"So who should be giving way to who here?" Cyclist asks for Highway Code answers after near miss with driver turning HGV across cycle lane; A cyclocross race for people who hate their bike; Van Aert laughs at our NCN complaints + more on the live blog

Agreed. I totally accept that in theory the lorry should have given way to the cyclist, but it didn't pose any danger to the cyclist, only slight inconvenience, which would have been a lot less if the cyclist had used their powers of anticipation and eased up slightly to let the lorry proceed. 

As someone who also drives, I routinely find myself in the situation of slowing down a little bit to let people in or out of side streets or driveways, even though theoretically I have priority. There are times when I hold back a bit in my car to let large lorries complete their menouvres with plenty of space instead of insisting I am entitled to proceed.

I'm sure we've all had times coming out of side streets (in cars or on bikes) where someone with priority will hold back a bit to give us space to get out, and also times where there would have been space to get out if the car wasn't selfishly determined to close the gap - confident that the highway code is on their side. On busy roads at busy times the traffic can only flow because there are enough considerate drivers that don't insist on asserting their right to priority at all times.

The letter of the highway code is one thing, but being a cooperative road user  that is prepared to drive/cycle defensively is also important. IMO the reasonable thing would be for the cyclists to hold back in a way obvious to the lorry driver that they were letting them go first.

I appreciate this is a cycling site and too many drivers are oblivious to the needs and rights of cyclists, and it can be useful to have discussions around who has priority and how dangerous many drivers are. But I wish we didn't conflate the kind of minor inconvenience routinely experienced whilst driving as a dangerous crime against cyclists. It reminds me of my neice getting angry over Christmas because her cousin is allowed more screen time. My neice is six.

Carior wrote:

If he was driving a small car, he could simply turn off the road then give way - but as a lorry, giving way there still has it ass hanging out into the road.

I suspect that is the crux of it; who does he give most recognition to, the (important) motorists or the (mere) cyclist. The Highway Code has the answer here, but that is not what informs the lorry driver's decision.

Carior wrote:

Ultimately he had a choice - give way to the cyclist and inconvenience the cars coming the other way, or not give way and inconvenience the cyclist.  Based on that metric, the decision should, imho to be to give way to the person you have a greater risk of killing if it all goes wrong.

Unfortunately Gloucestershire Constabulary would disagree,

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521

sorry, couldn't resist the temptation.

...sure, or I might check behind me, and if there is nothing following I might assume the lorry driver could just as easily pass behind me.

Sriracha wrote:

Given the gesticulations that I, as a pedestrian, receive from drivers turning into (more so than turning out of) the sidestreet I am crossing, I'd say the updates to the Highway Code are little known. There is a heavy assumption by motorists, especially when they have indicated, that the onus falls on the pedestrian "crossing the road" to look out. They all remember the "Jolly Green Giant" ads message that motorists have priority - pedestrians should "wait until the road is clear." https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1v9kRhroIYs

What does the HC have to do with sweetcorn?

The Jolly Green Giant dressed (weirdly) as Poison Ivy and advertised canned sweetcorn.  I think you are thinking of the Green Cross Code Man?

Yep, the truck was signalling in advance of the cyclist and the rider could've easily slowed down a little just to let the truck go through. Avoiding unnecessary confrontation makes things easier all round. 

OldRidgeback wrote:

Yep, the truck was signalling in advance of the cyclist and the rider could've easily slowed down a little just to let the truck go through. Avoiding unnecessary confrontation makes things easier all round. 

Agreed, and that's how I would have handled it - but only because I'm used to the fact that people will push their luck a lot more with bikes than they would with cars.

The fact that the truck was indicating doesn't give it priority, he's still obliged to give way across the lane as dictated by lane markings. The driver saw the cyclist approaching at speed ("you was up there!") and still decided to manoeuvre across his path knowing full well that he wouldn't be clear before he arrived, thus forcing the cyclist to stop. That manoeuvre would fail a driving test, and (I suspect) had this been done to a driver who'd then subsequently uploaded it to a daschcam channel, nobody would have any issue with his grievance.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

Agreed, and that's how I would have handled it - but only because I'm used to the fact that people will push their luck a lot more with bikes than they would with cars.

The fact that the truck was indicating doesn't give it priority, he's still obliged to give way across the lane as dictated by lane markings. The driver saw the cyclist approaching at speed ("you was up there!") and still decided to manoeuvre across his path knowing full well that he wouldn't be be clear before he arrived, thus forcing the cyclist to stop. That manoeuvre would fail a driving test, and (I suspect) had this been done to a driver who'd then sunsequently uploaded it to a daschcam channel, nobody would have any issue with his grievance.

Haven't seen the video due to where it's hosted, but my favourite test is to either replace the bike with a bus or swap the two vehicles. If a lorry pulled out across a bus lane and caused the approaching bus to stop, then that would be poor driving, though I'd expect the bus to slow/stop to avoid a collision. If the two vehicles are swapped, then I'd imagine a very angry lorry driver using their horn as a cyclist slowly crosses in front of them.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Haven't seen the video due to where it's hosted, but my favourite test is to either replace the bike with a bus or swap the two vehicles. If a lorry pulled out across a bus lane and caused the approaching bus to stop, then that would be poor driving, though I'd expect the bus to slow/stop to avoid a collision. If the two vehicles are swapped, then I'd imagine a very angry lorry driver using their horn as a cyclist slowly crosses in front of them.

The truck driver should have observed the HC and waited until the cycle path was clear before proceeding (and certainly ought to have apologised once called out on it).

OTOH, on this occasion and setting no general precedent for any other occasion, the cyclist could have seen what was occuring, easily slowed down - barely - and the lorry would then have been across the cycle path and out of their way before they even reached it.

And thus it becomes a non-issue, as CBikeLondon and peted76 said.

There's a clear hazard developing and the cyclist takes little to no action, purely relying on some give way markings till the last second.

The HC does remind you to account for others mistakes.

So that's a hazard perception & situational awareness failure on the part of the cyclist as well.

Try that in a driving test and see how far you get with, but the HC said I would have priority instead.

The lorry driver "was manoeuvring", indicating even - that changes the road priorities?! I'll try that next time I'm impatient to enter a busy roundabout.

Same scenario with a car in lieu of the bike and nobody would be arguing about this.

Sure, the cyclist could have read the road and graciously chosen to concede to the lorry driver by slowing up, but that's not what happened.

Moreover, the lorry driver should have read the road and been prepared to give way to the cyclist, but that didn't happen either.

FFS, go and watch the video......He indicated well before the junction, and the cyclist was well behind.......Any cyclist with road sense would observe and make it a non event - but no, he's gone rushing into trouble. 

More Road cc readers showing themselves as having no road sense at all.....

Having road sense and the ability to pre-empt and handle other people's mistakes doesn't change the fact that the HGV driver was objectively in the wrong here. Indicating does not give you priority, so how early he was indicating is irrelevant. The cyclist was riding at a consistent speed on a segregated path (so I'm confused as to why the article mentions rule H3) and there are road markings separate from the main road that oblige the HGV driver to give way to the segregated cycle lane - which he ignores and crosses directly into the cyclist's path when he's about 8-10m away.

Would I have made an issue out of it? No.

Would this have failed a driving test? Yes.

If the HGV driver had done this to a car, would anyone be sticking up for him? No.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

The cyclist was riding at a consistent speed on a segregated path (so I'm confused as to why the article mentions rule H3)

Rule H3 does cover this, as it's a 'cycle track', which is mentioned in rule H3 (see Cycle Tracks Act 1984 for definition, but generally means segregated from the road).

Even if there was no give way marking on the road for the lorry driver, the cyclist would still have priority in this situation. Only if there were give way markings on the cycle track, would the cyclist be expected to yield to the road traffic.

Velophaart_95 wrote:

FFS, go and watch the video......He indicated well before the junction, and the cyclist was well behind.......Any cyclist with road sense would observe and make it a non event - but no, he's gone rushing into trouble. 

 

More Road cc readers showing themselves as having no road sense at all.....

If driving, do you give way to every vehicle that indicates?

No, but I recognise that some vehicles such as buses and lorries need time and space to manouevre. I'll sit back at one junction so a bus driver can make the turn.

That wasn't the question asked. The question was, who should be giving way. According to the Highway Code there is only one correct answer. Like hawkinspeter says above, if you are in any doubt then swap the lorry and the bike, then ask the same question.

Velophaart_95 wrote:

FFS, go and watch the video......He indicated well before the junction, and the cyclist was well behind.......Any cyclist with road sense would observe and make it a non event - but no, he's gone rushing into trouble. 

 

More Road cc readers showing themselves as having no road sense at all.....

Reverse your perspective and you can easily say the same thing:

FFS go and watch the video...he was clearly visible approaching well before the junction and the driver had plenty of time to give way.... any lorry driver with road sense would observe and make it a non event - but no, he's gone rushing into trouble.

More Velophaart_95's showing themselves as having no road sense at all...

Sriracha wrote:

Sure, the cyclist could have read the road and graciously chosen to concede to the lorry driver by slowing up, but that's not what happened.

I believe you mean that is exactly what happened; If the cyclist didn't conceed and slow then we would be discussing yet another cyclist killed in a collision with an HGV. Instead cyclist stopped clear of the lorry, avoiding the collision after they failed to give way.

If the give way had been a zebra crossing, and the cyclist a parent with a child ... would you still have drawn the same conclusion?

Before you jump to false equivalence... think about give way and priorities and you'll see that it's the same thing.

Oldfatgit wrote:

If the give way had been a zebra crossing, and the cyclist a parent with a child ... would you still have drawn the same conclusion? Before you jump to false equivalence... think about give way and priorities and you'll see that it's the same thing.

I cycle through zebra crossings, causing pedestrians to abruptly stop, all the time. If any of them shout at me I just yell back 'didn't you see me coming? Make it a non-event!', then get on with my day. Works every time.

(dislaimer, I don't actually do this! but, as you say,it's a good example of motor-normitivity, whereby an arguably less risky failure to give way would be seen as way worse than this lorry driver's failure to give way).

Oldfatgit wrote:

If the give way had been a zebra crossing, and the cyclist a parent with a child ... would you still have drawn the same conclusion? Before you jump to false equivalence... think about give way and priorities and you'll see that it's the same thing.

technically it would have been OK, because the cyclist was not on the "crossing" at the time the lorry started. So it's not a good comparison due to relative speeds of cyclists and pedestrians.