If the Waymo could not see the bicycle then them cyclist could not see the Waymo. So at best the fault lies with each party to make visual contact and determine who goes first.
If the Waymo could not see the bicycle then them cyclist could not see the Waymo.
A) There is no Waymo, and the cyclist need not yield, or
B) There is a Waymo, but its path is blocked by turning lorry, and the cyclist need not yield.
So either way the bicycle has priority, no?
I don't think you're supposed to start moving again until you can see whether a waiting vehicle would intersect your path.
B sounds wrong to me.
This whole sub thread started because someone claimed the bike must have broken the law. I'm trying to explain why that's not necessarily the case. Most people 'stating the law' are making things up that aren't written in the law.
I am honestly curious to know what I may have misunderstood, but based on the actual law not based on what seems to make sense if we were to design ideal laws.