Ben Adler has a new argument against the Idaho Stop, but he's wrong

At Grist Ben Adler argues against the Idaho Stop. 

Even if the Idaho stop is good for bike riders, it’s not good for cities.

Advocates never put it in these terms, but Idaho stops essentially allow bikers to impose on pedestrians’ green lights and rights-of-way. Bikers would be prohibited from going if a pedestrian is in the intersection, but if a biker gets there first, a pedestrian would have to wait at the corner until the bike passes, possibly running out of time to cross. Do we really want to create a mad dash to be first at an intersection and claim right-of-way? As our population ages, and empty nesters return to cities, this would have a particularly negative effect on the elderly.

That's a novel idea, and one I'd never thought of. Mostly because when I ride I make sure to pass well behind any pedestrian. People may lurch forward quickly, but it's harder to turn around quickly. And I have yet to see a pedestrian backpedal like a linebacker. 

Is it a valid point? No. Pedestrians would always have the right-of-way. And even when cyclists screw this up, pedestrian will usually be able to walk out into the intersection even if they saw a cyclist coming. They would not be trapped on the corner, they would just have to not jump in front of the cyclist. It may cause the occasional pedestrian to pause while walking, but when it does, it means the cyclist is doing it wrong. 

Idaho stops favor bikes instead human beings on two feet. But pedestrians are the lifeblood of a vibrant city.

Actually it doesn't favor bikes, or even people on bikes over pedestrians because they would still always have the right-of-way, and more so when they explicitly have it such as in this case.  And, cyclists, I'm sorry but you're not part of the lifeblood of the city. Perhaps you're bile or gastric juices.

If we were going to exempt one group from these rules, the logical one would be pedestrians, who are the least dangerous group to other users, not people going much faster on metal contraptions. 

Perhaps, but that's an argument for allowing jaywalking, not for disallowing the Idaho Stop. This isn't The Taming of the Shrew (wherein pedestrians would be Katherina and cyclists Bianca).  

No pedestrian has ever killed a bicyclist by running into him

That's not true. It's rare, but it does happen. (There's also Paul Rossmeissl, who people theorize died after a collision with a pedestrian on the W&OD Trail). 

And his solution is odd

Idaho stops, like jaywalking, should not be legalized; they should be winked at, with the law going unenforced except in truly egregious cases.

But wouldn't a truly egregious case also violate an Idaho Stop law? He asking for the exact same thing here, he just wants people who do what he advocates to be breaking the law. Which is a source of great conflict between cyclists and cyclists and drivers. It's the status quo and it really isn't working.

Insofar as Idaho-stop advocates are complaining that police ticket cyclists for running lights when no one is coming, their complaint is valid. 

If only there was a solution. Oh wait, there is. 

But officially allowing bikes to steal a pedestrian’s right-of-way would go too far. 

It doesn't. In the Idaho Stop, cyclists can not steal anyone's right of way. This seems to be his fundamental confusion.

It might encourage even worse behavior: If most people, using any mode of transportation, will tend to go a little further than the law allows, looser laws would make cyclists more inclined than they are already to blow through reds without stopping and through stop signs without slowing down.

It might, but we don't have to speculate. We can look at Idaho, and reports are that Idaho is no less safe (and possible more safe) than comparable areas.  And making this behavior legal, would lesson the claim that cyclists are scofflaws, since they'd be breaking the law much less often. 

And enforcement of the Idaho-stop rule would be difficult. Imagine the arguments over whether a pedestrian, car, or other bike was or wasn’t already crossing the street before the biker started doing so. 

Again, we don't have to imagine. We can look at Idaho. And it has not been an issue there. 

Much of the rest of the article is about how we shouldn't favor peds over cyclists, which again is a misunderstanding of what the law does, and so isn't relevant. Nor is the population density of Idaho as a whole. Boise has some dense areas. 

Comments

[jeffb]

A certain percentage of cyclists today fail to yield if they believe, with their momentum, they can beat cross traffic through an intersection.

If the Idaho Stop law is enacted would we expect the number of cyclists failing to yield to increase, stay the same, or decrease?

[jeffb]

I don't have any experience living someplace that had put the Idaho law into effect but when I commuted through the upper NW residential neighborhoods it was pretty much the defacto standard for cyclists AND cars.

I only had 2 problems with it. During the winter/at night I noticed that cars were failing to see me and thus failing to yield to me at 4-way stops. I solved that problem by mounting monkey lights on my wheels.

The other problem was the few intersections that were just 2-way stops where the direction I was going had no stop. Too many cars were completely blowing the stops there so I learned to treat every intersection as a 4-way.

[ACyclistInTheSuburbs]

I think its better (with rare exceptions) to legalize what we expect people to do, rather than wink at it. Winking breeds disrespect for law, and I suspect leads to more actually unsafe behavior then legalizing Idaho stops would. I see no evidence that Idaho stops are a gateway drug.

