Thanks Grant. I did not see the conflict between your editorial and BSNYC's post.
The point is that laws and cycling behavior is best suited when it conforms to the locale. Insisting cyclists scrupulously come to a full stop at a rural intersection no matter the traffic volume is silly. On the other hand, cyclists riding willy-nilly in NYC, downtown Chicago, of SF for that matter are a menace not only to auto traffic but always present pedestrians and fellow cyclists. On Jan 20, 12:47 am, grant <grant...@gmail.com> wrote: > It doesn't make sense in NYC which is why it's the Idaho Stop. When > traffic is thick, the drivers are mean, and you're expected to stop, > you better stop. The key to the success of the Idaho Stop is that > Idaho Drivers are kept on their toes, and there's just less traffic > there. I rode a big ol' group ride in Boise a couple of years ago, and > was thrilled with the sparseness of traffic. The I.S. worked great. I > bet it would work in other places too, but in NYC maybe they'd just > hit you. Maybe the next place to try it should be Omaha and Iowa and > Ohio---to complete the Four Same-sounders. Any of those would be > better than NYC (or SF, for that matter). > G -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
