DAVIS, Calif. —In Davis, a community where bicycling is a primary mode of transportation for many residents including students, it may be worth examining whether traffic controls designed largely around automobile behavior are producing the outcomes policymakers intend, or whether they are creating conflicts between cyclists, drivers and enforcement officials that could be addressed through better infrastructure and street design.
The debate over cyclists and stop signs is hardly unique to Davis.
In communities across North America, residents frequently complain that bicyclists roll through intersections while motorists are expected to come to a complete stop.
The issue is often framed as one of personal responsibility and law enforcement.
But some transportation researchers and advocates argue that the more important question is whether stop signs, as they are currently used, make sense for bicycle transportation in the first place.
Among those raising that question is Lloyd Alter, a Toronto-based writer, sustainability advocate and former design educator. In a recent essay, Alter argued that many stop signs found on residential streets were designed primarily to regulate automobile traffic rather than bicycles.
“Stop signs in Toronto were designed to control cars, and don’t work for bikes. Cities with balanced transportation systems don’t have them,” Alter wrote.
While Toronto and Davis differ in size and geography, both are cities with significant numbers of people who rely on bicycles for transportation. Alter’s argument raises a broader policy question: if cyclists routinely roll through stop signs, is the problem widespread disregard for traffic laws, or does it reflect a transportation system designed around the needs and behavior of motorists?
According to Alter, many four-way stop intersections were never intended primarily as safety devices. Instead, they emerged as traffic-calming measures aimed at discouraging drivers from using residential streets as shortcuts.
He points to the history of Toronto’s Palmerston Avenue, where residents complained decades ago about motorists using neighborhood streets to avoid congestion on nearby arterial roads. Local officials responded by installing additional stop signs to slow traffic and make the route less attractive to drivers. Although transportation planners reportedly objected because two-way stops already addressed right-of-way concerns, the approach proved effective at reducing cut-through vehicle traffic and soon spread to neighborhoods across the city.
The result, Alter argues, is that many stop signs function primarily as tools for slowing cars rather than managing conflicts between road users. Because bicycles travel at lower speeds and operate differently from automobiles, cyclists often experience those same intersections differently than drivers do.
That observation has been explored by transportation researchers as well.
In their paper Why Bicyclists Hate Stop Signs, researchers Joel Fajans and Melanie Curry argued that streets with frequent stop signs often become more attractive to cyclists precisely because they discourage automobile traffic.
“These annoyances may induce drivers to choose faster routes without stop signs, leaving the stop-signed roads emptier for cyclists,” they wrote. “Consequently, streets with many stop signs are safer for bicycle riders because they have less traffic.”
The researchers also examined the physical demands associated with stopping and restarting a bicycle.
“Accelerating from stops is strenuous, particularly since most cyclists feel a compulsion to regain their former speed quickly,” Fajans and Curry wrote. “They also have to pedal hard to get the bike moving forward fast enough to avoid falling down while rapidly upshifting to get back up to speed.”
Advocates argue that bicycles are fundamentally different vehicles than automobiles. While drivers can accelerate from a complete stop with little effort, cyclists must expend energy each time they stop and restart, making repeated stops more burdensome.
Critics contend that these differences do not excuse violations of traffic laws. But transportation scholars increasingly argue that when large numbers of users consistently ignore a particular rule, policymakers should examine whether the underlying infrastructure is producing the intended result.
Alter points to observations from designer Ruben Andersen, who argued that user behavior often reveals flaws in system design.
“I learned in design school that The User is Always Right,” Andersen wrote. “It doesn’t matter what you think you have designed, the user’s behaviour tells you what your product or system actually IS.”
He continued: “A great example is how roads are designed for 70 km/h, but then signed for 30 km/h — and then we wag our fingers at the speeders. These drivers are behaving perfectly normally for the system. If you wanted people to drive 30 km/h, then YOU FAILED. The people are not broken, YOUR SYSTEM IS BROKEN.”
Under that framework, the question is not simply whether cyclists should obey stop signs, but whether transportation systems designed largely around automobiles are producing predictable behaviors among people traveling by bicycle.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
What’s the point of this article?
That bikers should be able to blow through stop signs?
If bikers don’t have to stop at stop signs what’s going to keep them safe going through intersections?
Will a driver be at fault if they hit a biker who disobeyed a stop sign?
You didn’t read the article carefully… let’s unpack key points…
“But some transportation researchers and advocates argue that the more important question is whether stop signs, as they are currently used, make sense for bicycle transportation in the first place.”