Also it would remove most of the 'scofflaw cyclist' meme.

[twk]

So if we expect drivers to speed, should we legalize it? Not that I am against the Idaho stop, just think the logic needs some work.

[washcycle]

So if we expect drivers to speed, should we legalize it?

No, but we shouldn't wink at it either. I think if the choices are wink or legalize, then yes, legalize. Which is what ACITS is saying.

[Joe]

Currently the majority of drivers treat stops signs and right turn on red as yield signs or Idaho stops.

The question is do any rules of the road actually matter anymore? The only two I see followed by drivers is: drive on the right side of the road & stop at red lights when traveling straight or making a left turn.

(note: This is outside of DC in the suburbs and rural areas. I rarely go into DC so I am unaware of the situation there)

[Bill on Capitol Hill]

Jeez, Ben Adler, where in the Idaho law does it say that cyclists are free to mow down pedestrians?

The only real public-safety argument against the Idaho stop is that if you give people an inch, they'll take a mile. And they will. That's why car laws are zero-tolerance, even in the face of common sense (running a red light or stop sign at 4 a.m. in an empty town in a car won't hurt anyone any more than an Idaho-stopping cyclist would, but a miscalculation is far more dangerous in a car). Cyclists already blow through red lights, and the idea of giving them some semblance of a legal excuse for doing so does give me pause.

But applying the same car laws with zero tolerance to cyclists only opens the door for abusive, selective and discriminatory enforcement. A Park Police officer who hates the speeding pelotons can choose to ignore a scofflaw pickup-truck driver but ticket a Bikeshare rider doing 4 mph past a stop sign rendered irrelevant by closed roads. And for a cyclist, stopping at a stop sign can be more dangerous than running one. My goal on a bike is to steer clear of cars/pedestrians/other bikes as safely as possible, if at all possible, at all times. Sometimes that means running a red light (the coast is clear but it's about to be not-clear); sometimes it means sitting at one like an idiot for five minutes while scofflaws shoal past me (maybe the intersection's visibility isn't to my liking).

It's a shame the law can't be "Don't be an idiot." It's a shame enforcement can't look at each situation individually. Bicycle safety is more complicated than "Is there an octagonal red sign?" and "Was the light red?"

[Joe D]

The big problem with the "wink at it" idea is that police can, at any time and without warning, change the wink to a citation.

[dynaryder]

@Joe: here in DC,stop signs are pretty much optional on side streets,as are speed limits. We also have the DC Stop. That's where a car stops at a sign,then when it's clear and it pulls out,the car behind follows it through. We also have the Left Turn Conga. That's where the first vehicle in line to make a left pulls half way into the intersection. Then when the light turns red,it makes its turn(if it didn't,it would block the intersection),followed by 1,2,and sometimes even 3 of the vehicles in line behind it. It's also ok for Metro buses to go through red lights when pulling out from a corner bus stop,and for drivers to make lefts on red in Georgetown.

[dmguest]

We should have a tiered system wherein the fine for running stop signs/failure to yield is based on gross vehicle weight. Make it $20 for cyclists and a couple hundred or more for heavy trucks.

[washcycle]

That's kind of what we have in DC. I think the fine is $25, no points.

[Brendan]

If we're going to add proportionality to stop sign fines, they should be proportional to the punishments for killing a cyclist. What's the equivalency between stops signs and killed cyclists? 5 stop signs? 10? 100? 1000? Right now it's about 5-10 depending on the jurisdiction and the leniency of a judge. And that's a big part of why the traffic regulation paradigm is broken beyond repair.

[Fabrisse]

I'll settle for the police ticketing anyone riding a bike on the sidewalk -- especially when there's a bike lane.

As a pedestrian on a cane, I've had cyclists yell at me as they're barreling through when I'm in a crosswalk. I don't think making it legal for them to run the signs/lights will improve my situation or those of my fellow pedestrians at all.

By the way, I also firmly believe that as pedestrians, we should not step into the street until we have a walk light where those are provided. That's our side of the traffic social contract.

[katie]

I disagree with Ben Adler, and completely support Idaho stops being legal for cyclists, but to be fair: both of the articles you linked to in the cyclist-pedestrian death example are cases of cyclists running into pedestrians (not pedestrians running into cyclists) and in one of them it says the cyclist was going against the light.

[washcycle]

Well, i think you'd have to try hard to actually hit a cyclist if you were on foot. But I think stepping in front of a cyclist is the same as running into them. Besides, the point is that ped errors can result in collisions where cyclists die (and almost surely have).

[Brendan]

Worst accident I've ever been in was when I was downhill on Florida Avenue, at speed and with the green, when a pedestrian stepped right off the curb, against the light and in front of me without looking to her left. My bike cartwheeled and I flew forward over the handlebars. How both of us walked away was a miracle.