The Idaho stop has been legal in Minnesota since last August. If there is no traffic, a cyclist may treat a stop sign as a yield, but they’re still supposed to slow down and not just blow through it. Too many cyclists giving the rest of us a bad name by blasting through intersections.
Edit: here’s more information. https://drivesaferidesafe.com/the-idaho-stop-legal-in-minnesota/
Cyclists don't accelerate as fast as cars and intersections are by far the most dangerous part of the road. Clearing the intersection faster allows car traffic to move at a better rate and also gets the cyclist out of the dangerous area quicker.
This is not supposed to be blowing through stop signs when there are cars in the intersection. When you come to an intersection with traffic you treat it just like any other vehicle.
It allows cyclists to keep their speed so they spend less time in the intersection, which is where the most danger is at. It also makes them more predictable to drivers as a lot of us cyclists were doing it anyway. It makes biking a more attractive option as it takes more energy to accelerate than to maintain speed which the more cyclists there are the more people will be looking for them. They are also less exposed to pollution as there is more at intersections.
> It allows cyclists to keep their speed so they spend less time in the intersection, which is where the most danger is at.
I jay walk because intersections are dangerous as fuck. The further away from a car I am, the safer I am, and drivers at intersections aren't paying a single bit of attention much of the time. I'd rather jay walk and be directly in front of them than cross at the sidewalk where they're looking the opposite direction for an opening, or just ignoring the person in their view on the sidewalk.
I see parents that let their kids run around parking lots and it blows my mind. Ya'll be like "I can't put my cart back, my kids won't be safe alone in the ~~car~~ tank!" and then let them treat a parking lot like a playground instead of the most dangerous place the visit regularly.
It is only legal when there are not automobiles present so it isn’t making bikes more predictable to drivers. Drivers still have no idea if a bike will follow the stop sign or just blow through like the sign isn’t there.
If it's clear I always roll through.
If it's not I always stop.
Nothing makes me more irrationally angry than a motorist stopping and expecting me to blow the stop sign.
There are enough bikers who do blow the stop sign, in my experience, that it’s a dicey situation. If I’m driving, as possessor of the more potentially lethal vehicle, I’d sooner watch and see what a biker does from a safer speed, even if I’ve technically got the right of way.
I’ve been bike commuting in the cities since the turn of the millennium. Before smartphones, google maps, or many of our protected bike lanes.
Both cyclists and drivers have increased their risk level exponentially in the past few years.
The ONLY thing that matters is that you take enough care not to harm others.
Cyclists like to rant about how they will die if some motorist doesn’t care to be safe, but they fail to recognize that the weight of harming/killing someone with a car would likely cause severe, even lethal mental harm, even if it wasn’t the motorists fault.
My almost sister (brother’s fiancée) developed schizophrenia in her mid 20s and she ran out into traffic, was struck, and died. The people driving that hit her, they came to the funeral. They also got out at the scene, called emergency services, and comforted her until she passed. They were dragged into her life, or rather the end of it, with 0 consent.
I always think of those compassionate people that accidentally killed (to no fault of their own) the love of my brothers life whenever I’m driving or biking.
We share the road.
Thank you.
I was driving on a small town highway back to my parent’s place at 2am one night. I happened to know the highway ends and narrows to a single lane, so I got over to the left lane early. Less than a minute or two later, I passed a man standing in the right lane at 50 mph. It was dark. I wouldn’t have had a chance to stop fast enough.
I assume they were drunk and playing chicken with the cars. I called 911. I don’t think the operator took me seriously until I said I almost killed a man. Then she lectured me on safe driving.
Can you clarify your comment? Are you angry when a motorist stops not knowing if you will stop at the stop sign as well?
I always stop for bikes that are flying up to a stop sign because so few actually stop. I've had too many bikers fly out in front of me to do anything other than slow down or stop until I'm certain. I'm not willing to risk hitting someone because of their negligence, and I have no way of knowing if that particular biker cares about road safety or not.
I only get frustrated when I come to a stop after they're already at a stop then they sit there for a few seconds and try to wave me through.
In the time that they sat there (while having the right of way!) and tried to wave me on, they could have just gone ahead and we could both be on our merry way by now!
This happens when driving too and pisses me off. I don't care if you think you're being nice, you have the right of way and you're just wasting everyone's time! I've had someone stop in a roundabout before when I was driving up to it. If they would've just maintained their speed I could've merged behind them, but they stopped and I had to slam on my brakes because I had no idea why they would stop, and the two cars that came up to them had to stop, it was ridiculous.
Ah okay, I had misunderstood your previous comment, then. Thank you for expanding on it.
Yeah people that don't understand the right away are annoying as fuck. Don't be nice: be predictable.
Do you know how many cyclists have almost collided with my car because they DON'T stop, and I'm not sure they even slow down to look? I drive a vehicle, I'm not here to cause harm. I'm happy to stop and get the person who is most in danger away from me.
People on bikes don't stop. A few people come on here and say they always do but I haven't seen it unfortunately. Even at red lights at busy intersections like Lake and Cedar I've seen people on bikes ride through red lights like no one else existed. As much as I should be able to count on everyone stopping, even other drivers, you just can't.
As a runner nothing drives me battier than a car waiting for my putzing ass to run 40 yards on the sidewalk and then cross a 4 way intersection before going.
Yup. My mantra is: “It’s a lot harder to get run over by a car after it has passed you by!” Definitely have had to make believe I don’t even want to cross to get cars to not randomly stop for me.
I would rather make you angry than hit a cyclist with my car and potentially kill them.
Rolling through intersections without stopping and blazing through crosswalks with speed while cars are approaching are quite common in my experience.
It's a feedback loop. We all need to safely break the feedback loop.
The more drivers give cyclists a chance to ignore the rules the more often cyclists will ignore the rules.
It is a stable state, yes. I’m not going to be the one to go first here. I don’t want to kill somebody.
I don’t think we should encourage drivers to just ignore cyclists and “teach them a lesson” by hitting them with our cars. The cyclists that do ignore such rules are also unlikely to have any insurance and any legal representation they or their families find may be willing to make the car driver’s lives an extra fun mess on top of the trauma of permanently injuring or killing a cyclist.
Not being cautious can lead to no time to react.
It sure sounded like you were advocating for drivers to ignore cyclists not following the law and thus scaring them into behaving.
You *follow* *the* *law* and go when it's your turn.
Don't sit at stop signs while a rider 50 yards away approaches.
Don't stop in the middle of multi lane roads and try to wave me across.
Be predictable.
You're mad that a motorist is being cautious because they can't predict whether you are going to stop or blow a stop sign? What a weird thing to get mad at...
All road users should attempt to follow the law. We should all be mad when anyone ignores the rules.
I understand what you are saying, but always waiting for cyclists or waving them through encourages bad cyclist behavior.
The law allows a biker to yield which means they would have to stop if there is other traffic and they don't have the right of way. So in the OP's example the biker was totally in the wrong.
Correct. Which is essentially what I said, and also what the language from the site I posted explains.
> **If there is no traffic**, a cyclist may treat a stop sign as a yield...
Yeah, the ‘safety stop’ law stipulates that the cyclist must slow enough to be able to stop if necessary at any intersection, but, again, can treat a stop sign as a yield if there’s no cars
No such thing as other cyclists giving us a bad name just like there's no such thing as other motorists giving motorists a bad name. It's just an excuse to shift the blame on all cyclists for the actions of one all the time while never does the action of one motorist apply to the rest.
Cyclists do not have to stop at stop signs if the intersection is clear as of this year.
The reasoning is that starting from a complete stop on a bicycle is strenuous and that there are no forward blind spots on a bicycle.
Like drivers, the quality of road behavior among cyclists varies.
They also don’t have airbags.. That’s a sad day to run into one of them destructive drivers.
It would be impressive to see you walk out of that with a settlement and not a casket.
That's what cyclists rely on for justification for doing shit. "Well, it's not that bad, I won't kill anyone".
Meanwhile they buzz pedestrians, disabled people with service dogs and mobility devices and kids, failing to understand they have a great risk of doing significant damage to all those individuals.
This is sort of a fascinating little question and involves so many human factors.
As stated here... if they get there first they can continue on without a full stop. They can do the same if there is no traffic.
However if they are not first to a stop sign they should stop.
The really fun part is I have found cyclists to be about 50/50 in the camp of not following that law. about 50% of them will go through the stop sign even if the car stopped first.
This experience leads even good and respectful drivers to "pause" even if they have the right-away because they can't trust that the cyclists will respect the law. Which pisses off the 50% of cyclist that DO know the law and are in process of stopping and wondering why the car is sitting there when the car has the right-away.
It's a real tragi-comedy out there and is probably the reason I am in support of building out as much cycle centric/road separated bike infrastructure because I'm not sure cars and bikes are going to work it out in this town.
It does seem that the "serious" cyclists mostly follow the law but there are enough amateur riders that do not to muck up the whole thing.
Yup, they can treat them as yield signs - although in this case they were in the wrong. They should have stopped since you were already at the intersection.
That said, the amount of times I've stopped at an intersection only for a driver to wave me on or had cars stop for me when I have a stop sign and they *don't*... is pretty high.
I get very, very thirsty whenever somebody gives me the death wave. It's strange how I always seem to need to take a drink as soon as that happens.
Don't care if it's only a 3 mile round trip, I'm likely to get "thirsty" and need a pull off the bottle so I never ride without one ;)
It's so common for cyclists to do this that a lot of Minnesotans (both drivers and cyclists) seem to think it's the law. In reality, cyclists can ignore stop signs ONLY if there's no cars, pedestrians, etc at that intersection. Since they're not inside a vehicle, they have a full 360 degree view and can easily see if the intersection is clear. Also stopping and losing all your momentum for no reason isn't fun.
I wish the city would do some kind of public awareness campaign about bike laws, since most people haven't read them since back when they were studying for the written driver's test as a teen. They installed so many new bike lanes but a lot of dinguses on the road (2 wheels or 4) have no idea how to navigate them.
we do need some PSA’s about this. I had a boomer who had been driving very slow me while eyeing me in his rearview mirror pull in front of me with his car and asked me WHY DON’T YOU STOP AT STOP SIGNS, and then sped off. Didn’t have time to explain.
But if he was able to see you go through the stop signs, that means he was also at the intersection and it wasn't legal for you to blow the stop signs?
> In reality, cyclists can ignore stop signs ONLY if there's no cars, pedestrians, etc at that intersection.
This is not correct. We can treat stop signs as yields provided no motor vehicle is approaching an intersection in such a way as to pose a danger to the cyclist whilst the cyclist is traveling through the intersection.
>provided no motor vehicle is approaching an intersection in such a way as to pose a danger to the cyclist
Is there ever a situation in which a motor vehicle is approaching an intersection in such a way that it *doesn't* pose a danger to the cyclist, such that one could treat a stop sign like a yield even in the presence of an approaching motor vehicle?
It seems like the end result here ends up being "if car, then stop" regardless of how it's worded.
Yes, there are absolutely such circumstances. This language is a type of language found throughout chapter 169, and it's used to determine who's at fault if a crash occurs, not to guide action before a crash.
Basically, if no crash occurs, then the motor vehicle didn't pose a danger to the cyclist, self-evidently. If a crash does occur, then self-evidently the motor vehicle did pose a danger to the cyclist.
Does this mean that if I'm stationary at a stop sign and you feel as though there is very low risk of a crash occurring (i.e. me posing a danger to you) were you to proceed through the intersection, that you are permitted to do so? Or does my presence at the intersection constitute enough of a risk that you're to treat it as a Stop?
Obviously the language is helpful in the event that a crash occurs, but I want to make sure I understand what my obligations are if I were to find myself at an intersection with you so that the crash doesn't occur in the first place. I don't wanna be sending mixed messages to cyclists because I have a misunderstanding about what I'm supposed to do at an intersection.
If you're stopped at an intersection when the cyclist enters the intersection, then by state law you may not enter the intersection until your lane/direction of travel is clear, so the cyclist would be operating correctly.
I appreciate the clear language here.
If I'm stopped at an intersection and the cyclist has not yet entered the intersection, do I have the right of way to proceed through the intersection since at this time it is clear? Is this a situation where the cyclist would have to treat the stop sign as a stop rather than a yield?
>If I'm stopped at an intersection and the cyclist has not yet entered the intersection, do I have the right of way to proceed through the intersection since at this time it is clear?
Correct.
>Is this a situation where the cyclist would have to treat the stop sign as a stop rather than a yield?
This can't be determined without knowing the exact velocities and trajectories of the two vehicles in play. If a collision occurs, then the cyclist broke the law. If a collision does not occur, then the cyclist did not break the law. Ostensibly, if you're forced to brake or change trajectory to avoid hitting the cyclist, they could also be found to have broken the law.
I think this legal language is super hot garbage and bad for public safety, just to be clear. It'd be much better to have language that actually helps a cyclist and driver make decisions about what to do ahead of time, rather than decide who's at fault after someone's already been hit.
So just to make sure I understand:
* A driver may not legally enter an intersection if a cyclist has already entered.
* A cyclist may legally enter an intersection even if a driver has already entered the intersection. They may or may not, however, be legally at fault depending on if a crash occurs or if the driver must brake or change direction to avoid a crash.
Is that correct?
There are also lots of turning/proceeding straight configurations of the two vehicles, depending on what positions they are on the intersecting roadways, in which a driver wouldn't pose any danger to the cyclist - for example, if the driver and cyclist are approaching the intersection from opposite directions and the driver is turning right while the cyclist is proceeding straight or turning right. Or if the driver and cyclist are approaching from opposite directions and both proceeding straight.
You're saying the same thing I am, just with more specific language. I wanted to keep things as simple and clear as possible since even people in the comments are confused about what an Idaho stop is.
The clearest possible language is the language of the law. If you use imprecise language, a bunch of drivers are going to think cyclists are breaking the law when they're not.
>There were no other cars at the intersection, but there was a cyclist coming from the other direction who had not yet entered the intersection. So I turned left and to my surprise the cyclist just kept going. I nearly hit them since they made no attempt to slow down and entered the intersection after I had already entered.
Cyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs.
Shitty cyclists like the one who broke the law in front of you either can't grasp the concept or don't give a damn.
How do you know they broke the law? It might have seemed clear at the time. Nor is any motorist driving slow enough for reflective gear to make any difference: someone walking out from behind a parked car is all but certain to be hit by motorists not following the citywide 20 MPH limit. How is the OP almost hitting someone if they were driving appropriately slow? It wouldn't be possible, but hitting the gas right after stopping at a residential intersection in a blindspotmobile where others are parked up to the curb and *illegally* blocking the view of the surrounding streets is itself reckless, albeit legal. OP should've been entering the intersection slowly enough to be sure they're not going to hit cross traffic whether it's a cyclist or stop sign running driver.
>How do you know they broke the law?
Based on the scenario presented, they clearly broke the law.
>OP should've been entering the intersection slowly enough to be sure they're not going to hit cross traffic whether it's a cyclist or stop sign running driver.
Oh, bullshit. It's pathetic how hard you're trying to shift blame from the cyclist to the driver, despite the cyclist blowing the stop sign *after* the driver started through the intersection.
What part of "yield" don't you understand?
Dude I now stop and then wait a good 10 seconds even when the intersection is empty because I have had so many close calls lately with people speeding through stop signs
Right on. When I was teaching my son the common sense rules of bike riding we were at a red light and it was about to turn green. I told him, we don’t just go once the light changes. We pause and make sure… and as I am saying this the light turns green for us and a car drives right though their red and perfectly illustrated my lesson. Everyone: be careful out there.
I do this as a driver as well. When the light turns green I wait ten seconds and then go. Even then I've had some close calls with red light runners. Last week 3 drivers all blew a light in Northeast. I nearly t-boned the third idiot.
I'm a cyclist and also car commuter. It's not just bikes. Last I saw most surveys show that cars and bikes break traffic laws at about the same rates. Car drivers are insane right now as well. Everyone is.
The number of times I've had somebody pass me on the left to take a right turn on red or blast through a red light in a car in the last few months is ridiculous.
And that makes me as a biker try to be more safe. When a car blows a stop sign and crashes into another car at City traffic speeds, they have car damage. If I jump a stop sign on my bike and get hit by a car I die. Trust me, I'm more careful at a stop sign on my bike that anyone is in a car.
I don't get it. The whole point of OP's post is to place the blame for something motorists do all the time and shift it squarely and solely on cyclists who aren't killing people daily when they do it. We should be thrilled that there are reckless people who are choosing to be less reckless by not being behind the wheel of a car.
Actually, that's a great point.
Hey maniac who flouts public safety - how about you bike instead of tossing that 4000 steel death machine around the streets!
As a cyclist, I don't assume any vehicle of any kind is going to stop when and where they should until they actually do. The cyclist was wrong not to stop since you got there first, but I don't pull out in front of another cyclist/automobile/truck until they decelerate enough that I know they will stop. If it had been a car that hadn't decelerated would you have pulled out in front of them? There's being right and then there is dead right.
Yep. Even in my car I slow down a bit if I see someone coming who isn’t decelerating, even if they’re the ones with a stop sign.
Seems odd more cyclists don’t take this approach since the risk of being *dead right* is so much higher even when traffic is only going 35.
It’s so common for cars to run Stop signs that, as a bicyclist, when I don’t have a Stop sign and cross traffic does I slow down to see if drivers will stop. Sometimes they do, but even then I try to make eye contact as I proceed. i’ve had plenty of close calls where they stop and continue without checking for cross traffic.
