Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Math

Traffic Optimization: Cyclists Should Roll Past Stop Signs, Pause At Red Lights 490

Posted by Soulskill
from the if-they-could-just-stop-texting-i'd-be-happy dept.
Lasrick writes: "Joseph Stromberg at Vox makes a good case for changing traffic rules for bicyclists so that the 'Idaho stop' is legal. The Idaho stop allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs, and has created a safer ride for both cyclists and pedestrians. 'Public health researcher Jason Meggs found that after Idaho started allowing bikers to do this in 1982, injuries resulting from bicycle accidents dropped. When he compared recent census data from Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, California — relatively similar-sized cities with comparable percentages of bikers, topographies, precipitation patterns, and street layouts — he found that Boise had 30.5 percent fewer accidents per bike commuter than Sacramento and 150 percent fewer than Bakersfield.' Oregon was considering a similar law in 2009, and they made a nice video illustrating the Idaho Stop that is embedded in this article."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Traffic Optimization: Cyclists Should Roll Past Stop Signs, Pause At Red Lights

Comments Filter:
  • Negative accidents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Muros (1167213) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @05:33AM (#46971141)
    "Boise... 150 percent fewer than Bakersfield." How'd they manage that?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      "Boise... 150 percent fewer than Bakersfield." How'd they manage that?

      "New Math" silly... ;)

    • by Sqr(twg) (2126054) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @05:58AM (#46971201)

      Clicking through to the actual study, I found this quote: "Boise was 150%-252% safer (2.05-2.52 times safer)." Looks 150% correct to me.

    • by polar red (215081)

      weird things with hearses ?

      • Why do they call it the "Idaho stop". Is it because nobody really ever cares to stop in a place like Idaho?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Growing up in Washington, we always called a rolling stop a California stop. On the premise that California drivers treated stop signs and speed limits as 'suggestions.' (Washington drivers have always been just as guilty, perhaps we called it that to deflect blame?)
            I never heard of an Idaho stop before this article. And I live 30 miles from the Idaho border.
          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            Growing up in Washington, we always called a rolling stop a California stop. On the premise that California drivers treated stop signs and speed limits as 'suggestions.'

            The California Stop is a real thing, it's when you slow as you approach the stop sign, see that there's nobody around, and then proceed through. It's an artifact of the fact that at certain times of the day, certain roads are very empty, which in turn is the result of a large state with lots of roads.

    • "Boise... 150 percent fewer than Bakersfield." How'd they manage that?

      Uh, isn't it obvious? This policy change was SO freakin' good that it caused victims of previous accidents to be spontaneously healed and to rise from the dead!

      • by MightyYar (622222)

        spontaneously healed and to rise from the dead!

        This indeed seems to have a serious effect on math. The last time the dead rose we somehow wound up with a Trinity.

      • by mellon (7048)

        Holy shit, you're saying that if the whole country enacted the Idaho rolling stop, we'd be setting off the Zombie apocalypse? I wonder if this explains why Idahoans are so into guns...

    • by kheldan (1460303)

      How'd they manage that?

      Never mind that the laws have little to do with interactions between cyclists and motorists, the attitudes of one towards the other has much more to do with it. In the same way that you can't legislate morality, passing a bunch of laws giving cyclists a different set of rules than motorists isn't going to necessarily make things any safer for cyclists. In fact, it might very well make things less safe overall, if motorists don't like the laws enacted, or like cyclists themselves much in the first place. Eve

  • Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KingOfBLASH (620432) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @05:37AM (#46971149) Journal

    IAAC (I Am A Cyclist). However I think that people who treat riding a bike as if they own the road are asking for trouble.

    It doesn't matter if you SHOULD have right of way. It matters if someone will see you and stop (and not run you over). When you come up to any dangerous intersection (or any intersection) you should slow down, look to make sure you're not going to get plowed into, and THEN go.

    As a cyclist, you might be going 30 KPH easily, but you're much easier to miss for a motorist because you are so small, and you might come at an odd direction (most people aren't used to making sure there's no cyclists on the shoulder).

