Senate Bill 73, which would let bicyclists treat stop‑sign‑controlled intersections as yields and allow a limited “Idaho‑stop” treatment of red lights when crossing is safe, received a due‑pass recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee after public testimony and committee questions.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Cedillo Lopez, told the committee the measure is intended to enhance safety for bicyclists and reduce injuries by shortening the time cyclists spend in motorists’ blind spots. "When you are riding a bike and you come to a stop sign and there are no cars, no bikes, no pedestrians ... you keep going without a full stop," she said, arguing that the change reduces exposure to moving vehicles and is already in use in other states.

The committee heard testimony from experts and bicyclists. Eric Biederman, representing an alliance of advocacy groups that include Velo Cruces, Bike Santa Fe and Bike ABQ, cited safety reviews and state reports and said jurisdictions that adopted the Idaho stop have seen statistically significant reductions in collisions involving cyclists. He cited Department of Public Safety and Department of Transportation summaries and said, for example, Idaho saw a 14.5% reduction in cyclist injuries and fatalities in the year after implementation and Delaware saw a 23% reduction.

Two cyclists who identified themselves as long‑time riders — retired Court of Appeals Judge Lynn Pickard and Alex Applegate — described personal experiences and urged passage. Pickard said intersections account for a disproportionately high share of car‑bike collisions and that reducing a cyclist’s time in intersections would improve safety. Applegate described several close calls and said he feels safer using the Idaho stop in his riding.

Committee members discussed the bill’s counterintuitive appearance to noncyclists and whether the data are sufficiently persuasive. Senator Thurn said personal experience and near‑misses led her to support the bill. Several members recounted past bills and data from other states. One member noted California’s veto of a similar bill and cited an interpretation of California data indicating bicyclists were assigned fault in a high percentage of fatal collisions; that fact was discussed as context for dissent.

After questions and brief debate, a due‑pass motion carried (vote by show of hands). The committee recorded at least one announced negative vote during debate; the formal record shows the measure received a due‑pass recommendation and will advance with that recommendation to the full Senate.

What’s next: The bill advances from committee with a due‑pass recommendation. Any statutory change would take effect only if enacted by the Legislature and signed into law.