4 ms·
I wouldn’t be surprised if the cyclist blew through the stop sign as is incredibly common.
by pb7 3y ago
I wouldn’t be surprised if the cyclist blew through the stop sign as is incredibly common.
- nerdponx 3y agoIt's also arguably safer for the cyclist to do so. Bikes typically accelerate much slower than cars.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TulliusCicero 3y agoIt can be safer, but it's definitely not safer to do this if you're right behind a big truck that blocks other cars from seeing you. There's a right way to Idaho stop, and this ain't it.
- usrusr 3y agoDo waymos perhaps pass through behind a vehicle much faster/closer than a human driver? That would appear like one of those things that "computer accuracy" could do that humans would never try. A cyclist confident to be able to keep up with the truck's acceleration might go not only for the physical slipstream, but also for the "traffic slipstream", remaining so close that he would never intersect paths with a regular driver. That would be breaking traffic rules, not arguing that, but it would not only be safe (-ish, truck might hit the brakes) but also not inconvenience any drivers who wouldn't pass behind the truck without leaving a sufficient gap anyways. Until a waymo shows up and ends that assumption (this is speculation, I don't know how waymos drive) In any case, from a continental European perspective the American four-way stop just seems completely wrong, despite priority to the right being essentially the same when fully saturated.
- fastball 3y agoCan you explain? That doesn't really make sense to me.
- pb7 3y agoNo, it's safer to follow the rules of the road. Stop at stop signs and red lights or risk winding up on someone's windshield without anyone's pity.
- Phrodo_00 3y agoCalifornia has Idaho stops, so cyclists not stopping at Stop signs IS following the rules of the road (if the Cyclist did yield and just also didn't see the Waymo car). Bicycles starting on the side of the road can ofter get side swiped because they're in car blind spots because they don't accelerate fast enough. Going faster makes them more visible for cars.
- ganieldackle 3y agoNo it doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
- Phrodo_00 3y agoHuh, the internet lied to me [1]. Should've checked wikipedia. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-stop-bicyclists-yield-signs-ab-122/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-stop-bi...
- nerdponx 3y agoGovernor Newsom vetoed it: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/AB-122-1082021.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/AB-122-108... https://cal.streetsblog.org/2021/10/12/newsoms-deeply-disappointing-vetoes-of-traffic-safety-bills https://cal.streetsblog.org/2021/10/12/newsoms-deeply-disapp...
- Ferret7446 3y agoEven if that were legal in California, clearly in this case the cyclist did not check properly and should have fully stopped. I must say, all of this doesn't help with the general perception of cyclists being extremely entitled with respect to ignoring traffic rules. Anecdotally, I see more cyclists breaking the rules (such as by riding on the sidewalk or pedestrian crossings or improper lane changes/turns) than not.
- Ferret7446 3y agoThis incident literally disproves your claim.
- nerdponx 3y agoI said "can be" not "is always". Don't go there.