I also don't think there are many cyclists (even really stupid ones) that blatantly ignore stop lights and proceed through intersections without a care for cross traffic. At least they don't do it many times.

Admittedly, those cyclists dangerously blowing through people-packed intersections jettisoning epithets typical of child abuse victims can roil the emotions, but the unimpassioned truth is that the dangers caused by cars is by far the real problem.

The proposal is NOT to make it legal for cyclists to "blow through" stop signs and red lights, go the wrong way on one-way streets, or ride on the sidewalk.

There are three types of cyclists with regards to this issue:

1) A small minority who obey all traffic rules.
2) An even smaller minority who act like complete assholes and engage in the type of behavior cited by the naysayers in this thread.
3) The vast majority, who occasionally do things like roll through a stop when there are no pedestrians or cars in sight, or stop at a red light, wait for all traffic to pass, look around, and proceed through the intersection.

Right now 2) and 3) are equally considered "law breakers" and can equally be subject to being ticketed by the police. Because perfectly reasonable behavior that most cyclists engage in is treated this way, some cyclists feel, quite naturally, alienated. Thus we have drivers, pedestrians, and a few cyclists lined up against 2) and 3) (and since these groups constitute the majority of cyclists, it creates an "us vs. them" mentality among cyclists and all other road users). The proposal that started this thread would bring 3), the majority of cyclists, onto the right side of the law, where they should be, while isolating 2), the jerks we should actually be worrying about.

Some of the protections come from the design of the vehicles which, in the case of cars have to be somewhat be in compliance with law like seat belts, air bags, etc., or, the possibility of liability for whoever made the vehicle, rules of design so to speak.

Other protections come from rules of the road like speed limits, observance of stop lights and signs, right of way, etc.

Passengers in automobiles have substantial amount of design-oriented safety protections.

Passengers on bicyles and pedestrians have virtually no design protections and the rules of the road should be crafted to make up for this considerable deficit because lives are at stake.

Automobiles can be designed for cyclist and pedestrian safety which could be in the form speed and acceleration governors that kick in when there are a cyclists and pedestrians nearby but, the most effective ways would probably include complete separation of cars from cyclists and pedestrians, or cars traveling at very low speeds (probably significantly less than 10 miles per hour) when cyclists and pedestrians (especially children and elderly) are nearby or are potentially nearby and can be injured. These rules of the road (and design of the road) would ultimately save a lot of lives and prevent the grave injuries caused by cars hitting cyclists and pedestrians.

It is well acknowledged that the current practice of street design and the ways that cars use streets is extremely dangerous and the high mortality rate for pedestrians is not justified. A parent does not walk down a city sidewalk next to a street without holding the hand of a very young child because of the danger nearby. Elderly often need assistance is crossing streets.

Laws require that cyclists exclusively use streets even though they lack the same protections that pedestrians lack. In fact, pedestrians traveling streets much like cyclists in streets are jaywalking and breaking the law.

What is curious is the lack of sense of urgency or expediency in removing the life-threatening rules of the road and practices.

I know mere facts will convince no one, but there it is.

The huge disparity in safety between cars and pedestrians should also be eliminated.

The disparities in safety between cars and both cyclists and pedestrians is perhaps the most striking example of the "Structural Violence" (reference Paul Farmer, Founder of Partners in Health, author of "Pathologies of Power") allowed to continue by the highly affluent and so-called "developed" world.

Ouch, John. Traffic isn't "predictable" because it's made up of humans. You need to collaborate with other road users and that means anticipating that they might not do what you expect them to. You can't just rigidly do everything by the book. That leads to misunderstandings and crashes.

Rolling through stop signs is common where I live,however, for bikes and cars. I've noticed on my route that I tend to roll through the stop at about 5 mph or less, which is about the same speed that autos do it. In my opinion, this does not constitute a risk to public safety. I've never seen our police stop anyone for doing this.

As to red lights, I will wait through the light unless it has a sensor which does not recognize my bike. In which case I wait until no cars are crossing to go. I think upgrading the sensors makes more sense than changing the laws.

And yes, I am in the very small minority of cyclists in my town who obey traffic laws. Unfortunately.

Remember that stop signs and lights were invented (in Detroit, no less, in 1915 and 1920) in order to protect pedestrians, bicyclists, and horses (which had previously safely shared the streets without needing any controls) from car drivers. Our laws have been playing catch-up with ever more powerful cars for a century now: the progression from 20hp Model Ts to 500hp Porsche Cayennes nearly requires a stop sign/light every 300' just to keep drivers from zooming through cities at 70 MPH. Meanwhile, bicyclists have really not gotten any faster in the past century.

Complaints about bicyclists recklessly "blasting through" intersections or refusing to yield in crosswalks are irrelevant: even if this proposed legal change takes place, such behavior would still be criminal.

I wish that the Idaho experience were generalizable, but unfortunately Idaho is too rural to be comparable in any real way to NYC or SF. Maybe the examples of cities like Freiburg, Germany (where many traffic signs say "except bicycles") are more useful.

So when I coast through a red at 3 mph, I do not feel like a similar menace. At a red light, I will stop in front of the crosswalk, wait for the peds to cross, scoot to the other side and either wait for the light to change (if traffic is heavy) or roll through (if the coast is clear).

I would like to say that with the increased popularity of bicycling, I see more idiotic behavior by cyclists. Blowing through lights, causing people to scatter left and right. While sporting iPod earbuds, cord dangling, riding on the sidewalk. No helmet, no lights at night, no gloves, no brakes (if on a fixed gear), no brains. I feel like the cranky old lady out there, telling people to slow down on the greenway.

I sometimes wish that I could force these folks to undergo a basic cycling competency test.

Does anyone have any data on whether the Idaho law has had any impact on collision rates, bike mode share or bicyclist behavior (i.e. cyclists more closely following the more moderate law)?

It's been obvious throughout that there's more to the proposal than "it's common behavior;" no one has made that the center of the argument, so you can save your energy by not rebutting that.

To repeat, it's not just that the behavior is common, it is also widely condoned, putting the usefulness of the rules under suspicion (yes, Vroom, may be "the law is disrespected" is a bit excessive).

As for your answer to my self-righteousness, there is more to the social responsibility of one's transport choice than fuel and space efficiency. Consider just two consequences of a vehicle's mass: road wear (paid for by everyone) and greater damage caused in collisions. Yeah, in the context of city streets, bikes are in a completely different class than hybrids, and that's why I said they deserve preferential treatment. Jesus, cars have been getting preferential treatment for decades, if you didn't notice. I am not trying to have it both ways, and I don't think the story asks for that either.

I also remember the Marshall piece from months back. I was less enthusiastic about his suggestions back then mainly because they seemed so much more unrealistic even just that short time ago. I am glad the idea of such rules changes is getting discussed.