New data released by the NYPD shows over 6,000 criminal summonses issued to cyclists in the second quarter of 2025. That number increased tenfold compared to the first quarter. That number is also greater than the total number of criminal summonses issued to cyclists in the past seven years.
A 2009 study showed a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop law (though did not otherwise tie the decrease to the law).[15][16] A Delaware state-run study of the “Delaware Yield” law (allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs) concluded that it reduced injuries at stop-sign controlled intersections by 23%.[17]
It’s safer dude. You asked how it was safer, here are numbers of how it’s safer.
The Idaho Stop is not the same as running a red. I’ve been riding all my life and riding on the road since I was 12. You shouldn’t run red lights; it’s unpredictable and just downright dangerous if you do it at the wrong intersection.
Sorry, I got confused when you were accusing me of agreeing with the author.
And now you’ve clarified that a single study has shown a correlation:
A 2009 study showed a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop law (though did not otherwise tie the decrease to the law).
I actually downloaded the PDF to read what was going:
Repeated stopping increases risk of injury from repetitive stress. The act of a hard stop, and the
28 subsequent resuming of speed from a hard stop, involves considerable strain on joints, >particularly the
29 wrists and knees but also the shoulders, elbows, neck and low back. (cite) The wrist suffers >strain under
30 vibration, flexion and torsion during hard stops.
To get that 14.5% decrease, they’re counting the “physical strain” of having to start from a stop. But if they’re supposed to be coming to a full stop anyways, they have the same amount of starts…
Still doesn’t make any logical sense to me how it’s safer, but it lead me time more info in the end, so thanks!
These Berkeley Professors bring up an interesting idea. Not so much mentioning safety directly. But they mention 2 different possible routes, one with more stop signs and one with more traffic and fewer stops.
While a drop of a few miles per hour may not seem like much to a car driver, think of it this way: the equivalent in a car would be a drop from 60 to 45 mph. Because the extra effort required on California is so frustrating, both physically and psychologically, many cyclists prefer Sacramento to California, despite safety concerns. They ride California, the official bike route, only when traffic on Sacramento gets too scary.
So perhaps adding “stop as yield” changes the calculation for what is the fastest route by bicycle. Which leads bicycles to take safer routes with more stop signs and fewer cars. That could explain some of the decrease in accidents when states/cities pass these laws. Change in bicyclist behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop#Safety
It’s safer dude. You asked how it was safer, here are numbers of how it’s safer.
The Idaho Stop is not the same as running a red. I’ve been riding all my life and riding on the road since I was 12. You shouldn’t run red lights; it’s unpredictable and just downright dangerous if you do it at the wrong intersection.
Except for the 6 states where it’s legal. Like in the link I posted. Because it is safer than not. But IDK why I expected people to read the link.
Oh ok, that’s what you were doing.
Sorry, I got confused when you were accusing me of agreeing with the author.
And now you’ve clarified that a single study has shown a correlation:
I actually downloaded the PDF to read what was going:
To get that 14.5% decrease, they’re counting the “physical strain” of having to start from a stop. But if they’re supposed to be coming to a full stop anyways, they have the same amount of starts…
Still doesn’t make any logical sense to me how it’s safer, but it lead me time more info in the end, so thanks!
https://web.archive.org/web/20160723102129/http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/fajans.htm
These Berkeley Professors bring up an interesting idea. Not so much mentioning safety directly. But they mention 2 different possible routes, one with more stop signs and one with more traffic and fewer stops.
So perhaps adding “stop as yield” changes the calculation for what is the fastest route by bicycle. Which leads bicycles to take safer routes with more stop signs and fewer cars. That could explain some of the decrease in accidents when states/cities pass these laws. Change in bicyclist behavior.