Idaho stop in WA?

[ColinOldnCranky]

I heard on the TXV news this evening that the Idaho Stop is going to be legal in WA. Or already is. Or something like that as I was in the kitchen not viewing the TV directly.

I can't see anything on the WestCycle media tab or News tab either.

What is the story?

Does anyone know the story?

[A_P]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... 5ad1b3d6d9

[ColinOldnCranky]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... 5ad1b3d6d9

Thanks AP. My bet is the Minister will shrink away from the stink even if all the evidence elsewhere shows introducing the Idaho Turn to be a no brainer. The lobby of hate is a powerful political enemy and politicians seldom have the balls to argue a case.

[rolandp]

Who is proposing it?

Road Safety Minister Michelle Roberts said she was open to considering the idea.
“Now that it’s been raised with me, we will have a look at it but it’s not something that’s currently on our agenda,” she said.

[mount_street]

From the articles I've seen it's not being sold well at all - only focusing on merging (of all things to highlight in WA), and not stopping. Nothing about us having better visibility because we're at the stop line rather than 2-3m back, less vulnerability when stopped etc etc. As to whether that's the media deliberately ignoring those points and outraging drivers...

[Scott_C]

As to whether that's the media deliberately ignoring those points and outraging drivers...

Of course it is, look at this BS from the PerthNow article:

The change would require two sets of road rules because cars would still have to stop at red lights while cyclists could roll through if the way was clear.

Putting aside that all laws permitting cyclists to pass through red lights that I know of require cyclists to treat the red light as a stop sign (i.e. stop, then proceed if clear) not as something that can be rolled through there are already specific rules or exemptions for motor vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, animal drawn vehicles, riding of animals, unridden animals (stock), motorbikes, trucks, buses, long vehicles, heavy vehicles, 2-wheeled vehicles, ACROD permit holders, people dropping off mail in a letterbox, commercial vehicles, wheel recreation vehicles, Segways, motorcycles with sidecars, police, other emergency vehicles, road workers, speed camera operators, tow trucks, roadside assist vehicles, postal vehicles, pilot or escort vehicles, vehicles operated by the Botanic Parks and Gardens Authority for official business within King's Park, school busses, vehicles towing an agricultural implement and taxis (I might have missed some, feel free to add to the list).

Does this mean we already have 30 sets of road rules because different road users are subject to different provisions? Would they argue that Botanic Parks and Garden Authority vehicles used for official purposes in King's Park currently have their own version of the Road Rules because they get an exemption allowing them to have flashing lights operating? Of course not, we have 1 set of road rules that apply differently to different users because different road users have different requirements and risk profiles. Are they seriously arguing that allowing cyclists to treat a stop sign as a give way sign and a red light as a stop sign (something which is already allowed under the road rules for all vehicles turning left where sign-posted) is the breaking point where it is unacceptable to have different road rules for different vehicles?

Anybody with a clear head can see it is just a beat up playing on peoples ignorance of the road rules and hate of cyclists to drive page views.

[Thoglette]

From the articles I've seen it's not being sold well at all

Are you at all surprised?

[NASHIE]

9 evening news was just another cyclist bashing.........but after hearing a report from a client (who is a cyclist) about cyclists shouting out abuse at workers trying to install the platforms for the PSP bridge at Bayswater Stn on Saturday morning i understand where the hate comes from. These morons have no idea of the hoops and paper work etc etc to get these work done with a minimal disturbance to peds and cyclist, for a project that is for cyclist benefit.
Some of us let all of us down in a very big way.....and some wonder why the hate

[rolandp]

I like the idea of one set of road rules. Could this be the future if there is one set:
Require the rider driver to pedal to access the power.
Have the power cut out when the pedelec vechile reaches 25 km/h, or sooner if the rider driver stops pedalling.

Solve several issues in Australia.

[piledhigher]

I like the idea of one set of road rules. Could this be the future if there is one set:
Require the rider driver to pedal to access the power.
Have the power cut out when the pedelec vechile reaches 25 km/h, or sooner if the rider driver stops pedalling.

Solve several issues in Australia.

Cars to have bells and drivers to wear helmets.

[BandedRail]

Really? Of all the things to focus on? Roads need to be designed so they can accommodate cyclists (i.e. with a cycle lane as opposed to stupidly narrow multiple lanes like Guildford Rd or the totally insane idea of bus/taxi/bike lanes like the Great Eastern Hwy). If "advocate groups" are pushing this rubbish then please stop, you're just fueling the hate. It's BS like this that keeps me away from joining any advocate group, they keep coming up with ideas that are as well thought out as a Trump twitter post.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Really? Of all the things to focus on? Roads need to be designed so they can accommodate cyclists (i.e. with a cycle lane as opposed to stupidly narrow multiple lanes like Guildford Rd or the totally insane idea of bus/taxi/bike lanes like the Great Eastern Hwy). If "advocate groups" are pushing this rubbish then please stop, you're just fueling the hate. It's BS like this that keeps me away from joining any advocate group, they keep coming up with ideas that are as well thought out as a Trump twitter post.

