HGV drivers often have to do some cycle training as a part of CPD to see things from the cycling perspective. I think cyclists should also spend a day at least as a passenger in lorry to understand that side of things also. It's clear from a small proportion of the comments, there is a massive lack of understanding.
i have had some really rough situations with HGVS i think u have featured the tesco fuel lorry on here in fact. however i still understand how hard it is for them and will do anything to avoid them or help them pass because no matter how much right of way i think or have my skull will still pop if i go under one. self preservation 1st and that took a while to learn.
That's a really good idea, a cyclist sitting alongside a HGV driver would be able to teach them so much about driving safely around vulnerable road users! In this case, had I been in the cab with the driver, I would have pointed out the bi-directional cycle lane with a give way for turning traffic and advised the driver to: - slow to almost complete stop on the major road - creep very slowly around the corner - be sure that the cycle lane is clear in both directions before crossing the give way markings
Yes, this is an excellent suggestion. Anyone care to offer a cyclist such as the one featured a day in an HGV for the channel? I believe that would be something I would watch.
It should be part of basic roadwise courses for everybody. Learn what the limitations of vehicles are and why sharing the road doesn't mean expecting everybody to cater to you.
If I was the cyclist I would’ve taken a best flow approach. The Fire Service Vehicle was pretty far ahead. If it stopped for the cyclist, its back end would be sticking out into the road, so just slow down a little, let it clear, you don’t have to come to a screeching halt! and then everyone’s journey carries on.
The fact that the back would stick out into the road doesn't matter. The driver of that vehicle still has to make sure they don't run over any cyclists, even cyclists who don't do the sensible thing.
im a keen cyclist , its much easier for the cyclist to see the fire engine signalling than the driver to see the cyclist in that situation, more awareness and less entitlement form the cyclist needed :)
Is it ‘entitlement’ to expect other road users to give way when crossing your path across ‘Give way’ lines? The cyclist seemed able to stop easily some way away from the fire engine without problems.
The left signal applied to junction 1 (the truck moving left onto the side road from the main road). I wonder if the cyclist expected the truck to observe and adhere to the give way line at junction 2 (where the side road meets the cycle path).
@@QiuEnnan Yes it is because you also have to have common sense. The truck driver was indicating ,so it was clear where it was going. It was easy to anticipate what was likely to happen and to easily avoid it, that is the skill of being a road user, not just riding on with the entirely wrong mindset that I have right of way so I'll make a meal out of this. You cannot see the driver so safe to assume he can't see you, these new type of roads for cyclist are not well designed and give way junctions a few yards passed the junctions is utterly stupid and cause problems all the time.
If it was a car, I would understand the anger of the cyclist, but with a big vehicle, if I was a cyclist, I would just slow down and allow the vehicle to do its manoeuvre, and not feel so entitled.
An that the problem, if you were in a car then you would be annoyed, but a cyclist expecting the same is entitled? Why isn't the theoretically annoyed car driver entitled?
That's what the give way line is for at the edge of the cycle lane. To remind all vehicles, small or large, to stop: check both directions, then proceed.
Rubbish. The driver could see fine - if they had taken the turn with less speed. I agree that large vehicles such as this have no place in city centres. But if you are driving such a vehicle, you need to take more care. As usual, down to the competent cyclists to evade the incompetent drivists.
0:27 At the end of the day the cyclist had PLENTY OF WARNING that it was turning..... 1000000% all the time in the fire truck drivers BLIND SPOT. I mean who DOESN'T give way to an emergency vehicle (when safe to do so), blues and twos or no blues and twos.
Yes they had plenty of warning that the truck was turning left at the 1st junction (the left turn off the main road onto the side road the truck does), but that junction wasn't part of the cyclist's route, so not directly relevant to them. They had rather less warning that the truck was going to ignore the give way line at the 2nd junction (where the side road meets the cycle path).
@@chrisl1797 the moped rider behind the truck who had been observing the slowing and indicating truck for several seconds,and were themselves slowing, might have decided to deliberately cause an accident by driving into the back of the truck?
Is it better to be in the right and dead, or arrive alive? The cyclist clearly saw the the fire truck was turning (whether it should or shouldn't have) but was determined to make a point. No wonder there is such animosity, when people are so aggressive, even going as far as to share their stupidity by putting their bad driving online.
I think cars often won't see you or check your mirrors when turning left. Technically they should and the cyclist has the right to undertake if they are not signaling left ... However as a cyclist I wouldn't put this to a test. If there is no left turn coming up in slow moving traffic I'll do an undertake but generally I prefer a right hand over take. The cyclist didn't break to make a point I think but.. he's not driving according to how the real world works. He or she also lost too much momentum by breaking later ... they could have slowed earlier and rolled forward slower and taken the remaining momentum to speed up after the fire truck had turned.
i think u get a feel when people do things that are on purpose or to punish you for holding them up. this was just a all round poor situation that could be fixed by the cyclist and not real malleolus from driver
@@New-ye2flHow? At the give way line, both the mirror and the window views would be useless. The only thing they could have done different is to turn in from the outside lane and gone much slower. Or better still stopped and got a passenger (if they had one) to get out and stop any cyclists. My opinion is they should have found an alternative route altogether. I drive a small flat bed transit and I have had articulated lorries alongside me at two lane roundabout entries and the lorry is completely invisible in the mirror. People just don't conside blindspots nearly as much as they should.
So if they can't see it's safe to turn they should just assume it is? People park, legally, close to the exit to my drive. I can't see if a small car or bike is hidden so I wait a few seconds so if there is one there it will pass, I don't just blunder out with my fingers crossed. The problem with Ashley's philosophy of cyclists cowering like a whipped bitch is that they will continue to be dismissed as inconsequential by other road users. The cyclist's actions put him in no danger but maybe alerted the driver to his shortcomings.
True, but Look at the lack of lane discipline and the near side rear suspension lift on that fire truck. Unless the driver is responding to an emergency, there are multiple other issues with the way that vehicle was being driven. That’s a very tight turn, especially for such a long and potentially heavy vehicle. A lot more care should have been applied. However, the cyclist could have anticipated better, instead of maintaining his speed and riding into the situation - of which he had ample warning. As an old biker told me some 50 years ago, the huge risk of fighting for your right to six feet on the road - on two wheels, is that there’s only one place you can guarantee where you will be granted them - where we all end up sooner or later. One way of hurrying up the day is to enter into an argument with heavy metal.
of course the driver saw him before and tried to turn quickly before he arrive to the junction. During turning the driver had approximate view about 5m which was enough to finish manoeuvre and avoid the cyclist. I cant imagine any crazy cyclist who will race the vehicle with restricted view when it wants to turn left. The cyclist had the clue that the truck its not going to stop thus easy to anticipate. It was risky manoeuvre but the driver definitely wouldn't turn like that if some cyclists were in the closer range than this one
Anyone who has cycled for a week will realize that many vehicles can't always see you. If they don't see you, it's better to let it go than to work up a frenzy over it. If they see you at the last second, I like to give them a friendly wave as if to say, "No worries, mate."
When I was riding to work years ago, I had a few incidents of people not seeing me. Nothing ever came of any of them. However, the only one that angered me was to one who drove her car onto the boke path, without looking. Her, I gave quite a mouthful to.
Why do a lot of cyclists (and pedestrians come to that) seem to have no thoughts about protecting themselves, and just rely on everyone else around them to protect them? Yes the onus is on the motor vehicle drivers to protect more vulnerable road users, however, some self preservation instincts from cyclists and pedestrians would help EVERYONE on the roads. As a more vulnerable road user, you need to be even more aware of the entire environment around you. If the cyclist had slowed and assumed they had not been seen, this would have been one of Ashley's famous "non-events".
You cannot say your first sentence then follow it up with the second. The onus should not be on the motor vehicle to protect others. The onus of _personal_ safety falls to the _person._ To expect others to care more for your safety than you do doesn't make sense. If someone wants to play stupid games they should be allowed to win the stupid prize they clearly desire.
It's pretty simple, dont expect a lorry to see you on a bike, or in a car for that matter, always take care near big vehicles and try to help them out on their journeys wherever possible.
I really don't think we should be putting this much responsibility on cyclists who could not even have a driver's licence. Don't get me wrong, your advice is probably the best advice right now. But I'm just wondering whether traffic can be regulated, through roads or traffic laws, such that even the tiniest kids that would be cycling alone on the road could survive without much/any risk of getting in bad accidents.
@@brentywenty I see what you are saying but I think until every vehicle on the road is self driving and almost on rails the chance of being hit by cars or lorries means cyclists should take care not to put themselves in dangerous predicaments. That said of course drivers should be as vigilant as possible, all the time when driving, unfortunately humans are the weak point when it comes to any kind of transport, all we can do is look out for each other best we can.
@@brentywenty You can't protect people from themselves. If people end up coming to harm through their own actions then they only have themselves to blame. Eventually parents will beat it into their children's heads to be mindful when on the road.
@@illegalopinions4082 Oh, you think all parents teach their children the correct things? That's an utterly wrong assumption to make. And you then think it's alright the children get punished for not being taught well by the parents. Sorry, but I do not agree.
To quote Ashley himself "have i been seen?" It was clear to a blind man the fire truck couldnt see him and yet he still doesnt slow untill he is almost hitting it. Its the I'm in the right mentality.
At most junctions this would be find advice, but the driver should have stopped at the give way line to check the cycle lane is clear before proceeding.
"almost hitting it" The cyclist was still half on the pavement when he stopped, the truck on the other side of the road. Where's the "almost hitting it"?
I would say that, in terms of safety, the cyclist did make it a non event. He stopped in plenty of time not to get run over and there didn’t appear to be any emergency braking. That said, with a bit of anticipation he could have slowed down earlier and not have stopped at all. The cynic in me says he was after a clip for TH-cam.
I do agree the fire engine should've slowed down but also, it's the fact you can see the cyclist's helmet looking at the fire engine, can clearly see what it's doing, makes a point to stop riiiiight before going into the side of the fire engine, then looks to the motorcyclist for validation, and was presumably the one who uploaded this clip online. He should've slowed down in case the fire engine didnt't see him but didn't. Sets a very poor example for cyclists.
Should have been a non-event. As a cyclist myself, I ride with the attitude that I can't rely on someone else to prevent injury to me. You have to adjust your cycling to suit the road conditions. Observe conditions around you. p.s. I cycle around 2500 miles a year.
There is a give way line at the edge of the cycle line. With your backwards logic, if somone is cycling along a main road they should stop at every side road in case a car fails to give way.
As a cyclist, id just free wheel for a bit, let it cross, then start cycling again. Im not going to test if they can see me i can see the angles are going to be bad as the turn occurs and things are just so much easier if i momentarily back off and allow the turn to happen. Also i dont have time for drama.
Whilst the fire truck driver is possibly unsighted because of the angle of the truck to the cycle lane, irrespective of what the HC says the truck crossed a 'Give Way' seemingly without pausing to look to cross the cycleway so to me the driver is without doubt at fault. That alone is enough to define the responsibilities without resorting to the controversial application of H3
If i was the cyclist my spidey sense would be tingling, i would be slowing down expecting the fire truck to not see me. At that point i wouldn't care about who has right of way, just my safety.
Correct answer. "Right of Way" (which isn't even a thing legally, it's priority, but I digress) doesn't save you when a 10 ton (or heavier) vehicle doesn't see you. Whether it's their fault or a mistake on their part or not. Right of way or priority doesn't save you if you don't look out for yourself as well.
How do i put this? The design of the junction dictates that any "traffic" in the "Cycle lane" in not visible from the "Fire Service Vehicle" , any entitlement of the "right of way" equals "i am invisible" as apposed to "I am Invincible "
That's why there is a give way line at the edge of the cycle lane, to remind turning vehicles that they DO NOT have priority, and that they must check the cycle lane is clear in both directions before proceeding.
@@Buckets41369 yep that's what gives way lines do. But in a HGV you are not crossing the give way at 90 degrees, this puts the entrance of the cycle lane in your blind spot. There is a good chance that the actual give way lines are in the blind spot for left turning vehicles too. For safety there should at least some signage or better the give way should be on the cycle lane. To me this is an example of cycle priority for the sake of cycle priority.
@@Buckets41369 I think Ashley and other car drivers get too het up about the actions of each individual person and forget that the law is the law. It doesn't matter that the cyclist sped up to make some content, the HGV driver did not slow down for clear and obvious road markings.
I think it _was_ a non event, in the sense that the cyclist had the situation well clocked all along. He didn't brake late because he was surprised, but because he felt wronged and wished to make a point.
The rider is demonstrating the dangers to ALL cyclists of poor driving when on a protected cycle way whose riders could include unaccompanied children where drivers do not abide by the marked priorities. Does that make him a prat?
@@IanMSpencer He STAGED the incident. He saw a big red vehicle in the distance in front of him. A vehicle that began to slow down as he began to catch it up. A vehicle with heroes on it - you know, firemen, it was a fire engine. It started to indicate for the left turn in good time and still he closed the gap. Then the view of the cycle lane was obscured by a bus shelter and folk milling around it. And you were suckered into thinking the 'influencer' cyclist had a case??? SMFH
It wasn't a near miss at all. At the speed he was cycling with modern disk breaks he or she chooses to break later to make their point. That's my opinion as a cyclist...It was a daft point to make though. Slowing earlier in this situation allows you to continue to roll forward without losing all your momentum and would have made it easier to speed up after the fire truck had passed. This is how you need to cycle in urban areas where there is a lot of stop and start. Wherever there is a left turn with flowing traffic I'm not going to undertake a car as there is always the risk they don't see me and haven't indicated.... If it's slow moving with no left turn then I'll judge the situation. If possible I prefer a right hand overtake on my bike.
It's weird to me how many fellow cyclists don't want to make use of their freehub and coast, lose maybe 2-3km/h, to make things easier for themselves. I see so many cyclist charge at red lights, then hard brake, if they had coasted, they'd have made it there on an amber, going into green and spend maybe 10% of the energy getting back up to speed. Same in this video like you said, he could have just coasted as soon as he sees the indicator and this would be a non event
If I were the cyclist, I would have stopped pedaling thus slowed down maybe 5-10 km/h to give the emergency vehicle more time to clear the cycle path so I would have been there after the long vehicle. The slowing down would make me spend less energy than braking hard like the cyclist did, even though he could be riding an e-bike. I prefer non-events. Greetings from Finland where I cycle year-around! Using summer slicks is sooooo lighter to ride than having studded winter tyres.
This vehicle started life out as a bus (specifically a Switch Mobility (Optare) Solo) and there should be doors behind the front wheel. I wonder if extra blind spots were created in the process of Switch changing it from a bus to this command vehicle? Also, the cyclist made it into an event when he could've slowed down and both could've seamlessly cleared the junction.
So lets stop the clip at 0:29 shall we. Look at the window below the COMMAND UNIT writing. Yes that's a window. That window is there to make it easier to see left during this sort of left turn. Had half of it not been covered by a large Sticker with the LFB emblem maybe the view during that turn would have been better? That vehicle is just a modified Optare Bus, normally the passenger doors are there.
However, The fire service vehicle driver seemingly made no attempt to even check at the Give Way which gave the cycle lane users priority. The cyclist was also perfectly able to avoid contact as he in fact did as he was clearly aware of the fire service vehicle. To me this demonstrates that the cyclist has mitigated. If he had not there would likely have been a very messy coming together. For me the Give Way is the overriding factor here. The driver should have shown more caution. If you cannot see you should not simply assume. I would apportion blame 90% driver, 10% cyclist on the basis that the cyclist did clearly enable the vehicle to cross his path without a coming together although I would have allowed more space personally. The driver simply crossed over a give way without due care and attention in my opinion. Not the best from both but from a fire service driver who has to be licensed to operate that vehicle it was not at all good.
The cycle track is a separate carriageway, akin to a service road, so rule 74 does not apply. After the fire engine turned left there is a short section of road with a give way line before getting to the cycle track. The correct procedure would be to give way at the give way line. It is the mirror image of turning right on a dual carriageway. You have to give way to traffic on the other carriageway before completing your turn. Traffic on the other carriageway would not expect you to turn in front of them and so neither would this cyclist. That said if someone does ignore the road markings and pull out or across in front of you then of course you would do all you can to avoid a collision.
Agree! And even if this was the same carriageway, rule 74 ('Turning') is for when the cyclist is turning, not when they are going straight ahead and there is another vehicle turning across them. Rule 76 'going straight ahead', would apply in that case.
Similar situation happend to me and I'll use it as proof for my psychic abilities whenever I see fit: I was on the bike section of the pavement, riding along a road with three lanes. There was a truck parked in lane one (I can't remember the color but it was a huge red flag). Just after the truck came the entrance to a small parking lot. It's one with an entrance that fits seamlessly into the pavement (not like the road-like ones) and sees very little traffic because there isn't really anything there. I slowed down just a little bit thinking I'm overly cautious and as I'm passing the truck someone goes from lane two, over the pavement, into the parking lot. Quicker than you just read *this* sentence.
I think the cyclist did a reasonable job - they did stop before the junction. I would’ve expected the driver to slow down and give way at the broken white lines at the cycle track even after they turned - because they were supposed to cross the cycle track at a right angle.
Given the long wheelbase and hence poor turning circle, the fire truck could not cross the cycle path at a right-angle unless it had turned from the other lane to allow it to turn more before reaching the crossing. Cyclists should always be aware of how larger vehicles turn, the space they need and their reduced visibility of other road users, just as car drivers have to.
@@GodmanchesterGoblin I think they should’ve done that then or at least proceeded with a lot more caution. If your view is blocked you creep forwards slowly or use the horn, etc.
I used to ride a motor cycle, and there were similar issues, where it was likely that a car driver simply didn't see you. I quickly figured it was better to be careful and give way, than be technically in the right - and dead.
Whilst I agree the LFB driver has the responsibility to look out for more vulnerable road users pedestrians & cyclists in this case. The cyclist also could have prevented this by slowing down letting the truck turn and then continuing, it’s almost as if there was no planning by the cyclist. It’s about riding defensively and I say this as someone who cycles regularly before anyone accuses me of being anti bike yes I drive but also cycle and have for many years so can see both sides. We are all equally responsible for our own safety and need to have some situational awareness. By the way like the series Ashley please keep going with this think it’s very useful for drivers and cyclists to see these because we’re all human and we sometimes make mistakes.
Not sure how it wasn't a non event, it looks like the cyclist didn't enter the side road. Could have slowed earlier to ease their flow but there's no real drama here.
More observations for the "the cyclist could see this coming so it is their fault" crowd. H1 puts the onus on the larger vehicle to take more care. Separate cycle lanes are provided in response to cyclists not being confident about interacting with traffic and vehicles having a poor record of interaction with vulnerable road users. There are a lot of comments here saying they think the cyclist should have avoided the lorry. Yet, the Highway Code and the road markings both put the duty to avoid conflict on the lorry more than the cyclist. If the lorry had slowed to prepare to stop at the cycle lane, do you know what? The cyclist would have cleared the junction and the lorry may not even have had to halt. So, the conflict was exacerbated by the excessive speed of the lorry - speed that shows in the lack of control around the corner, bouncing over the ramped crossing and the inability to stop at the junction to avoid a collision. If the lorry had taken the junction at a speed that they could have stopped calmly, and taken the time to observe the junction (Ashley knows that advanced drivers are taught to approach give ways slowly to give them time to observe - and do not argue that it is acceptable to proceed through a junction when you are unsighted) then the cyclist would not have been delayed, the lorry would not have been delayed and the interaction would have been safe. Instead, the cyclist has been delayed by more than the lorry would have been and has to put effort in to start cycling again (an issue that protected cycle lane guidance considers but drivers do not) while the interaction is dangerous because it depends on the vulnerable road user taking full responsibility for their safety while the lorry drives unlawfully and inattentively, not giving consideration that they are about to cross a lane explicitly designed for vulnerable road users therefore requiring them to take extra care. While people put all the responsibility on vulnerable road users and are blind to the clear faults of more dangerous drivers, presumably through some misguided idea that vehicles have implicit priority over cyclists in all circumstances, then we cannot have safe cycle lanes. The lorry driver didn't follow the basics of observing the potential hazards and did not drive according to what was presented in preparation for that turn. There were no surprises, there were no potential risks that could not have been anticipated. Basic Roadcraft stuff, as Ashley knows. If that was a stop line rather than a give way at the bike track, would that have changed people's answers? It shouldn't do because in the presented scenario the law is that the vehicle MUST stop if the cyclist needed to slow or steer to avoid a collision. If you ever interact with a cycle lane marked like that as a driver, how should you treat it? You should treat it as if it is an uncontrolled railway crossing. Would you drive across a railway line without checking if a train was coming? (Oh, having watched TH-cam, unfortunately, I know the answer to that). A further observation. Did the cyclist speed up? Irrelevant. Anyone who cycles knows that speed varies continuously. Without knowing the several factors, we cannot know what the cyclist's intent was. One of the challenges that drivers must accept is that cyclists' speed varies all the time, it is affected by road surface, wind including gusts, gradient, even what they are thinking about. A driver who tries to beat a cyclist to a junction based on estimating their speed from some time ago is going to make a a mistake.
Ashley, just wanted to say... I don't drive, I don't even have a license, but your videos have definitely made me a more aware pedestrian over the years, so thanks!
Same for me. Where I live, public transport is so cheap and reliable, its not worth me having a vehicle. I just hire 2 or 3 times a year (hence I follow this channel to keep my skills up). I've found Ashley has actually helped my perspective in all road situations, not just driving.
The emergency vehicle was well enough ahead and indicating early enough to allow the cyclist to scrub their speed. It actually felt that he was racing to meet the tender as it turned. The driver is possibly partially at fault for misreading the speed of the cyclist. The cyclist though had ample opportunity to diffuse the situation and save their blood pressure from spiking. 75% fault cyclists 25% driver if I was to dole out points.
It's an Optare Solo Sr well Switch Solo Sr. These are buses/ fire engines too. This is for Ashley as I'm a geek when it comes to buses. Thanks Ashley for the video!
We have a maxi Transit van at work with no windows in the back and when turning left it’s incredibly difficult to see something which isn’t directly behind you or quite a way out to the left.
When I can't see clearly at a give way I creep slowly out. Continuing at speed hoping theirs nothing there doesn't feel like like the right way to go about things.
