KLEIN: The ‘Idaho Stop’ for cyclists debate: A distraction from real issues?

Article content

This past week, there has been a significant amount of attention on social media and in corporate media outlets surrounding the so-called movement to implement the “Idaho Stop” in Winnipeg. The headlines have been bold: “Winnipeggers rallying for ‘Idaho stop’ law that would let cyclists slow roll through stop signs.” But is this really happening?

Article content

I haven’t seen any rallies, petitions, or crowds gathering at City Hall demanding this change. It seems more like an attempt to control the narrative, making it seem like there’s a groundswell of support for allowing cyclists to disregard established traffic laws. But that’s simply not the case.

For those unfamiliar, the Idaho Stop refers to laws that allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs. The law was first enacted in Idaho in 1982 but didn’t gain traction elsewhere until much later. In 2017, Delaware adopted a limited version, and in 2019, Arkansas followed suit. But just because a few places have adopted this doesn’t mean it’s right for Winnipeg.

We cannot have two sets of rules on our roadways. Road safety protocols exist for a reason. Imagine a cyclist rolling through a stop sign and being struck by a vehicle that had the right of way. Who would be at fault? Under the Idaho Stop, the driver might be blamed, even though they followed the law. This is not just illogical, it’s dangerous. We have far bigger problems in this city that demand our attention.

Article content

Article content

One has to wonder if this sudden push for the Idaho Stop is just a smokescreen, meant to distract from the growing outcry over the money our City Councillors continue to spend on bike infrastructure. Perhaps it’s a way of saying, “Pay no attention to that lane being taken away from motorists — look over here, we’re letting bikes roll through stop signs now!” But this is nonsense. It’s an issue that seems to be pushed repeatedly, and it’s not reflective of the majority’s views.

After my last column, I received emails from readers with various opinions. Some said roads existed before cars, so we should build similar bike infrastructure. But let’s be realistic. Roads, as we know them today, developed over time — from dirt paths to gravel roads, eventually evolving to meet the needs of motor vehicles. The infrastructure we have now is built on those needs, not on some idyllic vision of a bike-dominated city.

Article content

Another reader mentioned that they commute by bike, often using sidewalks and travelling at high speeds because they need to get to work. This raises serious concerns about pedestrian safety. Sidewalks are meant for walking, not high-speed cycling. Yet, this reader sees no issue with their behaviour, which underscores the need for clear, enforceable rules that apply to all road users.

I also heard from a cyclist who took pride in how much they save on gas taxes, using that as justification for increased spending on bike infrastructure. But there seems to be a lack of understanding about where the money for infrastructure comes from. The bulk of it is derived from gas taxes — taxes paid by motorists, not cyclists. This reality cannot be ignored.

Article content

One reader said, “Until the City addresses the needs of commuter cyclists, it will never be an option for most people, even those who really would like to ride. E-bikes and scooters are here to stay and growing in popularity, so rather than trying to dissuade their use, we should be encouraging it by creating separate spaces on already existing bicycle lanes to accommodate them.” So now we need to have special lanes for motorized bikes and scooters.

This debate is clearly a divisive issue. But let me be clear: my stance is not about opposing cycling. It’s about ensuring that any infrastructure we invest in is justified by real, quantifiable data. Why are bike lobbyists so afraid of the truth? Why is there such resistance to conducting a proper analysis of bike lane usage?

Article content

We plow roads based on the volume of traffic they carry. Yet, bike lanes have been catapulted to the top of the priority list, with no data or evidence to support the need. This was done to appease a small, vocal minority, rather than based on the actual needs of the city as a whole.

Politicians need to get off social media and start listening to the majority of their constituents. People are telling them not to spend more money on bike paths, yet they continue to push forward with these projects. It seems the lure of photo opportunities — cutting ribbons and taking credit for projects funded by taxpayers — has become more important than making decisions based on the best interests of all residents.

The push for the Idaho Stop in Winnipeg feels less like a genuine movement and more like a distraction from the real issues we face. We need to focus on what truly matters, and that means making decisions based on data, safety, and the needs of the many, not the few.

— Kevin Klein is a former Tory cabinet minister, a former city councillor and is the President & CEO of Klein Group Ltd.

Have thoughts on what’s going on in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada or across the world? Send us a letter to the editor at wpgsun.letters@kleinmedia.ca

Article content