Ray LaHood wants cycling as important as driving
This is a few weeks old, but I noticed it in my missed podcasts.
"Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced in April that he wants to make cycling as important as driving. But anyone who's pedaled two wheels through rush hour traffic knows most roads cater to cars. Loren Mooney of Bicycling magazine talks about how to make room for all on the roads."
Views: 13
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
It did get mentioned a while back. It's good enough news that I don't mind the repeat.
Getting that kind of support from DC is certainly a boost to cycling. Having a friend in DC like Dick Durbin to get funding for bike projects doesn't hurt either. If you read to the end of that article, you'll note that the funding he got included $350K for the Cal-Sag Trail. Yeah!
-
Permalink Reply by Shawn C. on
-
"CONAN: And red lights, do they apply to bicycles?
Ms. MOONEY: They do. Interestingly, there's one state - in Idaho, they have what cyclists call the Idaho law, which makes it legal to treat stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs, if you're a cyclist.
They have had this law for a number of decades. They found that it actually did not increase the incidents of accidents and injuries. And I think the legal theory behind it is that they were simply legalizing behavior that cyclists were already doing.
However, I think that for the good of driver-cyclist relations, cyclists should obey the rules of the road, you know. Again, it goes a long way towards making the streets safer for every one when nobody's angry. "
If this exists in Idaho without increased accidents or injuries, why isn't it used in other states?
-
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on
-
Do you know what the population of Idaho is? 1.5 million people by 2009 estimates - and that's in the whole state.
The largest city population is a bit over 200,000 in Boise City.
It's a completely different scenario there.
I guess Montana and North and South Dakota could probably adopt something similar with minimal problems.
Shawn C. said:"CONAN: And red lights, do they apply to bicycles?
Ms. MOONEY: They do. Interestingly, there's one state - in Idaho, they have what cyclists call the Idaho law, which makes it legal to treat stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs, if you're a cyclist. They have had this law for a number of decades. They found that it actually did not increase the incidents of accidents and injuries. And I think the legal theory behind it is that they were simply legalizing behavior that cyclists were already doing. However, I think that for the good of driver-cyclist relations, cyclists should obey the rules of the road, you know. Again, it goes a long way towards making the streets safer for every one when nobody's angry. "
If this exists in Idaho without increased accidents or injuries, why isn't it used in other states?
-
Permalink Reply by S on
-
Shawn C. said:"CONAN: And red lights, do they apply to bicycles?
Ms. MOONEY: They do. Interestingly, there's one state - in Idaho, they have what cyclists call the Idaho law, which makes it legal to treat stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs, if you're a cyclist.
They have had this law for a number of decades. They found that it actually did not increase the incidents of accidents and injuries. And I think the legal theory behind it is that they were simply legalizing behavior that cyclists were already doing.
However, I think that for the good of driver-cyclist relations, cyclists should obey the rules of the road, you know. Again, it goes a long way towards making the streets safer for every one when nobody's angry. "
If this exists in Idaho without increased accidents or injuries, why isn't it used in other states?The situation in Idaho is really different. What works in a sparsely populated rural area may not work in more densely populated urban environment. Also, I think the law was enacted so that the state wouldn't have to spend money to retrofit the road sensors to allow them to detect bikes and change the lights when bikes were stopped at traffic lights.
-
-
I understand that Idaho is rural, but I don't understand why other sparsely populated states or cities have not inacted similar laws if it has proven to be beneficial.
S said:Shawn C. said:"CONAN: And red lights, do they apply to bicycles?
Ms. MOONEY: They do. Interestingly, there's one state - in Idaho, they have what cyclists call the Idaho law, which makes it legal to treat stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs, if you're a cyclist.
They have had this law for a number of decades. They found that it actually did not increase the incidents of accidents and injuries. And I think the legal theory behind it is that they were simply legalizing behavior that cyclists were already doing.
However, I think that for the good of driver-cyclist relations, cyclists should obey the rules of the road, you know. Again, it goes a long way towards making the streets safer for every one when nobody's angry. "
If this exists in Idaho without increased accidents or injuries, why isn't it used in other states?The situation in Idaho is really different. What works in a sparsely populated rural area may not work in more densely populated urban environment. Also, I think the law was enacted so that the state wouldn't have to spend money to retrofit the road sensors to allow them to detect bikes and change the lights when bikes were stopped at traffic lights.
-
-
One possible reason could be lack of cyclists.
Shawn C. said:I understand that Idaho is rural, but I don't understand why other sparsely populated states or cities have not inacted similar laws if it has proven to be beneficial.
S said:Shawn C. said:"CONAN: And red lights, do they apply to bicycles?
Ms. MOONEY: They do. Interestingly, there's one state - in Idaho, they have what cyclists call the Idaho law, which makes it legal to treat stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs, if you're a cyclist.
They have had this law for a number of decades. They found that it actually did not increase the incidents of accidents and injuries. And I think the legal theory behind it is that they were simply legalizing behavior that cyclists were already doing.
