Originally Posted by
crhilton
Cyclists have a bit more incentive to pay attention in these intersections. A collision between two low speed motor vehicles is just expensive and might mean whiplash. The same collision involving two cyclists, or a cyclist and a car is likely to result in injury and maybe death for the cyclist.
Congestion is a moot issue. If there's congestion at the intersection the law is meaningless: There will be someone to yield to. This is an issue on low traffic streets that are often littered with needless stop signs that cyclists ride to avoid the collectors.
Again, incentive has little to do with it. There is a natural human tendency to loose focus when performing routine/mundane activities. Add in external distractions and you have a recipe for collisions.
The bottom line is that allowing cyclists to proceed through stop lights/stop signs has no benefit beyond a small increase in average speed (since they would only need to slow down). Allowing such a small increase is no reason to change a law that is designed to regulate safe flow of all vehicles... And using such a benefit as a reason is a slippery slope, since that is essentially the same argument motorists make for removing cyclists from the very same roads. The rules and regulations are not their for the
convenience of the road users but for their (collective) safety.
Also, accident data in Idaho is neither statistically valid nor causative when trying to extrapolate the effect of such a law in more urbanized areas of the country. Further, since local communities/officers have discretion they can continue to overlook cyclists violations of the existing law when it is clear to them that no compromise of safety has occurred.