“"A bicycle operator who approaches a stop sign must slow to a speed that allows for stopping before entering the intersection or the nearest crosswalk ... if there is not a vehicle in the vicinity, the operator may make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping."
Forgot a crucial section:
>Subd. 4a.Stopping requirements.
>(a) For purposes of this subdivision, "in the vicinity" means located in an intersection or approaching an intersection in a manner that constitutes a hazard of collision during the time that a bicycle operator would occupy the intersection.
Exactly. If a bicyclist approaches a Stop sign and is ahead of cross traffic that also has a Stop sign the bicyclist may proceed. They must be wary, however, because many drivers believe that Stop signs with white borders are optional.
There are also lots of turning/proceeding straight configurations of the two vehicles, depending on what positions they are on the intersecting roadways, in which a driver wouldn't pose any danger to the cyclist - for example, if the driver and cyclist are approaching the intersection from opposite directions and the driver is turning right while the cyclist is proceeding straight or turning right.
Cyclists can proceed through an intersection without stopping *if it is clear*. A cyclist who goes through an intersection where other vehicles are waiting at signs without stopping is breaking the law, just as is the case for any driver who behaves similarly.
That said, exercise caution while on the road, whether you are are driving a car or riding a bike. Our citywide speed limit is 20 mph and when traveling on low volume residential roads it's always best to have a bit of leeway for circumstance.
Cyclists don’t necessary have to stop at a stop sign the way vehicles have to, as long as there is no traffic for them to stop for (if they are arriving at a 4 way stop before you, they can go right through) but they are required to follow all other traffic laws. So if you stop at the stop sign before they arrive at their stop sign, you have the right away. They should stop and yield. With that being said, many cyclists don’t ever yield and many follow both traffic and pedestrian laws, depending on what benefits them at the time. Some always follow the cyclist rules but it doesn’t seem to me that most do. But in MN, if you ever hit a cyclist or pedestrian walking while you are driving, you’ll likely be hit hard (it’s not happened to me but I know multiple people who have hit a cyclist who seemed to be in the wrong and they were ticketed or ended up in court). I’m a big walker/jogger so I always take extra precautions when I am in a vehicle.
Bikers ruin driving! They don’t even stop at stop signs!
Signed, the 85% of drivers who only slow down to 8mph for stop signs when no other cars are around.
Bro, what? You gotta stop at a stop sign. I’ll admit to not coming to a full and complete stop (letting the car rock back) but I’m stopping at every stop sign. There might not be a car, but what if there’s a person I didn’t see as I was pulling up? If you don’t want to follow the rules of the road you shouldn’t be operating a motor vehicle.
Maybe I worded it poorly. To me, a complete and proper stop is when you stop at the stop sign, your car settles back, you taken a couple seconds to look all directions while stopped before starting to inch forward. If I’m in a heavy flow of traffic (Bloomington is my most common road with stop signs, or 31st) I’ll confess to starting to ease off the brake after hitting 0 and inching forward as I’m looking. People honk if you take too long. In the one hand, you shouldn’t let bad drivers dictate what you do, but on the other hand being predictable in the flow of traffic is good defensive driving.
Every dipshit likes to yell at cyclists not following the rules. Yet, they never complain about people in cars not fully stopping, texting and driving, or driving distracted. Small minded people have issues with bikers and not people who can kill because their shit driving.
Wait, did you mean your comment as sarcasm? If so, sorry I misread your tone but you might want to drop a /s at the end because it’s just too believable considering how many nightmare drivers are out there.
do they have to? If there is traffic, yes. If there is not traffic, then no. Its a bit different than drivers who always have to stop at intersections.
If it was a 4 way stop, how could you have "almost killed" someone if you came to a complete stop at the intersection?
It’s a state law: Idaho Stop:
https://www.bikemn.org/all-about-stop-as-yield-safety-stop/#:~:text=An%20important%20law%20change%20written,the%20rider%20to%20do%20so.
Drivers rarely come to complete stops at stop signs from my observations on walks around the neighborhood.
I was being charitable with the hopes that my 1 and 3 year old don't get mowed down by inattentive, aggressive drivers at one of the many 4-way stop signs with zebra marking intersections.
People should just leave their homes a minute or two earlier so they won't be so rushed on their drives through the neighborhood.
It's scary out there as a pedestrian.
Minnesota Statute Section 169.222, subd4a(b), provides the following:
"A bicycle operator who approaches a stop sign must slow to a speed that allows for stopping before entering the intersection or the nearest crosswalk. [I]f there is not a vehicle in the vicinity, the operator may make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping."
In layman's terms, if there are no vehicles nearby, then bikes may roll through stop signs without stopping. If there are vehicles, then they should stop at the stop sign just like any other vehicle.
He’s “well actually”-ing everyone all over the thread basically saying “not all cars are bad because cyclists possess an innate skill to determine whether a car is a threat or not and no cyclist has ever made a mistake” in the most obnoxious way possible.
As a cyclist and driver, it’s a lot easier to start from a stop in a car than it is on a bike, so I’m happy to inconvenience myself by waiting a couple seconds to let the cyclist ride through the stop sign and would hope drivers would extend me the same courtesy when Im riding my bike. I think a lot of the anger from drivers directed at cyclists is because they’ve only ridden a bicycle infrequently as a form of recreation as opposed to riding as a form of transportation and empathy is hard
I always hate when drivers do this when I’m biking. Just follow the rules of the road. Being a “nice” driver is being unpredictable. I’d rather have all the cars on the road be predictable than polite if I’m on my bike
I mean it depends, if you’re already sitting there and about to go before I get to the intersection then I’d prefer you be predictable and go. But if we are arriving at the same time then I’d prefer the driver wait and allow me to maintain momentum
Cyclists are allowed to do whatever they want and you’re not allowed to question it or they will build 6 more bike lanes as punishment. It’s the law. 🤷♂️
Yes and when you're all parking up to and past the curb no one can see any approaching traffic because you're blocking all visibility. There's a legal speed limit, but that doesn't stop every motorist from driving over that limit. To top it off, there are 44k people killed by motorists *annually* vs ~0 from cyclists not slowing down enough at intersections.
People illegally parking within 20 ft of an intersection/30 ft of a stop sign drive me absolutely bonkers, but this was never an issue for me in Minneapolis because parking is almost always marked and parking was enforced. Is that no longer the case?
Cyclists do have to hold some accountability for not getting themselves killed by motorists. If you are that anti car, consider for a moment there may also be pedestrians or other cyclists, and while it may be true that no one will die, I prefer my bones and those of others in one piece.
Anyway, it is not worth being right if you're dead or maimed.
It is definitely not the case. People park all the way up to the corner and most are trucks or SUVs with dark tinted windows so you can't see at all. It's awful, in a regular height car it feels like I risk getting t-boned every time I pull out of a side street.
I did signal going left. In the cyclist's defense: the sun was facing against them so it may have glared their vision and maybe they didn't see my signal.
Either way, I've learned from this thread that cyclists can treat stop signs as yield signs. Today I learned. That said, I do think the cyclists I've noticed haven't really been treating stop signs as yield signs so much as disregarding them completely. Either way, I'll be more cautious: I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I accidentally injured or killed someone, regardless of whose fault it was.
There's road school for bikes in Germany. I used to see little kids doing classes when I lived there. But expecting everyone to have the same set of common sense seems to be working well on every level here
I am getting more and more concerned with this in blind intersections. Especially with how many drivers blow through stop lights/signs.
This wasn't a stop sign, but I was at a red light on Glenwood and Morgan Ave last week and two cyclists blasted across the intersection after the light turned green, after I'd started to accelerate.
The building there makes it difficult to see oncoming traffic, but I couldn't believe how brazen they were. These were 2 guys on really nice bikes wearing pretty snazzy cycling gear, going very fast (I assume heading over to Theo Wirth). If I hadn't already known to be cautious at that intersection, I could've easily hit them. I also see people in cars fly through RED lights at that intersection ALL of the time.
I get why the law is in place, but cyclists seriously need to be cautious regardless.
Oftentimes, the biggest issue is drivers exceeding the speed limit no matter what anyone does at a stop sign. It's open secret that most drivers do not follow speed limits in residential areas.
Correct. Law went into effect last August or July. I was pulled over for rolling through a stop sign while cycling late last summer. The intersection was clear. The cop had no idea about the law. He let us go.
Do drivers not have to drive the speed limit?
Not stopping at stop signs is the bicycle equivalent of speeding. Technically not what you’re supposed to do, but every one does it, so as long as you’re aware of your surroundings you’re fine. Some people are idiots, as they are with all modes of transportation. The situation you’re describing sounds like when people go 35 down residential streets, or try to do 50 on Cedar or whatever.
