Although I believe the answer is “no,” I can understand why some people would think otherwise. At least one study indicates that the average person breaks a law every day. As often as not, the offenses are unintentional. But why do otherwise upstanding citizens have, shall we say, moments when they don’t play by one rule or another?
The answer, I guess, is that it depends on the situation, which rule or regulation is being flouted or ignored, and why. An Idaho (Now you know where this is going if you’ve been reading my blog regularly!) survey of road users indicates as much.
According to that survey, 95.9 percent of cyclists reported breaking a traffic law. That is only slightly less than the 97.9 percent of pedestrians and 99.97 percent of drivers who admitted to doing the same.
What distinguishes cyclists from pedestrians and motorists, however, are their motivations for law-breaking. While 85 percent of drivers and 71 percent of foot-travelers said they broke or ignored traffic regulations to save time, 71 percent of bicycle riders said they skirted a rule for their own safety.
That statistic is part of an argument advocates in California and other states are making for the adoption of the so-called Idaho Stop. Since 1982, the Gem State has allowed cyclists to proceed through a “Stop” sign if there is no cross-traffic at the intersection. Since then, a number of states and other jurisdictions in the US and Europe have adopted it or similar policies.
 |
| Photo by Melanie Curry for Streetsblog CA |
Studies indicate that allowing cyclists to, in essence, treat a “stop” sign as a “yield” sign has a somewhat positive or, at worst, neutral effect on safety for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists.
Authors of those studies, however, also recommend that instruction about the “Idaho Stop” and its benefits be included in driver’s education courses and manuals. The reason for that is simple: In spite of those studies—and testimonies from cyclists like me—many drivers and law enforcement officers believe that the “Idaho Stop” leads to reckless, lawless cycling. As any cyclist can tell you, proceeding through an intersection ahead of traffic flowing in the same direction is safer for everyone involved, assuming there is no cross traffic. For one thing, it all but eliminates the chance that a cyclist will be hit by a right-turning vehicle and greatly reduces the risk of being struck from behind or by oncoming drivers making a left turn. It also reduces the likelihood of a cyclist striking a pedestrian.
Most of the jurisdictions that have legalized the “Idaho Stop” or similar legislation did so during the half-decade or so before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, attempts to enshrine it in California, my home state of New York and other places have been stalled or halted largely because of panic about eBike safety. That concern grew in part because of electric motorcycles illegally sold as eBikes (which, in most cities and states, don’t require permits or licenses) and because the use of legal and illegal machines grew exponentially as delivery-app services swelled in popularity. Consumers demand fast deliveries; app companies make delivery workers, most of whom are immigrants, work under unrealistic time frames.
The result? Delivery workers who run red lights and ignore traffic signs —so that Buffy and Dane can get their sushi in ten minutes. And cyclists like me have to break a rule or two to keep from getting hit by them.
