« Design and reconstruction of Oregon Avenue moving forward, likely still without bike facilities | Main | Heather Cook, DUI driver who killed cyclist and left scene eligible for parole after 18 months »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It's a pilot program, not a law permitting Idaho stop statewide. And it will fail anyway.

We have so many higher priorities in advocacy. This is such a waste of time and energy.

Idaho stop is a priority, in my book. To have the law allow what almost everyone does (including police officers on bikes, if you notice) so that we could spend our times on other matters would be a huge plus. Teach people to yield the right-of-way, and penalize them if they don't, but stop giving people stupid citations because they came to a rolling stop, just like most drivers do.

The LA Times is advocating a pilot, but the bill would change the law statewide. It is only for stop signs though, so not a full Idaho.

A pilot is a good idea. I don't know why anyone would disagree to a pilot unless they're just reflexively anti-cycling.

Thanks for the clarification. I suspect that does not improve the bill's chances. Perhaps they should have tried for a pilot program first.

Stops sings are what make the most sense anyway. Allowing people to proceed on a red light will just lead to poor decision making resulting in accidents. And more cyclists stop for stop lights than stop signs, at least from my anecdotal observation.

I see a self administered Idaho Stop pilot program every day downtown. It seems to have a high rate of poor decision making.

Definitely more people do stop as yield, than Idaho reds, in my observation. This is a good thing, because almost everything else we do in advocacy gets tangled with the "scofflaw" meme - having something that almost everyone does be illegal has many negatives.

As for predictability, this will NOT legalizing scooting out in front of a truck. That is not treating stop as yield. Those who would do that already Idaho stops.

All driving downtown seems to have a high degree of poor decision making.

Stop as yield is no different than some intersection rules we have now so would be easy enough to enforce--if you didn't yield the right-of-way, you didn't yield the right-of-way, same as for yield signs. I think it would reduce law breaking and increase safety, and then law enforcement could spend its resources going after the people who actually cause dangerous situations by failing to yield (if law enforcement so desired, ha ha).

1 Private citizen on each side? I wonder if they need that for procedural purposes.

This is a concept I have never been able to grasp. How many cyclists--or drivers for that matter--come to a full stop for stop signs where there's no traffic and good visibility? Isn't this argument like proposing formal recognition that drivers can exceed the speed limit within reason when it's safe? It seems to me, in my evident confusion, that this change would alter only the behavior of the small minority of cyclists obsessed with the letter of the law and certainly not the flocks of commuters I see flouting the laws and common sense every day.

The value of the Idaho Stop (for stop signs) is that it forces police to focus on the real problem, which is right-of-way violations. With the Idaho Stop in place, stop-sign enforcement is more likely to be effective, in terms of getting riders to ride more safely.

This isn't the same as allowing drivers to speed. Most drivers believe that slower is safer. Few people who ride bicycles do believe that stopping when there is no cross traffic is safer.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader