HEARING SCHEDULED 1/26/2012 at 9AM by the House Transportation committee. All video is archived, in case you miss it live, you can also view the 3/4/2009 hearing at the archive — it’s kind of interesting.

BILL PASSES out of the Transportation Committee 1/26/2012, on an 8-2 vote. It was passed “DP” (do pass. i.e. passed without any amendment). If you didn’t see it live, you can catch it on archived, but it looks like there is a day or two delay…

Prima Facia

I haven’t paid any attention to this up until now (and it was in the bill since it was first introduced in 2009), and perhaps I should have because it looks to be a serious flaw. The bill as written automatically places bicyclists in a weaker legal position if they become involved in a collision with a motorist who also has a stop. This should be addressed an corrected so that bicyclists aren’t assumed to be liable in such a situation (liability should be assigned according to what actions the bicyclist and driver took, not just that a bicycle is a bicycle). I’m not sure if the Idaho approach, see 49-720, fixes this or not. I would think it does. They made a separate statute in the bicycling chapter; it doesn’t piggy-back on the yield-sign law.

There’s also some confusion at 4-way (all-way) stops.

Or rather, it completely depends on traffic — if there is conflicting traffic they do (usually) stop; otherwise RARELY. Here is a brief clip where 1 driver stopped (well, almost, but I’ll give it to him) to yield to cross-traffic, and then the next SIX rolled through without stopping:

If that’s too short for you, here is a longer clip that I didn’t even bother to count — the story is exactly the same; DRIVERS RARELY STOP AT STOP SIGNS.

For the technically curious: there is no (marked) crosswalk in this direction, nor is there a painted stop line, here is the statute regarding stop signs: §28-855.

Why do they do it?

See Stop Sign Compliance for discussion and links to some social research studies that offer some explanations. In social research, it is referred to as an example of a “folk crime” (dubbed so apparently by H. L. Ross in 1961, see Traffic Law Violation: A Folk Crime, 8 Social Problems 232).

The more direct explanation is people (drivers and cyclists are people, after all!) act in ways that they perceive as rational and reasonable, and pay scant attention to the letter of the law.

Do drivers stop before making a Right Turn on Red?

It is the same story. Here’s a clip in case you are interested (sorry, but you’ll have to skip in about 40 seconds in order to be able to see the traffic signal).

Do bicyclists run Red Lights?

Here is an interesting published article that goes along along with the compliance theme  from AAP: Riding through red lights: The rate, characteristics and risk factors of non-compliant urban commuter cyclists, via a posting at www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/motorists-front-of-judea-what-have-the-cyclists-ever-done-for-us/

Arizona Road Cycling news Mar 2,2011 is reporting that the bill is dead for this session.

2011; 50th 1st regular session Update

The same bill is back HB2130 (2011, 50th 1st regular session), except that the exception for bicyclists would only apply when they are aged 16 or older. This was to address (appease?) some concerns that arose at the committee hearing in 2009.

Original article written for 2009; 49th 1st regular session

a la Idaho. The “Bikes Safe at Stop Sign” bill has been introduced in the Arizona Legislature; you can follow it here: HB2479 (2009, 49th 1st regular session). The bill will make its debut on March 4 before the Military Affairs and Public Safety (MAPS) committee.

See Why I support “Bikes safe at stop sign”.

Portland-based BTA is backing similar legislation currently in Oregon. (see here and here). If anyone has the language of the OR bill handy please send me a link. Montana also has current legislation pending, HB68. Noted cycling/cyclist attorney Bob Mionske supports the concept (and his colleague opposes it).

For Arizona statutes and compliance issues with stop signs go here.

