By Eric Gelber
AB 122 (Horvath) is the latest effort at enacting a bill to authorize bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs.
What problem/issue would the bill address?
In response to concerns over clogging the court system with minor traffic offenses, such as cyclists failing to stop at stop signs, the Idaho Legislature, in 1982, enacted legislation to allow all bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. Since then, other states (including Oregon, Minnesota, Arizona, Montana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Utah, Colorado, and Delaware) have enacted similar laws, allowing some version of what are referred to as “Idaho stops.”
As California continues to work toward the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cutting other forms of air pollution, encouraging alternative forms of transportation, including bicycling, increases in importance. Bicycle safety is another concern. Evidence suggests that the Idaho stop is safer because allowing bicycle riders to yield at a stop sign helps them maintain momentum and keep better control of the bike and thereby clear the intersection more quickly. AB 122 is intended to address these issues.
What would the bill do?
Current law (Vehicle Code § 22450(a)) provides that: “The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway.”
AB 122 would add the following exception: “A person riding a bicycle, including an electric bicycle, approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicles that have stopped at the entrance of the intersection, have entered the intersection, or that are approaching on the intersecting highway close 
enough to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until reasonably safe to proceed.”
Comments
A prior attempt to enact an Idaho stop law in California—AB 1103 (Obernolte 2017)—was referred to but never heard by the Assembly Committee on Transportation after it was pulled by the author in the face of the opposition. As introduced, like AB 122, AB 1103 would have authorized Idaho stops statewide; but, in response to opposition, primarily from insurance providers, AB 1103 was amended to authorize only a pilot program in at least three cities that elect to participate. Nonetheless, the bill was not heard and died in the Committee.
In support of AB 1103, the 2017 bill, the California Bicycle Coalition (Coalition) noted that side streets are often punctuated with stop signs at every intersection, making them less attractive for people bicycling if they are required to stop every block and lose momentum. The Coalition asserted that, notwithstanding current code, riders typically use reasonable judgment when there is not oncoming or crossing traffic at an intersection, and often roll through stop signs on these side streets to maintain their momentum and will yield the right-of-way and come to a full stop if necessary if they encounter other vehicles or people walking or bicycling as they approach the intersection.
While by no means definitive, available data tend to show that bicycle safety improves after implementation of Idaho stop laws. E.g., UC Berkeley, 2010; Depaul University 2016; Delaware State Police 2017.
Some states have extended Idaho stop laws to also permit cyclists to treat red lights as stop signs (or as yield signs on right turns). A 2013 Masters Project found a significant safety improvement with such traffic light controlled intersections, but no differences with stop-as-yield intersections. Nonetheless, the lack of a difference is some additional evidence that Idaho stop laws do not adversely impact the safety of cyclists.
In support of Idaho stop laws, advocates argue that pre-existing law penalizes normal cycling behavior, while the Idaho stop makes cycling easier and safer and properly emphasizes yielding the right of way. In supporting AB 1103, the Coalition concluded that, “penalizing this safe bicycling practice with unnecessary enforcement at stop signs is counterproductive to the larger goal of increasing bicycling, and discourages people bicycling from using side streets if they are required to come to a full stop every block. AB 1103 would make this reasonable practice of treating stop signs as yield signs while bicycling explicitly legal, ensuring that law enforcement do not unfairly penalize this behavior and discourage people from bicycling.”
Other supporters of the 2017 legislation included numerous bicycling advocacy organizations and cycling clubs, including Bike Davis.
Opposition consisted of insurance providers, the League of California Cities, the California Police Chiefs Association, as well as organizations advocating on behalf of children, seniors, and the blind. Insurers argued, for example, that the proposed change in traffic laws is overly broad and would ultimately be detrimental to all road users. They further stated that this disruption would not only be detrimental to safety, it would also insert ambiguity into the very clear liability principles that insurers rely on for assessing fault when an accident occurs. The California Teamsters objected that “[AB 1103] would insert unpredictability into the traffic safety equation, and our members, driving 80,000 pound vehicles, would be left to wonder whether any approaching bicyclist is going to stop or dart out into the intersection.”
