19 ms·

Idaho Stop

• nicwolff 4y ago
  In this thread: numerous people who have "almost" been hit – that is, not hit. A cyclist thought they had room to pass you, and you thought they didn't, and they were right. We must not-do something about this terrible not-problem.
• afandian 4y ago
  What's the volume of pedestrians on pedestrian crossings in places where this is implemented? Seems dangerous to get a 'cross' / 'walk' signal when there's still traffic.
  • reaperducer 4y ago
    What's the volume of pedestrians on pedestrian crossings in places where this is implemented? How cold is the sun? How shallow is the ocean? How dark is a light? The question makes no sense when applied to an area the size of a state.
  • unsafecast 4y ago
    If you come at a complete stop anyway, it's fine with me. Bikes can't accelerate all that quickly, so it ends up being pretty slow traffic.
    • qubex 4y ago
      > Bikes can’t accelerate all that quickly Interesting statement. Do you have some data? I’ve often mused anecdotally that the initial acceleration from the first pumps on the pedals give a pretty abrupt change in momentum.
      • unsafecast 4y ago
        I don't. I just compared my perception on how I and other people accelerate with the width of the road. Intuition tells me it's not dangerous (of course, assuming everyone is responsible). Now that I think about it, it depends on a lot of factors. I don't know how the roads look in Idaho, but I assume they're much wider than where I live, which gives you more time to get up to speed. I haven't considered e-bikes either.
      • MisterMower 4y ago
        You shouldn’t need data, it’s common sense. How long does it take a car to go from stopped to 30mph? Five seconds? How long does it take a cyclist to go from stopped to 10mph? Certainly not less five seconds. In those scenarios, average acceleration for the car is 6mph/s, for the cyclist it’s 2mph/s.
        • qubex 4y ago
          As you say so yourself that’s average acceleration. No contest there.
          • MisterMower 4y ago
            Well you don’t know the difference between momentum and acceleration so I figured I’d walk you through a little thought experiment. Sorry you didn’t find it helpful!
            • qubex 4y ago
              I don’t know the difference between [difference in] momentum and acceleration?? Says whom?? Δp=mΔv=FΔt
    • falcolas 4y ago
      > Bikes can't accelerate all that quickly E-bikes are changing this dynamic pretty quickly. And unpredictably. They can get from 0 to 20 faster than a car.
      • unsafecast 4y ago
        Yes, I hadn't considered e-bikes when I made that comment. Definitely changes things.
  • bombcar 4y ago
    The vast majority of these are the stop->yield. The US "overstops" in that there are thousands of 4 way stop intersections that should be either 2 way stops or 2 way yields.
    • pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I think the point of this is to slow people down. We also have speed limits that are rarely followed because they are often set far below safe driving speed on a road, so without the stop signs many people have the impulse to drive 10+ mph over the speed limit.
    • francisofascii 4y ago
      While they are less efficient, I much prefer the consistency and safety of 4-way stops, especially when visibility is low due to parked vehicles.
  • avianlyric 4y ago
    In the US pretty much every pedestrian crossing gets a walk signal while there’s still traffic, thanks to right-turn-on-red for cars. Big difference is being hit by a 90kg human on a 10kg bike going 15mph is much less likely to kill you than a 2000kg SUV doing 20mph. Additionally bike still have to yield to pedestrians, not to mention a bike is only 50-90cm wide, compared to 1500cm-2000cm for a car. Makes it much easier for both bikes and pedestrians to evade each other, should one or the other be behaving irresponsibly.
    • afandian 4y ago
      That seems crazy to me! How are blind people, or people with reduced mobility, expected to navigate a crossing if they can't trust the light? A bike has less mass than a car, but I'd rather not be hit by a bike at all, to be honest. Let alone a child or someone more vulnerable.
      • thesuitonym 4y ago
        American intersections are built exclusively for cars, everybody else is an afterthought (when they're even thought of at all)
      • dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        The same way that they do at an intersection with a stop sign and a cross walk. It's the car's responsibility to see them and yield.
    • ipython 4y ago
      Also left turn yield on green lights. I’ve found that to be especially dangerous both as a driver and pedestrian at night, where it can be hard to see whether there is anyone crossing on the far parallel crosswalk when you yield left on a straight green light.
    • throwaway4aday 4y ago
      > a 90kg human on a 10kg bike going 15mph Sure, it's not a car crash but this is still equivalent to someone throwing a full bodyweight punch which can easily knock you unconscious and kill you when your head bounces off the pavement.
