3 ms·

I many places is is allowed and even encouraged for cyclists to go through red lights and stop signs. It's called the Idaho stop [0]. It's believed to be safer

I many places is is allowed and even encouraged for cyclists to go through red lights and stop signs. It's called the Idaho stop [0]. It's believed to be safer than waiting at the red light provided that the intersection is clear. Consider that rear-end collisions are the most common cause of cyclist fatalities [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop [1] https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/how-get-killed-bike-your-chances-are-best-urban-arterial-road-getting-hit-behind.html https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/how-get-killed-bike-your-ch...

ilovecars2 9y ago
This worries me. What if the intersection is clear but the joining roads are blind (as is often the case in old European cities). Could I cross the red light, get hit and then claim “well I was just following the Idaho stop... I’m not at fault here. The intersection was clear when I set off”? I’m surprised about it being safer, and would be interested to see some stats on it. It could be more common in the US where cities are grids because I don’t think I’ve ever seen a near miss where a cyclist almost got rear ended in London. However, I do see a lot of cyclists getting cut off by buses and cars on corners and at junctions.