“Stop signs in Toronto were designed to control cars, and don’t work for bikes. Cities with balanced transportation systems don’t have them,” Alter wrote.
“Critics contend that these differences do not excuse violations of traffic laws. But transportation scholars increasingly argue that when large numbers of users consistently ignore a particular rule, policymakers should examine whether the underlying infrastructure is producing the intended result.”
So given that, how relevant are your questions to the points made in this article?
“But transportation scholars increasingly argue that when large numbers of users consistently ignore a particular rule, policymakers should examine whether the underlying infrastructure is producing the intended result.”
Cities (and the state itself) consistently ignore fake housing elements that aren’t producing the intended result (a result that cities don’t support, isn’t environmentally sustainable, and make no sense in a country that isn’t growing in the first place). Perhaps policymakers should examine that.
“Critics contend that these differences do not excuse violations of traffic laws. But transportation scholars increasingly argue that when large numbers of users consistently ignore a particular rule, policymakers should examine whether the underlying infrastructure is producing the intended result.”
So given that what’s the solution? No stop signs? Years ago I was walking through a crosswalk in downtown Davis and almost got pummeled by a biker who didn’t obey the stop sign?
Alter didn’t offer a solution but I think his fundamental point is important especially as there is a push by some go away from a car-centric transportation model.
So back to my first comment:
What’s the point of this article?
Keith, here is a possible solution for Downtown Davis. Using 4th Street as an example, between L Street and B Street eliminate all the East-West stop signs, keeping north-south stop signs at each intersection. That would create a non-stop bikeway. It would be an inducement to automobiles, but creating a couple of forced right turns with bollards for the autos would address that. We have those kinds of bollards in the north-south portions of many current 5th Street intersections.
Central Park becomes an obstacle but incorporating a bike lane that traverses the width of the park and comes into the park at 4th on the east and leaves the park at 5th/Richards on the west could work.
The solution is allowing for “Idaho stops” for bikes. Pedestrians are not expected to come to a stop in an empty intersection when they cross a street so they have a different set of rules already and bikes should be consistent with that. If a bike and car arrive at the same time at a stop sign, then the standard rules should apply and the cyclist waits for the car. However, a driver playing the game of being able to accelerate more quickly into the intersection when a cyclist stops when the car arrives after the bike is UNACCEPTABLE! As the article notes, the consequences for a full stop for a cyclist is much bigger than for a driver. The rules need to be different for cars and bikes at stop signs.
Keith
You’re example is a different problem where the cyclist failed to yield to a pedestrian in crosswalk. That’s one that should be addressed by UCD instituting a cyclist education program for all new students at the beginning of the school year. I see frequently see the problem you describe from students.
Many states now have rolling stop laws for people on bikes. “blowing through” is not what is allowed ever. It is treating stops as yields…. just as most people on bikes do today. And in every instances I’m aware of where this law has been adopted, death and injury has declined.
What will keep people on bikes safe if they don’t have to stop at stop signs? The same thing that keeps them “safe” today. The same thing that keeps EVERYBODY safe today: People who drive their enormous, fast cars in a way that doesn’t kill their neighbors and kids getting to school. Note that people who are walking, or in wheel chairs have no legal obligation to stop at any stop sign (to cross the road at an intersection or mid-block, for example). They are only obligated to do it when safe. Odd to have a different rule for that same person with a leg over a bicycle top tube.
What keeps people safe is lower speeds for the deadliest of transportation devices.
Once everything slows to human speed, stop signs are no longer needed. Most of our stop signs are there in a vain attempt to keep people in cars from doing damage at higher speed.
The “fault” is always up for debate in every collision. And it isn’t just between the person in the car, and the person on a bike. There is the infrastructure and laws to consider being liable as well. If we adopt a rolling stop law in CA, and a person on a bike doesn’t come to a stop, that will not be “disobeying a stop sign” it will be “following the law” just like crossing the street on foot without stopping.
It is amazing how different the world looks through the windshield of a car. Also amazing to find how many people assume that they own the road once they are in a motor vehicle (and then complain about the “entitlement” of people on bikes). But the reason for that is pretty obvious: Today we base all of our street laws on driving a car. It is called the “vehicle code” after all. But streets are a public right-of way. Not a vehicle right-of way. It is time to make them safer for everybody.
Why? In a word inertia.
If you bike from UC Davis to L St down Third St, you hit like ten stop signs. For a biking-centric town supposedly, that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Biking-centric town?
What percentage of people mostly bike around town compared to those who mostly drive cars?
I think it’s a car-centric town with some bikers.
You intentionally omitted my “supposedly” qualifier?