Wow. I don't know where to start. It's a simple concept tried and proven and worth pursuing. Your rant is simply arrogance adding nothing of worth. No apology offered as your own post was just shouting down something that happens not to be on your own narrow radar.

Keeping in mind the wisdom offered below, how about you consider the subject under discussion and maybe offer some useful comment on it. If you aren't willing to do that then no-one is forcing you to address this thread, there are plenty of others to choose from.

Here endeth MY rant.

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance"
-Confucius

[bychosis]

Really? Of all the things to focus on? Roads need to be designed so they can accommodate cyclists (i.e. with a cycle lane as opposed to stupidly narrow multiple lanes like Guildford Rd or the totally insane idea of bus/taxi/bike lanes like the Great Eastern Hwy). If "advocate groups" are pushing this rubbish then please stop, you're just fueling the hate. It's BS like this that keeps me away from joining any advocate group, they keep coming up with ideas that are as well thought out as a Trump twitter post.

The beauty of the Idaho stop for cyclists is that it improves cyclist amenity with the stroke of a pen, rather than thousands of dollars worth of designers, construction crews and materials. Sure, it doesn't really create safer cycling zones, but it is a step towards, only a small step but a step. I reckon I'd be great for all those back streets where we don't need cycling infrastructure.

[Scott_C]

Whilst I don't see much personal value in the Red Light as a Stop Sign portion of the law (unless turning left) I would get good value out of the Stop Sign as Give Way as, coming in to the city along the Armadale line I come across 2 stop sign intersections immediately adjacent to level crossings and when the crossings are active and a traffic queue has already formed there is no need to stop to cross the intersection safely. As DoT seem to have given up on building the PSP promised along here by 2023 (having instead handballed it to ToVP who claim to have a 10 year plan to deliver bicycle infrastructure along here) allowing me to legally roll the stop signs would at least deliver a minor amount of additional convenience while waiting for the infrastructure that was first promised 20 years ago.

I guess my other option would be to cut onto the footpath before the intersection, that way I no longer need to stop as you only need to give-way when crossing the road from a path (which is part of why requiring cyclists to stop at stop signs is silly, a cyclist on the road has to stop but a cyclist approaching the same intersection on a footpath is only required to give-way).

[Thoglette]

The beauty of the Idaho stop for cyclists is that it improves cyclist amenity with the stroke of a pen, rather than thousands of dollars worth of designers, construction crews and materials.

Agreed, to a point.

We need to start with removing the bulk of the pen work related to bicycles in the regulations. E.g. anti-dink provisions, cyclists-can't-ride-across-ped-crossings etc. etc. Go and have a read - an insane number items of silly little rules which are excuses for cyclist "crackdowns". All unjustifiable in the context of no mandatory-slip-slop-slap-laws for peds.

And we need to fix the stupid situations with ped/cyclist crossing lights so they're not red when road users going the same way are seeing green. (Sorry no photos yet).

[John Lewis]

I see the whinging has started in today's West's Letters to the Editor.
Usual predictable rot.

[ColinOldnCranky]

(I might have missed some, feel free to add to the list).

Nice fat list. I made a similar argument in a facebook note a couple of days ago.

Anyway, a couple more (at least in WA):

• Passing drivers occupying the lane having to give way to buses indicating right to join traffic flow from a bus stop.
• Taxis able to use bus lanes that other drivers can't
• Hook turns allowed for cyclists
• and even pedestrians who are, after all, road users.

The argument against Idaho being supplanted intead by a requirement for equal laws for all laws is a classic straw man. Well, it had the INTENT of a strawman, but as a strawman it was too easily demolished, as you have done.

straw man
noun
noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

[Mububban]

....all laws permitting cyclists to pass through red lights that I know of require cyclists to treat the red light as a stop sign (i.e. stop, then proceed if clear) not as something that can be rolled through...

I've never heard of that before. Are you sure? That'd be great to be able to do. I often jump onto the footpath if I see a red light coming up then hop back onto the road once well past the lights.

I see the whinging has started in today's West's Letters to the Editor.
Usual predictable rot.

Ew, who still reads The West? I just grab them from work so my kids' guinea pigs can p*** on it

[Thoglette]

I've never heard of that before. Are you sure?

The generic "Idaho stop" lawshave cyclists treating stop signs as give-way and red lights as stop signs.

[Mububban]

Yeah but is that definitely the law in WA?

[Thoglette]

Yeah but is that definitely the law in WA?

G*d no! Here Stop means Stop and Red means Stop-and-wait