In the US, bikes == cars. They are required to follow the same rules. I don’t find them nonsensical.

I used to agree with that (as a pedestrian and driver only), but as I've started cycling, I've begun to realize that many rules of the road, intended for cars, just don't make much sense for bicycles.

Like what? I hear people claim that not stopping at STOP sign is somehow making it safer than stopping but when asked about the mechanism of the safety in such a maneuver they either disappear or proclaim that Idaho where this is allowed is in top half of safest states for cyclists so it must work somehow.

I cycle myself and see no rules that somehow don't make sense for bikes. In fact, since bikes are much less maneuverable and much more vulnerable, they need to obey all the rules that are there to protect the cars from other cars with more vigilance than cars.

I live in California so YMMV depending on the laws where you live and the temperament of drivers.

If I do a "proper" stop at a stop sign (0mph, place foot on ground, fortunately I don't clip in), cars will see me stopping and try to blast thru the stop sign when it isn't their turn. So I end up stopping while the first car goes thru the intersection, and while I'm getting resituated on the pedals a second car enters instead of waiting their turn, making my situation more dangerous.

One nice law we have in California is that the "walk" sign applies to pedestrians and bikes. This gives me a chance to assert myself in the intersection before the car across from me tries to sneak in a left turn. It also protects me from cars trying to turn across the bike lane.

You described cars violating rules, but what is your remedy for that, not to stop? How is it going to help with the cars blowing their stops?

Yes, slow down to 2-5 mph but not coming to a complete stops solves this problem. I usually try to time it so that I slow down alongside a car and we can run the stop sign at the same speed.

If you assert your right to use the road, cars won't try to take advantage of your size/acceleration as much, especially if you have another car run interference for you.

YMMV if you live somewhere where it's common for cars to actually stop at a stop sign.

This sounds like a survivorship bias, you imagine that people who blow stops won't do that if you don't stop but, people who did the same on a bike and were t-boned by a car might not be in a good condition to post about their experience anymore.

Anyways, even if you are 100% right and not stopping at stop on a bike will prevent people blowing stop completely (and people who have the right of way will also yield to your bike because they will see you 100%) how is it safer than to stop and proceed when there is no traffic across?

>how is it safer than to stop and proceed when there is no traffic across?

Generally, on a bike you want to be predictable. If you do something weird, like not going when it's your turn, you're increasing your risk. And in many situations if you wait for there to be no cars at a stop sign, you're going to end up holding up cars behind you and be on the receiving end of road rage, or drivers behaving recklessly to get around you. Plus you may be waiting literally hours for all the traffic to dissipate, and I prefer to be home before sunset because riding at night introduces other safety issues.

Anecdotally I've never felt at risk of being t-boned when doing an Idaho stop, but it happens regularly when I do a complete stop (in part because it's unpredictable - drivers don't come to a complete stop at the line so they misbehave and don't know how to respond when they see a cyclist stop).

Beyond my anecdata, there's plenty of more rigorous studies showing the benefits of the Idaho stop.

>Generally, on a bike you want to be predictable. If you do something weird, like not going when it's your turn, you're increasing your risk.

Absolutely agree. As same as going when it's not your turn. But, first and foremost, you should not be going across a moving vehicle. Even another bike. Just falling off your bike can cause pretty serious trauma. Why do this?

>Plus you may be waiting literally hours for all the traffic to dissipate, and I prefer to be home before sunset because riding at night introduces other safety issues.

I don't know where in California you live that nobody stops at the stop signs, but I lived in LA and cars generally stop at those. You literally need to wait few seconds for the cars to to stop and proceed in most cities in the US.

>Anecdotally I've never felt at risk of being t-boned when doing an Idaho stop, but it happens regularly when I do a complete stop (in part because it's unpredictable - drivers don't come to a complete stop at the line so they misbehave and don't know how to respond when they see a cyclist stop).

I know that feeling. Like people riding against traffic feel safer because they see approaching cars yet regularly get t-boned by the cars not expecting anything coming at them against traffic.

>Beyond my anecdata, there's plenty of more rigorous studies showing the benefits of the Idaho stop

Like what? I tried to search again and found this [1] apparently Idaho is not even in top half of the states in cyclist safety.

1. https://bikeleague.org/bfa/states/state-report-cards/

>I don't know where in California you live that nobody stops at the stop signs, but I lived in LA and cars generally stop at those

When did you live in LA? Especially coming out of COVID lockdowns, what you're saying is not consistent with my daily experience. It's relatively uncommon for cars to actually stop (to the point that when Waymo initially rolled out in LA, people would get mad and honk at them for stopping!)

