Great animation, I'd love to help you improve the audio if you care to.

Thanks! And thanks for the offer. Yeah, a headset mic and Quicktime pro do not make for the best sound, and sound editing :). I'd like to do another rev of the video, but if that happens, I have someone lined up to help with the sound. Still, I might ping you for suggestions if that's OK.

I live in Idaho and it's great. Though some people do abuse the privilege...

I don't understand how the law would work--if there's other traffic at a 4-way stop would the cyclists take their turn like they do at present, or would they have to wait until all the other traffic was clear? I expect the answer is the former, but I feel like the law might make this less clear.

While I reservations about formalizing this practice (I'm in Illinois), you have done a very good job illustratrating the techniques a bicyclist should use (left, right, left) when approaching intersections. Do you have other bike safety videos? They would be great to show to adults and children alike!

I just wanted to say that I think this is a well made animation.
I hope this passes for you folks!.

I get *very* irritated when discussions of cyclists and stop signs center around "momentum." If you actually watch cyclists at stop signs, what they are loathe to give up is balance, not momentum. This is why a cyclist will avoid putting his or her foot down even when at a dead stop.

A cyclist, beginning from rest, who has not yet gained balance, is not agile and not safe. A rolling stop maintains balance and allows the cyclist to pass through the intersection ready to react to threats.

Yet motorists, who view cyclists as selfish, think rolling stops are about cyclists not wanting to give up momentum. Sadly, I have yet to meet another cyclist, or cycling advocate, who does not buy into this insulting and inaccurate description of the issue. The phrase "internalized cyclist-phobia" comes to mind.

Jonathan,

You're right that maintaining balance is an important reason bike riders want to preserve forward movement, and it's yet another point I wanted to make with the animation. (I just ran out of time.) However, I don't think that negates the validity of the momentum argument.

Here's a good article on the subject:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article5726827.ece

...in which the author makes the great point that the energy lost in a stop-start could have carried a cyclist 100 meters.

It seems reasonable to assume cyclists want to hold onto that energy, especially those of us who aren't the best athletes in the world, and primarily use our bikes for getting around town and doing errands and such.

And if we can do it safely while also respecting the rights of other road users, then why not?

Still, if you find discussion of such things intrinsically irritating or insulting, there's not much I can do about it. But I hope it's clear from the tone of my video that I go out of my way to be respectful, and the last thing I would want is to insult a fellow bike fan.

Mostly, from what I can tell, the animation is not generally seen as insulting, and a lot of people like it. I'm bolstered by the positive reception it received on sites like BikePortland, where it was first posted: bikeportland.org/2009/04/14/get-an-animated-lesson-in-bikes-stop-signs-and-the-idaho-stop-law/

Now if motorists view cyclists as selfish, that's a whole other discussion to be had. But I can't see how riding a bike - powering this incredibly efficient means of transportation with only the energy stored in one's own blood and muscle - can be considered selfish.

Putting all that aside, I guess a question for you might be: even if you don't agree with the reasons I presented in the time I had, could you get behind this law for the reasons you present?

Great video and good explanation of the issues involved. I hope the legislation passes!

I want to know what programmes u used! Please tell me a bit more about what goes on in the animation.

This is, in a word *FANTASTIC*. The idea has been batted around a bit in CA, and this video really makes some wonder points without being combative. I also agree that *control* is every bit as important as conservation of momentum - and I hadn't even really thought about it until the irritated commenter brought it up. ;) I ride a tandem somewhat regularly - and the issues of both momentum and balance/control are multiplied several times on a long bike.

Besides the balance/control thing, the only part I see missing in the video is how much more a bicyclist can see when approaching an intersection. We have full view all around us, and we have been going slower on the approach. By the time I'm even considering what to do at an intersection on my bike, I know far more about my surroundings than I know after I've come to a complete stop in my car.

Eduardo, the software is 3ds Max, with textures painted in Photoshop. It's really pretty low-tech, and it was done in a hurry, so every decision was made with time in mind. Like I wanted to do it cell-shaded originally, but that takes 4 times as long to render. So there's only a cell shader on the guy when he needs to have shadow on him, like at the start (with the lightbulbs) and at the end (with the "sunset"). Otherwise, he's just fully illuminated so that he has no shadows whatsoever, and a line-drawing texture. And that was in large part to make it so I could switch his color according to his speed.