I’ve had two instances this week ( noteworthy as I haven’t had any at this location in the last few years ) of drivers at a slewed giveway pulling out on me as I approach on the right of way. I’m on a motorcycle and haven’t been hiding behind the car in front and have had lights on. I’ve successfully predicted that they would pull out and was ready to stop, and had to. Both were apologetic, and also stopped when they actually saw me and I was already stationary when they did. Both times they then continued to complete the pull out onto the main road, completely forgetting that what was clear three seconds ago isn’t clear now and both drove off in front of a vehicle coming down the hill, who , fortunately, had been paying attention and was slowing anyway. As I don’t have a dashcam on the old bike I didn’t bother to scream shout and hoot the horn continuously and thump their bonnet. I just shrugged and carried on, on the second occasion with a van driver giving me conspiratorial what the fuck wave. Which was nice
Common sense(the uncommon superpower these days) would suggest to slow down a smidge and let them past, coasting along behind them. They were plenty ahead and In situations like these its best just to expect they haven't or cannot see you and keep yourself safe.
Given the degree of difficulty of this turn for the fire truck as well as the visibility issues of the cycle lane, I wonder if briefly switching on blues and two's coming up to the turn and throughout it would have been appropriate here? After all, I've seen fire engines do that when reversing back into their fire station from a busy main road.
@@Ezekiel_Burton Ah yes, ambulances can use that technique too. Some might say that's a "misuse" of emergency lights but I don't think so at all. It's a very sensible safety measure.
Looking at how wide the fire service vehicle went onto the oncoming lane, though, they were clearly going way too fast for the road conditions. They should have been going much slower then would have been more likely to see the cyclist and be able to stop.
I agree - he appeared to be going way too fast for the turn with the way he ended up in the middle of the road, there's no way he left himself any time to check the cycle path was clear. If he had turned much more slowly and checked carefully over his shoulder, he probably would have seen the cyclist.
I noted that the give-way section between main and cycle roads can accommodate a car(just) but nothing larger. That means the 2 are too close, likely based on available space when redesigning the roads. On that basis the safest thing here would have been a give-way on the cycle road not the vehicle one.
No, it has been discussed at length in this country in recent years but if you are going to put give ways at every side road then there is no point in building a cycle path in an urban area, because few cyclists will use it - the cycle path must have the same priority as the main road alongside it (meaning it has priority over vehicles entering and leaving the main road). This is the standard layout in the Netherlands and other European countries. There can be certain instances of restricted visibility with large vehicles, but the benefits of the design outweigh that downside. If this driver had driven properly he could have seen the cyclist through the tinted side window.
Then now consider that exact situation if there had been no separated cycle road. The truck wouldn’t have suddenly overtaken and cut across the bike’s path, the bike was well behind the truck before it started indicating, (which it did WELL in advance of making the turn) and the cyclist would have been foolish in the extreme not to slow down and allow the truck space to turn. Vehicles have to slow down for bikes all the time and sometimes the reverse is true, as in this case. So I’ll clarify, this is a badly designed junction.
@@richardlloyd2589 If there was no separate cycle path then many people wouldn't cycle here in the first place. It is similar to best practice Dutch design. One issue here is the poorly placed bus stop, but otherwise the design is fine.
This is one of the best designed cycle lane junctions in the entire country, with the road crossing at nearly 90° to the cycle as per dutch best practices. If drivers can’t handle a great junction like this then we have no hope going forwards.
As someone who drives HGV's i would say that firetruck couldn't see the cyclist- even further back i would say cyclist in a blindspot. However, all the more reason to creep from the giveway line not plow over a cyclist lane knowing theres a good chance of cyclists on it. The junction is not great for a such a large vehicle to be honest due to the angle the firetruck has to turn at, but it does look like it has a tinted blindspot window, that he most likely didn't use before turning- which clearly could have been lethal.
Any commercial vehicle driver will tell you, that in this situation,at no point would the driver be able to see the cyclists. With limited visibility through the mirrors and virtually zero visibility through the side windows, the fire service would not of seen the cyclists. I often say in situations like these that the person in the right should just continue on because, after all, it is their right of way and they can always have it written on their headstone. You can not legislate for every single situation. Unfortunately, "but it's my right of way," mentality gives presidence to common sense.
The cycle lane is a separate carriageway and is protected by a separate give way. Traffic law makes it quite clear that the fire engine must stop and must not cause the cyclist to slow or change direction. The fact that a fire engine is signalling left at a prior intersection is irrelevant, as is the action of the cyclist riding at their own pace. This is simple give way junction traffic law, lot highway code advice. A junction is always going to be a point of conflict. The road markings in this case make it entirely clear whose responsibility it is to concede to resolve the conflict. As to the visibility issue, why would a driver with restricted vision go through a junction without extra care if they were competent and aware of the limitations of their view. I've driven vans and you have limited visibility, strangely, I never drive through a give way without stopping on the basis that as I couldn't see, everyone else would know this and stop for me. I would come to a halt, lean forward, or position the van square on. I note the very long wheel base and the driver failed to take a wide position on entry to the corner, putting them on the wrong side of the road and at a poor angle for observing the bike lane. The driver would have failed their driving test, wouldn't they?
But the truck was going straight on at the junction in question (where the side road meets cyclepath), so wouldn't have been indicating. (It did indicate correctly at the earlier junction to turn off the main road onto the side road). I don't think there was any issue with how the truck handled the first junction, but I suspect the cyclist thought the driver would observe and adhere to the give way at the 2nd junction.
The mantra I was taught as a motorcyclist “he was dead right as he rode along, now he’s as dead as if he was wrong”. Rights of way - green lights, junctions, crossings - does not remove the need for you to check it’s safe to proceed.
The LFB command unit driver took that junction way to fast to make sufficient observations, not just of the cycle lane, but of the road he turned into and required the oncoming lane and in my opinion he also failed to check his offside mirror before making the turn, otherwise he's have seen the silver car in lane two next to his overhang (he must have come very close to the silver car). If he planned the turn better he could have observed the cycle lane, road he was entering and taken time to straddle both lanes which would have not only given him an easier turn, but also helped increase his visibility. The cyclist should have reduced his speed earlier when he noticed the big red flashing thing was increasing danger for him at the junction. (same goes for motorcycles, cars, vans, busses, lorries......when danger increases, think what can I do to reduce it) People who drive like this are dangerous, be aware of them, and avoid them. I look both ways when crossing a one way street, and I look before I cross at a crossing (even when lights are red).......I shouldn't have to, but I do.
I agree we should be able to expect a better standard of driving from a professionally trained driver, but the cyclist was in the perfect position to adjust their speed to accommodate the fire vehicle’s manoeuvre but chose to maintain speed just to make an issue out of it.
@@illegalopinions4082 At some point before the clip started the fire vehicle would have overtaken the cyclist. A professional driver would have observed the cyclist and noted their presence in planning their manoeuvre across the cyclist’s path.
@@illegalopinions4082 I didn’t say they shouldn’t, cyclists should maintain awareness of other road/path users just like vehicle drivers. The fire service vehicle is the focus because it has put on a left signal to turn across the cyclist’s path.
@MrSJR39 I'm trying to narrow down where you're perceiving the line. The rule is there to prevent drivers from cutting across a cyclist right beside them. So surely the cyclist had ample time, as another road user, to make the choice to not undertake in an unsafe manner. It really does seem like they acted in an unsafe manner to avoid slowing down.
Another point to bear in mind is it might not be a member of the fire service driving. It could possibly be a mechanic pickinig it up or droping it of or even on a test drive. It might belong to a truck dealiship who take old fire sevice vehicals or supply fire service vehicals. In these cases the driver would still need an hgv licance but might not drive that often and won't be as well trained as a fire service member.
All of the rules and priorities won't help if no one is following them. Here in the U.S. we have nowhere near the level of traffic rules as the UK does. So my policy as both a cyclist and a driver (or a pedestrian for that matter) is to assume that everyone else is the biggest idiot in the world, and they are going to do the stupidest thing possible. This way, when they do the stupid I'm not surprised. And if they do the right thing then I'm pleasantly surprised. In this case, if I were the cyclist, I would have slowed and allowed the fire vehicle to turn, then continued on my way.
Nope.... You've quoted the rule about going up the left side of a large vehicle Signalling to turn left but that's a rule for when both are in the same lane or lanes next to each other. Not cycle lanes seperated as seperate thoroughfares.
Cited these same rules myself a couple of times. Well done and I agree fully. Also the fire service vehicle appears to me to based on a bus - I think an Optare Solo if I had to guess.
Given the distance between the cycle lane and the road, i very much doubt the driver of the fire service vehicle even knew the cyclist was there. ( I could be wrong ) Its similar to moving from lane 3 to lane 2 on a motorway as someone moves from lane 1 to lane 2. Unless you can turn and check your left blind spot ( not recommended on the motorway, it should be a shoulder check ) then you're not seeing the car moving from lane 1 into lane 2, just as the fire truck driver didn't see the cyclist. As it was the cyclist made it a none event by stopping, even if he did then post it on X.
Quick question is it mirror indicate manoeuvre (or mirror indicate mirror manoeuvre) or is it indicate mirror manoeuvre because if its the former the driver should have seen the cyclist before the bus shelter.
sometimes you have to not take things so personal and look at the bigger picture. it's a awkward turning and that bus stop did not help. sure it remains the drivers fault but people need to start putting self perseveration 1st and not worrying about "right of way" this is a good learning experience for both parties and at the end of the day both went home unharmed and not charged with any offences
As non uniquely... a driver and a cyclist (like millions of others), naturally i hate myself ;). there is no excuses really to not know there is a parallel cycle path next to the main road, it goes as far back as to Tooley Street. and seeing the junction itself totally ignoring the give way markings , poor standards... Tribal motorists need to sit this one out. Driving standards are really poor in London so signage to point out the obvious is really needed that there is right of way for those cycling on the cycle path.
Very much an angry cyclist looking for an event rather than taking it as an honest mistake. The cyclist seemed to be on familiar territory & had the better view, the LFB vehicle however may have never made this turn in their life. It’s a pretty stupid junction in my opinion, having to give way half way through a turn ! That’s a typical BS idea from a London council. Cyclist should be given priority but at the expense of general road safety ? I don’t think so.
I will say, this is one drawback of a segregated cycle line like this one as it's much harder to see someone coming from behind when you're driving a larger vehicle as they're most likely in your smaller wide-view mirror and you might not have a clear view until you're already halfway into the turn... Ironically if the cyclist was on the main carriageway on the fire engine's nearside he probably would've been seen! It's an impossible balance really as a cyclist, if you cede to the larger vehicles you're basically allowing them to push you around and violate the highway code. If you stick to your guns and take the Cycling Mikey approach you might be "right" but you might also end up dead. I tend to take the more defensive approach and let these things go, it's frustrating sometimes but isn't worth my life. Out of interest, does anyone else watching these videos drive HGVs AND cycles on the roads? Or am I the only one? I often think I'm the best authority on these matters because I haven't met many lorry drivers who are also cyclists, and vice versa 😂
I'm an HGV driver and I don't cycle, but I AM amazingly cautious of everything around me, moreso in the truck than in my car. As you say, you sometimes miss stuff, especially in your nearside mirrors at a wider angle. Just this morning, I pull into lane 2 on the M18 to allow a car onto the carriageway. It's a white car. I see a white car pulling behind me and signal left, give it a second and start moving left back to lane 1. At that point, the car I let merge entered my wide-angle view and I aborted immediately. Was my mistake and no collision or anything, but sometimes we make a judgement call and get it just a LITTLE bit wrong. I certainly appreciate that you have a much more unique view of situations like this and agree with your assessment of it, having seen the clip MANY times over the past few days.
I think the highway code itself is the issue here. As you pointed out, the rider can clearly see the fire truck, and due to the bus stop and the truck's blind spot, it's likely the drive of the truck couldn't see the rider. The highway code should allow for this when determining who has right of way, but for some reason, the people who wrote it think it makes sense for the vehicle in front to give way to the vehicle behind it.
