The cyclists have right-of-way and have no reason to expect that that cars will simply come out of the side street without stopping, or even slowing down. By the time a cyclist realises it can easily be too late.
It was a stop with a right turn only onto a one way street with fairly fast (45 MPH) traffic. A large hedge abutted the sign, making it hard to see more than ten feet of sidewalk.
I looked right as I was pulling up to stop, sidewalk clear. I look left and see it’s clear for just enough to get into tragic. I don’t complete my stop, I’m doing less than 5 MPH and decide to punch it and I hear a scream just as a woman on a bike enters my vision passing right in front of me. She yells at me that she had right of way.
I try to tell her that riding 15 MPH on the sidewalk against traffic requires defensive riding skills. Right of way or not she shouldn’t have ridden in front of me when I was clearly looking the other direction. But before I can finish, another biker going with traffic on the road tells me she’s right and to shut up.
And I do, because I am embarrassed that I did California stop and that contributed to nearly running her over. I was also in the wrong. But people California stop all day long and as a biker I always assume they might.
If you’re going to ride a bike on the sidewalk you should act like a pedestrian, for everyone’s safety.
If there is a bike lane/acceptable shoulder, you should be riding on that.
Right-of-way isn't going to bring someone back to life.
So, even though the cars are approaching from behind the cyclist, they may see the cars approaching. And just like any right of way situation, they assume the cars will stop. Just like how you don't slow down just because you see someone waiting to go right on red.
Note: the OP intersection has gained stop signs over time to help avoid collisions.
If I gamble like you're saying, I would have been in some bad accidents. To prevent that, I just keep an eye on them, take my foot off the accelerate if necessary, lightly apply the brakes if necessary, etc. It's a dance, and it's not hard to avoid.
Edit: I don't cycle, but it's just as applicable to cars. The same blind spot problem is even applicable to planes. If you're a pilot, move your head! (My second paragraph is about some terrible curved highway merges.)
Difference is when this assumption is proven false in a car, it's generally more survivable than when you're on a bike or motorbike.
In all my decades of driving I have never seen anyone drive that way. I think I'd believe it with dashcam evidence only.
Better than driving ten over and assuming everyone can see every stop sign.
(Note also that all-way stops are rare outside of NA; it’s far more common to have roundabouts or clear priority, but you always keep an eye out.)
As a biker, this all applies doubly so, because one mistake like this can pretty frequently be fatal. Be paranoid or you risk death, there's no alternative.
Remember, only three cyclists have died at this intersection over the last six years while being a popular bike route. Not every cyclist is getting eliminated here. But it doesn't take many deaths to make you go "hmm, how can we design this intersection better?"
My point is that the answer to "why don't cyclists look to see if a car is running through the yield?" is probably "most of them do". That's why there were only three deaths in six years. It's a weird question to ask because even though you could scold those three people for not driving more defensively, the signage could simply be improved (and it was).
I don't believe I ever asked, or implied, that question.
I'll just add that there's a saying amongst motorcyclists that "there's no point being right if you're dead" - sure, the car _should've_ given way, but they often don't, so you have to ride like everyone will fail to give way, to ensure you have the best chance of survival.
You can take steps to be seen - put yourself in a cars sightlines and watch carefully for signs of not slowing down. But ultimately you are moving at a speed which means if someone absolutely guns it out a junction, or changes lanes without looking, you will be hit.
Watching carefully for signs of not being seen reduces the risk, sure. Often to acceptable levels. But it's always there.
Can you imagine that? A Tesla is stopped at a red light just before a pedestrian crossing. The Tesla can go from 0-30 mph before I can cross its width at walking pace. The walk light is on. I have the right-of-way. But considering the Tesla could go from 0-30 mph in the time I could pass it, your suggested course of action is to just wait until a slower-to-accelerate car stops at the intersection?
I'm not saying everyone can do that, and I think we agree that people shouldn't have to do that. Situational awareness, constantly coming up with alternative plans, and always making sure an "out" is available has kept me alive in dangerous situations. Anyway, that's how I live. People are wired diferently.
A Tesla is stopped at a red light just before a pedestrian crossing. The Tesla can go from 0-30 mph before you can cross its width at walking pace. The walk light is on. You have the right-of-way.
To answer your question, it's like I said: situational awareness. Is the driver only looking at oncoming traffic, or do they look around? It's rare, but I have waited at crosswalks with the walk light on because it wasn't safe. I have also walked out of the way or not walked when a driver still saw me and went anyway.
After all, situational awareness doesn't bring people back to life.
That would be a poor deduction.
It seems like you have a bone to pick. I don't care to facilitate or engage in such behaviors.
But, yes, a car with that much acceleration has no business on the public roadways.
Defensive driving simply means to not assume drivers are going to take an action until they give evidence of it.
If a driver is going to stop at an intersection, they will slow down before they get to the intersection. A defensive driver approaching a crossing with other cars approaching will look for evidence that the other cars are slowing down before assuming that they will stop.
If a car is stopped at a pedestrian crossing and a defensive pedestrian is looking to cross, they will look for evidence the car is about to accelerate into the crossing. They don't assume the car will suddenly accelerate for no reason, because there is no evidence that they would! Evidence that they may suddenly accelerate includes things like looking down at their phone, or not looking at pedestrians. If the defensive pedestrian sees that evidence they approach the crossing with caution, ready to take evasive action or not enter the crossing if needed.
Right-of-way tells everyone who has the right of way, it makes the expected behaviour clear. Assuming that everyone else will do what you expect them to do is extremely dangerous, as even without malice or carelessness it's very easy for each invloved party to have different assumptions about the expected bahviour.
So, to be defensive it's important to
- have a well informed understanding of what you think should happen
- look for evidence that all parties are acting in accordance with what you think should happen
- be prepared to change your actions if any party does not act in accordance with what you think should happen
I don't read it charitably because of the sanctimony involved in not reading an accident situation with the Understanding Human Error strategy, thereby leading to a bunch of low-quality comments about how people should just be better, involving poor understanding of public health and traffic engineering principles.
It's true, I probably shouldn't engage when the nth accident analysis by a HNer is "Why didn't the pilot just not crash into the mountain? When I see a mountain I just avoid crashing into it". No one is likely to get anything from that.