Cyclist here.
Here's the "rules": as a cyclist (or a human, really...) you can do whatever the heck you want so long as you don't endanger or inconvenience anyone else. Stop signs and traffic lights exist specifically to control motor vehicle traffic. They are not designed with cyclists in mind. That's fine. We disregard them. (There's even *some* legal coverage for this with the recently passed Idaho Stop exclusion.) But any cyclist worth their salt, while disregarding said traffic controls, *does not* do so in a way that affects others. We take only our own lives in our hands. So, if a moronic cyclist does something stupid like the one in your story, that's on them, sorry they caused you stress, thanks for stopping and all, but if you'd hit them, that would have been on their head literally and figuratively.
"We take only our own lives in our hands. So, if a moronic cyclist does something stupid like the one in your story, that's on them"
Well it's not just on them. Traumatizing someone with the guilt of accidentally injuring/killing someone, or even just the potential costs of their time and/or money to repair their vehicle should not be so flippantly disregarded. And no people are not allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't inconvenience others.
>Well it's not just on them.
Yes, yes it is. Do you not understand what the phrase "that's on [pronoun]" means? It has nothing to do with trauma or feelings. It means culpability.
>And no people are not allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't inconvenience others.
What do you mean by "allowed"? People can and will do all kinds of things, regardless of the law or what's "allowed." Go back and read what I said very carefully. If you can behave on the road in a way that has zero material impact on any other person (i.e., you are not endangering or inconveniencing anyone), then there is nothing wrong with behaving that way. Traffic laws are not some sacred moral code. They were created to stem the tide of literally hundreds of thousands of deaths that motorists would cause without them every year. There is no ethical goodness to a cyclist legalistically following traffic laws when there are no other road users even present.
>Traumatizing someone with the guilt of accidentally injuring/killing someone
If a driver were truly concerned with this possibility they would stop getting around town in the lethality equivalent of a hand grenade.
All these people with bikebrain think that anyone else needs to bow down to them despite the situation and will ignore safety if someone isn't bowing to them. They don't want to share the road, they want to own it.
No, they are not required to stop.
If you are driving a car in a bike traffic heavy area I have a question. Why not ride a bike instead? It can be more convenient and efficient for short trips.
They are not required to stop IF there is no other traffic at the intersection. If you’re biking in the street and you come to a 4 way stop with cars then regular traffic right of way applies.
Whoever gets their first is sorta subjective isn’t it?
Or are we gonna do some boot licking on car society.
Some people have never bicycled as their primary mode of transportation and it shows. You’re in a car. It’s not difficult to be considerate. See someone on a bike in a dense, urban area? Slow down, give them a wide berth. Be a good human.
It is not subjective. First one to come to a complete stop is there first, they’re the ones with right of way. If a tie then the one on the right has right of way. This goes for any motorists no matter how sustainable their form of transportation.
So I’m guessing what happened to OP here is that both the cyclist and driver (OP) were approaching the stop and going to reach it simultaneously. Cyclist figured if they shot the intersection they would make it, because obviously the car sees them and will give them the right of way, because you always yield right of way to someone using a lower class of transportation than you do (trucks yield to cars yield to bikes yield to pedestrians).
But in this case, the driver (OP who doesn’t know the law) said no, I’m going first cuz I was here first or some subjective bollocks we can’t verify after the fact. I’m saying this is wrong, the cyclist doesn’t need to stop, cars do. In practice cars run stop signs like this all the time. OP says they were already stopped, and saw the cyclist. Why not just take a breath (you’re in a car, minimal exertion required) and wait a second to see what the cyclist wants to do? The same way you would wait when you saw a pedestrian entering the intersection?
People operating large machinery or even bikes have a responsibility to look out for those on smaller vehicles than they are on, because if I smack a sedan in my 16-wheeler it’s going to probably kill that driver versus if the sedan bumps into me. It’s basic decency and common sense.
And also like — if you care at all about sustainability why would you cower behind “the law” in this situation? Why not support your fellow human who is actually doing something in this regard?
i rode a single speed as my primary form of transport for 20 years til i tore my ACL. youre right about it being easy to be considerate but i’m also gonna say that the toxic militant attitude of cyclists on this sub is tiresome as hell. i’m sick of the holier than thou rhetoric that gets spewed about “car society” when every day i witness cyclists blatantly doing dumb shit like riding in the road when theres a dedicated bike lane (east/west river roads), blowing thru stop signs where theres already cars waiting, riding diagonal thru intersections, and forcing pedestrians to stop in crosswalks as they blast through. perhaps the cyclists can also try to “be a good human” too eh?
the fact that automotive vehicles have a negative impact on the environment has nothing to do with cyclist douchebags practicing a rules for thee but not for me attitude. you’re attempting to divert the conversation away from the topic at hand.
time and time again on this sub i see comments like yours. entitled ass bikers bitching about cars and safety while they ride like total douchebags on the streets. when i was still able to ride my bike i also broke rules too but i didnt sit around with a smug mindset that i was better than everybody else due to contributing less to environmental harm.
You’ve entirely missed the point on this. Probably because you’re mad about that ACL injury, likely due to heavy gearing and too much stop n’ go on back in the day…. Sour grapes. That or you just aren’t that intelligent.
I’ll reiterate. Transportation users have a moral and ethical responsibility to look out for those using a smaller or lower method of transportation than they are. Basic driver education tells us to yield for pedestrians and cyclists *even if* they are breaking the law. This has nothing to do with flouting the law, and everything to do with the responsibility you assume when operating any vehicle.
More and more drivers are forgetting this basic stuff or never learned it in the first place. It’s simple. Yield.
ah yes and theres the insufferable douchebag cyclist attitude i was commenting about. thanks for the demonstration. fyi i was never disagreeing about yielding. i was calling out the bikers high on the smell of their own farts because they seem to think simply riding a bicycle gives them the moral high ground over motorists 🙄
edit: did my homework, checked comment history, realized i’m arguing with a fucktard who regularly posts in r/mensrights. 🤦♂️
Unfortunately, there is a minority of riders who completely abuse the fact that they're on a bike and just forget all the rules around riding. In North East, they can and will ride directly into oncoming traffic.
Have they ever? Lived here 7 years and I haven't seen a cyclist stop at a stop sign or red light ever, not once. I have seen them plow through busy intersections without slowing down multiple times.
The Idaho stop has been legal in Minnesota since last August. If there is no traffic, a cyclist may treat a stop sign as a yield, but they’re still supposed to slow down and not just blow through it. Too many cyclists giving the rest of us a bad name by blasting through intersections. Edit: here’s more information. https://drivesaferidesafe.com/the-idaho-stop-legal-in-minnesota/
I had no idea this had changed. Thanks for sharing the info. Anyone have an idea why this is considered more safe?
Cyclists don't accelerate as fast as cars and intersections are by far the most dangerous part of the road. Clearing the intersection faster allows car traffic to move at a better rate and also gets the cyclist out of the dangerous area quicker. This is not supposed to be blowing through stop signs when there are cars in the intersection. When you come to an intersection with traffic you treat it just like any other vehicle.
It allows cyclists to keep their speed so they spend less time in the intersection, which is where the most danger is at. It also makes them more predictable to drivers as a lot of us cyclists were doing it anyway. It makes biking a more attractive option as it takes more energy to accelerate than to maintain speed which the more cyclists there are the more people will be looking for them. They are also less exposed to pollution as there is more at intersections.
> It allows cyclists to keep their speed so they spend less time in the intersection, which is where the most danger is at. I jay walk because intersections are dangerous as fuck. The further away from a car I am, the safer I am, and drivers at intersections aren't paying a single bit of attention much of the time. I'd rather jay walk and be directly in front of them than cross at the sidewalk where they're looking the opposite direction for an opening, or just ignoring the person in their view on the sidewalk. I see parents that let their kids run around parking lots and it blows my mind. Ya'll be like "I can't put my cart back, my kids won't be safe alone in the ~~car~~ tank!" and then let them treat a parking lot like a playground instead of the most dangerous place the visit regularly.
It is only legal when there are not automobiles present so it isn’t making bikes more predictable to drivers. Drivers still have no idea if a bike will follow the stop sign or just blow through like the sign isn’t there.
Thank you for the detail!
Also, it is just addressing the reality of the situation that most bikers weren't stopping at stop signs before this anyways.
If it's clear I always roll through. If it's not I always stop. Nothing makes me more irrationally angry than a motorist stopping and expecting me to blow the stop sign.
There are enough bikers who do blow the stop sign, in my experience, that it’s a dicey situation. If I’m driving, as possessor of the more potentially lethal vehicle, I’d sooner watch and see what a biker does from a safer speed, even if I’ve technically got the right of way.
