Talk:Idaho stop

Con list and opinion
There seems to be much consternation about the use of opinion in the "con" list (but oddly not in the pro list). This is not a list of facts. It is about the debate over Idaho Stops and so, it is a list of arguments for and against it. Some of those are based on fact and some are just opinion. That's OK. The point is to present the argument, not to debate it. If an opponent says something against it, it can be listed here, even if it is an opinion.Volcycle (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"Pro" and "Con" are standard debate terms. They mean arguments for and against. Using a list makes it easier to read and easier to separate out the arguments to be taken one by one.Volcycle (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Con" in this sense means "negative impacts." Consider rewriting as grafs, rather than simplistic bullet points. It makes sense to say something like "opponents of the law argue that proposed change X is unfair because Y." But it doesn't make sense, in writing, to list as a "con" something like "Bicyclists want the same rights as drivers, and they should have the same duties," because that's not a negative impact. All of the "pro" bullet points are about objectively positive impacts. If you wish to retain the pro/con list format, all of the cons need to be objectively negative impacts. Doing otherwise is just bad writing. If the bullet point pro/con format fails to encompass the full debate, the pro/con format is probably not the best way to discuss the debate. Flyte35 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What is a graf. Do you mean paragraph? According to whom is a con a "negative impact"? I'm the original author of this post, so I'm unclear where you get that it means a "negative impact" in this sense, especially when listed under "positions"? I chose simple bullet points because they are simpler. This is a list of arguments for (Pro) or against (con). I disagree that all the "pro" items are objectively positive impacts, these are also based on opinion. I'm a bike advocate too, but everyone who comes in here and argues with the validity of the con arguments ignores the fact that almost all the pro arguments are without citation. That doesn't seem to bother anyone. The objective here is not to hash out the argument and pick a winner, but to state the arguments. I think you're problem is more that you don't think there is any reason to oppose the Idaho Stop, not that you don't care for the way it has been presented.--Volcycle (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm suggesting rewriting this in paragraph form. There are 9 positions in the pro category, and one of them is already 100 words long. Clearly these arguments are more nuanced than can be expressed in bullet points.


 * I guess I don't see doing it in paragraph format as something that will add value. One thing that happens there is people come in an add to it, and end up repeating other points and it becomes a jumbled mess. But if you'd like to take a shot at it, I'd be interested in what that would look like. Volcycle (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to go ahead, but I don't want Volcycle to just revert because he hasn't agreed to that tactic. Flyte35 (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was me. I'm just not good at signing. Go ahead and do it as "grafs."Volcycle (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.Flyte35 (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that they're opinions is irrelevant. They're all opinions; it's a debate. All of the pro points address potential positive impacts, however: conservation of energy, safety, provide direction to law enforcement to focus attention where it belongs, increased use of side streets. Those things are all objectively good things, even if you don't support the law. It's just about consistency of language. "Bicyclists want the same rights as drivers, and they should have the same duties" is a different sort of argument altogether. Flyte35 (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure "Bicyclists want the same rights as drivers, and they should have the same duties" is a different kind of argument. I would say that it is about fairness. And fairness is an objectively good thing. And isn't the first Con about safety? Simple rules, ones that children can follow (since children also ride bikes), are arguably safer. All of those statements are quotes - or near to - to avoid the appearance of bias. Changing the language to be more consistent would remove that protection. But writing so that the language is consistent is still preferable to just deleting those points. "It's not fair" and "It's not safe" are the two main arguments (whether true or not) against it.

It's not our job to decide which arguments are valid or objective and which are not. We should present, in a balanced way, what the sources report. And yes, we should do that in paragraphs (or "grafs" for the monosyllabic communicators), not bullet points. Jonathunder (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The california section at the end should be amended as the bill died in committee: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1103 208.185.216.5 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Idaho stop is the common name for a law..."
This is not really accurate. The Idaho stop is the act of stopping in this way, not the name of a law (e.g. "I performed an Idaho stop" doesn't mean you performed a law). 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:9524:3DE2:142E:86D7 (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The references in the "Legality by state" table are mixed-up
FYI, the references currently in the "Legality by state" table are mixed-up, because some of them point to table footnotes, and some of them point to document-level citations. As a result, there are four references, and 3 footnotes, but they only partially line-up. There is apparently supposed to be a reference on the Alaska row, but it is missing.

Worse, when I just attempted to add a row to this table, the references went completely cockeyed, and were totally misaligned -- 3 became 1, 4 became 2, but the original 2 and 1 remained. I discarded that edit. DavidAHillman (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)