Here's the Idaho code for the Idaho stop:

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.
(3) A person riding a bicycle shall comply with the provisions of section
49-643, Idaho Code.
(4) A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given during not
less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the bicycle before
turning, provided that a signal by hand and arm need not be given if the hand
is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle.
------------------------------------------------------------

In short: You have to slow down and yield for a stop sign. You have to *stop* for a red light.

Just a reminder.

by Jasper on May 21, 2011 11:28 am • link • report

@Jasper

Maybe in Idaho, but in the Commonwealth the law is cyclists must STOP on a red light, and wait for a green.

I've watched this exact section of the trail already and cyclists and pedestrians still enter the intersection when the light/do not walk are both red.

I plan on contacting the police and asking that they start issuing tickets/warnings to cyclists and pedestrians that violate these signals.

That being said, I'm thrilled these signals have finally been installed. This intersection is a deadly one.

by TGEoA on May 21, 2011 5:20 pm • link • report

I just remembered, there are painted stop signs on the ground in both directions, so cyclists are supposed to stop even if the light is green.

by TGEoA on May 21, 2011 5:25 pm • link • report

The biggest safety problem for cyclists coming down that hill (which I've done many times) is that turning motorists tend only to look at who is already in the intersection, and rarely look enough up the hill to see if a 20 mph cyclist will be entering the interestion before the car could clear it. What is really needed, in addition to the existing right-on-red restriction, is a red right turn arrow for motorists when bicyclists on the trail have the green. That is, motorists should always be prohibited from crossing the trail when cyclists have the green bike light.

--Allen Greenberg

by Allen Greenberg on May 21, 2011 6:28 pm • link • report

So here's the thing. At the scott st intersection where one of the lights was installed, 90% of the time the light is red to bikes, and green to cross traffic on scott --- THERE IS NO TRAFFIC ON SCOTT!

The light is triggered by traffic going North on scott turning west on lee -- not crossing the bike path. But there is no left turn signal pattern. It is a simple cross traffic pattern. This means that 90% of the time the light is red for the bikes, it is red to let north bound scott st traffic turn west on Lee hwy.

Beyond being stupid, this breed a different problem. It trains the bikers to ignore the light. The light is a product of faulty traffic planning. It doesnt work. It stops significant traffic flows for no reason. And as a result, bikers just ignore it.

A little bit further east on the Custis, at Lynn St, no biker ignores the light, because the light is real.

Pointlessly imposing car traffic patterns on bikes for no reason only creates further problems.

by Strangefellow on May 21, 2011 8:17 pm • link • report

@ TGEoA: I was just reminding people what an Idaho stop is before people start freaking out about the lycra brigade blazing through red lights.

Personally, I don't mind treating a stop sign as a yield sign as a biker. It is silly to make bikers stop at empty intersections. A slow down is enough. I disagree that bikers should be allowed to stop and go through a red light. It's dangerous.

Overall, bike signals are good. They help create clarity.

by Jasper on May 21, 2011 8:49 pm • link • report

@Allen

Drivers can't see up the hill because the building blocks the view of the trail. The cause of almost every accident is that of the cyclists blowing the stop.

Hopefully the dedicated bike light will help, but im fairly certain that the majority of cyclists will only stop/pause there and there will still be accidents.

Cars that have the green know it is only a short light and are often going 25 mph through the intersection when making a left.

by TGEoA on May 21, 2011 10:15 pm • link • report

Re: Idaho stop.

The first part sounds exactly what pedestrians and cyclists must do on crosswalks.

"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"

Thats exactly how most crosswalk laws around this country are ridden.

Re: Togea:
Why are cars welcome to run red lights legally (right turn on red) so long as the intersection is clear, but if a pedestrian lay foot on the asphalt with a red signal THEY ARE A TERRIBLE JAYWALKER!!!!

Seems like the law makes no sense.

"I just remembered, there are painted stop signs on the ground in both directions, so cyclists are supposed to stop even if the light is green. "

That also makes no sense. Coming to a full stop when presented with a green? That's a recipe for disaster. Go ahead, do that next time you're driving and approach a green light and see what happens.

If the government installs a sign that says "Jump" at the edge of a bridge, doesn't mean you should pay it any attention.

by JJJJJ on May 22, 2011 1:08 am • link • report

@jjjj

At that intersection there is a "no turn on red" sign.

