Idaho Stop

Comment

Comment by Andrew Bedno on November 2, 2012 at 4:13pm

The Way You Ride Is Probably A Crime 

Brendan Kevenides

 

http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2012/11/stop-and-yield.html

Comment by Andrew Bedno on May 31, 2011 at 9:12pm

Distantly related, allows crossing a red if it fails to detect your weight and change in a reasonable time. Sadly intended for motorcycles.

X-Posting from ActiveTrans:

Bicyclists straight on red bill passes
On Sunday, while you were enjoying 30 miles of car-free cycling on Lake Shore Drive, the Illinois General Assembly was hard at work. In an overwhelming vote (101-11), they passed HB 2860. It now goes to Gov. Pat Quinn for his signature.
This bill will allow bicyclists to treat a red light as a stop sign and proceed with caution if the red light fails to turn green in a reasonable amount of time. The bill's provisions only apply if the red light signal fails to detect the cyclist due to the light weight of the bike or another signal malfunction. The bill does not apply in the City of Chicago.
An initiative of the motorcyclists (who would also be covered) lobby, the bill is controversial. What is a reasonable amount of time? Can the straight on red provision lead to more cycle v. pedestrian crashes? Will the bill create more confusion on the roadway?
If the bill becomes law, Active Trans enourages you to exercise caution. Only proceed on red after coming to a complete stop, ensuring there is no danger from cross traffic and ensuring that there are no pedestrians in the intersection.

...

Comment by Andrew Bedno on February 28, 2011 at 10:17am

Cross-posting from CCM listserv:

From: Chicago Critical Mass On Behalf Of Jerome Hughes
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 10:18 AM
Subject: Rolling Stop for Cyclists Rolls From Idaho To Utah

Oregon tried unsuccessfully to implement a rolling stop for bicycles (http://bikeportland.org/2009/01/14/exclusive-bta-will-go-for-idaho-...) during its last legislative session in 2009. Now it looks as if Oregonians are likely to be upstaged by that biking mecca of the western U.S. known as Utah. What? Utah? Yup. In case you weren't aware, Utah has approximately 13,000 commuting cyclists (according to the last American Community Survey), and soon all of them may be able to yield, but not stop, at those red road signs.
-- the rest and two videos at...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/02/idaho-stop-rolls-into-utah.php

Comment by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on October 15, 2010 at 9:53am

Yes the Idaho stop treats a Stop sign as a yield sign.

Comment by Anne Alt on October 15, 2010 at 8:46am

I think that our chances of actually getting a law passed are much better if the law specifies a true yield, i.e., you don't have to come to a full stop UNLESS there is other traffic that has the right of way. That would a reasonable compromise that would greatly improve our chances.

I'd like to see this group used to work for passage of a law, rather than just discussion.

Comment by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on October 11, 2010 at 8:54pm

Some people believe that a) it's unfair or a disservice to bicycles to apply laws to them separate from cars and b) that it's less safe. Both argument are utter nonsense.

Comment by Andrew Bedno on October 11, 2010 at 8:28pm

I responded to a similar email from a friend ("I received your invitation, thank you. Do you really want someone in the group that doesn't support codifying the Idaho Stop in the Chicago Municipal Code?") to whit:

"Good question. You're right, that my leaning is to a group pursuant to implementing it, not for debate. But I value dissent, so perhaps start a subforum under the group."

Makes me wonder what objections there are? I'll look into that eventually, or someone feel free to post. At very least to help assess items of opposition for countering.

Comment by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on October 11, 2010 at 4:24pm

I would rather see this be a forum for people who want to further this agenda item rather than a place to spend countless useless hours debating the merits of something. Debating and discussion is entirely different than organizing political action.

Comment by Ian on October 11, 2010 at 3:50pm

Andrew, I do support the Idaho stop sign and red light laws and would favor them here, but my concern with your CL group is that if you are trying to host a discussion, a person who opposes the change needs to join the group (supporting the change) to discuss why he/she thinks it is a bad idea. If you are gathering a lobbying group, this makes more sense.

Comment by Andrew Bedno on September 20, 2010 at 1:10am

Cricket, I agree, it stays. There's a useful mystique.

Spencer had some cogent thoughts on this topic at TheChainLink bar night. He argued a primary benefit would be to remove the current great confusion at intersections with cars. Whether a mean driver forces observance and you must stop, or a nice driver waits for you to go through but you stop on precaution, momentum is lost. If drivers can KNOW that bikes do not have to stop, we can more certainly assume they will stop. In such a case, fault becomes certain in crashes. But I'm not actually sure the Idaho Stop law does that exactly. It's clearest application is we wouldn't have to stop if NO cars are present. I'm not certain on who has right of way in the case of car already stopped at stop sign, and approaching cyclist with yield sign. Shows I'm out of touch with driving. Feedback?

Spencer went on to describe that legislation changes culture (roughly, if I remember right). Giving bikes just this slight advantage could add to a snowball effect. I like the sound of that.

The most common argument is that the Idaho Stop simply decriminalizes reality. In this one tiny case bikes need an exception from automotive traffic laws, and it's worked in other states. What's the next step?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page