Understanding the Idaho Stop/Stop-as-Yield Law
Under a “Stop-as-Yield” or “Idaho Stop” law, bicyclists can treat a stop sign as a yield sign. A full stop is then required only if necessary to yield to other traffic. “Stop-as-yield” laws afford cyclists an additional right, but also additional responsibilities. What to do depends on each cyclist’s comfort, knowledge, and skill level. There are pros and cons. I hope that this article will help you in deciding whether, when, and where to yield instead of stopping.
I can just run stop signs legally, right?
No, not really. In researching this article, I discovered that legality and safety are not all that matter. Motorists’ and cyclists’ beliefs and perceptions also matter. Some cyclists say they would never roll through stop signs. Some treat stop signs as yield signs regardless of whether it is legal. Others run them recklessly.
Some research has been widely used to promote stop-as-yield laws. Readers should exercise caution, as promoters’ claims are open to question.
Idaho was first with a stop-as-yield law.
In 1982, Idaho became the first state to enact a stop-as-yield law (Section 49-720 – Idaho State Legislature). Please read the statute. The Idaho law changed the rules for bicyclists not only at stop signs, but also at red lights. It treats them as stop signs — a topic which deserves another entire article.
I appreciate Idaho’s KISS approach to this statute. As noted in Idaho stop – Wikipedia,
The Idaho Stop law was introduced as part of a comprehensive revision of Idaho’s traffic laws. The goal was to downgrade minor traffic offenses from criminal to civil public offenses, thus freeing up court dockets. Carl Bianchi, the Administrative Director of the courts in Idaho at the time, saw an opportunity to modernize bicycle laws. The new code allowed bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs, addressing the concerns of magistrates over the “technical violations” of traffic control device laws by bicyclists.
The Stop-as-yield law idea spreads.
For decades, Idaho was the only state to have adopted such a law. In 2017, Delaware adopted a more restrictive stop-as-yield law – Delaware Code Online, § 4196A – later codified in 2021. Hopefully, the restrictions – covered later in this article – have not led to more confusion and conflict! Arkansas, Oregon, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Washington, D.C. have created variations of the Idaho statute.
One big state missing from the list is California, my former home. In the 2021-2022 legislative session, both houses passed a stop-as-yield bill (Bill Text – AB-122 Vehicles: required stops: bicycles), only to have the governor veto it. In his veto message, Governor Newsom stated:
While I share the author’s intent to increase bicyclist safety, I am concerned this bill will have the opposite effect. The approach in AB 122 may be especially concerning for children, who may not know how to judge vehicle speeds or exercise the necessary caution to yield to traffic when appropriate.
I agree with Governor Newsom’s statement regarding children. Spatial awareness is a big concern with children.
Safety and Efficiency
Important question: even though it is legal, is it safe? The Wikipedia article states:
Studies in Delaware and Idaho have shown significant decreases in crashes at stop-controlled intersections.” A NHTSA | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fact Sheet published in March 2023 (Bicyclist “Stop-As-Yield” Laws and Safety Fact Sheet (nhtsa.gov)) states stop-as-yield and red-as-stop laws “showed added safety benefits for bicyclists in States where they were evaluated, and may positively affect the environment, traffic, and transportation.
The Fact Sheet also mentions bicyclist injuries from traffic crashes declined by 14.5% the year after Idaho adopted the law. In Delaware, reported traffic crashes involving bicyclists at stop sign intersections fell by 23% in the 30 months after the law’s passage.
But – More Analysis Needed
All of the above sounds great! But correlation is different from causation. I would love to see the data supporting such statements, and try to determine what led to the decreases. It’s safe to say though that the new laws didn’t lead to an increase in crashes.
This linked Bicycle Safety Stop Campaign – CalBike page offered some information in support of California’s “stop-as-yield” bill before the governor vetoed it – including a short video. For additional information on “stop-as-yield” laws, go to: Idaho stop – Wikipedia.
John Allen’s article on this blog points out that the most important action at a stop sign is yielding. In fact, few drivers – bicyclists or motorists – come to a full stop unless yielding is necessary or sight lines are poor. But still, it is the law in most states.
Equal or Special Rights?
We as cyclists for years have fought for the same rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle.
The concern was traditionally about restrictions on cyclists’ rights to the road, for example, “far-to-the-right” and mandatory-bike-lane laws. But now some laws grant bicyclists special rights. Stop-as-yield, proceeding straight through in Right Turn Only Lanes (RTOLs), and
through-travel to the right of right-turning vehicular traffic (e.g., separated bikeways/cycle tracks) all privilege bicyclists.
