5 ms·

Because when you have good visibility and momentum, it’s much safer to get through and away from an intersection than to come to a stop, put your foot down, and

Because when you have good visibility and momentum, it’s much safer to get through and away from an intersection than to come to a stop, put your foot down, and get moving again. The traffic laws are made for automobiles, but it’s great to see Colorado recognizing the difference.

wonderwonder 5y ago
I hear what you are saying but if the people driving the cars expect you to stop and they go based on the belief that the bicyclists will follow the law and stop then its just a recipe for disaster. Now if the law is changed then the drivers expectations should change as well and all will be well. Until then though one group is breaking the law and the other is not in these specific scenarios. With that said many people drive like fools anyway.
- cnelsenmilt 5y ago
  This new law hasn't changed a bicycle's abilities, privileges, or responsibilities when other traffic is present. So if there is a situation where "the people driving the cars expect you to stop" the person on the bicycle still needs to stop. (Assuming the expectation is correct.)
- eloisius 5y ago
  Of course cyclists expect drivers to expect us to stop. The entire point of treating it like a yield is that we only proceed when a car is not about to go. Most cyclists treat every car like it’s actively trying to kill them, so “running a red” carelessly is not the way. Stopping at lights and stop signs is particularly dangerous because of distracted drivers rear-ending you. It’s better to take a good look, and if no cars are left and right, don’t wait around. Get away from the intersection.
CabSauce 5y ago
If 'less time in the intersection' is actually safer, wouldn't it be safer for cars too?
- eloisius 5y ago
  A car can accelerate through the intersection much easier than a cyclist can remount and accelerate from a full stop. Cars are also not in the same danger of being killed by a distracted driver rear-ending them. Cyclists are up higher, can hear better, and see the situation at the intersection much better, so the can roll through an intersection more safely than a car.

wonderwonder 5y ago

I hear what you are saying but if the people driving the cars expect you to stop and they go based on the belief that the bicyclists will follow the law and stop then its just a recipe for disaster. Now if the law is changed then the drivers expectations should change as well and all will be well. Until then though one group is breaking the law and the other is not in these specific scenarios. With that said many people drive like fools anyway.

cnelsenmilt 5y ago
This new law hasn't changed a bicycle's abilities, privileges, or responsibilities when other traffic is present. So if there is a situation where "the people driving the cars expect you to stop" the person on the bicycle still needs to stop. (Assuming the expectation is correct.)
eloisius 5y ago
Of course cyclists expect drivers to expect us to stop. The entire point of treating it like a yield is that we only proceed when a car is not about to go. Most cyclists treat every car like it’s actively trying to kill them, so “running a red” carelessly is not the way. Stopping at lights and stop signs is particularly dangerous because of distracted drivers rear-ending you. It’s better to take a good look, and if no cars are left and right, don’t wait around. Get away from the intersection.

CabSauce 5y ago

If 'less time in the intersection' is actually safer, wouldn't it be safer for cars too?

eloisius 5y ago
A car can accelerate through the intersection much easier than a cyclist can remount and accelerate from a full stop. Cars are also not in the same danger of being killed by a distracted driver rear-ending them. Cyclists are up higher, can hear better, and see the situation at the intersection much better, so the can roll through an intersection more safely than a car.