  • actionablefiber 4y ago
    People riding bikes are still expected to yield to people crossing. In many U.S. cities the Idaho Stop, while not technically legal is already what most cyclists do, myself included. Either the crossing volume is low enough that it is trivially easy and safe to find a gap to fit through, or high enough that you simply wait for an opening, or dismount and squeeze through on foot.
• teekert 4y ago
  We have these [0] in the Netherlands. Those arrows mean all cyclists at the same time from any direction. Tbh I never saw that in practice yet, normally it's one/two lanes at a time, like this: [1]. [0]: https://media.indebuurt.nl/enschede/2019/01/10155835/20190119_122310-e1547897210511-1024x690.jpg https://media.indebuurt.nl/enschede/2019/01/10155835/2019011... [1]: https://www.verkeersnet.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/fietsers-door-groen.jpg https://www.verkeersnet.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/fietse...
• miked85 4y ago
  What's the name for completely ignoring stop signs and red lights altogether, which seems to be standard for many cyclists?
  • layer8 4y ago
    Frequency illusion, salience bias, and confirmation bias.
  • avianlyric 4y ago
    Staying safe and away from drivers who don’t pay attention, and occasional deliberately try to mame and kill cyclists?
    • BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
      >”and occasional deliberately try to mame and kill cyclists?” That seems more than a little hyperbolic, no? Road rage is real, but I don’t think there are drivers who are actively and deliberately trying to maim or murder bicyclists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_erro...
      • mbauman 4y ago
        Nah, mostly just trying to scare them and put them in their place. https://www.bikelaw.com/2017/07/punishment-pass-defined/ https://www.bikelaw.com/2017/07/punishment-pass-defined/
      • dropofwill 4y ago
        Perhaps, but there are plenty of examples of people being convicted for murder because they hit and killed cyclists. If it's good enough for the legal system... At any rate when they shout at you, roll coal, swerve to force you off the road their intentions are clearly not good.
      • avianlyric 4y ago
        You can tell that to all the drivers that have actively forced me into the curb, or into the side parked cars, or have pulled alongside and yelled at me etc. Seems many drivers don’t see people on bikes a humans, and behave accordingly.
• eckmLJE 4y ago
  In my experience, most people don't have a great understanding of what keeps cyclists safe in mixed traffic (i.e. not within a protected lane), and how opposed those things often are to the law. As a former professional urban cyclist, I constantly broke the law to keep myself safe, while keeping my first priority never to endanger pedestrians or other cyclists. A kind of Three Laws where the unarmored travelers come first, then myself, then the folks in big steel boxes. Cyclists need a different set of laws on the road for everyone's benefit. But people have become so inured to the constant threat and frequent (and often fatal) harm of motor vehicles, that they fixate on and exaggerate the threat of cyclists, and illogically insist that they need to follow the same rules of the road as cars. Cyclists should follow rules of the road -- special rules created for a special vehicle.
  • throw0101a 4y ago
    > […] then the folks in big steel boxes. Motorcyclists have the colloquialism "cager" for automobile drivers for the big steel cages they are contained in.
    • mynegation 4y ago
      • dang 4y ago
        "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      • valeness 4y ago
        • dang 4y ago
          Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• _fat_santa 4y ago
  I think legal or not, almost every driver has "rolled a stop sign" (where you come to an almost complete stop but roll through if no one is there).
  • mwint 4y ago
    I wonder if you could build an argument that rolling stops save lives through reduced emissions.
    • dcow 4y ago
      Or through marginally reduced time sitting as drivers.
    • actionablefiber 4y ago
      That was part of the argument for right-on-red, but given that both of these frequently kill people, and rampant deaths-by-car are a powerful disincentive to walk or bike, I don't think the math works out in favor of this argument.
  • jeffbee 4y ago
    I don't know what it's like where you live, but in Berkeley, CA you are more likely to be hit by a meteor than see a driver make a full and complete stop at a stop sign in the absence contention from another car. Cars, for the most part, roll right through a stop sign at the same speed that a bicyclist would. The difference is it seems superficially as if the driver slowed when they were speeding at 40 in a 25, slowed to 5-10 for the intersection, and then blew through the sign. Whereas a bicyclists who just proceeds at a steady 8 MPH through an intersection will leave nearby drivers foaming at the mouth.
• SamBam 4y ago
  This seems designed to start a bicycle argument. I'll go ahead and present the cyclist's view, and try not to get flamed: A cyclist's head is much closer to the end of their vehicle, and they have a much more unobstructed view around them. By the time they are a few feet from the stop sign, they can already see much further down the street than a driver in a car could. This means it's easier to assess safety and make a snap decision to keep going. Coming to a complete stop doesn't really add any more safety. Further, while accidents that harm pedestrians do certainly happen, and shouldn't be minimized, the vast majority of the time the biggest danger to a cyclist is themselves. Cars kill people every day, so it is reasonable that they be held to a higher standard. If you started out with a bicycle-only intersection with a yield sign, and then started allowing cars through, wouldn't you want to increase the safety of that intersection by requiring a stop? As a final thought, most red lights in America could probably be stop signs or yield signs. The UK has been working towards this (with roundabouts too) and in general roads are safer when you require drivers to think and make decisions. I think much of car drivers' anger towards cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is not so much the safety aspect as a feeling of unfairness that they are stuck at the light while the cyclist checks the road and then bikes through.
  • kazinator 4y ago
    I will make it more technical: a cyclist doesn't have an windshield A-pillar blocking part of their view. When two vehicles approach an intersection, if they do so at the same speed (including same variation in speed, like both decelerating), the relative view angle from one vehicle to the other stays the same. It's possible for another road user to be entirely hidden behind a driver's A pillar during an approach to the intersection. In spite of several glances in that direction, it is possible to fail to spot the other vehicle. A proper stop is the only sure thing.
    • CameronNemo 4y ago
      I once almost hit a pedestrian because of the pillar in my car. Luckily caught it at the last second, and was going at a slow speed, but yeah those blind spots are no joke.
    • 4y ago
• dougdonohoe 4y ago
  This is great. This is how I ride.
• i_am_proteus 4y ago
  The key to this adding safety is predictability. As a former bicycle commuter, I had to ride defensively because automobile drivers would behave unpredictably around me, but I can't be certain how much of that was because bicyclists are, as a whole, unpredictable. Commuters and tourists on rental bicycles behave very differently. Rolling stop signs and lights when safe to do so is normal for bicyclists everywhere (when police are not present). Legalizing it so that automobile drivers become accustomed to it makes things safer. The principal hazard to surrounding traffic from a cyclist is when a car makes a sudden move in response to behavior by the cyclist that the car driver did not anticipate.
  • user3939382 4y ago
    > automobile drivers would behave unpredictably around me I wonder what the law is when I'm on a 40-50 mph 2 lane highway with a 1-2 ft margin and a bicyclist is in the margin going 20 mph and I have to swerve across the double yellow into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting them.
    • Doxin 4y ago
      First off cycling in such a place is utter insanity and is resolved by dedicated cycle lanes and paths. As someone who cycles daily I would never cycle anywhere where the speed limit for cars is above 30mph unless the cycle path is separated by at least a median. The law for passing cyclists should be to stay behind the cyclist until it is safe to pass. Just because you're in a car doesn't mean you have some immutable right to drive the speed limit regardless of circumstances. Of course when there's frequently cyclists on high speed roads that quickly becomes untenable, but for that situation re-read the first half of my comment.
      • filoeleven 4y ago
        > First off cycling in such a place is utter insanity and is resolved by dedicated cycle lanes and paths. This is infeasible in Amish country, where there are lots of long stretches of straight roads with high speed limits. You’re entirely correct about what the law should be, and at least in PA, that is what the law is. Those of us in Amish country are also used to sharing the road with larger slow-moving vehicles like buggies and farm tractors. I treat a cyclist the same way: follow at a safe distance until I can pass in the opposite lane, like the law says. It’s unfortunate that enough people are failing to do so that as often as not I get a friendly wave, when I eventually pass, for simply being a responsible driver.
• francisofascii 4y ago
  Here is a thought experiment, in a world without cars and trucks, what would the laws be like? Would we even have stop signs or red lights? Maybe only in high traffic areas. I think motorists who argue against the Idaho stop have the idea it is unfair to have different rules, while ignoring the monumental difference between cars and bikes.
  • MisterMower 4y ago
    My beef is that cyclists increase traffic congestion but don’t pay taxes to fund the infrastructure they’re using. People that drive cars pay taxes on gas and their vehicle to fund and maintain streets but city councils around the country are expropriating lanes for cyclist use. Cyclists should be required to financially support the infrastructure they’re using in some way. Perhaps a flat tax on bicycle sales in a municipality would do it.
    • multiplegeorges 4y ago
      > My beef is that cyclists increase traffic congestion but don’t pay taxes to fund the infrastructure they’re using. Not sure where you are, but where I am my property taxes go to road maintenance and gas taxes don't even come CLOSE to covering the cost of road/highway maintenance. If anything, drivers are hugely subsidized by the state.
