I’ll admit I’m not the biggest fan of using the court system to get what’s right. It’s far preferable when folks generally agree on what’s right, codified in some instances through laws and other times through community norms.
But sometimes there are no other options and this appears to be one of those sometimes. For reasons we’re still trying to wrap our heads around, fascists have taken over parts of our government and control enough of it to immediately threaten existing laws and overturn cherished community norms.
If successful, using the court system as apparent sole means to overcome this attempted overthrow of our democracy will be yet another feather in the political theory cap of Alexander Hamilton and those other gents who thought up (or borrowed from theorists like John Locke) “separation of powers” and “three branches of government” and “checks and balances.” As political experiments go, the current situation is shaping up as a fascinating one that will be studied endlessly.
That is, if the fascists lose in court and/or we somehow through currently unrevealed means keep our democracy. Otherwise, nobody will study or learn jack shit.
There is also the potential problem that the fascists won’t care or follow what the courts decide and it is at this juncture that your humble blogger will seque from discussion of our way of government/life to New Mexico Senate Bill 73 “Required Bicycle Stops for Safety,” i.e. the “Idaho Stop” bill. It is understood while writing/reading the text below that spending time reading or writing about cyclists Idaho Stopping while fascism seemingly succeeds in overthrowing our democracy makes Nero fiddling while Rome burned sound pretty benign. Nevertheless, here’s a thought or two on the legislation, scheduled to be discussed by the Senate Tax, Business, and Transportation Committee this afternoon during its 1:30 PM session.
My first thought is that I don’t really care about the Idaho Stop legislation and wouldn’t care even if the government wasn’t being taken over by fascists. More on that in a bit after I explain what an Idaho Stop is, knowing full well anybody reading BB already knows. In short, Idaho Stops are when cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs.
That’s all.
My second thought is that Idaho Stops are fine, whatever. Personally, as someone who cycles around New Mexico three/four/five times a week, racks up about 500 miles a month on average, and cares very much about staying alive while doing all this cycling, I already practice Idaho Stops at stop signs (so does everybody else, drivers included) and don’t practice them at red lights.
I just stay at the red light. I stay there with the other drivers. I gather from the legislation and watching other cyclists run red lights that I am perhaps not in the majority of cyclists in this particular aspect. Personally, I stay at the red light because:
- It’s far better cycling public relations than running the red light.
- While the naked feeling of being on a bike surrounded by drivers in their cages at a red light is admittedly unsettling at times, there is also that feeling and reality of “We’re here, we’re
queercyclists, get used to it.” - Yes, stopping and standing by your bike at a red light with drivers is very much a political act. I’m not comparing it with the bravery and perseverance expressed by our LGBTQ+ compatriots at rallies and every day. I’m only saying there’s an element of forcing drivers to see us when stopped at that light, whether they want to or not.
That said, I’m fine with making Idaho Stops legal at red lights. Whatever.
My biggest gripe about the legislation isn’t about Idaho Stops at all. It’s about the fact that this has been the ONLY piece of cycling/walking/rolling public safety legislation filed in a 60-day session filled past the brim with public safety legislation. In a state with the highest death rate for pedestrians in the nation, THIS is the best and only thing we got? Idaho Fucking Stops?
As we are very quickly learning/relearning, the way fascism works is that the bullies drawn to the ethos pick on the weakest among us. Just like middle school, but to the death. Trans folks. Immigrants. Palestinians. When/if that bullying works, they move on to slightly larger groups because they think/know they can get away with it. And so on.
A somewhat similar power dynamic is in place on our streets. Those not in cages are the weak and those in cages are generally expected to follow laws and community norms at least well enough to avoid killing the weak. But some don’t follow these laws and community norms well enough.
And having Idaho Stop legislation isn’t going to do a damn thing about those drivers.
Happy legislating and litigating, everybody.
Better Burque 
I hear you on fascism and Idaho Stops. First, I despise bullies (I was a skinny kid, and younger than most of my classmates). Second, it seems to me that nobody in New Mexico, on two legs, or two/four wheels, sees red lights/stop signs as anything other than advisory, so a solid “Meh” to burning daylight on Idaho Stops.
Does anyone else find it odd that while cyclists have been known to insist “We ARE traffic,” with the usual rights and responsibilities of vehicle operators, some of us still want to carve out this exception for ourselves?
Me, I stop at red lights. I signal turns, too. As you note, good PR. And I’ll occasionally do that slow roll on a stop sign, on some low-traffic suburban street, after giving myself a touch of whiplash/CTE by looking left-right-ahead-left-right-left. I don’t know that I need this dubious practice codified into law.
LikeLike