Sun columnist favors the Idaho Stop for bicyclists

Too much Baltimore/Maryland stuff this morning, but hey, these days (at least through the end of the month), that's where I am working...

On Monday, the Baltimore Sun's transportation columnist, Michael Dresser, wrote about bicycling (three of his last five Monday columns have been on bicycling), coming out in favor of the Idaho Stop, in "Given new protection, bicyclists should protect selves."

I've written about the Idaho Stop before. It allows bicyclists to treat stop signs and red lights as yields PROVIDED THAT THERE IS NO ONCOMING TRAFFIC (OR THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN TRAFFIC ALLOWING FOR SAFE PASSAGE).

He doesn't mention my #1 reason to favor the Idaho Stop--it allows bicyclists to spend more time separated from cars. That is the key to defensive cycling in mixed traffic situations.

Now Washcycle might not like that in the column Dresser also calls for bicyclists to wear helmets. And Dresser also suggests that bicyclists should have to have a driver's license endorsement (something to which I am not opposed).

All in all, it's a nice column to see.

(The other columns were on electric bikes, "Electric bike may be good fit for middle-aged wannabe cyclists," which I am starting to see as an option for people who would have longer commutes, and it might make the difference between their cycling to work vs. driving, and Maryland's new 3 foot passing law, "Laws give pedal power to the people.")

Note that working as a bicycle and pedestrian planner, I am not in a position to ever advocate for the Idaho Stop during working hours...