This argument is likely to succeed. The courts do not adopt a completely objective concept of a 'reasonable person'. Instead, the hypothetical 'reasonable person' is endowed with at least some of the knowledge, capacity for care and foresight of the actual defendant.
It is obviously important to know the extent to which the courts will do this. But for the moment, it is enough to know that to some extent at least, relevant attributes of the actual defendant will be taken into account when deciding what harm a reasonable person would foresee as resulting from the defendant's conduct.
Applying this test to the present case, it is clear that a reasonable person who knew of the hidden intersection would have foreseen that harm would likely result from a failure to slow down near that intersection.