> 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 f

> 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.