Andy Thornley of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition says of stop signs: "They're not there for bicycles." & ""If there weren't cars, we wouldn't need stop signs.".

I'm a fan of logic, too. Of course, logic also suggests that motorists wouldn't run over cyclists if there were no cyclists.

"Bikers can safely slow down, look both ways, and proceed without sacrificing the momentum necessary to keep cycling," says Thornley.

Well, so can motorcyclists. Should they cruise on through, too? Rollerskates anyone? How about me - I'm a pretty good judge of when it's safe to disobey traffic laws. I'll just pop it in neutral and let momentum carry me through.

And who cares about your "momentum"? That has no bearing on anything.

Let's all absolve ourselves of the responsibilities we find least convenient to our momentum, shall we?

It's very simple: obey traffic laws OR disobey them & take responsibility for your own ticket, fine, injury or death.

If there were no cars there would be tens of millions more bicycles and there wuld still be a need for stop signs.

Your last sentence says much to summarize everything.

If you are walking do you need to come to a complete stop at every stop sign? Most obviously in some cases you do and in many you do not. Approaching the intersection you can see and hear what is going on. No cars coming and you can continue walking. Is that the same as blindly walking out into an intersection with an iPod on while texting someone? Obviously, not paying any attention is really where the problem is. Riding a bike is quite similar to walking. You have a much better sense of approaching traffic than you do in a car. You have a much better sense of traffic if you are on a motorcycle as well (although not as good as walking or biking). Now does that mean that a bicyclist should disobey all rules of the road? Certainly not, unless they want to end up fined, hurt or killed as the previous poster mentioned. But if I am approaching (with caution) a stop sign on a bike I am not making a full stop unless there are cars at or approaching the intersection. Why? Because to do so at every stop sign effectively means that you cannot ride a bike in the city. Am I taking a chance that some car is going to come out of nowhere, blaze through the stop sign and hit me? Yes, but like everything in life it is a risk that you calculate and then take action upon. I live in SF and drive a work van around the city every day. I also ride a motorcycle and a bicycle. Yes, I see stupid bikers doing stupid things, but the percentage is actually fairly low and the amount of danger that they are creating is much, much less than a motor vehicle. An SUV or a large work truck barreling through a stop light or sign is a serious danger that can cause multiple fatalities. A motorcycle doing so is less of a danger and a bike doing so is even less of a danger.

" Because to do so at every stop sign effectively means that you cannot ride a bike in the city." Of course not. It just means that riding a bike requires a little more energy. How many times has a cyclist run a red light and crossed my path while driving on the side walk in a direction opposite to the flow of traffic? Wide intersections may permit such behavior due to the wide field of view, but bikers do the same thing whether the intersection is small (residential dump to larger road). Bikers should also adjust their behavior for dark. While some may have a sense and view of traffic, many obviously do not. "es, I see stupid bikers doing stupid things, but the percentage is actually fairly low and the amount of danger that they are creating is much, much less than a motor vehicle." They are creating danger to themselves. This is not a big deal until you consider that motorists are both fiscally reponsible as well as emotionally connected to a sever injury or death.

jgarth:

And who cares about your "momentum"? That has no bearing on anything.

Actually, momentum does have some bearing on safety. Cyclists are most vulnerable when stopping and starting -- unlike cars, bikes are inherently unstable at very slow speeds, and for a few seconds before and after a stop, the cyclist is balancing through that instability, while also negotiating getting his butt situated on/off the saddle, and, if he uses clipless pedals, getting his feet engaged in/disengaged from the pedals. Slow rolling through a stop (where it's otherwise safe to do so) keeps enough momentum to avoid the instability issues.

This is why, when I'm coming up to a red light and I'm in the lane because no shoulder is available, I will move to the very center of the lane. In this position, the car(s) behind me cannot pass me without going fully into the other lane. Once the light turns green, I stay in that lane position until I'm firmly seated, firmly clipped in, and the bike is rolling smoothly. Only then will I scoot back to the right so that drivers can get around me more easily. Typically, that process takes all of 2 seconds, and goes off without a hitch. But if in those 2 seconds of lack-of-mo vulnerability I go down, I want the car behind me to be fully aware that I'm in front of him.

(BTW, though I'm not a white male under 40 ; ; I *am* one of those experienced cyclists who rides regularly on the roads, to include bike commuting to work 3-4 days per week.)

Say in a truck with a train, or a car with a bicycle. It is kinetic energy that is conserved by not slowing a vehicle (any vehicle).

Interestingly the kinetic energy of most automobiles traveling at a walking speed is equal to that of a 44 magnum bullet fired from a revolver.

This conservation of energy is by a vehicle is best expressed by coasting to a red light to maintain velocity until the light turns green--

Rap

IMNSHO:

What you are describing has everything to do in physical and practical terms with stopping a bicycle at a stop sign &/or not stopping it. It has nothing to do with your responsibility as a cyclist. People who operate cars and other vehicles also have a set of procedures they undergo in the safe manipulation of their vehicles. They are not absolved of their responsibilities to undergo those procedures simply because it would be more convenient to ignore them. If you have made the decision to commute on a bicycle then you accept the inherent procedural factors that come with it as required by the law (i.e., stopping at stop signs) no matter how awkward or troublesome. And as tough as it may sound, your difficulty in executing those responsibilities is not the concern of others. Just as I should be able to assume that other motor vehicle operators will execute the procedures necessary that I do in order to safely navigate the streets safely, so should I be able to assume you will. Again -your momentum has no bearing on anything.

I reiterate my point: momentum does have a physical bearing on my safety, and that's why I take steps to compensate for the instability caused by lack of momentum, as described.

I never once said that I blow through stop signs or red lights. I don't. I stop fully, one foot on the ground, for all red lights. In rural areas with excellent sight lines, at which I can clearly see that no other vehicles are present at or approaching the intersection, I do often slow roll through stop signs. I know it's illegal (just as you know it's illegal to drive 56 mph on a 55 mph interstate), so I wouldn't squawk if a police officer gave me a ticket. However, I do fully stop for all stop signs in busy urban environments.

A responsible motorist is always aware of and ready to make allowances for the inherent vulnerabilities of other road users. I'm a motorist, too, and when I'm behind a motorcycle crossing a metal bridge on a rainy day, I always drop much further behind him than is my "right."

your momentum has no bearing on your legal requirements. whatever you feel you need to do- having decided to operate a bicycle- in order to bring it to a full and complete stop at stop signs is your responsibility. if you feel you are unable to control your momentum safely when approaching a stop sign, you need to begin stopping earlier. if you can't safely control your vehicle and obey the law at the same time the get off your bike and walk. there may be arguments which promote cycling as a cause, but this momentum nonsense is not one of them.