Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

smkmn13 t1_j6glnar wrote

For those that don't know, the Idaho stop allows bikers to treat stop signs as yield signs

(I didn't know and just googled it myself, so I thought I'd save someone a click or two).

93

Pruedrive t1_j6hcpas wrote

As a bike commuter it’s kinda like this now, unless the intersection is busy. I do everything to keep myself getting pancaked by cars, and you really need to play it by ear at stop signs. Having this be the new law would be great.

32

kppeterc15 t1_j6j3ou0 wrote

It's the safest way to ride, and people do it for that reason anyway, so it makes sense to make it legal.

6

WikiSummarizerBot t1_j6glokj wrote

Idaho stop

>The Idaho stop is the common name for laws that allow cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. It first became law in Idaho in 1982, but was not adopted elsewhere until Delaware adopted a limited stop-as-yield law, the "Delaware Yield", in 2017. Arkansas was the second state to legalize both stop-as-yield and red light-as-stop in April 2019. Studies in Delaware and Idaho have shown significant decreases in crashes at stop-controlled intersections.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

20

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j6hrte7 wrote

Good bot

4

B0tRank t1_j6hru78 wrote

Thank you, CalligrapherDizzy201, for voting on WikiSummarizerBot.

This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.

^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)

3

1234nameuser t1_j6hrd5o wrote

TX drivers fly off the goddamn handle everytime they see a biker slow down for a stop sign.....and continue through it. They also die of obesity on a frequent basis.

Guess I missed the educational video on bikers killing automobiles at 4-way stops or something?

14

smkmn13 t1_j6huxl7 wrote

The "BuT BiKeS sHoUlD aCt lIkE cArS" crowd always seems to forget that traffic laws are about safety, and there's a difference between a vehicle that weighs a couple thousand pounds and a couple hundred (including the rider).

5

Spooky2000 t1_j6i1bhi wrote

>They also die of obesity on a frequent basis.

That's pretty much everywhere now.. Most states are over 30% obesity rate, us included..

3

[deleted] t1_j6gr8lb wrote

[deleted]

12

CurrentResident23 t1_j6horzq wrote

As someone who biked everywhere for years, this is safer. Do have any idea long it takes for a bicyclist to regain speed and get out of an intersection after stopping? The answer is too damn long. You'd get pancaked by oncoming traffic within a week if you stopped at every intersection like a car.

−3

smkmn13 t1_j6hw3g0 wrote

This is better for drivers too - I don't want to sit there and wait for a biker to fully stop and start again when they beat me to a 4way stop by a half-a-second. And while I would do it, some drivers wouldn't, which is unpredictable and unsafe.

6

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j6gobhe wrote

Seems like every state that does it likes it and more states keep doing it.

4

smkmn13 t1_j6goxhj wrote

It also appears to be formally legalizing something that everybody does already, which means less arbitrary policing, which (imo) is always a good thing.

12

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j6hrzpo wrote

Are bikers getting pulled over for this? It’s not exactly a big policing issue.

4

smkmn13 t1_j6hugwv wrote

Not that I know of, but that's sort of my point - if there are laws that are almost never enforced, it creates opportunities for arbitrary policing decisions, and I don't think that's a good thing.

6

Hotsauce61 t1_j6jm2rb wrote

Isn’t that what they already do? Just makes it legal I guess

2

76before84 t1_j6k4esj wrote

That is stop signs and not stop lights right?

1

smkmn13 t1_j6k5jjv wrote

Yes and no - this bill would allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, and red lights as stop signs. You can read more here.

1

QueenOfQuok t1_j6hwfv1 wrote

I feel like the Idaho Stop works better in out-of-the-way uncrowded places than it would in urban Connecticut

−3

smkmn13 t1_j6hwspo wrote

"Urban Connecticut" isn't exactly most of Connecticut, but I hear you.

12

QueenOfQuok t1_j6hx8il wrote

IKR? We're supposed to be one of the most densely populated states and yet you can stand atop Heublein Tower and see nothing but trees in either direction. If this is dense population, what is the rest of the U.S. like?

