An Update On "Stop As Yield" Legislation In the United States

Biking has increased in popularity since the start of the pandemic.  With concern over taking public transportation and a desire for a fun, engaging activity that can be done while remaining socially distant, folks everywhere have been fixing up old bikes and buying new ones in large numbers.  For months now, bike shops in Chicago, and around the world, have found themselves in short supply of new bikes due to increased demand and supply chain issues.

With a significant increase in the number of people riding their bikes the need for laws that adequately serve and protect cyclists increases as well.  Eight years ago, I wrote a piece that appeared in Urban Velo (now defunct) chronicling the growing popularity of "stop as yield" laws, rules that permit bicyclists to treat stop signs - and in some cases, traffic lights - as yield signs.  Since then some additional states have adopted the law enacted first by the State of Idaho for the first time nearly 40 years ago.  Here's what's been happening over the past few years:

• In 2017 Delaware became the second state in the country, after Idaho, to pass a law "permitting/requiring bicyclists to yield at stop signs (when the coast is clear), instead of requiring a complete stop at all stop signs," according to Bike Delaware. That organization notes that, "One of the keys to the near-unanimous passage of this legislation was the involvement, suggestions and buy-in from the Delaware State Police."
• The following year, 2018, Colorado passed a law permitting municipalities in the state to adopt "stop as yield" at their discretion.  "Under the 'Safety as Yield law,' if a municipality passes a local law, a cyclist approaching a stop sign has to slow to 'a reasonable speed' and can proceed once it's safe to do so.  When approaching a red light, a bicyclist has to completely stop and can go once there is no cross traffic," according to The Coloradoan.
• In 2019 Arkansas passed it's own statewide "stop as yield" law.  Under that law bike riders must "first slow down when approaching a stop sign, but they don’t have to stop unless it’s necessary to avoid an immediate hazard. They must also yield to any pedestrians who might be at the intersection.  At red lights, the rider must come to a complete stop, but may proceed through the intersection with caution once traffic is clear," according to The Fayetteville Flyer.
• On January 1, 2020, Oregon became the fourth state to adopt a state-wide "stop as yield" law.  Under that statute, "if a cyclist who is approaching an intersection where traffic is controlled by a sop sign slows to a safe speed, the cyclist may do any of the following without violating the law: proceed through the intersection without stopping, make a right turn or left turn into a two-way street, make a right or a left turn into a one-way street in the direction of traffic upon the one-way street," according to bike lawyer, and friend, Bob Mionske, at BicycleLaw.com.

To my knowledge there is no current effort in Illinois to pass a "stop as yield" law.  This is shortsighted.  The current COVID-19 crisis only heightens the need for such a bike friendly law.  As many fear taking public transit, they look to bikes to get around.  The law should be revised to consider the needs of the growing ranks of Illinois bicyclists.

Why I Run Red Lights

I run red lights.  Stop signs too.  Not just sometimes, but often.  When I do it, it is because I view it as the safest way to approach traffic conditions.  I do not do it to simply thumb my nose at the law; and let me be clear, in Illinois running red lights and stop signs on a bicycle is against the law.  Bicyclists in Chicago can and do get ticketed for doing so.  (So far, I've be lucky in that regard.)  I do not do it to be cool.  I'm a 40-something year old, dad and lawyer.  I ain't cool.  I do it because I love to ride in the city and surviving Chicago's congested streets in my opinion sometimes requires disobeying the rules of the road.

Any city cyclist will tell you that the name of the game is staying alive; to not get poleaxed by the much faster, much heavier, fully mechanized vehicles with which we must share our streets.  That means doing whatever possible to just stay away from cars, trucks, buses.    Controlled city intersections often provide the bicyclist with a good opportunity to break away from traffic, to acquire that little cocoon of space so prized in the urban street scape.  For example, when I commute to my office in the Loop I travel in the southbound bike lane along Milwaukee Avenue, make a left on West Kinzie Street , then turn right into the bike lane at North Wells.  The route is reasonably comfortable, until Wells crosses Wacker Drive.  At that point the bike lane ends and I, and many other commuting cyclists must share the one-way street with motor vehicles underneath the "El" tracks.


View Larger Map

At that point riding anywhere but in the main lane for traffic is undesirable to say the least.  Both shoulders are guarded by "El" track support columns, parked cars and rough, uneven pavement.  Between Wacker Drive and the alleyway that accesses my building's bike room I cross three controlled intersections, West Lake Street, West Randolph Street and West Washington Street.  I slow or stop at each, but take any opportunity -- within the bounds of reason and sanity -- to traverse these cross streets when the light is red.  Doing so allows me to get away from motor vehicle traffic behind and adjacent to me.  Illegal?  Yes.  But reasonable and safe in my opinion.  The goal is to say away from motorized traffic whenever and where ever possible.

Here is what the intersection of Wells and Washington looks like:


View Larger Map

My approach is certainly open to valid criticism.  Some may argue that if I, and other bicyclists, want to be treated like traffic we should act like it by obeying the rules to which other roadway users must submit.  I have been a proponent of the "We Are Traffic" slogan often used by bicycle advocates.  Indeed bicyclists are entitled to use the road, equally entitled as a matter of fact to use it just as are cars and trucks.  This is what I think the slogan was originally meant to emphasize.  However, the angry enemies of bicycles have attempted to turn the "We Are Traffic" slogan on its head, to pick nits with every occasion a bicyclist fails to act as a motor vehicle in a given situation as an excuse for railing against cyclists.  To these would-be strict constructionists of decal slogans I would say, we are traffic, but we are not cars.  To require people on bikes to lumber around the city like a 2,000 lbs vehicle is to ignore reality, and, as I've attempted to demonstrate, to prohibit them from exercising a safe and reasonable approach to congested conditions, to selectively contravene traffic signals.

Video Shows That "Idaho Stops" Are Common Among Motorists

I have advocated for a change in Illinois law to permit bicyclists to take the "slow and go" approach (sometimes called an "Idaho stop") with regard to stop signs and traffic lights. Presently, bicyclists in our state -- like motor vehicle drivers -- are required to come to a complete stop at traffic control devices. However, as I argued in August, the current state of the law does not reflect how bicyclists should reasonably be expected to operate on roadways, especially in crowded urban settings .

One objection to enacting an Idaho stop law in Illinois is that bicyclists should not receive special treatment. They are indeed treated by our law as "vehicles" and one might argue that all vehicles should be subject to the same rules. The driver may argue, If I have to stop so should Joe bicyclist. That position is not without logic. But in the city, don't motor vehicles usually slow and go themselves; at least at stop signs? The amusing video posted below (which I found at chicagobikeracing.com) reflects how city motor vehicle drivers tend to approach stop signs. I am not suggesting that stop signs be effectively turned into yield signs for motorized traffic. But let's stop pretending that "slow and go" is something radical. We all do it, motorists and bicyclists. I submit that for bicyclists the law should permit this practice. It is much easier for a car, truck or bus to come to a complete stop then proceed forward again. Unlike bicycles they do not rely upon the strength and physical dexterity of the operator to move. Also, bikes do not pose the same hazard to other roadway users and pedestrians that motor vehicles do. The risk of permitting bicyclists to adopt the Idaho stop is far less than permitting cars and trucks to slow and go. Finally, in crowded urban settings bicycle use should be encouraged as a means for getting around. They do not pollute the air and provide significant health benefits for the bicyclist. Permitting the Idaho stop may make the riding experience more pleasant and thereby encourage more folks to peddle to the store and to work.