Near Miss of the Day 520: Cyclist hit by driver's wing mirror coming under narrow bridge

I would disagree, it has nothing to do with who reaches the bridge first, the drivers all passed a sign to tell them that oncoming traffic has priority, they also crossed over giveway lines, where they are required to wait until the way is clear of oncoming traffic (in this case the rider)

Yes they did - however we are talking about bounds of reasonable here - the first driver can clearly get through.  The second driver - doubtful whether he can see the cyclist at the point at which he starts through the bridge - at which stage it's nonsense to say that he should stop up and reverse at the point at which he is able to rather than proceed through.  Likewise, it's nonsense to say that the cyclist - fully able to see the situation ahead - shouldn't just slow a little - or even stop for a moment to allow a safe pass. 

If someone else barges through at that point, then they would patently be in the wrong.  But this is just an example of failure to comprehend the meaning of what is meant by "sharing the road", or by having "priority" (which is itself different to the non-existent 'right of way')

Velo-drone wrote:

The second driver - doubtful whether he can see the cyclist at the point at which he starts through the bridge - at which stage it's nonsense to say that he should stop up and reverse at the point at which he is able to rather than proceed through. 

Because he just followed straight through behind the previous vehicle without being able to see whether or not there was traffic he should be giving way to. Is this the fault of the cyclist? Or the driver who is not 2 seconds behind the scenic? If the driver cannot see what is coming, it is because they have chosen not to be able to see before crossing the give way lines.

no one is suggesting he should reverse, but having made the original error he could move over, as evidenced by the larger van at the narrowest point of the road. The pickup is through the restriction before impact but the front wheels never steer. 

Velo-drone wrote:

they have priority.... If they reach the bridge first.

Untrue.  You don't have to have reached the bridge before the other vehicle reaches it; if you will reach the restriction before the other vehicle is clear of it then they should give way (although if they're already in the restriction then they should be ceded to).  That's why there's no give way markings on the priority side.  The same goes for overtaking parked cars.

That said, stupid move by the cyclist to not even slow down and - as has been said elsewhere - no attempt to avoid the collision as required by the HC:

"The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

It's not about wh reaches the bridge first - it never is. Even f there were no marking that would indicate no one has priority, and you should proceed with caution.

In this situation, the cars have been instructed to give way to oncoming traffic. That would mean that you have to allow oncoming to complete their manoeuvre (in this case passing the bridge) without deviation or deceleration. This even the scenic at front failed to do (although I'd say that error could be forgiven). The following vehicles barged through, either "follow me", or deliberately using scenic's manoeuvre to force through. Either way it does not look good on those drivers.

The fact remains that the priority did not lie with the vehicles, and the three drivers failed to concede that. Note that this does not say that the rider was right to continue as if those drivers were behaving themselves. The situation was clear to the rider on approach, and they should have let it go.

I would've stopped too - in the middle of the oncoming white SUV / Ute when they had enough time to stop. They shouldn't have gone first and neighter should the

van gone. 

Good on the rider for calling the cops. 

He didn't ... read again.

I'm also not convinced you understand what the priority sign in the UK actually means ...