11 ms·

What's interesting to me is that cyclist injuries went down after these laws were passed. At least according to the wiki. Naively, I would think they'd go up, o

What's interesting to me is that cyclist injuries went down after these laws were passed. At least according to the wiki. Naively, I would think they'd go up, or stay level. Do you have any hypothesis for why that may be?

riskable 4y ago
Stopping a moving bicycle messes with the rider's balance and forces them to focus their awareness on balance and to look down at their feet to make a complete stop (otherwise they'd tip over). By allowing the rider to merely slow down it lets them maintain focus on the road and the hazards that might be around them.
- feet 4y ago
  As a regular cyclist, I have never had to look at my feet when stopping. Why would they need to look down?
  - riskable 4y ago
    It depends on where you are and your habits. I never looked down on city roads until I placed my foot on a grate and realized it wasn't nearly as grippy as I thought =) I haven't been riding in a long time but when on trails (i.e. "in the woods") I wouldn't look down. You saw that ground as you approached it and it's all the same for the most part. Differences in elevation are easy to see with peripheral vision. In the city there's potholes and puddles of unknown depth with who-knows-what buried in their depths, haha. BTW: I'm legally blind in my right eye so all I have on my right is peripheral vision so I may not be the best example. I've probably developed a near-instinctual glance.
  - miked85 4y ago
    As a non-regular cyclist, I have no idea why you would have to look at your feet when breaking.
- kleinsch 4y ago
  Most people who are comfortable riding in traffic are experienced enough at cycling that they can stop without staring at their feet.
kgermino 4y ago
In my experience (as a regular biker) intersections are dangerous in two main ways: 1. The driver behind me doesn't expect me to stop and almost (or does) hit me. 2. I'm very vulnerable when first starting up and it's easy for turning drivers to miss me or for my balance to push me slightly left or right. An Idaho stop law means that I'm able to proceed through a red light when there's no moving cars around which largely solves (2). Additionally, in my area I can take a main street or side streets. I generally take the main road for the same reason drivers so: there's stop signs every 600ft on the side roads. If I could cruise down the side street without stopping constantly I'd be much more likely to take it which keeps me out of the traffic on the main road.
- II2II 4y ago
  > 1. The driver behind me doesn't expect me to stop and almost (or does) hit me. Try signalling. One of two things will happen: they will either realize that you are coming to a stop or they won't have a clue what the signal means (even though it is in the driver's manual, at least around here). Either way, they will slow down.
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    Signalling how? If they’re coming to a stop at stop sign, and intending to continue ahead, how do you suggest they signal?
    - II2II 4y ago
      It appears to vary from region to region, but it is left arm out then bend down at the elbow in my neck of the woods. It's the same signal that drivers are supposed to use if the need ever arises. (Though the only reason I can think of a driver needing hand signals is if their turn signal is damaged, in which case they shouldn't have the vehicle on the road!)
      - giantg2 4y ago
        You're describing a stop signal. They're asking how to signal continuous travel through an intersection.
SECProto 4y ago
The most common cycling injury is a right hook, where a car drives past the cyclist then turns right (into the cyclist or without enough space for them to stop). At intersections, many cars will be turning right. Allowing cyclists to proceed past the intersection before the drivers do will increase their safety. (as an aside, right turning vehicles at intersections are allowed to behave much the same as a cyclist doing an Idaho stop - turning right on red, rolling stop)
- mynegation 4y ago
  At least in Ontario, this is yet another example of cyclists not knowing the rules of the road. Driver turning right is not obligated to yield to cyclists unless there is a bike lane _and_ it is physically separated and/or painted green and can legitimately stop flush to the right edge of the road before the turn, blocking everyone behind. Most drivers will let cyclists through anyway because as a driver you cannot rely on unlicensed people knowing the rules.
  - brailsafe 4y ago
    There should be much more of that infrastructure
    - mynegation 4y ago
      As a cyclist, I agree!
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "because as a driver you cannot rely on unlicensed people knowing the rules." I agree, but I will add that I can't rely on licensed people to know and follow the rules either. The driving test is a joke in the US.
  - u801e 4y ago
    In the US, most states have a law that requires drivers to be as close as practicable to the right edge or curb before making their right turn. This precludes the possibility of through traffic passing a right turning vehicle on the right. As a motorist, when I turn right, I move close to the edge or curb to prevent cyclists from trying to pass me on the right. Most cyclists either wait behind me or pass me on the left. When I cycle and I want to go straight through the intersection, I ride in the middle of the travel lane. Motorists will either wait behind me, pass me on the right to make a right turn, or pass me on the left and go straight (or make a left). But I don't have issues with right hooks because I take the lane.
marcelluspye 4y ago
Not the OP, but here's my observation: When I have to stop at a light until it turns green, I have to navigate the intersection while the cars around me are entering it as well. Suddenly there's a car trying to pass me, a car in the oncoming lane turning left, etc. If I can skirt through the intersection while the light is red and there's no transverse traffic, I can get through without interacting with any other moving vehicles. I've also been involved in car(-car, not car-bike) accidents before where some idiot at a light was looking at their phone while stopped, and did something stupid when they noticed others moving in their peripheral vision. Plausibly, such idiots could be the cause of a lot of accidents at intersections.
vvillena 4y ago
The separate timing this law creates keeps cyclists apart from the rest of traffic. Segregating cyclist traffic across space by using separate roads works best, but when the amount of cyclists is low, it turns out segregating across time works well enough.
u801e 4y ago
> What's interesting to me is that cyclist injuries went down after these laws were passed. The study[1] where they stated that said it only decreased in the year after the law was passed. They didn't check what happened in subsequent years. > At least according to the wiki. Naively, I would think they'd go up, or stay level. Do you have any hypothesis for why that may be? The study they used to justify that conclusion compared two cities in two different states in different parts of the US. They didn't have before and after data after the law was enacted to make a direct comparison (since the law was enacted in the early 1980s). In my opinion, the study doesn't really support the conclusion that not coming to a full stop is safer. It would have been better had the study compared multiple locations with similar characteristics over the same time period. [1] https://meggsreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/idaho-law-jasonmeggs-2010version-2.pdf https://meggsreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/idaho-law-ja...
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Because the cyclists who weren't treating stops as yields started doing so and traffic became overall more predictable for all parties involved.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
Lots of good reasons here, another smaller factor that may come into play is that clipless and toe cage pedals lead to a non-zero number of injuries, especially when the cyclist is trying to stop in a stressful situation (eg President Biden a few months ago)