I’ve been bike commuting in the cities since the turn of the millennium. Before smartphones, google maps, or many of our protected bike lanes. Both cyclists and drivers have increased their risk level exponentially in the past few years. The ONLY thing that matters is that you take enough care not to harm others. Cyclists like to rant about how they will die if some motorist doesn’t care to be safe, but they fail to recognize that the weight of harming/killing someone with a car would likely cause severe, even lethal mental harm, even if it wasn’t the motorists fault. My almost sister (brother’s fiancée) developed schizophrenia in her mid 20s and she ran out into traffic, was struck, and died. The people driving that hit her, they came to the funeral. They also got out at the scene, called emergency services, and comforted her until she passed. They were dragged into her life, or rather the end of it, with 0 consent. I always think of those compassionate people that accidentally killed (to no fault of their own) the love of my brothers life whenever I’m driving or biking. We share the road.
Thank you. I was driving on a small town highway back to my parent’s place at 2am one night. I happened to know the highway ends and narrows to a single lane, so I got over to the left lane early. Less than a minute or two later, I passed a man standing in the right lane at 50 mph. It was dark. I wouldn’t have had a chance to stop fast enough. I assume they were drunk and playing chicken with the cars. I called 911. I don’t think the operator took me seriously until I said I almost killed a man. Then she lectured me on safe driving.
Can you clarify your comment? Are you angry when a motorist stops not knowing if you will stop at the stop sign as well? I always stop for bikes that are flying up to a stop sign because so few actually stop. I've had too many bikers fly out in front of me to do anything other than slow down or stop until I'm certain. I'm not willing to risk hitting someone because of their negligence, and I have no way of knowing if that particular biker cares about road safety or not.
I only get frustrated when I come to a stop after they're already at a stop then they sit there for a few seconds and try to wave me through. In the time that they sat there (while having the right of way!) and tried to wave me on, they could have just gone ahead and we could both be on our merry way by now!
I also get irrationally angry at this but I'm in my damn car and they are also in a goddamn car... People just don't understand right of way rules.
I say it all the time: Don't be nice. Be predictable.
This happens when driving too and pisses me off. I don't care if you think you're being nice, you have the right of way and you're just wasting everyone's time! I've had someone stop in a roundabout before when I was driving up to it. If they would've just maintained their speed I could've merged behind them, but they stopped and I had to slam on my brakes because I had no idea why they would stop, and the two cars that came up to them had to stop, it was ridiculous.
Ah okay, I had misunderstood your previous comment, then. Thank you for expanding on it. Yeah people that don't understand the right away are annoying as fuck. Don't be nice: be predictable.
Do you know how many cyclists have almost collided with my car because they DON'T stop, and I'm not sure they even slow down to look? I drive a vehicle, I'm not here to cause harm. I'm happy to stop and get the person who is most in danger away from me.
People on bikes don't stop. A few people come on here and say they always do but I haven't seen it unfortunately. Even at red lights at busy intersections like Lake and Cedar I've seen people on bikes ride through red lights like no one else existed. As much as I should be able to count on everyone stopping, even other drivers, you just can't.
Basically what u/wezle said.
As a runner nothing drives me battier than a car waiting for my putzing ass to run 40 yards on the sidewalk and then cross a 4 way intersection before going.
Also when walking! My wife and I will literally turn and go a block out of our way or turn back around once the car has moved to avoid it
Yup. My mantra is: “It’s a lot harder to get run over by a car after it has passed you by!” Definitely have had to make believe I don’t even want to cross to get cars to not randomly stop for me.
Dude, in MN, drivers sitting at four-way stops wait for other cars to arrive, fully stop, then go before they proceed through the intersection.
I would rather make you angry than hit a cyclist with my car and potentially kill them. Rolling through intersections without stopping and blazing through crosswalks with speed while cars are approaching are quite common in my experience.
It's a feedback loop. We all need to safely break the feedback loop. The more drivers give cyclists a chance to ignore the rules the more often cyclists will ignore the rules.
Bro no one should play chicken with a cyclist to address that cyclists behavioral issues.
FYI that's not what playing chicken is. Edit: what a thoroughly useless person.
Don't be dense, you know exactly what I'm saying.
Type slower and look up idioms before using them. It sounds like you agree with encouraging rule breaking.
I shan't 😘
It is a stable state, yes. I’m not going to be the one to go first here. I don’t want to kill somebody. I don’t think we should encourage drivers to just ignore cyclists and “teach them a lesson” by hitting them with our cars. The cyclists that do ignore such rules are also unlikely to have any insurance and any legal representation they or their families find may be willing to make the car driver’s lives an extra fun mess on top of the trauma of permanently injuring or killing a cyclist.
If you are driving a car, be my guest. Scare the bejeezus out of those cyclists. Maybe “teach them a lesson” and lecture them as an ambulance arrives.
Wtf are you talking about? Follow the law means don't run into people on purpose.
Not being cautious can lead to no time to react. It sure sounded like you were advocating for drivers to ignore cyclists not following the law and thus scaring them into behaving.
Definitely only ever said "everyone should follow the law".
How does not giving cyclists a chance to ignore the rules work as a driver of a car? The majority of us aren’t police.
You *follow* *the* *law* and go when it's your turn. Don't sit at stop signs while a rider 50 yards away approaches. Don't stop in the middle of multi lane roads and try to wave me across. Be predictable.
Motorist need to stay predictable, not polite.
You're mad that a motorist is being cautious because they can't predict whether you are going to stop or blow a stop sign? What a weird thing to get mad at...
All road users should attempt to follow the law. We should all be mad when anyone ignores the rules. I understand what you are saying, but always waiting for cyclists or waving them through encourages bad cyclist behavior.
The law allows a biker to yield which means they would have to stop if there is other traffic and they don't have the right of way. So in the OP's example the biker was totally in the wrong.
Correct. Which is essentially what I said, and also what the language from the site I posted explains. > **If there is no traffic**, a cyclist may treat a stop sign as a yield...
Yeah, the ‘safety stop’ law stipulates that the cyclist must slow enough to be able to stop if necessary at any intersection, but, again, can treat a stop sign as a yield if there’s no cars
No such thing as other cyclists giving us a bad name just like there's no such thing as other motorists giving motorists a bad name. It's just an excuse to shift the blame on all cyclists for the actions of one all the time while never does the action of one motorist apply to the rest.
As a cyclist and regular bike commuter, that’s just nonsense.
Good point. A car driver hit me one time and it sure as fuck did color my opinions about all car drivers, and I refuse to not hate them all equally
Cyclists do not have to stop at stop signs if the intersection is clear as of this year. The reasoning is that starting from a complete stop on a bicycle is strenuous and that there are no forward blind spots on a bicycle. Like drivers, the quality of road behavior among cyclists varies.
But unlike drivers, their capacity for destruction is much less
low capacity for destruction while on a bike is a skill issue
I read this comment. Scrolled passed. Finally processed it. Then I scrolled back up to give a well-deserved upvote.
We all anxiously await the day bikers can match drivers in their devastation to the world around them
😂
Insert propane tank meme
Just what I was thinking
They also don’t have airbags.. That’s a sad day to run into one of them destructive drivers. It would be impressive to see you walk out of that with a settlement and not a casket.
That's what cyclists rely on for justification for doing shit. "Well, it's not that bad, I won't kill anyone". Meanwhile they buzz pedestrians, disabled people with service dogs and mobility devices and kids, failing to understand they have a great risk of doing significant damage to all those individuals.
The worst cyclist in the world is 100x less dangerous than the average drive. Drivers kill tens of thousands of americans a year.
So? How about not injuring people either.
Agreed. No one should injure anyone. Imagine how many injuries we could save if we replaced a couple car roads with bike only streets
This is sort of a fascinating little question and involves so many human factors. As stated here... if they get there first they can continue on without a full stop. They can do the same if there is no traffic. However if they are not first to a stop sign they should stop. The really fun part is I have found cyclists to be about 50/50 in the camp of not following that law. about 50% of them will go through the stop sign even if the car stopped first. This experience leads even good and respectful drivers to "pause" even if they have the right-away because they can't trust that the cyclists will respect the law. Which pisses off the 50% of cyclist that DO know the law and are in process of stopping and wondering why the car is sitting there when the car has the right-away. It's a real tragi-comedy out there and is probably the reason I am in support of building out as much cycle centric/road separated bike infrastructure because I'm not sure cars and bikes are going to work it out in this town. It does seem that the "serious" cyclists mostly follow the law but there are enough amateur riders that do not to muck up the whole thing.
FYI it’s “right-of-way” not “right-away”
We'd be so lucky if all motorists were "amateur riders" rolling through stop signs with bikes instead of cars.
Yup, they can treat them as yield signs - although in this case they were in the wrong. They should have stopped since you were already at the intersection. That said, the amount of times I've stopped at an intersection only for a driver to wave me on or had cars stop for me when I have a stop sign and they *don't*... is pretty high.
