I do not see any logic here. They took a metric, in this case the location of accidents, and correlated it to a solution with no evidence that the solution (exiting the intersection as soon as possible) will actually improve things.
I could just as easily claim that the problem is what cyclists are doing in intersections, not the length of time they are there. There is more than one axis here. In my experience (I have lived in CO for 35 years) cyclists already assume that they do not need to stop and treat stop signs and some stop lights as yield signs. Does their data take into account if the cyclist in these accidents were actually following the letter of the law in the first place?
I could just as easily claim that the problem is what cyclists are doing in intersections, not the length of time they are there. There is more than one axis here. In my experience (I have lived in CO for 35 years) cyclists already assume that they do not need to stop and treat stop signs and some stop lights as yield signs. Does their data take into account if the cyclist in these accidents were actually following the letter of the law in the first place?