in his article. I am willing to trust that Cal Berkeley’s School of Public Health is familiar with statistics and knows how to conduct an effective and accurate study. Feel free to look the study up yourself.

    The bigger leap of faith is that the O got the story right, but Rose generally seems to have it together.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • M Twain April 21, 2009 at 2:21 pm


    The study can be effective as all get out in determining that yes the number of injuries was lower after the law was enacted.

    But that it does not point to is the law being the cause of the drop in numbers.

    I provided two possible reasons for the drop which are just as likely the cause.

    Unless you can point to the study and that the context is related to incidents at stop sign controlled intersection, I will stand by my statement that the study is meaningless until the context is provided.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ray thomas
    ray thomas April 21, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    I’m sorry we failed to get the votes on Idaho style. It is true we waited on our public/press work on the bill until right before it was introduced. This was a strategy to keep the bill below the radar in order to avoid advance criticism from anti-forces. However, it kept us from getting the widespread support we needed in this year of financial meltdown. The materials we have collected are excellent and we are sharing them with other states so that our work is available for others. THanks to all in the bicycling community who supported us. I hope we can bring the bill back again next session and reinvigorate the bicycling community support of the issue AND pave the way with press and other potential supporters so that we have the votes necessary to get through the House. We were told the Senate would pass the bill if we could just get 31 votes on the House side. We tried but it just wasn’t there this time.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark April 21, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    It’s called a California ROLL, because you don’t come to a complete stop.

    As soon as the media hysteria about it started I knew it was doomed to failure. I really wish people could think for themselves instead of looking around to see what everyone else thinks.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Q`ztal April 21, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    The ironic bit will be when Spencer’s video, which apparently has received nation wide visibility, helps this pass in all 49 other state before we get it here.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • UncleMuscles April 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    I hate to denigrate all the effort that went into this, but it just isn’t worth getting upset over. Stop your bike, follow the rules of the road and get over it. Or don’t… and realize that you may receive a ticket for your behavior. We always complain about drivers being in such a hurry. Maybe we need to slow down too. The vehicular homicide bill is of much greater import than this. And yeah, I have no problem lumping this bill in with the bird seed issue in terms of frivolity. Pick and choose your battles people… this one is stupid.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower April 21, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    UncleMuscles #59, you actually kinda had me until: “stupid.”

    I think rolling stops make sense and are safe, and that it would be *nice* if the law wasn’t working against things that make sense and are safe. In this case, it might have even encouraged more people to ride, but at the very least it would have decriminalized good behavior, and made the law more fair. Because unfair laws weaken the law.

    But you’re right, this isn’t huge, and it isn’t the end of the world.

    Also, it’s not the first time law and common sense have parted ways.

    So I’ll keep riding the way I do, with safety and respect for others foremost on my mind, and if the cops catch me doing it, they’re going to give me a $242 ticket. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, if we could have made it make more sense, that would have been awesome, but I don’t think the attempt to do so was at all stupid.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Lascurettes April 21, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    So in 2010, if the BTA sparks up the Idaho law again, please lead with Spencer Boomhower’s excellent infographic video.

    Don’t give media outlets the chance to start off with the wrong info. Key in on the point that blasting through a stop will mean a higher penalty after passage.

    It would be an extra coup if somehow the media were able to let themselves think that the proposal in 2010 is somehow different and improved from that solicited in 2009. 🙂

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dj Hurricane April 21, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    Scott Bricker should stop blaming anonymous blog posts for Legislators’ reactions to a bill accompanied by what was, by all objective accounts, a TERRIBLE lobbying and PR job by BTA. Now that you’re in charge it’s time to accept some responsibility for BTA’s failures, Scott.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bjorn April 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm

    #43, I think that the opinion of a Senior Transportation Planner, who is a longtime employee of the Idaho Department of Transportation and whose career has focused on bike/ped improvements carries a lot of weight on this issue. Many other people also share his view though, including the Republican Senator from Idaho who recently sponsored the extension to the law. She thought Idaho Style was so successful that she pushed through an addition that allows cyclists to proceed against a red stoplight when there is no other traffic around after they come to a complete stop. Oh and the idea for that change actually originated with the Idaho State Police, who wanted to add clarity to a law that was functioning well.

    We also however have letters of support from Terry Little Traffic Services Manager for the Ada County Highway District, and Bob Egan, an Ada County Sheriff. Support for this law in Idaho is far from partisan, and is not in any way limited to people who ride bikes.

    In addition a research paper which has not been published yet but I believe is in the process of peer review from the Berkeley School of Health will also show that Idaho Style stops play a positive role in Idaho transportation.