Keith
According to the UCD ITS survey, out of 37,000 students and employees, 43% ride and 25% take a bus.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5vf1b6s1#page=15
In the City’s presentation on the General Plan Update (which I’ve posted here several times), less than 50% of in town workers who live here drive to work. Clearly a large plurality of Davisites ride bikes in town.
The difference is that cyclists are driving around 3,000 pound deadly weapons. Drivers are not uber alles.
The problem is that bicyclists share the road (or are supposed to share the road) with cars, pedestrians, etc.
And “inertia” is less of a factor for e-bikes and e-scooters, but speed and weight is increasingly a factor for those types of vehicles.
In a place like San Francisco, hills (downhill) allow even “regular” bicycles to travel at very high speeds. I recall someone getting killed by a regular bicycle rider not too long ago in that city for that reason, I think.
But (in general) as long as they safely yield the right of way (when they’re supposed to) and ride in a conservative/considerate manner . . . (yeah, right).
I’m surprised there’s no mention of the “Idaho ‘stop-as-yield’ laws”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
Also, the argument made for disobeying stop signs on bicycles –that the physical demands on the law-abiding pedal-cyclist are significant –pales when one observes the common behavior of e-scooter/e-bike riders.
What??? A couple of years ago this was a main issue for me regarding bikes — implementation of the Idaho Stop. This is kind of a weird study, and what’s the point of bringing this up now? Today we have much bigger problems — e-bikes, scooters, electric motorcycles, etc. — all using sidewalks, bike lanes and car lanes and many speeding. This is a much bigger problem and I see no solution. Why?
“Critics contend that these differences do not excuse violations of traffic laws.”
What does excuse violations of traffic laws is that since early in the pandemic (read: George Floyd) there has been as good a zero enforcement of traffic laws, least of which on non-auto vehicles. While I don’t believe bikes need to stop at stop signs once they’d checked for cross-traffic (blowers gonna blow), the real hazard today isn’t from bikes, but from all these new forms of transportation to bikes and peds.
We can deal with stop signs laws later . . . rather irrelevant now.
Back to the point of the article and Matt Williams’ comment, a no stop-sign 4th Street would become an alternate commute route for speeding cars without some additional controls. I like the theoretical approach and if cars weren’t speeding, his idea would be a winner. But, the one thing about Covid is that it seems to have unleashed a tidal wave of sociopathic driving behavior. Not everyone, of course, but a more dangerous 5 to 10%.
On a personal level, my behavior on a bicycle is totally different from my behavior in. a car. That is why the Idaho stop is good policy and why I’m not in love with Gavin Newsom. He’s vetoed that bill at least twice after it was passed in the Legislature.
However, as Alan Miller pointed out, we now have bigger fish to fry with the e-devices. I don’t want to shut down good, non-polluting, quiet alternatives to motor vehicles. I think this problem can only be solved at point of sale (age restricitions, proof of insurance and driver’s licenses, liability to purchasers) and mandatory reporting of injuries to anyone under the age of 18 by any health care provider. This last requirement would be no different than reporting any other kind of abuse of minors. I’m thinking of my son’s 7-year old neighbor who broke her arm riding on her twin sister’s e-scooter. It’s a form of child abuse from adult negligence. Reporting these injuries makes the problem more public instead of hiding it away as a privacy issue.
Wow, I agree with Dave Hart 100% on a comment. Thought the date should be noted: June 15, 2026.
In today’s New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/travel/5-great-north-american-biking-cities.html
I can only imagine how much worse bicyclists’ (especially those riding e-bikes) would be, if what they already do is legalized.
Again, it’s pedestrians who are the primary victims, here. Car drivers as well, since some might be intimidated (not wanting to be involved in damage, injury or death) from some aggressive bicyclist who are ALREADY running stop signs.
As for me, I generally don’t get intimidated by individual bicyclists, nor am I out to “teach them a lesson” in regard to running stop signs. I’ll often yield my own right-of way if I haven’t already started out into an intersection from a stop sign. (Bicyclists are also generally aware of this “unwritten” courtesy.)
Actually, there is at least one time I’m intimidated by bicyclists (when they’re riding in packs “for fun” – or possibly even to intimidate others by not riding single file), but that’s generally not occurring in Davis. Packs of bicyclists (who no doubt also depend on motor vehicles, one way or another) but have seemingly set out to teach drivers a “lesson” themselves, as it were. (Places where it’s both illegal to pass, AND you’ve got to give these a-holes 3 feet even in THAT situation.) But it’s relatively rare.
