Hacker News Reader

Comment by hombre_fatal | Hacker News Reader

Every time you drive, you aren't hit by cars that simply had a yield sign. You see those cars, and you see them before they have even slowed as they approach the yield sign, and every day you gamble that they are going to yield and let you pass without hitting you.

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.

View on HN

If you're driving defensively, or riding defensively, you can never assume that they've seen you, or that they'll give way.

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.

Interesting. So if you are driving on a road and come across an intersection that you don't have a stop sign for but the cross roads do, you treat the intersection as an all-way stop?

In all my decades of driving I have never seen anyone drive that way. I think I'd believe it with dashcam evidence only.

You should definitely slow enough to look both ways before crossing.

Better than driving ten over and assuming everyone can see every stop sign.

I’ll keep vigilant of someone potentially pulling out, and usually prepare to brake (eg foot off accelerator, prepared to hit the brakes). This is also roughly what we learnt in a defensive driving class I took (as part of high school).

(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.)

City driving: some drivers have the unpleasant habit of approaching an intersection from a secondary road with no visible slowing down, slamming the brakes at the very last moment. If I happen to glimpse such a vehicle, I hit the brakes myself. Right-of-way won't pay for damage costs.

I watch these intersections closely, yes. And make sure I have time to slam on the brakes if necessary. I've seen far too many cars blow through residential-area 25mph stop signs as if they don't exist, and it really only takes one to give you a very bad day. And that's in residential areas - in higher-speed quieter-area intersections like this, hell yes I'm extra paranoid. I've seen multiple cars plow through intersections like this at triple the speed limit since I started driving.

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.

I don't stop, no, but I do slow if needed to give myself options.

Sure, but I doubt you stop at green lights even though someone might run a red light. Next time you drive, notice how many gambles you make despite how defensive you think you are. Hell, a single trip down a 60mph two-way street with only a yellow paint divider has probably exposed you to more risk than all of the mortal danger your defensive driving has saved you. I just think it's a weird line of inquisition to wonder why someone wasn't more defensive when hit by someone else.

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 just think it's a weird line of inquisition to wonder why someone wasn't more defensive when hit by someone else.

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 really can't ride like that though. That would mean slowing down to 10mph at every junction with an arriving car.

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.

Of course, you're absolutely right, it's absolutely impossible to remove all risk, but the only factor in the equation you control is you, so I always try to load the die as much in my favour as I can.

I make sure they start slowing down, or else I'll slow down. I've been cut off by people who did not have the right of way and still took it.

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.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com