Darell, good point about the visibility and there's also sound. I'm starting to sound like a broken record when I say this, but I really wanted to get that in there, and only cut it because I ran out of time.

Great video presentation! I wanted to say some of the things that others said such as cyclists can see [and hear] their surrondings so much better than a driver of a motorized vehicle (MV). I think a rolling stop law that would allow cyclists to keep momentum/balance would be great; Especially for cyclists who might not be able to quickly get through an intersection from a complete stop (benefit to the motorists).

My experience at busy four way stops is that it usually is best to stop & put a foot down & look. Especially when there are two cars stopping at the same stop sign and one might be turning right and the other going straight or left. Add two more cars at each stop sign and it can be tough to keep track.

I think the discussion here has touched on some of the logistical issues of putting the rolling stop into practice. I wanted to expound upon that. Even with a rolling stop law for bicyclist I don't think drivers are ready for it (also from Illinois). As tempting as it might be to cyclists to apply scofflaw, it is best for us to act like MV & stop at stop signs (even if some drivers do rolling stops). From over eight years of commuting by bicycle, I feel and am the safest when I obey the laws, act like a MV and apply safe bicycle riding practices. Wish I would have figured this out in my first year of commuting.

Most roads are designed for MV, and despite the differences there are between driving a MV and riding a bicycle, cyclists have to act like a MV. Until drivers ride a mile on a cyclist's bicycle they won't understand the those differences and won't see any reasons for different laws or road designs. Until then, keep [or try]obeying the laws, keep the rubber side down, "but most of all... enjoy the ride." (Quote from David Bernstein the FredCast thefredcast.com)

Nicely done. The format of the presentation was effective and engaging.

Andrew Olson: Thanks for the feedback, glad you liked it.

I think some of your reservations can be addressed with this point I find myself repeating over and over to a lot of different people: the law has been working fine in Idaho for 27 years. They like it, and their law enforcement has spoken up in favor of it.

What maybe doesn't get driven home enough is that if this law was passed, you would very likely not notice a difference on the streets. Currently lots of bike riders do this safe rolling stop thing, and they're so well-behaved hardly anybody notices them or remembers them. Currently there's some reckless scofflaws who blow through stops - EVERYONE remembers them. Currently both are subject to the same fine. If the law was passed, the riders who play it safe and nice would no longer be subject to the fine, and the scofflaws would be slapped with bigger fines.

And that's about all that would happen. Just like in Idaho.

It would just bring the law in line with current safe practice, and thus make the law more fair.

I'm all for following laws, but I also know that in a democratic society you have to sometimes adjust the law to stay fair, and keep up with the times. (Which is why drivers no longer have to switch off their ignitions at intersections like they had to do in the early days, when there was a fear of them scaring horses). The changing condition here is that more and more people are using bikes as practical transportation, especially here in Portland. (I just brought home two bags of groceries on my bike, and haven't grocery shopped with my car for months now. This is a not a sacrifice on my part; in my somewhat compact 100-year-old neighborhood, this is actually an easier and more pleasant way to get around, especially with the trees all blooming and people out enjoying the sun.) With our increased numbers, our previously tolerated and/or overlooked practice of safe rolling stops - which had been overlooked when there were fewer of us on the road - is now getting us caught in stings and subjected to high fines. For no good reason.

Subject the dangerous idiots to fines all you want. Hey, let's have an anti-dangerous-idiot-on-the-road law! But in the meantime, let's ease up on unnecessarily punishing people getting around SAFELY via this incredibly clean and efficient mode of transportation.

Like they've been doing for the last 27 years in Idaho :)

Video Resources: thanks much, I really appreciate it.

Spencer, great video!

I do hope you are able to make a second pass on the video to possibly incorporate aspects of a few of the the comments made here?

I think Andrew Olson's first comment was very important: a cyclist has an unobstructed 270+ degree view of the road, sits as high as an SUV driver and (if you're not an idiot wearing headphones) can hear much better than a driver as well.

Second, some local Portland coverage of the Idaho stop law stated that cyclists could yield through red lights, which as I understand it is absolutely untrue. Rolling stops would only be permitted at stop signs and flashing red lights.

I'll be honest-- this is already how I ride, especially when I'm riding my road bike with clipless pedals. As some of the previous posters have pointed out, it's about control and momentum. If I stop, I can't start up as quickly as I can if I'm crawling along at 1-3 mph, and that means a slower intersection crossing. Additionaly, in a rolling stop, I have more control when crossing (for one, I'm not fussing about clipping back in). It's about reducing risk, not wanting to shave a few seconds. Trust me, a cyclist is the LAST person who wants to risk a collision: he/she will be solidly on the losing end if that happens.

Anyway, I thought it was a solid animation, with the argument put forward succinctly and intelligently.

Welcome Daily Kos readers!

dailykos.com/story/2009/4/10/718484/-Midday-open-thread

Good lord, look at the bump it gave the numbers...

smithstanza: thanks, and I totally agree with your points. Visibility was probably the thing I'd have covered next. And the news coverage pretty much sucked until some decent recent articles in the O.

D.P.: exactly right, it's very likely current practice for most bike riders, and it's safe. (Blowing a stop is not safe, but of course, that's not what we're talking about.)

Here in the San Diego area, traffic law violations by bicyclists are the norm. They are the rule, not the exception. If you do not believe me, come spend a day here. "Reckless scofflaws" is way too gentle a description for the epidemic problem we have here -- and pretty much everywhere in the U.S.

There are many causes of this awful problem. Here are but three: One, lack of enforcement. Two, ignorant bicyclists. Three, unclear law.

If cops actually gave a shit and enforced the law, then the problem would lessen. Bicyclists would be pissed off, but that would change over time as they realized they cannot any longer get away with pathological numbers of traffic law violations every time they set out on the road.

Bicyclist ignorance can be addressed by REQUIRING bicycle licenses. Yes, you heard me, licenses. And you get one by going to the DMV, getting a learner's permit as a kid, going through an authorized bicycle safety course, and getting a full license. Car driver licenses would NOT qualify as bicycle licenses, just like they don't qualify as motorcycle licenses. Different kinds of vehicles require different kinds of training and certification.

As for "rolling stop", I say bullshit. Stop the bike. It's the law. If it's inconvenient because you had such nice momentum going, too bad. Get a car instead if it's too hard to ride uphill (or downhll!). If there are clip problems, get manufacturers to provide alternatives that work better.

If you're going to ride a bicycle, obey the laws, it's really that simple. Bicyclists are not a special class of extra-endowed humans who somehow are better at judging intersections than motorists or pedestrians. A stop sign means STOP. The complete cessation of movement. Giving cyclists the "right" to "roll" through a stop sign, based on their own judgment as to whether it's safe to proceed or not, is going to only worsen the problem. You'll have even more altercations and accidents.

I could not think of a worse idea. Here in Davis, CA, the biking capitol of the country and new home to the Bicycling Hall of Fame, you would have bad accidents occurring all the time. While this rule may be good for "responsible riders," we unfortunately cannot pick them out. Why not just allow car drivers to do the same thing? Why? Because you cannot trust that everyone is doing their best to prevent "an" accident, just themselves getting into one.

As an avid bike rider, I would love to go through all the stop signs in town. It would make my commute much simpler and faster, however, it would also cost lives eventually. And no commute is worth that.

That being said, I respect your effort and approach.

Brian P: thanks!

Just to wrap it up, I'll say one more time: there's no need to speculate on what would happen with a law like this, because it's already been in effect in Idaho since 1982. 27 years of rigorous testing showing it's safe, works just fine, and their law enforcement is pretty OK with it. And Boise isn't huge, but 200k is nothing to sneeze at.

And yep, laws are laws. But the beauty of a democratic society is that you can keep re-examining the laws to see if they're keeping up with the times, and letting things work as smoothly as they might, while still maintaining an acceptable standard of public safety. That's why drivers no longer have to switch off their ignitions at stops to keep from scaring the horses, or - for a more up-to-date example - why we're not doing the national 55 mph speed limit any more.

Bikes make for awesome transportation. I hardly drive anymore, but it's not because I'm a zealot. Far from it; it's just more enjoyable to bike where I live. But a bike as transportation is only borderline feasible for most people, so any little thing that makes it more feasible while still maintaining public safety is worth doing.

This law would have been a worthwhile step in that direction.

