Ignoring that my country doesn’t allow Idaho Stops, or that my Provincial Government wants to actively kill cyclists by removing safe cycling infrastructure, I’ve always wondered if there’s a reason why cyclists aren’t allowed to simply ride through an intersection like the one in the photo.

I’m talking about the right side, where the bike lane could extend through the intersection without interfering with other vehicles, including those that are turning left.

This would not only keep those stops safer (clears the cyclist out of the intersection), but would just make sense from a transportation efficiency standpoint.

Is there something I’m missing, or do cyclists have to stop only because motorists would take a tantrum if they weren’t required to?

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point

Exactly! So why shouldn’t an Idaho stop be the default for an intersection like this, even when Idaho stops aren’t permitted for all intersections?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It should. I saw someone else suggest that it’s because someone turning left might make a wide turn, but… that’s nonsense. No city planner paints lines to allow wide turns. I would suggest a sign that says “Bicyclists yield to pedestrians”, but that’s about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Bicycling

!bicycling@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for those who enjoy bicycling for any reason— utility, recreation, sport, or whatever!

Post your questions, experiences, knowledge, pictures, news, links, and (civil) rants.

Rules (to be added on an as-needed basis)

  1. Comments and posts should be respectful and productive.
  2. No ads or commercial spam, including linking to your own monetized content.
  3. Linked content should be as unburdened by ads and trackers as possible.

Welcome!

Community stats

  • 542

    Monthly active users

  • 166

    Posts

  • 1.1K

    Comments

Community moderators