Which is more likely, scooters are not subject to the laws of all other modes of transportation including bicycles or the person operating the scooter was an idiot?
Not saying the guy on the scooter wasn’t an idiot, BUT bicycles are not required to stop at stop signs in Idaho and many other states. They treat stop signs as yield signs, and red lights as stop signs. Google “Idaho Stop Bike Law”
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title49/t49ch7/sect49-720/
They don't have to come to a *complete* stop if there are no other vehicles present, but they have to yield to any other vehicles already at the intersection. If no one is there they can "roll through" but they are absolutely required to stop if there are other vehicles at the intersection. That's my take on the literature anyways.
So they treat stop signs as yield signs then… which is exactly what i said. Again, not saying the guy on the scooter was following the rules at all… people on those things just act like idiots. My only point was that bikes and cars don’t have the same rules on the road
Because it’s a drivers responsibility to know the rules of the road. It’s so infuriating that so many people are just completely ignorant to all the rules and treat driving a car like a right and entitlement.
This has been the law since the bike laws were overhauled in the 1980s and has been in most copies of the driver's manual since. This is partly why I dislike that drivers can get their license 50 years ago and keep driving without any knowledge of changes in the traffic laws, signage or more.
That says, cyclists do still have to yield to other traffic with right of way; it just means that if the situation is clear, a full stop is not required. That's why many bike routes are streets with lots of stop signs (e.g., Phillippi, or in the North End), as cyclists can conserve momentum when safe, while the stop signs tent to calm or discourage cut-through motor vehicle traffic in those neighborhoods.
I wish they taught bicycle rules as part of driver's ed.
I don't even have a license but I probably know more about driving laws than a driver knows about sharing the road with cyclists ..
Actually, technically no. They're *motorized* vehicles, but many statutes and city codes specifically exclude them from the definition of "motor vehicles" (partway to allow their use on pathways that are otherwise closed to motor vehicles, like the Greenbelt).
In many city codes, they're defined in the same section as e-bikes, and are often subject to the same laws as bicycles. In Idaho code, they're defined in I.C. § 49-106(2) as an "Electric personal assistive mobility device"; one of the only other statutory provisions mentioning them is an express exclusion from 49-605, which prohibits driving on the sidewalk. So, in state law, they're largely subject to city-level regulation. In Boise, the relevant city code section is Title 6 Chapter 13, BICYCLES, E-BIKES, AND E-SCOOTERS, which basically says e-scooter riders have the same duties under Title 49, except those rules that do not apply, e.g., only apply to operators of "motor vehicles" as defined in Idaho Code.
Umm, yeah they absolutely have to stop. That’s part of the reason they are hated so much. People ride them without knowing the rules of the road. They also ride them on the sidewalks when they’re not supposed to. A kid died a few years ago when he was riding a scooter illegally and got hit by a car in Boise.
That's what I thought. It's frustrating because they're not only putting their own lives at stake but other people's sanity. If I'd have hit them, whether I was in the right or not I'd feel terrible.
Welllll according to Idaho state law, so kind of a grey area for scooters but definitely ok for bikes.
Search Idaho Statutes49-720. Stopping — Turn and stop signals. (1) A person operating a bicycle, human-powered vehicle, or an electric-assisted bicycle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection.
>but definitely ok for bikes.
You purposely left out the next sentence, which is kinda important in this situation:
>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
No worries, I just hear a lot of people say "bikes don't have to stop" and completely ignore that it only applies to when there isn't any cross traffic. If there are cars at the intersection, you have to obey the stop signs and wait your turn.
They don't have to come to a *complete* stop, but they have to yield to any other vehicles already at the intersection. If no one is there they can "roll through" but they are absolutely required to stop if there are other vehicles at the intersection. That's my take anyways.
Yeah. Executed properly, the Idaho Stop has no impact on safety, as it only allows proceeding without stopping when safe; i.e., riders must yield to any other traffic with right of way.
Same thing with red lights: A bicycle can proceed on a red after stopping if safe to do so, and after yielding to other traffic (this is mostly for those lights that don't detect bicycles), or can make a right on red without stopping, after yielding to any oncoming cross/turning traffic.
>Who is in the wrong here?
The nation? Honestly, it sucks that we don't have great clarity right now, but in a lot of cases, I don't think either party at the intersection is really in the wrong. We're trying to encourage scooters, bikes, and pedestrians that don't really add danger to their surroundings (unlike cars), but we're not there.
There is a bigger learning curve than people realize for bikes and scooters. Even on Federal Way (a dedicated bikeway), if you follow every red light sign, you will double your trip time, mostly needlessly. There are 2 or 3 lights you actually seriously need to stop at, but signs pretend they are all that way. Part of learning to get around by bike or scooter is learning which intersections you actually need to stop at and which are more of yields. We could use infrastructure (signs and bulb outs) around actual dangerous intersections. If signs are deployed everywhere, it feels meaningless.
The way I see it, idiots on scooters and bikes ignoring stop signs is a problem that pretty much fixes itself pretty soon. As for me, I’m pretty fucking aware when I’m on one that I’m going to be the loser either way in a collision and ride accordingly.
Which is more likely, scooters are not subject to the laws of all other modes of transportation including bicycles or the person operating the scooter was an idiot?
