152
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
152 points (92.2% liked)
Fuck Cars
16550 readers
1239 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Everyone is an asshole here, blowing through red lights. Fuck everyone involved. Nothing to do with cars or bikes. I'm pissed.
Nope! Cars and bikes have different traffic laws. Where I live what the cyclist did is perfectly legal because they only have to yield but not stop and they expected the car to stop as it should have.
Just to be clear, this is different states by state. Some states allow a yield at a stop sign for cyclists. Some require a strict stop like ant other vehicle on the road. There may even be stricter city ordinances too. Know your local laws before cycling through a stop.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
As a cyclist it is safer to yield because bikes can't speed up quickly from a stop. If we maintain speed it's easier to get out of the way if we need to.
If you don’t stop you would be putting yourself in danger in the intersection, stopping allows you to see the dangers and account for them.
If you’re a stopped, the only danger is from behind you at the stop sign. You’re avoiding the danger ahead in the intersection and can now time it appropriately to get through.
How is not stopping at intersections safer? A car can’t also make a maneuver while stopped…. The same logic you’re using is the same for cars, so bikes shouldn’t be singled out and allowed for that reason.
I would love a source for this “being safer”. You keep saying this, and are the only one, provide data to back it up, because it’s bullshit.
Driving and sharing the road is about being predictable, ignoring traffic signs is the most unpredictably thing you can do. Your suggesting is an extremely dangerous way to share the road.
A bicycle at a full stop is slower in restoring their speed. This means they are taking longer to clear the intersection than if they'd just yielded. Being in an intersection is always fundamentally more dangerous than not being in an intersection.
And if there are cars also stopped at the intersection, they're now waiting longer than if the cyclist had gone through. So a cyclist is holding up traffic and putting themselves at greater risk of someone blowing the stop sign (either from not paying attention or from weird road rage authority trips like OP) for no reason.
I do agree that the most important thing in driving is being predictable. However, 11 states have yield-at-stop laws on the books. In those states, yielding is the predictable behavior for a bicyclist and it is dangerous for a driver to assume a cyclist will come to a full stop. Everyone operating a vehicle of any kind on a public road needs to be alert, cautious, and aware of local laws.
Most people are only going like 10 to 15 mph on a bike. That's plenty of time to see the entire intersection as you approach. When I was 15 my back tire got hit by speeding car that ignored the sign. It was really scary and if I hadn't stopped before crossing I would have been going faster and not gotten hit. That's why when I look ahead, which I have plenty of time to do, I just go through, plus it's entirely legal too.
Depends on the intersection, my city has tons of blind intersections due to walled communities everywhere. You can see ahead of you but can't see the cross streets
I agree with that. Not directed at you, but I assumed people would realize that going through the stop sign is only really done at intersections that have good visibility (and low traffic, obviously if a lot of cars are around you'd probably have to stop) and I think I may have assumed wrong.
I have never bought this argument. I don't believe it's safer to blow through a stop sign. It's just inconvenient to have to stop.
Cyclists also have a much, much better overview of the situation than a car driver in their isolated cabin with all the blind spots.
Let’s be honest here, you have blind spots as a cyclist as well. Yeah, you can have the equipment to see 360 without twisting to look behind you, but most don’t have that.
Where I live bicycles and cars have to follow the same rules.
My state updated their rules just three years ago. As a cyclist I have noticed a lot of drivers are unaware of this. It's possible there is recent legislation you are unaware of.
Here in Georgia bicycles are legally classified as vehicles (OCGA 40-6-291) and are required to obey all traffic signs and signals. They also require bicycles stopped at intersections to signal which way they are going, but they never seem to do that here.
To be fair, I assumed it was that way everywhere. Was Idaho the first state to legalize that? (Asking because I'm seeing it referenced as an 'Idaho stop' when searching. That aside, thank you for encouraging me to double check, normally I keep an eye out on changing traffic laws (like the GA slow poke law), but I'm sure I need to reread the book again sometime.
Here in the EU, bikes have a lot of places where they get special treatment, but blowing through red lights isn't one of them.
The above post states this occurred at a stop sign and not at a light. They used the words "in my neighborhood" implying that this is also a residential area where there would be less traffic.
Stop signs are no different. Traffic or no traffic, you heed the sign. Only losers blow past the stop sign without stopping. I also use my turn signal when no one is around. It's just what a good and safe driver does. Because muscle memory and good habits save lives in the end. At least they prevent accidents.
I think the main difference is, in places like the Netherlands especially in low-traffic neighborhoods, they would build yield signage rather than stop signs. America has a lot more of the latter, primarily because of the abundance of speed-demon cars.
Makes sense. 👍 I live in a bike city. We don't really have stop or yield signs for bike roads. Those roads kind of just merge smoothly with each other. They try to avoid intersections at all. But people manage just the same. People do what makes sense. It's less dangerous because the cars are on completely separate roads.
I think you missed the point about cyclists having different traffic laws. In fact the reason why the have it is for safety. A bike can't speed up quickly like a motor vehicle can so it's safer to maintain speed when possible.
Source? Moving is dangerous, not moving at a stop sign the only danger is from behind, so logically what you’re saying doesn’t even make sense. And i doubt there’s any study to support that.
They changed the law probably mainly so they wouldn’t have to waste time ticketing, it’s very rarely ever about safety.
