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?
I love that you think any cyclists will actually stop.
I wouldn’t take my bike onto the road with a sidewalk right there. If there wasn’t a sidewalk I’d ride in the grass. If there was no grass I’d find another way. If even that’s not an option I just live in America.
Seriously tho. People who talk about bicycles online aren’t representative of those who use them.
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?
Motorists would make a tantrum regardless, and they don’t stop too! Rolling through is very common; indeed expected in many areas. After all, how is a town supposed to enforce all of their intersections? For example, San Francisco has 18,525 intersections and 2,140 officers. Assigning 10 intersections per officer and to ignore all other police needs would be insanity. They’re trying their best but it’s an uphill battle.
There still being a crosswalk there is a reasonable excuse, but I think it’s more simple. The less complex the traffic rules are the easier they are to build signage for, learn, and follow. Everyone stops at the stop sign. Plain. Simple. Easy. Safer.
There still being a crosswalk there is a reasonable excuse
Do they not have crosswalks in States that permit Idaho Stops? How are those intersections managed (all of them, really)?
Cars are the danger at any stop, not bikes in the very far right of the road. But yes, if pedestrians are crossing, everyone should be stopping.
The less complex the traffic rules are the easier they are to build signage for, learn, and follow. Everyone stops at the stop sign. Plain. Simple. Easy. Safer.
That would be nice, except that motorists aren’t following those simple rules, and they are the ones running people over. When cyclists follow rules designed for large vehicles, it actually doesn’t make them safer.
This is why having the same rules for “everyone” doesn’t work. Everyone should understand the responsibilities of other road users (including when pedestrians should be given the right of way and what that looks like), but not everyone should have the same rules if it doesn’t make sense or puts them at greater risk.
The rule for an Idaho stop, at least in my area, is that you can only do it if there’s no traffic. That means no cars, no other bikes, no pedestrians.
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?
Ah, yes, everyone should do the right thing.
But here’s the issue, - everyone is human. We make mistakes. So the rules of the road are about mitigating risk.
As some who’s driven, cycled, and motorcycled something around a million miles in my life, I’ve had many circumstances where I avoided problems because I was (fortunately) being conservative.
And I’ve been lucky, many, many times where I wasn’t being as attentive as I should be, but the other person was.
You’re saying we should clip those corners, reducing the margins.
Except that “clipping corners” would improve safety.
Basically, what I’ve asked is “why isn’t an Idaho Stop the default at an intersection like this?”, knowing that Idaho stops have been shown time and time again to improve cyclist safety and makes cycling easier.
Of course, if you approach an intersection and it appears like a conflict could occur, be mindful and make sure everyone is paying attention.
But if there are no cars or pedestrians at these 3-way intersections, cyclists should have no problem simply riding through. This is keeping in mind that we are on the far edge of the road, where it would be highly unlikely that a conflict would occur. If a motorist attempted the same, it would put others in danger.
So, respect cyclists as much as car drivers, except when it’s inconvenient for you to follow the rules of the road?
Intersections are probably the most dangerous place on the road, or at least that’s what I was taught in motorcycling class 40 years ago.
If a cyclist can ride right through this, why can’t I on my 125 motorcycle?
And yes, I disagree with filtering. I understand the arguments for it, but it introduces so much risk as cagers aren’t looking for you.
So, respect cyclists as much as car drivers, except when it’s inconvenient for you to follow the rules of the road?
Just to put this out there: this isn’t really about convenience, but safety. My question is basically “why isn’t an Idaho Stop permitted at a 3-way shown in the photo?”.
Since we know that Idaho Stops are SIGNIFICANTLY safer for cyclists (and yes, it can be more convenient as a secondary benefit), it’s not really about respecting or following rules, but “does this rule make sense for a cyclist, when it offers no benefit to safety?”.
Intersections are probably the most dangerous place on the road, or at least that’s what I was taught in motorcycling class 40 years ago.
Yes, if you are driving in the middle of the road, not in the gutter lane. And usually at 4-way intersections where vehicles cross each other’s path. You get none of that in this context.
If a cyclist can ride right through this, why can’t I on my 125 motorcycle?
As above, that would be dangerous. Unless you can provide evidence that blowing through stops on a motorcycle is actually safer for you.
If a cyclist can ride right through this, why can’t I on my 125 motorcycle?
Perhaps it should be allowed! Cars already treat stop signs as yields (“California Roll” is the car corollary to the “Idaho Stop”). Why would you stop if the car behind you isn’t planning to? (I’d love to see motorbike studies on this; please link me to some if you know any.)
Studies have shown that cyclists treating stop signs as yield signs leads to fewer accidents, both with cars and pedestrians.
Yielding also decreases time spent in the intersection. You have a motor underneath you. Cyclists don’t. Clearing the intersection quickly prevents cross-traffic from splatting you. That’s why slowing down, checking for traffic, but not stopping is so important for momentum vehicles.
The NHTSA (the US road safety org for my Canadian friends) has a good two-pager overview. It’s a good place to start if you’re still curious about the reasoning behind the Idaho stop.