AB 122 has been referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee but, as of this writing, has not been set for hearing.
Eric Gelber, now retired, is a 1980 graduate of UC Davis School of Law (King Hall). He has nearly four decades of experience monitoring, analyzing, and crafting legislation through positions as a disability rights attorney, Chief Consultant with the Assembly Human Services Committee, and Legislative Director of the California Department of Developmental Services.
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
The City of Davis officially supported the 2017 bill and should do the same with this one. Contact the BTSSC or City Council and ask them to support AB 122.
Once this is made into law and culturally-established it would be even better to change un-signalized intersections on local streets to priority-only. Sometimes it’s bikes, less often it’s motor vehicles, generally pedestrians get priority. This is what is done in many European cities and it’s best for all modes, IF AND ONLY IF design speeds for the streets where it’s implemented are 20 mph or less. I suggest 15 mph for the USA as it’s already a common temporary limit or design in school zones and certain local streets, also in Davis.
Safer for all, better flow for all, less emissions. Local streets represent a small portion of every journey by motor vehicle and these will be even faster than now (due to lack of arbitrary stops) or just slightly slower. But there’s a HUGE difference in safety between a vehicle going 25 mph and another going 15 mph. Again, this is at least just for local streets, not collectors.
I lived for years in cities like this. It works. It can work here.
Unfortunately right now state law does not allow universal application of 15 mph design speeds on local streets. When you write the BTSSC, ask them to make sure that one of their new sub-committees focuses on keeping in touch with what’s happening in the legislature, and later this year to propose preparing a pilot for whenever the law is ready for even safer streets for all.
Get on the California Bicycle Coalition mailing list to stay in touch about AB 122 and check out their legislative watch for other bills that by increasing opportunities for cycling make the streets better for everyone.
Motor vehicles traveling at 5 or 10 mph would be even safer, right?
25 mph is safe enough and allows people to get where they need to go at a reasonable speed for the safety of both bikers and drivers.
I very strongly disagree, a car traveling on a residential street at 25 looks like it is flying down and definitely presents a hazard to children.
I guess it all comes down to perception, at 25 mph I feel like I’m crawling. There has to be a happy medium where safety and people’s ability to get around are both brought into consideration. 25 mph on inner city streets is the right speed for both IMO.
I think that as is often with rules, laws, ordinances…etc…is that they’re often too much of a one size fits all type of solution….which of course is needed to a degree or else we’d have a bunch of mishmash bundle of rules, laws, ordinances etc…..it’s always a balance between enacting policies that fit certain situations and maintaining a semblance of order with all the policies, rules etc…
What do I mean by all this and traffic speed? Yes, 25 mph down most purely residential streets will seem like a car is driving on the autobahn. But on F street? Anderson? Sycamore? On stretches of those streets 25 mph will seem fine. EXCEPT on the parts of those streets that go by: Community Park/Little League Fields/14th street, Cesar Chavez and Willett. Those areas have frequent pedestrians and kids in the area…etc. Usually those areas have school zones that limit speed in those specific areas.
Maybe Iowa Stops need to be implemented in areas that do not have frequent cross traffic? Or maybe implement them on a probationary period and then remove them from the areas that are deemed unsafe or where they’re unwanted. As far as administration goes? At the state level let local municipalities determine if Iowa Stops work for them but have the power to remove them if city show and inability at managing them.
I agree with Keith, based on studying traffic engineering, reviewing hundreds of crash reports, hundreds of traffic studies, and 50+years of driving experience (MH), and additional ten riding a bicycle.
As to the subject of the article, and contrasting with Todd/David’s assertions in the comments, am reminded of a famous quote, “you may go thus far, but no farther…”
Beware, when I agree with Keith, sure sign of the ‘end of times’… but he has this one correct.
Have you read some of the recent studies on traffic speeds, accident and fatality rates?
Only the professional ones, whose authors actually know and understand the data collection, methodlogy, analysis … and you?
I ask because the research I have read doesn’t seem to agree with your view.
What about motorized bikes and skateboards. Yesterday I saw a young man riding a battery powered electric bicycle speed through a stop sign. I have regularly seen kids on motorized skateboards do the same downtown.
I once almost got struck by a female college student blowing through a stop sign on F St and that’s with the current law in place. I can imagine how the bicyclists will be totally blowing through stop signs when it is no longer a law that they must stop. If this new proposed law was so safe why would insurance providers, the League of California Cities, the California Police Chiefs Association, as well as organizations advocating on behalf of children, seniors, and the blind all be against it?
We (bicycle community) hate those arsehole stop-sign runners too, KO. This law won’t prevent them from being ticketed. I do not believe, though arguable, that this is going to make more bicyclists blow stop signs. There is a self-preservation angle in the majority of people and they aren’t going to start blowing stop signs because slow-look-proceed is legalized.
I, as always, am in favor of what has been shown to be the safest option for the largest number of people. Since there seem to be different options on what speed level is safe enough, perhaps looking at an aggregation of data from areas in which this has been used safely and at what speed ( including areas, if any, that have abandoned the practice) might be warranted.
“Since there seem to be different options on what speed level is safe enough”
What’s interesting is none have cited the actual data which is pretty clear – the lower the speeds, the less likely a collision between car and other modes and the more likely survival if that does occur.
That’s why cars should go zero m.p.h. . Safer for everyone 😐
Like everything there is a happy medium, and Keith Echols rightly points out the difference between driving 25 on a purely residential versus some of the more arterial residential streets.
Exactly my point.
I’ve noticed that 18 mph is a nice speed in a car in residential areas and even some larger streets. It lets you look around and enjoy the ride. I’ve also noticed that when I am late or in a hurry, 25mph seems too slow. The real issue is psychological and the inability of people to override their impatience, lack of planning, anxiety, etc. Life in a car is much more enjoyable on city streets when we slow down. Angry, uptight jerks don’t really care what the speed limit is and that includes me. The lower the speed limit, the better for everyone.
I am SO for this law. I have been advocating for this for years, even back decades ago when the non-profit I worked for worked with the California Bicycle Coalition. This isn’t going to change anything except the law. The current law is like the old 55mph speed limit – only a few people drove 55mph and they were hazards, everyone else drove highway speeds. The idiot bicyclists who blow stop signs will continue to do so – they are not only hated by peds and auto drivers, those idiots are hated by most of us who ride bikes too, and they will continue to be able to be fined. Of course, enforcement is impossible, but at least they still have the potential to be cited. The rest of us can judge for ourselves when it’s safe to go, like we do today and since the beginning of time. And as I shared many times here – I once got a ticket blowing 3rd and A Street on a bike. The cop said “if you had just looked, no cop in this town is going to give you a ticket”. So since then I always look, and I’ve never got a ticket since. This law just puts actual safe behavior as the law of the land. Insurance companies are the bane of society they just use traffic laws and cops to protect them in settlements – so of course they want strict laws so ignore them. Yay Idaho stop!
I would think that in a city like Davis (e.g., downtown), “officially” allowing bicyclists to blow-through stop signs would be a hazard to pedestrians.
Anyone who can’t take the time to stop for a stop sign probably shouldn’t be driving or riding any form of wheeled transportation.
But seriously, is this even enforced, anyway?
You didn’t read the article or my comment about ‘blow through’. Clearly that is still illegal, and blow-through riders are arseholes. And no, it’s not enforced anyway, unless you are extremely unlucky, and I don’t even think we have a bike cop anymore (I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen one in years). I don’t like laws that don’t make sense are are ignored by 99% of persons. Again, blowing through a stop sign is still illegal.
I read your comments, afterward.
As you noted, blowing-through stop signs is already a problem, now.
