Hacker News Reader

Comment by ams6110 | Hacker News Reader

First rule of cycling: assume drivers don't see you.

In the article, the author explains that from the cyclists orientation, the car approaches from 94 degrees.

Doesn't matter. If you're cycling and you see a moving car, assume the driver doesn't see you. Never cross the path of a moving car even if you have the right of way or a green light etc. When you approach a junction, your head needs to be on a swivel constantly looking left and right and you need to be prepared to stop even if you have the right of way. This pretty much goes for motorcyclists as well.

I'm not blaming the cyclists here, but the reality is that when you are cycling it doesn't matter whose fault it is if a car hits you. You're still dead.

If you read the article, then you'd know that the cyclist probably did not see the car at all.

The cyclist may not see the car if they stare blindly into the distance in front of them. GP is making the point that the cyclist should be aware of their surroundings, and taking precautions accordingly. This includes looking for approaching traffic down the length of a side road on approach to an intersection.

While I don't discount that there may be freak scenarios, as a motorcyclist I agree. If I don't see a car, a pedestrian, a bird, a kangaroo, a log on the road, I go to hospital. It's as much my responsibility to ensure my own safety as anyone else's.

The rule I generally follow as a pedestrian is that the object with greater linear momentum has the right of way.

Not sure why you're being downvoted for this. As a pedestrian who used to commute by bicycle, this is the number one rule.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com