It’s not about if the cyclist hit something, it’s about the possibility of something hitting the bicyclist.
If a car, following the law, took its right of way through the intersection and hit a cyclist who wasn’t following the law… Well it’s fine to say the cyclist was at fault, but he’s still been hit by a car.
Traffic laws are there to protect everyone from each other.
And it’s safest for everyone to behave predictably.
With that in mind, I have two more points:
One, I’m very much in favor of the Idaho stop, as long as it’s applicable law.
Two, in my example the cyclist would still have needed to stop (yield) for the vehicle that was at the intersection already. At least, in my state they would.
It’s not about if the cyclist hit something, it’s about the possibility of something hitting the bicyclist.
If a car, following the law, took its right of way through the intersection and hit a cyclist who wasn’t following the law… Well it’s fine to say the cyclist was at fault, but he’s still been hit by a car.
Traffic laws are there to protect everyone from each other.
Except, as others have pointed out in this discussion, it’s actually safer to let cyclists use stop signs as yield signs.
And it’s safest for everyone to behave predictably.
With that in mind, I have two more points:
One, I’m very much in favor of the Idaho stop, as long as it’s applicable law.
Two, in my example the cyclist would still have needed to stop (yield) for the vehicle that was at the intersection already. At least, in my state they would.