View Full Version : More opinions on the Idaho Stop Law...

05-26-2009, 12:22 PM
Boy, can I identify myself with this persons comments...

in reguards to a guest article on the Idaho Stop Law (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/05/bicycling_idaho_stop_bill_coul.html) in the Oregonian...

Posted by acyclist on 05/26/09 at 8:48AM

Well motorists don't have to put both feet down. That in itself makes them both different.
I can hear better 100 percent of the time
I can see better 100 percent of the time
My acceleration is slower 100 percent of the time
I sit higher than a car
My approach speed is slower
My vehicle is brighter 360 degrees
My foot print is smaller
I can pick my bike up
I can whip a uturn within a parking space
I can mount the sidewalk legally
I can become a pedestrian
I won't kill or injury any motorists
I can stop faster
I have a bigger incentive to be careful

Why shouldn't we encourage cycling with just laws geared towards a non lethal, environmentally friendly,and better designed vehicle. Instead we bind them with unreasonable requests, and change the laws to accompany motorists. That is why we share the lane and no other vehicle on the road does. You only need to look at the law to see all the things a cyclist isn't going to be able to ride to the right.

"The driver of the vehicle who goes off the road to avoid the bike that thought the road was clear, causes damage and the cyclist is at fault."

Why does the car have too swerve out of control? Can't they use them brakes? Ideally they would look if they can swerve, yet I am guessing if they had the time, they could stop.

"The rule are not written for the thinking person, they are written for the unthinking. When everybody obeys the rules, even idiots are protected."

Wrong whenever a motorist overtakes me they use their brain to judge a three feet buffer. AZ law.

"The bicycle adds too much confusion on the streets"
If the car drove 15mph they would have no problem at all. Try slowing down see if that helps.

"The traffic laws are not written to be obeyed when it is convenient"
A yield sign is written so you don't have to obey the sign, but only if there is no right of way established. Sounds convenient to me and more thinking.
C. The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign shall slow down in obedience to the sign to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the driver is moving across or within the intersection. If after driving past a yield sign without stopping the driver is involved in a collision with a vehicle in the intersection, the collision is prima facie evidence of the driver's failure to yield the right-of-way.

"Plus, they are for kids. Cars are for grown ups. If an adult wants to ride the Schwinn let the adult ride in the many city parks and the beach."

So you ride a bike then? I can play that game.
Bicycles came first so cars should stick to the freeways and stay off the streets.

@ the editor go ride a bicycle for about a 1,000 miles and come back and rewrite this piece.

Any more trolls want to play?