I do not live in an Idaho stop state, but I do it regularly.
which is pretty obvious for a vehicle that works largely by maintaining momentum
All vehicles benefit from momentum. Stopping and starting is huge energy suck, except in vehicles with braking recovery systems in which case it’s only a less bad energy inefficiency. Braking energy capture is never 100% efficient.
This logic (“muh momentum!”) can be used by every conveyance to justify rolling through stop signage.
There is a difference between a vehicle you have to power with your own muscles and a vehicle that you power by moving your big toe on the gas pedal. of course they all benefit from momentum, but I’d much rather have to come to a complete stop and then start up again in a car.
No sympathy for the environment, huh?
With drivers decelerating and stopping at lights, then revving up to move quickly when lights go green, peak particle concentration was found to be 29 times higher than that during free-flowing traffic conditions. (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/02/why-traffic-lights-are-pollution-hotspots/)
In a city the size of Atlanta, 269,000 tons of CO2 emissions could be prevented, equivalent to the CO2 absorbed by a forest 3.3 times the size of Atlanta, according to Inrix. (https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135482_poorly-timed-traffic-lights-add-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-here-s-an-estimate-of-how-much)
That latter article is talking about how many tons of CO2 could be reduced just by better optimizing traffic in the city so that fewer cars hit red lights.
No argument, getting rid of cars would have the biggest positive impact, but failing that, optimizing lights for cars, while not helping cyclist safety, would be a much better investment if we want to reduce pollution. Idaho stops for cyclists from the OP post would actually be detrimental to the environment based on the conclusions from the study: that allowing it makes drivers more cautious, implying more full stops, more time idling, and more CO2 produced per car trip.
I was talking from the perspective of the effort involved in a full stop on a bike vs a car. You seem to be taking the position that cyclists doing an Idaho stop will never stop or look around, that it should all be on car drivers to avoid oblivious idiot cyclists who will ride out in front of them without warning. I guarantee you any of those states that have this law will still find the cyclist at fault if they run a red light and get clobbered.
If you want to change the topic and talk about whether I have “sympathy for the environment”, I also drive an EV. I replaced my gas furnace with a heat pump. I ride my bike instead of driving a car for most of my <10mile trips. Having the ability to roll a stop sign or proceed through a red light when it’s clear has nothing to do with any of those things.
Oh sweet, I didn’t realise a 8 thousand pound truck was self propelled. Exactly the same thing, for sure.
It takes less fuel to keep it going than to start it going. What point are you even trying to make?
Stop signs in general aren’t the best solution. So long as we have them though, a rolling stop is the way to go when on two wheels.
They are way overused in northamerica - just pick a priority road and make the other one give way! Or use a mini roundabout.
Here, stop signs are rare enough that they indicate an unusually dangerous location, so you know to be careful.
Just stick in give way signs, bish bash bosh.
I live in a country that doesn’t allow Idaho Stops. In fact, those in charge aren’t even interested in it.
But I use them because I know it’s safer. I also treat red lights at empty intersections like a stop sign, because being forced to wait 10+ minutes for a car to stop so it can change to green is discrimination by design.
I’ll also point out that 99% of DRIVERS are using Idaho Stops, so don’t expect cyclists to oBeY tHe LaW.
Laws of course differ, but I was under the impression that a light can be treated as a stop sign if it is not functioning properly (not changing in a reasonable amount of time). It’s apparently referred to as “dead red”. A cyclist isn’t going to trigger a sensor-driven light, and a sensor sensitive enough would be going off all the time, so it makes sense when all is clear to proceed.
99% of drivers aren’t doing Idaho stops. That implies slowing, looking for traffic, and yielding if there is any. I see a lot of just going through the stop sign or even red light for a turn, half-ass looking as the turn is made, usually with a visible phone in their hand. Lots of close calls. Self-driving cars get a lot of criticism (and they should, to get better) but damn, the humans out there really suck too for different reasons.
