For the record, I'm not an anarchist. I'll repeat what I said: "In Manhattan, at 3AM, when there's not another car on the road, Idaho stop YES!" If there are cars on the road, then you are in traffic, follow the traffic laws. That's what makes sense.
ANY situation where there are ZERO other vehicles of any kind, I advocate cyclists treating stop signs and red lights as yield signs. ANY situation where there are ANY other vehicles of any kind, I advocate cyclists treating stop signs as stop signs and red lights as red lights. I expect in Manhattan, this will very rarely come up, but it's not never. When there is not another car on the road, and I'm stopped at the red light, and it does not change to green because my bike doesn't have the mass to trigger the magnetic sensor, you are telling me that going ahead and riding on will cause society to "generally descend into chaos"? Of course it won't. That's as far as I take it. Regarding the "many urban riders", the other part of Grant's editorial that hasn't come up was the notion that "bad apple" riders ignoring the traffic laws somehow "ruins it for the rest of us". Grant called that notion into question, and I think he has a good point. It caused me to rethink the ire I feel for delinquent riders who blow through stop signs in traffic. I definitely don't approve of it, but now I'm not so sure that it somehow reflects poorly on me. On Jan 20, 10:55 am, JoelMatthews <joelmatth...@mac.com> wrote: > > I think the Idaho stop makes sense EVERYWHERE that it makes sense. > > Who decides where it makes sense? Unfortunately there are many urban > riders who appear to think an Idaho stop makes sense if traffic with > the right of way theoretically can brake fast enough to avoid T-boning > or rear ending them. > > In busy cities like New York (there are many places in Manhattan with > traffic even at 3:00 a.m. - not called the city that never sleeps for > nothing) affording people the liberty to decide generally descends > into chaos. Even if only 1 in 10 rider is a jerk, the numbers are > dense enough that you have a lot of jerks. > > On Jan 20, 12:25 pm, William <tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think the Idaho stop makes sense EVERYWHERE that it makes sense. In > > Manhattan, at 3AM, when there's not another car on the road, Idaho > > stop YES! In Couer d'Alene Idaho, when you approach a stop sign with > > a long line of cars waiting in the crossing direction, Idaho stop NO! > > I think the comment that missed the mark was BSNYC's. I think he too > > would advocate, and practices, the Idaho stop when the situation calls > > for it. But his comment was more of a hardline. There are many > > traffic signals that aren't triggered by bikes. The left turn lane > > from Industrial Parkway to Dixon that takes me to the South Hayward > > BART station won't trigger with a bike. When I'm out in that left > > turn lane, I can wait 3, 4, 5 green light cycles, and the left turn > > arrow will never trigger unless a car gets in the left turn lane with > > me. I'd be stuck there for hours, or be forced to dismount, scamper > > across and hit the WALK button. Instead I do a version of the Idaho > > stop, and treat a green light as an unprotected left and get on with > > my life. According to BSNYC's comment yesterday, I break the law when > > I do that and should stop. I think Grant and I are in the same boat > > on this. Use your brain, do what is safe and makes sense for the > > situation. > > > On Jan 19, 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 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- 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.
