Joseph Stromberg at Vox has a very concise argument for the Idaho Stop. There isn't really anything new there, but for those who don't read bike blogs I think it includes everything one needs to know to understand the issue.
Personally, I'm torn on the use of the "right-turn on red" example. It does show a time that we decided to let road users ignore current law for the sake of expediency, but there's some research that it wasn't good for pedestrians or cyclists, and I don't want to have to defend it. Nor do I want to say that right turn on red made our streets less safe, but it's a good precedent for what I want to do.
I've been a driver for 34 years and was presented with my first bicycle in 1969. When I drive or ride I expect everyone to obey the same rules - it's kept me safe.
Posted by: William Holder | May 13, 2014 at 08:53 AM
So then you expect cars to ride as far to the right as possible? And you're OK with them on the sidewalks or on bike trails? And you think cyclists should wear seatbelts and bikes should have horns? You believe that children in cars should be required to wear helmets? And you don't think we should have age limits on who can drive a car? Or that one should not lose the privilege of driving just because they've been busted for drunk driving many times? You think bikes should be inspected and tagged and that cyclists should have to pass a licensing exam?
Because that's what obeying the same rules means.
Posted by: washcycle | May 13, 2014 at 09:51 AM