Tribune Editorial: Against Idaho Stop

A response came from the Chicago Tribune editors. I am going to express a few issues I have with this editorial. I'll give them one thing - they are consistent.

  • Completely ignoring the study's conclusion, saying it's a "theory"
  • Approaching the issue as motorists, without adequate first-hand information as cyclists
  • Taking all six of the tragic cycling deaths out of context. None are related to issues around the Idaho stop but because of choices made by drivers of commercial vehicles - everything from trucks driving in the bike lane, turning right with no signal, and going through a red light. 

"Editorial: Slam the brakes on 'Idaho stop': Chicago's 6 cycling deaths in 2016 are 6 too many"

Bicyclists who roll through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop — known as an "Idaho stop" because that's legal in Idaho — are breaking Illinois law. That may surprise many Chicagoans because the Idaho stop is so common here.

Only 1 in 25 Chicago cyclists actually make a complete stop at stop signs when there's no cross traffic, according to a study by DePaul University's Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development. Some 2 of 3 breeze through red lights under the same conditions.

And police enforcement? Spotty at best.

The Chaddick researchers have a recommendation: Consider making the Idaho stop legal in Illinois municipalities "interested in supporting bike travel by encouraging ridership and safety on the road."

The theory is that sometimes a cyclist is safer when she gets out in front of traffic so she can be seen, rather than waiting at the light and risking a smackdown by turning traffic when the light turns green. In other words, we could have special rules for cyclists that vary by location and change based on conditions or time of day.

Full Article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-chicago-bi...

Views: 266

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on December 16, 2016 at 2:36pm

Yup. This. Streetsblog wrote a great response to the Tribune editorial.

It’s like clockwork. Whenever the Tribune runs a sensible article about cycling, they always feel the need to level the playing field with a wrongheaded editorialor nonsensical anti-bike screed.

On Monday the paper ran transportation reporter Mary Wisniewski’s thoughtful piece on a new DePaul study that calls for legalizing the “Idaho stop” – the widespread and harmless practice of cyclists treating stoplights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs, which is already legal in the Gem State. The report found that the vast majority of Chicago cyclists don’t follow the letter the law, but noted that it may actually be safer to bike this way.

So, of course, the Trib editorial board felt the need to respond with an ill-informed piece arguing against legalization:

The Idaho stop allows bikers to exercise too much discretion. They would decide whether to stop or yield at stop signs “based on traffic conditions in order to maintain their momentum,” the Chaddick study says. And if the cyclist decides wrong? If a motorist didn’t get the memo that bikers can ignore stop signs at will? Who is legally liable for a collision that occurs because a cyclist thought it was safe to blow through a stop?

Simple. The liability would work the same way that it would if the cyclist (or a driver) had a yield sign instead of a stop sign, and the law on yield signs is clear. It would be the cyclist’s responsibility to yield to any cross traffic before proceeding. If they failed to do this, they would be at fault for the resulting crash.

Next, the Tribune notes “Six have been killed so far this year, and that’s six too many for a city that touts itself as bicycle-friendly.” That implies that Idaho stops may have been to blame for some of these deaths, when that isn’t true. None of the cases involved a cyclist treating a stoplight like a stop sign or a stop sign like a yield.

Moreover, three of those victims were run over by flatbed truck drivers who failed to yield to the cyclist, as required by law, before making a right turn. The DePaul report notes that performing an Idaho stop at signal can actually help prevent this type of crash, because the rider is out of the way before the driver gets a green.

Full Article:

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2016/12/16/a-dud-of-a-tribune-editorial-...

Permalink Reply by Lisa Gordon on December 22, 2016 at 9:02am

I'd love to see the study that counts how many drives come to a complete and total stop at a stop sign when there is no cross traffic.

Permalink Reply by Argonne69 on December 30, 2016 at 8:44am

Lol. Cop present? 98% No cop visible? 2%.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service