this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
50 points (96.3% liked)

Bicycles

4307 readers
194 users here now

Welcome to !bicycles@lemmy.ca

A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!

Community Rules

Other cycling-related communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Evkob@lemmy.ca
50
New York City has sent over 6000 cyclists to criminal court. Some say they are being treated unfairly. (bronx.news12.com)
submitted 4 days ago by destructdisc@lemmy.world to c/bicycles@lemmy.ca
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/33503408

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Bicycles are not cars, and should not be treated identically to cars. Your post sounds like you've never ridden a bicycle in a city before. Bicycles stopped at traffic lights are kinda in an impossible situation. Coming to a 100% complete stop means dismounting and putting your feet on the pavement. Briefly becoming a pedestrian in the road. Basically asking people to rear end you, because they don't expect a 100% complete stop either. Red lights become "yield" signs. "Stop as yield" or an "Idaho stop" are known to be safer for everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, a red light is a red light.

The fact that bikes are not cars should lead you to a different conclusion. Running a red light on a bike is much closer to jaywalking a red light as a pedestrian.

[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Read the link people! It's legal in 6 states! Why am I still getting replies saying the same thing?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Idaho Stop

That may be a law in a few states, but New York is not one of those.

But the author isn't advocating for this law, she's arguing that cyclists should be treated the same as cars...

Which is what you're apparently mad at me about?

Did you mean to reply to the main post and you're arguing with the article's author? I don't think she'll read these comments.

[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I still don’t understand how running a red lights on a bicycle makes anything safer… Especially for the cyclist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop#Safety

A 2009 study showed a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop law (though did not otherwise tie the decrease to the law).[15][16] A Delaware state-run study of the "Delaware Yield" law (allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs) concluded that it reduced injuries at stop-sign controlled intersections by 23%.[17]

It's safer dude. You asked how it was safer, here are numbers of how it's safer.

[–] jagungal@aussie.zone 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Idaho Stop is not the same as running a red. I've been riding all my life and riding on the road since I was 12. You shouldn't run red lights; it's unpredictable and just downright dangerous if you do it at the wrong intersection.

[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Except for the 6 states where it's legal. Like in the link I posted. Because it is safer than not. But IDK why I expected people to read the link.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Oh ok, that's what you were doing.

Sorry, I got confused when you were accusing me of agreeing with the author.

And now you've clarified that a single study has shown a correlation:

A 2009 study showed a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop law (though did not otherwise tie the decrease to the law).

I actually downloaded the PDF to read what was going:

Repeated stopping increases risk of injury from repetitive stress. The act of a hard stop, and the 28 subsequent resuming of speed from a hard stop, involves considerable strain on joints, >particularly the 29 wrists and knees but also the shoulders, elbows, neck and low back. (cite) The wrist suffers >strain under 30 vibration, flexion and torsion during hard stops.

To get that 14.5% decrease, they're counting the "physical strain" of having to start from a stop. But if they're supposed to be coming to a full stop anyways, they have the same amount of starts...

Still doesn't make any logical sense to me how it's safer, but it lead me time more info in the end, so thanks!

[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

https://web.archive.org/web/20160723102129/http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/fajans.htm

These Berkeley Professors bring up an interesting idea. Not so much mentioning safety directly. But they mention 2 different possible routes, one with more stop signs and one with more traffic and fewer stops.

While a drop of a few miles per hour may not seem like much to a car driver, think of it this way: the equivalent in a car would be a drop from 60 to 45 mph. Because the extra effort required on California is so frustrating, both physically and psychologically, many cyclists prefer Sacramento to California, despite safety concerns. They ride California, the official bike route, only when traffic on Sacramento gets too scary.

So perhaps adding "stop as yield" changes the calculation for what is the fastest route by bicycle. Which leads bicycles to take safer routes with more stop signs and fewer cars. That could explain some of the decrease in accidents when states/cities pass these laws. Change in bicyclist behavior.