Here is the introduced version of HB2479 (BLUE CAPS is an addition, red like this is a deletion, and [my commentary is green])

Section 1.  Section 28-855, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

START_STATUTE28-855.  Stop signs; yield signs

A. …

B.  Except as provided in subsection C, a driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop…

C.  The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign AND ANY PERSON RIDING A BICYCLE APPROACHING A YIELD SIGN OR A STOP SIGN shall slow down in obedience to the sign to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and shall yield the right‑of‑way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the driver OR BICYCLE RIDER is moving across or within the intersection.  If after driving OR RIDING past a yield sign OR STOP SIGN without stopping the driver OR BICYCLE RIDER is involved in a collision with a vehicle in the intersection, the collision is prima facie evidence of the driver’s OR BICYCLE RIDER’S failure to yield the right‑of‑way.

The bill was pushed along due to Rep Patterson; here is a message from him:

The bikes safe yield at stop signs bill has been introduced by Rep. Quelland, with bipartisan sponsorship from Phoenix/Maricopa Cty., Tucson, Yuma, Flagstaff and Prescott.  This is HB2479, based on the common sense Idaho law, and we ask for your support at the appropriate time.  Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Thanks,
Representative Daniel Patterson (district 29-Tucson)
Arizona House of Representatives
602.926.5342 Capitol
520.398.6000 Tucson
Committees: Water and Energy, Military Affairs and Public Safety
azleg.gov / dpatterson.blogspot.com

Here is the Idaho law, note that it covers both Stop signs and red signals: 49-720. STOPPING – TURN AND STOP SIGNALS.
(1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to other traffic….

49th Leg, 2nd Regular Session; HB2633 ( text of HB2633). Its been assigned to the House TI (Transportation and Infrastructure) committee. It’s hard for me to imagine Chairman Biggs letting this bill go anywhere.

You can review articles and background materials from the last session here.

Background

As usual, the first stop (pun?) is to look at ARS Title 28 to see what’s what with stopping.

The stop & yield sign rule is §28-855. The rule says everyone has to STOP, and goes on to specify exactly where; depending on whether or not there is a crosswalk, stop line, etc. There is no wiggle room.  (for what to do afterwards, see §28-773 — thanks eric)

I also learned that a driver approaching a driveway “within a business or residence district” (i.e. not rural) must, in effect, treat it just like a stop sign (regardless of whatever signage may or may not be there). The driveway law is  §28-856. And, satisfyingly, it does specify what a driver must do after stopping.

In contrast, the yield sign rule seems much more, well, reasonable: “slow down… to a speed reasonable… and shall yield the right-of-way”. There is no arbitrary standard.

Compliance

I was interested in finding out what proportion of drivers actually stop when there is no conflicting traffic. Traffic engineers apparently categorize behavior into 4 types. The first two comprise legal stops; Voluntary Full Stop (VFS) which is stopping when there is no conflicting traffic, as distinguished from Stopped by Traffic. The other two would be illegal; Almost Stopped, and Non-Stopping.

There was much in the Behavioral / Social Sciences literature on this.

Feest (1968), Lebbon (2007) and McKevlie (1986)  observed a VFS rate of only 15%, 4.6% and 24.1%, respectively.

So it appears that somewhere between the majority and the vast majority of drivers do not stop when there is no conflicting traffic. This comports with what I have observed anecdotally.

From traffic engineering literature, the general conclusion is that compliance isn’t the problem, driver-error is.  E.g. “In short, the results of many previous studies suggest that accidents at twoway stop controlled intersections are more closely related to driver error, such as failure to accurately judge the speed of major roadway vehicles, than to roadway geometry, sight distance and driver compliance with traffic control devices” (Stokes 2000)

References

Box and Oppenlander, 1976, (a book, i’m guessing a Traffice engineering textbook)  This worksheet defines 5 levels of compliance, note that only the first two are legal, the “practically” is an expedient, 0 mph should be categorized as either VFS or Stopped by traffic, but hard to discern in the field:

• Voluntary Full Stop
• Stopped by Traffic
• Practically Stopped – 0 to 3mph
• Non-Stopping

Feest, Johannes (1968) Compliance with Legal Regulations: Observation of Stop Sign Behavior. Law & Society Review, Vol. 2, No. 3 (May, 1968), pp. 447-461.This is a fun paper. Feest holds up the law about requirement of fully stopping at a stop sign when there is no cross traffic as an example of an “Unstigmatic regulation”, i.e. a rule that is frequently flaunted with little consequence. Feest found in the absence of cross-traffic “the number of people who strictly comply with the formal legal regulation is about 15 per cent”, and that the large majority made either a “rolling stop” (58%, 2-10mph) or “half-stop” (22%, 10-20mph). These categories taken from a pamphlet used for training law enforcement officers.

Lebbon, A.R., et al (2007) Evaluating the Effects of Traffic on Driver Stopping and Turn Signal Use at a Stop Sign: A Systematic Replication. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 27(2) 2007.

McKelvie, S. J. (1986). An opinion survey and longitudinal study of driver behavior at
stop signs. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, Vol. 18(1), pp. 75-85. “most drivers stopped when another vehicle was in the vicinity and most only slowed when the road seemed clear. It is concluded that stop sign behaviour reflects risky decision-making rather than adherence to the law…”. For observational result of 24.1% VFS, see Table 3. One hiccup is they defined what they termed a Complete Stop as stationary for 2 seconds, with is supra legal.

McKelvie, S. J., & Schamer, L.A. (1988). Effects of night, passengers, and sex on
driver behavior at stop signs. Journal of Social Psychology, 128(5)(Oct 1988), pp. 685-690. “Despite the legal requirement that drivers come to a complete halt at stop signs… absence of other vehicles lowers (compliance) to 15%”

Mounce, JM. (1981) Driver Compliance with stop-sign control at low-volume intersections. Transportation Research Record (TRB) No. 808. pp 30-37. To paraphrase from the abstract: compliance (a full stop, whether you need to or not) is high when there is a lot of conflicting traffic, and low when there is little traffic. And in addition, if the sight line is good, compliance is lower. (which of course makes perfect sense) “The results from 2830 observations at 66 intersections indicated that the violation rate decreases with increasing major-roadway volume and is significantly high (p < 0.001) up to the average-daily-traffic (ADT) level of 2000 and significantly low (p < 0.001) above the ADT level of 5000-6000. An interaction effect between major-roadway volume and minor-roadway sight distance results in a violation rate that is significantly higher (P < 0.05) when sight is unrestricted than it is when sight is restricted”

Bretherton, MW.  Multi-way Stops – The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct! http://www.troymi.gov/TrafficEngineering/Multiway.htm retrieved Feb 08, 2009. This paper focused on why it is undesirable to use stop signs for the purpose of speed-control, but it has loads of references.

Stokes, RW et al, (2000)  Analysis of Rural intersection Accidents Caused by Stop Sign Violation. Report No. K-TRAN: KSU-98-6. Had this to say about stop sign compliance (emphasis added): “The results of this study (and previous studies) suggest that disregard for Stop signs and other traffic control devices is not the primary cause of accidents at rural two-way stop controlled intersections. The majority of the accidents appear to be due to drivers who enter the major roadway and do not (or cannot) accelerate quickly enough to avoid being struck by major roadway vehicles. This would suggest that drivers on the minor roadway either did not see oncoming vehicles or failed to accurately estimate the speeds of oncoming vehicles on the major roadway” … “In short, the results of many previous studies suggest that accidents at twoway stop controlled intersections are more closely related to driver error, such as failure to accurately judge the speed of major roadway vehicles, than to roadway geometry, sight distance and driver compliance with traffic control devices“

Here is what the MUTCD says about stop signs. Only tangentially related to the issue at hand, there is a lot of controversy about placing so-called unnecessary stops (e.g. placing stops on the busier road, or adding extra all-way stops) — MUTCD guidance states flatly “STOP signs should not be used for speed control.”

In a paper that surveys various traffic calming measures [Traffic Calming: State of the Practice Reid Ewing, August 1999], makes reference to data from Department of Transportation, “Brentford Lane—Stop Sign Compliance
Study,” Gwinnett County, GA, September 1997. A pie chart is presented for compliance with all-way stops: 59.3% Rolling Stop, 22.2% Slowed Down, 11.1 Complete Disregard, and a grand total of 7.4% COMPLETE STOP.

…

There are a couple of serious objections to allowing bicyclists to legally roll through stop signs that should be considered:

1) Same Roads – Same Rights – Same Rules (SRSRSR). I find this argument specious at best and disastrous at worst. SRSRSR may be useful as a teaching aid, slogan, or PR position but simply does not, and can not, work as a legal position. In Bicycles are not motor vehicles and why it matters I explain why as a practical matter cyclists would be banned outright from most roads were we to actually be subjected to the same rules. There are a myriad of other, lesser, examples; pacelineing would be illegal, bikes would be required to have lights (24×7, not just at night), horns, and so forth, cyclists would have to be licensed, and thus children wouldn’t be allowed to ride bicycles (16″ or more wheelsize), bikes would require insurance and registration stickers (BLT, bicycle license tax, anyone?), there would be no riding on sidewalks statewide, nor would parking be allowed on sidewalks (I guess I would definitely have to get a kickstand).  §28-735, the “3-foot passing law” would have to be repealed.

Beyond the issue at hand, as a matter of consistency, advocacy of any sort of bicycle lane would have to be disavowed — “Same Roads”, remember?

2) Safety; my own feeling is simply that the cyclist’s self-preservation instinct is stronger than any law, and as such changing the law won’t cause any (additional) problems.

Beyond just feeling, my review of traffic engineering literature indicates that the problem at stop signs isn’t one of strict compliance, but rather one of driver-error, see Stop sign compliance for references.

Also, we have an actual example in the state of Idaho. In reply to queries about the law’s impact on safety Mark McNeese said “No impact; nothing changed; current behavior was just legalized”. His full comments are below. Boise and its metro area have populations of around 200,000 and 600,000 respectively. By comparison, Tucson is about 500,000 / 1,000,000, and Phoenix is even larger. Still, it’s hard to claim that Idaho’s almost 3 decades of real-world experience is irrelevant.

Finally, in an argument *for* the proposal is the “folk crime” aspect of the slow-roll. The term folk crime comes from the field of sociology, see e.g. Feest 1968 in the references here. I am generally against absolute (e.g. stop means stop!) laws that are rarely enforced, which is clearly the case with the present stop sign situation. I feel they devalue the law in general. Such rules are also ripe for selective enforcement.

As might be expected, this proposal is quite controversial, see e.g. the discussion over at tucsonbikelawyer.com, here, here, and here.

…

Below is Mark McNeese’s take on Idaho’s law, which was enacted in 1982. He is their state’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator (my emphasis added):

…In retrospect the stop-sign law is not a bad law. It certainly makes riding a bike more enjoyable. Overcoming inertia takes a lot of energy from a cyclist. However, there are two issues that need to be addressed. One is how the motor vehicle driver perceives the cyclist who in his uneducated view is breaking the law when the cyclist rolls through a stop sign or makes a rolling right on red, and two, the safety issue for younger cyclists who view this behavior of more experienced cyclists.

In addressing the motor vehicle operator reaction one can easily observe that the vast majority of motor vehicle operators do not come to a complete stop at stop signs (ed note: see Stop sign compliance for more on this issue) or when turning right on red unless traffic conditions dictate that they do-regardless of what the “law” states. The bicyclist rolls through a little faster however, when conditions and sight distance permit, and some people may view this as a blatant disregard for safety. I can assure you that cyclists understand very well the repercussions of motor-vehicle/bicycle collisions and are not “blatantly” inviting disaster by disregarding common-sense safety checks at these well-marked intersections.

Young or inexperienced bicycle riders often ride on sidewalks and obey pedestrian crossing rules. Safety educators in Idaho teach all riders to STOP at stop signs to maximize SAFETY. The “law” isn’t emphasized in any safety presentations. If you teach children safety based on obedience to the law eventually the decision will be “do I want to obey the law?” and if the answer is no then the resulting disobedience may put that person or others at risk. Emphasizing safety instills a “cause and effect” perspective that is harder to ignore.

The red-light stop-and-go law has not been in effect long enough to give intelligent comment on other than for many cyclists nothing has changed. Right or wrong, this was the way they rode. Many traffic sensitive devices at lights do not pick up cyclists. The cost for installing special devices in a time of shrinking transportation dollars is a constant struggle. I guess this state has found a way to bypass that and time will tell if the decision was the right one.

In closing, I believe there is no substitute for a well-organized and ongoing bicycle and pedestrian safety-education campaign at the local level. The development of safe facilities is just as important. The organization, development, and implementation, whether education or facility related, must be a collaborative effort of law enforcement, educators, citizens, and local government officials who are concerned about the issues of bicycle and pedestrian safety.

I would be glad to continue this discussion or answer any other questions you may have.

Mark McNeese
Idaho Transportation Department
Sr. Transportation Planner
State Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator 208-334-8272
mmcneese@itd.state.id.us

Prima Facia

This was added much later, but the issue was always present, since its initial introduction in 2009. The bill as written automatically places bicyclists in a weaker legal position if they become involved in a collision with a motorist who also has a stop. This should be addressed an corrected so that bicyclists aren’t assumed to be liable in such a situation (liability should be assigned according to what actions the bicyclist and driver took, not just that a bicycle is a bicycle). I’m not sure if the Idaho approach, see 49-720, fixes this or not. I would think it does. They made a separate statute in the bicycling chapter; it doesn’t piggy-back on the yield-sign law.

There’s also some confusion at 4-way (all-way) stops.

1) HB2479 “Bikes safe at stop signs”. See Bicycle Stop Sign changes proposed and Why I support “Bikes safe at stop sign”.

• Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee hearing scheduled for Wed March 4th.
• Failed (3 for, 5 against — which was omniously strictly party-line. Patterson, a Democrat, backed it. Every Republican voted against.) to pass committee. The bill was amended to apply to only ages 16 and older. The hearing was pretty interesting; discussion of HB2479 went on for over an hour(!). I watched it on the internet, that worked really well –from what i can tell, you can only see it in real time, i.e. there is no archive. There was open skepticism that police in Tucson are issuing tickets to cyclists just because they “did not put both feet down”, there was further skepticism that such a citation would hold up in court “even in Pima county” (that got some chuckles), Patterson replied that judges tend to defer to police officers. When asked to support the claim that “hundreds” of these citations were being issued by TPD, Rep Patterson explained that he asked but that TPD does not keep records by bike vs. motorist. But the bottom line is that not one of these non-foot-putter-downers materialized to corroborate these claims. Another committeman (Seel?) quoted state ofIdaho Bike coordinator McNesse (out of context, in my opinion) to make it sound as though McNeese is against the stop-as-yield law — he is not.  Rep Barnes (i think) said something encouraging in effect: “I sense anti-cyclists sentiments and I don’t share them… we need to work to make cycling safer (in other areas)”
• Hearing on Oregon’s stop-as-yield bill soon. They have been through this before, twice even, and I expect one of these times it will stick.

2) HB2546 “motor vehicles; bicycles; operation requirements”. Contains a bunch of things. It contains several of the same elements of HB2503 (46th 1st regular session, you MUST “change sessions” FIRST before clicking the link) that died in 2003.

• As of mid-March, the bill looks dead. It never made it to hearing. It is “stuck” in the transportation committee. The bill’s main sponsor, Nancy Young-Wright, is not optimistic for this session.

3) HB2394 and SB1082 (identical) “technical correction; overtaking bicycles” is some wording changes to the existing §28-735(C). Seeing as how HB2546, above, seeks to completely replace 28-735(C), might this be a problem?