    • yes some people are stupid and might get hurt or die. That will happen no matter how stupid people travel. That doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer because of the stupid.
      • Re:Dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)

        by KingOfBLASH (620432) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @07:01AM (#46971387) Journal

        yes some people are stupid and might get hurt or die. That will happen no matter how stupid people travel. That doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer because of the stupid.

        Which is why if I see someone about to cause an accident that might be fatal to me and not them, I should be allowed to launch missles at them, and blast through safely in a ball of fire, james bond style

    • Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pipedwho (1174327) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @06:37AM (#46971335)

      There is nothing in the regulations that say treating a stop as a yield or a red light as a stop sign somehow gives you any additional right of way. All it means is that you don't have to wait as long to determine if the intersection is safe to cross.

      The Idaho Stop / California Roll is all about going slow enough that you can gauge the traffic heading towards the intersection for the other directions to determine if it is safe to move. A stop sign simply 'forces' cars to stop even if it would be otherwise safe to only slow down to a few miles an hour. And a red light forces cars to stop even when you can see for miles in both directions that there is nothing coming.

      A car moving slowly can easily kill or do heavy damage to a pedestrian (or another road user). Whereas a bicycle has a much smaller cross section, lower kinetic energy, and a rider that is far more likely to come off badly no matter how small the object/person is that they collide with.

      You can't be serious saying it is more dangerous to give way at slow speed versus coming to a complete stop and then having to huff and puff back up to speed, while simultaneously being overtaken with inches to spare by a bunch of impatient motorists because you can't outpace them.

      In fact the article gives clear statistics showing the exact opposite. Just about every cyclist I know treat 'right of way' as synonymous to 'enter at your own risk'.

      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        IAAC as well, and I think this law is good as long as cyclists use some common sense. If you can't see around the corner when approaching a stop sign slow down to around walking speed so you can stop if a car runs right through the intersection, which I've seen some do, even at a 4-way stop. Traffic lights you have to use you're judgment. I wouldn't go making any left hand turns across multilane roads against the light, unless the road was completely deserted.

        This is pretty much the way most cyclists rid
      • You can't be serious saying it is more dangerous to give way at slow speed versus coming to a complete stop and then having to huff and puff back up to speed, while simultaneously being overtaken with inches to spare by a bunch of impatient motorists because you can't outpace them.

        The "Idaho Stop" allows you to go when other traffic has to stop. Anybody coming behind you has to stop where you can go.

        Additionally, I am not saying that you cannot roll through a red light, ever. The problem is each situation (and danger) is different and you need to be able to judge it yourself, and not just say "Oh I have right of way, let's go!"

        Just about every cyclist I know treat 'right of way' as synonymous to 'enter at your own risk'.

        That is mostly locale specific. In America, cyclists tend to be more cautious because of the fact cycling is unusual. In Holland, asia, and other places wh

      • by msauve (701917)
        "having to huff and puff back up to speed, while simultaneously being overtaken with inches to spare by a bunch of impatient motorists because you can't outpace them."

        If the impatient cyclist hadn't just illegally passed them curbside while they were all waiting for their turn to proceed through the intersection, they wouldn't have a need to pass.
        • No idea about your local regulations, but in most places cyclists are allowed to ride down the curb side of stationary vehicles. Especially so when there is a bike lane marked. Cars are only allowed to do this if the vehicle is stopped and indicating to turn left (or right in places that drive on the left side of the road). Many places also allow motorbikes to filter between lanes to get to the front when traffic is stopped at lights.

          Naturally this maneuvers can be dangerous if the cyclist isn't paying atte

          • by msauve (701917)
            Where I live, bikes are allowed to pass on the right. But, they are also required to obey lane laws. So, if there's a lane to my right, by all means pass on that side. But, if I'm in the right lane and a bike passes using the small space between me and the curb (not a designated bike lane), they're doing it illegally. And they do it all the time.
        • Really, you would not pass a bicyclist you over took who had just pulled out from a stop sign, which they arrived at before you did? And you would wait behind the bicyclist stopped at the stop sign and not pull up next to them before coming to a stop and then pulling out as soon as you decided it was clear to do so, even though the bicyclist got there first and was just starting? If such is the case, you are so rare that when I used to ride bike a lot I never saw any drivers like you.
          • by msauve (701917)
            I pass cyclists the same as I pass other vehicles - when there is no opposing traffic and it's safe to do so with ample clearance. And yes, if they arrive at the intersection first, they have right of way, just like any other vehicle. And I don't "pull up next to them," unless they're in a different lane. I treat bikes like any other vehicle, and expect them to behave by following the laws common to all vehicles in return.
            • by Entropius (188861)

              Bikes are narrow and don't take up a whole lane: it's silly to treat them exactly as cars.

