FBinNY 

There's a proposal to institute the "Idaho Law" in NYC, allowing bicycles to treat red lights as stop signs within the city limits.

We can debate the merits or issues of the law until the cows come home, but the local CBS station is reporting it as a law that would allow bicyclists to ignore the law. That's manifestly inaccurate and biased, since the new law would have to be obeyed just like any other law.

No one would be allowed to ignore a law, just obey a different one. In this way, it's the same as when "right on red" was introduced decades ago. A change, not some special license to ignore the traffic code.

kickstart

There are far more motorists than transportation cyclists. News is an entertainment industry. The Pied Piper follows the rats.

elmore leonard

Pretty dangerous having one set of laws for bikes and another for everyone else. I wouldn't want to ride in a city that did this. If cyclists carried their own no fault accident insurance then maybe it would work as the motorists would not be responsible for any claims from cyclists that don't stop.

CliffordK

What is the traffic like in NYC?

I think the Paris law impacted cyclists in a few very specific ways, allowing riding through a T intersection on a marked bike path, and turning right onto a marked bike path (or possibly roads where they are riding to the right side of the road???)

I'm happy enough to wait for lights, if they have a chance in turning green before Hxxx freezes over. The most common type of light I get stuck at is left hand turns which I've lost a lot of patience for, and will proceed if the coast is very clear, or sometimes if straight has green and turning red, I'll turn anyway if clear.

Some cities and states are putting in great efforts to fix the lights.

My guess is that NYC deemed it cheaper to fix the laws than fix the lights.

Dave Cutter

I can see how what they are saying is justifiable. Bicycles/cyclists would get special privileges under the new law... allowing them to ignore the law that now applies equality to everyone.

DrIsotope

...so what does this fearmongering say for Idaho, where the Idaho Stop has been law since 1982, and has averaged 2 cycling deaths per year? The notion of "everyone should play by the exact same set of rules" is ridiculous. You do realize that a bike is not a car, and vice versa, yes? That's why we have things like bike lanes and MUPs. We share the road with cars, but we are not cars. So we can survive with adjusted laws particular to cyclists.

To the OP, I share your irritation with news coverage of these sorts of stories. The notion that we as cyclists, given any sort of latitude in traffic law, will just be blasting around never stopping for anything ever. Cycling anarchy. But if the news isn't sensational, gotta sensationalize it.

catgita

It has worked very well in Idaho: no jump in statistics, no legal issues, no change in bike hate. It simply recognizes a practical difference.

This being said, Idaho probably has many more stop signs to treat as yield, where NY has more lights to treat as stop signs. Red still means a full stop, and a right of way violation is still a right of way violation.

bakes1

One knucklehead councilman who happens to be an avid cyclist has proposed a bill that even he knows has no chance.
Enjoy it while you can lol.
As always though, I am glad all 16 bicyclists in the fine, bustling state of Idaho are enjoying their law that nobody else on the entire planet has seen fit to adopt since it was introduced many years ago
Not surprisingly, more states feel it is safer to legally smoke pot than blow through a stop sign on a bike.

mr_bill

First of all - a first tem city concilor stepped in it. The resolution as originally submitted:

Having blundered into the issue, the city councilor is trying to walk back the red light as yield, calling the original resolution outdated. Sigh.


Second, this is not the media, or even CBS2 ganging up on people on bicycles.

The storm was started at The New York Post. Now the fine people of New York City have every right to purchase a paper well known for its unfair, biased reporting. But if YOU are going to complain about bad reporting, be a good reporter.


All this over a resolution that has no chance of passing the city council, let alone getting derivative legislation introduced, let alone passing in either the State Assembly or Senate, let alone the governor signing, let alone after all that introducing a follow up resolution changing NYC traffic rules, and let alone passing the city council.

Not gonna happen any time soon.


Let's be clear - The Washington Post and the New York Times are newspapers. The New York Post and the Washington Times are not.

But if you chose the accurate topic title "The New York Post! Unfair, biased reporting," well "The New York Post! Duh!"


What are you gonna do about that? Ban the Post?

-mr. bill

slimyfrog

They tried something similar for stop signs in SF. Did not pass. But now I'm curious as to how it's working out in Idaho...
San Francisco Ordinance Would Allow Rolling Bicycle Stops « CBS San Francisco

I-Like-To-Bike

Third, THIS is A&S, where there is a long tradition of whining and ranting about fairy dust resolutions/proposals and all associated loony tune reporting, Internet based comments, letters to the editor, and shock radio jock jabbering about same.

