mr_bill

It's *NOT* at their own risk. Who else are they risking?

Hint, when you see a BST rolling a stop sign you see the external risk to others clearly, so *WHY* don't you see the external risk to others when a bicycle is doing the rolling.

Double hint - fast forward, you are a pensioner walking across the road. Did *YOU* choose to be a rollee?

-mr. bill

genec

Because I think in terms of the magnitudes of order of mass and speed that ANY motor vehicle has verses that of a cyclist and rider.

The fact is you can probably count on one hand all the peds that have been killed by cyclists in any year... yet it takes quite a big calculator to count the peds killed by motorists... and yet I see no call for reform of Right Turn on Red.

mr_bill

Only because you aren't paying attention. Montreal and New York City.
It's going to spread soon.

ALL the studies of "right turn on red" that said it was perfectly safe and efficient focused on intersection accidents of motorists - but did *NOT* note *WHO* paid the price for right turn on red - bicyclists and pedestrians.

The paltry "research" on Idaho Stop is even lower quality.

-mr. bill

mr_bill

You are *UNDERESTIMATING* by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE how dangerous it is to get knocked to the ground if you are 80+, NO MATTER THE MASS of the roller.

-mr. bill

Wilfred Laurier

You are missing a major detail of the idea behind the law, Mr. Bill - running over pedestrians does not become legal, nor does zooming in front of cars waiting at the cross street... you can only roll through if there are no other road users in or waiting at the intersection. The idea is to treat stop signs as yield signs, not as anarchy symbols.

I would think the Idaho Stop idea puts more onus on bicyclists, not less - if you run a stop sign and get hit, the intersection was obviously not clear, and so you should have stopped.

mr_bill

RUNNING OVER PEDESTRIANS WITH RIGHT TURN ON RED AFTER STOP DID NOT BECOME LEGAL, and yet...

...more pedestrians (and bicyclists) are run over where RIGHT TURN ON RED AFTER STOP became legal because:

The decision is MORE COMPLEX (not less) and needs to be made in LESS TIME (lower quality decision).

You want to trade of *YOUR* convenience for *SAFETY OF OTHERS* - not the first time, not the last time, it's been done many times before.

But please be honest that this is *WHAT* you are advocating.

-mr. bill

mr_bill

Again, the bias of motive is so damn clear. YOU RUN THE STOP SIGN AND HIT SOMEONE. WHO PAYS THE PRICE FOR YOUR MISTAKE? (The flame fest about the pavement cyclist in the UK taking out a toddler - was it OK because it would have been *MUCH* *WORSE* if a tipper had been heading down the pavement?)

-mr. bill

asmac

The RTOR law was not 'reformed' in Mtl & NYC because it couldn't be as it was never formed in the first place. If anything that law has spread, not lessened and I hear no clamor to get rid of it.

As others have noted, the "Idaho Stop" law places the onus squarely on cyclists to act safely. It would likely do nothing to change current behaviour except the looking-over-your-shoulder part.

mr_bill

Are you listening?

-mr. bill

Wilfred Laurier

First, please stop screaming. Second, no law is being suggested that makes it legal to knock over seniors or drag toddlers down the sidewalk. And making it legal to roll stop signs when the way is clear does not remove the responsibility of each of us to avoid injuring others.

asmac

To the sound of silence.

genec

Tell you what... when they repeal Right turn on Red, I will lobby for full stops for ALL road vehicles... until then... I see Idaho style stops for cyclists as something positive.

gpburdell

Seriously. Seems to be a very emotional issue for mr_bill.

Georgia law reads:
Key words are the vehicle must stop before turning right on red and it must remain stopped until any pedestrians are clear. You don't want to know how many people I see almost daily blow through red rights whether right-on-red, straight, or even u-turning.

mr_bill seems to be of the opinion that the law is to blame; why not place the blame on the drivers who are breaking the law by not stopping before turning and not staying stopped until pedestrians are clear? Where is the culpability of the pedestrian who has a responsibility to NOT leave the curb if it's impractical for a vehicle to yield? (40-6-91)?

If an Idaho law came about which allowed a bicyclist to treat a stop sign as a yield, that wouldn't absolve the bicyclist of the responsibility to slow and (if necessary) stop. Any bicyclist that then hits a pedestrian clearly didn't "slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and, if required for safety to stop, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line or, if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection"

If you want to expend effort on something, go after the drivers who fly to a stop IN a crosswalk. As a runner I have to be exceptionally careful not to get nailed by these drivers, particularly those coming from parking lots or smaller side streets. I watch those and many other antics on a daily basis. In any area I've ever lived, I think one would be incredibly naive to think crosswalks are in any way "safe". Pedestrians have to be hyper aware already; allowing bicycles to treat as a yield wouldn't have any noticeable effect.

spare_wheel

Trolling a thread with completely unsupported claims that the Idaho stop is not safe -- this is *WHAT* you are "advocating".

Jason Megg's VeloCity 2012 presentation of his Idaho Stop study:

https://www.ecf.com/wp-content/upload...-as-yields.pdf

Original study:

https://bclu.org/jmeggs-TRB-IDAHO-AUG10.pdf

mr_bill

"There is no reason to believe that the Idaho Law increases disrespect for pedestrians...."

This is what you rely on.... Someone is so convinced that there could be no effect on other road users, that no data has ever been published on how "Idaho Stop" effects other road users....

Hint - the same pablum is present in studies of right turn on red after stop that it wasn't until recently that folks bothered to look, and found oops bicycles and oops pedestrians. Why anyone would not even consider lessons learned....


Let's make new mistakes - old mistakes are dull and boring.


Oh, and the troll - that is the it's the annual wouldn't it be nice if Ontario would allow Idaho Stop at four way stops in residential neighborhoods - you'd think after all these years SOMEBODY would draft a bill and work it through ANY channel to pass it, but that evidently is not what is wanted.

So, it's silly season AGAIN in Toronto, just Rob is not there to make it the theater of the completely totally utterly absurd.

-mr. bill

Rollfast

Stay just behind the car at the intersection and flow with traffic that is going forward.

Solved.