Stop signs should be yield signs for bicycles. This is already the case in some places, such as Idaho, and was historically the case for much of the bicycle's existence, and is in the legislature in Oregon as of October 2003 (HB 2768-A, Prozanski). Why not California? In fact there is an argument that it already is legal, but enforced incorrectly (see below). The SF Green Party recently recommended same (see F.7 at http://www.sfgreens.org/transpo14.txt ("Instruct San Francisco police to deprioritize bicycle violations at stop signs and red lights where bicyclists yield the right-of-way, and urge the California legislature to amend the Vehicle Code to adopt the Idaho vehicle code's unique treatment of bicycle behavior at intersections: yield at STOP signs and STOP (then proceed) at red lights.")

Reasons why cyclists should be given the option to yield:

         Bicyclists have better awareness of surroundings
                (better field of vision, higher than cars,
                no windows/stereo/cell phone obstructing hearing,
                stereo hearing.  Yes, cyclists can legally have 
                one ear covered with an earphone but that is
                nowhere near as dangerous and is rarely practiced).
         Bicyclists can avoid collisions better
                (sharper turning radius, much less width, less
                speed and weight to manage, can become flush with
                the side of the road almost instantly, can stop
                in a shorter distance);
         Bicycles are much safer to the public
                (much less momentum, and much more forgiving
                physical structure so much less dangerous to
                others);
         Bicyclists have to expend their own energy
                to start and stop--it's a courtesy
                to let them pass just as it is to yield to
                someone carrying something heavy or bulky.
                Even more compelling is the fact that 
                bicyclists wait at stop lights and stop signs
                which were put in place simply because of the
                danger posed by motor vehicles.  In other 
                words, bicyclists wait many hours a year
                for motor vehicles!  It's the least they can do
                to allow us to yield rather than always stop...
                particularly as proper yielding does not inconvenience
                motorists -- in fact, it helps them because we clear
                the intersection sooner.
         Most bicyclists pass through stop signs at a similar
                speed as most motorists (who usually don't stop), but 
                comparing the straightaway speed difference, it may seem 
                like the motorist is "stopping" while the cyclist isn't.
         Cyclists should be able to avoid the pollution
                of stopped cars as much as possible.  We are breathing
                harder and are not the ones polluting.  We deserve
                to be spared from this harmful imposition.  Pollution
                tends to be highest at stops.
         Cyclists waiting in traffic can cause more problems 
                for all--not only by blocking turns (which often
                elicits prejudicial anger from motorists) but
                there is a significantly increased chance of being 
                rear-ended for the cyclist (so it can literally be 
                much safer not to stop). 
         Frequent stopping is associated with long-term chronic
                knee problems (along with use of "track" or single-
                speed bikes, or any bicycle always used in a low gear).
         Stopping during intense physical exercise is dangerous.
                Athletes need to come to a stop slowly and cool down
                or they risk cardiac arrest and other problems.
                Of course, bicycling is good for the heart and the
                British Medical Association has declared that on average,
                every hour spent bicyclin extends one's life expectancy
                by an hour.  But for racers, to stop suddenly can be 
                dangerous.  Runners have been known to suffer cardiac
                arrest from stopping suddenly after a race, for example.
         Most cyclists responsibly "run" stop signs at present, showing
                that the law simply doesn't work for people.
         Bicycling is the #2 risk factor for repetitive stress injuries
                (RSI) such as Carpal's Tunnel Syndrome, and repeated hard
                stops (rather than soft yields) greatly increases this risk.
         Cyclists don't endanger the public as cars do and have not 
            been properly accomodated for--this is due in large part to 
            corruption such as monopoly practices and short-sighted 
            planning.  Cycling helps everyone yet is discouraged. Give
            cyclists a sensible break to help correct this unfairness.
         Pedestrians aren't required to stop at stop signs, yet
            can run through them much faster than most bicyclists 
            would.  On top of that they can be wearing headphones
            and are much less able to avoid a collision.  Pedestrians
            are also less visible -- no reflectors, smaller size.
            No one is talking about outlawing pedestrians from 
            treating stop signs as yield signs.  Wheelchairs are much
            heavier than bicycles and harder to control, yet their top
            speed is more than twice the average speed that bicyclists
            pass through stop signs.             