They're turning onto the side road. How do you not see that? Yes, the cyclist could have done much better, but the responsibility lies and should always lie on the person turning. Think like this - you wouldn't cut across (2) lanes of traffic to turn left, so you should check that nobody is in those lanes before you turn. It's not hard. Similarly, cyclists and motorists should give way to pedestrians crossing side roads before turning, otherwise you have to stop at every single sideroad, which doesn't make sense. Think of the cycle path as another car lane. You wouldn't cut across it just because they're a bike and you see them as homeless and poor or whatever you seem to claim. Get a life, seriously.
@@chrisdaniels3929 Exactly, @simonharris4873 doesn't seem to understand that. Both parties could do much better, but there isn't an "issue with the HC" - drivers just need to be a little more patient. Cyclists have just as much right to be on the road!
These new highways code rules have played into the self focused mind set that if I get to the junction first everyone else is in the wrong. That isn’t how life or people work.
@@Bowdon The cyclist had to stop because they anticipated the driver was going to fly through the give way marking without checking. The driver should have been travelling slow enough to stop at the give way line .
From a very naughty cyclist. I think the cyclist is well out of the left mirror. That truck cant see diddly. All the cyclist had to do was ease up when indicator was on. And its a total none event. It wasnt near either, the cyclist wasnt doing more than 15 and it was clear what the truck was going to do. Its the 2 way cycle path with the wide path inbetween that messes things up for the truck
First off, the wagon driver should have ensured it was clear to proceed before crossing the give way lines. If that means coming to a dead stop before moving on, so be it. I wonder if they ever saw the cyclist. However, I've wondered for a while why this priority arrangement mostly works in countries like the Netherlands, but not in Britain, and this clip has given me what I think may be a factor. British cycling, largely because of poor infrastructure and dangerous roads discouraging casual riders, has been 'sportified' for many years. On the whole, Dutch cyclists ride at non-sport speeds. This fellow was cracking on - not the fastest, but quicker than say, the chap coming the other way. Just as a driver travelling at some lick will catch others out (and no doubt complain bitterly), so will a cyclist on a cycle track that crosses a road - especially if we're drizzling a spot of 'right of way' into the equation. Add in poor placement of the bus stop, the serious visibility problems of the wagon, and bingo: event. Is that victim blaming? I would say most of us here are about avoiding accidents, even at the expense of a little (a lot, really) allowance for others' mistakes. Being dead right is not a the fashion statement it's made out to be.
Normally, a fire service vehicle would have others in the cab who are tasked with assisting the driver in observing and warning the driver of hazards (or at least that is the practice in Canada). I’ve slowed the video down and while I can see the driver, I cannot see anyone else. I agree with you completely, the cyclist could have slowed his ride when he saw the turn signal come on and made it a complete nonevent. While I agree that the more vulnerable must be protected, they also have a duty to protect themselves. “But I had the right of way” is not something you want on your headstone.
It's not a normal pump/pump escape, which would have a fire officer in the front passenger seat. It's a bus, turned into a command vehicle, so that's one of the entry doors.
Fire truck is the entitled one. It is a give way and he thought , I'm the bigger vehicle, everyone else can wait. Yes blind spots in many locations mean all the more reason to stop at give way and have a more careful look. Would the fire truck have passed his driving test doing this maneuver? I don't think so.
Considering requirements for being HGVs into London, Direct Vision Standard ans now Progressive Safe System. You would think the London fire service would have better visibility of whats going on around them. Also yes an easy situation for the cyclist to fix its when they come from behind they are a problem.
As my driving instructor said when I had to slam on my brakes due to someone pulling out on me on a roundabout "The graveyard is full of people who had right of way. Just because you have priority doesn't mean mindlessly marching to certain doom when all you needed to do was slow down and let it be. In two seconds they'll be gone and you'll be alive."
You're absolutely right that this IS a non-event. Situations like this are part and parcel of using the roads and we all have to do our part to make a dangerous situation safer. Or as the old PSA used to say "Give and take for safety's sake"
Quick question, I've never been to a big enough place to have cycle lanes like this, I would not have seen the Cyclist from my van window, and possibility I would have checking the right hand lane due to the swing needed to make that turn, the blind spot mirrors would have made him very small from that distance! , so my question is what sort of speed is a cyclist allowed to travel in this lane? and is it limited to pedal power only? I can see traffic lights coming ! cheers
On top of what you said, Ashley, I would also look at the road layout there. For vehicles turning into the side road (and for those coming out) there are give-way markings on the road where it meets the cycle path - but the length and width of the fire service vehicle meant a larger turning circle than most vehicles - to stop before the give way markings, it would have been blocking the whole of the side street, the lane of traffic it was coming from, and possibly (with tail swing), the other lane of traffic too... Ok, so the driver could have mitigated that by slowing enough to not start the turn until the cyclist was past... but once he had started to turn, he was pretty much committed to going.
So, you are saying that Give Way markings don't count for some vehicles because it's a bit tricky? Yes, you are. What if that was a 5 year old girl proudly cycling ahead of mum - yes, another "5 year old collides with lorry" headline.
@@IanMSpencer I'm not saying that the driver was not largely to blame for the incident. Before even starting turning he should have checked his blind spots, and been aware. What I'm saying is that ONCE HE HAD STARTED TURNING, it was safer to continue than to stop for give way markings when he was across both lanes of traffic on the side road, and blocking at least one, possibly two lanes of traffic in the road he was turning from. What is so hard to understand about that??? I would also point out that I do not drive OR ride bikes, so have no reason to try to excuse poor behaviour from either side...
@@nickjeffery536 The give way is after the turn. That is the decision point not some previous point on the road. There are two entirely separate junctions. If the driver inconveniences other road users to abide by the law of the road, then that is unfortunate but it does not permit ignoring a subsequent junction. This is car thinking, that the driver's duty is not to the safety of other road users but to avoid a minor delay to some other drivers. It's why people think that keeping up with the car in front is more important than sticking to the speed limit. What if that was not a cycle lane, but a zebra crossing? Does a lorry not need to stop for that once it's committed to a turn? It is not that hard to work through the duty of care for the lorry driver once you understand the road layout.
One of the problems with road use is that the rules constantly emphasise priority instead of emphasising that road space is shared and whilst there is a hierarchy of road use, it is in everyone's interest to share the space responsibly. And remember, priority can only be given not taken.
Should one assume that all give way marking are not there and come to a crawl at every side road. Of course not. The cyclist was perfectly within their right mind to expect the driver to stop at the give way line.
Funny thing, and i wish I'd had a camera. At a light controlled junction downtown, a driver of an artic with a trailer at least 25 feet from kingpin to axles needed to make a right turn into a 4 lane highway in heavy traffic. It took him a full cycle if the lights and then some to get his turn made without hittimg anything at all. All of the traffic just waited for him to finish the maneuver instead of crowding him. (I'd even stopped a length back from the stop line in case he was turning left.( Note for those unfamiliar, I'm in the US. )
Cyclists is not riding on the inside of a vehicle signalling or slowing down to turn left - the cyclist is in the separate cycle lane. If I was driving the truck I would have stopped at the give way and made sure the cycle lane was clear before proceeding - as one would expect. The cyclist is travelling at a suitably low speed, and as we can see stops quickly and does indeed avoid an incident. There is no need for the cyclist, as you suggest, to slow down from slow. Give way, means give way. The only shortcoming in this video is that of the truck driver.
I agree,if I was on the bike,I would have assumed he can't see me,as it is quite an acute turn,with obstacles to his vision,and would have slowed my bike earlier.However,that is clearly a cycle lane he is crossing,with give way markings,so if he was unable to see clearly he should have stopped regardless to make sure.There was no sign of the truck having any intention to pause
The cyclist does make it a non-event in safety terms. He braked to a complete stop as soon as it became clear that the fire service vehicle was going to blow through a give way. He is allowed to feel a little bit miffed about being cut up, just like drivers are allowed to post up clips when they get cut up. What should be noted is that while the Fire vehicle might have had an obstructed view of the cammer on approach (and we can see his mirrors when he starts indicating, so not really), there is another bike approaching the other way and also forced to a stop, which the driver would have been able to see clearly throughout the manoeuvre.
The issue here is the stupid road layout. The driver of the fire vehicle can’t see the cyclist until they have committed to the turn, given the section of road from making the turn to the give way lines barely fits a moped it demonstrates that the driver doesn’t have enough room to come to an angle in which they can observe the cycle line. The sensible option would be for lights to be installed if we are going to continue with these cycle highways which seem to be the new big idea that look good on paper but in reality present dangerous situations like this where cyclists seem to think they are perfectly safe protected by having right of way so I’ll not take any reasonable precautions to prevent an issue from occurring if I can.
I'm always weary of these "adapted vehicles" and not just when I'm cycling, In this case basically a medium-large single decker bus that's had most of its windows removed making it a rolling blind spot. You don't see as many now, but those camper vans where the camper bit was about 3 foot wider than the tiny minivan cab it's built around were pretty deadly too.
Google earth Jamaica road and George row in south east London, the road is inbetween Tower bridge road and Rotherhithe tunnel, the side street leads to a fire station which the fire service vehicle was heading back to.
Hope this cyclist never needs the fire service! But everything nowadays has become a "Drama" of some sort. Self entitled people of, all ilks, thinking they are above everyone else and theirs is the only opinion that matters. Time for these "self entitled" to stand back and address their shortcomings before posting and commenting on others. This clip shows what should have been a non-event, not as a catastrophic injustice to the cyclists' ego. Well explained by Ashley Neal.
My impression was that the fire truck signaled his turn in plenty of time. The bike path is well away from the road at that point, and the cyclist may not have been seen. However just like driving, the cyclist can make it a non event by planning ahead. By freewheeling, and possibly braking a little ahead of time, he would arrive at the junction after the fire service vehicle had passed. Instead he barreled up to the junction at speed expecting the vehicle to stop for him. Problem is that once a HGV has committed to moving, it takes a lot to slow it down. As a cyclist I genuinely worry about some of the riders in these clips. Whilst the onus may be on protecting more vulnerable users, it’s still important to be able to have enough common sense to protect yourself in situations such as this.
I think noodles - like many other cyclists and drivers - has fallen in to the trap of thinking that the vehicle itself is the entity that should give way, and not the driver. He didn't consider whether the driver can see in his direction, he just assumed that the fire engine could see him as he could see it. If cyclists had lessons and tests like all other road users, they'd know that an important part of taking priority is making eye contact with the driver giving way to ensure they have seen you, and if you cannot see their eyes, to make sure to be ready to react if they pull out. Even if the Fire service vehicle had stopped at the give way line there was no way they could ever see down the cycle path to their left as it was too far away for their mirrors and to close for their window - that junction is almost a perfect example of how to kill cyclists - make sure the cyclists have to ride in the blind spots of all the traffic on the road, and then give them priority so the blind vehicles have to guess whether to stop or not. The architect should be ashamed.
Did you miss the part where he converses out loud with himself and anyone prepared to listen and then posted it on x. Clearly they did the utmost to make it an event.
@rsmith8875 the last possible second is all the driver gave him. Unless your argument is that cyclists should slow down at every single junction in case a driver decides not to give a **** about giving way
HGV drivers often have to do some cycle training as a part of CPD to see things from the cycling perspective. I think cyclists should also spend a day at least as a passenger in lorry to understand that side of things also. It's clear from a small proportion of the comments, there is a massive lack of understanding.
i have had some really rough situations with HGVS i think u have featured the tesco fuel lorry on here in fact. however i still understand how hard it is for them and will do anything to avoid them or help them pass because no matter how much right of way i think or have my skull will still pop if i go under one. self preservation 1st and that took a while to learn.
