I like the "safety stop," but ...
 

... I'm not sure I see how it reduces accidents.

I got an email from CalBike urging support for a California bill to make the "safety stop" legal:
So, if there's no traffic, how does this reduce bicycle crashes at intersections?!

It reduces the amount of time a cyclist is stopped or trying to get back underway at an intersection, where they're most vulnerable to being rear-ended or right hooked by an inattentive driver. It's safer, more efficient, and makes legal what many riders are already doing.

No other traffic in the intersection doesn’t necessarily mean no traffic.

See post #3 above.

AB-122 applies to people on bicycles (including e-bikes) at STOP signs allowing them to treat them as yield signs.

The alleged carnage and confusion caused by traffic lights and people on bikes will continue on, unless of course the alleged carnage and confusion is a myth, then it will not continue on.

(p.s. In group rides, the best time to discuss how the group will behave or misbehave at traffic lights is prior to said alleged carnage and confusion at a traffic light. It’s not rocket science.)

-mr. bill

OK, thanks, I hadn't thought of those angles. I guess I should worry about getting rear-ended or right-hooked, but it's not the first thing I worry about out there.

this.

I don't operate under the premise that I am going to be rear ended at stop signs and lights. I make sure it is clear and continue on at stop signs. I make a complete stop at lights. most of the time there is other traffic so the normal wait time is observed. There is a light were I make a left turn toward a college of of a highway that wont react to my bicycle. I wait in the center of that turn lane with traffic going 70mph and up on either side of me and when it is clear I make my left turn. I don't ride with large groups of people because many of them ride like sheep. They don't think for themselves and anger weak minded motorists who feel the need to take vengeance on the next rider or group of riders they see. I have never been rear-ended but have been side swiped and t-boned at speed. I live in California. I like Arkansas bicycle stop laws.

I think it's just a 'selling point'. I never heard it referred to as the Safety Stop, rather I've always heard Idaho Stop, but regardless the same thing is said that it reduces accidents. I don't see how. It's just common sense, period. I always do an Idaho Stop.

BTW, to prevent right hooks at stop signs is to take the lane. I get behind the car(s) in front of me, if they were there first and all car(s) behind me can't pass, therefore the right hook is avoided.

P.S. I never read the procedures of the Safety Stop in the California law, but I'd imagine it's much like here in this video.

https://vimeo.com/4140910

I agree, it's more about practicality and convenience than safety.

The wise cyclist keeps themselves aware of everything going on around them. If I was hit from behind at a stop sign (or anywhere else) I'd consider it at least partially my fault for not noticing and taking preventive action.

I wouldn't go that far. If you are stopped and see a car barrelling towards you that has not noticed that the light is against them you are going to be hit! Don't even bother thinking you are going to somehow heave yourself out of the way like people do in action movies. That's why I FRAP. If a car somehow missed the fact that the light was red and blew past into the intersection they would, in all likelihood, miss hitting me, because I would be somewhere to the right of the main path of traffic. So, to your point, "safety" is not the point of "Idaho Stops" as they are called in most places. It is the preservation of momentum that makes vehicular cycling a practical endeavor. My guess is that promoting legislation that ostensibly makes cyclists lives easier in any way might be unpalatable to the usual run of lawmakers. Pity, that.

I've never been hit by a car when I was the only one there. I've been hit by cars that pulled up behind me when I've stopped a couple of times. Not being legally required to stop when no one's there just make sense.

What is the "safety stop?"

It's a marketing term for people on bikes may treat a stop sign as a yield sign.

(BTW, Delaware's law is about to sunset and is unlikely to be extended. Also, the 23% reduction in crashes involving people on bikes at stop sign intersections, comparing the 30 months before the law and the 30 months after the law, dropped from a WHOLE 82 down to a PALTRY 63. Statistically insignificant. More importantly, the reduction in fatal crashes involving people on bikes at stop sign intersections in Delaware dropped from ZERO to ZERO. Also statistically insignificant.)

What I've learned in A&S:

Is there a moving motor vehicle ANYWHERE? STOP!
Is there a stopped motor vehicle ANYWHERE? STOP!
Is there a stop sign? DON'T STOP!

Go figure.

-mr. bill

Hmmmm, that same reason, along with "reduces pollution" was the incentive for right on red for motorists... and we know how well that turned out.

Of course, unlike the motorist, the cyclist has real skin in the game... and thus should act in a prudent manner (maintaining awareness) to preserve said skin, regardless of the law. (the latter often written to convenience motorists, vice provide safety)

The cyclist has the potential to control his or her own destiny to a great extent. Understanding threats and staying situationally aware and in the moment is primary. If one didn't notice a potential for being rear ended until it was too late to mitigate in any manner, I'd consider that a failure on their part. If one is ever hit and didn't even see it coming that's a double fail on their part.

The few times a driver came up too fast behind me I noticed it early because I watch for it. This allows me time to take steps to mitigate the threat before it gets to your last second Hollywood heave. (which still could work, especially if you're paying attention and have a preplanned escape route as you should!)

It's all about taking full responsibility for ones safety, not leaving any of it to drivers, anyone else, or the laws. Robert Hurst has a great write up regarding this mindset in his book "The Art of Cycling".

:)

: backpedal:

Part of my strategy for taking the lane is to ensure there are no cars 'barreling' up the road towards me. It's as much a part of my actions as looking in my mirror and over my shoulder before I take the lane or make a change in course.

Not sure why you've posted this now. First, you haven't made any sense. Second, this is a thread about Idaho Stop. At best this is gratuitous misinformation. At worst, it is ...

I always take the lane at a stop sign and light where a Right Hook is a possibility. I've had two instances while sitting at a light when I actually had drivers coming up really fast, one of them was when there was no one else around (on a Sunday morning ride). I noticed the driver coming up very fast in my mirror, so I started circling around the white stopping mark/line and then all of a sudden the driver started beeping at me and I'm looking at her with total disbelief, because she wasn't slowing down and getting really close. I ended up moving out of the way as she barreled thru the stop light. My guess is either she was too focused on me being in the road and not seeing the light or she was responding to some kind of personal emergency.

The second incident was someone f**kin' with me and I ended up giving chase, but was unable to catch him. I've had a few other weird issues with people behind me, but those are the ones that really stick out in my head.

Maybe this would have been better in another thread, but sometimes these threads get a little tangled up:)