1

TrogdarBurninator t1_j6omx1a wrote

you know it's because you are up high, the nearby area are mostly rural and suburban, and ct has a lot of trees, which block most 1-2 story houses and non field areas?

1

[deleted] t1_j6i6h3x wrote

[deleted]

5

QueenOfQuok t1_j6iysz6 wrote

Oh, I've got a million of them! My left knee aches, the overhead lighting is annoying, it's too warm today, and my hot chocolate went cold.

2

Lou666Minatti t1_j6i16y3 wrote

it actually works best in the most dense parts of cities, especially when combined with a walking sign

3

TheAppleTheif t1_j6huazv wrote

With that and the eminent domain proposals, absolutely a hard no.

−6

x6tance t1_j6hay7g wrote

The real solution is off-road and proper divided pathways for cyclists and pedestrians. But obviously, that solution is too expensive for one of the wealthiest states in a wealthy country. Go figure.

A bicycle against a however many thousand pound vehicle will lose, always.

49

LizzieBordensPetRock t1_j6hjdyc wrote

It’s not just expense. How are you going to feel when 10ft of your front yard is now gone? For some areas that’s no big deal, but in a neighborhood like mine that’s literally like 10% of my property. It would be a massive battle for a lot of places, eminent domain or no.

That said, I live in a very walkable and pretty bikeable area except for the giant stroad nearby. Not everyone is so lucky though.

12

x6tance t1_j6hjod3 wrote

I meant from existing stroad-like roads. Instead of creating additional lanes, you use those lanes for other modes of transport. I don't expect full fledged bike lanes on someone's neighborhood residential street where you have small lots

25

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j6hs5vn wrote

Stroad is such a dumb non word.

−7

Dark_Larva t1_j6htkml wrote

Would you prefer people call them roads that service many business and tend to have a high level of foot traffic but are simultaneously used for higher speed travel passing through instead?

18

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j6hurz8 wrote

Roads is sufficient. Or streets. If you want to continue using a dumb non word, have at it. Nobody is stopping you.

−10

BobbyRobertson t1_j6hzffk wrote

It comes from the concept that a road and a street are actually two different things. A road connects two places and allows high speed traffic, a street is a place businesses and homes are. You want people to drive slowly on a street because people are walking and biking around between homes and businesses

When a street also becomes a place that people drive fast on, it becomes hostile to pedestrian and cyclist traffic but its density also stops it from effectively carrying all the traffic that wants to drive through it like it's a road. It sucks at being both a road and a street. So it's now a stroad. All words are made up and sometimes we need new ones. It's a perfectly cromulent word

11

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j6i02p4 wrote

Nice Simpsons reference. As for the rest I get it, I don’t have to like it and I don’t. The stroads you refer to are streets that people drive like crap on. Imo no need for a different word.

−8

BobbyRobertson t1_j6i4h8y wrote

They are, but that usually comes down to their design. If you've got a wide street with no curves and stoplights every couple thousand feet, but it's completely lined with businesses and apartments, then tossing down a 25mph sign isn't going to get people to drive 25mph. The street needs to be designed so that people don't feel safe driving 40mph on it.

Narrowing a street is usually the easiest way to do it. If you're worried you don't have enough room to get around that car parked on the side of the street, you're going to slow down.

5

Dark_Larva t1_j6i4sdw wrote

Edit: I thought the poster I replied to may have been trolling, instead I missed a reply of theirs. They don't like the term, but I included a link previously explaining what a Stroad is. I apologize for insinuating you may have been trolling, I should do better reading replies before jumping to this conclusion.

Here is more information on the topic: Wikipedia

It was coined in 2011 by a Civil Engineer, so if the Simpsons borrowed it they certainly did from a very intelligent individual.

5

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j6i8gnb wrote

Trolling because I said I understand what you are talking about? Or because I don’t like it? Or because of the Simpsons reference you didn’t even know you used?

2

Dark_Larva t1_j6i8skv wrote

I missed a reply of yours so I apologize for insinuating you were trolling, you don't have to use the term. It's fine.

