here is something that i missed but i guess should have been obvious: “members of the panel declined to advance the bill, voting against it 5-3 along party lines”

I was in favor for many reasons.

1. It will cost the City of Tucson many dollars to change our 4 stop sign round-abouts to yield signs. The statute would fix that.

2. Cyclists have a heightened awareness at intersections and can make good decisions.

3. Studies show that when no other vehicles are present, about 75 % of autos make rolling stops.

4. Cyclists don’t unclip unnecessarily. 50% of bicycle accidents occur from single rider mishaps such as falling over. The statute reduces the exposure to such a situation.

5. Cyclists that stop have a slower startup than motorists thereby increasing impedement of vehicular traffic.

6. Cyclists that might not be very proficient at cliping back in fumble with the pedal while starting back up in the intersection instead of having their attention on the intersection itself and the associated hazards.

7. Stop signs are often overused and used for the wrong purpose such as traffic calming. There are other methods of traffic calming that do not disrupt cyclists as much.

8. A 150 horsepower engine can produce 100,000 watts and start up without any effort. The average cyclist produces 100 watts and over a long distance, simply will end up far more fatigued and very much delayed due to all the stopping and starting.

9. Cyclists who are less proficient with traffic might still choose to use main arteries instead of neighborhoods because they can ride longer between stops on main arteries. Stop signs therefore put more cyclists on the main arteries (which can be a good thing) and this eventually may lead to more impedement.

10. Targeted enforcement from TPD often is at the University of Arizona and generally targets cyclists who don’t come to a full stop. A review of police reports shows that very few cyclists who ran a stop sign were involved in a collision, but a very high percentage that rode the wrong way or were on sidewalks ended up costing the community for ambulance and medical services, etc., so targeted enforcement should focus on those behaviors rather than the stop sign issues.

11. Once cited for 855 the cyclist has to prove that he stopped. It doesn’t matter what the officer said, ie, “I cited him because he didn’t put both feet down” because the bottom line for the judge is whether or not the cyclist stopped and likely the officer will testify that the cyclist did not stop (which is the real reason the 855 statute is used). So often the cyclist loses his case.

12. Bicycles are different than automobiles. As are cars different from hazmat semi tractor trailers. As are helicopters different from airplanes. So the argument “same road/same rules” is not true and should not be true. We allow motorcycles to be two abreast in a lane but we do not allow two oil tankers to be two abreast in a lane because they are different. Know the differences and celebrate the differences. It is OK to have some different rules as long as they are well thought out and understood. It is dangerous to have different rules if they discriminate.

I’m sorry I was not allowed to participate. I really wanted to be heard on this but I was given the information about 48 hours in advance and the person in charge of registering me for the website would not answer the phone or return my calls until it was all over. I do feel that the legislative process should be more fair and more open to the public and give more notice.