No opinion. I've met quite a few people who work or volunteer for the ATA, and volunteered myself several times. Only positive impression.
As for the Bike the Drive, here's an unexpected thought: I offered water to a policeman who was blocking the entrance ramp to LSD at Fullerton; we talked for a couple of minutes. So, he asked, Why don't they make it a whole day long event?
For two years in a row I ordered t-shirts with my Bike the Drive packet. Two years in a row the t-shirts did not come with my packet, so I called and asked for them to be sent to me, or I would pick them up. Both times someone said I would get a call back (you would think they would handle the problem right then and there) and no one ever returned my call.
I love their advocacy for cyclists, but their customer service is in the toilet.
ATA sponsors events where they bring cops out to corners like Kinzie and Clinton to make cyclists "aware" that we need to stop for stop signs. This actually plays out as inviting cops to spend a day or two screaming at and harassing cyclists, whether we stop or not. After a couple encounters over the last couple years, I stopped and explained to the ATA folks that I didn't want my money being spent so that I could get harassed by cops. Nothing changed, so I stopped donating.
This, and their continued and persistent insistence that magic talismans be the main safety focus for bicycling, is why I don't support or belong to ATA any longer. They are also weak/neutral (if not sometimes downright anti with some of their folks) regarding Idaho Stop ever being implemented.
They do not have MY best interests at heart.
You want Idaho Stop? Then, you will pretty much have to move to Idaho. Personally, I'm happy to let it stay there.
The only ones that would know about the Idaho Stop law would be bicyclists. Any car drivers who saw bicyclists following this new law would continue to complain, and complain more frequently.
It doesn't benefit bicyclists to ask for any special treatment. And I don't think the ATA should be advocates for it. They needn't oppose it - they can just remain silent.
Yes! Also, what happens upon "bicycle rush hour"? With multiple cyclists converging on the same intersection from multiple directions? [BTW: I'm pretty sure a "bicycle rush hour" has never happened in Idaho.] I believe the result would be bike on bike accidents and fist fights (bike on bike crime!).
You're statement is absurd.
This is the USA. Street laws are always stretched in actual use. I can see it now: "Dude, Idaho Stop!" will be the excuse for all to do what ever they want without concern for others.
In a city like Chicago, it's a disaster waiting to happen.
There is no reason of why it should be implemented except for it decreases the time of the commute and reduces the effort of the cyclist. I find that no reason to abandon safety of the cyclist or ruining the lives of the little old ladies that end up running them over.
But all arguments are irrelevant IT WILL NEVER BE IMPLEMENTED HERE!
BTW: it was a rhetorical question.
Plenty of valid criticism on this thread, but, "somebody makes me stop at one red light one time per year" is not one of them.