Learn more about BikingToronto and Singer Kwinter

Should cyclists be able to do the “Idaho Stop”?

Via Treehugger

Few posts that I have written brought out so many commenters, so much debate, as my question, Should Cyclists be Allowed to Blow Go Through Stop Signs? and Why Cyclists Blow Through Stop Signs: It’s Physics. In both, I make the case that stop signs exist primarily as a form of speed control for cars rather than a right-of-way system; that’s why they have converted most of them to four way stops that don’t actually work as well for right-of-way as the old two way stops. It doesn’t matter, I am still an idiot.

Now TreeHugger Emeritus Ruben Anderson joins the fray with Three Cheers for the Idaho Stop!! (or, the Insanity of Over-regulating Parakeets.)

The Idaho Stop is defined by Jonathan Maus of Bike Portland:

This law would make it legal for bicyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs. A cyclist approaching an intersection controlled by a stop sign, would be permitted to roll through the stop sign after yielding the right of way if there are other vehicles at the intersection.

It makes sense; a different kind of vehicle needs a different kind of regulation and control. 


read full post: TreeHugger.

  • Simpleton

    I think cars and bikes should both be able to do Idaho stops, esp. since 99% of the time they do rolling stops anyway. Just mandate that right-of-way be respected and enforce the hell out of it. It’s the failure to yield to pedestrians or other vehicles who have right-of-way that causes accidents, not the rolling stops themselves.