I don’t think you understand the article or my point. The guy who is advocating the rule change says it is justified because there are only consequences for the rider. That is simply not true. That’s the point being made. That has nothing to do with how the rule works. I don’t understand what you don’t understand that.

No, if you read the article you would know that the person making the case for the rule change thinks it would be justified because there are only consequences for the person on the bike. But he is demonstrably wrong, which is my point. That is what was being discussed in the original post I replied to. Not how the rule works. Just that there are indeed consequences to getting it wrong. If you don’t understand it, try reading the article and the comments again.

You do realize I was making a joke, right? I’m well aware commas have meanings and I respect traffic laws.

Well… if you don’t want the bicycles to slow or stop on traffic lights, another ridiculous idea is to time the traffic light changes to the average speed of cyclists instead of cars.
If the old days they time the traffic light to cars so cars doesn’t have to stop at every traffic lights. Maybe now its the cyclists’ turn.
This way, you can keep the traffic rules equal and drivers who do not want to stop at intersection can drive as fast as the cyclist.
If you think cyclists will be too slow to reach the next traffic light, you can arrange the interval to use double the speed of cyclists, so the lights turn right in the middle between the two lights.
Then the Question will be, what is the average speed of cyclists on the streets?

I’m not saying you’re right or wrong but do commute on a bike for a few months before making an opinion of biking rules.

For the record, for many years I used to live a few kilometers from work and commuted by bike. I gave it up after passing the second fatal collision on my route. I still try to be objective about traffic law. Given that you attach some importance to specifially cycling experience when adjudicating the obvious for anyone with any road experience, I don’t think you are capable of having a reasoned discussion over traffic rules where bicycles are concerned, but I hope that I am wrong.

The author tries to defend this exception to the normal stop rules as being unique from all the other road rules that sacrifice expedience for safety by saying there are only consequences for the cyclist when they get things wrong. That assertion is objectively wrong. It doesn’t take much experience to know that vehicles making emergency maneuvers to avoid someone who screwed up can kill people, and that is true whether it is a car, bike, or person who thought it was safe to proceed but were wrong.

And you’ll notice that I have not made a value judgment regarding the change itself. That’s because it’s immaterial. I’m merely pointing out that there actually are consequences to consider that extend beyond the cyclist. The person cited in the article handwaves these consequences, saying it only impacts the cyclist who gets it wrong because a bicycle isn’t big enough to hurt people. Anyone who has seen a stroller roll out into traffic can attest to the chaos that will actually happen next. Sorry, but I just can’t stand to see an alleged expert missing something that big in his argument and everyone just nodding along. If you want such a change to happen, it needs to stem from an intellectually honest discussion.

You’re pissing on the wrong leg. Don’t mistake disagreement for ignorance of the article. I live in entitled cyclist central, and I’ve even been shot at while driving by one who got pissed at me for not seeing him wearing all black riding at night with no lights running a red. I got no time for cyclists’ bullshit, even being one. We can follow the same rules as everyone else, and should. You have no idea how many times I’ve heard/seen/read cyclists saying that they’re better people than car drivers so shouldn’t have to follow the rules. It’s a LOT. I currently live in one of those states with “similar laws”. It’s a nightmare, and cycling culture has devolved in part because of it.

Yeah and pedestrians can follow the same rules too, it’s just fucking asinine to make them do so because it’s drawing a false equivalency between two things that aren’t equivalent.

All the egregious cyclists behaviour you’re bitching about is still illegal with the Idaho stop rules.

Problem is its a nuanced thing that only some folks have the sense to make a proper call. When there is no vehicle cross traffic at all. It kinda makes sense. I remember a guy though who would go through on reds for a very busy street in afternoon rush and it was quite annoying. I mean by the time the drivers get all pissed he is well away while me and the others stopped at the light are there as targets of it.

False equivalency, eh? No. And you’re looking right past my point, which is that giving cyclists an inch leads them to take a mile. Pedestrians who don’t walk in the street following the same rules… talk about asinine arguments. The Idaho rules and their derivatives absolutely open the door to the very egregious behavior I mentioned, save for the gunshots.

So, I’ll break down why the article is nonsense. The author of the article’s premise is basically “First off, I am very smart. See? I’m an academic. That said, bikes shouldn’t have to follow the same rules. Why? I have two reasons. The first is that having to stop and start is a drag. The second is that if a bike hits a car, it doesn’t matter”.

It’s also a drag to have to stop when you’re driving. Inconvenience is irrelevant. The bike hitting a car thing, that’s absolute crap. First, a cyclist might not be hitting a car. Maybe another cyclist. Maybe a motorcycle rider. Second, depending on the nature of the crash, that car could be totalled depending on any number of factors. Considering that cyclists don’t have to carry insurance, and a whole lot of people can only afford basic liability insurance, a cyclist hitting a car could well mean some poor person having to pay out of pocket and not being able to afford it, losing their car, and that unraveling all kinds of things in their life. Lives are ruined every day in the US by people losing their transportation. Or it could just be that some asshole runs into your car, puts a dent in it and fucks your paint up, and you have to pay out of pocket because this dickhead whose judgement is missing happens to be no worse for the wear and decides to scoot rather than deal with a problem that’s “not his”. Or it gets reported properly and you have to sue this dude to get the money to fix your car before the scrapes start rusting.

I call that “it’s no big deal” attitude entitled.

But what’s more, it’s a traffic incident. It means police getting involved, it means insurance companies and the potential for the driver’s rates to go up through no fault of their own, and if the cyclist is seriously hurt or worse, it means a lot of heartache and trauma for everyone involved, maybe more people than that. Discounting the realities of how disruptive, expensive, or downright bad it can be even if it’s the cyclist running into a vehicle or the incident just being their fault is irresponsible at best and a bad faith argument.

Going back to the idaho rules specifically, those same rules would make perfect sense for a car, too. We’ve all been stuck at a red light at night with nobody coming for blocks. If the coast is clear to go, it’s clear to go, right? Well, no, the rules are in place because capital P People are a bunch of idiots, and they’d be crashing cars more than they already do if those rules weren’t there even when they don’t seem to make sense in the moment. The same is true for cyclists. As many times as cyclists have blown through their red light into my green light, I’ve seen them do that to others even more. Same of cyclists shooting in between me and my parking spot while I’m very obviously parallel parking, backing up with my blinker on and moving.
Different sets of rules for different vehicles sharing the same space are a bad idea, full stop.

I have spoken.