3 ms·

I think it is simply, intersections are the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be. This new law reduces the amount of time cyclists spend at an intersection

I think it is simply, intersections are the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be. This new law reduces the amount of time cyclists spend at an intersection.

macinjosh 5y ago
I don't see how spending less time in an intersection guarantees better safety. Can it really only be about how long you're in an intersection and not what is done while you're there? Isn't this like trying to make a dangerous aircraft seem safer by only flying it 100 mi at a time? The number of successful flights would skyrocket while the baseline crash count stays about the same.
- bombcar 5y ago
  It depends on when the crashes happen. If your unsafe plane only crashes during takeoff and landing then you’d want to minimize those, if it only crashes at cruise you’d minimize that. If crashes occur IN the intersection and not entering it, then reducing time IN is a net win, even if the number of insertions remain the same.
- nimih 5y ago
  > Can it really only be about how long you're in an intersection and not what is done while you're there? Empirically, it certainly seems to be the case; the fact sheet linked in the article references a couple of studies which demonstrate a correlation between adopting the "Idaho stop" and shockingly large reductions in cyclist injury. > Isn't this like trying to make a dangerous aircraft seem safer by only flying it 100 mi at a time? The number of successful flights would skyrocket while the baseline crash count stays about the same. You're sort of correct, except for the small detail that the total number of intersections traversed by cyclists is going to remain relatively constant--no one is going to start crossing more intersections because of this law. Thus, if you reduce the average amount of time spent traversing each individual intersection, you also reduce the total amount of time spent in intersections.

I think it is simply, intersections are the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be. This new law reduces the amount of time cyclists spend at an intersection.

macinjosh 5y ago

I don't see how spending less time in an intersection guarantees better safety. Can it really only be about how long you're in an intersection and not what is done while you're there? Isn't this like trying to make a dangerous aircraft seem safer by only flying it 100 mi at a time? The number of successful flights would skyrocket while the baseline crash count stays about the same.

bombcar 5y ago
It depends on when the crashes happen. If your unsafe plane only crashes during takeoff and landing then you’d want to minimize those, if it only crashes at cruise you’d minimize that. If crashes occur IN the intersection and not entering it, then reducing time IN is a net win, even if the number of insertions remain the same.
nimih 5y ago
> Can it really only be about how long you're in an intersection and not what is done while you're there? Empirically, it certainly seems to be the case; the fact sheet linked in the article references a couple of studies which demonstrate a correlation between adopting the "Idaho stop" and shockingly large reductions in cyclist injury. > Isn't this like trying to make a dangerous aircraft seem safer by only flying it 100 mi at a time? The number of successful flights would skyrocket while the baseline crash count stays about the same. You're sort of correct, except for the small detail that the total number of intersections traversed by cyclists is going to remain relatively constant--no one is going to start crossing more intersections because of this law. Thus, if you reduce the average amount of time spent traversing each individual intersection, you also reduce the total amount of time spent in intersections.