That's a really good idea, a cyclist sitting alongside a HGV driver would be able to teach them so much about driving safely around vulnerable road users!
In this case, had I been in the cab with the driver, I would have pointed out the bi-directional cycle lane with a give way for turning traffic and advised the driver to:
- slow to almost complete stop on the major road
- creep very slowly around the corner
- be sure that the cycle lane is clear in both directions before crossing the give way markings
Yes, this is an excellent suggestion. Anyone care to offer a cyclist such as the one featured a day in an HGV for the channel? I believe that would be something I would watch.
It should be part of basic roadwise courses for everybody. Learn what the limitations of vehicles are and why sharing the road doesn't mean expecting everybody to cater to you.
@shm5547 you're absolutely right, it would be pointless because bicyclists have no regard for anyone but themselves. Thank you for that reminder.
If I was the cyclist I would’ve taken a best flow approach. The Fire Service Vehicle was pretty far ahead. If it stopped for the cyclist, its back end would be sticking out into the road, so just slow down a little, let it clear, you don’t have to come to a screeching halt! and then everyone’s journey carries on.
The fact that the back would stick out into the road doesn't matter. The driver of that vehicle still has to make sure they don't run over any cyclists, even cyclists who don't do the sensible thing.
im a keen cyclist , its much easier for the cyclist to see the fire engine signalling than the driver to see the cyclist in that situation, more awareness and less entitlement form the cyclist needed :)
Maybe the cyclist was a bull in a previous life and so today is still attracted to red objects?
I'm a cyclist and a driver and this cyclist definitely went out of his way to make a big deal out of a non event.
Is it ‘entitlement’ to expect other road users to give way when crossing your path across ‘Give way’ lines? The cyclist seemed able to stop easily some way away from the fire engine without problems.
The left signal applied to junction 1 (the truck moving left onto the side road from the main road). I wonder if the cyclist expected the truck to observe and adhere to the give way line at junction 2 (where the side road meets the cycle path).
@@QiuEnnan Yes it is because you also have to have common sense. The truck driver was indicating ,so it was clear where it was going. It was easy to anticipate what was likely to happen and to easily avoid it, that is the skill of being a road user, not just riding on with the entirely wrong mindset that I have right of way so I'll make a meal out of this. You cannot see the driver so safe to assume he can't see you, these new type of roads for cyclist are not well designed and give way junctions a few yards passed the junctions is utterly stupid and cause problems all the time.
If it was a car, I would understand the anger of the cyclist, but with a big vehicle, if I was a cyclist, I would just slow down and allow the vehicle to do its manoeuvre, and not feel so entitled.
An that the problem, if you were in a car then you would be annoyed, but a cyclist expecting the same is entitled? Why isn't the theoretically annoyed car driver entitled?
@@jamesdewitt84 if I was a driver of a car I would slow down and let the fire engine complete its manoeuvre and not feel so entitled.
@@thomaselliot2257 oh I see you meant if the fire engine was a car, I still disagree but I was arguing against the wrong point.
That's what the give way line is for at the edge of the cycle lane. To remind all vehicles, small or large, to stop: check both directions, then proceed.
HGV drivers shouldn't be held to the same standard as cars when crossing give way lines, interesting take.
The road design is also poor. There's no way a large vechicle can make a left turn and see on-coming traffic from the left.
This ⬆️
Rubbish. The driver could see fine - if they had taken the turn with less speed. I agree that large vehicles such as this have no place in city centres. But if you are driving such a vehicle, you need to take more care. As usual, down to the competent cyclists to evade the incompetent drivists.
@@shm5547so you don’t want Fire Trucks “such as this” in city centres? What do you suggest they use for large city centre fires?
@@Malpriorvids a smaller fire truck?!
How little @shm5547 knows.
0:27 At the end of the day the cyclist had PLENTY OF WARNING that it was turning..... 1000000% all the time in the fire truck drivers BLIND SPOT. I mean who DOESN'T give way to an emergency vehicle (when safe to do so), blues and twos or no blues and twos.
Yes they had plenty of warning that the truck was turning left at the 1st junction (the left turn off the main road onto the side road the truck does), but that junction wasn't part of the cyclist's route, so not directly relevant to them. They had rather less warning that the truck was going to ignore the give way line at the 2nd junction (where the side road meets the cycle path).
@@Denali1600 what could have happened if they had stopped at the give way?
@@chrisl1797 the moped rider behind the truck who had been observing the slowing and indicating truck for several seconds,and were themselves slowing, might have decided to deliberately cause an accident by driving into the back of the truck?
Plenty of cyclists.
Is it better to be in the right and dead, or arrive alive? The cyclist clearly saw the the fire truck was turning (whether it should or shouldn't have) but was determined to make a point. No wonder there is such animosity, when people are so aggressive, even going as far as to share their stupidity by putting their bad driving online.
I think cars often won't see you or check your mirrors when turning left. Technically they should and the cyclist has the right to undertake if they are not signaling left ... However as a cyclist I wouldn't put this to a test.
If there is no left turn coming up in slow moving traffic I'll do an undertake but generally I prefer a right hand over take.
The cyclist didn't break to make a point I think but.. he's not driving according to how the real world works. He or she also lost too much momentum by breaking later ... they could have slowed earlier and rolled forward slower and taken the remaining momentum to speed up after the fire truck had turned.
i think u get a feel when people do things that are on purpose or to punish you for holding them up. this was just a all round poor situation that could be fixed by the cyclist and not real malleolus from driver
As someone once said to me, its better to be late than 'dead' on time
The cyclist did arrive alive. I think he made more of it than he needed to, but he stopped in good time and there was never any danger.
@@Ted_Eddy The cyclist waited to the last minute to break, he was in no danger
You can tell immediately, that the fire truck driver can't see the cyclist at all!
Doesn’t matter, he’s meant to know he’s meant to give way to the cycle lane, so look?
@@New-ye2flHow? At the give way line, both the mirror and the window views would be useless. The only thing they could have done different is to turn in from the outside lane and gone much slower. Or better still stopped and got a passenger (if they had one) to get out and stop any cyclists. My opinion is they should have found an alternative route altogether. I drive a small flat bed transit and I have had articulated lorries alongside me at two lane roundabout entries and the lorry is completely invisible in the mirror. People just don't conside blindspots nearly as much as they should.
So if they can't see it's safe to turn they should just assume it is? People park, legally, close to the exit to my drive. I can't see if a small car or bike is hidden so I wait a few seconds so if there is one there it will pass, I don't just blunder out with my fingers crossed. The problem with Ashley's philosophy of cyclists cowering like a whipped bitch is that they will continue to be dismissed as inconsequential by other road users. The cyclist's actions put him in no danger but maybe alerted the driver to his shortcomings.
True, but Look at the lack of lane discipline and the near side rear suspension lift on that fire truck. Unless the driver is responding to an emergency, there are multiple other issues with the way that vehicle was being driven.
That’s a very tight turn, especially for such a long and potentially heavy vehicle. A lot more care should have been applied.
However, the cyclist could have anticipated better, instead of maintaining his speed and riding into the situation - of which he had ample warning.
As an old biker told me some 50 years ago, the huge risk of fighting for your right to six feet on the road - on two wheels, is that there’s only one place you can guarantee where you will be granted them - where we all end up sooner or later. One way of hurrying up the day is to enter into an argument with heavy metal.
of course the driver saw him before and tried to turn quickly before he arrive to the junction. During turning the driver had approximate view about 5m which was enough to finish manoeuvre and avoid the cyclist. I cant imagine any crazy cyclist who will race the vehicle with restricted view when it wants to turn left. The cyclist had the clue that the truck its not going to stop thus easy to anticipate. It was risky manoeuvre but the driver definitely wouldn't turn like that if some cyclists were in the closer range than this one
Anyone who has cycled for a week will realize that many vehicles can't always see you. If they don't see you, it's better to let it go than to work up a frenzy over it. If they see you at the last second, I like to give them a friendly wave as if to say, "No worries, mate."
When I was riding to work years ago, I had a few incidents of people not seeing me. Nothing ever came of any of them. However, the only one that angered me was to one who drove her car onto the boke path, without looking. Her, I gave quite a mouthful to.
The driver should be aware of their blind spot and stop at the give way line.
The cyclist didn't sound like they were in "a frenzy" did they?
@@roaduser6438 li'l' bit.
Why do a lot of cyclists (and pedestrians come to that) seem to have no thoughts about protecting themselves, and just rely on everyone else around them to protect them? Yes the onus is on the motor vehicle drivers to protect more vulnerable road users, however, some self preservation instincts from cyclists and pedestrians would help EVERYONE on the roads. As a more vulnerable road user, you need to be even more aware of the entire environment around you.
If the cyclist had slowed and assumed they had not been seen, this would have been one of Ashley's famous "non-events".
Most of it is caused by the highway code changes or at least the lack of understanding them.
Agreed CJ.
Because ashley is the only youtuber who has figured out safe driving can get as many views as bad driving.
Well it’s hard to say that - they did slow down in reasonable time.
You cannot say your first sentence then follow it up with the second. The onus should not be on the motor vehicle to protect others. The onus of _personal_ safety falls to the _person._ To expect others to care more for your safety than you do doesn't make sense. If someone wants to play stupid games they should be allowed to win the stupid prize they clearly desire.
It's pretty simple, dont expect a lorry to see you on a bike, or in a car for that matter, always take care near big vehicles and try to help them out on their journeys wherever possible.
I really don't think we should be putting this much responsibility on cyclists who could not even have a driver's licence.
Don't get me wrong, your advice is probably the best advice right now. But I'm just wondering whether traffic can be regulated, through roads or traffic laws, such that even the tiniest kids that would be cycling alone on the road could survive without much/any risk of getting in bad accidents.
@@brentywenty I see what you are saying but I think until every vehicle on the road is self driving and almost on rails the chance of being hit by cars or lorries means cyclists should take care not to put themselves in dangerous predicaments.
That said of course drivers should be as vigilant as possible, all the time when driving, unfortunately humans are the weak point when it comes to any kind of transport, all we can do is look out for each other best we can.
@@brentywenty You can't protect people from themselves. If people end up coming to harm through their own actions then they only have themselves to blame. Eventually parents will beat it into their children's heads to be mindful when on the road.
The cyclist was hardly a child learning to ride a bike @brentywenty & @illegalopinions4082. It was a silly little adult who needs to grow up.
@@illegalopinions4082 Oh, you think all parents teach their children the correct things? That's an utterly wrong assumption to make. And you then think it's alright the children get punished for not being taught well by the parents. Sorry, but I do not agree.
To quote Ashley himself "have i been seen?" It was clear to a blind man the fire truck couldnt see him and yet he still doesnt slow untill he is almost hitting it. Its the I'm in the right mentality.
At most junctions this would be find advice, but the driver should have stopped at the give way line to check the cycle lane is clear before proceeding.
Why is the fire engine driver not asking "Have I been seen?"
"almost hitting it" The cyclist was still half on the pavement when he stopped, the truck on the other side of the road. Where's the "almost hitting it"?
sounds just like Jeremy Vile.
