The bill introduced by Arizona State Representatives Doug Quelland and Daniel Patterson, which would have allowed cyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs, is no longer being considered by the legislature.
Quelland’s assistant Jeanae Vernon said the bill wasn’t heard by the transportation committee.
“If they didn’t hear it in committee then it is, so to speak, dead in the water,” Vernon said.
Patterson, who represents Tucson said Andy Biggs, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure committee, would not allow a hearing or vote on the bill.
“I don’t think he is particularly pro-bike,” Patterson said.
Patterson said the law would help cyclists around Arizona, but would be particularly useful to Tucson cyclists.
“It is particularly an issue in Tucson because Tucson Police continues to issue hundreds and hundreds of citations for frivolous stop-sign violations,” Patterson said. “The situation with police stopping and ticketing cyclists for stop sign violations is worse in Tucson than anywhere in the state by far.”
Patterson said they will introduce the bill again next year, but need more help from the cycling community to get it pushed though.
“If cyclists want this there is going to have to be an organized campaign,” Patterson said. “People are going to have to back us up.”
Patterson said he thinks laws like this should be changed to help cyclists.
“There is a lot of lip service paid by politicians wanting to support people riding bikes,” Patterson said. Everybody talks about, ‘we need to reduce traffic, help air quality, help people be healthy and help them get out of their cars. Cyclists deserve some advantages and one of those would be safely yielding at stop signs.”
Patterson is hopeful that next year the support will be there to get the law changed, but continued to stress the importance of support from the cycling community.
“If people want conditions to get better they are going to have to fight for it,” Patterson said. “That is just the way it is.”
You can still download the bill here.
I love Rep. Quelland’s moustache!
I love Rep. Quelland’s moustache!
Patterson had a great statement going until the
last five words….”safely yielding at stop signs.”
Stopping at a stop sign is never a bad idea. It’s
a magical notion that a rolling stop law will
instantly impart the wisdom to all cyclists when
it’s OK to just yield and when it’s best to stop.
It will give cyclists the tendency to think that
they always have the right of way.
It’s why you never see an intersection with
stop signs for two directions and yield signs
for the other two directions. Too unclear.
The four-way-yield-with-a-traffic-circle
intersections are quite nice, however,
and seem to work well for all.
We need to give Patterson some other
more meaningful advantage to focus on.
Patterson had a great statement going until the
last five words….”safely yielding at stop signs.”
Stopping at a stop sign is never a bad idea. It’s
a magical notion that a rolling stop law will
instantly impart the wisdom to all cyclists when
it’s OK to just yield and when it’s best to stop.
It will give cyclists the tendency to think that
they always have the right of way.
It’s why you never see an intersection with
stop signs for two directions and yield signs
for the other two directions. Too unclear.
The four-way-yield-with-a-traffic-circle
intersections are quite nice, however,
and seem to work well for all.
We need to give Patterson some other
more meaningful advantage to focus on.
Red Star thinks there should be serious speed bumps every 100 yards or so on the major arterials (Speedway, Grant, Broadway, Alvernon, Oracle, Swan, Craycoft, Wilmot, Kolb, blah, blah and etc., like the cheesy massive apartment complex parking lots which the Old Pueblo pretty much amounts to –you get it). Traffic circles, cool too. Keep in mind that City of Tucson can’t even afford to fix potholes in a timely manner even though a wet el nino winter was forecast last spring.
Red Star thinks there should be serious speed bumps every 100 yards or so on the major arterials (Speedway, Grant, Broadway, Alvernon, Oracle, Swan, Craycoft, Wilmot, Kolb, blah, blah and etc., like the cheesy massive apartment complex parking lots which the Old Pueblo pretty much amounts to –you get it). Traffic circles, cool too. Keep in mind that City of Tucson can’t even afford to fix potholes in a timely manner even though a wet el nino winter was forecast last spring.
Perhaps this bill isn’t getting the support it needs from the cycling community because the cycling community overall just doesn’t see it as a good idea. If a “yield” works as well as a “stop” at a particular intersection, then change the sign and make it so for everybody – if “yield” isn’t safe for cars, it isn’t safe for bikes, regardless of whatever justification is tossed about by the noisy few that keep pushing for this.
