[QatzelOk]

The Bike Issue: Don't stop
Bike lessons from Idaho
RACHAEL DAIGLE
Wednesday May 14, 2008

In the two miles between my home and office in downtown Boise, there are five stop signs and 10 traffic lights. On a good day, I can make the journey without coming to a complete stop.

That doesn't happen in my car because, of course, I'm a law-abiding driver. Yet on my bicycle, it's possible for me to cruise through all five stop signs and effortlessly cruise right on through the downtown corridor without once touching my feet to the pavement.

And in Idaho, it's completely legal.

Although cycling commuters here often bemoan the city's ineffective bike lane system and criticize the lack of public bicycle parking, nary a word is spoken about the state's progressive bicycle traffic laws. Thanks to some forward-thinking state legislators a couple of decades ago, Idaho's bike laws are the envy of cyclists throughout the country.

The concept is a simple one that allows bicyclists to keep their momentum without ever taking the right-of-way from motorists: basically, stop signs are treated a yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs. Bicycles can legally blow through stop signs as long as it isn't another driver's turn.

...

rest of article

I found this interesting reading because, as it is now, this is the way Montreal cyclists treat stop signs and red lights. I had no idea there was actually a jurisdiction in North America where... THIS IS THE LAW!

I think other states and provinces should change their laws to this Idaho Bike Freedom Law. It makes sense.

Another change I would propose is to make cars and trucks ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE in the event of an accident with a pedestrian or a cyclist. This would protect the unarmed against those whose consumer behavior is dangerous.

Presently, it is car owners who are sheltered from the danger they post to society.

[Thunderhawk]

Combining those bike freedom laws and "make cars and trucks ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE in the event of an accident with a pedestrian or a cyclist" strikes me as somewhat dangerous.

Cyclist sees red light, stops, doesnt look, and then keeps going.
Car driver sees green, the cyclist is obscured by waiting cars, and so the car keeps going.

The car and cyclist collide.
The car driver is then at fault, even though it was the cyclist who didnt look and was thus at fault.

However nice such a legal set up would be for you and other cyclists, it is unviable politically unless it is snuck through.

[QatzelOk]

unviable politically unless it is snuck through

The Patriot Act got snuck through.

Maybe we need a few traffic lights to explode in order to understand what is at stake in "protecting" our cars from nasty humans on bike or foot.

[Dr House]

Another change I would propose is to make cars and trucks ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE in the event of an accident with a pedestrian or a cyclist. This would protect the unarmed against those whose consumer behavior is dangerous.

I know you think buying a car is a crime against humanity, but this is pure fail. If you didn't check to make sure there wasn't a car coming, the driver has right-of-way, and he/she doesn't see you, there's no way it'd be the driver's fault.

-Dr House

[hannu]

Another change I would propose is to make cars and trucks ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE in the event of an accident with a pedestrian or a cyclist. This would protect the unarmed against those whose consumer behavior is dangerous.

Great idea.

I regularly drive at nightmare speeds on the public highway for fun.

If this change in the law means that when I drive at nightmare speeds I'm now regarded as a more responsible citizen, I'm all for it.........

[Rancid]

i don't have a problem with treating stop signs and yields...

[QatzelOk]

If you didn't check to make sure there wasn't a car coming, the driver has right-of-way, and he/she doesn't see you, there's no way it'd be the driver's fault.

If there's a bike in the intersection, then he wouldn't have the "right of way" in my proposed scenario.

The car would always have to be careful because it is the car that is the killer in virtually every case.

If someone wants to drive a Boeing 747 through Manhattan, it would be permissable as long as he assumes all the damage this causes.

Let's start making car-operators assume all the cost of their hateful and deadly consumption. Otherwise, we are all subsidizing our own manslaughter, and our kids are enslaved by their kid-dangerous road environment.

[hannu]

Let's start making car-operators assume all the cost of their hateful and deadly consumption. Otherwise, we are all subsidizing our own manslaughter, and our kids are enslaved by their kid-dangerous road environment.

