Comment

Comment by Andrew Bedno on September 19, 2010 at 7:10pm

Cricket, I agree, it stays. There's a useful mystique.

Spencer had some cogent thoughts on this topic at TheChainLink bar night. He argued a primary benefit would be to remove the current great confusion at intersections with cars. Whether a mean driver forces observance and you must stop, or a nice driver waits for you to go through but you stop on precaution, momentum is lost. If drivers can KNOW that bikes do not have to stop, we can more certainly assume they will stop. In such a case, fault becomes certain in crashes. But I'm not actually sure the Idaho Stop law does that exactly. It's clearest application is we wouldn't have to stop if NO cars are present. I'm not certain on who has right of way in the case of car already stopped at stop sign, and approaching cyclist with yield sign. Shows I'm out of touch with driving. Feedback?

Spencer went on to describe that legislation changes culture (roughly, if I remember right). Giving bikes just this slight advantage could add to a snowball effect. I like the sound of that.

The most common argument is that the Idaho Stop simply decriminalizes reality. In this one tiny case bikes need an exception from automotive traffic laws, and it's worked in other states. What's the next step?

Comment by Andrew Bedno on September 17, 2010 at 7:12am

Should this group have a better name? Like "Rolling Stop" or "Chicago Stop" or "The Idaho Stop" ...

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