Reply to City council voted today to allow bicyclists to ignore stop signs

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "City council voted today to allow bicyclists to ignore stop signs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]NP. This post has gone off the rails but I'm still very confused by the argument in favor of the Idaho stop. Seems PPs have been saying:

1. No one follows stop signs any way, bikers shouldn't have to
2. It requires more physical exertion to stop
3. Cars are dangerous so let me get to my destination more quickly

Please help me understand. I do not see how this is SAFER for the cyclist. Regardless of the relative statistics on crime, car accidents, etc. How does this make it SAFER for CYCLISTS?[/quote]

I'm a bicyclist and am not sure I understand the safety rational for this law but will say that bikes are a lot less stable and unpredictable at lower speeds so if you make bikers actually stop at every stop sign they become less stable and need less space.

I will add that most drivers I see go through stop signs at speeds similar to the speeds most people bike at but cars can accelerate a lot more quickly so for impatient drivers I think that allowing bikers to do Idaho stops will actually keep them moving.

I'm stealing this line from someone else but it does mirror my experiences - "The only thing that pisses a driver off more than a bicyclist running a stop sign is a bicyclist stopping at a stop sign" - I've definitely gotten some serious anger and yelling from drivers when I've stopped at stop signs both as a driver and bicyclists - the vast vast majority of drivers treat stop signs as yield signs which is why the driver outrage about this is so strange.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics