No go on ‘the Idaho stop’ for bicycles in Santa Fe
Santa Fe’s Public Works Committee was on the right track when it declined to approve a proposal to give bicyclists a different law to follow than motorists at stop signs. It would have been even better if the members had driven a stake through its heart rather than let it wander through a few more committees before returning for a second look.
As councilor Bill Dimas declared: “The rules of the road apply to everyone.”
And so it should remain. Bicyclists often have declared that they want to be treated as a vehicle with full rights to the roads. We agree. They also should accept all the related responsibilities, which includes following all traffic laws.
Let’s be clear: We fully support bicycling as a form of transportation, and would love to see expansions of bike lanes, bike paths, bike racks and other changes that would make a pedaling commute safer and more convenient. It’s a form of transportation that keeps our bodies healthier and our skies cleaner.
But we also insist on responsible riding. Too many of us have seen riders brazenly breezing through stop signs, red lights and, sadly, even railroad crossing gates. The psychological effect of a rules change that legally allows bicyclists to disregard stop signs holds the danger of building an assumption that they have special rights and increasing the likelihood that they will get in the habit of ignoring stop signs — even when there are other vehicles and hapless pedestrians who think it’s safe to cross the street at an intersection, only to be clipped by the shoulder of a non-stopping (or even slowing) bicyclist.
Idaho has had a law on the books for many years in which stop signs constitute yield signs for bicyclists. Santa Fe’s city government staff have said it appears that places adopting such laws don’t show any significant change in traffic incidents, with perhaps even some indications of a decline.
We don’t see why this is needed, though.
In daily practice, if there are no other vehicles approaching the intersection or no pedestrians hoping to get across the street, most — probably all — bicyclists will skip a full stop (preferably after slowing enough to get a solid view confirming their impression of safety). If the riders are right and there is no one else around, then they certainly don’t have to worry about getting a traffic ticket, because there would be no one there to give it to them. So in the real world, pedalers aren’t commonly losing much momentum when they don’t need to. After all, even a “yield” still suggests they should slow down enough to see up and down the cross streets.
For that matter, how many bicyclists to date have been cited for running a stop sign under the circumstances that would allow it under the proposed law change?
Frankly, we all know that a large percentage of motorists do the same thing. How many times have you seen a driver actually come to a full stop (that means the wheels cease any rotation, just in case you didn’t know) at a stop sign if there is no one approaching on a cross street, or from the opposing direction in cases where the driver is planning a left turn? The “rolling stop” is a common sight around town. That doesn’t mean we should change the law, lest people get too used to thinking “stop” doesn’t mean what it says.
This traffic code change backed by City Councilor Patti Bushee seems unnecessary to us, ending in just more expenditure of tax dollars to install new signs without affecting actual behavior on the ground.