3 ms·

Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault for trying to jump the queue at a 4 way stop, and it sounds like they were going in a different direction than

Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault for trying to jump the queue at a 4 way stop, and it sounds like they were going in a different direction than the turning truck as well. Hard to pin that one on Waymo, though I do feel like Waymo cars tend to drive a bit "city aggressive" at times, like asserting their right of way, sticking close to the car in front, etc.

rahimnathwani 2y ago
I don't know what happened in this case, but it's possible that the bicycle stopped at the stop sign before the Waymo did, and then proceeded (behind the truck), entering the intersection before the Waymo. If so, there's nothing wrong with the cyclist's actions. What I mean is: if the bicycle got to the intersection before the Waymo, then it would have had right of way. Of course, it's also possible that the cyclist failed to stop at the stop sign. But neither of us has seen footage of what happened. Presumably Waymo has a recording but, if the cyclist was hidden by the truck, that won't show what happened.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bradleybuda 2y ago
  That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time. At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns.
  - rahimnathwani 2y ago
    That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time. No, 'taking turns' is not codified in the law or mentioned in the DMV handbook. If the Waymo stopped at the intersection after the bicycle stopped at the intersection, or if the Waymo's path was blocked and it was thus not entering the intersection, the bicycle would not be required to yield. At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns. Are you sure about that? Consider the sequence of events in this hypothetical scenario: 1. The lorry arrives (from the North) first and stops at the stop line. 2. The lorry begins turning at the intersection, and is completely past the stop line but still in the intersection. 3. The bicycle arrives (from the North) and stops at the stop line. 4. The Waymo arrives (from the South) and stops at the stop line. 5. The Waymo waits at the stop line because, if it were to proceed, its path would intersect with the turning lorry's path. 6. The bicycle proceeds into the intersection, following the lorry. How would the cyclist's actions in this scenario violate something in California Vehicle Code sections 21800 to 21809? DMV handbook: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/california-driver-handbook-pdf/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/california-driver-handboo... Law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21800.&nodeTreePath=15.4&lawCode=VEH https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
    - bradleybuda 2y ago
      If the Waymo could not see the bicycle then them cyclist could not see the Waymo. So at best the fault lies with each party to make visual contact and determine who goes first.
      - rahimnathwani 2y ago
        If the Waymo could not see the bicycle then them cyclist could not see the Waymo. If the cyclist cannot see the Waymo, then either: A) There is no Waymo, and the cyclist need not yield, or B) There is a Waymo, but its path is blocked by turning lorry, and the cyclist need not yield. So either way the bicycle has priority, no?
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        B sounds wrong to me. That would mean if you had enough lorries blocking the next one's sight they could all go through at once. I don't think you're supposed to start moving again until you can see whether a waiting vehicle would intersect your path.
        rahimnathwani 2y ago
        B sounds wrong to me. But can you explain your objection in terms of the actual law? This whole sub thread started because someone claimed the bike must have broken the law. I'm trying to explain why that's not necessarily the case. Most people 'stating the law' are making things up that aren't written in the law. I am honestly curious to know what I may have misunderstood, but based on the actual law not based on what seems to make sense if we were to design ideal laws.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > No, 'taking turns' is not codified in the law or mentioned in the DMV handbook. Even if it's not explicitly written, it's a natural consequence that once two opposite cars go, the perpendicular cars were there before the replacements, so they get to go first, and it falls into taking turns. > Consider the sequence of events in this hypothetical scenario They meant when vehicles are waiting for each other the entire time, since obviously with nobody waiting multiple vehicles can go the same direction. In your scenario nobody is waiting after step 2.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tmnvix 2y ago
> Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault I disagree. Legislation does not abrogate drivers of all moral responsibility. Quite frankly, if a child jumps out from behind a parked car and you hit them despite following the law to the letter, you share some of the blame. I would argue that in all cases where a driver hits someone, they share some blame, because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their ability to react. It is the driver after all that causes the damage. Obviously, the only solution is to drive at a much, much slower speed, which at some point becomes impractical, so we don't do this.
- viraptor 2y ago
  > because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their ability to react That's just not possible to solve in practice. Unless you're moving at an extremely slow pace, there's always the lag of noticing + decision + activation. You can drive 10km/h and if someone walks right in front of you, there may be physically no way for you to prevent a collision. Sure, slower speeds prevent many accidents, but always sharing the blame is a very bad idea.
  - Xylakant 2y ago
    You’ll be appalled. Germany has a notion of “Allgemeine Betriebsgefahr” which encapsulates the general danger of operating dangerous machinery. For a car/bike accident, the default minimum damages split is at least 20% for the car, even if the driver has complied with all rules. In the Netherlands, it’s even more strict: accidents between cars and anyone below 14 are automatically considered 100% the drivers fault for damages, unless you can prove that the accident was caused deliberately and maliciously by the child. For accidents with > 14 years olds, it’s still at least 50% automatic damages, unless you can prove reckless or deliberate behavior. This is intended to reflect the inherent danger of driving a heavy machine in a public space.
  - tmnvix 2y ago
    > That's just not possible to solve in practice. It is never a necessity to drive so close to people that 10km/h is too fast to notice someone who may veer into the path of your vehicle without you having the ability to stop. Likewise to drive at a speed at which someone could appear from behind a nearby obstacle leaving you no time to react. It is a convenience that most people assume they are entitled to - largely due to it being codified in law (there are lots of things we do that are like this). You may consider it to be a necessity, and I would have once too. But I never do this now. I gave up the convenience - something I couldn't have done if it was a necessity. I understand this is not a choice everyone feels free to make. But it is a choice.
te_chris 2y ago
4 way stops are such insane traffic flow devices. Love the comedy, Larry David vibes but c’mon America.
occz 2y ago
Believe it or not, it's not allowed to drive in a manner which kills other road users breaking the rules of the road. If not, I would be well within my rights to push speeding drivers (the vast majority in my experience) off the road when I drive, and I'm for very obvious reasons not allowed to do that.

