When it comes to greening up our transportation systems and reducing the massive carbon footprint left by our daily commutes, there’s a much better solution than trying to get everyone into an electric car. Encouraging increased cycling, whether on electric bikes or good old-fashioned acoustic bikes, has the biggest impact on reduced emissions and the health and well-being of our society. But with safety at the top of the list of concerns for those switching to a two-wheeled commute, more studies are showing that the best way to protect cyclists at the most dangerous point on their rides is to simply let them blow through stop signs in what is commonly known as an “Idaho stop”.
The Idaho stop gets its name from the state that first enacted it into law back in the 1980s. In an Idaho stop, cyclists are permitted to treat stop signs as yield signs, meaning they slow down and look for traffic before continuing through, no full stop required. In many states, the Idaho stop goes further, not just letting cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs but also treating red lights as stop signs.
There are few things more frustrating to anti-cyclist drivers than seeing a bike rider roll through a stop sign or red light (perhaps seeing them zip past traffic by using the bike lane could be one of them?), but studies are now showing that using an Idaho stop is actually safer than requiring cyclists to come to a full stop at stop signs.
As Alvin Holbrook pointed out in Velo, a recent study by the University of Oregon that put cyclists and drivers in over a dozen “live interaction” four-way intersection scenarios revealed results that may surprise some drivers.
The study found that cyclists preferred the Idaho stop method (which is pretty obvious for a vehicle that works largely by maintaining momentum), but also that when drivers received an education about the rolling stop sign law for cyclists, they approached intersections slower than before and created fewer dangerous scenarios for the cyclists.
Alvin explained, “The main takeaway from the study is that a rolling stop law allowed people biking to do an action they preferred in treating a stop sign as a yield. And once drivers were educated, intersection interactions between people biking and driving were no more dangerous than before introducing the law.”
In other words, safety increased instead of decreasing when an Idaho stop was permitted and when drivers were informed of the law.
That’s just one example, but many studies have confirmed the result that Idaho stops, or rolling stop laws, either increase the safety of road users or have no impact (i.e. are no more dangerous to cyclists than requiring a full stop).
Alvin also pointed to a study from Delaware, one of eight states in the US that has an Idaho stop law on the books, which found a 23% decrease in car/bike crashes at intersections after the Idaho stop law was enacted.
Another study performed in Tampa Bay, Florida, (a state infamous for its questionable drivers) and commissioned by the Florida Department of Transportation, “found that dangerous street design and motorists are what put cyclists at risk, not cyclist behavior.” That study found a nearly 90% traffic law compliance among cyclists, which might surprise drivers who tend to remember the few cases they witness of cyclists breaking traffic law, then projecting that onto all riders. But as the study shows, cyclists are generally incentivized to follow traffic law more than drivers since the risks of not doing so are higher.
The least flattering study on Idaho stops comes from Illinois, where the researchers found no difference in the proportion of crashes after the Idaho stop law was enacted. However, they did find that the severity of those crashes decreased. The result was that cyclists were able to move around more efficiently without increasing the rate of crashes and while decreasing serious crashes.
Even the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) highlights the fact that “there is no evidence showing bicyclist stop-as-yield laws have increased bike conflicts with other bikes or pedestrians.”
So why is it safer for cyclists to blow through stop signs or continue through a red light after stopping?
It likely comes down to a number of factors, but several of them lead back to the same underlying issue: intersections are the most dangerous location for cyclists since such intersections are designed for cars, not bikes. When stopped at an intersection, cyclists often disappear from the view of car drivers, blending into the background while drivers instinctively look for other cars. A moving bike is more visible to drivers due to millions of years of evolutionary pressure adapting humans to spot movement.
Rolling through stop signs also means cyclists ultimately spend less time in the most dangerous location for them, quickly moving out of intersections and back to the relative safety of bike lanes on straightaways.
And as studies show, cyclists generally don’t blow through stop signs in a dangerous fashion. They’re incentivized to slow down and check for traffic out of sheer self-preservation. They don’t have a 5,000 lb steel cocoon to protect them the way drivers do. This is despite there being a decent chance that the reader’s confirmation bias would argue differently, as it is easy to remember the last time we all saw a cyclist do something dangerous and forget the dozens of cyclists riding safely that we conveniently ignore every day.
