Stop signs do not apply to bikes.
Stop signs do not apply to bikes. Stop signs seem to be a defining issue for American cycling, especially in a suburban context. If only cyclists would stop blowing through stop signs, or running red lights — or whatever it is that seems to offend the driving majority — then maybe cycling could be a legitimate form of transportation.
The trouble with this is, is that what is a minor inconvenience for a car becomes a major and unnecessary barrier for a cyclist. Idaho has become famous for its stop sign law, which allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign.
That is not explicitly the law in Minnesota; however, accepting that I am not a lawyer, I’m not clear why Minnesota law requires a bicyclist to stop in the same sense we require a car to. Here’s why.
Definitions
Minnesota 169.011 (definitions) says:
Subd. 4.Bicycle. “Bicycle” means every device propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels except scooters and similar devices and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or rear wheels.
[…]
Subd. 79.Stop. “Stop” means complete cessation from movement.
Bike law
169.222, the main bike law, says (emphasis added):
Subdivision 1.Traffic laws apply. Every person operating a bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by this chapter, except in respect to those provisions in this chapter relating expressly to bicycles and in respect to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature cannot reasonably be applied to bicycles.
“Operation” of a bicycle is not defined, but it is referred to repeatedly and is essential to understanding our bicycle law. Since a bicycle is a “device propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride,” we can reasonably assume that to operate a bicycle is to be propelling it by human power — or at the very least, to be seated upon it. A person with one or both feet on the ground, or a person walking a bicycle, is surely not “operating” it.
Argument 1: A bicyclist cannot stop while operating a bicycle
It is not at all difficult to keep a car in place while it is not moving. However, the vast majority of cyclists cannot balance on a bicycle while achieving “complete cessation from movement.” To achieve “complete cessation of movement,” they must put one or both feet on the ground, and no longer be operating the bicycle. Thus, this expectation cannot “reasonably be applied” to bicyclists.
Argument 2: A stop sign is not used with the intention of a cyclist stopping
The Minnesota Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is not state law; however, it implements state law, and it is the standard used by the state Department of Transportation and local counties and municipalities for designing streets.
Minnesota traffic law clearly states that a bicycle has right of way in a crosswalk. Yet in examples where crosswalks are used, the MUTCD recommends stop signs used in addition (see above). It would be absurd to assign a true stop to the user who has right of way, while not requiring it for the user who is obligated to yield. Thus we can infer that the goal of a stop sign is for a cyclist to slow down, be alert, and be ready to react. Slow down, be alert, be ready to react.
That should be always be our goal — not making sure each cyclist achieves “complete cessation of movement.”
