What I mean is: if the bicycle got to the intersection before the Waymo, then it would have had right of way.
Of course, it's also possible that the cyclist failed to stop at the stop sign.
But neither of us has seen footage of what happened. Presumably Waymo has a recording but, if the cyclist was hidden by the truck, that won't show what happened.
At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns.
That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time.
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.
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-handboo...
Law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
If the Waymo could not see the bicycle then them cyclist could not see the Waymo.
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?
I don't think you're supposed to start moving again until you can see whether a waiting vehicle would intersect your path.
B sounds wrong to me.
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.
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.
I disagree. Legislation does not abrogate drivers of all moral responsibility. Quite frankly, if a child jumps out from behind a parked car and you hit them despite following the law to the letter, you share some of the blame. I would argue that in all cases where a driver hits someone, they share some blame, because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their ability to react. It is the driver after all that causes the damage.
Obviously, the only solution is to drive at a much, much slower speed, which at some point becomes impractical, so we don't do this.
That's just not possible to solve in practice. Unless you're moving at an extremely slow pace, there's always the lag of noticing + decision + activation. You can drive 10km/h and if someone walks right in front of you, there may be physically no way for you to prevent a collision.
Sure, slower speeds prevent many accidents, but always sharing the blame is a very bad idea.
This is intended to reflect the inherent danger of driving a heavy machine in a public space.
It is never a necessity to drive so close to people that 10km/h is too fast to notice someone who may veer into the path of your vehicle without you having the ability to stop. Likewise to drive at a speed at which someone could appear from behind a nearby obstacle leaving you no time to react. It is a convenience that most people assume they are entitled to - largely due to it being codified in law (there are lots of things we do that are like this).
You may consider it to be a necessity, and I would have once too. But I never do this now. I gave up the convenience - something I couldn't have done if it was a necessity.
I understand this is not a choice everyone feels free to make. But it is a choice.
You can also see the recent video of a Tesla avoiding a person falling onto the street and crashing into another car. There's no reason to keep the speed lower in that area, no extra space to be away from the sidewalk and no time to react to the change.
There is a legal doctrine in the US called the 'last clear chance'. Even if the other person was breaking the law, you still have the responsibility to avoid an accident if you can.
If not, I would be well within my rights to push speeding drivers (the vast majority in my experience) off the road when I drive, and I'm for very obvious reasons not allowed to do that.