But as Alvin points out, “The bottom line is every person on a bicycle has more to lose — and a greater incentive to yield — when entering an intersection than a driver does. A collision between a car and someone walking and biking will always be tilted against the person outside of the car.
Streets are safer when there is a common understanding of what to expect from everyone. Streets are safer when car drivers aren’t able to use stereotypes of cyclists breaking laws to threaten and harass them. And of course, streets are safer when people are biking.”
Environment
Idaho Power wants to cut solar pay rate to under 1¢ per kWh and charge 8¢ per kWh for electricity
Utility Idaho Power has asked the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to drastically slash the rates it pays rooftop solar customers for excess energy. This move could severely impact solar adoption in Idaho just as electricity rates are climbing.
The utility wants to drop the Export Credit Rates (ECRs) – the amount rooftop solar owners get credited for feeding power back to the grid – by 60%, from the current 6.18 cents per kilowatt-hour to just 2.46 cents. That’s a massive 72% plunge from the previous rate of 8.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, which had stood for over a decade.
If the PUC approves the proposal next Month, the new lower rates will kick in on June 1, right before peak solar-producing months. This shift is part of Idaho Power’s controversial “Net Billing” program approved in December 2023, despite public backlash. Under this new system, ECRs would change every year, making it nearly impossible for residents to calculate the financial returns of their rooftop solar investments – a major deterrent to adopting solar.
The proposed rates would vary seasonally. From October through May, when electricity demand drops, Idaho Power wants to cut solar payments even further by a staggering 80%, paying less than 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. Meanwhile, it plans to charge non-solar customers at least 8 cents per kilowatt-hour for the same electricity, padding its own profits.
Idaho Power is basing these rate cuts on an internal “Value of Distributed Energy Resources Study” from 2022. However, environmental groups hired independent analysts who argue that Idaho Power’s data selectively undervalues solar power.
“How can our state regulators just let this happen? The PUC is supposed to double-check the utility’s math to make sure Idaho ratepayers aren’t being taken advantage of,” said Lisa Young, director of the Idaho Sierra Club. “Distributed solar is worth more than the retail electricity rate, not less. The PUC needs to stop turning its cheek on corrupted math and letting this monopoly utility pad its pockets even more.”
Idaho Power customers already faced unpopular hikes to their monthly fixed charges from January 2025, when their flat monthly fees rose from $5 to $15. These fixed charges hit low-income residents hardest and discourage energy conservation and rooftop solar.
“People in Idaho go solar because it lowers their power bills, gives them energy freedom and security, and helps the environment,” said Alex McKinley, owner of the local small business Empowered Solar. “Idaho Power is trying to take that opportunity away from people by skewing these rooftop solar rates in its favor. It’s not right.”
Members of the public can submit public comments at puc.idaho.gov/Form/CaseComment and reference Case #IPC-E-25-15.
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Global EV sales surged to 1.7 million units in March, hitting 4.1 million for Q1 2025 as the EV market continues its robust growth, according to new data from EV research house Rho Motion. Year-over-year sales jumped 29% and marked an impressive 40% month-over-month leap from February.
Europe saw a solid 22% growth in EV sales year-to-date, driven primarily by battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), which climbed 27%. Germany’s BEV market rose 37%, Italy surged by 64%, and the UK hit a milestone with over 100,000 EVs sold in March alone, a first-time record boosted by new vehicle registrations. France’s EV sales dropped 18%, severely impacted by reduced government subsidies, with BEVs down 5% and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) falling sharply by 47%.
In North America, EV sales increased by 16% in Q1 2025. The market’s outlook remains unclear due to Donald Trump’s recent imposition of substantial tariffs. February’s 25% tariff on auto imports from Canada and Mexico and a broader tariff in March affecting all auto imports are expected to hike consumer prices. With approximately 40% of US EV sales being imported from countries like Japan, Korea, and Mexico, the impact on affordability and market dynamics is likely significant.
China, still the global leader in EV adoption, saw EV sales grow 36% year-over-year in Q1, approaching 1 million units in March alone – a milestone previously reached in August 2024. The US-China tariff crisis will have a minimal impact on China due to the low volume of cross-border EV sales. However, Tesla’s Model X and Model S are exported from the US to China, and the prices for these could nearly double due to tariffs.
Rho Motion data manager Charles Lester said, “This quarter, while turbulent, has seen a strong rate of growth globally for the EV market. Some countries, such as the UK, had a record-breaking March as drivers continue to go electric.
Meanwhile, in North America, forecasts are struggling to keep up with the rate of policy announcements under the current White House administration. What is sure is that the electric vehicle market is already struggling to compete with ICE on cost, so reductions in subsidies and hefty tariffs for a very international supply chain are guaranteed to have a cooling effect on the industry.”
EV sales in Q1 2025 vs Q1 2024, YTD percentage:
- Global: 4.1 million, +29%
- China: 2.4 million, +36%
- Europe: 0.9 million, +22%
- North America: 0.5 million, +16%
- Rest of World: 0.3 million, +27%
The bottom line: EV sales are up month-over-month, quarter-over-quarter, and year-over-year.
Read more: Contrary to popular belief, EV sales grew more in 2024 than 2023
If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla (TSLA) has to replace the ‘self-driving’ computer inside about 4 million vehicles or likely compensate the owners of those vehicles.
The liability could be more significant than the largest automotive recall in terms of cost.
In 2016, Tesla claimed that all its vehicles in production going forward have “all the hardware necessary for full self-driving capability.”
Tesla’s use of the term “full self-driving” has changed over the years, but at the time and for years later, CEO Elon Musk claimed that it would mean Tesla owners would eventually receive a software update that would turn their vehicles into “robotaxis” capable of level-4-5 self-driving, which means unsupervised autonomous driving even with no one in the cars.
Almost 10 years later, this has yet to happen and won’t happen soon in most of the cars Tesla has delivered over the last decade.
Tesla’s claim that its vehicles have “all the hardware necessary for full self-driving capability” quickly proved untrue.
At the time, Tesla was producing its vehicles with cameras, a front-facing radar, ultrasonic sensors, and a “self-driving” computer, called HW2.5.”
Tesla quickly started building new vehicles with a new “HW3 self-driving computer” and admitted that its HW2.5 computer was not powerful enough to achieve self-driving capability.
The automaker started retrofitting existing HW2.5 vehicles for free with new HW3 computers owned by drivers who bought Tesla’s ‘Full Self-Driving’ (FSD) software package.
In 2023-2024, Tesla transitioned to another new and more powerful “self-driving computer”, HW4, in its new vehicles.
Unlike when it transitioned from HW2.5 to HW3, this time, Tesla claimed it would still be able to deliver its robotaxi self-driving capability to HW3 vehicles.
Musk even claimed that FSD will get better on HW3 first, as Tesla’s “focus needs to be on getting FSD on HW3 working super well and provided internationally”. He went as far as claiming that FSD performance on “HW4 will lag at least 6 months behind HW3” because of this.
That didn’t last long.
In 2024, we started to report that Tesla was reaching the limits of the HW3 computer, while the capabilities were nowhere near the promised unsupervised robotaxi-level autonomous driving.
It took another 6 months, but in January 2025, Musk finally admitted that HW3 computers are not powerful enough to achieve unsupervised self-driving capability.
There are about 4 million Tesla vehicles in the world with HW3 computers:
| Hardware Version | Production Timeframe | Estimated Vehicles Produced (Global) | Rollout & Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|
| HW3 (FSD Computer) | Apr 2019 – Late 2023 (phased out) | ~4 million (approx.) | Standard in all models from 2019–2022; remained in some cars through 2023. Overlap with HW4 during 2023. |
| HW4 (FSD Computer) | Jan 2023 – Present (ongoing) | ~2.5–3 million (approx.) | Introduced Jan 2023 (S/X first); became standard across all models by early 2024. Overlapped with HW3 in 2023. |
When admitting the computer won’t support the promised self-driving capabilities, Musk said that Tesla would retrofit the computers of all HW3 car owners who purchased the FSD package:
I mean, I think the honest answer is that we’re going to have to upgrade people’s Hardware 3 computer for those that have bought full self-driving, and that is the honest answer and that’s going to be painful and difficult but we’ll get it done. Now I’m kind of glad that not that many people bought the FSD package.
