Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cyclists could soon be allowed to proceed at red lights as Colorado lawmakers consider bill

The 'Idaho Stop' bill would change the rules for cyclists at stop signs and traffic lights "to make people safer"...

Lawmakers in the US state of Colorado are considering a bill which would allow cyclists to roll through stop signs and proceed at red traffic lights if the route is clear.

The so-called 'Idaho Stop' law allows those on bikes to slow to 10mph when approaching a stop sign, before proceeding if it is clear of vehicles, pedestrians and other road users.

It negates the need for cyclists to come to a full stop, and also affects the way people can ride at traffic lights too.

When approaching traffic lights cyclists would still be required to come to a complete stop, but are then allowed to check the route for cars and other road users before continuing their journey, even when the light is red.

House Bill 22-1028 has already been implemented in Idaho, Arkansas, Delaware, Oregon and Washington, and has received bipartisan support. In Colorado, it passed a second reading in the House and has one more vote to go before being sent to the Senate.

> Mandatory cycling helmet law dropped in Seattle as it unfairly targets black people and the homeless, say officials

"We wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't going to make people safer," Rep. Matt Gray said. 

"We're not inventing something new, and not a single state that's implemented this has reported higher accident rates. In fact, they've all reported lower accident rates."

Rep. Edie Hooton added: "We have inconsistent laws, from county to county, on how to treat intersections. What this bill does is it creates uniformity around the state on how a cyclist may proceed through an intersection."

The Denver Channel reports the bill has been backed by local campaign groups, including Bicycle Colorado.

The group's director of communications and policy Jack Todd said: "Intersections are by far the most dangerous places for cyclists, people walking, people using wheelchairs, and so this legislation would allow them to get out of the intersection faster and avoid that conflict."

Despite the support, some Republicans expressed concern during a debate on Friday.

Rep. Richard Holtorf labelled the bill "unsafe" and called for cyclists to be required to stop, just as other road users are.

"I would tell you I think this is an unsafe bill," he said. "I think there’s a stop sign for a reason. It means stop. Stop. Look around. Make sure that you’re not going to have a problem with the section.

"What if it’s not safe? What if there’s a vehicle coming through when you clean somebody’s clock and then they’re dead?"

In 2015, cycling campaigners in London suggested adopting the 'Idaho Stop' would be a cheaper and simpler solution to technology which allows cyclists to turn lights green when they approach.

The comments from Stop Killing Cyclists came after the Danish city of Aarhus announced it would be testing Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags attached to a bicycle's front wheel which would communicate with upcoming lights and change them green for cyclists.

While some campaign groups were excited by the prospect of the technology coming to London, Stop Killing Cyclists said: "Whilst well-intentioned, this is a very expensive and slow way of using technology to introduce what effectively is called the Idaho Law.

"This law at very low expense would require cyclists in London to treat red lights as 'yield right of way' signs, allowing them to turn left when there is no traffic or pedestrians.

"This would benefit drivers also as it would reduce cycling congestion at junctions."

Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.

Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.

Add new comment

14 comments

Avatar
TheBillder | 2 years ago
0 likes

"What if there’s a vehicle coming through when you clean somebody’s clock and then they’re dead?"
Can anyone translate this? I always thought cleaning a click was quite a safe thing to do - and the clock will then run quietly and reliably.

Avatar
andystow replied to TheBillder | 2 years ago
0 likes

I don't know why, but "clean someone's clock" means to knock someone out.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to andystow | 2 years ago
0 likes

andystow wrote:

I don't know why, but "clean someone's clock" means to knock someone out.

Clock can be slang for face

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
1 like

I'm still none the wiser on the comment, though. Are they suggesting that someone may be cycling through an intersection while unconscious, having been assaulted?

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to mdavidford | 2 years ago
2 likes

mdavidford wrote:

I'm still none the wiser on the comment, though. Are they suggesting that someone may be cycling through an intersection while unconscious, having been assaulted?

Oh I wasn't trying to offer an explanation of the witterings of some old republican gammon (or even pretneding to understand it)....

Avatar
GMBasix replied to mdavidford | 2 years ago
2 likes

mdavidford wrote:

I'm still none the wiser on the comment, though. Are they suggesting that someone may be cycling through an intersection while unconscious, having been assaulted?

"What if it’s not safe? What if there’s a vehicle coming through when you clean somebody’s clock and then they’re dead?"

Allowing for the fact that this is second-or-more -hand reporting of something that may originally have been stated verbally, some allowance for grammar may be necessary.

"What if it’s not safe? What if there’s a vehicle coming through. When you clean somebody’s clock [abridged non-verbal nuance] and then they’re dead?"

A lot can be lost in transcription.  Plus, they're American; and Republican.  A lot can be lost before it reaches their mouth.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to GMBasix | 2 years ago
0 likes

Ah, yes - that does make more sense now with the final full-stop in there.

I mean, it doesn't actually make sense, but I see what they might have been getting at.

Avatar
Prosper0 | 2 years ago
3 likes

Clearly an overabundence of common sense in Colorado/Idaho.

This stuff tends to really whip people up, but honestly much of the time it's perfectly fine (and actually safer) to pass through a red light as a cyclist. 

Lets remember that the current road system in most countries are designed for motoring with little regard for cycling. In many cases, red lights dont make sense for cycles. 

Avatar
Dingaling | 2 years ago
1 like

I've read through the first paragraphs three times and still find them contradictory. After not being able to go in 20 and 21 I'm going in July so maybe I'll get to find out how the law really works.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Dingaling | 2 years ago
2 likes

Seems fairly straightforward to me:

  • Stop sign: slow to 10mph, check that the road is clear, and if so, continue without having to stop.
  • Red light: come to a stop, check that the road is clear, and if so, move off without having to wait for the light to change.
Avatar
Dingaling replied to mdavidford | 2 years ago
0 likes

Yes, you're right, I didn't differentiate between stop signs and red lights but the 4th paragraph says a cyclist has to stop at a light (i.e.regardless of colour) check the road and proceed, even on red. Nevertheless, I get what they are doing and hope the same rules are adopted elsewhere. 

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Dingaling | 2 years ago
0 likes

Dingaling wrote:

I've read through the first paragraphs three times and still find them contradictory. After not being able to go in 20 and 21 I'm going in July so maybe I'll get to find out how the law really works.

perhaps this helps?

Quote:

The so-called 'Idaho Stop' law allows those on bikes to slow to 10mph when approaching a stop sign, before proceeding if it is clear of vehicles, pedestrians and other road users. It negates the need for cyclists to come to a full stop, and also affects the way people can ride at traffic lights too.

When approaching traffic lights cyclists would still be required to come to a complete stop, but are then allowed to check the route for cars and other road users before continuing their journey, even when the light is red.

1st para stop signs, 2nd para traffic lights, the original 3 paragraphs, makes it unlclear which of the other two the middle one goes with.

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
20 likes

Seems like a very dangerous law to me, as far as i can tell if this law were to be introduced we could expect hundreds of drivers to die daily with self exploding heads.

Additionaly innocent bystanders could be taken out by high velocity gammon, in the summer months when car windows are open.

Avatar
LarryDavidJr replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
6 likes

About to get apoplectic before I read the rest of the post 😆😆😆😆

Chapeau sir, chapeau.

Latest Comments