An interesting concept that reminds me in some ways of (the US State of) Idaho's stop sign yield law for bicycles (the "Idaho Stop"):
Described:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stopCopy of the Idaho State Bicycle Code (Section 49-720, SS1):
http://itd.idaho.gov/bike_ped/Idaho_Vehicle_Code_for_Bikes.pdfAnalysis by attorneys in (my native, neighboring state of) Oregon on pros and cons of the Idaho Stop:
http://www.stc-law.com/idaho_stop_law.htmlThe Idaho Stop has not yet been adopted universally by other states (each state's own motor vehicle code defines laws governing bicycle operation on public ways), and it remains somewhat controversial, embraced by a majority of cyclists (many of whom don't stop at stop signs) and reviled by motorists (who resent a lower standard for cyclists they already perceive as receiving favored treatment and for safety reasons).
I'm not sure what to think about it as both driver and cyclist. Over the years, I have been rear-ended by a half-dozen cyclists who disagreed with my assessment it was not safe to proceed. As it happened, I was correct, but the satisfaction of saving a life was offset in part by the cost of a broken rear mudguard.
I spent time today in the vicinity of the local university, and was interested to see only 5% of cyclists during that time actually came to a full stop at the busy intersection I was watching -- and seemingly then only because there was no break in traffic. Most cyclists approached at full speed and gave barely a glance before riding through. I saw three *very* close calls, each averted by quick driver reactions. Hmm. Judging by the language and horn honking that followed, no one was happy.
Interesting approach there in Paris. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out statistically over the next several years.
Best,
Dan.