Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Lobbying for Idaho stop law in Ontario

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Lobbying for Idaho stop law in Ontario

Old 05-26-15, 01:01 PM
  #26  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Afdica
There is no comparison: In large Metropolitan areas........Boise Idaho is not the size of Toronto Ontario nor does it behave like Toronto. To make this work, Ontario will have to still think through the whole process. There has to be some sort of cultural shift in thinking. If this is such a great solution, then why haven't other large US cities done this, like New York, Boston Chicago...........or maybe even where you live in San Diego?
It has to be done on a state wide level... lest it cause confusion... and frankly it IS done in other large cities... by cyclists, who are doing so unlawfully... due to the laws being written largely for the automotive crowd.
genec is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 01:03 PM
  #27  
noisebeam
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times in 1,288 Posts
Originally Posted by gpburdell
How is anyone cutting off someone else unless they're in the wrong lane to begin with?
often there is only one lane leading up to a stop sign.
noisebeam is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 01:04 PM
  #28  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by gpburdell
How is anyone cutting off someone else unless they're in the wrong lane to begin with?
Cyclists going straight from a bike lane on the right of MV traffic that is turning right. Technically the MV traffic should merge into the right turn lane with cyclists... but few motorists seem know this.
genec is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 02:18 PM
  #29  
prathmann
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Afdica
There is no comparison: In large Metropolitan areas........Boise Idaho is not the size of Toronto Ontario nor does it behave like Toronto. To make this work, Ontario will have to still think through the whole process. There has to be some sort of cultural shift in thinking. If this is such a great solution, then why haven't other large US cities done this, like New York, Boston Chicago...........or maybe even where you live in San Diego?
It really doesn't matter how big the metropolitan area population is since traffic safety only depends on the other traffic in your immediate vicinity. Busy intersections in Boise look and operate just the same as busy intersections in NYC, SF, or Toronto. And there's hardly much need for a "cultural shift" since the 'Idaho rules' are already being practiced by a majority of cyclists with regard to Stop signs and by a substantial portion with regard to traffic lights as well. The only difference is that motorists would no longer have a legitimate reason to get mad at such cyclists and the cyclists could stop worrying about getting traffic tickets (i.e. could focus more on traffic dangers and less on looking around for police officers).

As to why the 'Idaho rules' haven't been widely adopted I'd guess it's mainly that bicyclists are such a small proportion of the traffic mix that there's no great political motivation to cater to law changes that only benefit a tiny minority - especially when you already have quite a few motorists who feel bicyclists are 'getting away with something' by not being subject to licensing/registration laws. Just because something is a good idea and would be beneficial doesn't mean it'll be enacted into law unless there's a strong political pressure pushing for it.
prathmann is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 02:37 PM
  #30  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by prathmann
It really doesn't matter how big the metropolitan area population is since traffic safety only depends on the other traffic in your immediate vicinity. Busy intersections in Boise look and operate just the same as busy intersections in NYC, SF, or Toronto. And there's hardly much need for a "cultural shift" since the 'Idaho rules' are already being practiced by a majority of cyclists with regard to Stop signs and by a substantial portion with regard to traffic lights as well. The only difference is that motorists would no longer have a legitimate reason to get mad at such cyclists and the cyclists could stop worrying about getting traffic tickets (i.e. could focus more on traffic dangers and less on looking around for police officers).

As to why the 'Idaho rules' haven't been widely adopted I'd guess it's mainly that bicyclists are such a small proportion of the traffic mix that there's no great political motivation to cater to law changes that only benefit a tiny minority - especially when you already have quite a few motorists who feel bicyclists are 'getting away with something' by not being subject to licensing/registration laws. Just because something is a good idea and would be beneficial doesn't mean it'll be enacted into law unless there's a strong political pressure pushing for it.
I tend to agree... however I'd like to throw this little tidbit out there... as a way to encourage both more cycling and to get lawmakers to enact such laws... the "green thing."

Laws were passed in the 70's for right turn on red due to a supposed desire to reduce the waste of fuel... bicycling is the ultimate reduction in fuel use, so based on that, and car pool lanes and anything else done "to be more green...," cyclists should have laws that favor them in a similar manner as laws have been made to favor motorists... and the Idaho stop laws are just that law... a law that favors cyclists... in the name of green.
genec is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 03:17 PM
  #31  
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Afdica
That's the problem.............inconsistency in people's individual judgement.
Do you have any evidence of this so-called problem? Or perhaps you are simply uninformed of the 40 year history in a state that neighbors mine.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 03:23 PM
  #32  
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by prathmann
The only difference is that motorists would no longer have a legitimate reason to get mad at such cyclists and the cyclists could stop worrying about getting traffic tickets (i.e. could focus more on traffic dangers and less on looking around for police officers).
Except that Idaho (and Colorado) motorists still get mad at cyclists. Motorist tantrums about bike scofflaws are not genuine...they are just histrionics and the best approach is to deflect and ignore. Taking this kind of nonsense seriously only harms cycling advocacy.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 04:09 PM
  #33  
prathmann
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
Except that Idaho (and Colorado) motorists still get mad at cyclists. Motorist tantrums about bike scofflaws are not genuine...they are just histrionics and the best approach is to deflect and ignore.
Agreed, but when the cyclists' actions are safe but technically in violation of the official vehicle codes it gives those tantrums about bike scofflaws a legitimacy that they would no longer have if the 'Idaho rules' were adopted. Much easier to 'deflect and ignore' if one could point to the official vehicle codes and show that the cyclists are in compliance with them.
prathmann is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 05:22 PM
  #34  
noisebeam
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times in 1,288 Posts
As a priority I'd much rather see elimination of unwarranted stops starting with 4-way stops that were intended as traffic calming.
https://ma-northampton.civicplus.com/...nter/View/1060
noisebeam is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 07:15 PM
  #35  
asmac
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
asmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,261

