4 ms·

Although the article alluded to studies that show this approach is safer it didn't bother to cite any. Here's one based on results when the law passed in Iowa:

• Silhouette 10y ago
  Slowing down as you approach the stop sign, scanning the full 360 degrees around the intersection (which, unlike cars, cyclists are able to do easily and quickly), being prepared to stop if necessary, but continuing on through if there's no reason to do so, is perfectly safe. For an experienced, physically fit cyclist, riding in good conditions? Perhaps. For a younger and less experienced cyclist, with less strength, riding in a noisy area while it's raining? Not so much. There is always a danger in discussions about road traffic laws of assuming -- consciously or otherwise -- ideal conditions and skillful drivers/riders. However, those people were much less likely to have an accident already. I'd make the analogy thusly: as a cyclist coming to a stop sign, I've got to come to a stop, dismount, remount, then get going again from a standstill. What kind of bike are you riding if you have to dismount every time you stop?! Maybe it's a national or cultural thing, but to me (based in cycle-filled Cambridge, UK) that idea is crazy and any bike where it was true would be very bad for riding on the road. There is certainly a real problem with road design that causes stop-start behaviour for cyclists. We most often see this here when looking at shared use cycle paths along pavements (sidewalks) set back from the road: it's an idea that sounds cycle-friendly, but in reality those paths don't have priority at junctions with side roads while the main road does, meaning for any cyclist competent and confident enough to ride at closer to normal traffic speeds, the shared use paths are not a useful alternative to on-road cycling. However, I think this article is far too quick to gloss over legitimate concerns about whether cyclists really can judge when it's safe to traverse a junction against a red light or stop line. Again, it's possible that the uses for these tools are different here in the UK -- we use stop lines quite rarely for example, often precisely because a junction doesn't give a sufficient view on approach to enter it without stopping to check first. But I see examples almost daily of cyclists running red lights and in doing so causing disruption to pedestrians and other road users who were trying to cross the junction properly. And yes, tragically, sometimes cyclists do get seriously injured or killed doing so. I also think the article was too quick to gloss over the argument that on the same road, the same rules should apply to everyone. Of course it can't literally be true in cases like road space reserved for certain classes of traffic. However, I would argue that creating a "them and us" culture between cyclists and motor traffic is dangerous, because in reality, breeding resentment for cyclists who ride as if they own the road does make a significant number of motor vehicle drivers more aggressive toward them. I think the roads are safer places when road users respect each other and act courteously -- when people voluntarily give way (yield) to help someone else make progress, slow down and give more space around vulnerable road users, and so on. If you lose that culture, then however in the right a cyclist might be legally, they're still going to be the one who ends up in hospital or worse if their riding antagonises people driving several tonnes of fast-moving metal who then get frustrated and make a mistake or simply don't yield when a cyclist expected them to as a courtesy but the law doesn't actually require it. None of this is to say that current laws are ideal or we shouldn't change them if the data warrants it. I strongly believe that road safety policy should be evidence-based. I'm just not sure this article has made that case, at least not in a way that would apply on the roads around here.
  • mazelife 10y ago
    (Sorry, I should have "straddle" rather than "dismount". ) > For an experienced, physically fit cyclist, riding in good conditions? Perhaps. But isn't this the case with all traffic laws? For example, the law may permit drivers to go 55 mph on a certain road, but in a driving rain that speed could be dangerously fast; it's incumbent on drivers and riders to adapt to the conditions around them and their abilities. Idaho stops permit cyclists to behave a certain way at intersections, but it's still incumbent on the cyclist to do what is safe in that situation. > But I see examples almost daily of cyclists running red lights and in doing so causing disruption to pedestrians and other road users who were trying to cross the junction properly. You're trying to rebut an article neither I nor the article was making. An "Idaho Stop" permits a cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield and a red light as a stop. If a pedestrian or automobile is already in the intersection or will get there before the cyclist, the cyclist must yield, including coming to a full stop if necessary. If a cyclist is just blowing through stops signs (or failing to stop fully at red lights), they're still breaking the law under Idaho stop rules; they'd be legally at fault in the event of an accident and I'd hope any policemen who observed that kind of behavior would cite them. > I also think the article was too quick to gloss over the argument that on the same road, the same rules should apply to everyone. I see it differently. Cars, bicycles, and pedestrians all have completely different behaviors and properties. I think laws should be designed to maximize safety and usability of roads for each class of users (while balancing all those interests, which its the tricky part). When we categorically lump bicycles into the same set of rules that cars must obey, it seems to me we're treating them as an afterthought and putting them into a disadvantageous position to the heavier, faster moving vehicle with less visibility. And this a good example: given there is concrete evidence that Idaho stops make things safer for bicyclists, it doesn't really matter what you or I "feel" is true about the issue. > However, I would argue that creating a "them and us" culture between cyclists and motor traffic is dangerous I can easily match all the anecdotes about bad cyclist behavior appearing in these comments with stories about drivers who've darted in front of me into reserved cycling lanes in the middle of a block so they can double park, or blown past me with about an inch of clearance from my handlebars even though state law requires 2 feet, or who've honked at me or shouted obscenities and threats because I'm (lawfully) riding on "their" road. (The best part is when they tell me I should be biking on the sidewalk instead!) I don't think trading anecdotes is a useful way to adjudicate this specific issue, but in many US cities, at least, there is already pervasive "us vs. them" hostility to cyclists. I think the best way to break down this "drivers-vs-cyclist" culture is to get more cyclists on the road, where, in most places in the US they are vastly outnumbered by automobiles. Cities with large volumes of cyclist traffic tend to have less accidents per capita because drivers and pedestrians are used to them being around. Laws that make cycling more safe and enjoyable tend to make people ride their bikes more. They also signal that municipalities that adapt them view bicyclists as more than just second-class users of roads.
• galdosdi 10y ago
  When I drive (which is a lot less than I bike), I drive a stick, and at least at reds, I put the car in neutral and engage the parking brake so I can rest my feet, which (except for the loss of momentum) is comparable to the trouble incurred in dismounting for a bike. In general, driving or biking, I think we should stop trying to decrease effort, and increase it instead. It's good for you. As a cyclist you get stronger, faster, more skilled. As a driver, you get more skilled and are forced to stay more alert. All of these things make you and everyone around you safer, so savor and put as much of yourself as possible into your cycling and driving, for everyone's sake. You don't get good at things you don't do.
  • moridinamael 10y ago
    Agreed. As a stick driver, I spend more energy stopping and starting at a stop sign than a bike rider does, no exaggeration.