# bb Says:
January 8th, 2010 at 12:18 am

Very passionate about this subject.

Here is a T intersection same thing going on
http://www.youtube.com/bodybait#p/u/45/RGA3YhfsHhY

Here is a No right turn on red
http://www.youtube.com/bodybait#p/u/44/im9ljMc2S0k

Here is my article on the subject
http://acyclist.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/stop-signs-and-stop-lights/

“Yet it baffles me why we can’t change this law to reflect laws already in place. It is okay for a cyclist to use their own judgment when or when not to ride to the right. Yet when coming to a stop sign or stop light suddenly they can’t use their own judgment?”

Cyclists have the added burden of unclipping shoes to put a foot down, then sometimes fumbling during re-clip when starting up in the intersection. By not unclipping, a cyclist can put their attention on the intersection where it belongs and not on their equipment.

Cyclists may tend to use more major artories rather than neighborhood roads because of the excessive use of stopsigns in the neighborhoods. This effects the flow of traffic.

Cyclists have to unclip several times in a round about that has stop signs, thus making it overly burdensom to negotiate. The City of Tucson is implementing a poliy of establishing Yield signs (see Tom Thivener, Tucson DOT BIke/Ped Coordinator) so as to relieve this problem. However retrofit is very costly. This new law alleviates the cost of retrofit.

I disagree with the above blog that there is no guidance of what to do after a stop. ARS 28-855 requires a motorist to remain stopped and not proceed until safe to do so. Thus the motorist who stops must also yield. That is all we are asking of cylists.

An automobile driver does not have to open a door and put a foot down on the roadway when stopping so it is less burdensom to auto drivers.

A 150 hp engine produces about 100,000 watts of power. The average cyclist produces about 100 watts of power. Thus starting up is very taxing to a cyclist and not so to a motorist.

Cyclists run the risk of falling over if they cannot unclip fast enough at a stop sign. 50 % of bicyclist crashes are single rider crashes at 0 mph (falling over). Helmets are made for the fall over crash and not made for other types of crashes simply because that is the most common. This law will reduce rider crashes from falling over and may lead to better helmet technology if the demand for a different kind of protection increases (i.e., helmets that try to work for higher speed collisions if that is the majority of crash data left after this new law goes into effect.)

The new law does not promote wild and improper treatment of stop signs because of the prima facia evidence burden shifting language. A yield is still required.

Do pedestrians have to stop at stop signs? Maybe. They don’t. They only stop when traffic is present. Shouldn’t slow moving cyclists be treated similarly to slow moving pedestrians in this situation?

Again, I am in favor of Dan Patterson’s proposal.