Idaho stop would be great. And I'm all for a crackdown on bizzarely dangerous cyclist behavior, like flying down Calvert the wrong way in the middle of a lane.

That being said, we need to pass some serious laws to protect cyclists. We need 3 foot passing laws, we need to specifically teach that cyclists have rights to the road in driver's ed, etc.

It gets tiring to continuously read about drivers "not seeing" cyclists. If you hit someone, and you didn't see them directly in front of your vehicle on a clear sunny day, you should be charged with manslaughter and your driving privileges should be revoked.

Let me play devil's advocate by suggesting that there are two sides to the issue of bicycle riders and one-way streets. Many years ago I biked to work, not in rush hour, between North Baltimore and downtown, mostly using St. Paul and Calvert/Charles Streets.
When I was a kid, the Boy Scout manual taught me to face traffic while walking in a roadway. The idea was to observe traffic sooner than a driver and get out of the way.
Similar logic could be applied to bikers. Following the rules on a one-way street often means riding in the motorist's blind spot in the right rear. If the driver makes a quick swerve to avoid an obstacle ahead, or makes a quick right turn, the cyclist is in danger.
At least while riding facing traffic, the cyclist can see what's coming, and more important, the motorist is more likely to see the biker sooner.
As I said, there are two sides to the question. But I'm not entirely convinced that the "legal" answer is the safer one. Of course this discussion would be irrelevant if both bikers and motorists would use common sense.

Marvelous idea! Someone gets it. There are two aspects to the situation and both are better for the cyclist with a 'not-quite-complete' stop. One aspect is the ability to see the traffic. In a vehicle, the driver is surrounded by the body, some of which obstructs the view: the rear-view mirror and the A pillar. It is necessary to come to a complete stop so that traffic hidden by those obstructions can move into view. On a bike, there are no such obstructions to view. Two, when at a stop, a vehicle's occupants are protected by the structure from traffic which might be aimed at them. On a bike, the rider is essentially naked and helpless. In a motor vehicle it is possible to use the engine to move out of the way. Not so when on a bike with a foot down.
No argument presented here is intended to be applied to motorcycles.

Jim,

At first glance riding against traffic would seem logical, but you do not want to be doing that in the street. Pedestrians on sidewalks or shoulders should walk facing traffic.

Cyclists are vehicles. They should ride with the flow of traffic, and I argue, taking a lane, to be safe. I always take the lane on our one-way and shoulderless streets. It's better to be honked at than buzzed by or doored.

And a word for pickup drivers out there--if you have a dually, please, please remember the width of the rear of your truck. If you pass by within a foot of me with the front half of your car--you're running me over with the back tires.

Can we do something about the bikers who ride on sidewalks? Where are the police? In a city so hard up for cash, does it not make sense to hand out tickets to cyclists to generate more revenue, while at the same time making sidewalks safer for actual pedestrians?

Aren't cycling groups always out there asking for more stringent enforcement against drivers? Yet when there is some very infrequent enforcement against them when claim they should be able to ignore stop signs, and red lights, or even ride the wrong way down a one way street. Incredible. I observe all those behaviors frequently.

Bikes travel much faster than pedestrians and are less visible than cars. They are also relatively uncommon so drivers would not reasonably anticipate them. Having a bike whiz into an intersection puts both the cyclist and drivers at risk. If cyclists don't want to obey traffic laws fine, but not if they're going to be on the roads.

Jim,

Motor Vehicle's speed: 25mph
Pedestrian's speed: 3mph
Bicycle's speed: 14mph

(These are all approximates)

Total closing speeds:
Bicycle against motor vehicle: 39mph
Bicycle with motor vehicle: 11mph
Pedestrian against motor vehicle: 28mph
Pedestrian with motor vehicle: 22mph

The pedestrian can, and probably will, dodge out of the way if the motor vehicle isn't moving over. The bicycle, unless he's more talented than most, can't dodge out of the way.

The motor vehicle can proceed behind a bicycle and wait for an opening to pass. If the bicycle is oncoming both will have to stop, completely. As for the pedestrian: The motor vehicle will have to come to a near stop either way, and the pedestrian will probably just step onto the curb.

