Ignoring that my country doesn’t allow Idaho Stops, or that my Provincial Government wants to actively kill cyclists by removing safe cycling infrastructure, I’ve always wondered if there’s a reason why cyclists aren’t allowed to simply ride through an intersection like the one in the photo.

I’m talking about the right side, where the bike lane could extend through the intersection without interfering with other vehicles, including those that are turning left.

This would not only keep those stops safer (clears the cyclist out of the intersection), but would just make sense from a transportation efficiency standpoint.

Is there something I’m missing, or do cyclists have to stop only because motorists would take a tantrum if they weren’t required to?

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOPEnglish
    21·
    2 days ago

    So, respect cyclists as much as car drivers, except when it’s inconvenient for you to follow the rules of the road?

    Just to put this out there: this isn’t really about convenience, but safety. My question is basically “why isn’t an Idaho Stop permitted at a 3-way shown in the photo?”.

    Since we know that Idaho Stops are SIGNIFICANTLY safer for cyclists (and yes, it can be more convenient as a secondary benefit), it’s not really about respecting or following rules, but “does this rule make sense for a cyclist, when it offers no benefit to safety?”.

    Intersections are probably the most dangerous place on the road, or at least that’s what I was taught in motorcycling class 40 years ago.

    Yes, if you are driving in the middle of the road, not in the gutter lane. And usually at 4-way intersections where vehicles cross each other’s path. You get none of that in this context.

    If a cyclist can ride right through this, why can’t I on my 125 motorcycle?

    As above, that would be dangerous. Unless you can provide evidence that blowing through stops on a motorcycle is actually safer for you.