TPD may write a lot of stop violations, but from what I personally have witnessed it’s hardly frivolous. The oblivious idiots in this town routinely blow off stop signs and red lights without even looking, and certainly without the slightest regard for ROW, cross-traffic, or personal or public safety. Even though supporters say it’s not so, the reality of human nature is that such a law would just encourage such cyclists to think they have a “free pass” to be even more selfish and careless.
If the goal is to promote acceptance of cycling by the general public, this sort of SIG pandering is not just wasted legislative energy, it works against us in the long run by perpetuating the public perception that bicycles aren’t *real* vehicles subject to the same rights *and* responsibilities as the motorized variety.
Patterson can keep introducing it if he wants, but I doubt he’ll ever see much different results that he’s already seen.
Perhaps this bill isn’t getting the support it needs from the cycling community because the cycling community overall just doesn’t see it as a good idea. If a “yield” works as well as a “stop” at a particular intersection, then change the sign and make it so for everybody – if “yield” isn’t safe for cars, it isn’t safe for bikes, regardless of whatever justification is tossed about by the noisy few that keep pushing for this.
TPD may write a lot of stop violations, but from what I personally have witnessed it’s hardly frivolous. The oblivious idiots in this town routinely blow off stop signs and red lights without even looking, and certainly without the slightest regard for ROW, cross-traffic, or personal or public safety. Even though supporters say it’s not so, the reality of human nature is that such a law would just encourage such cyclists to think they have a “free pass” to be even more selfish and careless.
If the goal is to promote acceptance of cycling by the general public, this sort of SIG pandering is not just wasted legislative energy, it works against us in the long run by perpetuating the public perception that bicycles aren’t *real* vehicles subject to the same rights *and* responsibilities as the motorized variety.
Patterson can keep introducing it if he wants, but I doubt he’ll ever see much different results that he’s already seen.
Anyway and whatever, open question: It’s Red Star’s understanding that Tucson City Council sets speed limits for city streets…who (or what) determines whether a stop sign or yield sign or no sign at all is placed at any given intersection in Tucson? Tucson City Council? AZ Legislature?
Answers and discussion, please.
Anyway and whatever, open question: It’s Red Star’s understanding that Tucson City Council sets speed limits for city streets…who (or what) determines whether a stop sign or yield sign or no sign at all is placed at any given intersection in Tucson? Tucson City Council? AZ Legislature?
Answers and discussion, please.
I think Rep. Patterson says it best, “If people want conditions to get better they are going to have to fight for it,” Patterson said. “That is just the way it is.”
And that’s just the way it is with a lot of things. We have self-government. That means we have to do it. Not just complain about it.
I think Rep. Patterson says it best, “If people want conditions to get better they are going to have to fight for it,” Patterson said. “That is just the way it is.”
And that’s just the way it is with a lot of things. We have self-government. That means we have to do it. Not just complain about it.
http://www.dot.tucsonaz.gov/traffic3/ntmp/
This City webpage details the process for changing ‘stops’ to ‘yields’ at an existing traffic circle and the process for getting a new traffic circle with ‘yields’.
http://www.dot.tucsonaz.gov/traffic3/ntmp/
This City webpage details the process for changing ‘stops’ to ‘yields’ at an existing traffic circle and the process for getting a new traffic circle with ‘yields’.
It’s just too bad that police officers can’t take it easy on certain things. The reason I found this article today is because a friend of mine just got a rolling stop ticket on her scooter. She says she stopped and put her foot down. Then the officer told her has was actually watching for bicyclists! Do we really need to create a law to get cops to give warnings once in a while or practice common sense themselves!? Oh, the ticket was $212.
It’s just too bad that police officers can’t take it easy on certain things. The reason I found this article today is because a friend of mine just got a rolling stop ticket on her scooter. She says she stopped and put her foot down. Then the officer told her has was actually watching for bicyclists! Do we really need to create a law to get cops to give warnings once in a while or practice common sense themselves!? Oh, the ticket was $212.
As mentioned on several previous threads, the American legal system — from inception all the way down to application — is NOT designed for pedestrians or cyclists. The car culture sets the rules, arbitrarily and without consideration to the needs of the people. In my opinion, it’s nothing short of transportation apartheid.
The question, then, is why we cyclists should bother heeding these laws at all? I say roll on through, brothers and sisters… roll on through.