Pedestrians and bicycles are different things, and should behave differently on the roads.

It gets even worse when you talk about bikes riding the wrong way down sidewalks. They become almost invisible and get hit as cars pull in and out of drives.

JJ,

The Idaho stop law turns a stop sign into a yield sign. You must still make sure that the intersection is clear, and will remain so, before proceeding through it.

It doesn't mean that cross traffic has to watch out for bikers blowing stop signs at full speeds. It means that bikers coming to empty intersections can slow as necessary, look, and go through when no one is coming.

The law, as implemented in Idaho, has had little if any impact on anyones safety.

I don't see anyone advocating for more bike salmon or red light running.

My experience out here in the 'burbs is that the Idaho stop is a fact of life for all vehicles, all the time. Seeing anyone come to a complete stop at a stop sign or for a right on red is clearly the rare exception and not the rule.

By the way, putting some requirement in driver education is pretty meaningless. Respecting speed limits has been there since day one and look how effective that is.

John,

I agree with you that drivers ed requirements might not do a whole lot, but they couldn't hurt any. If it even got people to realize for one second bikes belong on the streets, then maybe a few of them would have less rage.

The Idaho stop law has 25+ years of experience that have shown that this is an effective method to modify the law that both respects safety (cyclists still must yield at all intersections) and efficient.

As cyclists we have a wider angle of vision, shorter stopping distance, lower speeds, and the ability to hear (without a steel box) the surrounding traffic. These characteristics are what makes the change viable and safe.

I'd love to see the MD state legislature pass this, but we can't even get a law mandating 3' of passing clearance, so it's going to take some time.

However most cyclists will continue to act in this manner, balancing the savings in time and energy with the slight safety risk.

For more on this, see this great video:
http://vimeo.com/4140910

Jed, confident and experienced cyclists can, should, and do use the roads, mixing with cars just like any other vehicle.

However, vulnerable cyclists (inexperienced cyclists, youngsters, the elderly, etc.) HAVE to ride on the sidewalks in Baltimore. It's the only safe option for them. Cyclists just have to be careful at intersections (when you're on the sidewalk, turning cars are unlikely to see you approaching the cross street) and be very, extremely courteous and mindful of pedestrians, even to the point of slowing down to walking speed when approaching them, either from the rear or head-on.

You must understand that cyclists have to be especially careful. Drivers on cell phones, with the low winter sun in their eyes, not used to watching for cyclists, or just impatient at the end of a frustrating day at work... it's an invitation to disaster. I've been hit once on my bike by an impatient, careless driver, and I'd rather not repeat the experience. You've got to be careful, and in Baltimore, that includes riding on the sidewalks if you need to.

If you choose to do society (including car drivers!) a favor, keep yourself fit, and help the environment by cycling or walking instead of driving, you've got a right to be safe while doing so.

Statistically, cycling is much safer than being in a car, but we cyclists have to do what we can to avoid colliding with cars--because in the rare event that this does happen, cyclists lose every time.

Until the city chooses to support cylists (and therefore pedestrians) by installing more cycling facilities (e.g., bike lanes, signage, parking racks, etc.), cyclists and pedestrians are just going to have to share the sidewalks.

BaltBiker,

I see your point, I guess I'm just speaking for myself. I feel safer just taking a lane and being in the street, but I'm not a beginner or youth/elderly cyclist.

Hopefully the continued interest in cycling in the city, and the great work of the city's bike planner and others will get us to a point where we have significant infrastructure for cyclists.

BaltBiker,

You do realize that it is against the law to ride a bike on the sidewalks of Baltimore City, right? Baltimore City Code Article 31 Subtitle 18.

http://bit.ly/4jFY1W

Of course I realize that riding on sidewalks is against the law. But if you had to choose between 1) breaking a law by committing a victimless crime and 2) putting yourself at serious risk of major harm or death, what choice is there, really?

baltbiker are you kidding us? walk.

If a prospective rider is genuinely unable to confidently manage on the streets and roads and truly requires using the sidewalk then they should limit their riding to those nice quiet suburban blocks that don't have any pedestrians.