Bikes: Salsa Vaya

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by noisebeam
what about the straight thru and left turning cyclists and motorists? why is it OK to cut them off?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't cut anyone off intentionally and suggest you don't either.
asmac is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 08:53 PM
  #36  
raymond1354
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by CB HI
Even though there is only a small amount of data, what is dumb is refusing to look at that data that shows Idaho stops improve cyclist safety, and instead, just sticking with your own superstitions and mislabeling of 'blowing' the stop.
I took your suggestion and tried to look this up. The only "study" that I could find easily is that done by Meggs and I found other variations of the same report. I tried Pub Med and the Journal of Safety Research.

The Meggs study is more of an epidemiological report looking at crashes and cyclist fatalities. Meggs showed quite convincingly to me that it is safer to cycle in Boise where they have the law than in Sacremento where they don't. He matched the 2 cities and found them similar so used them for comparison. He also looked at Bakersville and found the same thing.

The problem with such studies is "cause and effect". While I'm pretty sure it's safer to cycle in Boise, I'm not sure the reason why is the "Idaho law". This isn't addressed in this data, they have simply found it is safer; an observation. So what is required is ancillary evidence which is supportive (ex., for headphone use there is some suggestion from pedestrian fatalities, a European thing and a well done study showing that reaction times of cyclists listening to music and wearing headphones are longer). Unfortunately I did not find anything similar for the "Idaho stop".

But the above doesn't mean the "Idaho stop" wasn't a factor in improved cyclist safety either - it could have been, we just don't know what the factors are. I also wandered around and looked up all kinds of things in the world of safety. I came to think that there is a real shortfall of hard numbers out there for all kinds of things - like even stop signs. So I have to rely on common sense and common sense tells me it's safer to cycle in Boise, so maybe there is something to the "Idaho stop". Common sense also tells me it may not work everywhere or in all situations, but the concept is worth discussing.

Hope this helps, but I don't think I've cleared anything up.

r
raymond1354 is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 09:04 PM
  #37  
Afdica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
Do you have any evidence of this so-called problem? Or perhaps you are simply uninformed of the 40 year history in a state that neighbors mine.
What evidence are you looking for?? All I'm suggesting is that each cyclist will behave differently at stop signs or stop lights and as such pose a risk that a motorist is not anticipating the same behavior form all cyclists. I'm not suggesting it is wrong or right. As a cyclist, do you want to be right or do you want to be alive??

Last edited by Afdica; 05-26-15 at 09:20 PM.
Afdica is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 09:32 PM
  #38  
asmac
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
asmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,261

Bikes: Salsa Vaya

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Afdica
What evidence are you looking for?? All I'm suggesting is that each cyclist will behave differently at stop signs or stop lights and as such pose a risk that a motorist is not anticipating the same behavior form all cyclists. I'm not suggesting it is wrong or right. As a cyclist, do you want to be right or do you want to be alive??
I vote for alive so I can enjoy being right.

Are you suggesting that all cyclists behave the same way now and legalizing existing behaviour will change this?
asmac is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 09:38 PM
  #39  
Afdica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by asmac
I vote for alive so I can enjoy being right.

Are you suggesting that all cyclists behave the same way now and legalizing existing behaviour will change this?
No. I believe the original discussion was about inconsistency of individual judgement and how cyclists may behave differently and thereby place themselves at risk because motorists tend to see things black or white.
Afdica is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 09:47 PM
  #40  
FBinNY 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,544

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Mentioned: 139 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5703 Post(s)
Liked 2,425 Times in 1,341 Posts
I'm in favor of the concept of the Idaho Stop law, and have basically been operating as if it were law here in New York for 50 years. So I'm totally ambivalent about changing what already works well.

The reality is that police here (not necessarily within the NYC limits) have generally operated under a "no harm - no foul" rule as it comes to bikes, and only enforcing the stop sign law in egregious cases. The same applies to red lights, where I'll stop for cross traffic, or if there's a police car around, whereupon the officers will ask me why I'm waiting when the way is clear.

So, following Lincoln's train of thought, there's no need to change our stop sign laws (as regards bicycles) since they're not enforced strictly anyway.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 11:09 PM
  #41  
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Afdica
What evidence are you looking for??
I'm quite satisfied by the long history of safety associated with the Idaho stop (in rural areas and cities) so it's up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.

