It can be safer, but it's definitely not safer to do this if you're right behind a big truck that blocks other cars from seeing you.

There's a right way to Idaho stop, and this ain't it.

Do waymos perhaps pass through behind a vehicle much faster/closer than a human driver? That would appear like one of those things that "computer accuracy" could do that humans would never try.

A cyclist confident to be able to keep up with the truck's acceleration might go not only for the physical slipstream, but also for the "traffic slipstream", remaining so close that he would never intersect paths with a regular driver. That would be breaking traffic rules, not arguing that, but it would not only be safe (-ish, truck might hit the brakes) but also not inconvenience any drivers who wouldn't pass behind the truck without leaving a sufficient gap anyways. Until a waymo shows up and ends that assumption (this is speculation, I don't know how waymos drive)

In any case, from a continental European perspective the American four-way stop just seems completely wrong, despite priority to the right being essentially the same when fully saturated.

This incident literally disproves your claim.

I said "can be" not "is always". Don't go there.

Can you explain? That doesn't really make sense to me.

No, it's safer to follow the rules of the road. Stop at stop signs and red lights or risk winding up on someone's windshield without anyone's pity.

What an absolutely deranged comment to make.

Are you of the opinion that anyone going even ever so slightly over the speed limit deserves their fate if they happen to crash and get injured or killed?

Car drivers do after all break the rules of the road far more often than cyclists do, with further-reaching consequences.

California has Idaho stops, so cyclists not stopping at Stop signs IS following the rules of the road (if the Cyclist did yield and just also didn't see the Waymo car).

Bicycles starting on the side of the road can ofter get side swiped because they're in car blind spots because they don't accelerate fast enough. Going faster makes them more visible for cars.

Even if that were legal in California, clearly in this case the cyclist did not check properly and should have fully stopped.

I must say, all of this doesn't help with the general perception of cyclists being extremely entitled with respect to ignoring traffic rules. Anecdotally, I see more cyclists breaking the rules (such as by riding on the sidewalk or pedestrian crossings or improper lane changes/turns) than not.

No it doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Huh, the internet lied to me [1]. Should've checked wikipedia.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-stop-bi...

Governor Newsom vetoed it:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/AB-122-108...

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2021/10/12/newsoms-deeply-disapp...