[pandaman]

You brought up some logic behind this law, so I thought you actually have seen some sense in this. Now it appears to be just the "having such a law in a low population state does not push it to the bottom of the safety so this law is great" argument. One should be able to see the fallacy of such an argument without even looking up what are the safest states for cyclists on top of Idaho and what kind of laws they have wrt stop signs and red lights...

[bb88]

Get on a bike in Boise, Idaho and "blow through a red light" (making sure to stop and yield to oncoming traffic, first). It's not necessarily as small as you might think. And you know, don't ride your bike on the interstate, because that would be totally stupid.

But you know, go downtown, and ride around a bit in traffic, on the greenbelt, etc. And you'll see the cyclists are typically going to make a better decision for themselves and others than cars will.

Like I said, it's fine. If you can't understand it, maybe go experience it first hand.

[pandaman]

It could very well be that Idaho cyclists are the next step in human evolution and the laws and rules designed for mere mortals would only hinder their superior decision making, I have never been to Idaho so I would not know. Where I lived though, including such populous states as California and Texas, cyclists don't exhibit any advanced intelligence, they put themselves and others into dangerous situations all the time and fall and crash. E.g. I see someone riding on the wrong way of a double track every single time, usually it's several people riding next to each other and blocking the whole trail, but there are also solo cyclists getting on the left lane in corners. They do collide or slide off the track and fall, but it could be that they are doing something great but impossible to understand on my level of evolution.