Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest

For almost 30 years, cyclists in Idaho have been able to "downgrade" some traffic signals. Red lights are treated as stop signs, and stop signs as yields. People on bikes still have to stop and wait when other traffic has the right of way, and can't "blow through" intersections, but when it's safe to proceed, they can't be ticketed for it, either.

This has apparently made the roads safer, and increased ridership - common goals among bike advocates.

Idaho's law recognizes inescapable facts, like that my 19 pound bike moving at 22 mph is less dangerous than my 2,700 car moving at 45 mph, nor do I have airbags. Cyclists tend to be much more aware of a situation, partly because more data reaches our eyes and ears. We're better at avoiding collisions, thanks in part to our size and agility. ( Short wheel bases are nice! )

Of course, this is the de facto understanding outside of Idaho now. The law there made it onto the books, thanks to judges who didn't want courts clogged with anything so petty. In the other 49 states, police rarely enforce traffic laws for cyclists (or motorists, it seems!). Since there isn't a problem with cyclists being ticketed for this, it hasn't seemed worth anybody's time to advocate for a change in the law. If rolling stops through empty intersections were legal, though, it would the #1 (by a landslide) driver complain about scofflaw cyclists running signs would be null and void.

Several other states have tried to pass similar laws, and failed. I think this is a goal worth advocating for.