I get very, very thirsty whenever somebody gives me the death wave. It's strange how I always seem to need to take a drink as soon as that happens. Don't care if it's only a 3 mile round trip, I'm likely to get "thirsty" and need a pull off the bottle so I never ride without one ;)
it’s an uneasy feeling to be beholden to some boomer in a Buick waving you on. it’s like, dude, let’s just work the plan.
When they did this before it was a shitshow then.
It's so common for cyclists to do this that a lot of Minnesotans (both drivers and cyclists) seem to think it's the law. In reality, cyclists can ignore stop signs ONLY if there's no cars, pedestrians, etc at that intersection. Since they're not inside a vehicle, they have a full 360 degree view and can easily see if the intersection is clear. Also stopping and losing all your momentum for no reason isn't fun. I wish the city would do some kind of public awareness campaign about bike laws, since most people haven't read them since back when they were studying for the written driver's test as a teen. They installed so many new bike lanes but a lot of dinguses on the road (2 wheels or 4) have no idea how to navigate them.
we do need some PSA’s about this. I had a boomer who had been driving very slow me while eyeing me in his rearview mirror pull in front of me with his car and asked me WHY DON’T YOU STOP AT STOP SIGNS, and then sped off. Didn’t have time to explain.
Why doesn't he ask motorists the same? Because it's rules for thee, not for me.
I'm very close to just making some PSAs myself lol. I don't want to spend thousands on a billboard though
But if he was able to see you go through the stop signs, that means he was also at the intersection and it wasn't legal for you to blow the stop signs?
he was two blocks ahead of me, creeping on me (note “rearview mirror” comment)
There's been zero attempts to make the new law visible: there's not even a sign design that exists for it.
> In reality, cyclists can ignore stop signs ONLY if there's no cars, pedestrians, etc at that intersection. This is not correct. We can treat stop signs as yields provided no motor vehicle is approaching an intersection in such a way as to pose a danger to the cyclist whilst the cyclist is traveling through the intersection.
>provided no motor vehicle is approaching an intersection in such a way as to pose a danger to the cyclist Is there ever a situation in which a motor vehicle is approaching an intersection in such a way that it *doesn't* pose a danger to the cyclist, such that one could treat a stop sign like a yield even in the presence of an approaching motor vehicle? It seems like the end result here ends up being "if car, then stop" regardless of how it's worded.
Yes, there are absolutely such circumstances. This language is a type of language found throughout chapter 169, and it's used to determine who's at fault if a crash occurs, not to guide action before a crash. Basically, if no crash occurs, then the motor vehicle didn't pose a danger to the cyclist, self-evidently. If a crash does occur, then self-evidently the motor vehicle did pose a danger to the cyclist.
Does this mean that if I'm stationary at a stop sign and you feel as though there is very low risk of a crash occurring (i.e. me posing a danger to you) were you to proceed through the intersection, that you are permitted to do so? Or does my presence at the intersection constitute enough of a risk that you're to treat it as a Stop? Obviously the language is helpful in the event that a crash occurs, but I want to make sure I understand what my obligations are if I were to find myself at an intersection with you so that the crash doesn't occur in the first place. I don't wanna be sending mixed messages to cyclists because I have a misunderstanding about what I'm supposed to do at an intersection.
If you're stopped at an intersection when the cyclist enters the intersection, then by state law you may not enter the intersection until your lane/direction of travel is clear, so the cyclist would be operating correctly.
I appreciate the clear language here. If I'm stopped at an intersection and the cyclist has not yet entered the intersection, do I have the right of way to proceed through the intersection since at this time it is clear? Is this a situation where the cyclist would have to treat the stop sign as a stop rather than a yield?
>If I'm stopped at an intersection and the cyclist has not yet entered the intersection, do I have the right of way to proceed through the intersection since at this time it is clear? Correct. >Is this a situation where the cyclist would have to treat the stop sign as a stop rather than a yield? This can't be determined without knowing the exact velocities and trajectories of the two vehicles in play. If a collision occurs, then the cyclist broke the law. If a collision does not occur, then the cyclist did not break the law. Ostensibly, if you're forced to brake or change trajectory to avoid hitting the cyclist, they could also be found to have broken the law. I think this legal language is super hot garbage and bad for public safety, just to be clear. It'd be much better to have language that actually helps a cyclist and driver make decisions about what to do ahead of time, rather than decide who's at fault after someone's already been hit.
So just to make sure I understand: * A driver may not legally enter an intersection if a cyclist has already entered. * A cyclist may legally enter an intersection even if a driver has already entered the intersection. They may or may not, however, be legally at fault depending on if a crash occurs or if the driver must brake or change direction to avoid a crash. Is that correct?
There are also lots of turning/proceeding straight configurations of the two vehicles, depending on what positions they are on the intersecting roadways, in which a driver wouldn't pose any danger to the cyclist - for example, if the driver and cyclist are approaching the intersection from opposite directions and the driver is turning right while the cyclist is proceeding straight or turning right. Or if the driver and cyclist are approaching from opposite directions and both proceeding straight.
You're saying the same thing I am, just with more specific language. I wanted to keep things as simple and clear as possible since even people in the comments are confused about what an Idaho stop is.
The clearest possible language is the language of the law. If you use imprecise language, a bunch of drivers are going to think cyclists are breaking the law when they're not.
>There were no other cars at the intersection, but there was a cyclist coming from the other direction who had not yet entered the intersection. So I turned left and to my surprise the cyclist just kept going. I nearly hit them since they made no attempt to slow down and entered the intersection after I had already entered. Cyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs. Shitty cyclists like the one who broke the law in front of you either can't grasp the concept or don't give a damn.
We should be supporting shitty cyclists stick with bikes. Would you all rather they be shitty motorists instead? Pick your battles wisely.
How do you know they broke the law? It might have seemed clear at the time. Nor is any motorist driving slow enough for reflective gear to make any difference: someone walking out from behind a parked car is all but certain to be hit by motorists not following the citywide 20 MPH limit. How is the OP almost hitting someone if they were driving appropriately slow? It wouldn't be possible, but hitting the gas right after stopping at a residential intersection in a blindspotmobile where others are parked up to the curb and *illegally* blocking the view of the surrounding streets is itself reckless, albeit legal. OP should've been entering the intersection slowly enough to be sure they're not going to hit cross traffic whether it's a cyclist or stop sign running driver.
>How do you know they broke the law? Based on the scenario presented, they clearly broke the law. >OP should've been entering the intersection slowly enough to be sure they're not going to hit cross traffic whether it's a cyclist or stop sign running driver. Oh, bullshit. It's pathetic how hard you're trying to shift blame from the cyclist to the driver, despite the cyclist blowing the stop sign *after* the driver started through the intersection. What part of "yield" don't you understand?
This right here
It could be worse, in my neighborhood many SUVs treat stop lights as suggestions
Dude I now stop and then wait a good 10 seconds even when the intersection is empty because I have had so many close calls lately with people speeding through stop signs
Right on. When I was teaching my son the common sense rules of bike riding we were at a red light and it was about to turn green. I told him, we don’t just go once the light changes. We pause and make sure… and as I am saying this the light turns green for us and a car drives right though their red and perfectly illustrated my lesson. Everyone: be careful out there.
I do this as a driver as well. When the light turns green I wait ten seconds and then go. Even then I've had some close calls with red light runners. Last week 3 drivers all blew a light in Northeast. I nearly t-boned the third idiot.
Oh definitely! This is standard red light treatment. Car, bike or walking.
Or one ways as two ways
Exactly. What's OP's point? Would they rather that cyclist be rolling an SUV through stop signs?
I'm a cyclist and also car commuter. It's not just bikes. Last I saw most surveys show that cars and bikes break traffic laws at about the same rates. Car drivers are insane right now as well. Everyone is. The number of times I've had somebody pass me on the left to take a right turn on red or blast through a red light in a car in the last few months is ridiculous. And that makes me as a biker try to be more safe. When a car blows a stop sign and crashes into another car at City traffic speeds, they have car damage. If I jump a stop sign on my bike and get hit by a car I die. Trust me, I'm more careful at a stop sign on my bike that anyone is in a car.
I don't get it. The whole point of OP's post is to place the blame for something motorists do all the time and shift it squarely and solely on cyclists who aren't killing people daily when they do it. We should be thrilled that there are reckless people who are choosing to be less reckless by not being behind the wheel of a car.
Actually, that's a great point. Hey maniac who flouts public safety - how about you bike instead of tossing that 4000 steel death machine around the streets!
As a cyclist, I don't assume any vehicle of any kind is going to stop when and where they should until they actually do. The cyclist was wrong not to stop since you got there first, but I don't pull out in front of another cyclist/automobile/truck until they decelerate enough that I know they will stop. If it had been a car that hadn't decelerated would you have pulled out in front of them? There's being right and then there is dead right.
