Why do I not consent or conform to governments’ decision to tell cyclists to use the road? Because it’s a stupid fucking decision.

I see cars ignoring red lights when they turn right on red without ensuring there are no pedestrians in the crossing. I also see cars beginning crossing the intersection while the light is already red (in my own town this is such a problem, its common practice to wait a couple seconds after the light turns green to go).

I see cars consistently treating stop signs as yield.

Four-way stops are already awful without inventing more rules to juggle.

letting cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs

It’s in the video description.

I have never seen a place that picks between stop and yield signs by any sane rule. I imagine the US isn’t an exception. What they seem to do that is uncommon is enforcing the difference.

But that is not what this video and law change it covers is about. This is about laws changing specifically to allow bicycles to perform rolling stops if an intersection with a stop sign is clear or if they reach it first, as this avoids them having to regain their momentum.

You are morally and ethically superior for bicycling instead of driving a car, but you are also unnecessarily risking your life if you do not follow the traffic laws that the cars follow.

In Delaware in the 30 months following enacting their Idaho Stop law collisions involving cyclists at stop signs fell by 23%, and overall collisions involving cyclists fell by 8%.

There was also discussion of motivation for rolling stop laws in US states. Idaho, which made this change years before any other state, did so to reduce the number of trivial cases using up traffic court resources. Other states were motivated to remove a pretext that police use to stop and detain people, especially people of color.