Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Mionske argues Idaho Stop is safer

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Mionske argues Idaho Stop is safer

Old 05-25-15, 11:32 AM
  #1  
spare_wheel
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Mionske argues Idaho Stop is safer

Legally Speaking with Bob Mionske: The Idaho stop - VeloNews.com

The Idaho stop, also known as “stop as yield,” allows cyclists approaching a stop sign when the intersection is clear to roll through at a safe speed — just like they would at a yield sign. But is it safe?I argue it is safer. The law allows cyclists to maintain momentum, and from the open-air position of a bike, they can safely determine if there is other traffic and proceed when — and if — it is clear. If there are other road users at the intersection (cyclists, motorists, or pedestrians) when they arrive, they are still required to come to a complete stop and wait their turn.
And...YES...I know this is the 185th time we've discussed the Idaho Stop but I think that a well-known bike columnist (and bike lawyer) arguing that the the Idaho Stop is SAFER is a new development.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 11:40 AM
  #2  
dynodonn
Banned
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,466
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
If a cyclist slows to near a walking pace speed when performing an Idaho stop, I'm fine with that, but many cyclists, that I have observed locally, barely apply their brakes, and travel past a stop sign at 15 to 20 mph.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 11:47 AM
  #3  
gear64
Senior Member
 
gear64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: STL Missouri
Posts: 473

Bikes: State Black Label All Road, Univega Gran Premio, Lotus Classique, Terranaut Metro

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked 94 Times in 62 Posts
Originally Posted by dynodonn View Post
If a cyclist slows to near a walking pace speed when performing an Idaho stop, I'm fine with that, but many cyclists, that I have observed locally, barely apply their brakes, and travel past a stop sign at 15 to 20 mph.
+1 - Another move I've seen lately is the right on red, u turn after about 20 ft, right on green to circumvent a red light.
gear64 is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 11:52 AM
  #4  
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
If they can see far enough at 15 to 20 mph to be safe, then why would it matter if they choose to cross at that speed?

Even Oregon changed its law to allow cyclists who are crossing in a crosswalk to travel at a safe speed; previously they were required to ride at a walking pace.
B. Carfree is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 11:59 AM
  #5  
dynodonn
Banned
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,466
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
If they can see far enough at 15 to 20 mph to be safe, then why would it matter if they choose to cross at that speed?

Even Oregon changed its law to allow cyclists who are crossing in a crosswalk to travel at a safe speed; previously they were required to ride at a walking pace.
Brakes on many bicycles at 15 to 20 mph are not nearly as effective as at or near walking speed, best to err towards the side of caution, and traveling at a safe speed does not necessarily mean at 15 to 20 mph, especially when there is an intersection with a stop sign being involved.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 12:21 PM
  #6  
lostarchitect 
incazzare.
 
lostarchitect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Catskills/Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 6,974

Bikes: See sig

Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked 47 Times in 30 Posts
Originally Posted by dynodonn View Post
If a cyclist slows to near a walking pace speed when performing an Idaho stop, I'm fine with that, but many cyclists, that I have observed locally, barely apply their brakes, and travel past a stop sign at 15 to 20 mph.
I suspect you're estimating those speeds very high.
__________________
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
lostarchitect is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 12:26 PM
  #7  
dynodonn
Banned
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,466
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
Originally Posted by lostarchitect View Post
I suspect you're estimating those speeds very high.
Not really, I've followed many of those cyclists with either with my car or bicycle, both have speedometers.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 12:41 PM
  #8  
welshTerrier2
Senior Member
 
welshTerrier2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 245
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.

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 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?

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.

Last edited by welshTerrier2; 05-25-15 at 12:47 PM.
welshTerrier2 is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 01:33 PM
  #9  
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058

Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by welshTerrier2 View Post
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.

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 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?

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.
Chris516 is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 02:21 PM
  #10  
spare_wheel
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by gear64 View Post
+1 - Another move I've seen lately is the right on red, u turn after about 20 ft, right on green to circumvent a red light.

The Idaho stop allows cyclists to circumvent red lights legally.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 02:24 PM
  #11  
spare_wheel
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by welshTerrier2 View Post
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.
If 40 years of evidence in Idaho (and multiple years in Colorado cities) is not enough then I suspect you are simply ideologically opposed to what is the de facto practice of most cyclists -- rolling stop signs.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 02:28 PM
  #12  
spare_wheel
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
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?
It always amuses to see people equate a multi-ton ICE-powered machine that people DRIVE to a light-weight human-powered accessory that human beings RIDE. Moreover, as Idaho, multiple cities in Colorado, and large swathes of France show the Idaho Stop is demonstrably safe and does not result in discernable issues for motorists or law enforcement.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 02:35 PM
  #13  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,049

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12823 Post(s)
Liked 4,072 Times in 2,815 Posts
Originally Posted by welshTerrier2 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post

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 View Post
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.
genec is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 02:36 PM
  #14  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,049

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12823 Post(s)
Liked 4,072 Times in 2,815 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
The Idaho stop allows cyclists to circumvent red lights legally.
You are still required to stop for a stop light... you then proceed through at your own judgement. Stop signs become yield signs.
genec is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 04:29 PM
  #15  
willtf
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 34

Bikes: 2002 Trek 1000 (5800), 2012 SE Lager, 2006 Kona Jake

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
Even Oregon changed its law to allow cyclists who are crossing in a crosswalk to travel at a safe speed; previously they were required to ride at a walking pace.
When did this happen? I've been following the walking-speed rule. And I can't find anything that corroborates that.
From Pedal Power (2012):
Bicycle advocates like the BTA have been unsuccessful for over ten years in convincing the legislature that the law should be changed to allow bicyclists to proceed at a “reasonably safe speed” in approaching a crosswalk without losing the right-of-way.
ORS 814.410 (ORS 814.410 - Unsafe operation of bicycle on sidewalk - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes):
(1) A person commits the offense of unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk if the person does any of the following:
(d) Operates the bicycle at a speed greater than an ordinary walk when approaching or entering a crosswalk...
More on the topic of this thread: what's the interaction between a stop sign and a yield sign at an intersection? If the Idaho stop law is in effect, and you are approaching a four-way stop with three cars coming, do you get your same "turn"? Or do you have to wait for everyone to clear out before continuing?