         Places that provide for bicyclists have much lower bicycle
            fatality rates than the USA (e.g., Netherlands, about
            1/13 our fatality rates per mile travelled).  One of the
            reasons is that they give cyclists a head start through
            red lights, with special zones ahead of motor traffic, and
            special bicycle-only green lights.  It can be much more
            dangerous to stop at a red light than to run it during a
            safe period before all the conflicts begin.

            Cyclists who are struck by automobiles often cannot get justice
            in court because juries are frequently ignorant of bicycling
            and have heard over and over again that bicyclists are reckless
            for going through stop signs.  To make the law comport with
            the responsible and necessary behavior of yielding rather
            than stopping will help the public understand, and help cyclists
            get justice in the court rooms.

         Cyclists are the ones who have the most to lose
                when running a stop sign or light.  Let them
                decide when to do it.

Some argue that changing the law will result in "chaos" and lead to careless treatment of stop signs. This is not true. It wasn't true in Idaho, and it wouldn't be true in California. Again, such a change in law does not take right of way from motorists. Bicyclists have a very strong physical incentive not to take that right of way. There should be no appreciable difference in behavior on the road, yet for zero cost, the state would have vastly improved the situation for bicycling in California. The major cause of danger to cyclists is motorists. Reportedly, 95% of bicycle fatalities involve a motor vehicle. In the Netherlands, a law was recently passed that a motorist who hits a bicycle or pedestrian is assumed to be at-fault, unless it can be demonstrated that the victim was trying to be hit. In that country, cyclists are 1/13th as likely to be killed by motorcar.

Here's some feedback we've received:

"Traffic control devices are installed at great public expense
for one reason only:  cars kill.  Every time a bicyclist or 
pedestrian is made to stop, they are being forced to cater yet
again to the motorist's tremendous impact on society."

"Accepting unjust laws only perpetuates them.  The reason we have all those
traffic lights and stop signs is not to increase safety.  They were
instituted specifically to increase the flow of automobile traffic.  If you
are not well versed on this subject, check out books like "Down the Asphalt
Path : The Automobile and the American City" by Clay McShane which is a
great transportation history book.  The problem is that traffic flow has
been facilitated so much that it is now destroying our communities, our
environment, and tens of thousands of people every year.  Accepting this
system will only perpetuate the problems.  Our job isn't to be good little
campers and hope that the powers that be will fix the problems.  The only
way things change is by fighting the system and sometimes that means not
accepting the laws."  -- Mike Smith, Mgsmith-AT-exch.hpl.hp.com.

"Most stop signs are not for safety.  The purpose is to discourage
and/or slow down cars in neighborhood/residial streets.  The goal is
actually made worse by forcing stopping for bicyclists: it discourages
bicycling and encourages car use because of increased time and energy
it takes for bicyclists. It's easier for potential bike riders to step
on the gas pedal (cough cough) than to pump the bicycle pedals after
stopping.
 
"In fact, almost all 4-way stops are in this category.  There rarely is
a visiblity problem, which is the only other reason for a 4-way stop."
 


Idaho has a more enlightened law on the books, which does allow
for yields rather than stops at stop signs.  California, it can
be argued, also allows an interpretation in this vein.  In 
addition, there appears to be nothing to prevent local jurisdictions
from qualifying their stop signs by local ordinance or resolution,
or by placing a "Bicyclists Yield" sign below them.

> The definition of stop in the California Vehicle Code is:
> 
> 587.  "Stop or stopping" when prohibited shall mean any cessation of
> movement of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when
> necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with
> the direction of a police officer or official traffic control device
> or signal.

[NOTE: this definition does not specifically apply to stopping where
required, only "when prohibited" (e.g., no stopping zones) although 
because "stop" appears to not be defined anyplace else in California
law as of Oct. 26, 2003, a court might very well use this definition.]