There’s no need to change any laws for regular bicyclists. Seems to me that “wink-wink, nudge nudge” is enough to accommodate their disregard of traffic laws. I’d probably do the same thing (but with courtesy for other users of the road), but I’m rarely riding on streets anymore, regardless.
Ron… in the states that have adopted this change, the bicyclists’ behavior remains largely unchanged from when the traditional STOP law was in place. The action is just made legal… or less illegal I guess. The “extra scofflaw” concern is one that has already been disproven with consistent data in so many other places.
“I’ll often yield my own right-of way if I haven’t already started out into an intersection from a stop sign”
This is a great courtesy that allows our imperfect system to function with a bit of grace. But the big difference…. the HUGE difference? In a car, you have the option to yield your right-of way to a person on a bike, and (this is the big part) you have the option to NOT yield it. Even if you are wrong about who has the right-of-way. On a bicycle, and while walking, you just don’t have that. The person in the car has the final say in who gets to go when. How often do we hear “better to be alive than to be right!” That doesn’t apply to the people in cars. The responsibility of driving a multi-ton car is enormously greater than when walking or riding a bike. But our laws pretend that the responsibility is equal.
Next walk down the street with a slingshot…. and then with an AR-15.
That “intimidation” that you bring up? That has happened to you (once or twice) while you were (presumably) in a car? That intimidation is a *constant* the other way around when riding a bike in Davis… or pretty much anywhere on the roads with cars. People in cars have the final say even if they really, really don’t want to hurt somebody else. That car is intimidating. Inching forward at a crosswalk. Veering into the bike lane to get around a left-turning car. Maybe not coming to a stop at a stop sign (do they even see me??), Rapidly braking behind a person on a bike who’s waiting at a red light. It is *constant* intimidation, if when not intended. If you would like to experience it, I’d be happy to lead a ride around town.
You have an obvious bias in favor of bicyclists.
I find that people (in general) don’t turn into saints simply by riding bikes. The same a-holes who drive dangerously do so on bikes, as well. I’ve seen/witnessed that intimidation more than once. I even see it sometimes in Davis (mostly from UCD students) “individually” (essentially riding as if to “dare” cars to hit them). And certainly not even attempting to yield to pedestrians.
As for running stop signs, bicyclists ALREADY come very close to vehicles and pedestrians at times, when running through stop signs. And that impacts motorists, as well. No one wants to hit a bicyclist.
You also seem to think that I’m not familiar with riding bikes on public roads. I used to do so all the time, and found Davis to already be one of the most accommodating cities there is regarding bicyclists.
You also seem to forget about pedestrians – the most-vulnerable of all. Not to mention these people on e-bikes, scooters, etc., who are riding more-aggressively than ever.
You’re familiar with that recent death I’m sure (in Davis) involving an e-bike. And that’s not the only such incident.
I also see kids doing extended “wheelies” on what are essentially electric motorcycles, speeding on streets, paths, and through parks.
For what it’s worth, I’d come down on the side of leaving things as is (with the exception of enforcing the law regarding e-bikes some of which aren’t even allowed on city streets).
If the police suddenly started passing out tickets for bicyclists who “safely” run stop signs (e.g., with no one around), I might have a different opinion. But there’s no problem with that (no problem to “solve”).
But as I said, if I’m already stopped in a vehicle (and see a bicyclist speeding toward his own stop sign), I just let him (almost always a “guy”, of course) go through.
Generally, females don’t cause this type of problem nearly as much (aggressive riding).
Davis has a lot of pedestrians, and it doesn’t need to make the situation worse for them. (They’re usually car drivers who have parked and turn into pedestrians for a couple of blocks at least – to reach their destination.)
I’m a very cautious driver these days (someimes causing an aggressive driver in back of me to become frustrated – which is also not my intention).
Woah, okay:
The term “yield sign” doesn’t appear here! If you do nothing else, do a Google Street View of local streets in cities and towns in the Netherlands, and specifically, intersections without signalization. Let me know about how many stop signs you find.
I’m familiar with some of the researchers and have met both Alter and Curry in person. (Curry was for a long time the editor of Streetsblog California, and amongst other things she would regularly meet at intersections, so to speak, with Will Arnold when he was at Caltrans.)
YES, motonormative design is real. The purpose of stop signs is to regulate priority at intersections. Every other implementation is proof primarily of poorly designed streets, in other words streets which enable inappropriate speeds.
There are a lot of important related issues to discuss here! (Perhaps I will write about it shortly in the context of a longer article that builds in part on what I shared with Monica Stark from the Davis Enterprise shortly after the Ride of Silence in May.)