Rules of the road

The rules of the road exist for a reason: to ensure that all the people using the road are doing so as safely as possible.

These rules apply not only to cars but to motorcycles and bikes as well. In fact, the only reason that cyclists are allowed to share the road with cars is because they agree to follow the same rules of the road that drivers follow.

A new bill going through the Oregon Legislature would allow cyclists to flout one of the very rules that is designed to protect them. House Bill 2690, more commonly known as the “Idaho Stop” bill, would allow cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign if it is safe to do so. This bill sends the wrong message to both drivers and cyclists.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Though riding a bike may be more of a right than a privilege, sharing the road with drivers is not. A number of cyclists do not seem to understand that traffic laws are made to protect them, because sharing the road with objects weighing probably 10 times more than them, and going much faster, is inherently dangerous. 

Leaving the safety of cyclists up to individual discretion is not only unfair but also dangerous. The ambiguity of “if it is safe to do so” leaves too much room for interpretation. It is not difficult to imagine instances where a car would be forced to stop unsafely so that a cyclist could run a stop sign, which is essentially what is being discussed.

Why is it suddenly unfair to ask cyclists to obey the same laws that everyone else does? Some cyclists seem to have developed a certain sense of entitlement and, dare I say, smugness. This law would certainly not help matters, nor would it help create positive relations between drivers and cyclists.

Many proponents of this law, including chief lobbyist for the Bicycle Transportation Alliance Karl Rohde, say that this law makes sense because everyone already does it, so it might as well be legal. With an argument that like, it comes as little surprise that Rohde was recently fired from the BTA. This type of argument usually doesn't go very far before falling apart, and a better one has not yet been given.

Cars often roll past stop signs in suburban areas with little traffic and even in busy streets. Be that as it may, I would bet that a similar law for cars would be thrown out immediately. But “everyone” does it, don't they?

What other concessions shall we make for cyclists that sacrifice their safety for the sake of convenience? An Idaho Stop bill for red lights? Or perhaps motorcycles should be allowed to do rolling stops as well. A calculator would be needed to add up all the times I have seen a cyclist run a red light, so I guess everyone is doing it. According to Rohde's logic, I suppose it makes sense to legalize it then.

Like it or not, using and sharing the road means that one must obey the rules of road. Whether on a motorcycle, moped, scooter or a skateboard the laws are the same and should be followed. It is actually more important for those who are not encased in steel with airbags in front of them to follow the rules, because they are in more danger of being injured.

The proposed law is not only unfair, it is ultimately unsafe and could set a dangerous precedent for future laws of this sort. Portland has a great number of avid cyclists, surely more than most, if not all, of the cities in Idaho where this is already legal. Allowing cyclists to legally flout well-established rules endangers everyone on the road.
 

2 comments

Alexis

Thu Apr 23 2009 01:31

I just find it annoying how many cyclists use the ambiguity of riding a bike to their advantage. Sometimes they act like cars, sometimes they're pedestrians. Man, it sure would be nice if my car could hop up on the sidewalk or take the right of way as if I were a pedestrians. Cyclists need to figure out if they're "vehicles" or "pedestrians" and obey the laws that govern whichever hat they've stuck on for the day - you can't choose on the road. It's dangerous!

Opus the Poet

Tue Apr 14 2009 21:23

The bill in question has had 27 years of testing in Idaho with no difference in fatality rates for cyclists except for a slight decrease. Of course facts are not feelings, and most of the dialog against this bill has been based on feelings and not facts. The most dangerous time and place to be riding a bicycle is in an intersection, and the Stop as yield law would greatly reduce the exposure of cyclists to this dangerous place. But by all means don't let a silly thing like 27 years of facts dissuade you from your rant against cyclists doing the smart thing. BTW most stop signs are not in place because the intersection is particularly dangerous, most are there to make cars slow down to safe speeds. If people would drive the speed limit or less, instead of feeling like they had to drive 10 over on every street, road or goat path then maybe this bill would be moot, because the only stop signs would be the ones that were there because the intersection was dangerous and were needed to stop drivers from speeding through an intersection.

BTW I sometimes count the number of cars that actually stop, as in ceasing all forward motion, at an intersection next to a bus stop I use, and on a good day maybe 10% of the cars will stop. On the worst day less than 4% of the cars stopped on their own accord without another vehicle blocking the way. Of the bicycles I saw 50% stopped without something blocking their way, but for that other 50% there was another vehicle in the intersection so I don't know if they would have stopped or not on their own. But the rate of obeying the stop sign was orders of magnitude higher for bicycle riders, so again, where is your argument?

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out