As you know cyclists are supposed to obey all traffic signals, just like drivers. If there is a stop sign (like at this location), cyclists must stop. If the light is red, they should wait until it is green.

by TGEoA on May 22, 2011 10:30 am • link • report

@Strangefellow -

I live on Scott St and I am a runner and a biker. I'm very familiar with both the Scott and Oak crossings.

Scott St is green to bikers 90% of the time, not red 90%. The reason is that there is a lot more traffic on Lee Hwy. There is significant danger to bikers from cars coming South down the hill on Scott. There are warning signs for cars to watch for bikes, but the vegetation blocks the view of these signs. There should also be a sign on Lee Hwy for cars turning right to yield, as this is a big area of vulnerability.

That said, my opinion is that Oak is the more dangerous intersection. Bike speeds are much higher. Bikes crossing Scott going East have just started to go downhill and haven't picked up much speed. Bikes crossing Scott going West are often laboring. Oak is very different. Bikes are either speeding at the bottom of the hill or trying to build up momentum to get up it. While the visibility for cars on Scott may not be great, it is much worse on Oak.

If there is to be a cop handing out tickets, Oak would be the obvious place to focus the efforts. Cars that turn right illegally or block the bike path (my personal pet peeve)should get tickets and bikers who fail to check for traffic (or cross in front of a car) on a red should get a ticket. The solution can't focus on only one group at that intersection and the things my neighbors have suggested are udderly laughable - speed bumps for the bikes. Could you imagine? For Scott, the focus should be on the cars, not the bikes.

by Resident on May 22, 2011 2:07 pm • link • report

@Resident

The solution can't focus on only one group

Damn straight. Great post overall.

by TGEoA on May 22, 2011 3:48 pm • link • report

My observations at Scott St are similar to Resident's: bikes have the green the majority of the time. That bike signal has been active for about a month now, and at the times I've been through there (on a bike) when the bike signal is red, I've seen very poor compliance on the part of bicyclists.

by mhuston on May 23, 2011 9:45 am • link • report

@resident; yep, coming down Scott is dangerous. Once the trees come back, you've got about 3 seconds to spot a bike. In addition, some cars do try to make an (illegal) right turn on Lee Highway. I think a paint job might indicate the stopping line better.

Oak st is a popular spot for cops to hang out, but they mostly are just ticketing speeders on that stretch of lee highway.

I've noticed since the bike lights went in an increase in the Lycra-clad on lee highway itself. Nice weather, or getting confused by bike lights? Perhaps a bike lane on the right most lane. Except for rush hour, Lee highway could support that. The danger is bikes on Lee Highway below Oak (and the sound barriers)

by charlie on May 23, 2011 9:52 am • link • report

I live in an apartment right off the Custis Trail that I access via the little break in the fence at the top of the first steep section coming up from Oak. I commute to Foggy Bottom on my bike, either coming down the Custis Trail in the morning or down 21st St. and around on Oak to access the trail, depending on if I have locked my bike up by the trail or hauled it up the steps off the trail to my building. Personally, I find the more egregious behavior at this intersection to be on the part of other cyclists. I have seen some blatant (and extremely risky) red light running by bikes in both directions. Most of the people in cars coming off Oak onto Lee live in the neighborhood and know the intersection well enough not to disobey the no turn on red sign. Fortunately, I haven't witnessed any accidents.

by Drew on May 25, 2011 3:04 pm • link • report

Scott,

I think this is great, but there is a huge problem that I see a few times a week when I am driving on Lee Highway around this area of Curtis Trail. The problem is that cyclist are using the road instead of the designated bike path! It slows down traffic and is extremely dangerous. Is it against the law for cyclist to be using the road while there is a bike path right next to the road?

Thanks,

Kyle

by Kyle on Jun 8, 2011 6:51 pm • link • report

As someone that has gotten hit by a driver making an illegal right turn on red from N Fort Meyer onto Lee Hwy, while the pedestrian crosswalk signal was active, I have to say the increase signage and signals are helpful. But more warnings need to be added for drivers on the intersections coming from and heading toward the Key Bridge. Drivers really don't pay attention when turning, leaving pedestrians and cyclist having to assert their right of way on crosswalks, which is extremely perilous.

At the same time, cyclists need to honor the rules of the road (in particular the blatant signage, as the new light mentioned in the article) to stop, yield, or dismount, to hold up our end of the bargain.

by Justin on Jul 22, 2011 2:24 pm • link • report