It’s been three years since the Safety Stop, aka, Stop-as-Yield, or, the Idaho Stop first came up for discussion in Lincoln. If you are unfamiliar with these terms, the laws allow bike riders to yield and proceed when safe, rather than coming to a full stop. It’s a regulation that makes legal what many (most) cyclists do anyway. One study found that 1 in 50 cyclists came to a complete stop when no traffic was present. If there’s no cross traffic, the law treats a stop sign like a yield sign. A stop light is treated as a stop sign in half the states who have adopted the safety stop. Idaho was the first state to adopt this law more than 40 years ago. In Idaho, bicyclist injuries were dramatically reduced immediately after passage. In Delaware, who adopted the law in 2017, cyclist/car crashes at intersections went down 23% in the 30 months that followed. Streetsblog points out that it decriminalizes rational behavior. Coming to a complete stop on a bicycle is quite different than doing so with a car. “The laws allow bike riders to yield and proceed when safe, rather than coming to a full stop – and the key is “when safe.” None of these laws allow riders to blow through stop signs or demand the right of way.” Idaho has practiced the “Idaho Stop” since 1982. The uniform application of traffic rules may seem fair, but in reality, it can create a false sense of equality.
The following is an excerpt from https://theconversation.com/cyclists-may-be-right-to-run-stop-signs-and-red-lights-heres-why-268724?utm_medium=article_native_share&utm_source=theconversation.com It is another article on the Idaho Stop, focused on Montreal and Quebec. It is in fact an election issue for a political candidate.
“Deceptive Equality On the one hand, the risks associated with different modes of transport are incommensurate. A car that runs a red light can cause serious or even fatal injuries. A cyclist, on the other hand, is unlikely to cause the same degree of damage.
Furthermore, the efficiency of cycling depends on maintaining speed. Having to stop completely over and over discourages people from cycling, despite its many benefits for health, the environment and traffic flow.
Treating two such different modes of transport the same way, therefore, amounts to implicitly favouring cars, something akin to imposing the same speed limit on pedestrians and trucks.
The Idaho stop rule
Rather than treating bicycles and cars as equals, some jurisdictions have opted for a different approach. The state of Idaho is one good example.
Since 1982, cyclists in Idaho have been able to treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign. Several American states (such as Arkansas, Colorado, and Oregon) and countries, such as France and Belgium, have adopted similar regulations.
In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.
Read more: Moins de cyclistes… ou répartis autrement ? Le Réseau Express Vélo (REV) à l’épreuve des données
It’s important to note that the goal of the Idaho stop rule is not to legalize chaos on the roads. Cyclists must still yield to cars ahead of them at stop signs, as well as to pedestrians at all times, and may only enter the intersection when it is clear.
The Idaho stop has three main advantages.
First, the rule recognizes that the dynamics of cycling are fundamentally different than those of driving, and therefore cannot be treated equally.
Second, the Idaho stop rule takes the burden of issuing fines off the courts and police.
Third, the efficiency of cycling depends on maintaining momentum. Coming to a complete stop over and over again discourages cycling, despite its many benefits for health, the environment and traffic flow.
The effects of the reform
Faced with these two very different approaches for bicycles, one may wonder which is the most appropriate.
Several empirical studies show that adopting the Idaho stop rule does not lead to an increase in road collisions.
Some studies even suggest a modest decrease in collisions with the Idaho stop regulation. This is because cyclists clear intersections more quickly, reducing their exposure to cars. In addition, motorists become more attentive to cyclists’ movements.”
Click on the link to read the whole article.
All this may seem counter-intuitive to non-cyclists. From behind a windshield, it may look like “entitled” behavior, or that we must feel we’re above the law. If you take into consideration that most collisions between bicycles and cars take place in intersections, the safety stop reduces cyclist time in the intersection. It improves cyclist visibility by putting cyclists out ahead of motorists where they can better be seen. It also makes intersections more efficient. Confusion about who goes next is resolved. Rational behavior is no longer relegated to “scofflaws”