The case for Idaho Stops

[Crickey7]

@mstone 84840 wrote:

I see the jaywalking laws, as currently implemented, as a travesty. I also didn’t say that all laws were implemented with death as a standard, only pointed out the historical context that led to traffic control devices. I completely agree that people shouldn’t scare other people. But, obviously, the current scheme isn’t preventing the behavior you are concerned about. So I suggest that we modify the current scheme to allow safe cyclist behavior while also cracking down on actual unsafe behavior. I’d also support promoting courteous behavior above and beyond merely safe behavior. But I think it’s really important to keep these things in perspective. Bemoaning an Idaho stop law because it increases the danger to pedestrians is patently absurd when the risk of a pedestrian being killed by a cyclist is near zero while cars run over pedestrians in crosswalks and on sidewalks literally every day.

I lack faith in people’s innate ability or desire to be courteous. And certainly the history of past efforts to get the cycling community to behave better have not been crowned with success. Laws will be broken, but at least they set a universally understood baseline that better encourage complying behavior.

[mstone]

@Crickey7 84842 wrote:

I lack faith in people’s innate ability or desire to be courteous.

So do I, which is why I advocate strong enforcement of existing laws regarding the rights of pedestrians. Unlike a nebulous fear of unpredictability, that would actually improve conditions for pedestrians. And please be honest, cyclists could disappear tomorrow and pedestrians would be no better off than they are today; focus on the actual problem and suggest solutions that address that problem.

[lordofthemark]

@Crickey7 84833 wrote:

I think the Idaho Stop is a bad idea. Once you introduce the idea that individual users of the roads are entitled to decide whether or not to obey traffic control devices based on subjective evaluations of safety, you introduce a few problems. People are going to vary widely in their evaluation of whether or not it’s safe.

Do you advocate turning all existing yield signs into stop signs? Do you propose placing traffic signals everywhere there is now a stop sign? The discretion granted cyclists under the Idaho law is the same discretion all road users have at other locations (IE the discretion to stop then proceed is what we have at stop signs, and the discretion to stop or not is what we have at yield signs.)

[Crickey7]

@lordofthemark 84846 wrote:

Do you advocate turning all existing yield signs into stop signs? Do you propose placing traffic signals everywhere there is now a stop sign? The discretion granted cyclists under the Idaho law is the same discretion all road users have at other locations (IE the discretion to stop then proceed is what we have at stop signs, and the discretion to stop or not is what we have at yield signs.)

No. Yield signs are placed in accordance with transportation engineering standards where the conflicts are already minimal. No change is necessary. Stop signs are there to establish an orderly and logical way to resolve potential conflicts at low-volume intersection. Again, no change is necessary. The discretion the Idaho Stop seeks to establish is that of low volume, or extremely low volume, intersection at every intersection regardless of volume.

I don’t trust drivers with that kind of discretion. And I see no reason why it should be different for cyclists. Yes, I’m aware of the two self-serving justifications, one being that cyclists are more capable of discerning risk because they are not in a closed vehicle. That’s a load, frankly. And the other, that since bikes are self-powered, it’s harder to stop and start as often. That’s true, but it really has no bearing on a safety issue.

[DismalScientist]

I think if an Idaho stop is appropriate at an intersection, the most appropriate policy would be to replace the stop sign with a yield sign.

[peterw_diy]

@DismalScientist 84860 wrote:

I think if an Idaho stop is appropriate at an intersection, the most appropriate policy would be to replace the stop sign with a yield sign.

Idaho Stops aren’t about location, they’re about specific point-in-time situations. Idaho Stops are trees falling in the forest when nobody is around. Intersections that need stop signs in rush hours might be empty other hours. Idaho Stop is telling cops to chill out and not write up cyclists who, at that specific point and time, threatened no one.

[DismalScientist]

The cops shouldn’t ticket drivers that slow roll intersections at off hours either.

It’s also a straw man argument. It’s not like cops are ticketing cyclists doing Idaho stops (with the exception of Goober in Falls Church).

