Comments on: My own private Idaho Stop Law

By: Mike Giberson

Mike Giberson — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:07:51 +0000

I thought that research has shown drivers give more distance to cyclists that ride in erratic and unpredictable ways, and therefore such cyclists may be safer on the road.

If you look erratic, drivers decide they actually have to pay attention to you. Or maybe it is simpler: if you do something out of the ordinary, drivers will notice you, otherwise you run the risk of fading into the background and not be seen at all. Not a good thing in my local world of large pickup trucks, minivans and SUVs.)

Maybe I contribute to a negative reputation effect for cyclists to the extent I drive erratically (not that much, really – once in a while and mostly just for fun), or maybe I just help drivers be aware of cyclists on the road. In general, and I think Danny Morris made this point in his post, the cyclist is well motivated to ride safely around motor vehicle traffic, and I think that supports the case for the Idaho Stop in practice and in law.

By: lkiesling

lkiesling — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:34:31 +0000

Yep, we follow the Idaho Stop too, with one exception: we always stop at stop lights and wait. Perhaps that’s because drivers around Chicago tend to run stop lights, and we don’t want to run the risk! In actuality, though, I think it’s to signal to drivers that we are cyclists who obey traffic laws. I do think that cyclists who weave through cars at stop lights and ride in erratic and unpredictable ways do a disservice to the rest of the cyclists out there. But I also think that if the traffic laws explicitly recognized the efficiency of the Idaho Stop Law and publicized the law, both drivers and cyclists would be better behaved.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:46:06 +0000

it seems that if cyclists are going to do this anyway, it would improve safety to just go ahead and make it law. but we don’t do this in any other context — for example, speed limits are not raised just because people habitually exceed them (in perfect safety), and stop signs are not converted to rolling yield signs because that’s how people treat them (in perfect safety). (and dare I say it marijuana is not legalized just because people habitually smoke it, in perfect safety.)

it seems strange to frame the debate this way in this one case. “they’re going to do it anyway, so let’s make it legal” is not a strong case. on the other hand, if someone actually came out and argued for the easing of traffic laws that no one follows, I’d probably applaud.