As a Torontonian cyclist, according to what I see, we blow through stop signs way more than cars. Way more. Of course physically we can mostly just harm ourselves.

But yes the rules of the road have to change in this regard. The status quo is clearly car-friendly. Not only it doesn't prioritize cyclists, but it doesn't prioritize pedestrians either.

BTW, ebikes help negotiating the status quo a lot. They make stopping at stop signs trivial, as well as keeping a safe speed when riding where there's no bike lanes.

No one (at least effectively) thinks it’s ok to keep cyclists waiting indefinitely - they just don’t think about the cyclist experience at all. Bad intersections are windshield bias at its peak

Ohio allows this. If the red doesn't detect your bike it you can treat it as a yield

I agree. I always make a judgement call when biking, and it doesn’t only benefit me. If I’m going to arrive at a stop sign before a car who will need to cross my path, then if I slow down and stop before continuing, I will take (ever so slightly) more time out of that driver’s day because of how much longer it takes me to speed up.

(Which is why I usually wave drivers through if we’re both stopped, since they can get out of my way much faster than I can get out of theirs. Sharing the road is about consideration and it goes both ways.)

I mean, I always yield at stop signs, but I am not likely to come to a complete stop on a bike if there is nobody to yield to. Many car drivers don't either, as any road user is already aware.

The "Idaho stop" (red as stop, stop as yield for cyclists) is a thing in several jurisdictions, and research shows it is as safe or safer that way.

Still ought to follow the laws, but there's reason to want those laws to be different.

A lot of cyclists also get hit by blowing stop signs. I have seen too many people who just zip through without looking.

People driving cars should absolutely be cautious, don't get me wrong on that. That being said, right-of-way won't matter much if you're dead. All it takes is one ahole not paying attention while driving and it's game over for the cyclist. You could also use your argument for pedestrians to cross wherever and whenever they want. Pedestrians won't kill someone like a car would either, but they are also still at risk.

I don't know, I've just never understood taking that risk over saving a short amount of time. I have genuinely seen some people who have made me wonder how they survived so long.

I agree that the Idaho Stop should be implemented in more places, though. I'm pro-yeild, and anti-blowing stop signs for everyone.

Cars and bicycles share the same travel surface. In order to interact safely, they need to follow the same rules. Using your example, semis still need to follow nearly all the same rules as cars. There is a base ruleset for everyone who uses a roadway (including, one must come to a complete stop at a traffic control device that directs them to do so), and only specific modifications to certain rules for additional safety for vehicles in certain classes.

Here in Saskatchewan, bicycles fall under the Traffic Safety Act if they are on public roadways. That means they can be ticketed for exceeding speed limits or disobeying traffic control devices.

If different modes interact on the same travelway, they must share the same set of rules. If they don't, you get conflicts, which means collision between vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and other wheeled modes of travel.

Amish buggies must follow the same laws, so do motorcycles, mopeds, golf carts, side by sides, pedal pubs etc. Bikes, especially now with E bikes making them faster, should follow the same rule set unless they are using their own bike path separate from the road.

Just stop for the signs guys, no big deal.

To be fair, they break rules cars are supposed to follow as well. I've seen plenty roll through stop signs, right turns at stop lights, fail to signal lane changes, etc, all without their lights on.

We need to have a better way to keep law enforcement accountable.

I find it so tiresome hearing about how cyclists are supposedly more entitled than motorists (or the other way around, since cyclists say the same things about drivers).

Drivers routinely roll through stops, jockey for position, move erratically or dangerously, block crosswalks or bike lanes, distract themselves on their phones, get upset when mildly inconvenienced by having to underspeed behind a cyclist taking the lane for safety, etc.

1. Being entitled and breaking the law to get places faster is universal; I think uou're just acclimated to drivers doing it.

2. The infrastructure is so car-oriented and bike-hostile that following the law often disadvantages cyclists or puts them at risk. That doesn't justify, say, biking fast across a crosswalk, but sidewalk-riding on a 4-lane road without bike lanes? IMO it does.

3. There's bias here in treating the worst cyclist behaviour as being something condoned by cyclists at large. Kind of like if someone said "drivers just want to drag race around town".

No, motorists don't like them because they are different. That's it. It's someone they can place their road rage on.