If you live in any major city, you’re well familiar with the antagonism between motorists and cyclists. Drivers stuck in traffic jams often seethe at cyclists breezing by or running stop signs or even red lights, believing those riding bikes should have to follow the rules of the road just as motorists do. But sometimes that’s silly — I once watched both a motorist and cyclist go through a stop sign in residential Toronto as a police cruiser sat nearby. The police pursued the slow-moving cyclist and ticketed him, not the driver of the large SUV, who was long gone.

Today in The Conversation Canada, we have a thought-provoking piece on whether it makes sense for cyclists to have to make full stops at stop signs or red lights. Steve Lorteau of the University of Ottawa delves into research conducted on the issue, particularly in the state of Idaho, where cyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs. Data shows the law hasn’t resulted in an increase in collisions in Idaho intersections; in fact, it’s reduced them. Other jurisdictions are looking to adopt similar measures, including Canada.

Lorteau writes: “The goal of the Idaho stop rule is not to legalize chaos on the roads. Cyclists must still yield to cars ahead of them at stop signs, as well as to pedestrians at all times, and may only enter the intersection when it is clear.”

Also today:

• I’m a criminologist and grieving aunt. Here’s why Ottawa’s bail reform won’t make Canada safer
• Taylor Swift and the performative ambiguity of The Life of a Showgirl
• How AI is challenging the credibility of some online courses