I tried to keep a count on my commute today. I think I saw 3 cars come to a complete stop (and in each case it was because someone was already in the intersection). On the flip side, dozens of cars blew through stop signs (and red lights!). It may get garbled by Youtube compression, but here's a pretty representative clip of 3 drivers running a stop sign back-to-back-to-back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z6fFnDzfv8

I lived in West LA and Santa Monica. And, as your clip shows, drivers will blow stop signs regardless if there is a bicycle or not. Imagine you tried to enter that intersection from the cross street on a bike without stopping, obscured by the fence? Even at that speed you'd could receive some heavy damage.

Behavior by cyclists certainly has a bias towards survivorship. Every other vehicle on the road represents a potentially lethal threat at any time.

Inadequate dedicated infrastructure for cyclists leads to behavior like "Idaho stops" that look counterintuitive to drivers, but improves safety for cyclists at intersections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

You did not read the thread did you? I have asked how is this supposed to improve safety, this is what is this thread about.

Yes, it absolutely helps, because when the cyclist doesn't stop, the driver doesn't get as impatient, and won't try to get around and blow by the cyclist.

I've seen people blowing stops with zero bikes stopped at the intersection, people blow stops regardless if there is a bike present and its state of motion. With bikes not being able to break as fast as cars and not having side airbags you might want to consider what's going to happen when you enter the intersection in front of such a driver before finding that empirically.

Idaho stops are legal for cyclists in some form in a dozen states.

There are tons of cycling specific laws that are separate or different from cars.

I didn't say anything about safety; I said "don't make much sense".

Fully stopping at a stop sign just isn't necessary for bicycles. And forcing bicycles to stop can create inefficient or even unsafe situations. It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign. On top of that, cars lining up behind bicycles at a stop sign can get impatient and try to go around the cyclist (I've seen this happen); this actually is a safety issue.

(Now, I've seen cyclists blow through stop signs and traffic lights without even slowing down. I'm not saying that's ok.)

> In fact, since bikes are much less maneuverable and much more vulnerable, they need to obey all the rules that are there to protect the cars from other cars with more vigilance than cars.

I don't think this statement is obviously true. Cars and bicycles are very different types of vehicles, and there's no reason to believe that every car-related safety rule has the same safety-related effect when applied to a bicycle.

No road rule is necessary for anyone, all of them are for safety only.

>It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign.

Having cyclist colliding with each other or other cars in the intersection will improve throughput? Do you ride a bike or drive at all? Stop signs are not just some Big Government ploy to annoy you. Stop signs allow two traffic streams to cross each other without collisions. Without stop sings and people stopping at them you would get cars colliding all the time.

In Washington State, they're required to follow most car rules when in a lane, but not all (i.e. all stop signs are yield for cyclists). They also have a set of rules allowing for sidewalk usage when mounted; when dismounted, they follow pedestrian rules (obviously).

It's weird to have the same rules when there are several orders of magnitude difference in manueverability, maximum damage possible, and visibility between the two modes. Imagine if pedestrians had to follow all the same rules as cars. Or everyone in an electric wheelchair. It wouldn't make sense.

I think the point is they have to follow the rules of the road because they are allowed in the road. Pedestrians, wheelchairs, etc can go on the sidewalk and be safe from traffic (one hopes).

Though it depends on the state and in my experience there are typically some differences, such as bikes are required to share the lane.

Everyone using the road following the same set of rules makes their actions more predictable and thus safer (in theory)

Bikes are largely supposed to follow the same rules, with a handful of exceptions.

We’re talking about bike lanes, it seemed completely relevant to me?

How is that when car drivers decide the rules are nonsensical it's bad, but when bicycle drivers decide the rules (that, please note, apply to everyone on the street, car or not), it's somehow A-ok?

How come that when people handling uranium decide the rules are nonsensical it's bad, but when people handling bananas decide the rules (that, please note, apply to everyone with radioactive materials), it's somehow A-ok?

When I go to buy banana I always bring my Geiger counter. I also aways get kicked out of the supermarket, I wonder what they're trying to cover up...

Hmm well, we have some "smart traffic lights" where I live that are always red unless a vehicle goes over a metal detecting loop under the road in front of them. Guess how well that works for any vehicle that's not a car.

Rules of the road are generally designed in the same way — for cars. Nobody cares about carving out obvious exceptions for bikes, like the Idaho stop.