Ignoring that my country doesn't allow Idaho Stops, or that my Provincial Government wants to actively kill cyclists by removing safe cycling infrastructure, I've always wondered if there's a reason why cyclists aren't allowed to simply ride through an intersection like the one in the photo.
I'm talking about the right side, where the bike lane could extend through the intersection without interfering with other vehicles, including those that are turning left.
This would not only keep those stops safer (clears the cyclist out of the intersection), but would just make sense from a transportation efficiency standpoint.
Is there something I'm missing, or do cyclists have to stop only because motorists would take a tantrum if they weren't required to?
@Showroom7561 @BearOfaTime On a motorcycle, you have that initial acceleration like a car _all the time_, just like an automobile has.
I'm pretty sure it provides you a little bit of extra production analogue/standard bikes don't have. And I suspect - don't know, but _suspect_ - that an Idaho Stop emulates the same thing.
That initial acceleration is one of the many differences between bikes and motorcycles and maybe something to think about.
(I also used to ride a motorbike. I know cars don't respect them. And because I know what that feels like, I know from personal experience that _this_ is different, and worse.)
@Showroom7561 @BearOfaTime (My _suspicion_ is that they see the slower initial acceleration of a manual bike and something in their brain decides "walking speed" and they make very, very bad and very, very wrong decisions based on that. But now I'm _really_ just guessing and have no real idea.)