House Transportation committee hears testimony on S.123 changes to bicycle rules including ‘stop-as-yield’ and bike signals

The House Transportation Committee took testimony May 2 on Senate Bill S.123, a measure that would let bicyclists use pedestrian signals and allow a limited “stop-as-yield” behavior at stop-controlled intersections.

Supporters, traffic-safety advocates and bicycling organizers told the committee they believe the changes could reduce crashes and make bicycling safer and more practical. Opposing or cautionary comments focused on statutory definitions, potential enforcement gaps and how the law would interact with existing state traffic statutes.

The proposal would explicitly allow bicyclists to proceed when a pedestrian signal indicates it is safe to cross and would let bicyclists treat a stop sign as a yield when no other traffic is present — a practice often described as the “Idaho stop.” Jonathan Weber, programs director at Local Motion, said the group would not advocate the change unless it believed the amendments would improve safety: “We would not be here asking for these changes if we, were not very confident that these would make our streets safer for our roadway users.”

Weber and other witnesses cited recent federal and state reviews. He told the committee that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found stop-as-yield laws were “clearly associated with reduced crash rates, particularly at suburban stop controlled intersections,” and that VTrans and local partners are equipped to handle the education needed if the law changes.

Bruce Burgess of Middlebury, founder of the bicycle touring business Bicycle Holidays, said he took “a neutral position” on the bill but urged care in how the statute is written. Burgess noted Vermont currently uses different statutory language than the model Uniform Vehicle Code: “Vermont defines the bicycle as a device,” he said, and he warned that leaving bikes undefined as vehicles at some points in statute could create ambiguity at intersections and in court. He suggested a limited drafting change — adding the word “bicycle” where interactions between motor vehicles are currently described — to reduce legal uncertainty.

Other witnesses described everyday experience that they said favors the change. Rob Kidd, Vermont conservation program manager for the Sierra Club, and David Ellen Logan, a longtime bicycle advocate, described situations in Burlington and Montpelier where bicyclists who stop to follow current signals are vulnerable to conflicts when turning motorists cannot see them. Logan said the law change “makes all bicycle laws more meaningful by making them more reasonable and therefore easier to enforce and easier to expect compliance on.”

Committee members pressed witnesses on enforcement and youth safety. Burgess and Weber both said education will be important; Weber said the NHTSA review found no evidence that youth crash rates rose where stop-as-yield laws were adopted. On enforcement, committee members noted testimony earlier in the week from state police saying bicycle enforcement is not a high operational priority, and the committee flagged that enforcement practices will need to be considered alongside any statutory change.

Witnesses also discussed bike-specific traffic signals already installed in projects such as Hartford’s Route 5/North Main Street intersection and in Burlington; witnesses said those signals currently have legal effect only if local ordinances define them, and they urged state-level clarity to let projects proceed.

The committee did not vote on S.123 on May 2; members said they lacked the quorum of three absent members and would continue discussion at later meetings. Staff and advocates told the committee they expect additional witnesses and follow-up materials, including education plans and the VTrans report on bicycle operation at intersections.

The hearing included examples from local roads — Burlington, Middlebury, Hartford and Montpelier — and advocates highlighted economic and tourism benefits tied to bicycle-friendly policies, but no committee action was taken that day.