> 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.
Well, I certainly do not think miscreant riders (or people who wear spandex while riding ; ) ) reflect on me personally either. It does not make me think less of the person who pulls out of a side road or in front of me against a light forcing me to take evasive action. Especially on streets where my options are avoiding the bike or avoiding a car. On Jan 20, 1:16 pm, William <tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 -- 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.