              The most sane bike laws I've seen allow bikes to operate in one of two modes:

              1) Not occupying a whole lane: ride at the rightmost edge of the right lane without claiming it, drivers are allowed to pass with 3' (preferably 5') clearance. Cars are allowed to "pull up next to them", although they often don't out of courtesy.

              2) Occupying a whole lane: a cyclist riding in the middle of the lane is acting like a car and you

      • You can't be serious saying it is more dangerous to give way at slow speed versus coming to a complete stop and then having to huff and puff back up to speed, while simultaneously being overtaken with inches to spare by a bunch of impatient motorists because you can't outpace them.

        Your policy makes perfect sense in normal traffic situations. It begins to fall apart in some situations where abnormal traffic arises and with higher concentrations of cyclists.

        I lived in such an area for some years, and I had to commute most mornings through side streets along with hoards of cyclists who basically followed the traffic exceptions you recommend (even though they were supposed to be more cautious). Some old cities have poor urban planning -- streets are narrow, parking is scarce (so peop

      • In fact the article gives clear statistics showing the exact opposite.

        One other thing: While the article does give SOME statistics, it is basically what is mentioned in the summary, i.e., numbers from ONE STATE which changed its laws, and a comparison of TWO CITIES that had very similar characteristics.

        Anecdote is not data. The fact that things improved in one state after a law change shouldn't be conclusive proof that the same thing would happen elsewhere. And the fact that City X has better stats than very similar City Y is hardly conclusive proof that the policies shou

    • by stjobe (78285)

      IAAC (I Am A Cyclist). However I think that people who treat riding a bike as if they own the road are asking for trouble.

      It doesn't matter if you SHOULD have right of way. It matters if someone will see you and stop (and not run you over).

      Yep, that's how I treat many of my country's traffic laws, e.g. yielding for pedestrians on crosswalks: Fat lot of god it'll do me knowing I had the right of way when I've just run over and killed or badly injured someone. Let them cross, yapping obliviously away on their cellphones.

      Or, conversely, if I'm the pedestrian - fat lot of good it'll do me knowing I had the right of way when I'm in a hospital bed with two broken legs. Let them pass, yapping obliviously away on their cellphone.

      Cellphones and traffi

    • It doesn't matter if you SHOULD have right of way.

      You misunderstand Idaho Stop, as it never gives right of way to cyclists. The most they get is right of movement when there is no conflicting traffic, in other words when there is no right of way issue. If conflicting traffic is present then that traffic always has right of way over the cyclist at a stop sign or red light.

      It certainly doesn't make cyclists "own the road", as you put it, since that's synonymous with having right of way.

    • This is the proper mentality. Motorcycle user do this all the time. You drive as defensively as you reasonable can so you don't end up an organ donor. Cars do it around transport trucks. With bicycles I think there a conflict of interests regarding the labour intensiveness of the activity that overrides some peoples safety judgement.
  • Thanks Soulskill! (Score:4, Informative)

    by gmhowell (26755) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Sunday May 11, 2014 @05:50AM (#46971175) Homepage Journal

    There's a classic trollish article for you.

  • by dltaylor (7510) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @05:52AM (#46971185)

    How 'bout ticketing the jerks who disrupt traffic by rolling through intersections, break up the 30-bike pelotons, and otherwise make them actually obey the law? Maybe they wouldn't have so mny accidents if the riders weren't abnoxious.

    If it had been motorcyclists, rather than bicyclists that tailgated the SoCal guy and hit him when he stopped, there would never have been the travesty of justice as his murder conviction.