What a great video! I haven't used 3ds max in years, but I'm very impressed with your mastery of it. I saw your video because someone posted it on the livejournal bikepirates group. I don't live in portland at the moment, but I've lived there longer than anywhere else and I think "decriminalizing good behaviour" would be a huge boon to the cyclists all over oregon.

this has got to be the most brain dead idea I have heard in awhile. The jerk who even brought this moronic idea to light should resign immediately.
Are you done embarrassing your parents now?

@FapFap - you done living with yours yet?

26 comments and only one blatant insult! In internet comments-section terms, that's like unconditional love.

FapFap, I'm not sure who brought the idea to light originally, but I'll give credit to the 1982 Idaho legislative session, which originally instituted the law. That being 27 years ago, I'd say the window of opportunity for their resignation has closed.

And Travis, thanks much. The funny thing is - and you probably know this, having worked with 3ds Max - the techniques in this video are way dialed-back from the really impressive things that program can do. But I had fun with that, trying to see what would look interesting while still rendering super fast.

finally, a law that makes sense! i honestly can't believe all of the ignorance and misunderstanding of safe riding from both cyclists and non-cyclists alike. it's a hard concept to grasp sometimes- yes, there are many many people who practice poor judgment when cycling (i.e. riding on sidewalks, weaving in and out of traffic, riding against traffic, riding without lights ...), but at the same time why should all other good responsible cyclists be grouped into that same category and criticized to no end? there are way more people who do not know how to drive and yet have licenses (obtaining one does not solve any problems - as everyday drivers use my street as a cut-through and "roll-through" every stop sign at 40 mph (not the 10-15 mph or so as on a bike) including the one in front of a pre-school; hence the constant police patrol.

essentially, allowing bikes to yield instead of stopping would promote safety and smooth, quick riding for all. can't even count the number of times i've had stare-downs with drivers and have even come completely off of my bike because they assume all bikes are going to blow through stop signs when in fact we are just trying to keep balance and momentum (as it is much harder to cross through an intersection from a dead stop - making cars even more impatient and hateful). A rolling stop is not a blow-though; it still abides by the law of 4-way and 2-way stops. until all people try to bike in an urban area themselves, this confusion will never be resolved.

but please, don't bash all cyclists when every day it is life & death for many of us when motorists do not utilize their turn signals, or take an abrupt right turn into us, or blow through stop signs, or blow red lights, or double park everywhere, or play chicken out of fear at a 4-way stop, or open their car door without looking for any oncoming traffic.

there is ignorance all around, but this is where this helpful friendly video comes into play - to squash the ignorance and promote happy safe riding for all.

yesterday was earth day after all. let's celebrate and get on a bike!

Lauren,

Thanks very much for the thoughtful comment.

Unfortunately, we found out here in Oregon that common sense doesn't always have the political capital to become law. You can read all about it here:

bikeportland.org/2009/04/20/no-idaho-stops-in-oregon-law-fails-to-win-necessary-support/

but in a nutshell: a key legislator wouldn't allow a work session on the law unless the proponents could guarantee 31 yes votes in the House. They could not. And that's how a bill does *not* become a law.

However, this video has received a surprising number of views nationally, and even to a small degree internationally (hello Copenhagen!). So who knows, maybe things like this video have planted a few seeds, and two years from now, when the Oregon legislature is next in session, there will be more states than just Idaho to show us how the bikey stuff is done.

I gather most if not all of the comments are coming from bicycle riders. I am too but I am also a transportation planner and one who is very concerned about bicycle safety. The "Idaho Law", and what is now proposed for Oregon, reduces safety, widens the gap of respect between bicylists and motorists and leads to more irresponsible behavior with bicyclists. Moving from Washington where the simple rule for bicycling is to obey the same rules of the road as motorists to Idaho was a eye opener in many ways, but for this discussion from the perspective of bicycle safety. I have seen more irresponsible behavior from bicyclists in Idaho than I could have possibly imagined. I believe it starts with this silly rule of allowing rolling thru stop signs. Momentum equals efficiency....please. So the key to bicycling efficiency is not having to come to a stop? Starting and stopping is a hardship for bicyclist? I'd say it doesn't compare to the needed respect that bicyclist fight for with motorist. Respect is earned by sharing the road and obeying similar rules. The video is a joke and obviously created by a pro-bicycle advocate with no respect given to other factors. The notion that people consistently and intelligently modify their bicycling behavior based on the type of intersection or sight lines is being naive and overly optimistic. I believe that the different rule for bicycling (rolling thru the stop sign) dilutes the attention to the other rules that bicyclists should obey to maximize safety. It is a bad law and no other state should do it. Idaho is just different and definitely rural except for a few exceptions. But this rule injures people every year....perhaps not quantifyable but in my opinion. Roll thru the stop is ok, excessive speed must be also, so is changing lanes without regard or not signaling. What happens is people blow thru stop signs because there is no reason to differentiate. Enforcement is stated in video as controlling the two distinctions. When is bicycle enforcement occuring and where? Not in Idaho. Stay on your bikes and lets get more people riding, but lets have reasonable and safe rules of the road. Thanks.

Hey Carl,

Thanks for the feedback. You don't have to worry about it, the law didn't make it through the Oregon legislature this session. I'm going to change the video description (if I can) to reflect that point.

Also, you say, "this rule injures people every year....perhaps not quantifyable but in my opinion." That's the thing, in discussions like this, it's quantifiable data that's most needed.

I heard elsewhere that there was quantifiable data that it was working fine in Idaho - enough so that the proponents of the law were apparently able to get Idaho law enforcement to speak up in favor of it - but unfortunately, IMO, they didn't do as good a job as they might have presenting this information to the public.

What I know above all is: this is how I ride, and I'm a very safe, very considerate rider.

BTW, you also say, "obviously created by a pro-bicycle advocate." Well, yeah. How can you not be pro-bike? Bikes are awesome. Basically I'm a guy who's found a way to use a bicycle as transportation most of the time, while also maintaining what is in my opinion a high quality of life. I'm all for promoting this stuff, as much as possible.

This has been discussed in Vancouver BC Canada, do you know of other cities, states and countries which have adopted this? The more examples which can be sited the easier the sell would be to the provincial government here.

Hi L.E,

I don't happen to know of other places that have adopted this approach. Seems like I've heard a Scandinavian country referenced as having done so - or at least deprioritizing enforcement - but I'm not sure. The best source of information would probably be the Bicycle Transportation Alliance bta4bikes.org/. Someone there could probably tell you. Sorry I can't be more help! I'll ask around when I get a chance.

I enjoyed the video. I think the Idaho stop law is a good idea. To be safe at a stop sign, it is not necessary to stop completely; it is sufficient to scan for traffic and approach the intersection riding slowly enough to stop before entering if you see any.
Your energy argument is unconvincing, however. The kinetic energy varies as the square of the speed; A cyclist riding 15 mph who slows to 5 mph has already dissipated almost 90% of his kinetic energy; stopping completely makes little difference in the overall energy budget. Furthermore, the kinetic energy itself is a minor contribution to the energy budget; most of the work a cyclist does during a ride is against friction. There are three primary sources of friction: rolling friction, aerodynamic friction, and braking. Rolling friction is about the same no matter how fast you ride, while aerodynamic friction increases as the square of the speed. It therefore requires almost 4x as much energy to ride a given distance over flat terrain at 30 mph as it does at 15 mph. If you really want to be efficient, you should rid very slowly.

Spencer - great job with the video! Regardless of what happened in Oregon, this movement is gaining momentum. I'm always a little perplexed at how most people think this is a 100% black or white issue. It's very nuanced and both sides of the argument have good points.

I have recently began biking regularly in Milwaukee - almost 90% of my automobile miles have been replaced by bike miles. I struggle with how ride ethically, while maintaining efficiency and balance. Typically, I use clip-in pedals and it's just not practical to clip-out and clip-back-in at each stop sign. (Yeah, going back to regular pedals this week).

So, I follow probably 75% of the traffic signals. But when I am biking where there is absolutely no traffic, I may roll through a stop sign. I know this is unlawful.

Interestingly, I almost got hit by a car this weekend that somehow made it onto a *closed* triathlon course. It beeped at me to get out of the middle of the road. Sigh.

Hey Spencer,

I found time to redit the biking video I did, so I'll attempt to credit you through Vimeo since I used part of your animation for a few seconds.

Thanks again, and good luck with your future endeavors!

Charlie Gorichanaz