House Transportation committee splits 5-5 on "Idaho stop" amendment; crosswalk change left unresolved

The Vermont House Transportation Committee deadlocked 5-5 Friday on an amendment to the miscellaneous motor vehicles bill that would allow bicyclists to operate differently at some intersections under an "Idaho stop" provision, preventing the change from being added to the bill this year.

The measure, discussed at length during Friday's committee meeting, would let cyclists clear intersections in certain circumstances and includes a related proposal to allow bicyclists to cross with pedestrian crosswalk signals. Supporters pointed to multi-year study and testimony they said showed safety benefits; opponents raised concerns about children, enforcement, rural road geometry and driver confusion.

The amendment sponsor (identified in the meeting transcript as Speaker 2) told the committee that "this has been in front of this committee now for 3 years" and that the committee had solicited testimony, received a DMV report and heard from state agencies and bicycling organizations. The sponsor said testimony came from the "agency of transportation," the Vermont State Police and three statewide bicycling organizations — Locomotion, the State Mountain Bike Association and Kingdom Trails — and that Burlington city organizations were supportive.

The sponsor also cited a national study presented in committee, saying the safety data for the 11 states that have adopted Idaho-stop-style laws showed "about a 25% improvement in safety on intersections." The sponsor characterized the collected testimony and reports as largely positive and said there was "no indication whatsoever that this would not...be a safe move."

Supporters inside the committee framed the change as a safety and clarity measure. A committee member who identified themselves as having been persuaded by testimony said the highway safety report was "very convincing" and that a unified statewide law would reduce confusion. Another member said the change could bolster bicycle tourism and align with the state's investment in biking infrastructure; the committee transcript records that the state has committed $21,000,000 for bike and pedestrian activities.

Opponents raised specific safety and enforcement concerns. Representative McCollum said testimony from law enforcement and her own experience led her to oppose the Idaho-stop portion, arguing for a standard that "legislate[s] to the lowest common denominator" and expressing concern about children: "children's brains aren't fully developed until 25," she said, and warned that young riders might misjudge gaps in traffic. Other members described Vermont's narrow, curving rural roads and questioned whether motorists would react safely to cyclists proceeding through intersections while motorists expected a stopped cyclist.

Committee members also discussed separating the amendment's crosswalk provision — which would allow bicyclists to cross at pedestrian crosswalk signals so they clear intersections with pedestrians — from the Idaho-stop language. One member described the crosswalk piece as a narrower change that "would allow somebody on a bicycle to cross with when the pedestrians cross," telling the committee it seemed intuitive and could reduce vehicle delay caused when a bicyclist in front of queued cars must remount and wait for another cycle.

Committee staff and members emphasized that successful implementation would require a sustained education campaign. The amendment sponsor noted that the current draft had benefited from "an entire year of education prior to it working" and warned that piecemeal adoption would still require outreach. Vermont State Police testimony was described in the transcript as supporting standardized rules statewide, but committee members said uniform education and enforcement would be necessary for any change to work.

When a member moved to approve the amendment, the committee vote was recorded as five in favor and five opposed. The tie vote meant the amendment could not be added to the miscellaneous motor vehicles bill this year; the committee chair announced the 5-5 result and said the committee would revisit the issue in future proceedings. A motion to consider the crosswalk portion separately was discussed but not voted on during the session. The chair said the committee would await further action in conference committee and requested members remain available while staff sought clarity on next steps.

The split reflects a mix of support from bicycle advocacy groups and state agencies on one side and continuing safety and enforcement concerns from several legislators on the other. Committee members and staff said any future movement on the amendments would need to pair statutory changes with outreach and education to the public and law enforcement.