    • by pipedwho (1174327) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @07:02AM (#46971395)

      Actually, bicycles that don't roll through intersections are more likely to hold up traffic behind them, while having motorists make unsafe overtaking manoeuvres to get around them right near the intersection itself.

      Any time someone uses a car (or any object for that matter) to intentionally cause an accident, that person is open to prosecution. Whether it be a douche bag pulling in front of a 30 bike peloton and slamming on their brakes, or opening their door while queued up a traffic light just to stop a motorcyclist from filtering through to the front. That shit is illegal simply because it is someone intentionally causing harm to another person. Just like someone running over an old lady that was taking too long to cross the street; the light goes green on them, and a driver thinks 'fuck it I have right of way, I'll just blow right over the top of her in my oversized SUV'. They definitely don't have the 'right of way' to injure or kill someone.

      I'm sure there are many assholes out there who just claim they did what they did for some other idiotic but 'unintentional' reason. But, that doesn't make it right, nor does it guarantee a jury will believe them.

      Maybe I'm misreading your post, but If you can't see that road safety isn't just about blindly following regulations, then you should definitely not be driving on the road. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before you end up in court wondering how you got there.

  • by redmid17 (1217076) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @05:56AM (#46971197)
    Stop sign: Slow down, low both/all ways, proceed if clear. Otherwise follow normal traffic rules.
    Yellow light: Stop unless you're already in the intersection
    Red light: Stop and don't go until your turn in normal traffic

    Outliers: Crosswalk: Proceed unless there is a walker. Stop then proceed otherwise.
    Flashing yellow: Slow down, low both/all ways, proceed if clear
    Flashing red: treat like stop sign.

    Pretend like you are new to a bike and you will be much safer and people will hate you so much less. One thing you can do, unless you are a very serious cyclist, is avoid getting the pedals which require cycling shoes. If one is not clipped in, imo, one is less likely to break laws and be a douche about existing ones. For people riding 50+ miles a week, I can understand why they want them. However those are not the people who cause problems for everyone else (in my experience).
    • by Sique (173459)
      And this discusses the merits of the Idaho House Bill 2690 exactly how?

      Yes, there are some rules and laws that cover the behavior of cyclists. And you just mentioned a certain subset of them. But why does the way the Idaho Stop governs the cyclist's behavior lead to remarkably less accidents with cyclists and pedestrians?

  • As a pedestrian (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Hognoxious (631665)

    As a pedestrian, I fail to see why having two-wheeled idiots blasting through red lights is safer for me. Especially since their view (if they were looking) and mine are likely to be obstructed by the cars & vans they're overtaking (usually on the wrong side).

    • Re:As a pedestrian (Score:5, Informative)

      by ThatsMyNick (2004126) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @06:11AM (#46971245)

      Yup, idiots blasting through red lights is a big no. Thankfully that is not what the article or anyone is proposing. In Idaho, red lights can be treated as stop and go for bicyclist. Running red lights is still illegal, and fines are much higher than other states/cities and are enforced. Bicylist are also allowed to make rolling stops at stop signs. Which means slow down, to make sure the intersection is safe, and yield to other vehicles, and if there is no one, just proceed. Blasting through a stop sign is a big no, too.

    • Re:As a pedestrian (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @06:16AM (#46971259) Homepage
      clearly you didn't watch the video or even probably read the article.
    • As a bicycle user (which stops at stops, red light, and pay attention to right coming traffic or pedestrian) I also fail to see how it makes road safer, but it seems to work... So...
    • by quantaman (517394)

      As a pedestrian, I fail to see why having two-wheeled idiots blasting through red lights is safer for me. Especially since their view (if they were looking) and mine are likely to be obstructed by the cars & vans they're overtaking (usually on the wrong side).

      I'm not sure how relevant that is since those cyclists are breaking both the standard law and the proposed law. Maybe it causes standards to relax so more cyclists ignore traffic signals, or maybe realistic signals cause more cyclists to obey the law.

      I think this isn't a bad idea, anyone who rides a bike realizes full stops at stop signs are pointless in a way they aren't in a car. Cyclists have much better vision at an intersection so don't really need a pedantic stop and look around period the way cars do

    • We have absolutely no interest in hitting you. While you may get knocked down, we have a metal bar pointed at our balls if we hit something.

