Idaho's Stop-As-Yield law

Local bicyclist B.J. Smith recently tweeted an article about Idaho's Stop-as-yield law.

To quickly sum up the law (you should read the article anyway,) the law allows bicyclists to roll through a stop sign,

when a cyclist approaches an intersection controlled by a stop sign, the cyclist must slow to “a reasonable speed,” but is not obligated to stop unless doing so is “required for safety.” After yielding to any vehicle that has the right of way, the cyclist may proceed.

The points raised by the article all make a lot of sense,

[Stop signs] reduce [safety] by requiring cyclists to enter the intersection after a stop, with no momentum, which makes them less stable and poorly positioned to execute evasive maneuvers, if necessary.

I see two points there were not mentioned in the article, firstly is improve the efficiency of the auto traffic at an intersection by decreasing the amount of time necessary for a bicycle to clear the intersection, and in turn decreasing how long opposed automobiles must remain stopped.

Secondly, it increases safety by making bicycle traffic more predictable. It makes standard what many cyclists (and cars as well) do already, the rolling stop. By officially stating bike can perform a rolling stop in lieu of a complete stop, it makes it easier to predict what is going to happen when a car and a bike approach an intersection.

However, I would be interested in hearing what impact such laws have on the motored segment of traffic. Do laws like this make driver's feel like they should have the right to roll through stop signs thus causing more accidents, or does it enforce a set of rules for rolling stops thus decreasing accidents?

I'm not silent about the "Ride of Silence"

The following post is about the "Ride of Silence," if you don't know what I'm talking about, please go here and quickly read the post, then come back here and read this post (I ask so much, don't I).

Before I alienate everyone who organized or participated in today's ride of silence, let me compliment it for a while. I thought the idea of the ride was great, I think that anything that increases the visibility of bicyclists in the community (especially the Cedar Rapids area) is great. And raising awareness of cyclists who have been injured on public roads is a very important cause (I hope someone has a ride for me if I get hit by a car).

That being said, there were many things in the execution of this ride that seemed to me to have missed the mark. The most glaring was the fact that at two points along to rout (north end of Oakland and the north end of Center Point) It was loudly announced that we needed to "get single file and get over, there are cars behind us" (announced by a fellow cyclist, not by a passing car).

Now don't get me wrong, I think that sharing the road is just that, sharing, and sharing goes both ways. However, I believe that the main issue in the bike/car relationship, is that drivers don't realize that the bicycle has the same right to the lane as the car, because bicycles don't act like the lane belongs to them. On my daily commute to work, I have stopped riding on the right side of the lane, and I found cars stopped trying to take the left portion of the lane. By riding in the center of the lane I clearly communicate to the cars around me that this is my lane and they need to act in such a manor. And I don't think there is a better venue to reinforce this behavior than on a large group ride.

There is protection in numbers, so I think that people who might not feel comfortable riding in the middle of their lane while alone, would be more comfortable if riding with a large group who were all behaving similarly. And I think that the more cyclists on the roads who behave like the lane belongs to them, the more drivers will behave in a similar manor (but I might be wrong and we might just end up with more people to commemorate with bicycle rides).

I don't want to rant too much about it, and I will participate on any similar rides in the future. I just hope that the organizers think about what they are communicating to the drivers on the road as carefully as they think about the message they are making to the cycling community.

Dear Asshole (A letter to the asshole in the truck, from the asshole on the bike)

Dear Asshole,

I understand why you might have been pissed off with me, I was selfishly taking up an entire lane of a four lane road with a stupid bike. I can understand, I am often pissed off at things, more so when I happen to be driving.

However, bikes on the road might be something you should learn to deal with if the City of Cedar Rapids has their way and become a bicycle friendly city. As I said, I can understand being pissed off while driving, which is probably one of the reason I enjoy bicycling, you might want to look into it.

On a serious note, if you're going to honk at a bike in front of you, and then quickly accelerate and pass that bicycle quite closely while saying something (you have to slow down if you want me to actually hear you,) you should punch yourself in the face, because you shouldn't do that to start with. But if you do, you should at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that same cyclist when they catch up to you stopped at a traffic light a block down the road.