riskable 4y ago

Stopping a moving bicycle messes with the rider's balance and forces them to focus their awareness on balance and to look down at their feet to make a complete stop (otherwise they'd tip over). By allowing the rider to merely slow down it lets them maintain focus on the road and the hazards that might be around them.

feet 4y ago
As a regular cyclist, I have never had to look at my feet when stopping. Why would they need to look down?
- riskable 4y ago
  It depends on where you are and your habits. I never looked down on city roads until I placed my foot on a grate and realized it wasn't nearly as grippy as I thought =) I haven't been riding in a long time but when on trails (i.e. "in the woods") I wouldn't look down. You saw that ground as you approached it and it's all the same for the most part. Differences in elevation are easy to see with peripheral vision. In the city there's potholes and puddles of unknown depth with who-knows-what buried in their depths, haha. BTW: I'm legally blind in my right eye so all I have on my right is peripheral vision so I may not be the best example. I've probably developed a near-instinctual glance.
- miked85 4y ago
  As a non-regular cyclist, I have no idea why you would have to look at your feet when breaking.
kleinsch 4y ago
Most people who are comfortable riding in traffic are experienced enough at cycling that they can stop without staring at their feet.

kgermino 4y ago

In my experience (as a regular biker) intersections are dangerous in two main ways: 1. The driver behind me doesn't expect me to stop and almost (or does) hit me. 2. I'm very vulnerable when first starting up and it's easy for turning drivers to miss me or for my balance to push me slightly left or right. An Idaho stop law means that I'm able to proceed through a red light when there's no moving cars around which largely solves (2). Additionally, in my area I can take a main street or side streets. I generally take the main road for the same reason drivers so: there's stop signs every 600ft on the side roads. If I could cruise down the side street without stopping constantly I'd be much more likely to take it which keeps me out of the traffic on the main road.

II2II 4y ago
> 1. The driver behind me doesn't expect me to stop and almost (or does) hit me. Try signalling. One of two things will happen: they will either realize that you are coming to a stop or they won't have a clue what the signal means (even though it is in the driver's manual, at least around here). Either way, they will slow down.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  Signalling how? If they’re coming to a stop at stop sign, and intending to continue ahead, how do you suggest they signal?
  - II2II 4y ago
    It appears to vary from region to region, but it is left arm out then bend down at the elbow in my neck of the woods. It's the same signal that drivers are supposed to use if the need ever arises. (Though the only reason I can think of a driver needing hand signals is if their turn signal is damaged, in which case they shouldn't have the vehicle on the road!)
    - giantg2 4y ago
      You're describing a stop signal. They're asking how to signal continuous travel through an intersection.

SECProto 4y ago

The most common cycling injury is a right hook, where a car drives past the cyclist then turns right (into the cyclist or without enough space for them to stop). At intersections, many cars will be turning right. Allowing cyclists to proceed past the intersection before the drivers do will increase their safety. (as an aside, right turning vehicles at intersections are allowed to behave much the same as a cyclist doing an Idaho stop - turning right on red, rolling stop)

mynegation 4y ago
At least in Ontario, this is yet another example of cyclists not knowing the rules of the road. Driver turning right is not obligated to yield to cyclists unless there is a bike lane _and_ it is physically separated and/or painted green and can legitimately stop flush to the right edge of the road before the turn, blocking everyone behind. Most drivers will let cyclists through anyway because as a driver you cannot rely on unlicensed people knowing the rules.
- brailsafe 4y ago
  There should be much more of that infrastructure
  - mynegation 4y ago
    As a cyclist, I agree!
- giantg2 4y ago
  "because as a driver you cannot rely on unlicensed people knowing the rules." I agree, but I will add that I can't rely on licensed people to know and follow the rules either. The driving test is a joke in the US.
- u801e 4y ago
  In the US, most states have a law that requires drivers to be as close as practicable to the right edge or curb before making their right turn. This precludes the possibility of through traffic passing a right turning vehicle on the right. As a motorist, when I turn right, I move close to the edge or curb to prevent cyclists from trying to pass me on the right. Most cyclists either wait behind me or pass me on the left. When I cycle and I want to go straight through the intersection, I ride in the middle of the travel lane. Motorists will either wait behind me, pass me on the right to make a right turn, or pass me on the left and go straight (or make a left). But I don't have issues with right hooks because I take the lane.

marcelluspye 4y ago

Not the OP, but here's my observation: When I have to stop at a light until it turns green, I have to navigate the intersection while the cars around me are entering it as well. Suddenly there's a car trying to pass me, a car in the oncoming lane turning left, etc. If I can skirt through the intersection while the light is red and there's no transverse traffic, I can get through without interacting with any other moving vehicles. I've also been involved in car(-car, not car-bike) accidents before where some idiot at a light was looking at their phone while stopped, and did something stupid when they noticed others moving in their peripheral vision. Plausibly, such idiots could be the cause of a lot of accidents at intersections.

vvillena 4y ago

The separate timing this law creates keeps cyclists apart from the rest of traffic. Segregating cyclist traffic across space by using separate roads works best, but when the amount of cyclists is low, it turns out segregating across time works well enough.

u801e 4y ago

> What's interesting to me is that cyclist injuries went down after these laws were passed. The study[1] where they stated that said it only decreased in the year after the law was passed. They didn't check what happened in subsequent years. > At least according to the wiki. Naively, I would think they'd go up, or stay level. Do you have any hypothesis for why that may be? The study they used to justify that conclusion compared two cities in two different states in different parts of the US. They didn't have before and after data after the law was enacted to make a direct comparison (since the law was enacted in the early 1980s). In my opinion, the study doesn't really support the conclusion that not coming to a full stop is safer. It would have been better had the study compared multiple locations with similar characteristics over the same time period. [1] https://meggsreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/idaho-law-jasonmeggs-2010version-2.pdf https://meggsreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/idaho-law-ja...

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

Because the cyclists who weren't treating stops as yields started doing so and traffic became overall more predictable for all parties involved.

Rebelgecko 4y ago

Lots of good reasons here, another smaller factor that may come into play is that clipless and toe cage pedals lead to a non-zero number of injuries, especially when the cyclist is trying to stop in a stressful situation (eg President Biden a few months ago)