[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.

[kjkjadksj]

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

[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.