Originally Posted by
welshTerrier2
I'm not buying this at all. First of all, why is everyone in such a hurry? If an intersection warrants a stop sign, then just stop.
it has been noted by several visitors to the US from the UK that we tend to overdo the stop sign thing... thus, a particular intersection may not actually "warrant a stop." But along those lines of thinking... if a stop is "warranted" why is it that we permit wide motor vehicles to make a choice to then proceed to make a right turn from said stops?
Originally Posted by
welshTerrier2
We already have enough highway deaths every year. Most bike-car crashes occur at intersections and now we're going to make it worse? There are way too many intersections where you can't see far enough left or right to just roll through safely. I'd rather set a hard and fast stopping rule and then allow a little flexibility in enforcement. I mean, if you're rolling through a stop sign at like 3 feet per second, that's usually fine. But when you start programming into people's heads that the priority is to maintain momentum so that they can pad their stats, you're asking for more accidents. The priority should be to come to a complete stop or very, very close to one. The argument that maintaining momentum makes you safer is only true if there's a vehicle coming from a cross street and you're going to race it through the intersection. If that's the case, it's safer to stop and wait.
And yes... a slow rolling stop is the ideal situation... and even that preserves momentum.
Originally Posted by
welshTerrier2
And where does the "if it's safe" argument end? Why not allow cars the same flexibility? If it's ok for a cyclist to buzz through a stop sign, if they think it's safe, why not allow the same for cars? In fact, why not allow cars to buzz through at 40 mph if they can see left and right clearly and decide there's no danger?
If they can see clearly right and left far enough down the road to make such decisions... then why does a stop exist there? Certainly cyclists are rarely traveling at those speeds... and in fact the mass of a cyclist and bike is so low that said cyclist and bike is almost guaranteed to be at the poor end of any vehicle/bike collision... thus a cyclist is vastly more motivated to ensure their way is clear. The mass of a car however is such that they become a hazard to anything they hit, including other cars.
Originally Posted by
welshTerrier2
Just because some cyclists may be skilled enough to make split-second judgments at intersections doesn't mean most cyclists can do so safely. The law should be designed for the safety of all road users and not just some of the so-above-average cyclists we have here on BF.