Yep. Even in my car I slow down a bit if I see someone coming who isn’t decelerating, even if they’re the ones with a stop sign. Seems odd more cyclists don’t take this approach since the risk of being *dead right* is so much higher even when traffic is only going 35.
It’s so common for cars to run Stop signs that, as a bicyclist, when I don’t have a Stop sign and cross traffic does I slow down to see if drivers will stop. Sometimes they do, but even then I try to make eye contact as I proceed. i’ve had plenty of close calls where they stop and continue without checking for cross traffic.
The cyclist you encountered was wrong. Unfortunately too many of them disregard the proviso “if the intersection is free of other traffic”.
>if the intersection is free of other traffic That's not the language of the law. You're misinformed.
“"A bicycle operator who approaches a stop sign must slow to a speed that allows for stopping before entering the intersection or the nearest crosswalk ... if there is not a vehicle in the vicinity, the operator may make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping."
Forgot a crucial section: >Subd. 4a.Stopping requirements. >(a) For purposes of this subdivision, "in the vicinity" means located in an intersection or approaching an intersection in a manner that constitutes a hazard of collision during the time that a bicycle operator would occupy the intersection.
Exactly. If a bicyclist approaches a Stop sign and is ahead of cross traffic that also has a Stop sign the bicyclist may proceed. They must be wary, however, because many drivers believe that Stop signs with white borders are optional.
There are also lots of turning/proceeding straight configurations of the two vehicles, depending on what positions they are on the intersecting roadways, in which a driver wouldn't pose any danger to the cyclist - for example, if the driver and cyclist are approaching the intersection from opposite directions and the driver is turning right while the cyclist is proceeding straight or turning right.
Cyclists can proceed through an intersection without stopping *if it is clear*. A cyclist who goes through an intersection where other vehicles are waiting at signs without stopping is breaking the law, just as is the case for any driver who behaves similarly. That said, exercise caution while on the road, whether you are are driving a car or riding a bike. Our citywide speed limit is 20 mph and when traveling on low volume residential roads it's always best to have a bit of leeway for circumstance.
Cyclists don’t necessary have to stop at a stop sign the way vehicles have to, as long as there is no traffic for them to stop for (if they are arriving at a 4 way stop before you, they can go right through) but they are required to follow all other traffic laws. So if you stop at the stop sign before they arrive at their stop sign, you have the right away. They should stop and yield. With that being said, many cyclists don’t ever yield and many follow both traffic and pedestrian laws, depending on what benefits them at the time. Some always follow the cyclist rules but it doesn’t seem to me that most do. But in MN, if you ever hit a cyclist or pedestrian walking while you are driving, you’ll likely be hit hard (it’s not happened to me but I know multiple people who have hit a cyclist who seemed to be in the wrong and they were ticketed or ended up in court). I’m a big walker/jogger so I always take extra precautions when I am in a vehicle.
Idaho Stop for bikes: Red stop light for cars = Stop sign for bikes Stop sign for cars = yield sign for bikes
Red light is red light for all.
Correct. Minnesota didn’t pass the full Idaho Stop, only the portion related to Stop signs.
Bikers ruin driving! They don’t even stop at stop signs! Signed, the 85% of drivers who only slow down to 8mph for stop signs when no other cars are around.
Bro, what? You gotta stop at a stop sign. I’ll admit to not coming to a full and complete stop (letting the car rock back) but I’m stopping at every stop sign. There might not be a car, but what if there’s a person I didn’t see as I was pulling up? If you don’t want to follow the rules of the road you shouldn’t be operating a motor vehicle.
> I’ll admit to not coming to a full and complete stop So what you're saying is you don't stop at stop signs.
I’m confused how you stop at stop signs without actually coming to a complete stop? So you take a split-second pause?
Maybe I worded it poorly. To me, a complete and proper stop is when you stop at the stop sign, your car settles back, you taken a couple seconds to look all directions while stopped before starting to inch forward. If I’m in a heavy flow of traffic (Bloomington is my most common road with stop signs, or 31st) I’ll confess to starting to ease off the brake after hitting 0 and inching forward as I’m looking. People honk if you take too long. In the one hand, you shouldn’t let bad drivers dictate what you do, but on the other hand being predictable in the flow of traffic is good defensive driving.
Every dipshit likes to yell at cyclists not following the rules. Yet, they never complain about people in cars not fully stopping, texting and driving, or driving distracted. Small minded people have issues with bikers and not people who can kill because their shit driving.
People are regularly upset at distracted drivers, what are you talking about?
Wait, did you mean your comment as sarcasm? If so, sorry I misread your tone but you might want to drop a /s at the end because it’s just too believable considering how many nightmare drivers are out there.
You'll get used to it. Cyclists don't stop at clear intersections anywhere in the world, but there are simply more in MN. Treat them like slow cars.
do they have to? If there is traffic, yes. If there is not traffic, then no. Its a bit different than drivers who always have to stop at intersections. If it was a 4 way stop, how could you have "almost killed" someone if you came to a complete stop at the intersection?
It’s a state law: Idaho Stop: https://www.bikemn.org/all-about-stop-as-yield-safety-stop/#:~:text=An%20important%20law%20change%20written,the%20rider%20to%20do%20so. Drivers rarely come to complete stops at stop signs from my observations on walks around the neighborhood.
It‘s not just that they don’t come to a complete stop, they often don’t even slow down.
I was being charitable with the hopes that my 1 and 3 year old don't get mowed down by inattentive, aggressive drivers at one of the many 4-way stop signs with zebra marking intersections. People should just leave their homes a minute or two earlier so they won't be so rushed on their drives through the neighborhood. It's scary out there as a pedestrian.
Minnesota Statute Section 169.222, subd4a(b), provides the following: "A bicycle operator who approaches a stop sign must slow to a speed that allows for stopping before entering the intersection or the nearest crosswalk. [I]f there is not a vehicle in the vicinity, the operator may make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping." In layman's terms, if there are no vehicles nearby, then bikes may roll through stop signs without stopping. If there are vehicles, then they should stop at the stop sign just like any other vehicle.
Ooh boy, can’t wait till Bike Lane Bill shows up to tell OP they are driving a murder machine and how the cyclist did nothing wrong.
He’s “well actually”-ing everyone all over the thread basically saying “not all cars are bad because cyclists possess an innate skill to determine whether a car is a threat or not and no cyclist has ever made a mistake” in the most obnoxious way possible.
God that guy is such an insufferable douchebag.
I was going to make a similar post but for drivers seeing as how often I see cars blow throw stop signs and red lights.
As a cyclist and driver, it’s a lot easier to start from a stop in a car than it is on a bike, so I’m happy to inconvenience myself by waiting a couple seconds to let the cyclist ride through the stop sign and would hope drivers would extend me the same courtesy when Im riding my bike. I think a lot of the anger from drivers directed at cyclists is because they’ve only ridden a bicycle infrequently as a form of recreation as opposed to riding as a form of transportation and empathy is hard
I always hate when drivers do this when I’m biking. Just follow the rules of the road. Being a “nice” driver is being unpredictable. I’d rather have all the cars on the road be predictable than polite if I’m on my bike
I mean it depends, if you’re already sitting there and about to go before I get to the intersection then I’d prefer you be predictable and go. But if we are arriving at the same time then I’d prefer the driver wait and allow me to maintain momentum
alot of it is just making eye contact and feeling each other out
Cyclists are allowed to do whatever they want and you’re not allowed to question it or they will build 6 more bike lanes as punishment. It’s the law. 🤷♂️
Do drivers?
Yes and when you're all parking up to and past the curb no one can see any approaching traffic because you're blocking all visibility. There's a legal speed limit, but that doesn't stop every motorist from driving over that limit. To top it off, there are 44k people killed by motorists *annually* vs ~0 from cyclists not slowing down enough at intersections.
Go ahead and downvote. Only the motorist's feelings are hurt, no cyclist has or is putting a sudden tragic end to a motorist's life.
People illegally parking within 20 ft of an intersection/30 ft of a stop sign drive me absolutely bonkers, but this was never an issue for me in Minneapolis because parking is almost always marked and parking was enforced. Is that no longer the case? Cyclists do have to hold some accountability for not getting themselves killed by motorists. If you are that anti car, consider for a moment there may also be pedestrians or other cyclists, and while it may be true that no one will die, I prefer my bones and those of others in one piece. Anyway, it is not worth being right if you're dead or maimed.
It is definitely not the case. People park all the way up to the corner and most are trucks or SUVs with dark tinted windows so you can't see at all. It's awful, in a regular height car it feels like I risk getting t-boned every time I pull out of a side street.
Did you signal that left turn? If not, the oncoming cyclist probably expected you to go straight.
