On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Anne Paulson <anne.paul...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:47 PM, 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 point about the Idaho Stop is the cyclist still has to yield at > stop signs. *If there is no one waiting to go the other direction,* > the cyclist doesn't have to stop, but can continue after making sure > it's safe. But in Manhattan, at most times of the day, most > intersections aren't empty. That is, the cyclist won't come to a stop > sign and discover there is no traffic the other way. So, if the Idaho > Stop were the law in New York City wouldn't matter, because it would > almost never apply. >
Anne, Thanks for stating that so clearly. I think a lot of people were misunderstanding. Somehow folks seems to be thinking that 'yield' means 'go ahead no matter what'. The idaho stop is just a 'preservation of forward motion at stop signs for extremely lightweight and relatively slow-moving vehicles". In high-traffic areas amounts to no change in how traffic flow or right-of-way works at all. It only makes it not-illegal to pause-and-roll a stop sign when there is no other traffic. -sv -- 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.
