The case for Idaho Stops

I’d actually argue that idaho stops should be legal for self-driving cars, also. The elephant in the room is that people driving cars simply aren’t as aware of their environment as they think they are, so they simply need more of a stop to compensate. It makes no sense to apply the same standard to anything that lacks that same awareness gap.

@sethpo 84774 wrote:

My one quibble with it (which I am going to discuss w/ Joseph) is that he doesn’t address the cyclist safety reasons for running lights. There are numerous times when I feel safer going through an intersection early.

In addition to cyclist safety, it can be very beneficial to drivers, too. Along the Alexandria portion of Potomac Avenue, which I ride as part of my daily commute, I routinely slow/stop and then roll through red lights at all the T intersections (many to still closed/unopened roads). By getting out ahead of the clumps of cars that accelerate from the lights, I give them time to come to speed and sort/merge themselves into the left lane to easily pass me. If I waited and went with the light, there’d be a whole column of cars stuck in the right lane behind my 12-15 mph pace struggling to merge over.

@cyclingfool 84779 wrote:

In addition to cyclist safety, it can be very beneficial to drivers, too. Along the Alexandria portion of Potomac Avenue, which I ride as part of my daily commute, I routinely slow/stop and then roll through red lights at all the T intersections (many to still closed/unopened roads). By getting out ahead of the clumps of cars that accelerate from the lights, I give them time to come to speed and sort/merge themselves into the left lane to easily pass me. If I waited and went with the light, there’d be a whole column of cars stuck in the right lane behind my 12-15 mph pace struggling to merge over.

I posted this on the Arlington improvements thread, but it relates directly to your behvaior at the T intersections, so I thought I would re-post here.

@Steve O 76389 wrote:

This is not so much a fix as an improvement that makes sense and also elevates cyclists in the transportation hierarchy.

At locations that are T-intersections with lights, provide a separate “through” light for cyclists traveling opposite the T. Some examples include:

– Wilson w-bound at Pierce (by the Fire Department). Since cyclists are on the far right, they do not really need to stop for cars entering from Pierce. Flashing yellow for cyclists might be appropriate to accommodate peds.

– Wilson w-bound at Courthouse (by Ireland’s Four Courts). Same thing. Adjustments to how the parking is designed here would help. Also, perhaps flexible bollards to delineate where the cyclists are, to prevent wide turning cars from straying into the bike lane

– Military s-bound at Marcey. No reason to stop here on red if cyclists can just keep the right lane. May not even need a separate light, but just a sign, “Cyclists may proceed on red with caution; yield to pedestrians”

In fact, all three of these locations could probably be accommodated with signage, some paint and maybe some flex bollards, which would be cheaper than designing and installing separate bicycle signals.

FYI – I already “Idaho stop” these locations, even though I fully observe the red lights at all the other Wilson/Fairfax Dr. intersections. It’s because these lights are senseless for the cylist in the same way they are senseless for the peds on the adjoining sidewalk.

There are probably more of these around. Anyone?

Part of the point here is not that these changes would make an enormous difference in travel times for cyclists (one staff member asked me, “What problem would this solve?”). The point is more that it provides a visible advantage to cyclists in a completely safe and appropriate way. Observers who note this may be inclined to think:
“Wow, that’s cool. The County is doing a good job improving cycling infrastructure.”
“Hey! Maybe I should ride a bike, too, if I can get a special light just for me.”
“WTF! Now those radical cycle lobbyists are getting even more special treatment. Time to run one over.”

On balance, I hope the first two sentiments would outweigh the third.

@brendan 84778 wrote:

By “running” lights, do you refer to a) proceeding through a stale yellow or fresh red, b) proceeding through a stale red, c) slowing for a red but rolling through if clear or d) stopping for a red and proceeding if clear (Idaho Stop)?

“Running lights” is a loaded term, so just asking to clarify…

Yes, please don’t use that term. It’s so vague as to be without meaning.

After reading Wash Cycle’s point about the comparison with right on red, I finally read this article, and it reaffirms my feeling that Idaho Stops, just like right on red, should be illegal anywhere you’d reasonably expect to see a pedestrian. Right on red is terrible in crowded cities – it just lets cars bully pedestrians in the one section of the street that’s really supposed to belong to walkers, not cars. Bringing in the Idaho Stop would just let bikes bully pedestrians, too.

Both laws are fine for Idaho and places with low population density, or suburbs where the infrastructure is already so hostile to pedestrians that they don’t bother getting out of their cars.

@jrenaut 84798 wrote:

After reading Wash Cycle’s point about the comparison with right on red, I finally read this article, and it reaffirms my feeling that Idaho Stops, just like right on red, should be illegal anywhere you’d reasonably expect to see a pedestrian. Right on red is terrible in crowded cities – it just lets cars bully pedestrians in the one section of the street that’s really supposed to belong to walkers, not cars. Bringing in the Idaho Stop would just let bikes bully pedestrians, too.

Both laws are fine for Idaho and places with low population density, or suburbs where the infrastructure is already so hostile to pedestrians that they don’t bother getting out of their cars.

Well that would be just fine for me, as those are pretty much the places where I do an Idaho (at the stop signs, not the reds). Heck, there are places with stop signs where there is nowhere for a pedestrian to walk to https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Little+River+Turnpike,+Lincolnia,+VA&hl=en&ll=38.832237,-77.205649&spn=0.000001,0.0006&sll=38.893596,-77.014576&sspn=0.37089,0.614548&oq=little+river&t=h&hnear=Little+River+Turnpike,+Lincolnia,+Virginia&z=21&layer=c&cbll=38.832237,-77.205649&panoid=zXCDFMXCrUUlbB5jG7RkwA&cbp=12,278.39,,0,0

So either leave the law as is but implement Idaho by exception with signs, or change the law to Idaho but add exceptions to it by signs (as we do with right on red)

as for feeling that right on red should be illegal anywhere there are pedestrians, given that we can’t seem to get it removed at some place like the intersection of doom, a place with a huge number of cyclists and peds and a demonstrated safety issue, I am skeptical that the law will change in any major jurisdiction. I think the fear that an Idaho Stop law will justify the right on red law is, therefore, not a reason to oppose Idaho, because right on red is a fact of life.

I think mentioning right on red is quite apt – it does not prove that idaho is safe (other data does that) it merely points out that there is precedent for making a change for the purpose of addressing energy use issues.