5 ms·

>In Idaho, bicyclists are not required to stop at stop signs. Which, personally, I think is completely reasonable. Constantly stopping and pushing off again ad

>In Idaho, bicyclists are not required to stop at stop signs. Which, personally, I think is completely reasonable. Constantly stopping and pushing off again adds a huge amount of effort to a ride, and a cyclist has plenty of incentive to look before rolling through an intersection.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- commandar 12y ago
  >We cross at those intersections, and bicyclists, in my experience, don't see us when they're focused on cutting a light (or a stop sign). Pedestrians crossing at a stop sign have to yield to vehicular traffic, no? And advocating the Idaho Stop isn't advocating for cyclists to blow through at full clip. Stop signs are treated as yields and have to be slowed for, and stop lights are treated as motor vehicles treat stop signs, requiring a full stop.
  - bbarn 12y ago
    Vehicles must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks in many states. Illinois is one of them, yet I find in practice anything without a stop sign you're as likely to get buzzed while someone lays on the horn as you are allowed to cross. I regularly have cars honking at me and trying to pass on the right when I stop at crosswalks on some streets in Chicago for pedestrians. It's as if I'm being a jerk for following the law instead of "the Chicago way"
    - aidenn0 12y ago
      It is required to yield to pedestrians in clearly marked crosswalks in Virginia, and yet, when I visit my parents and assert my right-of-way at the nearest crosswalk, I have ~20% chance of being flipped off and 40% chance of being honked at.
adamtj 12y ago
That argument works even better for cars. Cars are much heavier. It's far more effort to stop a car and get it going again than for a bicycle. It would dramatically improve gas mileage if cars could ignore stop signs.
- commandar 12y ago
  Getting people out of cars and onto bikes would save even more oil. We also have 30 years of data from Idaho which allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yields: "Idaho bicycle-collision statistics confirm that the Idaho law has resulted in no discernible increase in injuries or fatalities to bicyclists." http://btaoregon.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/hb2690-idaho-stop-second-article-by-ray-thomas-for-oregon-cycling-magazine1.pdf http://btaoregon.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/hb2690-idaho... Do you think this would be the case if applied to cars?
  - chc 12y ago
    I do. At most intersections, a driver of normal capability should be capable of determining whether there are any other cars at the intersection without completely stopping for multiple seconds. And in reality, most drivers in my area do roll stops and it does not cause an appreciable number of accidents.
    - commandar 12y ago
      I think you also need to account for stopping distances and acceleration. A bike can stop in far shorter distances than a car can (and will be travelling at a lower speed in the first place). Bikes are also slower to accelerate than a car. Allowing a bike to maintain more of its momentum gets it through the intersection quicker, especially on any kind of uphill grade. Anecdotal, perhaps, but I know that my personal experience has been that the combination of those two things means that I'm evaluating whether it's safe for me to pass through an intersection and making the decision much sooner on a bike than I would in a car where the assumption is I need to mostly stop because I may not be able to otherwise.
- derekp7 12y ago
PJDK 12y ago
I always found the number of stop signs in the US to be pretty crazy. Where visibility is good why not just have a "give way" instead? Also the car needs to use even more energy to get moving again so this would have financial/environmental benefits too.
- learc83 12y ago
  A lot of unnecessary stop signs are there because someone wanted them there. Every subdivision thinks they need a 3 way stop at the entrance, so they start complaining and eventually the local government caves and installs one because it's relatively cheap to install a few signs (and it's easier to ignore the traffic engineer who says it's unnecessary than the dozens of people who live in the subdivision)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

commandar 12y ago
>We cross at those intersections, and bicyclists, in my experience, don't see us when they're focused on cutting a light (or a stop sign). Pedestrians crossing at a stop sign have to yield to vehicular traffic, no? And advocating the Idaho Stop isn't advocating for cyclists to blow through at full clip. Stop signs are treated as yields and have to be slowed for, and stop lights are treated as motor vehicles treat stop signs, requiring a full stop.
- bbarn 12y ago
  Vehicles must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks in many states. Illinois is one of them, yet I find in practice anything without a stop sign you're as likely to get buzzed while someone lays on the horn as you are allowed to cross. I regularly have cars honking at me and trying to pass on the right when I stop at crosswalks on some streets in Chicago for pedestrians. It's as if I'm being a jerk for following the law instead of "the Chicago way"
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    It is required to yield to pedestrians in clearly marked crosswalks in Virginia, and yet, when I visit my parents and assert my right-of-way at the nearest crosswalk, I have ~20% chance of being flipped off and 40% chance of being honked at.

adamtj 12y ago

That argument works even better for cars. Cars are much heavier. It's far more effort to stop a car and get it going again than for a bicycle. It would dramatically improve gas mileage if cars could ignore stop signs.

commandar 12y ago
Getting people out of cars and onto bikes would save even more oil. We also have 30 years of data from Idaho which allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yields: "Idaho bicycle-collision statistics confirm that the Idaho law has resulted in no discernible increase in injuries or fatalities to bicyclists." http://btaoregon.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/hb2690-idaho-stop-second-article-by-ray-thomas-for-oregon-cycling-magazine1.pdf http://btaoregon.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/hb2690-idaho... Do you think this would be the case if applied to cars?
- chc 12y ago
  I do. At most intersections, a driver of normal capability should be capable of determining whether there are any other cars at the intersection without completely stopping for multiple seconds. And in reality, most drivers in my area do roll stops and it does not cause an appreciable number of accidents.
  - commandar 12y ago
    I think you also need to account for stopping distances and acceleration. A bike can stop in far shorter distances than a car can (and will be travelling at a lower speed in the first place). Bikes are also slower to accelerate than a car. Allowing a bike to maintain more of its momentum gets it through the intersection quicker, especially on any kind of uphill grade. Anecdotal, perhaps, but I know that my personal experience has been that the combination of those two things means that I'm evaluating whether it's safe for me to pass through an intersection and making the decision much sooner on a bike than I would in a car where the assumption is I need to mostly stop because I may not be able to otherwise.
derekp7 12y ago

PJDK 12y ago

I always found the number of stop signs in the US to be pretty crazy. Where visibility is good why not just have a "give way" instead? Also the car needs to use even more energy to get moving again so this would have financial/environmental benefits too.

learc83 12y ago
A lot of unnecessary stop signs are there because someone wanted them there. Every subdivision thinks they need a 3 way stop at the entrance, so they start complaining and eventually the local government caves and installs one because it's relatively cheap to install a few signs (and it's easier to ignore the traffic engineer who says it's unnecessary than the dozens of people who live in the subdivision)