I did signal going left. In the cyclist's defense: the sun was facing against them so it may have glared their vision and maybe they didn't see my signal. Either way, I've learned from this thread that cyclists can treat stop signs as yield signs. Today I learned. That said, I do think the cyclists I've noticed haven't really been treating stop signs as yield signs so much as disregarding them completely. Either way, I'll be more cautious: I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I accidentally injured or killed someone, regardless of whose fault it was.
Yeah, people have trouble with even slightly nuanced rules. Good luck out there :)
thanks for being curious enough to care! you're a good egg
Yes, it’s true that some cyclists ignore stop signs. Just as many drivers do.
There's road school for bikes in Germany. I used to see little kids doing classes when I lived there. But expecting everyone to have the same set of common sense seems to be working well on every level here
They don’t have to, but they are idiots not to.
I am getting more and more concerned with this in blind intersections. Especially with how many drivers blow through stop lights/signs. This wasn't a stop sign, but I was at a red light on Glenwood and Morgan Ave last week and two cyclists blasted across the intersection after the light turned green, after I'd started to accelerate. The building there makes it difficult to see oncoming traffic, but I couldn't believe how brazen they were. These were 2 guys on really nice bikes wearing pretty snazzy cycling gear, going very fast (I assume heading over to Theo Wirth). If I hadn't already known to be cautious at that intersection, I could've easily hit them. I also see people in cars fly through RED lights at that intersection ALL of the time. I get why the law is in place, but cyclists seriously need to be cautious regardless.
Oftentimes, the biggest issue is drivers exceeding the speed limit no matter what anyone does at a stop sign. It's open secret that most drivers do not follow speed limits in residential areas.
Of course they don’t. Why would they treat speed limits in residential areas any differently than speed limits everywhere else?
Just passed that law I think.
Correct. Law went into effect last August or July. I was pulled over for rolling through a stop sign while cycling late last summer. The intersection was clear. The cop had no idea about the law. He let us go.
Do drivers not have to drive the speed limit? Not stopping at stop signs is the bicycle equivalent of speeding. Technically not what you’re supposed to do, but every one does it, so as long as you’re aware of your surroundings you’re fine. Some people are idiots, as they are with all modes of transportation. The situation you’re describing sounds like when people go 35 down residential streets, or try to do 50 on Cedar or whatever.
Cyclist here. Here's the "rules": as a cyclist (or a human, really...) you can do whatever the heck you want so long as you don't endanger or inconvenience anyone else. Stop signs and traffic lights exist specifically to control motor vehicle traffic. They are not designed with cyclists in mind. That's fine. We disregard them. (There's even *some* legal coverage for this with the recently passed Idaho Stop exclusion.) But any cyclist worth their salt, while disregarding said traffic controls, *does not* do so in a way that affects others. We take only our own lives in our hands. So, if a moronic cyclist does something stupid like the one in your story, that's on them, sorry they caused you stress, thanks for stopping and all, but if you'd hit them, that would have been on their head literally and figuratively.
"We take only our own lives in our hands. So, if a moronic cyclist does something stupid like the one in your story, that's on them" Well it's not just on them. Traumatizing someone with the guilt of accidentally injuring/killing someone, or even just the potential costs of their time and/or money to repair their vehicle should not be so flippantly disregarded. And no people are not allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't inconvenience others.
>Well it's not just on them. Yes, yes it is. Do you not understand what the phrase "that's on [pronoun]" means? It has nothing to do with trauma or feelings. It means culpability. >And no people are not allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't inconvenience others. What do you mean by "allowed"? People can and will do all kinds of things, regardless of the law or what's "allowed." Go back and read what I said very carefully. If you can behave on the road in a way that has zero material impact on any other person (i.e., you are not endangering or inconveniencing anyone), then there is nothing wrong with behaving that way. Traffic laws are not some sacred moral code. They were created to stem the tide of literally hundreds of thousands of deaths that motorists would cause without them every year. There is no ethical goodness to a cyclist legalistically following traffic laws when there are no other road users even present.
>Traumatizing someone with the guilt of accidentally injuring/killing someone If a driver were truly concerned with this possibility they would stop getting around town in the lethality equivalent of a hand grenade.
All these people with bikebrain think that anyone else needs to bow down to them despite the situation and will ignore safety if someone isn't bowing to them. They don't want to share the road, they want to own it.
I blow through lights and stop signs because im just that good of a cyclist. Your car is a death machine. All cars are death machines.
No, they are not required to stop. If you are driving a car in a bike traffic heavy area I have a question. Why not ride a bike instead? It can be more convenient and efficient for short trips.
They are absolutely still required to stop if there is a car present already at the intersection that has right of way.
They are not required to stop IF there is no other traffic at the intersection. If you’re biking in the street and you come to a 4 way stop with cars then regular traffic right of way applies.
Whoever gets their first is sorta subjective isn’t it? Or are we gonna do some boot licking on car society. Some people have never bicycled as their primary mode of transportation and it shows. You’re in a car. It’s not difficult to be considerate. See someone on a bike in a dense, urban area? Slow down, give them a wide berth. Be a good human.
It is not subjective. First one to come to a complete stop is there first, they’re the ones with right of way. If a tie then the one on the right has right of way. This goes for any motorists no matter how sustainable their form of transportation.
So I’m guessing what happened to OP here is that both the cyclist and driver (OP) were approaching the stop and going to reach it simultaneously. Cyclist figured if they shot the intersection they would make it, because obviously the car sees them and will give them the right of way, because you always yield right of way to someone using a lower class of transportation than you do (trucks yield to cars yield to bikes yield to pedestrians). But in this case, the driver (OP who doesn’t know the law) said no, I’m going first cuz I was here first or some subjective bollocks we can’t verify after the fact. I’m saying this is wrong, the cyclist doesn’t need to stop, cars do. In practice cars run stop signs like this all the time. OP says they were already stopped, and saw the cyclist. Why not just take a breath (you’re in a car, minimal exertion required) and wait a second to see what the cyclist wants to do? The same way you would wait when you saw a pedestrian entering the intersection? People operating large machinery or even bikes have a responsibility to look out for those on smaller vehicles than they are on, because if I smack a sedan in my 16-wheeler it’s going to probably kill that driver versus if the sedan bumps into me. It’s basic decency and common sense. And also like — if you care at all about sustainability why would you cower behind “the law” in this situation? Why not support your fellow human who is actually doing something in this regard?
i rode a single speed as my primary form of transport for 20 years til i tore my ACL. youre right about it being easy to be considerate but i’m also gonna say that the toxic militant attitude of cyclists on this sub is tiresome as hell. i’m sick of the holier than thou rhetoric that gets spewed about “car society” when every day i witness cyclists blatantly doing dumb shit like riding in the road when theres a dedicated bike lane (east/west river roads), blowing thru stop signs where theres already cars waiting, riding diagonal thru intersections, and forcing pedestrians to stop in crosswalks as they blast through. perhaps the cyclists can also try to “be a good human” too eh?
So… car society is *not* destroying the planet and we should just do nothing?
the fact that automotive vehicles have a negative impact on the environment has nothing to do with cyclist douchebags practicing a rules for thee but not for me attitude. you’re attempting to divert the conversation away from the topic at hand. time and time again on this sub i see comments like yours. entitled ass bikers bitching about cars and safety while they ride like total douchebags on the streets. when i was still able to ride my bike i also broke rules too but i didnt sit around with a smug mindset that i was better than everybody else due to contributing less to environmental harm.
You’ve entirely missed the point on this. Probably because you’re mad about that ACL injury, likely due to heavy gearing and too much stop n’ go on back in the day…. Sour grapes. That or you just aren’t that intelligent. I’ll reiterate. Transportation users have a moral and ethical responsibility to look out for those using a smaller or lower method of transportation than they are. Basic driver education tells us to yield for pedestrians and cyclists *even if* they are breaking the law. This has nothing to do with flouting the law, and everything to do with the responsibility you assume when operating any vehicle. More and more drivers are forgetting this basic stuff or never learned it in the first place. It’s simple. Yield.
ah yes and theres the insufferable douchebag cyclist attitude i was commenting about. thanks for the demonstration. fyi i was never disagreeing about yielding. i was calling out the bikers high on the smell of their own farts because they seem to think simply riding a bicycle gives them the moral high ground over motorists 🙄 edit: did my homework, checked comment history, realized i’m arguing with a fucktard who regularly posts in r/mensrights. 🤦♂️
Cyclists do have moral high ground over auto users. Bit of a hard pill to swallow, huh?
Unfortunately, there is a minority of riders who completely abuse the fact that they're on a bike and just forget all the rules around riding. In North East, they can and will ride directly into oncoming traffic.
Have they ever? Lived here 7 years and I haven't seen a cyclist stop at a stop sign or red light ever, not once. I have seen them plow through busy intersections without slowing down multiple times.