Originally Posted by
cyccommute
Unfortunately, most of the people that I see running stop signs and stoplights in my area aren't proceeding with caution. Some...if not most...are doing those things at speed without much regard for the on-coming traffic. This Saturday, I saw a woman bluff her way across a 4 lane arterial simply by pulling out in front of the traffic and daring them to hit her. This kind of maneuver, as well as running lights and signs, isn't just putting the cyclist at risk. A driver that has to stop for a cyclist running a light or sign risks being rear ended by another motorist. If they have to swerve to avoid the cyclist, they can swerve into other vehicles. I see plenty of close calls.
These people aren't doing it correctly. The "Idaho stop" seems to works when done correctly. The question is whether the existence of an "Idaho stop" law increases the frequency of incorrect execution. The experience in Idaho appears to indicate that it does not (
in Idaho). (Note that Idaho's experience might not be reproduced in other places.)
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
This point brings up another part of the 'Idaho stop' issue outside of Idaho. One individual running a sign may not cause a problem.
If they are doing it correctly, they aren't "running a sign" (ignoring the legal issue). The word "running" implies "recklessness", which doesn't characterize "doing it correctly".
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
Two may not but motorists start to disrespect all bicyclists...even those that follow the law as close to the letter as possible. They may take...and have taken...their rage out on the innocent. How many times have you had a conversation with some one who states 'all bicyclists are law breakers!'. I'm not but I get tarred with the same brush.
In my opinion, most drivers in most places expect cyclists to behave "erratically". They don't have a good sense of what the behavior of a reasonable/skillful cyclist is going to be. The "not stopping" reinforces this.