Oregon needs to change the laws for cyclists to match Idaho, which has less problems with cycling deaths and injuries, and then 56% of Oregon cyclists wouldn't be breaking the law. How about that Oregon. Of course, Oregon always trails Idaho and Washington on making necessary law changes. In Idaho, a cyclist can process through a stop sign without stopping, and the same for stop lights, if turning right. Oregon is always far behind the game, I know because was born in Oregon and have lived here the last 63 years.

As a european who lived, drove and biked in the US for a while, I say the problem is not the bicyclists. It's not the drivers either. It's the stop signs. Just replace all of them by a a sign that says 'yield to traffic coming from the right'. That's a system that proves to work quite well in many parts of the world (without the actual signs). It will make the traffic much more fluent, reduce emissions from cars and eliminate law-breaking cyslists by means of natural selection: ignore the sign, get hit by a car.

TGBeckner is absolutely correct. The law he's referring to is commonly called the Idaho Stop. It would seem counterproductive, but there have been fewer accidents after the Stop have been implemented. California is proposing adding the Stop law.

is blazon a neologism portmanteau word combining brazen and blatent?

I'll go ahead and disagree with most everyone here. The problem is not the stop signs. It's the willingness of bicyclists to be inconvenienced. The Idaho stop doesn't fix problems, it bends the law to the preferences of few-- and it's only beneficial in non-metropolitan areas.

If you want to fix the problem of bike safety as it relates to running stop lights and stop signs, then you have to (first) make sure ALL stop lights can recognize a bicycle waiting for a light. Most lights are triggered by inductive loops, video cameras, or microwave sensors. Taking the time to calibrate them to be sensitive to a bike would make a world of difference.

Next, make sure people KNOW that the triggers work... or else bicyclists will not know that they can stop and be appropriately served.

After that, you need to teach as many children (future bicyclists) and current bicyclists the rules of the road. (That means getting out of the bike lane at a stop light if going straight and stopping appropriately.)

Next, once bicyclists begin to stop as a whole, THEN you can consider the Idaho Stop. Otherwise, you will have never taught bicyclists the benefit of making a full stop (making it a habit to scan for cars, bikes, pedestrians, animals, and hazards).

Yes, it is an inconvenience to stop. Yes, we ride machines of momentum and on long rides it's very important to ride with the greatest efficiency possible. But if we want to be on the roads and be respected as having the same rights as motorists, then we need to demonstrate our willingness and capability to hold ourselves to the responsibilities that come with such liberties.

@ RamonZ: In many cases you can scan for hazards without coming to a full stop. And it is very well possible to learn when you have to stop and when not. In my time in the US I've seen many cyclists blast through stop signs without so much as looking up, just assuming others will stop. That is stupid and dangerous. But it really isn't difficult to slow down a little, look left and right and decide whether it is safe to go without having to stop completely, even in a car. On top of that, the idea that bicycles should have the same rights and duties as cars is the thing I've always found the weirdest about the American approach to bicycle road rights. Bikes are not cars. Bicyclists are not pedestrians. They deserve their place on the road and in the law as a separate category. Bikes are narrower than cars, they can stop quicker, and are much less likely to be lethal on collision which is why the rules can and should be different.

AK-77:

Thanks for such an insightful response. I agree that it's fully possible to scan while not attempting a full stop, but, as you say, there are many that just blast through the lights/signs. Those are the people that ruin it for the rest with their actions. They're also my personal target of mandatory full-stops. If they can't be brought under control, then there's no way the general public would accept an Idaho Stop in metropolitan areas.

Oddly enough, you're one of the first few people I've come across that don't like the idea of shared rights/responsibilities of cars and bikes. I'm intrigued by your further rationale, but I don't agree that bikes should have less stringent restrictions solely based on the lethality of collision. Why? Because collisions are not measured in a binary of severity (death vs. survival), but in a sliding scale of damage done. Sure, few people die from getting hit by reckless bike riders, but they surely don't leave unscathed. And that's what the law is there to prevent-- all injuries, not just death.

Hi RamonZ,

I think all rules of the road are a balance between safety and inconvenience. If only safety was a concern there would be 15 mph speed limits on all roads. Not only the consequences, but also the risk of collision is much lower because bikes can stop quicker and swerve around obstacles much more easily. I don't quite understand your reasoning about the reason not to adapt the law. The ones that behave irresponsibly now will continue to do so no matter what the law is, so it's better to make the law such that responsible behavior (rolling through a stop sign when there's clear sight and no cross traffic) is legal.

I guess the main problem in the US (and many other countries) is that you're trapped in a kind of catch-22. There's not many bicyclists so there's no broad support for measures that will increase the safety and hence the popularity of cycling. It will probably take some type of crisis to change that.