Idaho Stop

Comment

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?

Comment by Andrew Bedno on September 17, 2010 at 1:12pm

Should this group have a better name? Like "Rolling Stop" or "Chicago Stop" or "The Idaho Stop" ...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page