3 ms·

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

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.
  - rahimnathwani 2y ago
    In my scenario, both the Waymo and the bicycle are simultaneously stopped at their respective stop lines. That counts as 'contended'.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

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.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  In my scenario, both the Waymo and the bicycle are simultaneously stopped at their respective stop lines. That counts as 'contended'.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]