Quote Originally Posted by Eden View Post
As far as the rules of the road go - here's how I feel about it. If a law is in place we need to heed it, because that is what is expected - it is part of "be predictable". That doesn't mean that we cannot disagree with it, and in turn fight to have it changed.

If you don't agree with the stop sign law, simply ignoring it doesn't help anyone. Ignoring it angers motorists and paints with a broad brush that somehow all cyclists are law breakers and that we do tons of terrible stuff that ties up traffic and endangers everyone - which we all know is not true... If you disagree and you think the Idaho stop law is better, then fight for it - things aren't going to change on their own. If you don't know how to fight for it yourself, help someone who does.
I think that at the heart of that debate is the question: Should bicyclist have to follow the same rules as motorists? Ever since John Forester wrote Effective Cycling, the majority of bicycle advocates have fought for bicyclists to have all the same "rights and responsibilities" -- a phrase you hear often -- as motorists. I haven't heard much cogent discussion about why bicyclists should (or should not) follow the same rules as motorists. We're hybrid vehicles, fast as cars sometimes but almost as maneuverable as pedestrians. Why should we be treated exactly the same as motor vehicles, when we aren't? (This is a genuine question: I'm not settled, myself, on where bikes should fit in the scheme of laws governing road users.)

The LCI training talks about how it's much safer for bicycles to act as cars. From a predictability standpoint, I can see it. Motorists don't need any special training to anticipate what a bicyclist will do if the bicyclist is following the same rules as the motorist. I confidently bicycle on the existing road infrastructure following the same rules I do when driving. But then you have the typical problem that you encounter when a multi-use path crosses a road. Who gets priority? And precisely because bicyclists aren't motorists -- because we have different concerns, like not losing momentum and having to go slow up hills -- I can also see how it might be valuable for bicyclists to have different rules, like the Idaho stop law. And, frankly, many, many bicyclists are fearful of riding on the road with cars. Very few are going to feel confident taking the lane or moving across three lanes of traffic into a left turn lane. Legitimate fears of cars aren't really addressed with the injunction, "Just ride the same way you'd drive a car." That fear confines lots of people to sidewalks and multi-use trails, which aren't necessarily safer but feel like they are.

Back in September I rode with an LCI in Spokane. She's a fabulous lady, but she drove me NUTS by adhering rigidly to every single law. She put her foot down and looked right-left-right at every stop sign before going, even on totally deserted neighborhood streets. She refused to let motorists wave her on, but insisted they go if they had the right of way. After a while, I confess I started yearning to ride through stop signs just out of craziness. Her example actually made me start thinking about whether that kind of legalism was desirable. It's certainly what the League of American Bicyclists instructs their LCIs to teach in all their classes. I've actually really relaxed my stance on many aspects of the "rights & responsibilities" thing as a result of riding with her, so now I'm probably a bit lax according to the League's standards. I even ride through stop signs on occasion (gasp! don't tell my bike students) .