From personal experience - I have yet to see a cyclist "taking due care" when they run the stop sign by where I live. They just run it full speed downhill and cars have to dodge them.
What especially confuses me in this situation is that if the cyclist runs into a car turning left after the car properly stopped and then started moving without see the cyclist speeding downhill (uphill from the car and usually beyond the view due to the said hill), the cyclist is the one with the most to lose. They do it anyways.
It's safer[1], and other places (California[2], Denver[3] from a quick Google search) have looked to implement similar laws.
You probably only notice when the cyclists don't take "due care" before they proceed into an intersection. Of course there will be dumb people, but the chances of them causing injury to anyone else is still tiny compared to cars. You're missing all the times (quiet streets, quiet times of the day) when no one is around and it doesn't make sense to wait for a light (and for cars to show up that'll probably pass too close by the cyclists when the light turns green).
I think the key here is that stop sign is treated as a yield sign and not an automatic right of way. That distinction makes a lot of sense to me, but is quite different from what I've been observing in my neighborhood.
Comments
Source?
From personal experience - I have yet to see a cyclist "taking due care" when they run the stop sign by where I live. They just run it full speed downhill and cars have to dodge them.
What especially confuses me in this situation is that if the cyclist runs into a car turning left after the car properly stopped and then started moving without see the cyclist speeding downhill (uphill from the car and usually beyond the view due to the said hill), the cyclist is the one with the most to lose. They do it anyways.
It's particularly disingenuous to request a source, and then immediately proceed to make an argument based on anecdotes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
It's safer[1], and other places (California[2], Denver[3] from a quick Google search) have looked to implement similar laws.
You probably only notice when the cyclists don't take "due care" before they proceed into an intersection. Of course there will be dumb people, but the chances of them causing injury to anyone else is still tiny compared to cars. You're missing all the times (quiet streets, quiet times of the day) when no one is around and it doesn't make sense to wait for a light (and for cars to show up that'll probably pass too close by the cyclists when the light turns green).
[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st... [2] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert... [3] http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/26/senate-bill-bicyclists-...
Thanks, interesting read.
I think the key here is that stop sign is treated as a yield sign and not an automatic right of way. That distinction makes a lot of sense to me, but is quite different from what I've been observing in my neighborhood.