[cvcalhoun]

If the primary concern is safety, there is in fact a huge difference between the amount of damage someone can cause with a two-ton car versus a 25-lb. bicycle. A driver who exercises discretion inappropriately can easily kill people. A bicyclist who does so mostly endangers himself or herself.

@Crickey7 84857 wrote:

No. Yield signs are placed in accordance with transportation engineering standards where the conflicts are already minimal. No change is necessary. Stop signs are there to establish an orderly and logical way to resolve potential conflicts at low-volume intersection. Again, no change is necessary. The discretion the Idaho Stop seeks to establish is that of low volume, or extremely low volume, intersection at every intersection regardless of volume.

I don’t trust drivers with that kind of discretion. And I see no reason why it should be different for cyclists. Yes, I’m aware of the two self-serving justifications, one being that cyclists are more capable of discerning risk because they are not in a closed vehicle. That’s a load, frankly. And the other, that since bikes are self-powered, it’s harder to stop and start as often. That’s true, but it really has no bearing on a safety issue.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 84866 wrote:

The cops shouldn’t ticket drivers that slow roll intersections at off hours either.

No, because we have actual evidence that drivers don’t see people and run over them, especially at night. It’s a false equivalency to compare the two cases. If anything, we should be harder on drivers who decide that at night they own the road because that’s an incredibly dangerous time for pedestrians.

They also ticket Idaho stops in Loudoun when they’re in the mood. That’s the problem with the law not reflecting reality, it just becomes an excuse to give pointless tickets when someone gets a bug up their behind.

[peterw_diy]

@DismalScientist 84866 wrote:

The cops shouldn’t ticket drivers that slow roll intersections at off hours either.

It’s also a straw man argument. It’s not like cops are ticketing cyclists doing Idaho stops (with the exception of Goober in Falls Church).

You’re absolutely right. That video of the citation at Hains Point was a fraud. The Street Smart campaign doesn’t encourage cops to cite Idaho Stops. And I was hallucinating when I heard my elected officials in a public meeting berate cyclists as a group for blowing stop signs.

[rcannon100]

And dont forget our hide-a-cop that tickets cyclists in FC

[lordofthemark]

@Crickey7 84857 wrote:

No. Yield signs are placed in accordance with transportation engineering standards where the conflicts are already minimal.

1. Thats an argument, but its not consistent with this” Once you introduce the idea that individual users of the roads are entitled to decide whether or not to obey traffic control devices based on subjective evaluations of safety, you introduce a few problems. ” It still introuduces subjective evaluation. The point being that transportation engineering standards DO allow for subjective evaluations by road users, in places where its deemed appropriate. The question raised by the Idaho stop is whether there are places where such subjective evaluation is appropriate for cyclists, but not for motorists. That is a question of the transportation engineering charecteristics of bicycles – their combination of speed and weight (and thus the danger they present to other road users) as well as the issue of field of vision. IOW its a technical argument

2. I have to take issue the rationality of all yield signs. Or lets just say that accepted transportation engineering standards take as given certain tradeoffs wrt to safety vs convenience, and relative convenience by mode, that we do not all share. For example there are many places where yield signs are used at crosswalks, rather than stop signs, because slowing traffic down on a given arterial is not deemed optimal. given the many benefits of walking – from health to placemaking – and the snowball effects of a critical mass of pedestrians, its arguable such yield signs are far from optimal.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 84860 wrote:

I think if an Idaho stop is appropriate at an intersection, the most appropriate policy would be to replace the stop sign with a yield sign.

I presume that means a “bikes may treat stop sign as yield” what I call “Idaho by exception” I strongly agree, lets try this at the intersections where stop signs for cyclists are absurd. We can leave the current law as the default.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 84866 wrote:

The cops shouldn’t ticket drivers that slow roll intersections at off hours either.

It’s also a straw man argument. It’s not like cops are ticketing cyclists doing Idaho stops (with the exception of Goober in Falls Church).

One of the points of the article was that, to the extent possible, we should legalize behaviors that most people do and that there is no benefit to banning. Its better to not make people law breakers for no reason – and it would help the cycling community with this whole scofflaw argument.

[Author]

Posts