      I really, really do not want to rack my balls on the bike stem/top tube, and will do anything not to hit you.

    • I RTFA but didn't see anywhere where it suggested riders should be able "blast through" red lights without looking. Your attitude is specifically what causes most of this type of grief in the first place. Most riders also own cars and walk too, so trying to turn this into an us vs them argument just makes you look stupid. The fact that you got modded insightful just goes to show and many idiots there are out there, regardless of what mode of transport they choose.
    • A cyclist tends to have a very good vision of his surroundings, much unobstructed except by big vehicles

    • As a pedestrian, I fail to see why having two-wheeled idiots blasting through red lights is safer for me.

      Strawman. Nobody is suggested legalizing the behavior you describe. Also, drivers are blasting through those same lights, at equal or greater speed, presenting far more danger - but you already accept them doing so.

      Second: In NYC, 99.9% or so of pedestrian injuries are due to motor vehicle drivers. The remainder are due to collisions with cyclists. The city does not track fault in such collisions.

  • by ebno-10db (1459097) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @06:33AM (#46971323)

    I didn't know that cyclists stopped for stop signs anyway. I was in Cape Cod, which has some great bike trails (my daughter and I use them). I was driving at the time though, stopped where the bike trail crosses the road, looked around, saw nobody, and proceeded. Somebody went flying across, and the only saving grace was that he swerved to avoid a collision (and I hit the brakes of course). There was a stop sign on the bike path, but at the speed he was going he couldn't have stopped or slowed down for it.

    I bike, though not for commuting, and there are a few rules you have to follow. Yes, it's a pain to stop once you've got some speed up, but it's better than getting killed. I'm not saying most cyclists do this, but I felt like blowing off some steam it.

    As for the Idaho law, I'm not sure it would work everywhere. What does yield mean? You're supposed to slow down, but by how much? For some cyclists it means glance around quickly before flying through the intersection. As it is, most cyclists don't completely stop at a stop sign, including me, but you've got to use some judgement. Clear view of the intersecting road? Maybe slowing down enough is ok. Blind corner or something? Stop all the way. And the only way to know an intersecting road can be seen clearly is if you've ridden through that area before.

    As for comparing Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, how about looking at Boise before and after the law changed? Did it actually change anybody's behavior anyway? Has anybody even heard of a cyclist getting a ticket for something like this?

    • by fnj (64210)

      As a Cape Codder, let me tell you it is hell on drivers in the summer. The bike trail has stop signs FOR THE BIKES and caution signs for the drivers, but a sizable number of cyclists blow through the stops. Knowing this, despite the absolute right of way for motorists at these points, I slow to a walking or at least dog-trotting speed in the car at every bike trail intersection, no matter what the conditions are, Usually drivers behind me act like they want to kill me for exercising the caution on behalf of

  • How about instead of a 3rd set of rules for the road, cyclists just pick one and fucking stick to it?

    Either follow the rules for vehicles or the rules for pedestrians.

    If they want to ride on sidewalks and not have to wait in a line of cars, then they can be a pedestrian. If they want to take up a lane of traffic then they can fucking follow the rules for vehicles. Whichever they choose just fucking stick to it.

    All of the problems I've had with cyclists comes from them following the rules for one
    • by Jack Griffin (3459907) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @08:10AM (#46971623)

      How about instead of a 3rd set of rules for the road, cyclists just pick one and fucking stick to it?

      You're implying that there's only 2 sets of existing road rules. As a multiple license holder I assure you it's quite normal and reasonable to have different rules for different classes of vehicles. I have 4 different classes of license, all with different rules. Perhaps instead of getting all angry you should accept that the current rules aren't working (by the simple fact that you are clearly already all angry about cyclists in relation to the current rule set), therefore the only logical conclusion is for some changes to be implemented?

  • How about this: the rules of the road, are the rules of the road. They apply for everyone, not just the other guy or what they happen to be in/on: car, bicycle, motorcycle, horse-drawn carriage. Make sense?