:crickets:
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 05-26-15, 11:16 PM
  #42  
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by FBinNY
I'm in favor of the concept of the Idaho Stop law, and have basically been operating as if it were law here in New York for 50 years. So I'm totally ambivalent about changing what already works well.

The reality is that police here (not necessarily within the NYC limits) have generally operated under a "no harm - no foul" rule as it comes to bikes, and only enforcing the stop sign law in egregious cases. The same applies to red lights, where I'll stop for cross traffic, or if there's a police car around, whereupon the officers will ask me why I'm waiting when the way is clear.

So, following Lincoln's train of thought, there's no need to change our stop sign laws (as regards bicycles) since they're not enforced strictly anyway.
if they aren't enforced then there should be little resistance to changing the law. right??? oh...wait a sec.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 05-27-15, 05:36 AM
  #43  
gpburdell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Georgia
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Liked 196 Times in 130 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Cyclists going straight from a bike lane on the right of MV traffic that is turning right. Technically the MV traffic should merge into the right turn lane with cyclists... but few motorists seem know this.
Okay, thanks for the explanation. Seems though that the MV driver is in error in this example though not the cyclist? That said, the wise cyclist in a bike lane when overtaking a MV at a stop with its turn signal on would "wait his or her turn" depending on where in the line-up the right-turning MV was.

In my area most bike lanes I'm familiar with are on busier roads without stop signs and typically have turning lanes with the bike lane splitting the straight-ahead & right-turn lanes.

Last edited by gpburdell; 05-27-15 at 05:42 AM.
gpburdell is offline  
Old 05-27-15, 05:50 AM
  #44  
gpburdell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Georgia
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Liked 196 Times in 130 Posts
Originally Posted by Afdica
No. I believe the original discussion was about inconsistency of individual judgement and how cyclists may behave differently and thereby place themselves at risk because motorists tend to see things black or white.

Please describe this inconsistency of individual judgement and how you see it playing out to be a problem. If the law if the law allows cyclists to treat a stopsign as a yeild, it seems pretty clear how that's handled; cyclist yeilds right of way to any other vehicle at or entering the intersection. I'm not seeing where there would be confusion, so please explain.


If the confusion you're concerned with is due to drivers not being aware of the law that's a communications/education issue and nothing inherently wrong with the law itself.
gpburdell is offline  
Old 05-27-15, 05:56 AM
  #45  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,529
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2111 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times in 443 Posts
Originally Posted by gpburdell
Please describe this inconsistency of individual judgement and how you see it playing out to be a problem. If the law if the law allows cyclists to treat a stopsign as a yeild, it seems pretty clear how that's handled; cyclist yeilds right of way to any other vehicle at or entering the intersection. I'm not seeing where there would be confusion, so please explain.

....
And what *else* are we supposed to yield to? Do I need to walk you through the answer?

-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Old 05-27-15, 06:12 AM
  #46  
asmac
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
asmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,261

Bikes: Salsa Vaya

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by mr_bill
And what *else* are we supposed to yield to? Do I need to walk you through the answer?

-mr. bill
Please do...
asmac is offline  
Old 05-27-15, 06:30 AM
  #47  
Afdica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
I'm quite satisfied by the long history of safety associated with the Idaho stop (in rural areas and cities) so it's up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.

:crickets:
Don't cherry pick my quotes and pull them out of context. Read the rest of it. There were no arguments being made for or against. Only observations.

I can see you are the argumentative type and like to stir the pot.
Afdica is offline  
Old 05-27-15, 06:30 AM
  #48  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by raymond1354
I took your suggestion and tried to look this up. The only "study" that I could find easily is that done by Meggs and I found other variations of the same report. I tried Pub Med and the Journal of Safety Research.

r
There was also a before and after study within Idaho. I read that one many years ago, and maybe can find it again. It has been referenced here in BFs before, but finding old post here is often impossible (and was even likely before the data crashes).
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 05-27-15, 06:33 AM
  #49  
gpburdell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Georgia
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Liked 196 Times in 130 Posts
Originally Posted by mr_bill
And what *else* are we supposed to yield to? Do I need to walk you through the answer?
I'm not going to play Twenty Questions with you, so if you have something constructive to contribute please do so.
gpburdell is offline  
Old 05-27-15, 06:47 AM
  #50  
Dave Cutter
Senior Member
 
Dave Cutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: D'uh... I am a Cutter
Posts: 6,159

Bikes: '17 Access Old Turnpike Gravel bike, '14 Trek 1.1, '13 Cannondale CAAD 10, '98 CAD 2, R300

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1571 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 9 Posts
I can't believe anyone would care what the traffic laws are. Where in any English-speaking city.... are traffic laws actually enforced? Local cops everywhere [I've been] have their hands full with more serious crime. All traffic laws (as far as cyclists are concerned).... are merely suggestions. You have a much better chance of winning the lottery than getting ticketed while riding a bicycle.
Dave Cutter is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.