Idaho stopping might not stop

[spooker]

Since 1982 the state of Idaho has allowed cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs ... this was based on several reasons:
1) cyclists clearing the intersection faster will increase the rate of all traffic at the intersection
2) stop signs are designed for speed control, cyclists are low speed in the first place so no stress is added to the system
3) coming to a full stop wastes a lot of energy for the cyclist

There have been many campaigns to get other places to adopt the same rules ... even with the stats from Idaho showing that accident rates went down no one was willing to follow suit ... until now ... Delaware has passed the "Bicycle Friendly Delaware Act" which includes a "stop-as-yield" law among other improvements ...

https://www.bicycling.com/news/delaware-passes-idaho-stop

[GenesisGT]

The comments below are from a report in 2009, but interesting to see the number two cycling violation is going through Stop signs with out slowing for traffic.

I don't think having different laws for things like stop signs, for different vehicles on the road is a good idea.

MOST COMMON CYCLING VIOLATIONS OBSERVED by BOISE BIKE OFFICERS:

1. Riding against traffic - Position on Roadway (by far, say officers, the most frequently observed violation) - Boise City Code 10-14-06 (A) , Idaho State Code 49-717 (1). You'll notice the Boise City Code is more specific and actually cites "riding against traffic", however, this law is in place statewide. Fine = $46.50
 
2. Going through "Stop" sign without slowing for traffic - ISC 49-720 (1). Though a cyclist can go through a stop sign without completely stopping, they are required by state law to stop for traffic that's close enough to be an "immediate hazard". Many cyclists are seen by officers not slowing at all. Fine = $46.50
 
3. No headlight at night - BCC 10-14-03 (D), ISC 49-723. Headlights are not for the vision of the cyclist but so the cyclist can be seen by others! Fine = $46.50
 
4. Riding through "Don't Walk" signal at crosswalk - BCC 10-14-08, ISC 49-721 C. Cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as pedestrians when riding on sidewalks and in crosswalks. When cyclists ride off the sidewalk into the road, they must observe motorist traffic laws. Fine = $46.50

https://police.cityofboise.org/home/news-releases/2009/06/06-25-09-officers-increase-educationenforcement-of-cycling-laws/

[spooker]

I don't think having different laws for things like stop signs, for different vehicles on the road is a good idea.

They already implement different speed limits for commercial trucks versus passenger cars in many places ... why not something like this?

The physics of riding a bike and driving a car are completely different ... the abilities, the speeds, the liabilities, are all significantly different ... best practices for riding a bike are not necessarily the same as those for a car ...

Every time you hop on a bicycle in British Columbia, you are immediately subject to the Ministry of Justice’s Motor Vehicle Act, a set of regulations governing the province’s roads and highways.
Not only is the name of this legislation an outdated misnomer betraying an inherent bias, it also contains countless antiquated and counterproductive rules by which cyclists are expected to adhere. Most of these clauses were introduced in the 1990s, when cycling was viewed as sporty, dangerous, and most notably, an inconvenience to those behind the wheel of an automobile.

http://www.vancourier.com/sports/cycling/different-rules-of-the-road-apply-to-bikes-bruntlett-1.1997046

[GenesisGT]

Not stopping at a stop sign or red light, for one I would not want any kids thinking they don't have to stop, to me that is creating a dangerous situation.

As the Boise police found out their number two problem is cyclists not obeying this law, and if it is a problem for the times they see it, how many cyclists are not obeying it in total.

Idaho has changed the law in 2005 and cancelled the right for cyclists to go through a red light, but may still yield on right turns. No reason in the article why it was changed, but one can only assume that it was a problem having cyclists going through red lights or turning left on a red light.

Yes, there already are different laws for different vehicles, that is why I was specific on the no stopping law. And a different speed limit area is not done for convenience but for safety.

Reading up on the Idaho law there seems to be emphasize on lessening repetitive strain injuries. I get repetitive strain from hitting my brake pedal, let me go through stop signs/red lights also if it is safe, if that is a reason.

My last reason, I see to many cyclists (drivers) not using common sense now, and to hope cyclists can judge whether they can make it through an intersection before a car gets there, well I don't want to be the one driving my vehicle when they guess wrong.

[spooker]

My last reason, I see to many cyclists (drivers) not using common sense now, and to hope cyclists can judge whether they can make it through an intersection before a car gets there, well I don't want to be the one driving my vehicle when they guess wrong.

As you mentioned, you drive ... do you ride also? I know that the majority of drivers don't ride, it's the way we are these days ...

Right now people don't stop for a lot of stop signs ... both driving and cycling ... but only one of those cases has the potential to cause someone else's death ...

The safest a cyclist can be is when they are riding straight at a consistent speed with extensive sightlines ... stopping and starting for the stop sign takes out one of those safety factors ... heck, I was stopped in traffic with cars and when the light turned green I lifted up my down foot and placed it on the pedal to push, slipped, and fell right over ... thankfully the driver behind me wasn't distracted and hadn't started moving yet so I wasn't hurt physically (the pride took a beating though)

Just like the laws that make drugs illegal, the law that requires a cyclist to put their foot down as an indicator of a "full stop" will stop all discussion on the topic so people can't get the chance to learn the right way to handle situations ...

Doing an Idaho stop correctly and safely takes some effort ... and I know that these days people don't want to think ... I can't legally teach anyone an Idaho stop though over a beer I'll explain the safe way to do it ...

By the way, an example of something I can do on my bike legally is a "box left" which is not legal for a car ... for example, coming down Gordon towards Springfield I check the left turn lane, if it's backed up I will continue straight through the intersection, stop on the far side, then realign myself in the bike lane heading East on Springfield ... it's actually recommended for people who don't feel comfortable mixing it up to move across lanes of vehicle traffic ...

That's an example of the differences that are recognized ... they need to officially do more so that more people can feel safe using a bike as a mode of transportation ... more cyclists would go a long way to ease congestion

[GordonH]

I have absolutely no problem sharing the roadway with cyclists, all I ask is 2 things.
1) know rules of the road (ride or drive within them) i.e using proper side of the road to be traveling in

2) don't assume I have ESP i.e mind reader, just as I will not assume the same (i.e turn signals etc... etc)