> At critical mass, if you stop, you are at risk for being hit from behind
> because no one expects you to stop.  I've even been hit from behind by a
> police officer who then ordered me to "never do that -- never stop in
> traffic"!!!!  Therefore it is "necessary to avoid conflict with other
> traffic" to go through a stop sign when hundreds or thousands of others
> are doing so. Furthermore, this has been the de facto arrangement with
> police for years, and we've been doing this consistently every month.  No
> police officer issued any warning on that day not to do what we always do,
> at least not to me -- and I tend to be very interested in statements by
> the police.  Therefore I could even say that not stopping was part of an
> ongoing undestanding, and as such, that I was acting in "compliance with
> the direction of a police officer" (and in the case when I was struck by
> one, I actually was ordered).
>
> Similarly, in everyday life, to stop you run the risk of being rear
> ended (and this does happen with some frequency).  Most conflicts 
> occur at intersections.  Red lights in particular are dangerous for
> those who stop, because they can be hit by turning vehicles. Countries 
> that are more bicycle-friendly put a special zone for bikes ahead
> of cars, to allow them an initial chance to turn left and head
> through the intersection.  In the USA the best we can do is travel
> through during a lull in cross traffic, before the dangerous oncoming/
> turning traffic commences.

 
Here's the law from Idaho:
 
                               MOTOR VEHICLES
                                  CHAPTER 7
                          PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
 
  49-720.  STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. 
 
(1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching
a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before
entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or
stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in
the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to
constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving
across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that
a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the
right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed
through the intersection without stopping.
 
  (2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle
approaching a steady red traffic-control signal shall stop before
entering the intersection, except that a person after slowing to a
reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may
cautiously make a right-hand turn without stopping or may cautiously
make a left-hand turn onto a one-way highway without stopping.
 
  (3) A person riding a bicycle shall comply with the provisions of
section 49-643, Idaho Code.
 
  (4) A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given
during not less than the last one hundred (100) feet traveled by the
bicycle before turning, provided that a signal by hand and arm need
not be given if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the
bicycle.
 
 The Idaho Code is the property of the state of Idaho, and is
copyrighted by Idaho law, I.C. =A7 9-350. According to Idaho law, any
person who reproduces or distributes the Idaho Code for commercial
purposes in violation of the provisions of this statute shall be
deemed to be an infringer of the state of Idaho's copyright.


Here's some information from Chris Morfas, Executive Director
of the California Bicycle Coalition:

 
"WHY BICYCLISTS HATE STOP SIGNS"
 
From an article in the current issue of "Access," by Univ. of
California/Berkeley physics professor Joel Fajans and Access managing
editor Melanie Currie. Both commute by bicycle.   "...On a street with a
stop sign every 300 feet, calculations predict that the average speed  of a
150-pound rider putting out 100 watts of power will diminish by about forty
percent. If the bicyclist wants to maintain her average speed of 12.5 mph
while still coming to a complete stop at each sign, she has to increase her
output power to almost 500 watts. This is well
beyond the ability of all but the most fit cyclists..." "Access" is a
journal of the University of California Transportation Center at U.C.
Berkeley.  More info at:  http://www.uctc.net/access/access18lighter.pdf
 
(From CenterLines, the e-newsletter of the National Center for Bicycling &
Walking)
-----------
An aside on bike-ped relations:
 
Many of the "near-misses" that ped's complain about stem from their not
being aware of nearby bicyclists (It's not the ped's fault;  it's just in
the different natures of walking and bicycling.  The walker can afford to
daydream a little, whereas the cyclist must constantly scan the field ahead
and prepare his next moves).  The bicyclist-- sometimes behaving legally,
sometimes not-- has usually seen the pedestrian and determined the path he
must take to avoid the walking citizen many seconds before the ped notices
the bicyclist.  Thus, the ped is surprised by a cyclist who had the
encounter all figured out 50 feet before the "near-miss."
 
Chris Morfas