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bjorn April 21, 2009 at 8:50 pm


    I spent the day last Thursday talking Idaho Style with lots of House staff and several House members. I’ve also been down there wandering the halls on a couple of other occasions in the last month. I am sure that some of the people who mentioned it might not have supported the bill anyway, and some who were upset might support bicycle bills even after some of those comments. I can say one thing for sure though and that is that I heard on more than one occasion, and sometimes in rather graphic detail about those comments.

    Anyone who sent a comment that consisted of a personal attack to any elected official did more damage to our cause than help!

    That said I don’t view it as the main reason why some of our bills are not making it through, the biggest hurdle this year is money. If it costs more to the state with a new law than without it is a very tough sell. Additionally many in the House and Senate think that the legislature should be focused only on budget matters making other issues harder to be heard on.


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob April 21, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    Fred #48, thanks for posting that. I haven’t been reading Rose.

    “Okay?” fredlf

    I’ll say…’maybe’. Before taking it at face value, I think it would be important to look at the study.

    Rose’s article still only quotes two Idahoans about the states law. This one:

    “Carl Bianchi, a retired administrative director of Idaho’s state courts who is widely considered the father of the Idaho Stop, said it was traffic judges — not cyclists — who pushed for the idea in 1982.

    Police were ticketing bike riders for failing to come to a complete, foot-down stop. Judges, however, saw “technical violations” clogging up their courts. ”

    If the inclination of cops in Idaho to cite people on bikes for failing to put a foot down when stopping at stop signs was so common that it was clogging up traffic courts, attention to such a problem was probably needed. Whether the state actually had to put together the exemption of bikes from ‘stop means stop’ law to solve such a problem is questionable.

    Following this line of thought, the logical question regarding Oregon and possible implementation of the Idaho Stop law in this state, is, are cops in Oregon clogging up traffic courts with citations issued to people on bikes for not fully stopping?(coming to a dead stop, because here, it seems people on bikes don’t technically have to put their foot down at a stop).

    I haven’t heard this to be so. What are the thoughts of Oregon traffic court judges on this? There are of course, the periodic enforcement details such as the one at S.E. 34th and Clinton recently, and the bike route through Ladd’s Addition on occasion that seem to produce a number of citations for not stopping, but are these placing an undue burden on traffic courts?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob April 21, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    Bjorn #63,

    “…allows cyclists to proceed against a red stoplight when there is no other traffic around after they come to a complete stop.” Bjorn

    This is fine. They’ve come to a complete stop, there’s no other traffic around; no problem to roll on through.

    “Terry Little Traffic Services Manager for the Ada County Highway District, and Bob Egan, an Ada County Sheriff.” Bjorn

    Can’t remember hearing about these guys or anything they said. If they were reported on earlier, maybe I missed it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buzz April 22, 2009 at 11:17 am

    I have been so busy riding in this nice weather the past two days, I did not even hear of this until now.

    The more I think about it, I don’t think it stood much of a chance. The 12% unemployment rate (the reason I was able to get out and ride…) is what is on the table this session. The news reporting on it, and people in general who do not ride bikes. I have several friends that claim to be so ultra-liberal, but when the topics of bikes come up, it is met with anger in their faces. Basically, one cyclist cut them off once, and of course it is easy to profile.

    So, while we wait another two years for a chance at this happening, I will take it upon myself to try increase education around bicycles.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • MikeOnBike April 22, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    Two years! I didn’t realize that the Oregon legislature only met every two years.

    How do they get anything done? Our state, Idaho, and every other one that I’m familiar with meets every year.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • DJ Hurricane April 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    The answer, of course, is that they don’t get much done. Unfortunately, I don’t think meeting more frequently would change that, at least not in any way that would benefit the State. Nevertheless, they will soon go to full annual sessions.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous April 23, 2009 at 7:53 am


    The less they meet the less damage they can do. Most sessions can’t get the budget done on time let alone pass any laws.

    That’s why everything in this state is a ballot measure to amend the constitution.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] photo: Dear KnuckleheadThe Oregon Legislature has flushed an effort to bring the Idaho rolling stop law to that state. It’s a bit of a surprise, given both the simple […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rolling Stops for Bicycles | April 30, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    […] Unfortunately the effort was for naught. The bill died in the Oregon House. […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] hate to say it folks, but the Idaho Stop Law didn’t pass last session.  It didn’t even get out of committee. As a result cyclists still cannot legally roll through stop signs, nor can they treat red lights as […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] do other people think about the stop sign/rolling stop issue? We know Oregon considered a similar law but I don’t think it is being actively pursued now. Do you know of anywhere […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0