The title is a bit clickbait-y. I went into this one feeling strongly opposed it. Afterwards I’m still not sure, but I get that there’s some nuance to it.
Relevance:
In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.
Author: Steve Lorteau | Long-Term Appointment Law Professor, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa
Excerpts:
Interactions between different users on roads are often a source of frustration, the most prominent being those between motorists and cyclists.
For example, many motorists are frustrated when they see bicycles cross an intersection without coming to a complete stop, which drivers are required to do.
As a professor of law at the University of Ottawa who specializes in urban law issues, I have studied various regulatory approaches that have been adopted around the world, each with different advantages and disadvantages.
The uniform application of traffic rules may seem fair, but in reality, it can create a false sense of 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.
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.
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.
Bike infrastructure isn’t going to be possible everywhere. Idaho stop makes cycling better everywhere.
I don’t care about “everywhere”. I care about cities where most of the cycling happens.
In cities seems like the place where it’s least possible to separate bike lanes from streets. Are you really going to build over- and under-passes at every block?
The Dutch did it. The, Finns, the Danes did it. The Brits and the French are in the process of doing it.
And no, you don’t need over/under-passes everywhere, that’s silly.
The Dutch, the Finn’s, and the Danes absolutely did not cover every single possible street with bike lanes. There are still numerous places where you have to bike on the road. Don’t be daft.
Yes, and those are streets where cars are the ones that have to slow the fuck down, and give priority to pedestrians, kids, and bicycles. Woonerfs. I.e., infrastructure.
More generally: the idea is that cities need to be restructured to make cycling and transit the preferred transit options with cars the “ok if you really must” option. Currently we are at the exact opposite polarity. Our infrastructure reflects this basic foundational choice. Idaho stops are still operating under that foundational choice. We need to rethink the foundation, therefore we need to rethink infrastructure. Then, instead of talking about giving new meaning to car centric signs, i.e., about making more space to humans in a car centered world, we would be talking about finding the right space for cars in a human centered world.
If that’s daft, then fine.
Ps. I’m not against the Idaho stop. If that’s what it takes to keep the cops from harassing cyclists and to keep some road rage at bay, that’s good. I’m against thinking it solves the problem.