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?
Are cars allowed to park in the intersection there? A bicycle could get hit on the rare occasion someone coming from the other road swung out to park there.
I can’t think of any other reason. And this one sucks, too.
Generally speaking, cars are usually not allowed to park within a certain distance of any intersection. Do they abide by those laws, designed to keep other road users safe? Of course not.
I've come across so many of these three-ways where it really doesn't make sense for cyclists to have to stop. Even more so when you are forced to stop at a light (that will never change due to no cars being around you), and simply permitting cyclists to ride through in the bike lane just seems like a no-brainer.
Ontario law? 9m, 15m if it has lights.
In practice? LOL
I'm floored by how many Ontario drivers I witness parking under stop signs, or at the edge of an intersection turn. Then again, "NO PARKING" and "NO STOPPING" signs are usually treated as suggestions.
Like, what cereal box did they get their license from?
DriveTest