My opinion is that “blow-through” would be loosely interpreted (by police and judges). And that this represents a danger to pedestrians, primarily.
I’m not seeing the problem to be solved, except for some scofflaws who are already grossly violating the law. (Actually, that goes for some drivers, too.)
If the police were aggressively cracking-down on every bicyclist who coasts through stop signs (when it’s safe to do so), I might have a different opinion. But, they are not. The mere fact that they “can” be cited likely keeps some behaviors in check (not to mention their own liability, if they fail to stop).
California is not Idaho – regarding congestion, aggressiveness – some might call it “entitlement”, etc.
Maybe even more so, in a college town. (Though not on the same level as say, San Francisco.)
But to answer the question posed by the title of this article, perhaps the only time that a stop sign is “not” a stop sign is when someone thinks (and/or claims) that they were cited for a different reason. 🙂
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2021/02/ventura-truck-driver-claims-i-just-got-pulled-over-because-i-was-black/
I wonder if statistics show that POC are stopped more while biking in Davis than people of white privilege?
Wait for it, wait for it……
“lower the speeds, the less likely a collision between car and other modes”… patently untrue… crashes happen at intersections, including driveways. Often at low speeds…
There are other factors that increase the likelihood of collisions… impairment (drug/alcohol/early senility/other MH factors) than speed… unless you mean “speed” as in meth…
“lower the speeds… the more likely survival if that does occur”. That is true.
But impairment, “stupids”, distractions, and/or criminal behavior cause collisions… not velocity…
The “professional” (not poli sci) literature confirms this over the last 50 years…
Equating velocity to collisions is just “smoke”, and others can determine what ‘flavor’…
Equating velocity/mass to outcomes if there is a collision, is a true story…
The Idaho Stop is essentially what everyone does if they don’t think there is a cop around and there is no traffic. Like most “bad” laws, making common behavior illegal is a sure fire way for the law to be routinely broken. We normalize law-breaking by making it too easy to break the law. When people are on bicycles, they are much more aware of traffic and that is why there is literally no need to stop at a stop sign when there is nobody around: the Idaho stop. When motorists are present, yes, we need to and should stop at stop signs. No question, so why make it more complicated than it is?
UPDATE: Here’s the text of a letter in support of AB 122 submitted on behalf of the Davis Bike Club:
President, Davis Bike Club
216 F Street, #125
Davis, CA 95616
March 8, 2021
Laura Friedman, Chair
Assembly Transportation Committee
1020 N Street Room 112
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Committee members,
The Board of Directors of the Davis Bike Club would like to go on
record as supporting AB122.
The concept and reality of bicyclists treating stop signs as yield signs is
probably as old as stop and yield signs. It is an everyday practice for
cyclists: approach an intersection (with or without a Stop sign), slow
down, look, and, if clear, proceed. However safe this behavior is, it is
illegal for a bicyclist to run a stop sign. Because the state of Idaho was
the first to legalize this behavior in 1982, it has become known as the
“Idaho Stop”. The Idaho Stop concept has since been adopted by several
more states: Oregon, Washington, Delaware and, in a modified form,
Colorado.
Data show that, when adopted, the Idaho Stop results in safer cycling. One
such 2020 study by the Berkeley Public School of Health determined that
cyclist injuries decreased 14.5% in Idaho in the year after the “Idaho
Stop” practice was legalized. (Meggs, Jason N. Stops Harm Bikes Page 1 of
15 TITLE PAGE TITLE: Bicycle Safety and Choice: Compounded Public
Cobenefits of the Idaho Law Relaxing Stop Requirements For Cycling.
<https://denver.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2018/02/idaho-law-jasonmeggs-2010version-2.pdf>). A comparison of data from the Delaware State Police over a 60-month period found that reported injury crashes involving bicycles at stop-sign controlled intersections were 23% lower in the 30 months after the “Bicycle Friendly Delaware Act” was signed into law compared to the previous 30-months.
<https://www.bikede.org/delaware-yield-crash-data/#page-content>
On the road, path, or trail, cyclists are more open and more vulnerable
than individuals in motor vehicles. Being “open” we can easily hear cars,
even so-called “silent” electric cars. Without a steel cage around us,
cyclists are more attentive to hazards, whether they be potholes or motor
vehicles. Watching cyclists, one can see that the Idaho Stop is already
commonplace, yet it’s not legal. If cross traffic has the right of way,
then the cyclists’ course of action is to stop and proceed when safe. The
Board of the Davis Bike Club supports modifying the CVC to allow cyclists
to ‘slow and go’ at a stop sign if it is safe to do so.
Thank you for this opportunity to encourage support for AB122.
Sincerely,
Robert Enzerink
President
Davis Bike Club
Newsom just vetoed the bill to make stop signs “yield” signs for bicyclists.
So much for that!
I noticed that the Vanguard has a habit of not reporting “good news” (e.g., in regard to the governor).
There is periodically some good news.
Bicyclists already run stop signs, sometimes aggressively. Sometimes putting pedestrians at risk, as well.
This would have essentially given them license to do that. I’d rather have them know (in the back of their minds, at least), that they could conceivably get a ticket for doing so.
Seems to me that the current system is working fine, in regard to essentially allowing them to take liberties that aren’t allowed for other users – as long as it’s relatively safe to do so. I haven’t seen anyone get a ticket for this.
The governor also took a related action, regarding not “legalizing” jaywalking.
https://www.ktvu.com/news/california-governor-rejects-decriminalizing-jaywalking
Perhaps he’s remembering that there’s a reason that laws were enacted in the first place.
Hell, he might even require vehicles to be registered! 🙂
Yeah, funny how that works.
No way! What a jåckarse. Can we have a redo on that recall?
No, and you gave the clue why there is no point… those who voted against the recall, many come from the same stripe as as the semi-equine governor… south end of the northbound critter…
The ‘safe’ thing would have been to recall the guv, and accept a lame-duck guv for about 14 months, who would have been powerless to move any stupid agenda forward with both houses against them. That was frankly (although I’m not) why I voted the way I did..
To the topic(s)…
In my view, rolling stops or even ‘blow-throughs’ are fine if the individual correctly assesses that doing so will not endanger themselves or others… if they incorrectly assess, they should bear full responsibility for any damage/injuries they cause, and zero tort/criminal liability should accrue to others. Think Darwin.
Pretty much same for ‘jay-walking’ and/or entering roadway without correctly assessing risks… some will say, “what about kids chasing a ball into the street?”… ask the parents/guardians about training/supervision… they should bear full responsibility for any damage/injuries they cause, and zero tort/criminal liability should accrue to others. Think Darwin.
It doesn’t matter. Police don’t enforce bicycles going through stop signs, and there aren’t enough police to do so by a thousand factor, and cops don’t enforce petty laws anymore anyway because they don’t want to get dragged into arguments about if they picked the correct ratios of human groupings. So, just like nightly screeching tires in the parking structures downtown and no enforcement, no enforcement of bicycles running stop signs forever and ever. Why bother to have laws, anyhow?
And on a related note, the governor rejected a bill to allow some to park their vehicles wherever they want, which would have put the onus on cities to then move those vehicles to a legal parking spot. (Reportedly based upon a program in a certain East Coast city.)
And took action to outlaw ramshackle wooden “outdoor restaurants”, thereby ensuring that patrons wouldn’t be dining in parking spots. It’s being called the “Hummer Act”, in regard to an unfortunate incident.
I’m auditioning for a position at The Onion, in regard to this post. 🙂
It’s with great sadness that I report that this week Eric Gelber passed away. He was a long time figure in the state legislature, an advocate for disability rights and most recently served on the senior citizens commission and was a periodic contributor to the Vanguard including with his California Capitol Watch series.
Thanks for letting us know. I’ve always appreciated Eric’s measured and well-written articles and comments on the Vanguard. This is a loss to the whole community. Best wishes to his family and friends.