[Industry_Hack]

That law works in Idaho because the two dozen people that live there rarely use any one road at the same time.

[funetical]

Originally Posted by Oneway

You make a good point. If things are too complex, better keep it simple.

I'm going to blame your formatting after reading it a dozen times I think I got it. But yes simpler is better. Same thing with the complex dual meaning sign thingie.

[Oneway]

You make another good point.
?gnittamrof ym htiw gnorw si tahW
.em werht er’yeht dna rieht fo esu ruoY.
Alls well that ends well.

[BigBear]

I don't get it

[Oneway]

Originally Posted by Industry_Hack

That law works in Idaho because the two dozen people that live there rarely use any one road at the same time.

Hey! Boise has 1/3 the population of Boston, not so very different. OK, 1/4 the density of Boston but I suspect the sports minded, personal freedom culture and a willingness to question popular assumptions is the reason for bicyclists legally yielding at Idaho stop signs.

If they don't yet, I bet the insurance companies will soon have accident data before and after stop sign laws.

[Oneway]

Originally Posted by BigBear

I don't get it

You make another good point.
What is wrong with my formatting?
Your use of they're and their threw me.
Alls well that ends well.

[Oneway]

I-Hack,
Don't leave me hanging here! You are an opinionated, law abiding, industry perspective guy!

OK, my formatting stinks and reversing letters humor bombed, but, as Donkey in Shrek sang, "...all alone with no one beside me, no one to guide me, ya gotta have friends...."

I'm ok with following laws or accept the consequences. Civil Disobedience was written nearby.

Do you think it is a default, easy assumption that bikes should be made to follow car rules (like stop signs and red lights) or as Star Trek Mr. Spock would say, "logical".

Do you think bikes are different than cars and therefore may deserve Idaho like consideration? Anyone?

[cgburns]

Cycling requires physical effort. Constant stopping and starting is the most ineffecient part of cycling and is a deterrent to many people.


[Industry_Hack]

Originally Posted by Oneway

I-Hack,
Don't leave me hanging here! You are an opinionated, law abiding, industry perspective guy!

OK, my formatting stinks and reversing letters humor bombed, but, as Donkey in Shrek sang, "...all alone with no one beside me, no one to guide me, ya gotta have friends...."

I'm ok with following laws or accept the consequences. Civil Disobedience was written nearby.

Do you think it is a default, easy assumption that bikes should be made to follow car rules (like stop signs and red lights) or as Star Trek Mr. Spock would say, "logical".

Do you think bikes are different than cars and therefore may deserve Idaho like consideration? Anyone?

Why wouldn't bikes be subject to the same road rules?

[Oneway]

IH
#1 Thank you for jumping in! I respect your views on things.

#2 Bikes aren't subject to the same rules now, nor should we.
Am I correct? Cars can pass bikes anytime, even in "no passing" zoned roads. Bikes can't go on certain roads. Cars are not allowed on bike paths. Bikes don't have the same safety equipment and lighting requirements. I'm not suggesting that cars and bikes should have identical rules. I'm never biking on a super highway and I don't want to share a bike path with a Cadillac.
#3 Bikes truly are someplace between cars and pedestrians. Weight, speed and threat to others we are closer to pedestrians than cars. But, we are not pedestrians.
#4 In a black and white world, bikes should follow all traffic controls as cars.
We are not in a black and white world now. We have roads where heavy trucks aren’t allowed because of noise, height or weight, we have roads where slow speed cars aren’t allowed, noise limits on village roads, and all kinds of variation from state to state in the US and country to country.