2010 Session HB091 Stop Sign/Signal for Bicycles

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

There are 2 proposed amendments to this bill:
    #3. clarifying that cyclists shall not proceed through a stop light were no-turn-on-red is indicated. (absolutely)
       http://le.utah.gov/~2010/pamend/hb0091.hfa.03.htm
    #4 . allowing a cyclist to travel through the intersection by using the "right" portion of the shoulder or right turn lane (rather than the left portion as is common practice and for courtesy when using the RTOL lane for through travel).
       http://le.utah.gov/~2010/pamend/hb0091.hfa.04.htm

The later amendment is of huge concern. Riding in the right portion of a shoulder is one of the most dangerous riding positions and causes a bunch of traffic conflicts including:

What when combined with the stop-as-yield and stop and go at lights, this presents other problems if a cyclist passes/squeezes by on the right of a vehicle stopped at a stop sign, then proceeds and maybe not seeing a pedestrian in a cross walk screened by the stopped vehicle or other traffic.
Places the cyclist in the right-hook area
Causes the cyclist to swerve back an forth closer to the edge of the road at all intersections with right-turn lanes (where they should be moving further to the left)
Places the cyclist out of view of passing motorists possibly blocked by parked cars, and out of the typical view of motorists on cross streets looking for traffic.
Will impede the traffic attempting to turn right in a RTOL
Encourages cyclists to pass on the right in spaces they really should not: by "squeezing" by
Creates a double standard in regards to the 3' law
Violates the general traffic principal of slower traffic to the right (pass on the left)
Causes un-predictable movements from the point of view of the motorist
Will cause leap-frogging by motorists after the intersection (rather than taking position behind the last vehicle in the right most through lane)
On roadways where there is no shoulder or "new" lane after the intersection, will cause merging conflicts competing for the same lane.
Further separates cyclists as not being "vehicles" having the same duties of drivers of other vehicles.

The proper position is taking position behind the last vehicle in the right most through lane. Common practice is to use the LEFT portion of the RTOL, not the right portion as indicated in the amendment.

Below is the Colorado Language:
(III) UPON APPROACHING AN INTERSECTION WHERE RIGHT TURNS ARE PERMITTED AND THERE IS A DEDICATED RIGHT-TURN LANE, A BICYCLIST MAY RIDE ON THE LEFT-HAND PORTION OF THE DEDICATED RIGHT-TURN LANE EVEN IF THE BICYCLIST DOES NOT INTEND TO TURN RIGHT.

Underline = Insert
~~Strikeout~~ = Remove
Plain = Existing

Stop Sign Issue

The issue on cyclists not stopping at stop signs goes beyond an inconvenience. Stop signs should not be used as a traffic calming device per the MUTCD @ 2B05:

Guidance:
STOP signs should not be used for speed control.

In practice having to many stop signs in locations where traffic conflict are not likely to occur causes both cyclists and motorists to disregard them all a bit. From the Cottonwood Heights Policy:

The consequence of failing to heed a stop sign can result in vehicular conflicts and bodily injury or even death. As such, it is very important to use stop signs only in locations that warrant their use. Excessive use of a stop sign for other purposes, such as traffic calming, can diminish its message and encourage casual observance at intersections with high consequence conflict points.

We should strive for laws requiring all local jurisdictions to adhere to proper stop sign placement, again from the CH Policy:

E. The decision to install a multi-way stop sign should be based on an engineering study. If the volumes of the intersecting roads are approximately equal and one of the following criteria is met than a multi-way stop sign may be warranted.

The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (sum of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hour average day.

The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approach averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours.

The 85th-percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mph.

There is a history of 5 or more accidents in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop sign installation.

There is a specific need to control left-turn conflicts.

There is a specific need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes.

This is a location where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not reasonably able to safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic also stops.

MUCTD in Utah Code

This section appears to address the MUTCD a bit, but not sure how this is implement or enforced and monitored...

   41-6a-301.   Standards and specifications for uniform system of traffic-control devices and school crossing guards.
     (1) In accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, the Department of Transportation shall make rules consistent with this chapter adopting standards and establishing specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices used on a highway.
     (2) The standards and specifications adopted under Subsection (1) shall:
     (a) include provisions for school crossing zones and use of school crossing guards; and
     (b) correlate with, and where possible conform to, the system set forth in the most recent edition of the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" and other standards issued or endorsed by the federal highway administrator.