rahimnathwani 2y ago

I don't know what happened in this case, but it's possible that the bicycle stopped at the stop sign before the Waymo did, and then proceeded (behind the truck), entering the intersection before the Waymo. If so, there's nothing wrong with the cyclist's actions. What I mean is: if the bicycle got to the intersection before the Waymo, then it would have had right of way. Of course, it's also possible that the cyclist failed to stop at the stop sign. But neither of us has seen footage of what happened. Presumably Waymo has a recording but, if the cyclist was hidden by the truck, that won't show what happened.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bradleybuda 2y ago
That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time. At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time. No, 'taking turns' is not codified in the law or mentioned in the DMV handbook. If the Waymo stopped at the intersection after the bicycle stopped at the intersection, or if the Waymo's path was blocked and it was thus not entering the intersection, the bicycle would not be required to yield. At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns. Are you sure about that? Consider the sequence of events in this hypothetical scenario: 1. The lorry arrives (from the North) first and stops at the stop line. 2. The lorry begins turning at the intersection, and is completely past the stop line but still in the intersection. 3. The bicycle arrives (from the North) and stops at the stop line. 4. The Waymo arrives (from the South) and stops at the stop line. 5. The Waymo waits at the stop line because, if it were to proceed, its path would intersect with the turning lorry's path. 6. The bicycle proceeds into the intersection, following the lorry. How would the cyclist's actions in this scenario violate something in California Vehicle Code sections 21800 to 21809? DMV handbook: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/california-driver-handbook-pdf/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/california-driver-handboo... Law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21800.&nodeTreePath=15.4&lawCode=VEH https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
  - bradleybuda 2y ago
    If the Waymo could not see the bicycle then them cyclist could not see the Waymo. So at best the fault lies with each party to make visual contact and determine who goes first.
    - rahimnathwani 2y ago
      If the Waymo could not see the bicycle then them cyclist could not see the Waymo. If the cyclist cannot see the Waymo, then either: A) There is no Waymo, and the cyclist need not yield, or B) There is a Waymo, but its path is blocked by turning lorry, and the cyclist need not yield. So either way the bicycle has priority, no?
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        B sounds wrong to me. That would mean if you had enough lorries blocking the next one's sight they could all go through at once. I don't think you're supposed to start moving again until you can see whether a waiting vehicle would intersect your path.
        rahimnathwani 2y ago
        B sounds wrong to me. But can you explain your objection in terms of the actual law? This whole sub thread started because someone claimed the bike must have broken the law. I'm trying to explain why that's not necessarily the case. Most people 'stating the law' are making things up that aren't written in the law. I am honestly curious to know what I may have misunderstood, but based on the actual law not based on what seems to make sense if we were to design ideal laws.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > No, 'taking turns' is not codified in the law or mentioned in the DMV handbook. Even if it's not explicitly written, it's a natural consequence that once two opposite cars go, the perpendicular cars were there before the replacements, so they get to go first, and it falls into taking turns. > Consider the sequence of events in this hypothetical scenario They meant when vehicles are waiting for each other the entire time, since obviously with nobody waiting multiple vehicles can go the same direction. In your scenario nobody is waiting after step 2.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tmnvix 2y ago

> Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault I disagree. Legislation does not abrogate drivers of all moral responsibility. Quite frankly, if a child jumps out from behind a parked car and you hit them despite following the law to the letter, you share some of the blame. I would argue that in all cases where a driver hits someone, they share some blame, because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their ability to react. It is the driver after all that causes the damage. Obviously, the only solution is to drive at a much, much slower speed, which at some point becomes impractical, so we don't do this.

viraptor 2y ago
> because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their ability to react That's just not possible to solve in practice. Unless you're moving at an extremely slow pace, there's always the lag of noticing + decision + activation. You can drive 10km/h and if someone walks right in front of you, there may be physically no way for you to prevent a collision. Sure, slower speeds prevent many accidents, but always sharing the blame is a very bad idea.
- Xylakant 2y ago
  You’ll be appalled. Germany has a notion of “Allgemeine Betriebsgefahr” which encapsulates the general danger of operating dangerous machinery. For a car/bike accident, the default minimum damages split is at least 20% for the car, even if the driver has complied with all rules. In the Netherlands, it’s even more strict: accidents between cars and anyone below 14 are automatically considered 100% the drivers fault for damages, unless you can prove that the accident was caused deliberately and maliciously by the child. For accidents with > 14 years olds, it’s still at least 50% automatic damages, unless you can prove reckless or deliberate behavior. This is intended to reflect the inherent danger of driving a heavy machine in a public space.
- tmnvix 2y ago
  > That's just not possible to solve in practice. It is never a necessity to drive so close to people that 10km/h is too fast to notice someone who may veer into the path of your vehicle without you having the ability to stop. Likewise to drive at a speed at which someone could appear from behind a nearby obstacle leaving you no time to react. It is a convenience that most people assume they are entitled to - largely due to it being codified in law (there are lots of things we do that are like this). You may consider it to be a necessity, and I would have once too. But I never do this now. I gave up the convenience - something I couldn't have done if it was a necessity. I understand this is not a choice everyone feels free to make. But it is a choice.

te_chris 2y ago

4 way stops are such insane traffic flow devices. Love the comedy, Larry David vibes but c’mon America.

occz 2y ago

Believe it or not, it's not allowed to drive in a manner which kills other road users breaking the rules of the road. If not, I would be well within my rights to push speeding drivers (the vast majority in my experience) off the road when I drive, and I'm for very obvious reasons not allowed to do that.