3 ms·

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 bein

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.

harimau777 4y ago
If someone wants special treatment (in this case, being allowed to ignore stop signs), then I would expect them to be held to a higher standard of behavior.
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  By default people riding bicycles present an enormously lower risk profile and negligible externalities. I would not call the Idaho stop "special" treatment so much as I would call it an appropriate treatment for the type of vehicle that a bicycle is. And for the same reason I think it's nonsensical to hold people in bicycles to a higher standard on anything. No noise pollution. No air pollution. Requires only a fraction of the amount of public space cars do for mobility and storage. Massively improved visibility of surroundings w/r/t cars. Smaller hitbox with lower weights and lower speeds, translating into a massively reduced momentum differential in a collision, plus way more runway and maneuverability for avoiding the collision to start with. The Idaho Stop improves safety for cyclists because maintaining speed and visibility through a junction while slowing down cars mitigates the risk of a right hook. Telling everyone that they should categorically expect this behavior and that it is legal improves safety for everyone. I as a pedestrian and cyclist in DC expect Idaho stops from other bicycle users and act accordingly, the same way I expect pedestrians to jaywalk anywhere and anytime they want and act accordingly, and it's all quite safe.

harimau777 4y ago

If someone wants special treatment (in this case, being allowed to ignore stop signs), then I would expect them to be held to a higher standard of behavior.

actionablefiber 4y ago
By default people riding bicycles present an enormously lower risk profile and negligible externalities. I would not call the Idaho stop "special" treatment so much as I would call it an appropriate treatment for the type of vehicle that a bicycle is. And for the same reason I think it's nonsensical to hold people in bicycles to a higher standard on anything. No noise pollution. No air pollution. Requires only a fraction of the amount of public space cars do for mobility and storage. Massively improved visibility of surroundings w/r/t cars. Smaller hitbox with lower weights and lower speeds, translating into a massively reduced momentum differential in a collision, plus way more runway and maneuverability for avoiding the collision to start with. The Idaho Stop improves safety for cyclists because maintaining speed and visibility through a junction while slowing down cars mitigates the risk of a right hook. Telling everyone that they should categorically expect this behavior and that it is legal improves safety for everyone. I as a pedestrian and cyclist in DC expect Idaho stops from other bicycle users and act accordingly, the same way I expect pedestrians to jaywalk anywhere and anytime they want and act accordingly, and it's all quite safe.