Originally Posted by
myrridin
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.
You completely missed what I said. Activities that can lead to injury aren't mundane. Although they are routine, and it is not true that humans fail at routine tasks. See: The industrial revolution and mass production.
Originally Posted by
myrridin
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).
The impact actually goes beyond that. You have a few main ways to deal with a low traffic stop sign intersection:
1. Come to a complete stop, put your foot down, scan, and go.
2. Slow, scan, and go.
3. Stop, track stand, scan and go.
4. Pretend it's not an intersection and blow through.
Cyclists are likely to do 2 or 3. Excluding the adrenaline junkies that just love to straight up blow the sign and hope for the best, they like #4.
#1 is what you're trained to do in a car for drivers ed. It's nice when stopping requires no more dexterity than putting pressure on a pedal and your regular operating speed is fast enough that scanning the intersection ahead is difficult.
The trouble with putting your foot down, when you've already determined it's safe, is that it's a royal pain in the neck: And that was the level of stop required by Idaho law before this. It's vague elsewhere, and a track stand might stand in court as a stop. The foot down requires:
1. Coming off the saddle to put it down.
2. Putting your foot down
3. Putting the lead pedal back in place.
4. Pushing off and returning to the saddle.
5. Finding the second pedal.
6. Doing the work to get back up to speed.
I think you're right that #6 is pretty much unavoidable for safety. But I can come to the intersection doing 2-8mph, scan it a couple times, and skip steps 1-5 and save myself a few seconds and a fair bit of annoyance. I can especially save myself #7 if I'm in plain clothes:
7. Adjust around until your shorts no longer chafe, like you had them before #1.
Now, #3 follows the law too, but it's harder. I can concentrate on traffic better with a little forward momentum than I can at a full track stand. And if there's traffic coming, okay, foot down and wait. And I have to get out of the saddle, bringing #7 back into play
.
Now this of course all seems silly, pedantic, and minor. But so do the stop signs where this technique helps.
Originally Posted by
myrridin
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.
Boise probably isn't good enough for more urban areas. Of course, the stop sign part has nothing to do with the urban areas (where traffic lights rule). I'm no fan of the traffic light rule, and as was stated in the link I posted: It's about traffic loops not seeing cyclists in suburban areas.
And, as I've said before, I don't see the need for cars either. Who cares if they slow to 2mph or stop fully at an empty intersection. If they scanned and went safely I'm happy!