(Sorry, I should have "straddle" rather than "dismount". )

> For an experienced, physically fit cyclist, riding in good conditions? Perhaps.

But isn't this the case with all traffic laws? For example, the law may permit drivers to go 55 mph on a certain road, but in a driving rain that speed could be dangerously fast; it's incumbent on drivers and riders to adapt to the conditions around them and their abilities. Idaho stops permit cyclists to behave a certain way at intersections, but it's still incumbent on the cyclist to do what is safe in that situation.

> But I see examples almost daily of cyclists running red lights and in doing so causing disruption to pedestrians and other road users who were trying to cross the junction properly.

You're trying to rebut an article neither I nor the article was making. An "Idaho Stop" permits a cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield and a red light as a stop. If a pedestrian or automobile is already in the intersection or will get there before the cyclist, the cyclist must yield, including coming to a full stop if necessary. If a cyclist is just blowing through stops signs (or failing to stop fully at red lights), they're still breaking the law under Idaho stop rules; they'd be legally at fault in the event of an accident and I'd hope any policemen who observed that kind of behavior would cite them.

> I also think the article was too quick to gloss over the argument that on the same road, the same rules should apply to everyone.

I see it differently. Cars, bicycles, and pedestrians all have completely different behaviors and properties. I think laws should be designed to maximize safety and usability of roads for each class of users (while balancing all those interests, which its the tricky part). When we categorically lump bicycles into the same set of rules that cars must obey, it seems to me we're treating them as an afterthought and putting them into a disadvantageous position to the heavier, faster moving vehicle with less visibility. And this a good example: given there is concrete evidence that Idaho stops make things safer for bicyclists, it doesn't really matter what you or I "feel" is true about the issue.

> However, I would argue that creating a "them and us" culture between cyclists and motor traffic is dangerous

I can easily match all the anecdotes about bad cyclist behavior appearing in these comments with stories about drivers who've darted in front of me into reserved cycling lanes in the middle of a block so they can double park, or blown past me with about an inch of clearance from my handlebars even though state law requires 2 feet, or who've honked at me or shouted obscenities and threats because I'm (lawfully) riding on "their" road. (The best part is when they tell me I should be biking on the sidewalk instead!) I don't think trading anecdotes is a useful way to adjudicate this specific issue, but in many US cities, at least, there is already pervasive "us vs. them" hostility to cyclists. I think the best way to break down this "drivers-vs-cyclist" culture is to get more cyclists on the road, where, in most places in the US they are vastly outnumbered by automobiles. Cities with large volumes of cyclist traffic tend to have less accidents per capita because drivers and pedestrians are used to them being around. Laws that make cycling more safe and enjoyable tend to make people ride their bikes more. They also signal that municipalities that adapt them view bicyclists as more than just second-class users of roads.