Stop as Yield References

Multi Paper Study

Cottonwood Heights Stop Sign Removal Policy

2000 Transportation Interim Committee Minutes (last major revision of the bicycle laws in Utah)

2001 Bill Tracking Page (State of Utah)

Voting Records on Bicycle Bills

Signal issues

Current Utah Law 41-6a-305

(6) The operator of a vehicle approaching an intersection that has an inoperative traffic-control signal shall:
(a) stop before entering the intersection; and
(b) yield the right-of-way to any vehicle as required under Section 41-6a-901.

(7) The operator of a motorcycle, bicycle or moped may proceed through a traffic-control signal provided that the operator:

(a) determines that the traffic-control signal has not detected their presence by either:

(i) waiting a minimum of two minutes at the intersection or stop line where the steady red light was being emitted by the traffic-control signal in the direction of the operator before entering the intersection; or

(ii) has recent personal knowledge that the traffic-control signal does not detect the vehicle they are then operating,

(b) brought the vehicle to a complete stop at the intersection or stop line where a steady red light was being emitted in the direction of the operator; and

(c) no other vehicle that was entitled to have the right‑of‑way under applicable law was sitting at, traveling through, or approaching the intersection; and

(d) no pedestrians are attempting to cross at or near the intersection.

Wisconsin Statutes
346.37(1)(c)4.
4. Notwithstanding subd. 1., a motorcycle, moped, motor bicycle, or bicycle facing a red signal at an intersection may, after stopping as required under subd. 1. for not less than 45 seconds, proceed cautiously through the intersection before the signal turns green if no other vehicles are present at the intersection to actuate the signal and the operator of the motorcycle, moped, motor bicycle, or bicycle reasonably believes the signal is vehicle actuated. The operator of a motorcycle, moped, motor bicycle, or bicycle proceeding through a red signal under this subdivision shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicular traffic, pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device proceeding through a green signal at the intersection or lawfully within a crosswalk or using the intersection. This subdivision does not affect any authorization for a bicyclist under subd. 2.

Arkansas Code of 1987, Annotated.

Sect. 27-52-206. Exception for motorcycles.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a driver of a motorcycle approaches an intersection that is controlled by a traffic-control device, the driver may proceed through the intersection on a red light only if:

(1) The traffic-control device uses a vehicle sensor;

(2) The vehicle sensor has failed to detect the motorcycle because of the motorcycle’s size or weight; and

(3) The driver:

(A) Comes to a full and complete stop at the intersection;

(B) Exercises due care as provided by law; and

Tennessee is currently considering such a law... Some of the concerns are the references to "failed to detect because of ... size or weight." Apparently legislators and their staff haven't caught on the idea of inductive loop sensors or camera detection, either ;-)

California (from Bob S)

The California legislature passed a law in 2007 that partially addresses the problem by saying that all new and modified traffic signals shall detect bicycles and motorcycles <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1551-1600/ab_1581_bill_20071008_chaptered.pdf>. It instructed Caltrans to develop standards and guidelines for implementation, which it did by adopting language revising the CA MUTCD <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/09-06.pdf>. That language was developed by a subcommittee of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee, which they created at my insistence and on which I served and did most of the writing and technical work. For a detailed discussion of the technical issues related to detecting bicycles with inductive loops, see my 2007 presentation to Caltrans: <http://rmshant.googlepages.com/DetectingBicyclesandMotorVehiclesUsi.pdf> or my less detailed March 2008 presentation to the AB 1581 Subcommittee <http://rmshant.googlepages.com/BicycleDetectionatTrafficActuatedSig.pdf>.

As far as California is concerned, that leaves existing signals that don't detect bicycles. I'm thinking that the best way to address that problem is to add bicycle detection as an element of bicycle plans that local agencies have to prepare in order to get funding for their bicycle projects.

The Washington State legislature is considering a similar bill. except that it incorporates much of the language that we chose to put in the CA MUTCD <http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2010&bill=5387>.

North Carolina 20‑158. Vehicle control signs and signals.

Defense. – It shall be a defense to a violation of sub‑subdivision (b)(2)a. of this section if the operator of a motorcycle, as defined in G.S. 20‑4.01(27)d., shows all of the following:

(1) The operator brought the motorcycle to a complete stop at the intersection or stop bar where a steady red light was being emitted in the direction of the operator.

(2) The intersection is controlled by a vehicle actuated traffic signal using an inductive loop to activate the traffic signal.

(3) No other vehicle that was entitled to have the right‑of‑way under applicable law was sitting at, traveling through, or approaching the intersection.

(4) No pedestrians were attempting to cross at or near the intersection.

(5) The motorcycle operator who received the citation waited a minimum of three minutes at the intersection or stop bar where the steady red light was being emitted in the direction of the operator before entering the intersection.