However, I think that for the good of driver-cyclist relations, cyclists should obey the rules of the road, you know. Again, it goes a long way towards making the streets safer for every one when nobody's angry. "
If this exists in Idaho without increased accidents or injuries, why isn't it used in other states?The situation in Idaho is really different. What works in a sparsely populated rural area may not work in more densely populated urban environment. Also, I think the law was enacted so that the state wouldn't have to spend money to retrofit the road sensors to allow them to detect bikes and change the lights when bikes were stopped at traffic lights.
-
-
I'm not being an a**hole, but do you think that Idaho has more cyclists than Iowa?
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:One possible reason could be lack of cyclists.
Shawn C. said:I understand that Idaho is rural, but I don't understand why other sparsely populated states or cities have not inacted similar laws if it has proven to be beneficial.
S said:Shawn C. said:"CONAN: And red lights, do they apply to bicycles?
Ms. MOONEY: They do. Interestingly, there's one state - in Idaho, they have what cyclists call the Idaho law, which makes it legal to treat stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs, if you're a cyclist.
They have had this law for a number of decades. They found that it actually did not increase the incidents of accidents and injuries. And I think the legal theory behind it is that they were simply legalizing behavior that cyclists were already doing.
However, I think that for the good of driver-cyclist relations, cyclists should obey the rules of the road, you know. Again, it goes a long way towards making the streets safer for every one when nobody's angry. "
If this exists in Idaho without increased accidents or injuries, why isn't it used in other states?The situation in Idaho is really different. What works in a sparsely populated rural area may not work in more densely populated urban environment. Also, I think the law was enacted so that the state wouldn't have to spend money to retrofit the road sensors to allow them to detect bikes and change the lights when bikes were stopped at traffic lights.
-
Permalink Reply by heather s on
-
Well, it probably would only work as a state law. Sometimes when you're cycling in a rural or suburban area, you don't necessarily know when you've crossed the border into another town, so it would be confusing. Idaho is almost entirely rural, but most states have a significant metropolitan area, and the "Idaho stop" isn't quite necessary, reasonable, or politically palatable for cities.
For me, the Idaho stop is about the last thing I'd spend my time advocating for in Chicago. The lights are timed. Who cares about waiting 30 seconds?
Shawn C. said:I understand that Idaho is rural, but I don't understand why other sparsely populated states or cities have not inacted similar laws if it has proven to be beneficial.
-
-
Not during RAGBRAI! *laughs*
I just threw lack of cyclists out there as a possible reason. I have no idea what the percentage of cyclists is in each state.
There must be more that went in to making the "Idaho stop" law as well. I can't imagine that the Idaho legislature went, "Well, cyclists blow stop signs and red anyway, let's just make it ok under the law."
Shawn C. said:I'm not being an a**hole, but do you think that Idaho has more cyclists than Iowa?
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:One possible reason could be lack of cyclists.
Shawn C. said:I understand that Idaho is rural, but I don't understand why other sparsely populated states or cities have not inacted similar laws if it has proven to be beneficial.
S said:Shawn C. said:"CONAN: And red lights, do they apply to bicycles?
Ms. MOONEY: They do. Interestingly, there's one state - in Idaho, they have what cyclists call the Idaho law, which makes it legal to treat stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs, if you're a cyclist.
They have had this law for a number of decades. They found that it actually did not increase the incidents of accidents and injuries. And I think the legal theory behind it is that they were simply legalizing behavior that cyclists were already doing.
However, I think that for the good of driver-cyclist relations, cyclists should obey the rules of the road, you know. Again, it goes a long way towards making the streets safer for every one when nobody's angry. "
If this exists in Idaho without increased accidents or injuries, why isn't it used in other states?The situation in Idaho is really different. What works in a sparsely populated rural area may not work in more densely populated urban environment. Also, I think the law was enacted so that the state wouldn't have to spend money to retrofit the road sensors to allow them to detect bikes and change the lights when bikes were stopped at traffic lights.
-
-
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:Not during RAGBRAI! *laughs*
I just threw lack of cyclists out there as a possible reason. I have no idea what the percentage of cyclists is in each state.
There must be more that went in to making the "Idaho stop" law as well. I can't imagine that the Idaho legislature went, "Well, cyclists blow stop signs and red anyway, let's just make it ok under the law."
My understanding is that it was financial. Idaho has a bunch of traffic lights that switch based on sensors embedded in the road that detect cars. Bikes don't have enough metal to trip the sensors and apparently a court case established that the state had to rectify this. The state passed the law allowing this rather than spending the money to dig up and change the sensors.
-
Permalink Reply by Joel on
-
I think there are probably a few "flyover" states that could pass a similar law without trouble, but most states are too diverse for a state-wide law. Illinois runs the gamut from mostly empty to one of the most densely populated cities in the country. I think in most cases it would be something decided at the municipal level.
Groups
-
Chicago Ride of Silence
118 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
