Cyclists
One of the biggest complaints from drivers is that cyclists often do not stop completely at traffic lights or STOP signs. But does it make sense to treat two very different modes of transport in the same way?
Interactions between different users on public roads are often a source of frustration, the most notable being those that exist between drivers and cyclists.
For example, many drivers become frustrated when they see bicycles cross an intersection without stopping completely, which drivers are required to do.
Many drivers consider this behavior to be a sign of lack of discipline by cyclists or even an example of double standards. In fact, cyclists do not appear to be taking any real risk by simply slowing down at STOP signs rather than coming to a complete stop.
On the other hand, drivers run the risk of receive a heavy fine for dangerous driving if they disregard a STOP sign.
Therefore, should cyclists be required to follow the same traffic rules as drivers, or should we recognize that these rules do not always reflect the reality of cycling in a city?
Strict equality between cyclists and drivers
In Quebec, as in many other jurisdictions, traffic laws apply to all users, whether drivers or cyclists.
For example, all users must come to a complete stop at stop signs and red lights. If cyclists break these rules, they have “the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle”, in the words of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In other words, regardless of the differences between a car and a bicycle, the law treats them equally. Of course, this equality often remains theoretical, as the application of rules may vary depending on context and behavior.
Deceptive equality
Uniform enforcement of traffic rules may seem fair, but in reality it can create a false sense of equality.
On the one hand, the risks associated with different modes of transport are immeasurable. A car that runs a red light may cause serious or even fatal injuries. A cyclist, on the other hand, is unlikely to cause the same degree of damage.
Furthermore, cycling efficiency depends on maintaining speed. Having to stop completely over and over again discourages people from cyclingdespite its many benefits for health, the environment and traffic flow.
Treating two very different means of transport in the same way is therefore equivalent to implicitly favoring cars, something similar to imposing the same speed limit on pedestrians and trucks.
The Idaho Stopping Rule
Rather than treating bicycles and automobiles as equal, some jurisdictions have chosen a different approach. The state of Idaho is a good example.
Since 1982, cyclists in Idaho have been able to consider a STOP sign as a give way sign and a red traffic light as a STOP sign. Several US states (such as Arkansas, Colorado and Oregon) and countries, such as France and Belgium, have adopted similar regulations.
In Quebec and other parts of Canada, discussions for the adoption of such regulations.
It’s important to note that the purpose of Idaho’s stopping rule is not to legalize chaos on the roads. Cyclists must also give preference to cars who move in front of you at STOP signs, as well as pedestrians at all times, and can only enter the intersection when it is clear.
Idaho’s stopping rule has three main advantages.
First, the rule recognizes that the Cycling dynamics are fundamentally different of traffic and, therefore, cannot be treated in the same way.
Second, Idaho’s stopping rule takes the burden of issuing fines off the courts and police.
Third, cycling efficiency depends on maintaining momentum. Stop completely over and over again discourages cyclingdespite its many benefits for health, the environment and traffic flow.
The effects of the reform
Given these two very different approaches to bicycles, one may wonder which is more appropriate.
Several empirical studies show that adopting Idaho’s stopping rule does not lead to an increase in traffic collisions.
Some studies even suggest a modest decrease in collisions with Idaho’s stop regulation. This happens because cyclists cross intersections more quicklyreducing your exposure to cars. Furthermore, drivers are more attentive to the movements of cyclists.
In fact, the majority of road users, both drivers and cyclists, often does not strictly obey at stop signs. According to a study carried out by the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ), only 35% of drivers stop correctly. Also according to SAAQ, only 27% of cyclists report stopping completely at mandatory stop signs.
In summary, the adoption of the Idaho stop rule wouldn’t create chaosbut it would regulate an already common practice without compromising public safety, contrary to some concerns. Cyclists who rarely stop completely when there is no traffic often slow down before crossing as they are aware of their vulnerability.
A cultural shift
Furthermore, the issue of introducing the Idaho stopping rule in Quebec invites broader reflection.
For decades, our laws and road infrastructure have been designed primarily for automobiles. Many drivers still consider cyclists dangerous and behave recklessly.
However, it is important to remember that cars are the main structural risk on our roads and that cyclists are, in fact, vulnerable. This structural hazard has increased with the growth of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and pick-up trucks, which increases risks for pedestrians and cyclists.
Adopting Idaho’s mandatory stopping rule would not give cyclists carte blanche, but it would recognize their realities and legitimize cycling as a mode of transportation, with traffic regulations tailored to its risks and benefits. This modest but symbolic reform could be part of a broader set of changes that would offer citizens true freedom and security when moving.
