Advocacy & Safety - "Idaho Stop" infomercial

"Idaho Stop" infomercial (http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=4140910&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1) prepared, it would seem, as a marketing piece to inform the citizens / cyclists and legislators of Oregon.

Nicely presented; this format would be good for a cycling safety DVD/CD which could be handed out to new riders, or given to new bike purchasers (hey, bike manufacturers, you could even put the owner's manual / service manual on DVD...)

[pick the link off of the next message down - for some reason mine (taken from the video as it is running) doesn't work]

http://www.vimeo.com/4140910 Correct link


Cool video

Couldn't get it to view. Something loaded, screen blank.

Very good video.

Another page with a link to the animated Idaho Stop video:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2429-DC-Bicycle-Transportation-Examiner~y2009m4d17-In-defense-of-the-rolling-stop

Cool -- a pretty neutral video without any grandstanding or anti-motorist rhetoric.

I appreciate the focus on efficiency, but I also think it's safer. As I posted in another thread today --


In another thread, I posted that I'll roll through stop signs or cross on red when it's safe -- not because it gives me a time advantage, but because it puts me through the intersection separately from motor vehicles. That actually makes it safer than trying to do the same thing as cars and trucks.

I hadn't realized it until after riding in Germany where they not only have separate lanes for bikes but also separate traffic signals. Sometimes, bikes and peds go at the same time, but sometimes even they're separate, so a big intersection might have three different light cycles for each approach route. The result is that nobody's competing for the same space. I can ride among busy traffic here, but I don't have to do it there.

So why do it on a bike and not in my car? Partly because I'd be ticketed while in the car, but also because I can see better from the bike (no A-pillar to get in the way), it's narrower, and it's a lot shorter, meaning that I don't intrude as far into an intersection if I have to slow down and creep to look.

Very cool video... great at illustrating both the need and safety of the situation.

:thumb: I hope Oregon adopts this law.

I like the clear distinction between rolling stops and blowing the intersection.

Very good video and very good proposed law. Should be good in other states as well.
dc

My 2 cents as an Idaho cyclist.

The Idaho cycling stop law allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, as long as the cyclist does not violate another vehicle’s right-of-way; and a red light as a stop sign, again as long as the cyclist does not violate another vehicle’s right of way. One weakness of this statute is that the vast majority of motorists are unaware of it. When they see a cyclist roll through a stop sign, or stop and proceed through a red light, their opinion of cyclists as renegade outlaws is re-inforced.

My biggest contribution to cycling advocacy is to be out on my bike day in and day out, trying to earn some respect by showing motorists that there are cyclists who follow the vehicular rules of the road. So I tend to follow this law with a bit of discretion, taking advantage of it in the wee hours of my morning commute, when traffic is sparce, but not on the way home, when traffic is much more dense.

If I had my way, I would repeal this law in Idaho. Though I suppose my taking advantage of it does make me a bit of a hypocrite.

I got the video to work on a different computer.

That guy did an excellent job -- clean, easy to follow, practical, not dogmatic, and ... persuasive. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

I like the clear distinction between rolling stops and blowing the intersection.

And the increased fine for blowing stop signs. That'll appeal to at least a few of the anti-cyclists out there.