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.
I don't think you're supposed to start moving again until you can see whether a waiting vehicle would intersect your path.