      • MisterMower 4y ago
        I’m sorry your municipality’s finances are poorly managed, but that’s not an argument for giving cyclists a free ride when it comes to paying for what they use. Both drivers and cyclists should pay for their usage. I don’t think my original comment implied they should be treated differently.
        • comte7092 4y ago
          >I’m sorry your municipality’s finances are poorly managed I can almost guarantee that your municipality doesn’t collect enough gas taxes to cover road maintenance. Regardless, cars do significant more damage to roads than do bicycles and represent an infinitely larger proportion of usage. The cost of maintaining bicycle infrastructure is infinitesimal in comparison.
• harimau777 4y ago
  While walking I've almost been hit by cyclists performing "Idaho stops". It was one of the big things that turned me against the movement to promote cycling as a form of transportation/commuting.
  • elfatizer 4y ago
    Cars hit pedestrians all the time, and at much greater consequence. The lack of infrastructure that gives any amount of space for cyclists (or walkers, for that matter) is to blame far more than the cyclists.
    • hooverd 4y ago
      "Drivers are mean to me so I get to be mean to pedestrians" isn't the excuse you think it is.
  • eckmLJE 4y ago
    This person wasn't performing an "Idaho stop" if they failed to yield to a pedestrian. They were just riding recklessly. Are you also against using cars for commuting, since they kill pedestrians all the time?
  • dktoao 4y ago
    Someone rode by you a little too close on a bicycle and now you want everyone to have to use less efficient forms of transportation, worsening the climate crisis? Wow, is all I can say.
    • actionablefiber 4y ago
      I really am amused by how _extremely_ abundant the anecdotes are of "almost" being hit by a bike, yet when it comes to cars, the anecdotes are typically of being _actually, really_ hit. In reality bicycles have extremely good maneuverability and visibility, combined with lower speeds and a small hitbox. As someone who frequently walks and cycles I feel that on foot, something might "feel" like a near miss when the rider was in fact in complete control the entire time or was able to avert a crash due to all the inherent advantages bikes have for reacting quickly and decisively.
• user3939382 4y ago
  I propose a law called Manhattan Stop: if you run a red light or stop sign on a bicycle you're arrested and charged with reckless endangerment. Consider yourself fortunate if you don't live in an area where there are food delivery bikes perpetually narrowly missing (or not) pedestrians, zooming 20 mph over sidewalks and through intersections so their riders can make a living. I can't count the number of times I was inches away from a hospital bed because of these guys. Often no headlight at night, sometimes dark clothes to boot. I've had family members hit. It's a real problem and for some reason, law enforcement in NYC that pops out of nowhere for parking tickets has 0 interest in addressing it.
• dudeinjapan 4y ago
  I was about to look this one up on Urban Dictionary.
• socialismisok 4y ago
  These laws are fantastic, and much needed. Obviously we should prioritize pedestrian safety first, which these laws are neutral towards. But biking, especially electric assisted biking, is loads more efficient in both space and energy. If a place refuses to build bike infrastructure, this helps make roads better for cyclists. I live in sort of the urban shoulder of Seattle, and my bike rides go through a mix of trails, protected lanes, and suburban streets filled with stop signs. Compared to driving, and accounting for parking time, biking is generally faster than driving for short trips.
  • _tom_ 4y ago
    I would think that electric assisted biking would be covered by the laws for vehicles, not human powered bicycles. Is that not correct?
    • socialismisok 4y ago
      It's both, actually. In the US there are generally three classes of electric bikes. Class 1 bikes only assist when the rider pedals. They make sustaining speeds and climbing hills easier. They are generally allowed wherever bikers are, and have speed limiters. Class 2 bikes use a throttle, and do not require peddling, and are generally considered a motorized vehicle. Class 3 bikes are fuzzier. They operate like class 1 bikes (pedal to get power) but they can get motor assistance up to 28 mph. These bikes are generally allowed to operate like class 1 bikes as long as they stay under 20mph, but may be banned from some mixed use areas.
      • notch656a 4y ago
        >These bikes are generally allowed to operate like class 1 bikes as long as they stay under 20mph, but may be banned from some mixed use areas. I've been a cyclist in many cities. Never once seen a cop cite someone for this. I'm guessing if you got into a bad accident things would go poorly for you after it was discovered what you did, but has anyone here actually seen something come of people riding these bikes where they are banned?
