Idaho Stop

Comment

Comment by h' Zerocats on August 18, 2013 at 12:21pm

As far as I know this is not something our advocacy organizations (ATA/LIB) are working towards right now.

So where it's at-- there's a Chainlink group that has not been active since early-mid 2011.  I wasn't to worried about this as long as cyclists weren't routinely ticketed for rolling stops, but there are signs that may be changing.

All it would take is someone willing to commit to a certain amount of work and some minimal organizing chops to plan a real world action-- a rally, protest, event to push the idea in order to get things rolling. 

Online discussions aimed at consensus building stop being useful at the point that nobody is willing to make such a commitment.

Comment by Josh L. on August 18, 2013 at 11:37am

can somebody tell me where this and other movements are at for getting idaho stop  law passed in Illinois?

Comment by Andrew Bedno on November 2, 2012 at 4:13pm

The Way You Ride Is Probably A Crime 

Brendan Kevenides

 

http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2012/11/stop-and-yield.html

Comment by Andrew Bedno on May 31, 2011 at 9:12pm

Distantly related, allows crossing a red if it fails to detect your weight and change in a reasonable time. Sadly intended for motorcycles.

X-Posting from ActiveTrans:

Bicyclists straight on red bill passes
On Sunday, while you were enjoying 30 miles of car-free cycling on Lake Shore Drive, the Illinois General Assembly was hard at work. In an overwhelming vote (101-11), they passed HB 2860. It now goes to Gov. Pat Quinn for his signature.
This bill will allow bicyclists to treat a red light as a stop sign and proceed with caution if the red light fails to turn green in a reasonable amount of time. The bill's provisions only apply if the red light signal fails to detect the cyclist due to the light weight of the bike or another signal malfunction. The bill does not apply in the City of Chicago.
An initiative of the motorcyclists (who would also be covered) lobby, the bill is controversial. What is a reasonable amount of time? Can the straight on red provision lead to more cycle v. pedestrian crashes? Will the bill create more confusion on the roadway?
If the bill becomes law, Active Trans enourages you to exercise caution. Only proceed on red after coming to a complete stop, ensuring there is no danger from cross traffic and ensuring that there are no pedestrians in the intersection.

...

Comment by Andrew Bedno on February 28, 2011 at 10:17am

Cross-posting from CCM listserv:

From: Chicago Critical Mass On Behalf Of Jerome Hughes
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 10:18 AM
Subject: Rolling Stop for Cyclists Rolls From Idaho To Utah

Oregon tried unsuccessfully to implement a rolling stop for bicycles (http://bikeportland.org/2009/01/14/exclusive-bta-will-go-for-idaho-...) during its last legislative session in 2009. Now it looks as if Oregonians are likely to be upstaged by that biking mecca of the western U.S. known as Utah. What? Utah? Yup. In case you weren't aware, Utah has approximately 13,000 commuting cyclists (according to the last American Community Survey), and soon all of them may be able to yield, but not stop, at those red road signs.
-- the rest and two videos at...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/02/idaho-stop-rolls-into-utah.php

Comment by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on October 15, 2010 at 9:53am

Yes the Idaho stop treats a Stop sign as a yield sign.

Comment by Anne Alt on October 15, 2010 at 8:46am

I think that our chances of actually getting a law passed are much better if the law specifies a true yield, i.e., you don't have to come to a full stop UNLESS there is other traffic that has the right of way. That would a reasonable compromise that would greatly improve our chances.

I'd like to see this group used to work for passage of a law, rather than just discussion.

Comment by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on October 11, 2010 at 8:54pm

Some people believe that a) it's unfair or a disservice to bicycles to apply laws to them separate from cars and b) that it's less safe. Both argument are utter nonsense.

Comment by Andrew Bedno on October 11, 2010 at 8:28pm

I responded to a similar email from a friend ("I received your invitation, thank you. Do you really want someone in the group that doesn't support codifying the Idaho Stop in the Chicago Municipal Code?") to whit:

"Good question. You're right, that my leaning is to a group pursuant to implementing it, not for debate. But I value dissent, so perhaps start a subforum under the group."

Makes me wonder what objections there are? I'll look into that eventually, or someone feel free to post. At very least to help assess items of opposition for countering.

Comment by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on October 11, 2010 at 4:24pm

I would rather see this be a forum for people who want to further this agenda item rather than a place to spend countless useless hours debating the merits of something. Debating and discussion is entirely different than organizing political action.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page