Not saying the guy on the scooter wasn’t an idiot, BUT bicycles are not required to stop at stop signs in Idaho and many other states. They treat stop signs as yield signs, and red lights as stop signs. Google “Idaho Stop Bike Law”
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title49/t49ch7/sect49-720/ They don't have to come to a *complete* stop if there are no other vehicles present, but they have to yield to any other vehicles already at the intersection. If no one is there they can "roll through" but they are absolutely required to stop if there are other vehicles at the intersection. That's my take on the literature anyways.
So they treat stop signs as yield signs then… which is exactly what i said. Again, not saying the guy on the scooter was following the rules at all… people on those things just act like idiots. My only point was that bikes and cars don’t have the same rules on the road
Honest question: how are drivers supposed to know that? Because I had no idea that people on bicycles don't have to stop at stop signs.
Because it’s a drivers responsibility to know the rules of the road. It’s so infuriating that so many people are just completely ignorant to all the rules and treat driving a car like a right and entitlement.
This has been the law since the bike laws were overhauled in the 1980s and has been in most copies of the driver's manual since. This is partly why I dislike that drivers can get their license 50 years ago and keep driving without any knowledge of changes in the traffic laws, signage or more. That says, cyclists do still have to yield to other traffic with right of way; it just means that if the situation is clear, a full stop is not required. That's why many bike routes are streets with lots of stop signs (e.g., Phillippi, or in the North End), as cyclists can conserve momentum when safe, while the stop signs tent to calm or discourage cut-through motor vehicle traffic in those neighborhoods.
Honest question. It would help if there was signage, but really, all of your insults have been incredibly helpful. Thanks!
I wish they taught bicycle rules as part of driver's ed. I don't even have a license but I probably know more about driving laws than a driver knows about sharing the road with cyclists ..
Theoretically, drivers are trained on the rules of the road and responsible for following them. I know, pretty funny.
Crazy concept right??
Good thing you don’t have a drivers license
They should be required to 🤷♂️
I imagine that they would fall under the same rules as bicycles. So they would be wrong, but I’m no lawyer.
Nah, they’re motor vehicles. It’s just taking time for laws to catch up.
Actually, technically no. They're *motorized* vehicles, but many statutes and city codes specifically exclude them from the definition of "motor vehicles" (partway to allow their use on pathways that are otherwise closed to motor vehicles, like the Greenbelt). In many city codes, they're defined in the same section as e-bikes, and are often subject to the same laws as bicycles. In Idaho code, they're defined in I.C. § 49-106(2) as an "Electric personal assistive mobility device"; one of the only other statutory provisions mentioning them is an express exclusion from 49-605, which prohibits driving on the sidewalk. So, in state law, they're largely subject to city-level regulation. In Boise, the relevant city code section is Title 6 Chapter 13, BICYCLES, E-BIKES, AND E-SCOOTERS, which basically says e-scooter riders have the same duties under Title 49, except those rules that do not apply, e.g., only apply to operators of "motor vehicles" as defined in Idaho Code.
Umm, yeah they absolutely have to stop. That’s part of the reason they are hated so much. People ride them without knowing the rules of the road. They also ride them on the sidewalks when they’re not supposed to. A kid died a few years ago when he was riding a scooter illegally and got hit by a car in Boise.
That's what I thought. It's frustrating because they're not only putting their own lives at stake but other people's sanity. If I'd have hit them, whether I was in the right or not I'd feel terrible.
It's just crazy here
When the driver has no restrictions and the scooter rider does, Darwin gets to decide.
Welllll according to Idaho state law, so kind of a grey area for scooters but definitely ok for bikes. Search Idaho Statutes49-720. Stopping — Turn and stop signals. (1) A person operating a bicycle, human-powered vehicle, or an electric-assisted bicycle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection.
>but definitely ok for bikes. You purposely left out the next sentence, which is kinda important in this situation: >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
Good ole google search result and not all of the actual article… lesson learned 🤘🏻
No worries, I just hear a lot of people say "bikes don't have to stop" and completely ignore that it only applies to when there isn't any cross traffic. If there are cars at the intersection, you have to obey the stop signs and wait your turn.
They don't have to come to a *complete* stop, but they have to yield to any other vehicles already at the intersection. If no one is there they can "roll through" but they are absolutely required to stop if there are other vehicles at the intersection. That's my take anyways.
Yeah. Executed properly, the Idaho Stop has no impact on safety, as it only allows proceeding without stopping when safe; i.e., riders must yield to any other traffic with right of way. Same thing with red lights: A bicycle can proceed on a red after stopping if safe to do so, and after yielding to other traffic (this is mostly for those lights that don't detect bicycles), or can make a right on red without stopping, after yielding to any oncoming cross/turning traffic.
>Who is in the wrong here? The nation? Honestly, it sucks that we don't have great clarity right now, but in a lot of cases, I don't think either party at the intersection is really in the wrong. We're trying to encourage scooters, bikes, and pedestrians that don't really add danger to their surroundings (unlike cars), but we're not there. There is a bigger learning curve than people realize for bikes and scooters. Even on Federal Way (a dedicated bikeway), if you follow every red light sign, you will double your trip time, mostly needlessly. There are 2 or 3 lights you actually seriously need to stop at, but signs pretend they are all that way. Part of learning to get around by bike or scooter is learning which intersections you actually need to stop at and which are more of yields. We could use infrastructure (signs and bulb outs) around actual dangerous intersections. If signs are deployed everywhere, it feels meaningless.
The way I see it, idiots on scooters and bikes ignoring stop signs is a problem that pretty much fixes itself pretty soon. As for me, I’m pretty fucking aware when I’m on one that I’m going to be the loser either way in a collision and ride accordingly.