• Test0129 4y ago
  > Studies in Delaware and Idaho have shown significant decreases in crashes at stop-controlled intersections. Seems like the introduction of the law got people to think about cyclists because lunatics will fly through stop signs and ignore yields. Now that they can do it legally, you have to be more mindful, leading to less accidents. These laws are asinine. Cyclists are such a problem where I live. They believe they are entitled to the road like a 3000 pound car, they slow traffic down, they create jams at intersections, they don't pay attention and fly through cross walks, etc. You should need to be licensed to use a bicycle. There are far too many stupid people. My favorite example of this from recent history was pulling out to take a right turn, stopping, and right as I'm rolling out to commence the turn a bicyclist FLIES past me such that 1" in any direction would've probably killed him.
  • joshlemer 4y ago
    This is such a terrible and uninformed comment. Your complaint against people on bikes is that they think they're entitled to use the road at all? Holy smokes, yeah people on bikes are so entitled by insisting on existing in any shape or form? What a selfish and arrogant attitude, shame on you. Cyclists are not the problem with the North American transportation system, cars are.
    • Test0129 4y ago
      Stay mad imo. Bicyclists should be licensed and insured just like cars. They pose a danger to everyone around them just like cars, and should have to be able to make anyone they harm whole. Anti-car rhetoric is absolute top tier nonsense. It's harder to get access to a 2000 pound vehicle than it is to get access to a projectile on two wheels that can easily flatten someone.
      • joshlemer 4y ago
        Yeah you're right. The greatest danger to pedestrians in North America is all those millions of "projectile cyclists" flattening them. That's what the statistics show. Today alone, about 21 people walking in the United States will be killed by motor vehicles. But we should focus on the approximately 8 pedestrians killed per year in collisions with bicycles.
• zackmorris 4y ago
  Idaho was a blue state when I was growing up here in the 70s and 80s. Frank Church and Cecil Andrus (among a great many others) did amazing things. Our ancestors were heavily involved in issues like women's suffrage and environmental protections. People forget that. Or more accurately, revisionist history is always trying! Common sense has always been a big thing here, as well as self-reliance. Politics here is mostly about resources. R's generally vote to extract all ranching/timber/mining resources possible, while D's generally oppose all of that. Now with the tech sector influx, D's are at least as likely to look the other way when it comes to stuff like the loss of farmland to urban sprawl as R's. Idaho will probably be the last state to legalize drugs, not because we care, but because people want to keep things the same. Many of us look at Oregon with concerns about homelessness after its recent legalization, but people are easily confused, so blame the drugs instead of the fundamental causes of exploitation and the existential crisis of living under the profit motive in a post-scarcity information age that should have been automated 20 years ago. We tell it how it is. Things are also changing. There's a huge influx right now of libertarian-minded folks who want to get away from central control. That's understandable, but growth and gentrification issues are heavy on everyone's mind. We're in a unique position of wanting everyone to be able to enjoy the natural heritage that we are grateful for, but having reservations about newcomers who don't practice our prime directive of leave no trace. For better or worse, politics here are beginning to flip. It's not enough now to be a stanch this-or-that. If we vote wrong, our housing costs double, a forest gets leveled, we gain or lose thousands of jobs on the whim of a company's decision to build a plant here to dodge taxes. An R quickly becomes a fan of NIMBY when a billionaire buys and gates off their hunting grounds because the timber industry didn't given the land back when they were done with it, to be used as public land. A D becomes one as well to block a wind farm or housing development in the foothills surrounding their town. This stuff is hard. Idaho stop? I had never heard that expression before, but sounds about right. We just ride our bikes through stops anyway, because trying to ticket everyone is unenforceable and ridiculous. But the older ones here know that the hard-won freedoms we take for granted require constant vigilance, or someone will take them away in the name of liberty or justice to divide us and make somebody rich at the expense of everyone else.
• guenthert 4y ago
  First time I read about a law I knew nothing about, but followed all my life :)
• Ccecil 4y ago
  Grew up in Coeur d'Alene, ID. The described method is what I was taught was legal. It is much faster and safer to get around by using this method. Time spent starting/stopping on a bike are dangerous times. You can be hit at any time...but it is easier to avoid incidents if you can get out of the way. Plus, as others have mentioned in comments, you have a lot more time and environmental signals (sounds, clear vision, even vibrations) than a car does to determine if it is clear to go. My ride from my house to downtown is about 10min. Car only saves me a couple minutes (if you don't count parking and/or accidents). Often, I can do a 30-45min ride around town without ever putting a foot down...but I have also been riding in this town for decades so take that as you will. The only issue I have ever had using this method is more than once I have had a driver take time to pull up alongside me to "educate" me on how that is illegal. Every time I just refer them to the drivers manual.