Why cyclists hate stop signs

And bikes have a hard time beating the speed limit. Adrian Duyzer explains in Raise the Hammer: that "An 'Idaho stop' is so-called because of a law passed in Idaho that permits, in essence, cyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs. There is a reason: Physics. They write:. Of course, the article drew the usual response from readers:.

And I am sorry, but for this particular issue, the law is an ass. It defies logic and physics. I wish the traffic engineers who put these signs in would acknowledge this, and I wish the papers would stop printing these stupid repetitive letters.

Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Use precise geolocation data. Select personalised content. Stay tuned!

Write For Us. Privacy Policy. Eco Velo Save Saved Removed 1. Eco Velo. About Eco Velo. Information For Customers. Write For Us Contact Us. For whom does the bell toll? We all concentrate on the wee impositions and frustrations that life delivers to the privileged and lose sight of the challenges of our fellows who have serious deficits.

Don't we all? To the editor: Polansky could have avoided adding to the general vulgarity so prevalent today by asking his unhoused acquaintance to step aside while he broke the sad news of the death of his sweetheart.

Instead, with three people blocking the lane, he chose to excoriate someone who called him out and ascribed to him callous feelings regarding unhoused people based on How was this cyclist supposed to know what Polansky was doing, besides swearing at him for voicing a legitimate complaint? A simple "sorry" and a short explanation would probably get more empathy for the unhoused than his hair-trigger profanity.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. In an unprecedented turn of events, a Minnesota judge re-sentenced […]. Customers at a mall near San Diego say they were confused by the smoke and thought the store may have been on fire. Police identified three suspects. TwitterHouston cops carrying out a welfare check on an apartment found a nightmare: three siblings abandoned and living with the skeletal remains of a fourth. It really caught me by surprise. New York City store clerks teamed up to thwart a would-be robbery, beating the suspect to the ground with their fists in an incident that was captured by security cameras in the store.

And maybe this could explain why the normally law-abiding Swede turns a blind eye to bicycle infractions. By Pxtl registered - website Posted November 21, at in reply to Comment We're not looking to break the rules. We're looking to have the rules changed to accommodate the different handling and perspective of a cyclist.

At the very least I'd like such signs located on common cycling corridors throughout the city, if not everywhere.

By Tomgreenthumb registered Posted November 17, at in reply to Comment And what kind of a lame argument is the "oh, woe, we use more energy if we have to stop"??

We are cycling, we expect and enjoy the effort! The lazy cyclist angle?? Spare us! What you are missing is that the rule may not be a valuable one. And, no, anyone's common sense says many non-cyclists might start riding if it was more convenient to ride. Roadrash, a problem with your position is the notion of cyclists needing "respect" from motorists.

That begs the question of whether motorists are the rightful gatekeepers to the public space we refer to as roads. That's certainly not the case! The law is the gatekeeper, and we are discussing the value of a traffic law that, Idaho has determined, is not one that should automatically be applied to all rightful users of the road. There are many examples of disparate but sensible differences in the legal requirements of cyclists on the road compared to motorists.

Minimum speed laws come to mind. And minimum separation requirements. And, obviously, licensing, registration and insurance requirements. Because the operation of a bicycle is different than the operation of a motor vehicle. So, there is no need for "equality" insofar as operational requirements are concerned. Sensibility is the better goal. By jason registered Posted November 17, at in reply to Comment I agree with you, BUT our road network is already built.

By special laws anonymous Posted November 17, at in reply to Comment We have different laws already for different road users. Why is it inappropriate to have subsets of laws for vastly different vehicles? Your rant makes little sense. By Undustrial registered - website Posted November 17, at Having a bicycle stop for every sign sounds great to most drivers - until they're stuck behind a bike in traffic. The 'Idaho Stop' has a lot of potential to bring more clarity to the issue as well as help provide a swifter and smoother 'flow' of traffic.

At these kinds of speeds, confusion is just about the riskiest factor you can introduce on anyone's part. I see nothing wrong with an Idaho stop. Unless two or more vehicles car or bike are approaching an intersection at roughly the same time, and sight lines are good, I don't see the need for a car or bike to come to a complete stop. By roadrash registered - website Posted November 17, at in reply to Comment If there were no need to come to a stop at that intersection, then the municipal traffic department would put a Yield sign there.

Or leave it an uncontrolled intersection. Stop signs are there for a reason. Money is spent on examining and monitoring intersections and the signs there are placed based on hard data.

Don't forget, a lot of time the reason for that stop sign is pedestrian control and safety. Cyclists are always watching for cars, but the majority of urban cycling collisions in North America are between cyclists and pedestrians at intersections. We aren't the only alternative commuters. But we do get to use the road, so we should follow the rules. Have you ever seen a fully uncontrolled intersection in the City of Hamilton?

Or a 4-way intersection marked with a yield sign? The city has stuck to the stop sign as a convention because it's safe and simple. Which is fine.

But it may be too simple. Sometimes things need to be a little more complicated By moylek registered - website Posted November 21, at in reply to Comment Yes, I know of at least two of the former.

One is Dalewood and Haddon in West Hamilton. I love travelling these intersections, whether driving or biking: I love the idea that sometimes, when it's safe and otherwise appropriate, we're left to work things out for ourselves. By Pxtl registered - website Posted November 23, at in reply to Comment I meant a 4-way.

A T-intersection is not uncontrolled because it's functionally a yield-sign for the bottom of the T. By moylek registered - website Posted November 24, at in reply to Comment Fair enough. But I still enjoy the chance to show that we can sometimes get by on common-sense and courtesy rather than hard-and-fast rules. By Undustrial registered - website Posted November 17, at in reply to Comment I've got to take issue with any notion which hold's the city's traffic planning bureaucracy to be rational, empirical or evidence-based.

By Randy registered Posted November 18, at Cyclists are more like pedestrians than they are drivers. By Undustrial registered - website Posted November 18, at That's why you can duct tape a stopped car to a tree with wraps and totally prevent it from driving off, but can't stop a moving car with a foot or two thick wall of duct tape Mythbusters.