No Idaho Stop In California--For Now, Anyway

Which is worse:

• a stupid, misguided, useless or pointless law that is passed by a legislative body

or

• a well-informed and well-conceived law that a legislative body votes against?

Yesterday's post concerned a mandate that may fit into the former category.  Today, unfortunately, I'm going to write about the latter.

As I've mentioned in an earlier post, way back in 1982, Idaho passed a law allowing cyclists to roll through an intersection at a red light if there is no cross-traffic.  Since then, no other US state has enacted similar legislation , though in 2011 a few Colorado municipalities adopted policies that allow cyclists to, in effect, treat "Stop" signs as "Yield" signs.  And the city of Paris, France has a statute allowing cyclists to do the same as long as they're making right turns, or going straight, through "T" junctions.

From the Portland Mercury

The so-called Idaho stop makes perfect sense because it allows cyclists to get out ahead of traffic and therefore be better seen by motorists, particularly those who are making right turns.  Even the policies of Paris and those Colorado communities are better than most others.

Recently, a bill that, if passed, would have given California cylists the same right that their peers in Idaho have enjoyed for more than three decades came up for a vote in the Golden State's Assembly.  After some intense lobbying (by, I think it's fair to assume, people who don't ride bikes), the bill was tabled.  Assembly member Jay Obernolte said the bill was being held up until the next legislative session so that "concerns" can be "worked out."

The one legitimate "concern" he mentioned came from groups representing the visually impaired, who say that people with vision problems could have difficulty hearing cyclists "whizzing by", as Sacrament Bee reporter Alexei Koseff put it.

That, in spite of researchers in the US and UK, working independently of each other and several years apart, coming to the conclusion that cyclists as well as motorists are safer when the "Idaho stop" is allowed.  Part of their research, of course, included a survey of Idaho's experience with its law.

Is This California Law A Lemon In Orange County?

Back in October,  a North Carolina law went into effect that, among other things, requires drivers in the Tar Heel State to give cyclists at least four feet of space while passing them.  At the time, both cyclists and motorists praised that provision of the law (House Bill 959), as well as another that allows drivers to cross the center line to pass a cyclist as long as there's "an assured clear distance" ahead and no oncoming traffic.

I have not seen any reports as to the effect the law is, or isn't, having on cyclists' safety.  To be fair, it may be too early to gauge because a change over the course of a few months in either direction could be just a statistical "blip".

Perhaps one could also say it's too early to tell whether a similar law the California Legislature passed in 2014 is having its desired effect.  That law, however, mandates only three feet when a motorist passes a cyclist.  Before the North Carolina's policy went into effect last fall, drivers were only required to give two feet.

I would like to hear what the folks in North Carolina say about their law next year.  If nothing else, it will be interesting whether they recount different experiences from what David Whiting, an Orange County Register columnist, reported after reviewing the coroner's records in his county.

Cyclists in the bike lane of the Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach, CA on 9 May.  From the Orange County Register.

Whiting, who says he has cycled roads in his area "for decades", writes that the past decade has averaged one cyclist killed by a motorist every month in Orange County.  That rate has been pretty consistent; so far this year, three cyclists have met their fates at the hands of motorists on Orange County roads.

For the purposes of his report, Whiting counted only those cyclists who were killed in encounters with motorized vehicles and not the ones (smaller in number) who were killed on trails, from falls or when they crashed into parked cars or other vehicles or objects--or the one who was run over by a train.  That makes sense:  Such deaths could not have been prevented by a two-, three- or four-foot, or any other distance, rule.

However, it also makes sense (or seems to) that such rules, whatever the correct or optimal distance may be, might prevent a few motorists from running down cyclists.  It is also fair to ask whether such rules actually work.

If Whiting's conclusion that the law is having little or no effect in Orange County is valid--which, I believe, may be the case--then I think it's necessary to ask why.  

Cyclist and advocate Bill Sellin, who has worked with the Orange County Transportation Authority, says the law has been good for "raising bicycling awareness" but otherwise "ineffective".  One problem, as he sees it, is that the penalties for passing cyclists close enough to scrape off their jerseys are lighter than those for littering.  Another problem, he says, is drunk and otherwise impaired driving.  But even more important, he says, is "addiction to cellphones".  Too many people, he explains, "are no longer paying attention to driving, but paying attention to a device".  

Sellin makes a lot of sense.  Perhaps a three- or four-foot rule, by itself, will not make cyclists safer.  However, if other laws are passed and, more important, enforced in tandem with it, we could see safer roads for both cyclists and motorists.  

Here in New York, we have a law against talking on cellphones while driving that is simply not enforced.  Some, especially among law enforcement in this city, argue that it's unenforceable or that there are "other priorities".  That, I don't understand:  A distracted driver is just as much of a danger, not only to cyclists, but to public safety in general, whether on city streets or rural highways.  

So is one who is intoxicated or under the influence, or with abilities impaired (which, by the way, are not the same thing). While local law enforcement officials and newspapers like to trumpet how many arrests they make, or summonses they give, for such violations, offenders too often get off with light penalties or, if they lose their licenses after repeat offenses, get back their driving privileges in relatively short order.

Whiting, for his part, makes points that make a lot of sense. One of them is that rules requiring motorists to maintain a certain distance won't, by themselves, make cyclists or motorists safer.  Only, as he points out,  more courteous behavior between cyclists and, as Sellin maintains, enforcement of rules against impaired and distracted driving, will make a three-, four- or x number-feet rule meaningful.

Drones And Crits Don't Mix

When riding in the city, a cyclist has to be aware of--in addition to motor vehicles and their drivers--pedestrians.  All it takes is one darting across the street at mid-block, or someone ambling through an intersection while looking at an iPhone screen, to send a cyclist tumbling to the pavement.  

In fact, I have incurred two falls--one on Broadway in SoHo, the other in Coney Island--caused by pedestrians who barrelled across a street without looking in the direction of the approaching traffic (which included me).  In the SoHo incident, said pedestrian--who was shopping with a friend--at least stopped and apologized. In the other mishap, the boy who plowed into me--who appeared to be about 14 or 15 years old--simply kept on going.  

I wasn't hurt in either incident, but things could have been worse.  Even scarier, though, were two instances in which I didn't actually crash, but could easily have taken a hit and a tumble.  Both happened when I was riding down mountains and an animal crossed my path:  a deer in Pennsylvania; an Alpine Ibex just after I crossed the border from France into Switzerland.  

During my brief career as an amateur racer, I went down once and had a near-miss.  Both were the result of other riders who jackknifed in front of me.  In the crash, I wrecked an expensive front wheel but, fortunately, not the bike--or me.  In the near-miss, another rider incurred similar damage when he and a couple of other riders hit the pavement a bit further back in the pack from where I'd been riding.

Now it seems there's a new hazard that can take a racer out of the game, or leave a rider with  road rash or worse:



It almost sounds like one of those excuses I'd hear from a student who didn't show up for class the day a term paper was due.  (That's happening to me this week!)  "I got hit by a drone".  At least, that's now more plausible than "My drone ate it!"

Seriously, though:  We have to watch for low-flying or falling drones.  Imagine if one caused a pileup in, say, the Tour, Giro or Vuelta!