For example, on a side street with a stop sign, if a bike rider slows down at a stop sign with no other traffic or pedestrians within view or near the intersection, how is traffic safety impacted? In my opinion, safety is not compromised in any way.

At a busy intersection with a stop sign, bikers should stop.

Again, I can commiserate with others who have nearly plowed into bike riders who blindly blow through stop signs when other cars are trying to proceed. Hitting a bike rider or pedestrian would put me on a psychologist’s couch for years. I ran over a rabbit when I was 17 and I still haven’t full gotten over it.

But from a practical standpoint, I think Stop sign = Yield for bikers would be ok.

I also agree with David that due to the weight, power and potential for damage, injury or death from a motorized vehicles, drivers of said vehicles bear a greater responsibility on the road than bikers or pedestrians.

That’s not to say bikers and pedestrians don’t bear any responsibility–they do–but that motorists have the most responsibility.

I would like to think the majority of drivers take this responsibility VERY seriously. No decent human wants to injure or, God forbid, kill another human with their car.

I’ve approached stop signs, stopped, and then proceeded only to have some biker coming from out of nowhere and cut in front of me after I’ve started moving. I’m not anti-biker, I ride as well.

My comment:

And if Stop Signs were treated as yield signs for Bicycles and this was enforced, the bicycle would have been more likely to stop. A yield sign would mean that the bicycle was supposed to yield. The ironic part is that this would help the cars as well. I stop at stop signs. When its a four way stop and we take our turns, the folks in the other direction are delayed a bit more because of the time it take me to stop fully and restart. I pass through the intersection more “slowly”. With a “yield sign” and us taking turns, I wouldn’t lose ALL momentum and my time in the intersection would be reduced by more than 50%.

Chciago Teacher:
And, occasionally bikers need to yield to cars (like a car in the middle of a turn, a car that has pulled up to a stop sign first and has the right to proceed first, etc), and bikers need to yield to pedestrians.

My comment:
And how would changing stop signs to yield signs for bicycles have ANY negative impact on this? Bicycles need to learn to properly yield.

Chicago Teacher wrote:
Not all bikers are rude, just like not all drivers are rude. Like the geek said, courtesy on all ends would be nice.

My comment:
The problem is that a “rude” driver is far far more likely to kill a bicyclist or a pedestrian. And with cell phones and the like, it is a lot easier for a driver to lose their focus on the road. Bicycles don’t go from Zero to 30 in a matter of seconds.

I agree with you on drivers not stopping for pedestrians. The vast majority do not stop.

But here’s the problem.

The state law changed over 2 years ago but it’s only recently that there’s been ANY education on the change in the law. I would guess over 90% of drivers have never heard the law has changed. I’ve been bitching about this since the law went into effect. How can a law have any impact if no one knows about it? If a tree falls in the woods….

I stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. But it’s taken a looooong time for me to remember to do this. I’ve spent my entire driving lifetime with the understanding that pedestrians, by law, must wait until cars have passed to cross at a crosswalk. So, it’s been a challenge to un-learn this–and I am intimate with the change in the law and probably one of a handful of folks who actually read it.

My point is, the state and city need to do a better job of telling drivers of the change so more of them stop for pedestrians.

Until then, as much as it enrages me as a pedestrian who does have to cross Irving Park regularly, I grudgingly have to give those drivers the benefit of the doubt.

And, occasionally bikers need to yield to cars (like a car in the middle of a turn, a car that has pulled up to a stop sign first and has the right to proceed first, etc), and bikers need to yield to pedestrians.

Not all bikers are rude, just like not all drivers are rude. Like the geek said, courtesy on all ends would be nice.

Cars are supposed to stop for pedestrians but unfortunately some don’t.

My comment:
SOME? If its not a stop sign or a light, the answer is virtually none. The problem is the anti-bike crowd “screaming” about the need for enforcement while violating the traffic laws willy-nilly themselves. They speed on a consistent basis. They don’t stop at cross walks. They don’t maintain the proper separation with bicycles. They ride up the bike lanes as if they are a “pass on the right” lane. They turn across double yellow lines all of the time. do Bicycles need to do more? Yes. Certainly, but to hear most drivers talk, their “s–t doesn’t stink” and it is only the bicycles that violate the traffic laws.

What we need to do is to change the traffic laws to reflect that bicycles are NOT cars and represent different levels of “threat”. As in Portland, Stop Lights should be aggressively enforced. One way street should be aggressively enforced. Cross walks should be aggressively enforced (against EVERYONE) and Stop signs should be converted into yield signs for bicycles.

I might add that “fast” is a relative term. Cars on streets regularly go far in excess of the speed that the bicycle is going on the path. Even Tour de France riders on level ground will have trouble exceeding the 25 mph speed limit that is regularly ignored by just about ever driver in the city.

As for another topic, Insurance, some studies have been done. Initially, many bicyclists are covered under their homeowner or renter liability policy. Or they are covered under their autoowners policy. The “additional” liability from this is so small that the insurance companies don’t ask about it or rate it. This is quite telling evidence of the minimal amount of need for this. But hey, facts get in the way of illogical hate.