2

BobbyRobertson t1_j6i5b6b wrote

Nah he's talking about cromulent, it's a made-up word from the Simpsons used to show how weird their town is/poke fun at regional vocab. Saying something is 'perfectly cromulent' is acknowledging it's recently made up, but that it's useful

1

Dark_Larva t1_j6i5i8g wrote

I haven't watched the Simpsons in a bit, but I think I remember cromulent. Thanks, gave me a chuckle 😂

1

Dark_Larva t1_j6hv5mt wrote

You're right, no one is. It's actually a portmanteau, but you can absolutely avoid using it. Many of us will continue using it as it describes a particular type of street. Roads are also not always considered streets as well.

4

CurrentResident23 t1_j6hp7ya wrote

Agreed. CT already half-asses roads. You can bet your ass they won't put in dividers. Just widen the road and create an additional passing lane for cars.

5

PhilipLiptonSchrute t1_j6hg927 wrote

How does any of this stop the unregistered and unlicensed drivers making Waterbury a complete free for all?

All this does is make the process more of a pain in the dick for people that aren't pieces of shit.

39

awkwardoffspring t1_j6hx1uc wrote

I will happily be inconvenienced for a knowledge test at renewal. That alone will prevent a number of unqualified people from getting behind a wheel. Will it truly stop bad drivers? No, but it's a step forward

13

dkauffman t1_j6i5qz7 wrote

I get the feeling this test is going to turn into a 10-minute video where the question is "Did you watch this video?"

I got my license late in life, and even well into the 2000s, my pre-license test featured an introduction from President Clinton and scout's honor that I had been behind the wheel. Then I had to complete this brain buster to prove I knew what these terms meant.

Our entire society is so built around requiring a driver's license that the agency sworn to gatekeep it to only the most competent cannot risk handing down a death sentence to an individual by failing them on it.

7

senorbolsa t1_j6ku6dh wrote

The random shapes apart from stop and forward/backward drive me nuts.

1

LloydChristmas666666 t1_j6hopy8 wrote

Where’s the getting rid of those a holes on 4 wheelers and dirt-bikes off the road ?

16

rubyslippers3x OP t1_j6hpfe7 wrote

This looks like the only section mentioning motorized bikes

"Sec. 3. Section 14-289g of the general statutes is repealed and the 55 following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2023): 56 (a) No person [under eighteen years of age] may (1) operate a 57 motorcycle or a motor-driven cycle, as defined in section 14-1, or (2) be 58 a passenger on a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, unless such operator 59 or passenger is wearing protective headgear of a type which conforms 60 to the minimum specifications established in 49 CFR 571.218, as 61 amended from time to time. Any person who violates [this section] any 62 provision of this subsection shall have committed an infraction and shall 63 be fined not less than ninety dollars. 64 (b) As used in this section, the term "motorcycle" [shall] does not 65 include "autocycle"."

5

yzedf t1_j6imu2y wrote

If I give up some land for eminent domain to make a sidewalk I’m going to pay less in property taxes, right? No? Just a ticket if I don’t shovel it fast enough…

14

volanger t1_j6j70z5 wrote

Eminent domain is the forced purchase of land. So by definition you should be paying less property tax.

9

ruiner9 t1_j6itl5h wrote

You absolutely can. Call them to come measure the property after the work is done and they will update the records. If it meets the threshold for a property tax reduction, you will see it.

5

turtlebarber t1_j6kjqg0 wrote

Some towns have their own parks dept do the plowing of sidewalks with a small vehicle. Home owners don’t have to shovel

1

Happy_Monke_ t1_j6hpo8z wrote

If we had police pulling wreak less drivers over that would improve road safety. It’s like nascar out there, people drive with total disregard for the safety of others.

13

caring_impaired t1_j6hodrw wrote

House Bill to improve jack shit. I know progress has to start someone, but if these bullet points represent the highlights of the effort, then why bother?

10

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j6gqr4b wrote

Expands DOT commissioner's authority to use eminent domain to widen and change roadways to include for "bicycle lanes or multi use trails."

Also allows state prosecutors to make someone go to driver retraining.

9

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j6hsbq1 wrote

They already do that. Two (or maybe three) tickets in less than two years and it’s mandatory driver retraining.

1

newmoon23 t1_j6hv37b wrote

That’s DMV. I haven’t read the bill but the comment says this allows prosecutors to, I assume, make it a condition of a plea deal or sentence.

2

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j6hwm2m wrote

True. Makes sense. It stops people from slipping through the cracks. I’m guessing in a situation where a DUI is the only moving violation on their record, the prosecutor would be able to require the retraining that wouldn’t be automatically triggered by the current DMV rules? Or if the driver catches a reckless driving charge that’s also only the first moving violation? If that’s the case, then yes, do it. It makes sense.

1

Oldsmokyvet t1_j6iirz7 wrote

Good now send every driver in CT for driver retraining!!!

1

realbusabusa t1_j6hvz1e wrote

Important first step. They need to fund the construction of sidewalks and trails too. All state maintained routes should have plan to get either sidewalks or full shoulders within the next 10 years. With climate change the existential threat of our lifetime, we need to encourage more human powered transportation but not at the expense of lives.

9

iamspartacus5339 t1_j6hty7a wrote

I love it! I fully support all of these plans.

5

Unfair_Isopod534 t1_j6huveo wrote

Introducing more bike lanes would be a great opportunity to fix a lot of the speedways you get around CT.

5

XDingoX83 t1_j6i9169 wrote

Make a deal, we implement the Idaho stop and raise the speed limit on the highway to 75. Win win in my book. Everyone is driving 75 anyway might as well make it the law.

5

rubyslippers3x OP t1_j6l3co1 wrote

People are driving easy over that speed because they can. Not sure if you read the bill in its entirety. The bill also has a section about speed enforcement cameras, so I don't think the limit will be raised anytime soon. Safety Data supports lower speeds.

2

Prudent-Ball2698 t1_j6i1ahn wrote

Am I the only one against MORE pointless laws? Waste of tax money really is what it is

4

auntiemaury t1_j6i1v87 wrote

Cool, when can we vote in the California stop?

3

Vast-Government-8994 t1_j6jxaco wrote

But people can't stop going the wrong way on highways & killing others but i have to learn about bicycles ? This state is INSANE!

3

rubyslippers3x OP t1_j6l3nx8 wrote

The state is testing some wrong way devices. Once we have data, it's expected more devices will be installed. link

3

PhizyT t1_j6l0a0u wrote

Need to enforce current laws to stop the out of control bad driver behavior in this state. An additional law isn't going to do squat.

They had to make a law to stop for pedestrians... when they raise their hand. How's that going?

3

1234nameuser t1_j6hroav wrote

I mean, sometimes you have to go for the lowest of the low hanging fruit and will take what we can get, but not seeing anything substantive here to meaningfully imporve road conditions.

1

volanger t1_j6j6vwd wrote

Not sure I like the test to renew part. That's gonna take time and I don't have that

1

whydoyouflask t1_j6jerbf wrote

Is this based on the swedish law of a similar name?

1

76before84 t1_j6k4rbx wrote

So renewing what license? Cars or are people on bicycles going to get licenses too? Which I would be in favor of to a degree, since they will be sharing the road more.

Eminent domain a small piece to make a bike lane, makes sense though I don't know how feasible it will be on many roads considering there are some sections, where there isn't enough yard to make a path.

1

red_purple_red t1_j6kby7q wrote

CT should become a leader in traffic innovation by implementing the Connecticut Stop, which would replace all regular stop signs and require that drivers merely yield to traffic instead of coming to a complete stop.

1

Pitiful-Bridge6966 t1_j6l02zo wrote

This is just another waste of tax payer money. Who TF is actually gonna follow this?

1

HenryTheFjord t1_j6l7k7s wrote

How about address wrong way drivers by more clearly marked on-ramps and modifying their placement to make this happen less.

1

NICNE0 t1_j6ht2wl wrote

Imagine you manage to buy a house, Imagine you worked your ass really really hard, and you manage to buy a fantastic house in a nice area. Now imagine you start a Family and don't want to have a sedentary lifestyle and decide to go for a walk or let your kids play outside. Now take this one, You have no sidewalks c:

You did everything right but now you are throwing the dice every day to win the chance for a driver rolling you or your loved ones over because We NeEd To SaVe MoOoNey...