I would say that, in terms of safety, the cyclist did make it a non event. He stopped in plenty of time not to get run over and there didn’t appear to be any emergency braking. That said, with a bit of anticipation he could have slowed down earlier and not have stopped at all. The cynic in me says he was after a clip for TH-cam.
The verbal outburst and posting to x really point towards making it an event.
I do agree the fire engine should've slowed down but also, it's the fact you can see the cyclist's helmet looking at the fire engine, can clearly see what it's doing, makes a point to stop riiiiight before going into the side of the fire engine, then looks to the motorcyclist for validation, and was presumably the one who uploaded this clip online. He should've slowed down in case the fire engine didnt't see him but didn't. Sets a very poor example for cyclists.
Should have been a non-event. As a cyclist myself, I ride with the attitude that I can't rely on someone else to prevent injury to me. You have to adjust your cycling to suit the road conditions. Observe conditions around you. p.s. I cycle around 2500 miles a year.
There is a give way line at the edge of the cycle line. With your backwards logic, if somone is cycling along a main road they should stop at every side road in case a car fails to give way.
It was a non-event. The cyclist made a valid point, but they didn’t lose their temper, didn’t swear or shout. They highlighted poor driving.
As a cyclist, id just free wheel for a bit, let it cross, then start cycling again. Im not going to test if they can see me i can see the angles are going to be bad as the turn occurs and things are just so much easier if i momentarily back off and allow the turn to happen. Also i dont have time for drama.
Whilst the fire truck driver is possibly unsighted because of the angle of the truck to the cycle lane, irrespective of what the HC says the truck crossed a 'Give Way' seemingly without pausing to look to cross the cycleway so to me the driver is without doubt at fault. That alone is enough to define the responsibilities without resorting to the controversial application of H3
This is the human version of a fly travelling towards the blue light zapper.
If i was the cyclist my spidey sense would be tingling, i would be slowing down expecting the fire truck to not see me. At that point i wouldn't care about who has right of way, just my safety.
Correct answer. "Right of Way" (which isn't even a thing legally, it's priority, but I digress) doesn't save you when a 10 ton (or heavier) vehicle doesn't see you. Whether it's their fault or a mistake on their part or not. Right of way or priority doesn't save you if you don't look out for yourself as well.
How do i put this? The design of the junction dictates that any "traffic" in the "Cycle lane" in not visible from the "Fire Service Vehicle" , any entitlement of the "right of way" equals "i am invisible" as apposed to "I am Invincible "
What pleb deigned that junction? the offset from the road already puts you out of the awareness of a HGV. Then slap a bus stop in the way. ffs
It is why London is now a SH 1t place to visit, common sense has been thrown out of the city of diversity,
@@jonathanlake6053 dude, it's just bad design. Not everything is a culture war talking point.
That's why there is a give way line at the edge of the cycle lane, to remind turning vehicles that they DO NOT have priority, and that they must check the cycle lane is clear in both directions before proceeding.
@@Buckets41369 yep that's what gives way lines do. But in a HGV you are not crossing the give way at 90 degrees, this puts the entrance of the cycle lane in your blind spot. There is a good chance that the actual give way lines are in the blind spot for left turning vehicles too. For safety there should at least some signage or better the give way should be on the cycle lane. To me this is an example of cycle priority for the sake of cycle priority.
@@Buckets41369 I think Ashley and other car drivers get too het up about the actions of each individual person and forget that the law is the law. It doesn't matter that the cyclist sped up to make some content, the HGV driver did not slow down for clear and obvious road markings.
It was a non-event because the cyclist does stop safely with plenty of time, he just complains about the vehicle not looking or being careful
I think it _was_ a non event, in the sense that the cyclist had the situation well clocked all along. He didn't brake late because he was surprised, but because he felt wronged and wished to make a point.
I'm a cyclist and car driver (4 bikes 1 car) The cyclist in this case was a bit of a prat.
A bit???
@@NeilMalthusevery bit
The rider is demonstrating the dangers to ALL cyclists of poor driving when on a protected cycle way whose riders could include unaccompanied children where drivers do not abide by the marked priorities.
Does that make him a prat?
@@IanMSpencer He STAGED the incident. He saw a big red vehicle in the distance in front of him. A vehicle that began to slow down as he began to catch it up. A vehicle with heroes on it - you know, firemen, it was a fire engine. It started to indicate for the left turn in good time and still he closed the gap. Then the view of the cycle lane was obscured by a bus shelter and folk milling around it.
And you were suckered into thinking the 'influencer' cyclist had a case???
SMFH
@@NeilMalthus so he knew the driver and got him to break the law by driving through a give way to make a good video? Eh?
I'm with you on this one Ashley, in fact I'd go so far as to say that the cyclist actually made it INTO an event...
It wasn't a near miss at all. At the speed he was cycling with modern disk breaks he or she chooses to break later to make their point. That's my opinion as a cyclist...It was a daft point to make though.
Slowing earlier in this situation allows you to continue to roll forward without losing all your momentum and would have made it easier to speed up after the fire truck had passed. This is how you need to cycle in urban areas where there is a lot of stop and start.
Wherever there is a left turn with flowing traffic I'm not going to undertake a car as there is always the risk they don't see me and haven't indicated.... If it's slow moving with no left turn then I'll judge the situation. If possible I prefer a right hand overtake on my bike.
It's weird to me how many fellow cyclists don't want to make use of their freehub and coast, lose maybe 2-3km/h, to make things easier for themselves. I see so many cyclist charge at red lights, then hard brake, if they had coasted, they'd have made it there on an amber, going into green and spend maybe 10% of the energy getting back up to speed. Same in this video like you said, he could have just coasted as soon as he sees the indicator and this would be a non event
If I were the cyclist, I would have stopped pedaling thus slowed down maybe 5-10 km/h to give the emergency vehicle more time to clear the cycle path so I would have been there after the long vehicle. The slowing down would make me spend less energy than braking hard like the cyclist did, even though he could be riding an e-bike. I prefer non-events. Greetings from Finland where I cycle year-around! Using summer slicks is sooooo lighter to ride than having studded winter tyres.
Cycling mikey mindset: use my vulnerability to make a statement.
Looks as though the cyclist was racing to keep up with the fire truck and cause an issue for content.
Not sure about racing but more not changing what they are doing to suit the situation
I don't think that's the case here, cyclists speed was consistent, though I think they made a bit of a fuss out of nothing there
This vehicle started life out as a bus (specifically a Switch Mobility (Optare) Solo) and there should be doors behind the front wheel. I wonder if extra blind spots were created in the process of Switch changing it from a bus to this command vehicle?
Also, the cyclist made it into an event when he could've slowed down and both could've seamlessly cleared the junction.
So lets stop the clip at 0:29 shall we. Look at the window below the COMMAND UNIT writing. Yes that's a window. That window is there to make it easier to see left during this sort of left turn. Had half of it not been covered by a large Sticker with the LFB emblem maybe the view during that turn would have been better? That vehicle is just a modified Optare Bus, normally the passenger doors are there.
The sticker is probably made up for of tiny dots and pretty much see through from the inside.
Watching this clip all i have to say to the cyclist is
JEEZ REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Thank-you
"Cheeeeese"
However,
The fire service vehicle driver seemingly made no attempt to even check at the Give Way which gave the cycle lane users priority. The cyclist was also perfectly able to avoid contact as he in fact did as he was clearly aware of the fire service vehicle. To me this demonstrates that the cyclist has mitigated. If he had not there would likely have been a very messy coming together.
For me the Give Way is the overriding factor here. The driver should have shown more caution. If you cannot see you should not simply assume.
I would apportion blame 90% driver, 10% cyclist on the basis that the cyclist did clearly enable the vehicle to cross his path without a coming together although I would have allowed more space personally. The driver simply crossed over a give way without due care and attention in my opinion.
Not the best from both but from a fire service driver who has to be licensed to operate that vehicle it was not at all good.
The cycle track is a separate carriageway, akin to a service road, so rule 74 does not apply. After the fire engine turned left there is a short section of road with a give way line before getting to the cycle track. The correct procedure would be to give way at the give way line.
It is the mirror image of turning right on a dual carriageway. You have to give way to traffic on the other carriageway before completing your turn. Traffic on the other carriageway would not expect you to turn in front of them and so neither would this cyclist.
That said if someone does ignore the road markings and pull out or across in front of you then of course you would do all you can to avoid a collision.
Agree! And even if this was the same carriageway, rule 74 ('Turning') is for when the cyclist is turning, not when they are going straight ahead and there is another vehicle turning across them. Rule 76 'going straight ahead', would apply in that case.
Similar situation happend to me and I'll use it as proof for my psychic abilities whenever I see fit:
I was on the bike section of the pavement, riding along a road with three lanes. There was a truck parked in lane one (I can't remember the color but it was a huge red flag).
Just after the truck came the entrance to a small parking lot. It's one with an entrance that fits seamlessly into the pavement (not like the road-like ones) and sees very little traffic because there isn't really anything there.
I slowed down just a little bit thinking I'm overly cautious and as I'm passing the truck someone goes from lane two, over the pavement, into the parking lot. Quicker than you just read *this* sentence.
I think the cyclist did a reasonable job - they did stop before the junction. I would’ve expected the driver to slow down and give way at the broken white lines at the cycle track even after they turned - because they were supposed to cross the cycle track at a right angle.
Given the long wheelbase and hence poor turning circle, the fire truck could not cross the cycle path at a right-angle unless it had turned from the other lane to allow it to turn more before reaching the crossing. Cyclists should always be aware of how larger vehicles turn, the space they need and their reduced visibility of other road users, just as car drivers have to.
@@GodmanchesterGoblin I think they should’ve done that then or at least proceeded with a lot more caution. If your view is blocked you creep forwards slowly or use the horn, etc.
I used to ride a motor cycle, and there were similar issues, where it was likely that a car driver simply didn't see you. I quickly figured it was better to be careful and give way, than be technically in the right - and dead.
Whilst I agree the LFB driver has the responsibility to look out for more vulnerable road users pedestrians & cyclists in this case. The cyclist also could have prevented this by slowing down letting the truck turn and then continuing, it’s almost as if there was no planning by the cyclist. It’s about riding defensively and I say this as someone who cycles regularly before anyone accuses me of being anti bike yes I drive but also cycle and have for many years so can see both sides. We are all equally responsible for our own safety and need to have some situational awareness. By the way like the series Ashley please keep going with this think it’s very useful for drivers and cyclists to see these because we’re all human and we sometimes make mistakes.
Not sure how it wasn't a non event, it looks like the cyclist didn't enter the side road. Could have slowed earlier to ease their flow but there's no real drama here.
More observations for the "the cyclist could see this coming so it is their fault" crowd.
H1 puts the onus on the larger vehicle to take more care.
Separate cycle lanes are provided in response to cyclists not being confident about interacting with traffic and vehicles having a poor record of interaction with vulnerable road users.
There are a lot of comments here saying they think the cyclist should have avoided the lorry. Yet, the Highway Code and the road markings both put the duty to avoid conflict on the lorry more than the cyclist. If the lorry had slowed to prepare to stop at the cycle lane, do you know what? The cyclist would have cleared the junction and the lorry may not even have had to halt.
So, the conflict was exacerbated by the excessive speed of the lorry - speed that shows in the lack of control around the corner, bouncing over the ramped crossing and the inability to stop at the junction to avoid a collision. If the lorry had taken the junction at a speed that they could have stopped calmly, and taken the time to observe the junction (Ashley knows that advanced drivers are taught to approach give ways slowly to give them time to observe - and do not argue that it is acceptable to proceed through a junction when you are unsighted) then the cyclist would not have been delayed, the lorry would not have been delayed and the interaction would have been safe. Instead, the cyclist has been delayed by more than the lorry would have been and has to put effort in to start cycling again (an issue that protected cycle lane guidance considers but drivers do not) while the interaction is dangerous because it depends on the vulnerable road user taking full responsibility for their safety while the lorry drives unlawfully and inattentively, not giving consideration that they are about to cross a lane explicitly designed for vulnerable road users therefore requiring them to take extra care.
While people put all the responsibility on vulnerable road users and are blind to the clear faults of more dangerous drivers, presumably through some misguided idea that vehicles have implicit priority over cyclists in all circumstances, then we cannot have safe cycle lanes. The lorry driver didn't follow the basics of observing the potential hazards and did not drive according to what was presented in preparation for that turn. There were no surprises, there were no potential risks that could not have been anticipated. Basic Roadcraft stuff, as Ashley knows.
If that was a stop line rather than a give way at the bike track, would that have changed people's answers? It shouldn't do because in the presented scenario the law is that the vehicle MUST stop if the cyclist needed to slow or steer to avoid a collision.
If you ever interact with a cycle lane marked like that as a driver, how should you treat it? You should treat it as if it is an uncontrolled railway crossing. Would you drive across a railway line without checking if a train was coming? (Oh, having watched TH-cam, unfortunately, I know the answer to that).
A further observation. Did the cyclist speed up? Irrelevant. Anyone who cycles knows that speed varies continuously. Without knowing the several factors, we cannot know what the cyclist's intent was. One of the challenges that drivers must accept is that cyclists' speed varies all the time, it is affected by road surface, wind including gusts, gradient, even what they are thinking about. A driver who tries to beat a cyclist to a junction based on estimating their speed from some time ago is going to make a a mistake.
Ashley, just wanted to say...
I don't drive, I don't even have a license, but your videos have definitely made me a more aware pedestrian over the years, so thanks!
Same for me. Where I live, public transport is so cheap and reliable, its not worth me having a vehicle. I just hire 2 or 3 times a year (hence I follow this channel to keep my skills up). I've found Ashley has actually helped my perspective in all road situations, not just driving.
The emergency vehicle was well enough ahead and indicating early enough to allow the cyclist to scrub their speed. It actually felt that he was racing to meet the tender as it turned. The driver is possibly partially at fault for misreading the speed of the cyclist. The cyclist though had ample opportunity to diffuse the situation and save their blood pressure from spiking. 75% fault cyclists 25% driver if I was to dole out points.
It's an Optare Solo Sr well Switch Solo Sr. These are buses/ fire engines too. This is for Ashley as I'm a geek when it comes to buses. Thanks Ashley for the video!
1 of 10 in the LFB fleet
@@LondonEmergency99910 solo srs in the fleet?
@@BangaBuseslad Correct
@@LondonEmergency999 are they reliable?
@@LondonEmergency999 any other bridgades got them ?
We have a maxi Transit van at work with no windows in the back and when turning left it’s incredibly difficult to see something which isn’t directly behind you or quite a way out to the left.
The driver of the fire truck failed to do the obligatory x-ray blindspot check.
And failed to stop at the give way line.
When I can't see clearly at a give way I creep slowly out. Continuing at speed hoping theirs nothing there doesn't feel like like the right way to go about things.
Nah it was poor but the cyclist wanted it
@@leenevin8451 you’re suggesting the cyclist wanted this to happen? That’s a bold suggestion.
I would have made it a none event , regardless of any article
I’ve had two instances this week ( noteworthy as I haven’t had any at this location in the last few years ) of drivers at a slewed giveway pulling out on me as I approach on the right of way. I’m on a motorcycle and haven’t been hiding behind the car in front and have had lights on. I’ve successfully predicted that they would pull out and was ready to stop, and had to. Both were apologetic, and also stopped when they actually saw me and I was already stationary when they did. Both times they then continued to complete the pull out onto the main road, completely forgetting that what was clear three seconds ago isn’t clear now and both drove off in front of a vehicle coming down the hill, who , fortunately, had been paying attention and was slowing anyway.
As I don’t have a dashcam on the old bike I didn’t bother to scream shout and hoot the horn continuously and thump their bonnet. I just shrugged and carried on, on the second occasion with a van driver giving me conspiratorial what the fuck wave. Which was nice
Well, two wrongs have never made a right, but positive attitudes multiply to better outcomes.
Common sense(the uncommon superpower these days) would suggest to slow down a smidge and let them past, coasting along behind them. They were plenty ahead and In situations like these its best just to expect they haven't or cannot see you and keep yourself safe.
Asheley ... spot on ... its called self preservation .. big truck is going to kill , dont fight it
Given the degree of difficulty of this turn for the fire truck as well as the visibility issues of the cycle lane, I wonder if briefly switching on blues and two's coming up to the turn and throughout it would have been appropriate here? After all, I've seen fire engines do that when reversing back into their fire station from a busy main road.
Saw an ambulance do this too yesterday when backing out onto a main road, it's quite effective
@@Ezekiel_Burton Ah yes, ambulances can use that technique too. Some might say that's a "misuse" of emergency lights but I don't think so at all. It's a very sensible safety measure.
Looking at how wide the fire service vehicle went onto the oncoming lane, though, they were clearly going way too fast for the road conditions. They should have been going much slower then would have been more likely to see the cyclist and be able to stop.
I agree - he appeared to be going way too fast for the turn with the way he ended up in the middle of the road, there's no way he left himself any time to check the cycle path was clear. If he had turned much more slowly and checked carefully over his shoulder, he probably would have seen the cyclist.
I noted that the give-way section between main and cycle roads can accommodate a car(just) but nothing larger.
That means the 2 are too close, likely based on available space when redesigning the roads.
On that basis the safest thing here would have been a give-way on the cycle road not the vehicle one.
No, it has been discussed at length in this country in recent years but if you are going to put give ways at every side road then there is no point in building a cycle path in an urban area, because few cyclists will use it - the cycle path must have the same priority as the main road alongside it (meaning it has priority over vehicles entering and leaving the main road). This is the standard layout in the Netherlands and other European countries. There can be certain instances of restricted visibility with large vehicles, but the benefits of the design outweigh that downside. If this driver had driven properly he could have seen the cyclist through the tinted side window.
Then now consider that exact situation if there had been no separated cycle road.
The truck wouldn’t have suddenly overtaken and cut across the bike’s path, the bike was well behind the truck before it started indicating, (which it did WELL in advance of making the turn) and the cyclist would have been foolish in the extreme not to slow down and allow the truck space to turn.
Vehicles have to slow down for bikes all the time and sometimes the reverse is true, as in this case.
So I’ll clarify, this is a badly designed junction.
@@richardlloyd2589 If there was no separate cycle path then many people wouldn't cycle here in the first place. It is similar to best practice Dutch design. One issue here is the poorly placed bus stop, but otherwise the design is fine.
This is one of the best designed cycle lane junctions in the entire country, with the road crossing at nearly 90° to the cycle as per dutch best practices. If drivers can’t handle a great junction like this then we have no hope going forwards.
As someone who drives HGV's i would say that firetruck couldn't see the cyclist- even further back i would say cyclist in a blindspot. However, all the more reason to creep from the giveway line not plow over a cyclist lane knowing theres a good chance of cyclists on it. The junction is not great for a such a large vehicle to be honest due to the angle the firetruck has to turn at, but it does look like it has a tinted blindspot window, that he most likely didn't use before turning- which clearly could have been lethal.
Any commercial vehicle driver will tell you, that in this situation,at no point would the driver be able to see the cyclists.
With limited visibility through the mirrors and virtually zero visibility through the side windows, the fire service would not of seen the cyclists.
I often say in situations like these that the person in the right should just continue on because, after all, it is their right of way and they can always have it written on their headstone.
You can not legislate for every single situation.
Unfortunately, "but it's my right of way," mentality gives presidence to common sense.
The cycle lane is a separate carriageway and is protected by a separate give way.
Traffic law makes it quite clear that the fire engine must stop and must not cause the cyclist to slow or change direction.
The fact that a fire engine is signalling left at a prior intersection is irrelevant, as is the action of the cyclist riding at their own pace. This is simple give way junction traffic law, lot highway code advice.
A junction is always going to be a point of conflict. The road markings in this case make it entirely clear whose responsibility it is to concede to resolve the conflict.
As to the visibility issue, why would a driver with restricted vision go through a junction without extra care if they were competent and aware of the limitations of their view. I've driven vans and you have limited visibility, strangely, I never drive through a give way without stopping on the basis that as I couldn't see, everyone else would know this and stop for me. I would come to a halt, lean forward, or position the van square on. I note the very long wheel base and the driver failed to take a wide position on entry to the corner, putting them on the wrong side of the road and at a poor angle for observing the bike lane.
The driver would have failed their driving test, wouldn't they?
The indicators on that fire-truck were effing MASSIVE! And I spotted them from a mile away.
I’d have slowed down a smidge and made it a non-event
But the truck was going straight on at the junction in question (where the side road meets cyclepath), so wouldn't have been indicating. (It did indicate correctly at the earlier junction to turn off the main road onto the side road). I don't think there was any issue with how the truck handled the first junction, but I suspect the cyclist thought the driver would observe and adhere to the give way at the 2nd junction.
@@MrHabushi The cyclist never passed them on the left, they were not even on the road to pass anything.
The mantra I was taught as a motorcyclist “he was dead right as he rode along, now he’s as dead as if he was wrong”.
Rights of way - green lights, junctions, crossings - does not remove the need for you to check it’s safe to proceed.
Bottom line he crossed a give way line and there was something coming.
The LFB command unit driver took that junction way to fast to make sufficient observations, not just of the cycle lane, but of the road he turned into and required the oncoming lane and in my opinion he also failed to check his offside mirror before making the turn, otherwise he's have seen the silver car in lane two next to his overhang (he must have come very close to the silver car). If he planned the turn better he could have observed the cycle lane, road he was entering and taken time to straddle both lanes which would have not only given him an easier turn, but also helped increase his visibility.
The cyclist should have reduced his speed earlier when he noticed the big red flashing thing was increasing danger for him at the junction. (same goes for motorcycles, cars, vans, busses, lorries......when danger increases, think what can I do to reduce it)
People who drive like this are dangerous, be aware of them, and avoid them. I look both ways when crossing a one way street, and I look before I cross at a crossing (even when lights are red).......I shouldn't have to, but I do.
I agree we should be able to expect a better standard of driving from a professionally trained driver, but the cyclist was in the perfect position to adjust their speed to accommodate the fire vehicle’s manoeuvre but chose to maintain speed just to make an issue out of it.
How exactly should they have done better?
@@illegalopinions4082 At some point before the clip started the fire vehicle would have overtaken the cyclist. A professional driver would have observed the cyclist and noted their presence in planning their manoeuvre across the cyclist’s path.
@MrSJR39 Why aren't you expecting the cyclist to react to the other vehicles on the road?
@@illegalopinions4082 I didn’t say they shouldn’t, cyclists should maintain awareness of other road/path users just like vehicle drivers. The fire service vehicle is the focus because it has put on a left signal to turn across the cyclist’s path.
@MrSJR39 I'm trying to narrow down where you're perceiving the line. The rule is there to prevent drivers from cutting across a cyclist right beside them. So surely the cyclist had ample time, as another road user, to make the choice to not undertake in an unsafe manner. It really does seem like they acted in an unsafe manner to avoid slowing down.
