Originally Posted by danarnold

In the excellent Robert Hurst article Randya cites, Hurst also goes on to make a good argument for the Idaho Stop sign ordinance.

'What they seemed to be asking me is this: How can we gain Equality With Cars if we're granted superior freedoms to drivers? It does present a dilemma.

Each of these arguments against the Idaho Stop carried a familiar tone. Going back to the high-wheeler era, there has been a certain type of bicyclist -- lately a member of one of the groups above -- who assumes the mantle of victimhood and often expresses a desire for 'equality' on the streets. Victimhood is their default condition. This is strange because bicyclists already enjoy superior legal freedom of movement in addition to the widely accepted non-legal freedoms.'

With the exception of FRAP, we cyclists have many legal freedoms that cars do not. We can ride on sidewalks, the shoulder, a bike lane, a multi use path, but we do not have to use the shoulder or the bike lane. The Idaho law merely codifies reasonable and responsible cyclist behavior, and is arguably the law already in Washington State, under their 'by nature' provision.* I certainly don't feel 'victimized' or 'marginalized' by the SMV turnout law in Washington. It merely codifies courteous behavior and places no burden on the cyclist that is not also on motorized traffic.

*This is admittedly a stretch, has to my knowledge never been tested in Washington, and I only recommend arguing it if you must.