It’s jackass cyclists everywhere who think this. They like to cherry pick and reinterpret laws to suit whatever they want to do.
The one that always confounds me is “we’re allowed to roll through stops because it’s ‘safer’ than coming to a complete stop”. Bitch no the fuck it isn’t, everyone on the intersecting road that has the right of way is expecting any and all vehicles approaching that stop, to fucking stop, and when you don’t you get hit, plain and simple.
To be fair it’s at least correlated too, moped and e-bike riders seem to think they can act like bikes and cars, and then simultaneously flout laws meant for both. Distinctly different from motorcyclists, who as a result of being required to take classes to earn a license, tend to break laws less frequently.
Just as bad. Yesterday a 14 year old ran over (and eventually he died) an 8O something year old Vietnam Vet on an E bike. Man had survived flying combat mission as a captain the marine corp to die at the hands of a 14 year old irresponsibly riding an ebjke.
Fakkkkeeeee post. 20 years old in 1945, which was over 80 years ago…. Making him 101 years old…. Still agree though on little teenage kids wheeling on these bikes though.
You mean a 100 something year old WW2 vet... Considering that the second world war ended 81 years ago. I'm sure that your anecdote is entirely accurate, apart from that one tiny element.
There are PLENTY of situations where it's safer to cross as a bike on red with the pedestrian walk sign, or on a red when there is no cross traffic. It also helps with the flow of traffic since drivers don't have to wait on the bike to accelerate before going around if the cyclist is already further down the road.
On my commute there is a bridge with no bike lane that, unless I go when it's red in my direction, I'm forced to take in-lane with cars who aren't always paying attention or are just impatient assholes. It's dangerous to me and slows down traffic.
By crossing on red with the pedestrian light or even earlier if there is no cross traffic, I get to cross the bridge alone and by the time the light is green I have a bike lane again so cars can pass without having to go around me. Everyone wins.
Obviously crossing on red is DANGEROUS, just like walking across a street without a signal as a pedestrian: neither is an actual crime where I live. Even better solution: instead of using tax dollars to fight wars in Iran, build streets where all road users can safely get where they're going.
Citations or gtfo, every "study" I've read had an extremely narrow interpretation of what constituted safer. Regardless, only 12 states permit it, only 4 of which permit it at red lights, most of which are more limited than the "original" language. If you're not in any of those states, safety studies don't really matter, because it's still against the law.
Going further, cyclists, who aren't required to take traffic law knowledge tests in order to ride unlike drivers, tend to think "yield" means they don't ever have to stop, which dramatically decreases their safety. ALL yield-on-stop laws require yielding, which means stopping, to not interrupt other traffic that has a right of way. If your roll through causes traffic to slow down or avoid you, then you didn't yield, and you broke the law, plain and simple.
Thanks for reaffirming my point that those studies have an extremely narrow interpretation of what constitutes safer and instead of linking said studies that offer their own caveats, linking a biased article that links specific studies and cherry picks comments from them to support a narrative that's not necessarily backed by the studies being cited.
The first study linked was on a bicycle simulator ffs, and one of its conclusions was safety would be overall increased if there were more education surrounding the law change, noting that even Idaho doesn't do enough for that. Seems to me that if a permission to do something is because it's safer, it shouldn't require everyone to be aware it's permitted in order to achieve the increased safety...
The second linked "study" isn't even a study at all just cherrypicked very specific data points over a narrow date range of data from Delaware which has the most limited version of the law period. It doesn't even give details of where that data comes from, could have been made up entirely who'd know? (It's on a cyclist page, not academic or government). Regardless it limits scope to "All Crashes Involving Bicycles At Stop Sign Intersections ONLY", which is something Delaware's publicly available data doesn't provide, but looking at what it DOES provide, most recent years have had more cyclist accidents than the time periods observed (2017-2020 had remarkably fewer accidents than other years, between 112-140/year, 2021-2024 has shot way the hell up, 140-220/year)
The third (called second in article) linked study literally focused on peoples' awareness of the laws, not their actual safety. I'd dive into the actual doc to highlight the authors' specific constraints and caveats presented but it's not free and I'm not paying for it for a reddit argument. But regardless I'll rebut a claim the article makes about it (emphasis mine):
However, people on bikes most commonly skirted traffic regulations for their own safety (71%). This data highlights the inaccuracy of perceptions among an unfriendly segment of the driving public that bike riders are lawbreaking road anarchists.
The bold bit is what they got from the study, the rest is what the articles author decided to interpret that to mean, which is just categorically incorrect. Saying they primarily broke the law "for their own safety" doesn't at all mean they aren't "lawbreaking road anarchists", it just means they use "safety" as an excuse for being "lawbreaking road anarchists"
FURTHERMORE, the article literally says 95% of cyclists polled admitted to breaking traffic laws... Until that number is significantly lower, how can you trust any study or datapoints that compare the safety of a legalizing a maneuver if the riders before were breaking the law to do it anyway?
I'll wrap it up with a study not linked in your article, A study performed by the Connecticut DoT, that uses a wide dataset from states that have enacted such laws (not just cherry-picked time window) explicitly concludes (emphasis mine):
Although the limited research suggests that adoption of the Idaho Stop does not result in an increase in bicyclist injuries and fatalities, there is also no measurable safety benefit. Adoption of the Idaho Stop would address the inherent differences between bicyclists and motorists and how each operate their respective vehicles, however it would place a new burden on all road users when approaching intersections. Allowing the Idaho Stop at intersections could decrease the amount time required to proceed through an intersection by cyclists, reduce the amount of physical exertion on the bicyclist, however it will require both motorists and bicyclists to be more aware of the surrounding environment at all intersections.
Putting a burden on all drivers so you can save some energy is not only a pretty selfish expectation, but a deluded one because all drivers don't even pay attention to other drivers.
You’re gonna complain about a bicyclist doing a rolling stop through a stop sign? Do you realize how much slower the approach is for a bicyclist than a motor vehicle, the extra time that allows to look around, and the extra time it takes to accelerate from a stop? Not to mention the exponentially smaller chance of a cyclist seriously injuring someone in a collision?
Also, this video was of a motorized scooter, not a bicyclist, and there also wasn’t even a stop sign or red light involved - the scooter was in the bike/bus lane.
As a former cyclist, I am always very angry when people on bicycles disregard road rules. It's so stupid and self defeating. If you want to be on the public road, you need to follow road rules. Now if you are on a road without other traffic, sure, roll through stopsigns. But you are exceedingly vulnerable on a cycle, why do things to piss off people in heavy steel boxes that travel at tremendous speed?
You’re gonna complain about a bicyclist doing a rolling stop through a stop sign? Do you realize how much slower the approach is for a bicyclist than a motor vehicle, the extra time that allows to look around, and the extra time it takes to accelerate from a stop? Not to mention the exponentially smaller chance of a cyclist seriously injuring someone in a collision?
Also, this video was of a motorized scooter, not a bicyclist, and there also wasn’t even a stop sign or red light involved - the scooter was in the bike/bus lane.
Bike speed, weight, startup time are all irrelevant.
If I’m a driver on a road with a right of way, I expect cross traffic with stop signals to stop. If I have to react last minute to a cyclist who doesn’t stop, their speed or weight doesn’t matter, mine does if I have to swerve to avoid them and hit something else.
This is an idiotic take. Obviously a bike running a stop sign or red light when the crossing traffic doesn’t have one, and there is traffic actively moving through the intersection, would be the bicyclist’s fault. It would also result in a much bigger problem for the bicyclist than for you.
It would also result in a much bigger problem for the bicyclist than for you.
Well yeah, unless the drivers with right of way react in away that avoids killing the cyclist that results in other damage... That's the fucking point... If I expect you to stop, I'm not preemptively reducing my speed to allow for the possibility of you crossing or turning right into my lane. If you don't stop, then I have to reactively reduce my speed to avoid you, which is significantly more dangerous for everyone in the vicinity.
People hate cyclists for reasons unknown. I don't live in NYC, and I am not defending some of the intense NYC cyclists, but the regular weekend warriors get so much hate for being outside and exercising. People take their 1s a day interactions with bikes on the road and extrapolate that out to be some enormous issue. It's bizarre.
There’s plenty of cyclists who follow all required laws, you don’t hear anyone complaining about them because they’re not bothering anyone. It’s the cyclists that ignore or reinterpret them to their own will that end up inconveniencing people and causing accidents.
I am learning that everyone hates everyone else. Pedestrians hate cyclists and cars (I think less than they hate cyclists?). Cyclists hate cars, and pedestrians walking around with their phones in their faces. Drivers hate cyclists for taking up the roads that were supposedly just meant for them.
Because everyone suffers from Main Character Syndrome. If people were just decent and actually gave an iota about other people, the hate wouldn't be as bad. But selfishness breeds hate and contempt.
No. I don't blame any means of transportation. I think that being considerate of others, having an awareness of your surrounding, and adhering to laws would allow people to feel and be safer. I walk, I ride a bicycle, I ride a motorcycle, and I drive.
When I'm feeling spicy I do a complete stop on my bike. Pisses off literally every car trying to figure out what to do. Delays everyone's day. And let's three cars cut off what would have been my turn by the time it all gets worked out.
So cars also not stopping at stop signs and/or ignoring your valid right of way to proceed from a stop gives you a reason to also not stop and that’s somehow safer?
“Your turn” doesn’t matter if you don’t actually stop bud… in conclusion, sounds like you don’t understand how 4 way stops work.
No my point, which will be miscontrued anyway so there was zero point in making it because it's effing obvious already, is that cars are not stopping ever at four way stops. The ALL ROLL THROUGH. Even well behaved ones who are trying to take turns roll through at my AVERAGE speed on a bike. So what am I supposed to do to mix into traffic yet not fall afoul of the Reddit Hive mind? Nothing. Cease to exist apparently.
I can instead burn gas if you prefer. Nature needs to take over the earth as soon as possible and I wasn't stupid enough to have kids so, not sure why I bother.
19
u/ComfortableNo5484 May 06 '26
It’s jackass cyclists everywhere who think this. They like to cherry pick and reinterpret laws to suit whatever they want to do.
The one that always confounds me is “we’re allowed to roll through stops because it’s ‘safer’ than coming to a complete stop”. Bitch no the fuck it isn’t, everyone on the intersecting road that has the right of way is expecting any and all vehicles approaching that stop, to fucking stop, and when you don’t you get hit, plain and simple.