Ignoring that my country doesn’t allow Idaho Stops, or that my Provincial Government wants to actively kill cyclists by removing safe cycling infrastructure, I’ve always wondered if there’s a reason why cyclists aren’t allowed to simply ride through an intersection like the one in the photo.

I’m talking about the right side, where the bike lane could extend through the intersection without interfering with other vehicles, including those that are turning left.

This would not only keep those stops safer (clears the cyclist out of the intersection), but would just make sense from a transportation efficiency standpoint.

Is there something I’m missing, or do cyclists have to stop only because motorists would take a tantrum if they weren’t required to?

  • atzanteol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I love that you think any cyclists will actually stop.

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Well, I do.

      But since you think that way, it sounds like permitting an Idaho Stop is the answer here. It would keep cyclists safe, and make it easier for them to travel through these areas.