About 15% of the US population lives in states with Idaho Stop laws, where bicyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs, and just under half of those also allow them to treat red lights as stop-then-yield signs. This has provided hard data indicating such a practice is measurably safer for cyclists, I believe at least partially because a disproportinate amount of collisions involving them happen in intersections and not needing to slow down for them means cyclists spend less time in those high danger zones. Given how much advice I was given as a driver boiled down to “drive safely, even if that means breaking the law” (especially given in regards to speed limits), I think it is perfectly justified for a biker to do the same, and act in the safer manner even if the laws says to do something else.
Traffic laws will not keep you safe. The legal system always has and always will always have this problem because there’s a constant tussle between not throwing people who didn’t do all that much in jail, and providing strong (as in enforceable) incentives to not do bad things.
The main point is that, in this case at least, it is measurably safer for cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs even when that isn’t what the law says.
A lot of states (can’t speak for the rules in Europe) have laws that allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yields. This is supposed to be safer for cyclists. It also allows cyclists to be more energy efficient and faster, because accelerating is the hardest part of cycling and it takes a long time compared to coasting through an intersection.
The video below does a good job giving a brief overview of why this change was made.
Personally, I still look both ways before going through a stop sign, and, if I see vehicles, I’ll slow down enough so that I can react if needed. Check your local laws to see how cyclists should treat stop signs.
What he did was fucking horrible, but please explain to me why it should be okay for a bicycle to not use the stop sign?
Always told my kids that the cemetery is full of people with right away.
About 15% of the US population lives in states with Idaho Stop laws, where bicyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs, and just under half of those also allow them to treat red lights as stop-then-yield signs. This has provided hard data indicating such a practice is measurably safer for cyclists, I believe at least partially because a disproportinate amount of collisions involving them happen in intersections and not needing to slow down for them means cyclists spend less time in those high danger zones. Given how much advice I was given as a driver boiled down to “drive safely, even if that means breaking the law” (especially given in regards to speed limits), I think it is perfectly justified for a biker to do the same, and act in the safer manner even if the laws says to do something else.
Traffic laws will not keep you safe. The legal system always has and always will always have this problem because there’s a constant tussle between not throwing people who didn’t do all that much in jail, and providing strong (as in enforceable) incentives to not do bad things.
The main point is that, in this case at least, it is measurably safer for cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs even when that isn’t what the law says.
A lot of states (can’t speak for the rules in Europe) have laws that allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yields. This is supposed to be safer for cyclists. It also allows cyclists to be more energy efficient and faster, because accelerating is the hardest part of cycling and it takes a long time compared to coasting through an intersection.
The video below does a good job giving a brief overview of why this change was made.
Personally, I still look both ways before going through a stop sign, and, if I see vehicles, I’ll slow down enough so that I can react if needed. Check your local laws to see how cyclists should treat stop signs.
https://youtu.be/KCs5nDEZpoM