I’m North Carolina and a few other states, you must wait for 3 cycles of the light before moving through the red. I got stuck on Monday at a 5 minute red light. So I was there for 15 minutes.
I can sort of understand the 3 logic, but some lights are going to be a problem, like that one. Then there’s the lights that get stuck and there’s no cycle, what then?
Story time. I was heading for work one early morning when there is virtually zero traffic. Waited as usual at a light to get on the highway, and across from me was a dark patrol car. So hell no, I’m not going to try and go through it. So I wait. And wait. It wasn’t terribly long, but it was pretty obvious the light that usually would trigger quickly wasn’t going to change. Kudos to the officer - he recognized that I was stuck in a bad place and wasn’t going to make a move, so he flashed his blue lights just for a sec as a signal that he got it, and I was good to go. I looked for traffic, and went my way.
Laws of course differ, but I was under the impression that a light can be treated as a stop sign if it is not functioning properly (not changing in a reasonable amount of time).
If it’s not working, then yes, everyone is expected to treat it like a stop sign. But I’m talking about lights where they will make you wait BY DESIGN, because they only respond to cars and trucks.
A cyclist isn’t going to trigger a sensor-driven light, and a sensor sensitive enough would be going off all the time, so it makes sense when all is clear to proceed.
Our region has started to put up sensors specifically for cyclists, and they reduce the wait time by a lot. They aren’t meant to change the lights 100x a minute, but are meant to make intersections a bit more balanced.
But these are at 0.01% of the intersections in the region, so it means very little to me. It’s an expensive project for something that the very free Idaho Stop can solve.
99% of drivers aren’t doing Idaho stops. That implies slowing, looking for traffic, and yielding if there is any. I see a lot of just going through the stop sign or even red light for a turn, half-ass looking as the turn is made, usually with a visible phone in their hand.
LOL. Fair play. I see more stop sign and red light runners in motor vehicles than I do cyclists behaving badly.
I once saw a car make a right turn at a red without even slowing down, nearly hitting a crossing pedestrian (an old man). The driver THEN slowed down, but only to yell at the pedestrian… There’s something about being in a metal cage just turns people into lunatics.
The study found that cyclists preferred the Idaho stop method (which is pretty obvious for a vehicle that works largely by maintaining momentum), but also that when drivers received an education about the rolling stop sign law for cyclists, they approached intersections slower than before and created fewer dangerous scenarios for the cyclists.
So the only way it worked was in a closed study where all the drivers were warned cyclists would blow they stop signs without stopping…
Did they even wait a day after telling them? Or did they tell them that, run the experiment, and then claim it’s safer for cyclists to ignore traffic laws?
Even if there’s a short term increase, it won’t take long for drivers to forget that cyclists aren’t going to obey traffic laws.
Is the criticism that they told drivers about how the Idaho stop worked? If the Idaho stop was going to be more widely adopted, it’s a reasonable assumption that there would be a public education campaign so people knew what to expect.
Either way though, it’s a study meant to test a hypothesis and the outcome suggested that Idaho’s approach may be a good one.
If you’re wanting an admission that the study’s results may not hold up under further testing, sure. Admitted. But the study as a first step is pretty reasonable.
Is the criticism that they told drivers about how the Idaho stop worked? If the Idaho stop was going to be more widely adopted, it’s a reasonable assumption that there would be a public education campaign so people knew what to expect.
And that will never get out to everyone…
And while they may remember, how long will they?
Couple days? Couple months?
How long do you think a 60 year old will remember and pay attention to it over 45 years of driving experience?
But the study as a first step is pretty reasonable.
It’s not if the only way it worked was immediately before the test saying “cyclists won’t obey traffic laws”.
Like, there’d have to be an automated message that plays every single time you start a vehicle for this to be applicable…
It’s a traffic law, you can teach it just like any other. It gets added to driving school’s curricula and must be demonstrated in driving tests. You could communicate this law to existing drivers by removing the stop line from bike lanes and putting little bike yield signs, if the intersection warrants it.