  • Simply put. Stop means Stop.,

    If you want it to mean yield, put up a yield sign.
    Confusing the meaning of traffic control signs simply is not a good idea. Traffic control needs to be simple, concise, and readily understandable.

    Giving a stop sign double meaning for different traffic only confuses the issue and undoubtedly opens the door to a whole new branch of litigation. How is that a good idea?
  • One problem is that Idaho isn't known for all its millionaires and entrepreneurs / risk takers, whereas California positively attracts such people. This might not seem like a big deal, but if you have a population for whom it is customary and even expected that risk taking leads to big rewards, versus a population which is, well average, then you have got to expect different outcomes even when the road rules are identical. It is not reasonable to expect that changing the rules on a docile population would
  • Cars already mostly roll through stop signs unless there is a cop nearby watching, or another car that has right of way. Even so, if its just two cars both can usually go without nary a full second of stop between them. As long as even one of them is actually paying attention it works fine (though sometimes less smoothly)

    It seems to me like red lights could use some optimization too. Right turn on red works, you give the right of way to the car moving straight...and it works fine. I don't see why a

  • Link to study:
    http://bclu.org/jmeggs-TRB-IDA... [bclu.org]

    This paper is in active rewrite; Please contact the author for the latest version before review if at all possible

    So the paper is not even finished and has not been peer reviewed...

    You know what also might work? Actually ticketing cyclists breaking traffic laws. As a pedestrian, I nearly got run over by three cyclists pulling an "Idaho Stop" at a cross walk because they were not paying attention.

    Also according to the Idaho law, this only applies when the cyclist is turning right, not blowing through an intersection.

    Microfilm archives of police incident reports from 1966 to 1992 were consulted over a
    period of days, and deemed too difficult to analyze;

  • Many polite people (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GlobalEcho (26240) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @08:56AM (#46971801)

    As a cyclist who commutes year-round in Chicago, I just want to give a little shout out to the motorists, who are almost all incredibly polite. It's human nature for us to notice and remember the jerks (and I recall a few) but the incredibly vast majority of motorists are accommodating, friendly, and (when paying attention) cautious.

    If I have one request of motorists, it's to get off the cell phones, something I am sure every road user -- pedestrian, cyclist and motorist agrees with.

  • by evilviper (135110) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @05:01PM (#46974673) Journal

    TFA is a pile of crap, with no evidence to support its conclusions.

    Rationale #1: "Yield" is just as safe as "Stop", and saves energy for bikers. Problem: It saves energy for cars, too, and if used with cars as bikers use it (slowing to 5MPH), should be just as safe for cars.

    Rationale #2: Treating a stoplight as a 1-way stop sign is just as safe for a bike. Problem: Why not treat those stoplights as "Yield" signs, too, if those are safe? Why can't motorists adopt the same not-so-strict rules as bikes, for the same benefits? Also, the lower speed of bikes, combined with the possibility of blind corners and drivers that see the green light long before the biker, seems likely to make this very dangerous in *some* areas, particularly in the dark.

    Rationale #3: Eliminate the laws cyclists don't follow, and they'll follow all the rest. Problem: "The rest" include the ones we're changing, because they don't follow them. ie. If they don't stop at stop-signs when there are cars waiting, NOW, why would they do so when they're effectively changed to Yield signs? If cyclists really have figured out the "Idaho Stop" on their own, why aren't the accident rates equally as low, and/or falling quickly?

    Rationale #4: "the low-traffic routes that are safer for bikes are the kinds of roads with many stop signs." Problem: Low traffic routes are safer for cars, too. Sounds like we're changing the laws to encourage devaluing a number of roads for cars, in order to provide a biker's oasis.

    Rationale #5: "he found that Sacramento had 30.5 percent more accidents per bike commuter and Bakersfield had 150 percent more". Problem: The improvement over Sacramento sounds like a very tiny improvement which could have been caused by any number of minor variables. Additionally, the HUGE GAPING DISPARITY between Sacramento and Bakersfield, both cities without these rule changes, clearly shows that the Idaho stop rules aren't causing these differences, and there's far too much uncontrolled variability to draw any conclusion about the Idaho method.

    Where is the evidence... ANY evidence, that this is a positive change?

"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison

Working...