Also, my old civic can’t accelerate fast, most bikes accelerate faster, so… that can’t be the reasoning. Lots of cars accelerate slowly and e-bikes accelerate faster than fast cars.
You can't move quickly at first and if a speeding car comes by you can't get out of the way. When I was 15 I experienced a driver blowing through the stop sign and hitting my back tire. It was super scary. If I hadn't stopped first I still would have been going fast and wouldn't of gotten hit by the car. That's why if I see that no one is coming I just go through.
This isn’t a source, it’s an anecdote.
I didn't miss it.
In the EU we have sensible rules where predictability trumps bullshit like that. Predictability is an extremely important factor for safety. Speeding up isn't an important factor lol, I've never heard such a silly rationale for allowing a certain vehicle to break the rules. What the actual fuck. 'Murica though, right? 😂
This is in Minnesota which is literally a mini Canada and the law was signed in by Tim Walz in 2023. Also bicycles are literally pedestrians and not vehicles.
Apologies, I don't know who Tim Walz is or why it's relevant. Also don't know what it means for the sake of argumentation that a state is a "mini Canada". 🤷♂️ No clue what the significance is there. 😅
🤨 That's weird. According to whom? Not Wikipedia anyway.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle
Bikes traveling on a road should adhere to the rules of that road, just like any other vehicle traveling on that road.
Walz is the guy who ran with Harris against the diarrhea doo doo fecal man. I don't expect anyone outside the US to know who he is.
My point is that bicycles should never be grouped with cars because of how different they are. Bicycles should probably have their own rules but if they were to be grouped with anything, it's definitely pedestrians and not vehicles.
There's a guy in my town who gets around on a motorized wheelchair which technically means he's operating a motor vehicle but it would be pretty insane to expect him to follow the same rules as a car driver, so it makes much more sense, for simplicity's sake, to classify him as a pedestrian even though he technically isn't.
I think it's sensible they have similar rules to cars, because bikes are much, much faster than pedestrians. Ride on right side of road, the "right-hand yield rule", following signs that are in place, etc. I don't understand why it's better to have them treated as pedestrians, when they behave so differently from pedestrians.
But different roads have different rules. Ride on car road, follow car rules. Ride on pedestrian road, follow those rules. It's about context and predictability, again.
In Washington, cyclists treating stop signs as yield signs was added to the state code in 2020, despite the fact that bicycles are broadly defined as vehicles.
Yeah the "bicycles are vehicles" thing I've always found weird cause like, 5 year olds ride bikes, and it's very weird to call them a driver or a vehicular operator cause they are literally 5 years old. This is why bikes should be grouped separately from cars, since they are very different things.
5 year olds don't ride alone on a large road though. They are usually/should always be accompanied by an adult when riding on a road with other trafficants. Also their vehicles won't be as deadly as one necessarily operated by an older person, e.g. a car.
I feel like your view of "vehicle" is a bit black and white. 😬 There are nuances to this, of course.
I guess all this is exacerbated by the fact that America is a terrible bike country. It's a car country. So bikes are often forced to ride with cars, which is not good. But it makes sense that they should follow the same rules, because consistency is important.
It was said that "for some reason people don't know these special rules for bikes". Yeah, no kidding. Special rules are hard. Consistency is simple and predictable and the most important for safety IMO. 👍
Yet there they are, operating a vehicle (at least in my backwoods state).
Have you read your state code on the subject? Laws tend to be written with very specific language to cover edge cases and exceptions. "Following the same rules" is rarely the law as implemented.
If you're comfortable sharing your state or province I'll look up the statute for you if you're interested.
Oh definitely. Georgia, USA, the relevant bit should be https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-40/chapter-6/article-13/part-1/section-40-6-291/:
"The provisions of this chapter that apply to vehicles, but not exclusively to motor vehicles, shall apply to bicycles, except as provided in this Code section and except that the penalties prescribed in subsection (b) of Code Section 40-6-390, subsection (c) of Code Section 40-6-391, and subsection (a) of Code Section 40-6-393 shall not apply to persons riding bicycles."
There are a lot of exceptions. Any time the code uses the term "motor vehicle" it does not apply to bicycles. When it uses, "vehicle" it does.
The sections that define traffic control devices all use the term vehicle, so according to the law, you shall stop at the stop sign.
But every section I have found about enforcement of traffic laws uses the term, "motor vehicle." Ticketing, red light cameras, and the court process all apply to "motor vehicles," rather than, "vehicles." The section you linked lists several exceptions by reference and they are all exempting bicycles from the specific language about penalties for violating traffic laws.
From reading the code, I would still reccomend the practices I reccomended elsewhere in this thread. Disregard stop signs and proceed nonstop if the intersection is clear. It is safer as a cyclist to treat stop signs as yields. You should prioritize your own safety over the law.
Though the law says you must stop, it has little power to enforce it.
The most dangerous place for cyclists is the middle of an intersection. Bicycles do not have A pillars, and thus no blind spots. If the intersection is clear, the cyclist should continue through without stopping to leave the intersection faster. Bicycles are slow to start, and can only take evasive actions while in motion. So its much safer to not stop.
Those laws are good and make cyclists safer. Some places may have different laws, but any law telling cyclists to stop at all stop signs should be disregarded. Ensuring your own safety is far more important than appeasing bureaucrats.
Edit: Just re-read my own local traffic laws and cyclists can legally treat stop signs as yeild signs here too!
I dislike bike riders who are assholes. This isn't that.