Improving Traffic Laws for Cyclists in CA

way to do jump in and take action. I think it is a great idea! I could not get the link to work...but count me in as a California signature.

I can't say I agree with this idea.  Don't get me wrong, I would love to be able to roll through stop signs and go through those annoying red lights that never turn green because I can't trip them on my bike.  But I'm thinking the average driver doesn't know what the laws pertaining to cyclists are, and all they are going to see are cyclists blowing through stop signs and red lights, whether it is actually legal or not.  Maybe the effort would be better spent attempting to educate the driving and cycling public about what the current laws actually are, since many drivers seem to think cyclists don't belong on the road, and many cyclists seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are actually supposed to follow traffic laws.  I just think passing a law that exempts cyclists from following certain traffic laws (no matter how much sense it makes for us) is just going to increase the perception that we don't think we have to follow any rules.

I'm not necessarily against it, but also not thinking that this is in the top 10 (or top 1000) things I'd like to see the CA legislature spending time on just now...

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.

Okay, to the naysayers, I would argue this.  If you are riding in a state or locale that has a set of laws for cyclists that allows bikes to yield and roll stop signs and to stop and proceed at red lights if and when traffic is clear, there is nothing to prevent you from stopping at stop signs and waiting at red lights.  That would be your choice.  Proceeding in front of cross traffic that has the right-of-way would still be illegal (and dangerous).

Yes, educating the public about laws is great, I'm all for that.  You can't reach everyone with a message, but certainly there is no harm in trying and much to be gained from doing so.

No, you wouldn't be breaking the laws by doing these things (rolling stops and proceeding through red lights), because the law would allow you to do it.  You would need to yield, so as to not get yourself killed.  To be completely honest, many times you are better off entering a 4-way or 2-way stop with some momentum on your side, because the more time you spend in that intersection, the more likely an aggressive or inattentive driver will usurp your right-of-way and imperil you.  That's been my experience from nearly forty years of riding a bike on streets.

All 8 billion of California's residents don't live in one square block, but there are certainly areas with higher population density,  greater traffic and larger intersections than are seen in most parts of Idaho.  The concept might need some modification for these circumstances (e.g., signage prohibiting a red-light  roll through at some intersections).  However, I see nothing wrong with making special provisions for cyclists, because virtually the entire traffic infrastructure is built for cars and not for bicycles. 

Is it reasonable to expect cyclists to wait for a car to trigger the light?  I don't think so.  If a light can't be triggered by a bike (most lights), then your only choice with no vehicle traffic going your way is to dismount your bike and exit to the sidewalk to find a walk signal.  You get to do that twice if you are trying to make a left-hand turn.  That's a crock.  And how do you know if the signal will sense you or not beforehand?  You don't in most cases, and not at all if you are riding in unfamiliar territory.  So you pull up in a left turn lane, and five minutes later you don't get a signal.  What then?  You either run it, or do something funky to get over to the walk signal.  You ought to be able to legally run it without the worry of receiving a citation from a police officer who dislikes cyclists.  Even if you could win that ticket in court, why should you have to go through the major hassle?

And what exactly constitutes a stop on the bike at a stop sign?  It's not unheard of in some municipalities for a cyclist to be cited because he didn't unclip and put a foot on the ground.  Yet many cyclists can stop, pause and proceed without putting a foot down.  Are drivers expected to open a door and stick their leg out to get a foot on the ground just to prove that they've stopped their car?  No, of course not.  This is a double standard.  And it's dangerous for the rider, because starting out with a foot unclipped is a much slower process and leaves you in the intersection much longer than starting with both feet clipped in.

There are special provisions and infrastructure for pedestrians.  Sidewalks and crosswalks and easily accessed walk buttons at intersections. If there were buttons conveniently placed for cyclists at the edge of left turn lanes and at the edge of the sidewalks on the right side of the road at every intersection with a stop light, then I might look at the red-light aspect of this proposal with a different perspective.  But this is far from the case.

It seems to me that some posters here are a little fearful of a backlash from motorists if a set of laws such as this were to be passed.  I honestly think that the people who are a-holes toward cyclists will be a-holes either way.  Would it create more a-hole drivers?  Maybe, maybe not, I can't say.  Would it create a climate where more a-hole cyclists take a right-of-way from cars by running stop signs and traffic signals in front of cross traffic that has the right-of-way?  Maybe some, but I doubt a lot would change.  That's a big risk to take, but there is always the possibility that someone on a bike could miscalculate and end up in front of a car because they misjudged the situation.  We've all done that on occasion, and it's certainly a wake up when you screw up on a bike and someone in a car reacts to save your bacon.

I'd be curious to see if car-bike accidents and/or bike fatalities were up in Idaho since the law was passed there.  That would be a good piece of information.

I think the positives outweigh potential negatives, and that it's worth taking a hard look at this.

x2....very eloquently put! and thanks duggar for the Idaho link....time for us californians to pass some new regulations on biking! actually we are LOOONG PAST due!