Committee hears bill to let bicyclists treat stop signs as yield signs

Lede: The House Transportation Committee on Feb. 17 heard HB 249, a bill that would let bicyclists treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs, a change supporters say would improve rider safety and traffic flow without added government cost.

Nut graf: Proponents pointed to decades-old laws such as the “Idaho stop” and recent studies the sponsor described as showing fewer cyclist injuries where similar rules have been adopted. Opponents and some committee members said questions remain about liability, how motorists will predict bicyclist behavior, and how the law would apply to different vehicle types.

Representative Seth Miller, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee HB 249 would address “two major traffic challenges, safety and traffic flow on the streets of New Hampshire” and said the change “lets us do it for free.” He described the policy as modeled on Idaho’s 1982 law and cited state and federal data he said show injury reductions where similar rules were adopted. Miller emphasized the change would be optional for cyclists: “This is a yield sign,” he told the committee, “you are still expected to pay attention to the laws of the road and yield to crossing traffic where appropriate.”

Several bicycle-safety experts and users testified in support. Michael Frank, a long‑distance cyclist and certified League Cycling Instructor, said carrying heavy cargo makes coming to a full stop hazardous and that allowing a “slow roll” through an otherwise-empty intersection reduces exposure. Tim Blagdon, a former Bike Walk Alliance of New Hampshire director, told lawmakers that many signals do not detect bicycles and that permitting cyclists to proceed when it is safe compensates for that technical gap.

The Department of Transportation’s testimony, delivered by Bill Lambert, emphasized a technical point the committee pressed: signal cycle timing and vehicle detection. Lambert told the panel a major signal cycle is typically no longer than 120 seconds but explained that minor-road or left‑turn detections can fail to register bicycles; such failures can leave cyclists waiting indefinitely. DOT staff said modern cameras and detection upgrades are being installed but statewide coverage is incomplete.

Committee members voiced practical concerns. Representative Hill said drivers “don’t know what those people are going to do,” describing the uncertainty a motorist faces at an intersection. Representative Guyasson asked whether the bill addresses liability; Miller replied riders who “do not yield when they should is still liable just as if they ran a stop sign today” and said he would consider adding language if the committee wanted clearer liability language.

Other details and testimony: several cycling instructors and advocates described training programs and urged the committee to retain education and clarify how electric bicycles and other human‑powered devices are defined in the statute. Supporters pointed committee members to research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and to state examples already in place. Two DOT representatives agreed to follow up with more specifics about signal detection and cycle lengths.

Online participation: the committee reported receiving 37 online votes supporting the bill and 7 opposed.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on HB 249 after taking testimony and technical questions. Lawmakers indicated follow‑up from DOT and the possibility of amendments to clarify liability language or definitions of vehicle types.