No, I'm talking about when the HGV is moving slowly in traffic and indicates to turn left, the cyclist moving much faster then slips up the inside, it's madness but I've seen it quite a few times.
New Highway Code Rules
- Thread starter Murdoch
- Start date
Yes, I would agree with you here that the cyclist should wait for the HGV to complete their manoeuvre if they are indicating left.
On the other hand, if the cyclist was already alongside the HGV before the HGV indicated then the HGV will not be able to turn safely and should either slow down and wait for the cyclist to clear them, or should not try to make the manoeuvre at all.
Fist point. It does not just apply if the vehicle has partly passed the cycle. It can have completely passed and when slowed down they cyclist is travelling faster and 'undertakes' - motor vehicle is in the wrong now.
Turning right example - no mention in the rules about stationary traffic, non indicated in the diagram so where did your assumption come from? You cant have it both ways about indicators like you seem to want in the first 2 points. You should be taught the only thing an indicator tells you is that the bulb is working.
No they havnt.
Last comment is irrelevent.
Quite right. If the HGV is alongside the cyclist, then prior to that the HGV would have been behind him, so would have seen him at that point. It's similar to doing a blindside reverse. When you roll past the loading bay to set the outfit up for the manoeuvre, you have a good look at where you are going to be reversing so that you have a picture in your head for when you can't see. The cyclist may well be in the drivers blindspot as he makes him left turn, but if the HGV has just gone past him, he really ought to know that he might still be there.
SO if the legal speed limit is 60mph and you see a pedestrian on the pavement you drive at 20mph. Absolutely ridiculous comment.
No necessarily, my mother used to work with a HGV company. AN artic was stopped at traffic lights, a cyclist caught them and was passing on the inside, the HGV turned left and the rear wheels crushed the cyclist, killing them. Would not have happened if the cyclist did not pass on the left.
everyone should have to drive EVERY class of vehicle as part of their driving test/education.
that way we'd all know how difficult it is to see a cyclist when in the cab of an HGV. or how vulnerable you feel cycling on our roads when a BMW passes you within an inch or two...
that way we'd all know how difficult it is to see a cyclist when in the cab of an HGV. or how vulnerable you feel cycling on our roads when a BMW passes you within an inch or two...
Presumably the HGV was indicating left. If so the cyclist should have made allowances and stayed back... and still should. Well not that particular one for obvious reasons.
My interpretation of the new guidance is don't overtake a cyclist if you intend to turn in front of them and in doing so, cause them to have to take evasive action. I don't see this as being anymore that common sense, and I would hope, something that anyone reading this would be doing already.
My interpretation of the new guidance is don't overtake a cyclist if you intend to turn in front of them and in doing so, cause them to have to take evasive action. I don't see this as being anymore that common sense, and I would hope, something that anyone reading this would be doing already.
In this scenario, the truck was stationary, then made its turn without checking the inside was clear?
If you’re making a turn and there are pedestrians at or on the crossing, I would not be driving at 60.
Last edited:
Going up the inside of an HGV is insane in any vehicle (apart from possibly another HGV), no different on a bike, bike lanes are rubbish in my book, if a car in front indicated left why would you go to undertake, that’s insane too! If filtered then you should expect cars to turn at junction, if you don’t you will get hit sooner or later.
No one seems to be mentioning horses, what about them?
No one seems to be mentioning horses, what about them?
nah* I'm not riding a horse as part of my driving test/education!!
*or should i say 'naaay'
Never mind the horses, it’s fish driving that I’m worried about.
Goldfish learn to drive and navigate on land in animal behaviour study
Navigational ability in animals could be universal rather than specific to the environment, study suggests
www.independent.co.uk
4,290 pedestrians and 4,700 cyclists were killed were KSI on UK roads in the 12 months ending in June 2021, a sobering set of statistics.
Source - Dft
Edit for anyone reading... corrected whatcar/DfT statement, even though their publication is still incorrect.
Source - Dft
Edit for anyone reading... corrected whatcar/DfT statement, even though their publication is still incorrect.
Last edited:
More than a dozen cyclists killed every day on Britain's roads, I think I'd file that along with all the other dodgy statistics I've ever read.
I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers from , but 141 cyclists killed on UK roads in 2020
maybe youre looking at KSI ( killed or seriously injured) which was 4215 + 141 for 2020
still a tragedy though
simon
Updated Highway Code rules 2022: what are the changes?
New Highway Code rules are being introduced this week – here, we explain what they will mean for car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, including who has priority on the road
"Figures from the DfT reveal that 4290 pedestrians and 4700 cyclists were killed on UK roads in the 12 months ending in June 2021. "
I think whatcar and the DfT have made a mistake with the figures, irrespective one Pedestrian or one Cyclist killed is one too many.
I've updated my statistical reference above to reflect.
Cyclist fatalities on British roads rose by 40% in 2020, says DfT
AA says increase revealed in official figures is ‘staggering’, as cycling groups blame dangerous driving
Last edited:
