"RicodJour" <ricodjour@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1120458281.319224.51400@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > The US is infested with stop signs, more than any other country I've
> > driven or cycled in.
> >
> > I don't think we'll be getting rid of them soon. So perhaps a partial
> > solution would be to have two kinds of "stop" signs. One would mean
> > cars must stop, but bikes can just yield, the other, placed at blind
> > intersections, would mean "all stop". Of course this is the way most
> > savvy bicyclists ride now. It would just formalize it, and recognize
> > that for the most part stop signs are just a crude traffic calming
> > device--perhaps necessary for 2 ton cars but not needed for bicyclists
> > who usually only harm themselves when they hit something or they get
> > hit.
>
> As bicycles are considered vehicles under most states' laws, that would
> require some doing. Can you imagine if they did something similar with
> trucks vs. cars? Talk about road rage!
>
> R
>
I like the idea. I think there actually is a state that either has the
bikes yield on stop signs as law or had it as a bill.
|