Musk says that replacing all the computers will be “painful,” and he is “glad” that “not that many people bought the FSD package.”
Tesla never disclosed the official take rate of its Full Self-Driving (FSD) package, but it did disclose having 400,000 FSD beta testers in North America by the end of 2022.
The take-rate is believed to be much lower globally due to the limited value in other markets where Tesla offers fewer ADAS features under the FSD package.
Globally, it’s safe to assume at least another 100,000 HW3 vehicles with the FSD package, which should bring Tesla’s retrofit requirement to over half a million units.
Musk is right to say that replacing the computers in over 500,000 Tesla vehicles will be “painful.” It will strain its service capacity tremendously, on top of the cost, which will easily surpass $500 million.
But that might just be the beginning.
Tesla promised self-driving hardware in all cars
Musk and Tesla not only made promises to those who bought the FSD package, but they promised anyone buying Tesla vehicles since 2016 had “all the hardware necessary for full self-driving capability.”
As we previously reported, Tesla removed the claim from its website last year and changed the language around the FSD package, which was likely aimed at weakening claims for Tesla HW4 owners, but the case for HW3 owners is more straightforward.
In 2019, Musk claimed “Tesla vehicles are now appreciating assets” because of their future self-driving capabilities. Of course, this proved to be completely wrong.
But there’s one thing that’s true about the value of Tesla vehicles: they would be worth more if they had computers capable of supporting self-driving, which Musk just admitted is not the case. That’s regardless of whether they bought the FSD package or not.
Therefore, there’s a strong argument to be made that Tesla needs to replace computers in all HW3 cars or at the very least, compensate the owners for falsely claiming that the vehicles had “all the hardware necessary for self-driving.”
In fact, there’s already legal precedent for this.
In 2022, a judge ordered Tesla to upgrade a customer’s self-driving computer for free so that they can subscribe to Tesla’s Full Self-Driving program without any additional cost. It created a precedent for Tesla owners who don’t purchase the FSD package.
Based on Tesla’s statement that “all cars produced since 2016 have the hardware necessary for full self-driving capability,” the owners of those vehicles need to have all the hardware necessary to have access to these features.
It’s a clear case of false advertising. Tesla says, “Your car has all the hardware necessary for full self-driving,” and when an owner wants to try the features, Tesla tells them, “You have to pay $1,000 for us to upgrade your hardware.” Something doesn’t add up.
Electrek’s Take
I would be surprised if Tesla does as Musk claimed and replaces HW3 computers in any car, let alone over half a million cars, or as it should be, about 4 million vehicles.
It’s too complicated and costly. It would add hundreds of thousands of work hours to Tesla’s already ultra-busy service operations, and it may not even work.
After being wrong about HW2.5 and HW3, the level of confidence in Tesla achieving unsupervised self-driving on HW4 vehicles is not really high, despite HW4 vehicles not only having more powerful computers but also better cameras.
I don’t think it’s realistic to believe that Tesla will enable level 4 or 5 self-driving capabilities in what are, in some cases, almost 10-year-old vehicles through a computer retrofit.
My 2018 Model 3 Performance was originally a HW 2.5 vehicle, and I purchased the FSD package. Tesla upgraded my computer to HW3 in 2019. We are now in 2025, and Musk finally admitted that the computer I bought 6 years ago won’t enable the self-driving capacity I was promised.
My car will never be self-driving, and I don’t believe Tesla will ever offer a free computer upgrade.
I think Tesla will have to compensate every Tesla HW3 owner worldwide. That would mean about 4 million vehicles and a liability of several billion dollars.
At first, instead of the computer retrofit, I think Tesla will use this as an opportunity to encourage people to upgrade, like it did with the “FSD transfer windows.” Maybe it will offer buybacks at a higher rate to compensate owners.
As for those who didn’t buy the FSD package, I don’t think Tesla will offer anything based on Musk’s messaging. It will have to go through the courts.
There are already several lawsuits filed against Tesla over its self-driving claims, and that was before Musk’s admission that HW3 won’t support unsupervised self-driving. I believe that those lawsuits will ramp up this year.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway