4 ms·

Great, I can wax poetic how I'm nearly hit by cars walking on the sidewalk and crossing intersections as a pedestrian EVERY SINGLE TIME I WALK TO THE STORE. Or

Great, I can wax poetic how I'm nearly hit by cars walking on the sidewalk and crossing intersections as a pedestrian EVERY SINGLE TIME I WALK TO THE STORE. Or I can talk about how cars drive in the bike lane EVERY SINGLE TIME. Actually, it IS your problem if you hit me when I Idaho Stop a stop-sign, it's entirely legal to do so in my state and it just means you're an irresponsible driver who can't be assed to actually look both ways before crossing an intersection. Yeah, you are the problem, you precisely. Not your argument in general, it's you, entitled carbrains who think you deserve the road because you're bigger or spent more money on your vehicle. "woe is me, I might have a dent in my car" ~ you talking to a dead teenager that was biking home from school How about you learn to drive. The entire fucking world is catered to cars. City planning. Road design. Traffic Engineering. Shopping. Live events. etc. All catered to you, and you still want more. I can't imagine the fucking audacity.

bombcar 4y ago
So it is a driver's fault if they hit you because you refused to yield?
- samatman 4y ago
  This seems to be an inevitable consequence yes. The Idaho stop changes the rules of a 4 way stop, because bikes have three modes, and cars have two. I'll assume we all know the rules of a 4-way, which, by the way: 4-way stops suck, they should be roundabouts in almost all cases, and this nonsense is a big part of why they suck. That said: two cars rolling up to stop signs can know which one gets to cross. If it's a bike, the bike gets to cross. If the car claims the right of way out of a full stop, and the bike is not in roll-mode (which it has absolutely no business being, in this scenario), the bike to stop. But look: if a car is at a stop and a bike is heading across its path on any reasonable vector, hitting the gas is asshole behavior. Cool your jets. That's the moral intuition, the rule needs to be that bikes get the tie break on any right-of-way question involving stop signs. It is, to end where I began, a consequence of having the Idaho rule in the first place.
- valeness 4y ago
  No, it is their fault because THEY refused to yield. As they do all the time. Like at least once a day I see this. How many drivers do you think yield to me when they turn right on red? It is FAR less than the law requires of them. Oh, and since the idaho stop is legal in my state, they refuse to yield then as well. Breaking the law....

bombcar 4y ago

So it is a driver's fault if they hit you because you refused to yield?

samatman 4y ago
This seems to be an inevitable consequence yes. The Idaho stop changes the rules of a 4 way stop, because bikes have three modes, and cars have two. I'll assume we all know the rules of a 4-way, which, by the way: 4-way stops suck, they should be roundabouts in almost all cases, and this nonsense is a big part of why they suck. That said: two cars rolling up to stop signs can know which one gets to cross. If it's a bike, the bike gets to cross. If the car claims the right of way out of a full stop, and the bike is not in roll-mode (which it has absolutely no business being, in this scenario), the bike to stop. But look: if a car is at a stop and a bike is heading across its path on any reasonable vector, hitting the gas is asshole behavior. Cool your jets. That's the moral intuition, the rule needs to be that bikes get the tie break on any right-of-way question involving stop signs. It is, to end where I began, a consequence of having the Idaho rule in the first place.
valeness 4y ago
No, it is their fault because THEY refused to yield. As they do all the time. Like at least once a day I see this. How many drivers do you think yield to me when they turn right on red? It is FAR less than the law requires of them. Oh, and since the idaho stop is legal in my state, they refuse to yield then as well. Breaking the law....