So are cars and yet it's common practice among drivers to simply slow down to 5-10 mph, declare that a "stop" and proceed into the intersection.

There’s rules as written and then rules as followed — I’d much prefer a system that recognizes the rules that people tend to follow/bend/break — as a cyclist I too will often “convoy” with a bigger vehicle as it provides some additional protection most of the time (though obviously not here)

> rules as written/rules as followed

As a bicyclist in San Francisco, if I follow the rules as written, I cause traffic. Cars expect me to blow through four-way stop-sign intersections, and if I stop and wait for the cars, the drivers get confused & don't want to go (afraid of hitting me, I suspect).

In terms of right of way, the rules as followed seem to be pedestrian > bike > car.

I sometimes give way to bicyclists at four-way stops because I can't be sure they didn't get there before I did and I didn't see them because they're small.

And of course, if a vehicle, be it a bicyclist or car, enters an intersection when I have right-of-way, it's not like I'm going to start crossing and intentionally run into them.

Where bicyclists really risk their lives if they start assuming cars will give way to them is when they blow through two-way stops, especially at night or at one of the many intersections with poor visibility.

Then you are on your own if someone hits you. Or God forbid you hit a pedestrian.

> Or God forbid you hit a pedestrian.

I mean, it's embarrassing if you hit a pedestrian, but it's not going to reach "God forbid" levels.

You can kill someone. That's more than embarassing. I'm astounded that you think bicyclists killing pedistrians is just fine.

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/04/22/pedestrian-st...

"Embarrassing" is a strange way of saying "potentially deadly" (for example, https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-cycl... ).

> The felony conviction was the first of its kind in the nation involving a bicyclist.

The list of things that have killed one person in the last several hundred years is long. Everything is potentially deadly by that standard.

Here's a case mentioned in Law's Order:

"The plaintiff was about 14 years of age, and the defendant about 11 years of age. On the 20th day of February, 1889, they were sitting opposite to each other across an aisle in the high school of the village of Waukesha. The defendant reached across the aisle with his foot, and hit with his toe the shin of the right leg of the plaintiff. The touch was slight. ... In a few moments he felt a violent pain in that place, which caused him to cry out loudly. ... He will never recover the use of his limb."

(Vosburg v Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891))

It's the first felony conviction, not the first time a cyclist has killed someone.

Usually they get charged with a misdemeanor or not at all.

Note that there are bike lanes on the likely street where this occurred. The cyclist was not necessarily following the truck but could have been parallel (and overtaken).