0

Nigel_IncubatorJones t1_j6i9mao wrote

And imagine you busted your ass to buy a house and now they come and take away some of your property

9

NICNE0 t1_j6inla5 wrote

that is a really really good point, Maybe the town should buy it from you? or give you a tax break? but in my humble opinion, something should be done. Also, it is a very narrow space, most streets already have enough clearance room to make a small sidewalk

−4

1JoMac1 t1_j6jgx4l wrote

If I remember correctly, some of the arguments against sidewalks being installed in areas that really could use or fit them, i.e. suburban neighborhoods, is suddenly you've got a sidewalk you're required to clear of snow.

4

rubyslippers3x OP t1_j6jleew wrote

Most towns have different responsibilities for sidewalks. Check your local ordinances to see yours. Not all are the same.

2

1234nameuser t1_j6hw54y wrote

If you can afford to live somewhere with NO sidewalks, then you can easily afford to live somewhere with sidewalks.

The issue here is the quality of inner city schools, no?

−8

NICNE0 t1_j6hwd0m wrote

There shouldn’t be residential areas without sidewalks, it’s dangerous for the residents and it’s dangerous for the drivers, that’s my point

10

1234nameuser t1_j6hzgbw wrote

since I'm being downvoted I'm only curious about housing prices.

Where exactly are there neighborhoods with no sidewalks that would still be less expensive than inner city Bridgeport or New Haven?

2

NICNE0 t1_j6i06rq wrote

I am being downvoted too, this is just a very controversial issue, and that is fine. Typically nicer suburban areas don't have any pedestrian infrastructure but in general, you won't find much solidarity with non-drivers throughout the state.

It is very expensive to live here, even if you have the money to buy a house, taxes won't give you a break, so it can be overwhelming this feeling of giving a lot to the state in exchange for nothing, some people get angry when you come out with solutions that imply public spending(I can't blame them), because they know this could incur into more taxation.

3

1234nameuser t1_j6i89ti wrote

I agree it'd be nice for everywhere to have sidewalks, but the density levels throughout CT make that cost prohibitive, both here and around the rest of the world.

Again, I support it and on a local level, the individual towns should be taxing their residents accordingly to support sidewalk build-outs. IF it's a priority for your family's safety, I'd recommend moving to a town that does just that, there are many.

1

NICNE0 t1_j6j56un wrote

How and why should density affect that??

1

threetoast t1_j6j5hbv wrote

If you think density is the problem, then just take away the car-exclusive space. Plenty of room.

1

1234nameuser t1_j6hxbkk wrote

Agreed,but amenities are baked into the price of home purchases. I'm still new to CT, but here in Woodbridge the build-out of sidewalks would cost a large fortune and no way would I want to pay for that.

Cyclists have the right to take the full lane anytime.

−1

NICNE0 t1_j6hyeup wrote

I don't think sidewalks are "amenities". I mean, I know what you are saying. But I think it comes to bad Urban planning, the amount of money and maintenance you give to such a thing is very marginal, I think the urban code should be modified. We waste public money on a lot of nonsense, why can't we use it for something that will benefit the community?

5

NICNE0 t1_j6hyxno wrote

Let me extend it a little bit more. I believe pedestrian infrastructure is just as elemental as vehicle infrastructure, It shouldn’t be seen as an "upgrade" it should be mandatory. The town should guarantee the safety of the residents by providing them with proper designs. If I go for a walk and a car hits me because it is a narrow road with a 35mph limit I didn't do anything wrong, nor did the driver, it was terrible urban design.

5

bigbread2020 t1_j6hjc1r wrote

Really a fucking class on doing something ive done for years I have to pay for. I hate this fucking state

−5

urStupidAndIHateYou t1_j6i71yg wrote

You can always use your fancy vintage drivers license and move your boomer ass to another state.
This moron doesn't know how to apply for a Stop & Shop card and he's over here claiming to be the paragon of procedural competency.

0