FBinNY 

I don't think I reported sloppily. I simply stated that CBS-TV reported the story that way, which is 100% accurate. CBS never said it was a second hand story picked up from the Post or wire services, which is common enough. BUT they reported the story which means they own it regardless of where they found it.

In any case, my post here wasn't about the law per se, it was about how it was reported and characterized on broadcast news. OTOH- it wasn't about accuracy or bias in media in general, since that's a separate issue altogether and would belong in P&R.

qajaq

FBinNY, I saw that on the CBS News and you're right. Shabby, inaccurate reporting, stating the proposal wold permit bicyclists to "ignore the law". Forget the viability or the logic or safety implications of the proposal, CBS is guilty of either biased or inept reporting. Possibly both. Having said that I treat most stop signs as yield signs and some red lights as stop signs, especially those that are traffic actuated.

AngeloDolce

That's one of the ley questions here.

I ride in New York occasionally, and it looks to me like virtually all of the lights in Manhattan and a substantial portion of the lights in Brooklyn are on timers. They don't respond to cars or bicycles, and bicyclists don't get stuck at lights that won't change.

My experience is that the more urban cities (New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore) primarily have lights on timers, so expanding existing laws for defective lights or Idaho reds are not an urgent issue.

The suburban areas tend to have traffic detectors. Most detect bicycles, but a substantial portion do not. I find it's in the areas where the lights are least likely to work that they are most opposed to fixing the law. I believe the same laws that apply to motorists at defective signals would apply to bicyclists; fortunately I have not had to test this with police or judges.

AlmostTrick

Correct. Laws can and do change.

Bikes and cars already have some different laws that make sense. The Idaho rule would only be a logical extension of what already exists.

Dave Cutter

As I understood the OP... this thread isn't about the merits of an Idaho rule.... it's about "bias reporting".

indyfabz

[QUOTE=Dave Cutter;18346730]When one takes advantage of the legalization of a behavior that was once illegal one is not ignoring any law. People smoking recreational pot in CO are not ignoring any anti pot laws. Their behavior is now legal.

Some motorists may be jealous, angry, etc., if it becomes legal for a cyclist to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, but making such behavior legal will not allow a cyclist to ignore any law as terms hae meaning. And there are countless instances in society where groups get "special privileges" via laws. Can't wait until I am eligible for free rides on the bus.

And I am sure meth heads and heroine addicts in CO are pissed that they cannot get high legally. Life hurts. Get a helmet and HTFU.

lostarchitect 

You're kidding, right? There are all kinds of different laws applying to all kinds of different things (even types of traffic) differently. If that wasn't the case, bikes would be allowed on freeways and everyone, not just motorcyclists, would be required to wear a helmet. And speaking of motorcycles, when's the last time you saw one with a seatbelt?

bakes1

IMO it is pretty obvious that the real reason nobody else has seen fit to adopt the Idaho Stop is that most clear headed and unbiased people understand that a large % of cyclists would use it as an excuse to regularly blow stop signs and just slow down for red lights and that is not what is intended. The tiny amount of data from only one small population state is of no factor at all.
As it is right now there are too many knucklehead cyclists that think they can regularly take the lane even with enough room to ride on the right for no other reason than they are riding in a group.

Dave Cutter

So you content that federal agents (employees) living in CO can now "legally" smoke pot.... because state law allows what the federal law prohibits? An interesting idea. But a bit off subject.

Any local or state law can be changed.... giving the effect of allowing previous laws to be ignored. Please note "ignore" is NOT a legal term.

Dave Cutter

Wait! Do you mean cyclists are actually expected to stop/pause (whatever) at signs and lights like the car-people do? I obey most laws most of the time (particularly when driving a car). But I honestly could not care less about mere traffic laws when cycling. I am sure there MUST be some cyclists out there obeying traffic laws.... but I've never met any.

I-Like-To-Bike

I've never seen it either, except on the electronic pages of BF.

Dave Cutter

No... I didn't.... I merely stated [that I could] see how what they (the media) are saying is justifiable.

Personally I have mixed feelings about the "Idaho rule" . As far as laws go... I think we'd all be better off if instead of making new laws... we abandoned about 9 out of every 10 laws on the books. Heck... if the "Idaho rule" works and is safe for cyclist... why punish busses, trucks, and motorist.... by denying them that same law?

AlmostTrick

Wait... I thought this thread was about bias reporting?

mr_bill

*NEVER*? Not even once seen a cyclist obey a traffic law? Fascinating.

-mr. bill