[billjings]

It's a low traffic 4 way stop sign intersection. Low speed, probably a 25mph speed limit?

If you're cycling, this kind of intersection is only dangerous if you fail to yield/stop appropriately to auto traffic. Which seems like might be what happened here, from the description.

[lambdasquirrel]

Maybe. Article says bicyclist was obscured by a truck.

17th street in Potrero is relatively quiet but that particular area often has cars coming off the freeway. It can be a maze to get through on bike. I wouldn't rush to make a judgment until we had a dashcam video.

[Symbiote]

That might well also mean the car was obscured to the cyclist.

[prmoustache]

Does 4 stop sign mean cars have priority over cyclists? Sounds weird reasoning. But not living in this country I don't understand who would have priority if everybody has a stop sign.

Is it just a priority based on power? 18 wheeler > Buses > Cars > motorbikes > cyclists ?

[gwill]

it isn't priority by vehicle type, but by time that you arrive at the stop sign. everyone has to follow the rules equally. approach the sign, come to a complete stop, whoever was there first goes. if the intersection is full, then opposite pairs alternate with whoever is going straight getting right of way, followed by whoever's turning.

[kurthr]

Also, if you come to a stop at the same time with two cars at right angles, the car on the right has the "right of way".

[gpsx]

I think this is a rule in Europe but I am not aware of this being a rule in the US.

[brewdad]

It is but it's one of those rules that gets half a sentence in the drivers manual that people cram when they turn 16 and never think about again.

[shiandow]

Over here I'm pretty sure that's the only rule. Having whoever came there first go sounds like it could get very confusing in even vaguely ambiguous cases.

[JohnFen]

In my observations in my state, the "who gets there first goes first" is very much not confusing. What seems to confuse people is that with ties, people forget if the rule is the person to the right goes first, or to the left. So in practice, this tends to be negotiated using hand signals.

[mh-]

It really isn't. When there's a "tie", one human waves the other to go.

[brewdad]

Especially since Covid it seems like the rule is "If everyone else is stopped, I can blow right through the stop sign. They'll wait."

[roarcher]

For any non-Americans wondering what happens if 4 vehicles arrive at the same time all going straight: Yes, it does happen, and it results in 4 people waving each other through, start-stopping in anticipation of each other, and finally someone blowing through the intersection at full throttle in frustration.

[lesuorac]

The alternating pairs is just convention and isn't actually law.

The actual law is that you need to complete stop first, yield to any vehicles already in the intersection, yield to the first car (tie goes to your right).

Which allows for an interesting scenario to occur.

1) East-bound truck arrives at intersection and stops first before proceeding into intersection.

2) South-bound bicyclist arrives at intersection and proceeds (illegally) without stopping.

3) West-bound Waymo arrives at intersection and stops but proceeds (now also illegally; as the cyclist is within the intersection) through the intersection.

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-veh/divisi...

[mlyle]

Alternating pairs emerges directly from those rules. Once one person goes north, a non-conflicting person can go south. Then, the current east and west people have arrived before the new north and south people.

[lesuorac]

It doesn't though.

Unless the North & South people arrive at the intersection at the exact same time they must still come to a complete stop. While say the South person is stopping an East person could have finished their stop and since the North car has passed by them they can enter the intersection.

Sure as the intersection backs up it becomes very likely that the North-bound person will be blocking an East person from entering the intersection such that the South person can enter. But just because a car is coming at you in an intersection doesn't mean you can legally enter it.

By convention though, literally every East bound person is going to expect the South bound person to travel at the same time as the North bound one. My point is strictly that the law doesn't require this and under some circumstances the South bound person may be breaking the law.

[mlyle]

> But just because a car is coming at you in an intersection doesn't mean you can legally enter it.

I would argue you can; if you only have to yield to someone who is unable to enter the intersection for other reasons, you are free to go.

> By convention though, literally every East bound person is going to expect the South bound person to travel at the same time as the North bound one.

Sure; it's worth assuming that the Southbound person has slightly screwed up timing instead of forfeiting what would normally be "their turn".

[bb88]

This is not true in Idaho. A stop sign is a yield for bikes. They call this the "potato" laws.

The practical reality of this is that if you're stopped at a stop sign, a bike may be coming from behind and will pass you on the right as you're trying to make a right turn.

AIUI, in this situation the bike has the right of way.

[prmoustache]

That sounds like a complete shit show and a recipe for problems for anything but very low volume traffic.

[cloverich]

It definitely hiccups in high traffic times, but in practice it works reasonably well around the country. Its generally not meant for high volume intersections, where you'd expect a light instead. For perspective, I'd imagined roundabout and other designs as better, but hadn't really considered an alternative algorithm for people to follow.

[Symbiote]

The alternatives outside North America are

1. no markings at all, for very low-traffic places. You're supposed to be driving so slowly that you figure it out. (Yield to the right, if you can't figure it out. In practise, yield to bigger vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists etc — the roads is so small there might not be much choice.)

2. one road is the main road, the other is minor — minor traffic yields. This is most common. There might be signs, but there might only be road markings involving some sort of triangles (i.e. a yield sign).

3. a painted or similar shallow roundabout, showing roundabout rules apply (yield to the left) but allowing large vehicles like buses to drive over the paint. Only used in some countries.

4. an actual (concrete, kerbstone) roundabout, if there's space for that and traffic is higher.

I think you see 3, 1, 1, 2 if you follow this road north-west in Copenhagen: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6993358,12.5310164,3a,75y,32...

[badpun]

Europe has an algorithm that, on such intersections, you have to yield to a car on your right-hand side. This works well until there's a car on every leg of the intersection, which is extremely rare (because, on intersections with such levels of traffic, there are road signs explicitly saying which road has to yield to which one).

[Tagbert]

Yes, in the US the rules are like this:

- first to the intersection has the right of way. - if you both arrive at the same time, the one to the right has the right of way. - If you both arrive at the same time facing each other you can both proceed driving straight or turn right. - If you both arrive at the same time facing each other anyone turning left must defer to the other.

[olyjohn]

They generally don't build them in high traffic areas.

[kjkjadksj]

In California there is actually no requirement anymore for the bike to stop if its clear and bleed momentum.

[NetToolKit]

While there is an effort to make this so, it does not yet appear to be law: https://www.calbike.org/bicycle-safety-stop-faqs/

[kjkjadksj]

I forgot newsom unilaterally vetoed ab 122

[WindyMiller]

> If you're cycling, this kind of intersection is only dangerous if you fail to yield/stop appropriately to auto traffic.

Or if auto traffic fails to yield/stop appropriately to you.

Of course it's almost always the case that dangerously-designed roads only cause accidents when someone does something wrong. A one-track road with blind bends and no speed limit is perfectly safe if people use it safely.

[vdaea]

Some will come and tell you that cyclists have an innate right to ignore all traffic laws and that if you were in Europe the car will always be at fault.

[nick_]

Those pesky cyclists might even argue that traffic laws only exist in the first place because car drivers just would not stop maiming and killing people. Crazy cyclists.

[badtomato]

They do say that. Maybe the legal liability is on the driver, but that doesn't mean much. All behaviors together from everyone involved is what leads to accidents. If the cyclist feels that the law is all the protection they need to avoid being hit and enter an intersection without looking, or worse, assuming that someone will stop for them, then obviously the premise of their safety was flawed and they made a decision that lead to their death or injury. The accident happens no matter who gets the blame.

[Smeevy]

Honestly, that seems so much more reasonable.