Nope! Cars and bikes have different traffic laws. Where I live what the cyclist did is perfectly legal because they only have to yield but not stop and they expected the car to stop as it should have.

I dislike bike riders who are assholes. This isn't that.

It's always projection.

Prepared for Terries vibes.

Ha, look at this loser with their empathy!

(/s if it wasn't clear)

I treat cyclists and pedestrians the same, I give them priority in most situations. I also know that stop signs and red lights kill cyclists so I don't really expect them to do them, I actually prefer if they just go through and disengage the intersection asap.

This is something I have been also wondering for ages and on top of that they sit in a cabinet shielded from elements in a stable temperature.

Yet they need to speed up to make the turn 0,5 seconds before the bike passes the crossing while almost killing the bicyclist in the process.

Insane.

Have you tried being a piece of shit?

I admit to being impatient as a driver sometimes... because driving isn't very pleasant and I want it to be over.

About 15% of the US population lives in states with Idaho Stop laws, where bicyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs, and just under half of those also allow them to treat red lights as stop-then-yield signs. This has provided hard data indicating such a practice is measurably safer for cyclists, I believe at least partially because a disproportinate amount of collisions involving them happen in intersections and not needing to slow down for them means cyclists spend less time in those high danger zones. Given how much advice I was given as a driver boiled down to "drive safely, even if that means breaking the law" (especially given in regards to speed limits), I think it is perfectly justified for a biker to do the same, and act in the safer manner even if the laws says to do something else.

A lot of states (can't speak for the rules in Europe) have laws that allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yields. This is supposed to be safer for cyclists. It also allows cyclists to be more energy efficient and faster, because accelerating is the hardest part of cycling and it takes a long time compared to coasting through an intersection.

The video below does a good job giving a brief overview of why this change was made.

Personally, I still look both ways before going through a stop sign, and, if I see vehicles, I'll slow down enough so that I can react if needed. Check your local laws to see how cyclists should treat stop signs.

https://youtu.be/KCs5nDEZpoM

Because most of the infrastructure it meant to enable cars, the ultimate death machines. It is infra necessitated by and built for them. Look at any of the numerous yt-vids by the channel "bicycle dutch" from mayor dutch cities during rush hour to get an idea of what traffic without cars looks like - no stop signs, no lights, no nothing. Also, moderate starting and stopping increases energy demand per cycled stretch by up to 25%, compared to basically 0 for the automatic driving fatass in the pickup.

Some places stop signs are legally optional for bikes.

I still do them, because cars always have the right of way according to the laws of physics.

At a four way stop, the vehicle that stops first has right of way. If all vehicles stop at the same time. It's the one going straight through the intersection. Then the one that is the rightmost.

@dellish @destructdisc

We have one of these in Wellington NZ. It's the final testing point on your practical driver's licence test and it's only about 20 metres from the testing station. There's no right answer about who gives way but is designed to see how safely you manage a strange situation. However, they are public roads and non-testees have to negotiate it as well. Surprisingly few problems, though.