As for blasting through yield signs...you can do that in a car too, as long as you have good line-of-sight. I would think the law requires slowing down at yield signs until you can confirm the way is clear.
willtf is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 05:09 PM
  #16  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by dynodonn View Post
Not really, I've followed many of those cyclists with either with my car or bicycle, both have speedometers.
How many of THOSE cyclist did you also observe getting hit?

My guess is ZERO.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 05:18 PM
  #17  
AlmostTrick
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,397

Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!

Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1548 Post(s)
Liked 928 Times in 500 Posts
Makes complete sense to me. I wonder why more (all) states have not adopted the I-stop laws. It's certainly not on the grounds of being unsafe.
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 05:21 PM
  #18  
RoadTire 
Senior Member
 
RoadTire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,968

Bikes: '09 Trek 2.1 * '75 Sekine * 2010 Raleigh Talus 8.0 * '90 Giant Mtb * Raleigh M20 * Fuji Nevada mtb

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dynodonn View Post
If a cyclist slows to near a walking pace speed when performing an Idaho stop, I'm fine with that, but many cyclists, that I have observed locally, barely apply their brakes, and travel past a stop sign at 15 to 20 mph.

Let's classify the 15 mph "stop" as California Stop. Any votes?
__________________
FB4K - Every October we wrench on donated bikes. Every December, a few thousand kids get bikes for Christmas. For many, it is their first bike, ever. Every bike, new and used, was donated, built, cleaned and repaired. Check us out on FaceBook: FB4K.

Disclaimer: 99% of what I know about cycling I learned on BF. That would make, ummm, 1% experience. And a lot of posts.
RoadTire is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 05:31 PM
  #19  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick View Post
Makes complete sense to me. I wonder why more (all) states have not adopted the I-stop laws. It's certainly not on the grounds of being unsafe.
States certainly jumped on the right turn on red pretty fast for motorist convenience, even though it made it less safe for pedestrians and cyclist. The Idaho Stop does little for motorist convenience, so why bother?
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 05:37 PM
  #20  
dynodonn
Banned
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,466
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1267 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
How many of THOSE cyclist did you also observe getting hit?

My guess is ZERO.
One, but I'm thankful that more motorist do not take up the same practice.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 05:44 PM
  #21  
Looigi
Senior Member
 
Looigi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by dynodonn View Post
If a cyclist slows to near a walking pace speed when performing an Idaho stop, I'm fine with that, but many cyclists, that I have observed locally, barely apply their brakes, and travel past a stop sign at 15 to 20 mph.
The safe speed to proceed through a stop depends on the visibility down the crossing road when approaching the corner and the amount of traffic. If you can see a half mile down the crossing road in each direction a half mile before you get to the intersection it's a lot different than being only able so see 50 yards in each direction 50' from the intersection. Just use reasonable judgement to avoid getting hit. Even if you come to a full stop at the sign you still need to judge when it's safe to proceed and can still get hit if you misjudge it.
Looigi is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 05:49 PM
  #22  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by dynodonn View Post
One, but I'm thankful that more motorist do not take up the same practice.
I see very few motorist come to a complete stop at stop signs. Motorist stop about as often as cyclist do.
And some cops expect cyclist to do more than a complete stop, they expect cyclist to put a foot on the ground to prove a complete stop. Maybe the same should apply to motorist; open the door, put a foot down, then you can proceed.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.

Last edited by CB HI; 05-25-15 at 05:53 PM.
CB HI is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 05:59 PM
  #23  
kickstart
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332

Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
States certainly jumped on the right turn on red pretty fast for motorist convenience, even though it made it less safe for pedestrians and cyclist. The Idaho Stop does little for motorist convenience, so why bother?
Right on red was enacted in the 70's to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, and is now federally governed as part of each states energy conservation plan required to receive federal assistance. I wasn't driving age in the 70's, but I do remember there was resistance to it.
Idaho stops are a "convenience" that reflects the reality that cyclists are not motorists or pedestrians.
kickstart is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 07:18 PM
  #24  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,486
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2079 Post(s)
Liked 623 Times in 419 Posts
People blowing through right on red? Never happens.


-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Old 05-25-15, 07:24 PM
  #25  
Ed.
Senior Member
 
Ed.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hopkinton, MA
Posts: 1,539

Bikes: 1938 Raleigh Record Ace (2), 1938 Schwinn Paramount, 1961 Torpado, 1964? Frejus, 1980 Raleigh 753 Team Pro, Moulton, other stuff...

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
...
And some cops expect cyclist to do more than a complete stop, they expect cyclist to put a foot on the ground to prove a complete stop. ...
Many years ago I was pulled over for failure to stop for a stop sign on my motorcycle. "How do you know I didn't stop?" "You didn't put a foot down." I then proceeded to demonstrate that I could balance the bike, motionless, for a fair bit of time (The sign benefits of track-stand practice.) I didn't get a ticket.

I confess to a situational approach. I usually stop for stop lights, 'track-stand' for stop signs, but today I pretty much blew thru a stop light. Visibility was excellent, and cars were nil.
Ed. is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.