The Idaho stop law basically says bicycle commuters may treat stop signs as yield signs, and treat stop lights as stop signs.
The reasoning behind the Idaho stop is that it is more efficient for the cyclist and encourages using secondary roads rather than primary roads. The opposing thought is that it adds to the confusion of what to expect among cyclists and drivers.
Other states within the United States, including Colorado, have considered the Idaho law but only the part about treating stop signs as yield signs. I tend to agree with this version that still requires cyclists to stop and wait at stop lights, assuming stop lights are only installed in areas where the risk of dangerous accidents is considered high. I also always stop at intersections with other approaching traffic.
I consider myself a vehicular cyclist that uses cycling infrastructure where available and only if safe. I do not blindly ride in a bike lane when it is clearly too narrow, crosses through an intersection recklessly, or butts up against a line of parked cars where the risk of getting hit by an open door is high. Even if opening a door without looking is illegal you got to to be defensive about things like this just like when you sometimes have to slow down even if you know you got the right of way.
Thanks for watching! And please subscribe!
https://www.bikeblogger.com
Post time: Jun-12-2017