Bill allowing cyclists to roll through stop signs clears first hurdle

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • out4trout West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 14, 2018 7:57 p.m.

    Another piece of stupid legislation. I am a bicyclist and I am vehemently opposed to this nonsenses. Those on bikes need to obey the law. What happens when some cyclist misjudges an intersection and gets themselves injured or killed by a motor vehicle? Whose fault. This will go to court and get strung out for months. Lawyers are the only winners if a bill like this becomes law.

  • Sanefan Wellsville, UT
    Feb. 14, 2018 5:33 p.m.

    Bad idea. What are they thinking? Let's get rid of cross walk signals and let folks "roll" (walk) through the busy intersection. And if bikes, why not scooters and motorcycles. Who elects these people?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 14, 2018 3:26 p.m.

    Will there be any safeguards for drivers who hit a cyclist who has just blown through a Stop sign and popped out in front of a car?

  • Rick for Truth Provo, UT
    Feb. 14, 2018 8:22 a.m.

    Wow, this incredibly stupid idea has all of the accident attorneys cheering. Can you say law suits galore. Sadly when cars and bikes collide the bikes will not come out very well. Now as We drive through green lights we will have to anticipate speeding bikes running through the red lights accross our path. Who in the world thinks this is a good idea? I can’t even imagine bikers approve of this insanity. When someone is sued, can they also sue the state, millions more of tax payer dollars wasted.

  • ncraigc Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 14, 2018 7:40 a.m.

    Val Shupe seems to think bikers are idiots. Like bikers don't live in fear of getting hit by a car.
    We have to have a sense of speed and depth perception to cross an intersection whether we stop for a stop sign or not.
    Most intersections that I bike through have no cross traffic. If there is, I stop. But it's a waste of time to stop otherwise. I bike to get to work and back, not joy riding. Also, a bikers speed at intersections is often slower than cars doing 'California' stops.

  • Scott1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2018 11:18 p.m.

    I am against this. I am already annoyed by what seems like half of bicycle riders that will not decide whether they are a bike or a car (i.e. one minute they are in the bicycle lane and the next minute they are crossing the road riding in the crosswalk only to then ride on the public sidewalk).

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Feb. 13, 2018 6:00 p.m.

    People, the argument is not "cyclists do this anyways." There's stronger reasons for it than that.

    The thing is, accelerating from a complete stop is not a quick thing on a bike. If the intersection is open and you come to a complete stop just because there's a stop sign, you are going to take much longer to clear the intersection, which increases the chance of conflict with a car.

    It's safer for cyclists to proceed through when it's open, clear the intersection, and be out of others' way.

    They do need to really be certain it's open. The bill directs cyclists to slow down before reaching the intersection to make sure it's open. The bill might be better if it gave a target speed (i.e. "slow down to below 10mph").

    The same logic does to some extent work for cars. If drivers could be relied on to use them correctly, we could actually increase safety by turning stop signs to yield signs for everyone. But cars can accelerate faster from the full stop, drivers don't have as strong of feedback about the speed they're going as they approach the intersection as cyclists do, and if a driver proceeds into the intersection when it wasn't open they're a much bigger hazard to others.

  • itswhatithink West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 13, 2018 3:09 p.m.

    I am a bike rider - on the roads, and I do not agree with the law. Why? Because I do see riders doing it and I see the risks they take, even with it currently against the law.

    I usually have a lot of respect for this woman, but on this I totally disagree. Too many drivers run stop signs, red lights and don't pay attention to the road. I am almost hit every time I ride because cars are in the intersection before pausing.

    Changing the law will not change the consequence of being hit. If you are dead or injured, it will just add additional boondoggle to the courts and more headaches for officers who have to respond.

    Changing the law because others are already breaking it is a lousy reason to adjust it in favor of one group.

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2018 1:52 p.m.

    "'Cyclists do this anyway,' the sponsor of HB58, Rep. Carol Spackman Moss, D-Holladay, told the committee."

    So, the argument is; that because most cyclists currently break the law; the legislature wants to carve out a special exemption to the law for cyclists.

    Why not allow cars to also treat stop signs as yield signs? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    Or, is it that they feel "entitled" to break the law?

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Feb. 13, 2018 1:27 p.m.

    Kralon,

    So-called "free agency" doesn't really exist, but is constrained by many factors (physical laws, the choices of others, other limitations on choice such as resource availability, etc.) . Just a suggestion to use simply "agency" or "individual agency" as the term "free agency" is not really possible. One can be a free agent (an agent that is free to choose, bound by constraints), but this is very different from the concept of agency, free or constrained.

    I knew what you meant, but I hear this term often and wonder if we are really mean what we are saying.

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    Feb. 13, 2018 1:24 p.m.

    Bicyclists violate all manner of existing laws, why not just exempt them from everything. Let the rest of us try to avoid hitting them.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Feb. 13, 2018 1:11 p.m.

    Just because the behavior is common, doesn't mean we should change the law to accommodate the behavior. People drive 80-85 mph (or faster) on I-15 every day during my commute. Let's just change the speed limit to 85 so they won't be breaking the law.

    p.s. I wish the Highway Patrol would crack down on the excessive speeding and tailgating on I-15. It is dangerous and I have seen it cause accidents with my own eyes.

  • Kralon HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA
    Feb. 13, 2018 1:05 p.m.

    If I look around and see no close cars, I roll through stop signs when on my bike. But, I never do this driving a car.

    In this age of helicopter parenting, safe places, conviction by accusation and political correctedness; this seems a very unlikely bill. This would actually place more responsibility back on an individual where the general trend is to take away free agency, especially when it comes to any perceived safety issue.

    Yeah!