Traffic control devices are an unfortunate fact of life on American streets. Stop signs and traffic lights are necessary because car drivers need guidance and control when negotiating intersections in the presence of other cars. Cars are large, cumbersome, and do major damage in a crash. Cars also constrain drivers’ situational awareness and prevent effective communication with the outside world.
Car-centric traffic control devices rarely serve cyclists well. Depending on the intersection and scenario, the impact of these devices on cycling can range from being a nuisance to being a grave danger. Forcing cyclists to behave the same way drivers do at intersections increases cyclists’ exposure to being struck by drivers. More than 26 percent of cyclist fatalities in 2020 occurred at intersections according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).
Green lights often don’t give cyclists enough time to get up to speed and safely cross the intersection before they change. Induction loop detectors that trigger a green light when cars stop over them frequently fail to detect bicycles. We don’t demand that car drivers get out of their vehicles, walk to the corner, and push a beg button to get a green light. Why are cyclists expected to?
Bikes are small, agile, and do little damage in a crash. The primary victim is usually the cyclist themself. A bicycle perch offers cyclists unparalleled situational awareness, with virtually unlimited fields of view and hearing. Cyclists can easily make their intentions known to pedestrians, other cyclists and drivers. Bicycles are contextual; cyclists can adapt rapidly to most situations. Demanding that cyclists operate the same way cars do unnecessarily hinders them.
In 1982 the State of Idaho accommodated cyclists’ flexibility and vulnerability at intersections with a first of its kind law. Now commonly known as the Idaho Stop Law, it empowers cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and red traffic lights as stop signs. The law does not allow cyclists to “blow through” (to use a phrase popular with the bikelash set) stop signs or red lights. It requires cyclists to approach the intersection cautiously, yield to other traffic that has the right of way, and proceed only when it is safe to do so.
Idaho’s 1982 law produced an immediate safety benefit. Idaho saw a 14.5% reduction in cyclist injuries from traffic crashes over the next year. Other states have seen similar safety improvements as they implemented their own versions of the law. Delaware saw a 23% decrease in intersection traffic crashes involving cyclists in the 30 months after they introduced their law in 2017 vs. the 30 months before the law was introduced. At the very least, there is no evidence that Idaho Stop laws cause an increase in traffic collisions.
The Idaho Stop law enables cyclists to choose the safest time to cross intersections and to cross them quickly and with more visibility. Minimizing cyclists’ exposure and maximizing their visibility in intersections reduces their risk of being struck by drivers. For example, a cyclist forced to wait at a red light until the cars begin moving on green is at greater risk of right and left hook collisions. Allowing the cyclist to proceed through the red light (after first stopping to check for conflicting traffic) lets the cyclist clear the intersection before the cars begin moving. At four-way stop signs, confusion about who goes first between drivers and cyclists often leads to collisions. Codifying stop-as-yield will make these interactions more predictable by giving cyclists a specific rule for them to follow. And a stop as yield allows cyclists to get through intersections more quickly, so they’re at less risk from drivers who fail to look for traffic or stop completely.
Idaho Stop produces safety benefits by influencing route choices and the decision to cycle in the first place. Having to make frequent stops on calmer roads may drive cyclists to use faster moving arterials with more risk and severity of collisions. Allowing smoother passage through stop sign intersections encourages cyclists to use calmer, safer roads. Decriminalizing logical cyclist choices encourages more people to cycle, enhancing safety through numbers. There are other long term health benefits, too. Cyclist exposure to carbon monoxide and other harmful car emissions will be reduced by shorter wait times at intersections.
Idaho Stop laws encourage more people to cycle by making it more convenient. Frequent stops and waiting at intersections wastes time and energy. Pedaling back up to speed from a dead stop comprises a large fraction of a cyclist’s total energy expenditure. Total energy expenditure to accelerate from zero to 10 mph is reduced by 25% by stop-as-yield riding. Conserving momentum with a stop-as-yield law benefits users of both human-powered and electric bicycles. Whether the energy being conserved comes from muscles or a battery, stop-as-yield riding demands make cycling more efficient.
The Idaho Stop law is fundamentally inclusive. Safer and more convenient cycling lowers the barriers to entry for new cyclists. Conserving momentum through intersections demands less physical fitness from riders. It also accommodates cheaper bikes, which tend to be heavier than expensive ones. Commuters without showers available at their workplace arrive less sweaty.
It took other states a bit of time to follow Idaho’s lead, but the momentum is now building quickly. Delaware was the second state to implement a stop-as-yield law in 2017. Additional states have followed in rapid succession. Today, 11 states and the District of Columbia have enacted Idaho Stop laws. Today Idaho, Delaware, Arkansas, Oregon, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, Washington, D.C., Minnesota and Alaska have enacted these laws. There are active campaigns to implement Idaho Stop legislation in at least 11 other states. It’s time for New Mexico to join them.
Of course, the introduction of the Idaho Stop law raises predictable concerns or opposition wherever it has been proposed. Some opposition has even come from within the cycling community itself. Concerns about safety have been addressed earlier in this essay. The evidence points to tangible safety benefits, or at least no detriment to safety.
Another concern is a negative reaction from drivers that will lead to them bullying cyclists for following the Idaho Stop law. The problem with this argument is that drivers ALREADY bully cyclists for stop-as-yield (and a host of other normal, logical cyclist behaviors). An Idaho Stop law will legitimize this cyclist behavior. With time to adjust to the law and a good driver education campaign, legalizing the practice will prompt a shift in driver norms and ultimately reduce driver bullying of cyclists.
One more note on driver bullying: The only thing that will make a driver more angry than a cyclist treating a stop sign as a yield is waiting behind a cyclist who follows the letter of the law with a complete stop at every intersection. The San Francisco cycling community demonstrated this with a 2015 protest of a police crackdown on cyclists. Every cyclist came to a complete stop at every stop sign. The resulting congestion and driver frustration was intense, and illustrates why drivers should be strong supporters of an Idaho Stop law, too.
A final concern is that some cyclists just aren’t comfortable performing an Idaho Stop in some or all situations. That’s okay! The Idaho Stop law doesn’t make using it compulsory. It just empowers cyclists to choose how they want to proceed at intersections. Bicycles and cyclists are contextual. Cyclists should feel free to put a foot down at stop signs or wait for a green light if that’s what they feel safe doing in that situation.
BikeABQ will advocate for an Idaho Stop law in the upcoming legislative session in 2025. Our campaign will include lining up a bi-partisan slate of sponsors and urging all legislators to support the bill. We will coordinate with other bike advocacy organizations across New Mexico to present a united front. It is critical that members of the cycling community urge their legislators to vote “yes” on the Idaho Stop. We want this law to be implemented statewide to avoid a confusing patchwork of local laws. We also want the bill to include provisions for a public education campaign for drivers and cyclists to ensure a smooth implementation.
This will be a difficult campaign. Idaho Stop laws have generated vocal opposition when they have been proposed, and New Mexico will be no different. Arguments against the bill may come from drivers, law enforcement, some of the legislators we need to convince, and even from within the cycling community. We must persevere. The benefits of the Idaho Stop law for New Mexico are clear, and it’s time to fight for them.
Comentários