For cyclists who ride everyday, they can understand that, yes, it is annoying and sometimes dangerous to come to a complete stop at every sign and signal. But for motorists and or cyclists that view the current rules as a way for all to stay safe, the proposed change [to allow "Idaho stops"] annoys the hell out of them.
Reading this and other exchanges about bike/car relations, it seems attitudes toward laws regulating cyclist behavior don't necessarily break down according to whether you ride on two or four wheels.
Although most states agree on the basics — bikes are subject to the same rules of the road as cars — provisions in state laws indicate shades of difference, too.
Cyclists in Idaho can legally roll through a stop sign as long as no other drivers are present at the intersection. The "Idaho stop" basically treats stop signs as yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs.
Of course, cars can't drive on sidewalks or bike paths — causing some drivers to consider them a waste of tax money and others to insist we stay off the roads. In Colorado, bikes can ride on sidewalks unless prohibited by local ordinance. Minnesota and others states have a similar provision. but add "business districts" to the blanket restriction.
Minnesota also gets quite specific about visibility for bikes. I rode home in the dark last night with two white lights, two flashing red lights, shiny fenders and a reflective jacket, but was still breaking the law because my pedals don't have reflective material on both faces.
All states but three (including "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire) have some version of a helmet requirement for at least some motorcycle riders, while only 22 states require bicycle helmets — and all for minors only. In Illinois, the law treats cyclists like adults; it provides that a bike may be impounded if the father falls behind on child support payments!
The camps on traffic rules for bicycles appear to break down this way:
Strict constructionists. The law's the law, and you should obey it no matter what, says this group. It includes "rule of law" control freaks as well as the dwindling numbers of regular, law-abiding citizens who observe speed limits, signal their turns and always come to a full stop. But based on my experience, it also has its share of people in a hurry who want traffic laws to apply to other drivers and those assholes on bicycles, so they can get where they're going without impediments.
Safety advocates. Many drivers don't have any particular grudge against bikes. They just don't want to kill someone accidentally. Maybe they've had a close call with a careless cyclist, so they understandably advocate for cyclist behavior that is predictable and minimizes the chance for a losing encounter with their cars. The riders (motorcyclists, too) in this group have the most at stake here and agree with the safety rationale. They just prefer not to be lectured by hypocrites and authoritarians.
Pragmatists. This group is largely cyclists who recognize they are operating in a world that assumes motor vehicular traffic and car culture are the norm. So like any excluded minority, they ignore the rules when there's a practical alternative, play along when necessary, and subvert the car-centric system when given the opportunity.
Rebels. Rather than exclusion, these guys see oppression. Riding is a political act, and civil disobedience is called for. Screw using helmets, lights, brakes or courtesy. The main difference between these riders and their aggressive motoring equivalents — if they kill someone, it's more likely to be themselves.
