Raise the Hammer

I'm not arguing that Idaho stops are not a good idea. I think they are a great thing and I totally agree with the article you cited. That being said, implementing Idaho stops only serves to legalize what cyclists already do. It's not going to be the policy that changes a bad cycling route into a good cycling route. It doesn't matter if you are not required by law to literally stop at every stop-sign - you still need to slow down and observe just like you do now when you (as I'm sure many of urban cyclists do) roll illegally through a stop sign. Same goes for stop lights.

A good case study for this is Dunsmure Rd. On a quiet day you might cycle this entire road without even slowing down for 90% of stop-signs, because traffic is not very heavy and the visibility at each intersection is good enough that you can verify that the way is clear without slowing down. You also can be pretty sure that no cops are waiting on those quiet residential streets to ticket you for not stopping properly. Idaho stops are already a functional reality on this road.

Do I think that it would be better if it were legal to ride this way? Absolutely. Will changing that law affect the way I ride on Dunsmure? Not at all, because the infrastructure of that road already dictates the way I use it. What would improve Dunsmure as an arterial cycling route would be to implement a greenway style of infrastructure. Such an infrastructure scheme would actually change my behaviour on Dunsmure, because then I would not need to be ready to stop every 100-200ft in case a car is approaching an intersection.

Idaho stops are a great idea, but what Hamilton needs is better cycling infrastructure. The OHTA already allows for great cycling environments to exist (St. George / Beverly St. in Toronto, for example), but to actually create these environments you need infrastructure improvements, not legal changes.

Comment edited by AnjoMan on 2013-10-28 09:43:29