I agree with your comments but I'm more concerned about the kids being enslaved by a kid-dangerous environment than car operators paying their way.

As an aside.......When dogs were free to roam, car drivers drove more carefully.

I hope car drivers don't turn to jogging. I was recently outside the Queens house with two four year old children & joggers are now becoming a danger to children.

[QatzelOk]

joggers are now becoming a danger to children

That's because sidewalks are too narrow.

For 7000 years, mankind walked on his city streets.

Now, he goes for virtual rides in SimCity while packing on the calories in his basement den.

[Dave]

Let's start making car-operators assume all the cost of their hateful and deadly consumption. Otherwise, we are all subsidizing our own manslaughter, and our kids are enslaved by their kid-dangerous road environment.

Do you really expect to persuade anyone by demonizing people in such harsh language?

[QatzelOk]

Do you really expect to persuade anyone by demonizing people in such harsh language?

Cars aren't people.

And there are a lot of aspects to our culture that are horrible. We are murdering the entire planet with our hyperconsumption.

That you confused "people" with "cars" is an example of how far our culture has wondered over the edge of sanity.

That you are not used to harsh criticism is a product of a world of blissful consumerism, where the customer is always right, and where a smile can close that sale.

Charismatic products that we personify... to the point of being willing to DIE FOR OUR STUFF.

----

On a brighter note, pedestrians and bikes are showing less and less respect to all those consumer-drones in their cars on Maisonneuve now that the bike path is heavily used.

Respecting cars is like respecting unrepentant murderers. Eventually, you simply have to get them out of public.

[Dave]

Cars aren't people.

And there are a lot of aspects to our culture that are horrible. We are murdering the entire planet with our hyperconsumption.

That you confused "people" with "cars" is an example of how far our culture has wondered over the edge of sanity.

I said cars are people? News to me.

"Car-operators", as you like to call them, are people.

I don't disagree that there are myriad aspects of our culture that are horrible or that we risk plundering our natural estate or even destroying it, but really now, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

That you are not used to harsh criticism is a product of a world of blissful consumerism, where the customer is always right, and where a smile can close that sale.

Insulting people and criticizing people are quite different, even if the basic message is arguably the same.

Charismatic products that we personify... to the point of being willing to DIE FOR OUR STUFF.

What did this have to do with my post?

On a brighter note, pedestrians and bikes are showing less and less respect to all those consumer-drones in their cars on Maisonneuve now that the bike path is heavily used.

Respecting cars is like respecting unrepentant murderers. Eventually, you simply have to get them out of public.

If you're going to demonize your opponents, it's probably best not to do it when you're in the minority.

[QatzelOk]

If you're going to demonize your opponents, it's probably best not to do it when you're in the minority.

If the majority are engaged in poisonous behavior, there is no point in trying to feed them EVEN MORE sugar then they have already been fed by advertising.

And while car-operators are people, no one is naturally a car-operator, any more than someone is a rapist by nature. You choose to do this. And if the majority of your fellow humans have been lead to become rapists (or ecocidal consumer-monsters), you're not doing anyone any favors by hiding behind sugar-coated prose and charismatic rhetoric.

Chevrolet loves America, but I don't.

[ThereBeDragons]

Nobody's naturally a biker, either. Nobody needs to walk on the sidewalk, either. Just stay home all day and all your car-problems will be solved.

[Dave]

If the majority are engaged in poisonous behavior, there is no point in trying to feed them EVEN MORE sugar then they have already been fed by advertising.

Do you want them to alter their behavior?

And while car-operators are people, no one is naturally a car-operator, any more than someone is a rapist by nature. You choose to do this. And if the majority of your fellow humans have been lead to become rapists (or ecocidal consumer-monsters), you're not doing anyone any favors by hiding behind sugar-coated prose and charismatic rhetoric.

Actually some people naturally are rapists by nature, and rape is a normal reproductive strategy is most species.