UPDATED: Call to Action: Idaho Stop Bill to Full Utah Senate, Cyclist Action Needed Soon

Cyclist Action Needed – Call or Email the Utah Senate to Support HB58

Editorial/Call to Action
 UPDATE: March 2, 2018 – The Senate Transportation Committee passed the Idaho Stop bill (HB58) yesterday by a vote of 4-1. The bill now moves on to the Senate floor. The bill is not yet on the agenda for a vote.
We have updated the contact info at the bottom of this page for the full senate. Cyclists are encouraged to contact their senator at the least, and the full senate if time permits. We have also included a chart of possible voting status for 2018.
Rep. Carol Spackman-Moss, the house sponsor, presented the bill to the Senate Transportation Committee. The committee was generally receptive, but asked some tough questions. Several bike advocates testified both for and against the bill. Ultimately, Senators Mayne, Dabakis, Anderegg, and Buxton voted for the bill, while Sen. Harper voted against it.
February 28, 2018 – The Idaho Stop bill, HB 58 passed the Utah House of Representatives last week on a vote of 58-11, with 6 not present. The bill would let cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs (proceed without stopping only if safe), and some stop lights as stop signs (proceed after stopping only if safe).
Track the Senate calendar here:
The Idaho Stop may be coming to Utah. It would allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs. Photo by Dave Iltis

Your calls/emails are needed as soon as possible so that the bill passes the full Senate.

Talking points: 
• Idaho has safely had this law in place since 1982.
• Crashes dropped in Idaho after implementation.
• Cyclists often treat stop signs as yield signs currently. The bill legitimizes behavior that cyclists do anyway.
• The bill does not encourage cyclists to blow through stop signs or stop lights. They can proceed only if safe.
• The bill makes the state more bike friendly, and encourages more people to ride.
• The bill helps cyclists to maintain momentum at stop signs, which is generally safer for cyclists.

• A recent study on Policies for Pedaling from the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development of DePaul University suggests that Chicago should adopt the Idaho Stop: 

I. Considering permitting “Idaho Stops” at four-way stop intersections, which would enable cyclists
to determine whether to stop or yield based on traffic conditions in order to maintain their momentum. The study shows that only about one cyclist in 25 presently complies with the law to come to a complete stop. A pilot program to allow Idaho Stops at certain traffic signal intersections when traffic volumes are relatively low may also be considered.

Locally, please see this informative video editorial by John James Monroe of Pedal Traffic: 

Editorial by Jim Greene:
Bill info:
The bill has been modified somewhat by amendment. For stop lights, it would only apply to roads with 1 travel lane in each direction. Not 4 lanes, etc. This isn’t great, but it was a compromise that needed to be made to move it forward.
Full Senate Roster emails:
Find Your Senator here:
Full Senate Roster:
The Idaho Stop bill has been presented several times in the past, including in 2010 and 2012, when it failed in the Senate. In 2013, a bill that allowed cyclists to proceed after 90 seconds at a traffic light passed. The voting history is below with possible vote based on their history.
Dist Senator Email 2018 Status 2010 HB 91

Idaho Stop

2011 HB 155

Idaho Stop

2013 HB 316

90 Second Wait Bill

No History
1 Escamilla, Luz (D) [email protected]         x
2 Dabakis, Jim (D) [email protected] Yes     Y  
3 Davis, Gene (D) [email protected]   Y Y Y  
4 Iwamoto, Jani (D) [email protected]         x
5 Mayne, Karen (D) [email protected] Yes Y Y Y  
6 Harper, Wayne A. (R) [email protected] No     Y  
7 Henderson, Deidre M. (R) [email protected]       Y  
8 Zehnder, Brian (R) [email protected]         x
9 Niederhauser, Wayne L. (R) [email protected] Yes Y Y Y  
10 Fillmore, Lincoln (R) [email protected]         x
11 Stephenson, Howard A. (R) [email protected]   N Y Y  
12 Thatcher, Daniel W. (R) [email protected]     N Y  
13 Anderegg, Jacob L. (R) [email protected] Yes       x
14 Hemmert, Daniel (R) [email protected] Likely Yes       x
15 Dayton, Margaret (R) [email protected]   N N Y  
16 Bramble, Curtis S. (R) [email protected] Likely No N A A  
17 Knudson, Peter C. (R) [email protected]   N N A  
18 Millner, Ann (R) [email protected]         x
19 Christensen, Allen M. (R) [email protected]   N N Y  
20 Buxton, David G. (R) [email protected] Likely Yes       x
21 Stevenson, Jerry W. (R) [email protected]   N N Y  
22 Adams, J. Stuart (R) [email protected]   Y A Y  
23 Weiler, Todd (R) [email protected] Yes     Y  
24 Okerlund, Ralph (R) [email protected] Likely No N N (yes in cmte) Y  
25 Hillyard, Lyle W. (R) [email protected]   A A Y  
26 Van Tassell, Kevin T. (R) [email protected] Likely No N (yes in cmte) N Y  
27 Hinkins, David P. (R) [email protected]   Y (no in cmte) N Y  
28 Vickers, Evan J. (R) [email protected]         x
29 Ipson, Don L. (R) [email protected] Possible Yes       x
    Yes   5 4    
    No   8 8    
    Absent   1 3    
(Visited 532 times, 1 visits today)