Originally Posted by
wphamilton
I think it's only Idaho currently, but if it's true that most cyclists are adopting the "Idaho Stop" it's only a matter of time. Objectively, it may in fact be safer by virtue of spending less time in the intersection.
I can and have argued the other side, that it's better to come to a full stop every time because pedestrians have a right to expect the stop, and with that expectation will confidently walk out in front of a rider without any warning signs. You can't always see them, and they may assume you're stopping. It is after all the law. But that argument fails if rolling stop (or Idaho stop) is common and expected. And, of course, an emergency stop from 5 mph or even 10 mph doesn't put the pedestrian in that much danger.
I think it's situational and clearly there is room for discretion on the part of the cyclist. It seems a little pointless to come to a complete stop at a red light (for instance) in which there is little traffic and no one in the turn lane, for the cyclist to dismount, walk across in the cross walk, and then cycle away when they could have done pretty much the exact same thing moving very slowly but on the bike.
I've been talking with some legislators on a slow burn/long time basis and there is interest in this. It's pretty common sense approach, and it's what is happening pretty much anyhow. Changing the law would therefore have little to no impact on accident rates - which are already pretty low.
I live in a rural suburb. In this sort of a circumstance, it *only* makes sense. There are no pedestrians to "pop" out from behind bushes or other objects. The only point of stop signs and traffic lights is traffic control not pedestrian access. So, I have to admit, I address lights and stop signs on my bike in a "common sense" approach. I'm not going to sit stopped at a light when there are no cars around, I'm going to proceed slowly and run the light. But, in no case, would I blast through the intersection.
J.