Ignoring that my country doesn't allow Idaho Stops, or that my Provincial Government wants to actively kill cyclists by removing safe cycling infrastructure, I've always wondered if there's a reason why cyclists aren't allowed to simply ride through an intersection like the one in the photo.
I'm talking about the right side, where the bike lane could extend through the intersection without interfering with other vehicles, including those that are turning left.
This would not only keep those stops safer (clears the cyclist out of the intersection), but would just make sense from a transportation efficiency standpoint.
Is there something I'm missing, or do cyclists have to stop only because motorists would take a tantrum if they weren't required to?
Of course. I'm not suggesting that you blow through the stop sign while other people are there! That's not how an Idaho Stop works.
Honestly most stop signs in rural areas and subdivisions should probably just be yield signs, for bikes and vehicles alike.
The overuse of stop signs makes it so people get used to just doing rolling stops at the intersections where it's 99.9999% safe to do so and then start doing them unconsciously at intersections where it really isn't safe to
We're lucky enough (at least, until urban sprawl takes it away) to have some really nice rural routes around here.
But I've come to some 4-way intersections where you'll have two stop signs, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that it's incredibly dangerous for cyclists to STOP at those signs.
Cars and trucks travelling along the crossroad are usually going in excess of the speed limit, often times where there's a hill so you can't see them coming. A cyclist coming off a full stop may not clear the intersection safely.