The title is a bit clickbait-y. I went into this one feeling strongly opposed it. Afterwards I’m still not sure, but I get that there’s some nuance to it.
Relevance:
In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.
Author: Steve Lorteau | Long-Term Appointment Law Professor, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa
Excerpts:
Interactions between different users on roads are often a source of frustration, the most prominent being those between motorists and cyclists.
For example, many motorists are frustrated when they see bicycles cross an intersection without coming to a complete stop, which drivers are required to do.
As a professor of law at the University of Ottawa who specializes in urban law issues, I have studied various regulatory approaches that have been adopted around the world, each with different advantages and disadvantages.
The uniform application of traffic rules may seem fair, but in reality, it can create a false sense of equality.
On the one hand, the risks associated with different modes of transport are incommensurate. A car that runs a red light can cause serious or even fatal injuries. A cyclist, on the other hand, is unlikely to cause the same degree of damage.
Furthermore, the efficiency of cycling depends on maintaining speed. Having to stop completely over and over discourages people from cycling, despite its many benefits for health, the environment and traffic flow.
Treating two such different modes of transport the same way, therefore, amounts to implicitly favouring cars, something akin to imposing the same speed limit on pedestrians and trucks.
Since 1982, cyclists in Idaho have been able to treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign. Several American states (such as Arkansas, Colorado, and Oregon) and countries, such as France and Belgium, have adopted similar regulations.
In Québec and other parts of Canada, discussions are underway to adopt such regulations.
It’s important to note that the goal of the Idaho stop rule is not to legalize chaos on the roads. Cyclists must still yield to cars ahead of them at stop signs, as well as to pedestrians at all times, and may only enter the intersection when it is clear.
The key is being predictable. As long as the law says cyclists have to stop and they don’t, they are being unpredictable, and put themselves at greater risk.
And the driver who inadvertently hits a non-stopping cyclist - someone who is already much smaller and less likely to be noticed in the first place - gets to spend the rest of their lives dealing with having hit (possibly maimed or killed) said cyclist.
It’s a bad idea. Idaho should never be cited as an example.
The proposed change sounds plenty predictable. A car needs to stop at stop signs, and if you’re stopped, then you can also start again without worrying about bikes because you have right of way. At a red light, bikes have to come to a full stop, which gives them time to check if a car is coming or not. A car wouldn’t have to worry about this at all.
Edit: It just occurred to me that you can have an intersection where the bike is faced with a stop sign but the car isn’t. That would indeed be a problem if the biker doesn’t come to a stop. Not enough time to react to a car charging past.
As a driver, I want to know what to expect from bike riders. Having them follow the same rules on the road cars do just makes sense.
If cyclists are allowed to run stops, it better damn well go hand in hand with a requirement that they wear a fuck ton of hi vis and lights, and that if there is an accident between a car and a cyclist when the cyclist is running a stop, the driver bears zero responsibility.