>In Idaho, bicyclists are not required to stop at stop signs.
Which, personally, I think is completely reasonable. Constantly stopping and pushing off again adds a huge amount of effort to a ride, and a cyclist has plenty of incentive to look before rolling through an intersection.
That argument works even better for cars. Cars are much heavier. It's far more effort to stop a car and get it going again than for a bicycle. It would dramatically improve gas mileage if cars could ignore stop signs.
Getting people out of cars and onto bikes would save even more oil.
We also have 30 years of data from Idaho which allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yields: "Idaho bicycle-collision statistics confirm that the Idaho law has resulted in no discernible increase in injuries or fatalities to bicyclists."
I do. At most intersections, a driver of normal capability should be capable of determining whether there are any other cars at the intersection without completely stopping for multiple seconds. And in reality, most drivers in my area do roll stops and it does not cause an appreciable number of accidents.
I think you also need to account for stopping distances and acceleration.
A bike can stop in far shorter distances than a car can (and will be travelling at a lower speed in the first place).
Bikes are also slower to accelerate than a car. Allowing a bike to maintain more of its momentum gets it through the intersection quicker, especially on any kind of uphill grade.
Anecdotal, perhaps, but I know that my personal experience has been that the combination of those two things means that I'm evaluating whether it's safe for me to pass through an intersection and making the decision much sooner on a bike than I would in a car where the assumption is I need to mostly stop because I may not be able to otherwise.
It only takes a little bit of pressure from your foot on the gas to make the car go. And the mental energy to lighten up on the pressure when the car gets to speed. Or are you referring to the energy that gets expended by long-dead dinosaurs? For that, the cost of my entire trip to work is paid for during my first 5-10 minutes of working -- during which time I'm getting my morning coffee, and flipping through email. So not much energy there either.
Actually, quite a few people on here make more than I do. If you take the median U.S. salary (50K), and median commute distance (10 miles), that is still paying for the trip to work within the first 10 - 15 minutes (depending on car gas mileage). So the effort of accelerating from a stop sign is still way less than a minutes worth of work. And that is the energy that the original (bicycle) post was referring to -- the effort that you feel, not the externalized cost.
Many intersections could be safely altered to use yield signs in one direction, or converted completely to roundabouts. For some reason (and this is purely anecdotal), it seems that a lot of Americans, particularly older ones, seem to be very confused when first encountering a roundabout. I'm not sure why this is, but it may be a contributing factor to the prevalence of four way stops in the U.S. as compared to many European countries.
Of course, in a world where everybody is free to do rolling stops at whatever speed they feel comfortable with, the real issue is that bicycles have a greater incentive to slow down at intersections compared to drivers since the costs of being wrong about one's ability to do a rolling stop are much greater for the cyclist. A cyclist should also be more aware of their surroundings since they are not sitting in a metal and glass box with the radio on.
A lot of unnecessary stop signs are there because someone wanted them there.
Every subdivision thinks they need a 3 way stop at the entrance, so they start complaining and eventually the local government caves and installs one because it's relatively cheap to install a few signs (and it's easier to ignore the traffic engineer who says it's unnecessary than the dozens of people who live in the subdivision)
>We cross at those intersections, and bicyclists, in my experience, don't see us when they're focused on cutting a light (or a stop sign).
Pedestrians crossing at a stop sign have to yield to vehicular traffic, no?
And advocating the Idaho Stop isn't advocating for cyclists to blow through at full clip. Stop signs are treated as yields and have to be slowed for, and stop lights are treated as motor vehicles treat stop signs, requiring a full stop.
Vehicles must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks in many states. Illinois is one of them, yet I find in practice anything without a stop sign you're as likely to get buzzed while someone lays on the horn as you are allowed to cross. I regularly have cars honking at me and trying to pass on the right when I stop at crosswalks on some streets in Chicago for pedestrians. It's as if I'm being a jerk for following the law instead of "the Chicago way"
It is required to yield to pedestrians in clearly marked crosswalks in Virginia, and yet, when I visit my parents and assert my right-of-way at the nearest crosswalk, I have ~20% chance of being flipped off and 40% chance of being honked at.
Which, personally, I think is completely reasonable. Constantly stopping and pushing off again adds a huge amount of effort to a ride, and a cyclist has plenty of incentive to look before rolling through an intersection.