3 ms·
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
by bradleybuda 2y ago
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.
- rahimnathwani 2y agoIf the Waymo could not see the bicycle then them cyclist could not see the Waymo. If the cyclist cannot see the Waymo, then either: 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?
- Dylan16807 2y agoB sounds wrong to me. That would mean if you had enough lorries blocking the next one's sight they could all go through at once. I don't think you're supposed to start moving again until you can see whether a waiting vehicle would intersect your path.
- rahimnathwani 2y agoB sounds wrong to me. But can you explain your objection in terms of the actual law? 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.