I do not live in an Idaho stop state, but I do it regularly.
which is pretty obvious for a vehicle that works largely by maintaining momentum
All vehicles benefit from momentum. Stopping and starting is huge energy suck, except in vehicles with braking recovery systems in which case itβs only a less bad energy inefficiency. Braking energy capture is never 100% efficient.
This logic (βmuh momentum!β) can be used by every conveyance to justify rolling through stop signage.
Oh sweet, I didnβt realise a 8 thousand pound truck was self propelled. Exactly the same thing, for sure.
It takes less fuel to keep it going than to start it going. What point are you even trying to make?
There is a difference between a vehicle you have to power with your own muscles and a vehicle that you power by moving your big toe on the gas pedal. of course they all benefit from momentum, but Iβd much rather have to come to a complete stop and then start up again in a car.
No sympathy for the environment, huh?
With drivers decelerating and stopping at lights, then revving up to move quickly when lights go green, peak particle concentration was found to be 29 times higher than that during free-flowing traffic conditions. (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/02/why-traffic-lights-are-pollution-hotspots/)
In a city the size of Atlanta, 269,000 tons of CO2 emissions could be prevented, equivalent to the CO2 absorbed by a forest 3.3 times the size of Atlanta, according to Inrix. (https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135482_poorly-timed-traffic-lights-add-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-here-s-an-estimate-of-how-much)
That latter article is talking about how many tons of CO2 could be reduced just by better optimizing traffic in the city so that fewer cars hit red lights.
No argument, getting rid of cars would have the biggest positive impact, but failing that, optimizing lights for cars, while not helping cyclist safety, would be a much better investment if we want to reduce pollution. Idaho stops for cyclists from the OP post would actually be detrimental to the environment based on the conclusions from the study: that allowing it makes drivers more cautious, implying more full stops, more time idling, and more CO2 produced per car trip.
I was talking from the perspective of the effort involved in a full stop on a bike vs a car. You seem to be taking the position that cyclists doing an Idaho stop will never stop or look around, that it should all be on car drivers to avoid oblivious idiot cyclists who will ride out in front of them without warning. I guarantee you any of those states that have this law will still find the cyclist at fault if they run a red light and get clobbered.
If you want to change the topic and talk about whether I have βsympathy for the environmentβ, I also drive an EV. I replaced my gas furnace with a heat pump. I ride my bike instead of driving a car for most of my <10mile trips. Having the ability to roll a stop sign or proceed through a red light when itβs clear has nothing to do with any of those things.