With stop-as-yield codified into law, a behavior (rolling stop signs) commonly practiced by motorists and bicyclists will be legalized only for bicyclists.
Meanwhile, these laws fail to address a root issue—the overuse of stop signs.
In 2010, David Takemoto-Weerts wrote a well-reasoned article raising the concerns I nave described about the proposed California law.
Perspective and Advice
Although my wife and I have not lived in Idaho all that long, I have practiced stop-as-yield behavior enough to understand the pros and cons. I feel that this behavior can be safe and stress-free if done in a legal and smart manner. My CyclingSavvy education and training, and understanding of the traffic environment, help me with this behavior and my overall success out on the road.
In practicing legal stop-as-yield” behavior, I recommend you:
- Maintain: relevance by controlling the whole lane (“Driver” Behavior – Three Types of Bicyclist Behavior – CyclingSavvy). This allows for better vantage to other vehicles and enhances your overall visibility and safety.
- Have: good basic bicycle-handling skills (including slow-speed maneuvering and proper braking to slow and/or stop if needed).
- Use: appropriate hand signals to alert other roadway users of your slowing and/or stopping, and proper scanning techniques (looking left, right, left, straight before proceeding; and repeating as necessary).
- Select: proper gearing for both slowing and accelerating) – see John Brooking’s article about gearing in this blog.
- Understand: other cyclists could crash into you! Just the other day I saw a cyclist overtake and pass another who had stopped at a stop sign (First Come, First Served!). As the stopped cyclist started forward, the passing cyclist turned right (right hooked) him, nearly causing a crash.
- Electric Bicycle Riders:
- Select: appropriate power/assist modes prior to, within, and when exiting an intersection. (DON’T LINGER IN AN INTERSECTION.)
- Use: a lower power mode as you slow and/or stop, so your e-Bike does not lurch (accelerate unexpectedly) into the intersection.
- Class 2 e-Bike riders: should ALWAYS pedal (no throttle use) before and within intersections, and anywhere a potential conflict with other roadway users exists, so not to be mistaken for slowing down.
I strongly recommend, no matter what type of bicycle you ride, to seek out online or in-person/on-bike education and training from CyclingSavvy.
Concerns
Beyond the basics of how to apply a stop as yield law, here are a few additional concerns:
My biggest concern is about partially controlled intersections, especially with poor sight lines and/or higher posted speed limits. I strongly encourage all cyclists, whether riding alone or in a group, to use stop as yield only at “all-way” stop sign-controlled intersections — with good sight lines and lower speed limits. For increased safety, stop as yield only during daylight hours and under clear conditions.
For groups, the excellent online Club Rider Essentials – CyclingSavvy course is free with the Savvy Club Rider membership. Just sign up!. One topic is on dealing with traffic controls as a group.
What is reasonable?
The Idaho statute (and similarly in the other states), states that
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…
We as cyclists must also yield right of way to other cyclists and pedestrians.
The terms “reasonable” and “yield” always fascinate me. What do they mean?
- Reasonable: Just, rational, appropriate, ordinary, or usual in the circumstances (Cornell Law School). In other words, neither extreme nor excessive.
- Yield: to give something up or surrender control, especially when required by law. (Cornell Law School). In practical terms, you should always slow to an appropriate speed, be ready to stop if needed, and proceed only when safe and legal.
Delaware permits stop-as-yield behavior only if the intersecting roadway has two or fewer lanes for moving traffic. I would be very careful in deciding to roll legally through an intersection with more than two intersecting lanes. The sight- line obstructions only increase, especially with large vehicles. A vehicle in the nearer lane can hide another in the next lane.
I have not seen the vast majority of cyclists in Idaho abuse this stop-as-yield law, for example illegally blowing through intersections at higher and/or unsafe speeds. Cyclists rolling through stop signs can, however, indeed create confusion and potential animosity between themselves and motorists. Proper education and awareness about bicycle laws, safety, and the concept of stop-as-yield are crucial to foster understanding and cooperation on the roads.
Conclusion
Legal stop-as-yield behavior has pros and cons. Use it only responsibly, legally, safely, and cooperatively. The choice to use it should reflect your comfort, knowledge and skill level.
It may seem weird at first, like when first practicing driver behavior, but that will pass.
Be safe out there everyone & enjoy the ride!
Cyclists generally approach intersections at much lower speeds than drivers. Therefore, they have more time to assess the intersection. There is no need to stop if you can clearly see it is safe to proceed. The idea of coming to a complete stop when the intersection is clear is absurd.
Also, there are many signalized intersections that bicycles do not trigger. When I call Public Works to complain, they tell me to use the pedestrian “beg buttons”. This is crazy. You would never ask a driver to get out of his car to push the beg button. Also, it is absurd to expect a cyclist to hit 2 beg buttons to make a left turn. The simplest solution is to proceed when the intersection is clear.
I agree that most of our stop signs should be yield signs as in UK. The problem is cultural. Here, yield means go but not in UK. UK drivers actually read the road and stop at yield signs when they need to due to poor visibility and sight lines. Yield is not an invitation to blast thru intersections.
So I think your concerns about the Idaho law stem from our culture. Maybe we need to educate/train all road users to read the road and act accordingly depending upon the conditions at the intersection regardless of signage.
There is a philosophy that less traffic control creates more confusion and therefore, more caution, making roads safer. There have been studies where removing centerlines caused fewer collisions because drivers had to negotiate with other road users for the space since the space was not so clearly allotted.
The issue of traffic-signal actuators which do not trigger on bicycles (or motorcycles!) is closely bound up with that of treating a red light as a stop sign. Expect an article on that topic here.
Greetings from the Gold Coast, Australia,
An often overlooked reason to require motorist to stop completely at intersections is that the vehicle’s window pillar can be a blind spot when another vehicle is on a ‘collision bearing’ to the vehicle required to stop.
Stopping allows the right of way vehicle to come into better view in the windscreen.
This blind spot is a reason for many ‘right of way’ crashes occurring with motor bikes and bicycles because they are small enough to be hidden somewhat behind the windscreen pillar on a ‘closing bearing’… “I just did not see the bike..”
A ‘closing bearing’ taken from marine situations, says that when two vessels are on a collision course they will stay at the same relative angle till impact, which just happens to be where windscreen pillars are situated in most motor vehicles, a safety design flaw.
Conversely, bicycles don’t have window pillar blind spots, so dispensation should be given.
On that note, simply moving the driving position to the centre of the vehicle would elevate the blind spot problem, if removing the flawed window pillars arrangement is too much effort.
From my observations of cyclists’ behaviours I would exercise caution when it comes to allowing exemptions from traffic laws. Such changes would merely increase the scofflaw actions of so many people on bicycles.
Any advantage of slower speeds when approaching intersections is nullified by attention paid to the road surface just in front of the bicycle, imho.
When taking my Can-Bike instructor’s course, a Toronto Police officer, also on the course, noted my signalling and asked if I’d signal at an intersection at three in the morning. When I said I would, and he asked why, I replied that it’s because I don’t want to get in the habit of not signalling. Similarly, I’d rather remain in the habit of stopping at stop signs, rather than getting used to running them.
As a firm believer in self-discipline, I’m wary of schemes that say or imply, “Here’s an exception.” From observations of people on bicycles, it seems that many will take it as carte blanche to increase their risky behaviour.
I admit that my attitude in this regard has been influenced by the actions of a rider who ran a stop sign and put me into the hospital with a serious concussion – the result of a behaviour practised by far too many.
Clint, this is so well written! You cover the issues from so many important perspectives.
John – Thank you!
Keri Caffrey and especially John S. Allen helped me polish it!
I am not sure I understand the concern about equity. Cycling should be prioritized because it is safer, healthier, more space/energy efficient and sustainable. Just look to Europe to see what happens when you prioritize cycling. The prioritization of cycling contributed to the massive success of the 24 Olympics in Paris. Europe is light years ahead of us in terms of ridership because they prioritize cycling. Some places require cars to drive much further than cyclists to get to the same places! That is how you get people out of cars and onto bikes where they do less damage to each other and the environment.
Bruce – thank you for your comments!
Another way to say what I wrote is we as cyclists just want the freedom to act like the driver of a slow-moving vehicle (right to the road), ride on the edge of the roadway, or use bicycle-specific facilities (hopefully well-designed and a benefit for all).
My friend Kirby Beck wrote a fantastic article on “Did History & Law Really Intend For Cyclists To Ride Far To The Right?” at https://cyclingsavvy.org/2018/06/cyclist-far-right-law/.
We do have to admit that here in the U.S. we live in a car-centric society which wants bicyclists out of the way. Beliefs have been changing for the better.
Bicycle infrastructure is VERY expensive vs. education which is far less and more beneficial! As CyclingSavvy Instructor John Brooking (Portland, ME) said, “Riding in special facilities still requires education, but education does not require special facilities.”
Be safe out there
Hello Clint–The entire world is car centric so the US is not unique. The difference is that other countries continued their investments in alternatives such as trains, buses, bikes, etc. They maintained choices.
I am not sure education by itself is cheaper than infrastructure. In many cases, the only cost for a bike lane is a single 4″ white line and a few markings. The line and markings educate where to ride, so every cyclist in a bike lane gets an education. Without the bike lane, the educator needs to reach every potential cyclists to teach them where to ride.
The whole point of infrastructure is to educate road users as away to control behavior. The stronger the infrastructure, the stronger the education/control. Lines and signs work well in some cases but we employ curbs and then tall cement barriers (mostly on freeways) in other cases. A 35mph sign is designed to educate the road user as a way to control speeds. When that does not work, we add speed humps and other traffic calming devises. Imagine trying to educate every potential road user of the speed of a particular road w/o a sign? How would you even become aware of potential users? How would you reach out of towners? My point is that infrastructure is a form of education.
This is my take on what could have attributed to our perceived right to ride as traffic …
Failed Cyclist ?
By Gus Duncan
When we were kids learning to ride, most of us were taught by someone with dubious road skills like our brother or worse still our sister ! Then our mums told us time and time again, not to ride on the roads or we’d get run over!
Where were our dads you may ask? His cycling skills weren’t any better and it just wasn’t cool to be seen out riding a bike when you had a perfectly good ‘8 cylinder’ in the shed.
To make matters worse we never had a proper bike with lights so we trundled along the wrong side of the road in the gutter when we got caught out at dusk. We rode ‘contra flow’ even in the daytime using this misguided information in the hope we would be seen by oncoming cars before they could hit us… Such was our instilled fear of Cycling and appreciation of road rules.
We tooled around on the footpaths with occasional forays onto the roads, albeit most probably ‘contra flow’ and ‘island hopping’ in fear of using the traffic lights…We developed a way of riding based on fear, missing completely the opportunity to use the road rules at our disposal to ‘control the traffic at hand’ to our advantage.
Without proper road skills and education many of us became Failed Cyclists. These very same ‘Failed Cyclist’s are now the drivers that we have to deal with daily on our roads, and unfortunately they’re often found amongst the Bureaucrats that control our roads.
These ‘drivers’ (read: failed cyclist) barrel down our streets and through intersections , and when confronted by a Cyclist, they hear an echo somewhere in their head…
‘What are you doing on the road ! Don’t you remember what Mum said … “You’ll get run over…” You should be on the footpath. I’m going to pass so close you’ll learn to listen…! Don’t you dare indicate and move over into the lane to turn when I’m barrelling through… I’m in a ‘Land Crusher’…!’
And so this lack of education perpetuates the problem for Cyclists of how to gain respect from motorists which many are just ‘Failed Cyclist’
I think the fear of riding with cars is based upon the reality that thousands of cyclists and pedestrians are killed and maimed by cars. They don’t have a chance against a 3000-5000lb sled traveling at 50mph and all it takes is a minor slip and it’s over!!
A father at my daughters’ elementary school was inspired to start walking to school, even though they lived a couple miles away on a steep hill. They were successful for a couple months until they came upon a fence completely destroyed by an errant car. The vehicle jumped right over the sidewalk. That is when the father realized that sidewalks are not adequately protective. They started driving again.
Similarly, a driver ran over and killed a 6th grader on way home from school as she walked in the crosswalk on a green light with her older sister. The driver turned left right into her since he also had a green light. Our transportation professionals intentionally scheduled the conflict (same place and time) to move more cars. This was big news in our community and discouraged other potential pedestrians because they do not want to die while walking or cycling.
There are countless other examples of death and destruction from cars that people rightfully fear. Most people understand that cars kill so it is understandable that they do not want to ride anywhere near them but especially in front of them. The majority of our population, the “interested but concerned” will never ride with cars, no matter the education. I have friends that cannot get their partners to ride with them anymore for fear of cars, and these were experienced riders. The only place these people will ride is where there are no cars and it is hard to blame them.
I confess I haven’t yet read this article but while I have a few moments, I thought I would add that we are in the UK at present and ridden bikes and driven all over and have encountered only one stop sign in miles and miles of travel. There are triangular “Give Way” signs at junctions. Works beautifully!
That was my memory from living in London in 2000 and 2001 but I thought I heard they added stop signs and stop signs since then. Nice to hear. What about stop lights? I remember them being rare as well.
Here are links to what is termed as “naked streets” where they use less regulation to create uncertainty, which makes road users more cautious. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4213221.stm
https://architecture.org.nz/2009/04/21/naked-streets-the-dutch-are-doing-it-why-dont-we/