Ignoring that my country doesn’t allow Idaho Stops, or that my Provincial Government wants to actively kill cyclists by removing safe cycling infrastructure, I’ve always wondered if there’s a reason why cyclists aren’t allowed to simply ride through an intersection like the one in the photo.

I’m talking about the right side, where the bike lane could extend through the intersection without interfering with other vehicles, including those that are turning left.

This would not only keep those stops safer (clears the cyclist out of the intersection), but would just make sense from a transportation efficiency standpoint.

Is there something I’m missing, or do cyclists have to stop only because motorists would take a tantrum if they weren’t required to?

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        Friend, I’ll stop at pedestrian crossings while riding my bike, only to have cars blow by me while a pedestrian is already crossing.

        Cyclists may annoy pedestrians, but cars kill them.

        • Grass@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          it’s a futile endeavour… A few guys have gone around doing street interviews now, and pedestrians generally seem to think cyclists kill more people than cars, and spout the most bizarre mental gymnastics to make car caused deaths an accident but cyclists have to pay dearly for their nearly nonexistent death doll, even though, as far as I could find while sifting through shitty AI slop articles, in most bike crashes with a death its only the cyclist dying regardless of who is at fault.

          • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            20 days ago

            and pedestrians generally seem to think cyclists kill more people than cars

            Anecdotally, and I can only speak for Toronto, but this may be a symptom of the local disability/blind advocates pushing this narrative.

            We have a guy in Toronto who has been against pretty much any micromobility, saying that they kill the elderly, make it impossible for blind people to leave their home, and create chaos on the streets and sidewalks. When asked for evidence, he and his organization will ghost you.

            Never once have I heard him say that cars are a problem.

            He’s ALWAYS the guy that news stations put up as the disability advocate whenever topics around bikes, and e-mobility come up. It’s infuriating, and his organization is one of the reasons why Toronto bans e-scooters (even when their use means fewer cars).

            Anyway, that’s my observation. LOL

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      In that example, you’re right. Not that it would make a difference, since there are crosswalks in places that permit Idaho Stops. But in other 3-ways, especially in residential areas, crosswalks are absent (so are sidewalks on the right side), so stopping feels… off.

      Take this example:

      Ignore that the bike lane “'continues” through the stop, as this stop sign is pretty new and the lines were already painted.

      There’s no sidewalk on the right side, and no crosswalk at those stops (only on the left side). This particular area is part of our waterfront trail, an extremely popular bike route. It would make sense for cars to stop there (they speed down this road on a regular basis), but bikes?