Another point to bear in mind is it might not be a member of the fire service driving. It could possibly be a mechanic pickinig it up or droping it of or even on a test drive. It might belong to a truck dealiship who take old fire sevice vehicals or supply fire service vehicals. In these cases the driver would still need an hgv licance but might not drive that often and won't be as well trained as a fire service member.
All of the rules and priorities won't help if no one is following them. Here in the U.S. we have nowhere near the level of traffic rules as the UK does. So my policy as both a cyclist and a driver (or a pedestrian for that matter) is to assume that everyone else is the biggest idiot in the world, and they are going to do the stupidest thing possible. This way, when they do the stupid I'm not surprised. And if they do the right thing then I'm pleasantly surprised. In this case, if I were the cyclist, I would have slowed and allowed the fire vehicle to turn, then continued on my way.
Nope.... You've quoted the rule about going up the left side of a large vehicle Signalling to turn left but that's a rule for when both are in the same lane or lanes next to each other.
Not cycle lanes seperated as seperate thoroughfares.
You really have to question ANs competency when he doesn't understand that.
Cited these same rules myself a couple of times. Well done and I agree fully. Also the fire service vehicle appears to me to based on a bus - I think an Optare Solo if I had to guess.
Given the distance between the cycle lane and the road, i very much doubt the driver of the fire service vehicle even knew the cyclist was there. ( I could be wrong )
Its similar to moving from lane 3 to lane 2 on a motorway as someone moves from lane 1 to lane 2.
Unless you can turn and check your left blind spot ( not recommended on the motorway, it should be a shoulder check ) then you're not seeing the car moving from lane 1 into lane 2, just as the fire truck driver didn't see the cyclist.
As it was the cyclist made it a none event by stopping, even if he did then post it on X.
My driving instructor once advised me there are hospitals mortuaries and cemeteries full of people who had right of way.
Quick question is it mirror indicate manoeuvre (or mirror indicate mirror manoeuvre) or is it indicate mirror manoeuvre because if its the former the driver should have seen the cyclist before the bus shelter.
sometimes you have to not take things so personal and look at the bigger picture. it's a awkward turning and that bus stop did not help. sure it remains the drivers fault but people need to start putting self perseveration 1st and not worrying about "right of way" this is a good learning experience for both parties and at the end of the day both went home unharmed and not charged with any offences
As non uniquely... a driver and a cyclist (like millions of others), naturally i hate myself ;). there is no excuses really to not know there is a parallel cycle path next to the main road, it goes as far back as to Tooley Street. and seeing the junction itself totally ignoring the give way markings , poor standards... Tribal motorists need to sit this one out. Driving standards are really poor in London so signage to point out the obvious is really needed that there is right of way for those cycling on the cycle path.
Very much an angry cyclist looking for an event rather than taking it as an honest mistake. The cyclist seemed to be on familiar territory & had the better view, the LFB vehicle however may have never made this turn in their life. It’s a pretty stupid junction in my opinion, having to give way half way through a turn ! That’s a typical BS idea from a London council. Cyclist should be given priority but at the expense of general road safety ? I don’t think so.
I will say, this is one drawback of a segregated cycle line like this one as it's much harder to see someone coming from behind when you're driving a larger vehicle as they're most likely in your smaller wide-view mirror and you might not have a clear view until you're already halfway into the turn... Ironically if the cyclist was on the main carriageway on the fire engine's nearside he probably would've been seen!
It's an impossible balance really as a cyclist, if you cede to the larger vehicles you're basically allowing them to push you around and violate the highway code. If you stick to your guns and take the Cycling Mikey approach you might be "right" but you might also end up dead.
I tend to take the more defensive approach and let these things go, it's frustrating sometimes but isn't worth my life.
Out of interest, does anyone else watching these videos drive HGVs AND cycles on the roads? Or am I the only one? I often think I'm the best authority on these matters because I haven't met many lorry drivers who are also cyclists, and vice versa 😂
I'm an HGV driver and I don't cycle, but I AM amazingly cautious of everything around me, moreso in the truck than in my car. As you say, you sometimes miss stuff, especially in your nearside mirrors at a wider angle.
Just this morning, I pull into lane 2 on the M18 to allow a car onto the carriageway. It's a white car. I see a white car pulling behind me and signal left, give it a second and start moving left back to lane 1. At that point, the car I let merge entered my wide-angle view and I aborted immediately. Was my mistake and no collision or anything, but sometimes we make a judgement call and get it just a LITTLE bit wrong.
I certainly appreciate that you have a much more unique view of situations like this and agree with your assessment of it, having seen the clip MANY times over the past few days.
I think the highway code itself is the issue here. As you pointed out, the rider can clearly see the fire truck, and due to the bus stop and the truck's blind spot, it's likely the drive of the truck couldn't see the rider. The highway code should allow for this when determining who has right of way, but for some reason, the people who wrote it think it makes sense for the vehicle in front to give way to the vehicle behind it.
They're turning onto the side road. How do you not see that?
Yes, the cyclist could have done much better, but the responsibility lies and should always lie on the person turning. Think like this - you wouldn't cut across (2) lanes of traffic to turn left, so you should check that nobody is in those lanes before you turn. It's not hard.
Similarly, cyclists and motorists should give way to pedestrians crossing side roads before turning, otherwise you have to stop at every single sideroad, which doesn't make sense.
Think of the cycle path as another car lane. You wouldn't cut across it just because they're a bike and you see them as homeless and poor or whatever you seem to claim.
Get a life, seriously.
@dylancode Blind spot. You don't have one, he does. So why would you think him giving way to you would be the safest option?
It's a give way line so truck has to give way.
Cyclist has to expect danger in case the lorry doesn't give way.
@@chrisdaniels3929 Exactly, @simonharris4873 doesn't seem to understand that.
Both parties could do much better, but there isn't an "issue with the HC" - drivers just need to be a little more patient. Cyclists have just as much right to be on the road!
These new highways code rules have played into the self focused mind set that if I get to the junction first everyone else is in the wrong. That isn’t how life or people work.
There is a give way line at the edge of the cycle lane, this has nothing to do with the new Highway Code rules.
@@Buckets41369 so are you saying the cyclist should have stopped?
@@Bowdon The cyclist had to stop because they anticipated the driver was going to fly through the give way marking without checking. The driver should have been travelling slow enough to stop at the give way line .
From a very naughty cyclist. I think the cyclist is well out of the left mirror. That truck cant see diddly. All the cyclist had to do was ease up when indicator was on. And its a total none event. It wasnt near either, the cyclist wasnt doing more than 15 and it was clear what the truck was going to do. Its the 2 way cycle path with the wide path inbetween that messes things up for the truck
For once I'm going to disagree with you. For your opinions you're correct, but what about the extra give way lines the red fire truck had to cross?
First off, the wagon driver should have ensured it was clear to proceed before crossing the give way lines. If that means coming to a dead stop before moving on, so be it. I wonder if they ever saw the cyclist.
However, I've wondered for a while why this priority arrangement mostly works in countries like the Netherlands, but not in Britain, and this clip has given me what I think may be a factor. British cycling, largely because of poor infrastructure and dangerous roads discouraging casual riders, has been 'sportified' for many years. On the whole, Dutch cyclists ride at non-sport speeds. This fellow was cracking on - not the fastest, but quicker than say, the chap coming the other way. Just as a driver travelling at some lick will catch others out (and no doubt complain bitterly), so will a cyclist on a cycle track that crosses a road - especially if we're drizzling a spot of 'right of way' into the equation. Add in poor placement of the bus stop, the serious visibility problems of the wagon, and bingo: event. Is that victim blaming? I would say most of us here are about avoiding accidents, even at the expense of a little (a lot, really) allowance for others' mistakes. Being dead right is not a the fashion statement it's made out to be.
Unless the lorry is at 90° to the give way, it would be near impossible to see anyone coming up the cycle lane.
@@AshleyNeal-JustCycling theres tinted window on the left side the driver had more time to see the cyclist
Normally, a fire service vehicle would have others in the cab who are tasked with assisting the driver in observing and warning the driver of hazards (or at least that is the practice in Canada). I’ve slowed the video down and while I can see the driver, I cannot see anyone else.
I agree with you completely, the cyclist could have slowed his ride when he saw the turn signal come on and made it a complete nonevent. While I agree that the more vulnerable must be protected, they also have a duty to protect themselves. “But I had the right of way” is not something you want on your headstone.
It's not a normal pump/pump escape, which would have a fire officer in the front passenger seat. It's a bus, turned into a command vehicle, so that's one of the entry doors.
Fire truck is the entitled one. It is a give way and he thought , I'm the bigger vehicle, everyone else can wait. Yes blind spots in many locations mean all the more reason to stop at give way and have a more careful look. Would the fire truck have passed his driving test doing this maneuver? I don't think so.
Considering requirements for being HGVs into London, Direct Vision Standard ans now Progressive Safe System. You would think the London fire service would have better visibility of whats going on around them.
Also yes an easy situation for the cyclist to fix its when they come from behind they are a problem.
As my driving instructor said when I had to slam on my brakes due to someone pulling out on me on a roundabout "The graveyard is full of people who had right of way. Just because you have priority doesn't mean mindlessly marching to certain doom when all you needed to do was slow down and let it be. In two seconds they'll be gone and you'll be alive."
You're absolutely right that this IS a non-event. Situations like this are part and parcel of using the roads and we all have to do our part to make a dangerous situation safer.
Or as the old PSA used to say "Give and take for safety's sake"
Quick question, I've never been to a big enough place to have cycle lanes like this, I would not have seen the Cyclist from my van window, and possibility I would have checking the right hand lane due to the swing needed to make that turn, the blind spot mirrors would have made him very small from that distance! , so my question is what sort of speed is a cyclist allowed to travel in this lane? and is it limited to pedal power only? I can see traffic lights coming ! cheers
There are no speed limits for bicycles in the UK.
You can use electric assisted bikes as long as they are within the legislated power limits.
On top of what you said, Ashley, I would also look at the road layout there. For vehicles turning into the side road (and for those coming out) there are give-way markings on the road where it meets the cycle path - but the length and width of the fire service vehicle meant a larger turning circle than most vehicles - to stop before the give way markings, it would have been blocking the whole of the side street, the lane of traffic it was coming from, and possibly (with tail swing), the other lane of traffic too...
Ok, so the driver could have mitigated that by slowing enough to not start the turn until the cyclist was past... but once he had started to turn, he was pretty much committed to going.
So, you are saying that Give Way markings don't count for some vehicles because it's a bit tricky? Yes, you are. What if that was a 5 year old girl proudly cycling ahead of mum - yes, another "5 year old collides with lorry" headline.
@@IanMSpencer I'm not saying that the driver was not largely to blame for the incident. Before even starting turning he should have checked his blind spots, and been aware.
What I'm saying is that ONCE HE HAD STARTED TURNING, it was safer to continue than to stop for give way markings when he was across both lanes of traffic on the side road, and blocking at least one, possibly two lanes of traffic in the road he was turning from.
What is so hard to understand about that???
I would also point out that I do not drive OR ride bikes, so have no reason to try to excuse poor behaviour from either side...
@@nickjeffery536 The give way is after the turn. That is the decision point not some previous point on the road. There are two entirely separate junctions.
If the driver inconveniences other road users to abide by the law of the road, then that is unfortunate but it does not permit ignoring a subsequent junction.
This is car thinking, that the driver's duty is not to the safety of other road users but to avoid a minor delay to some other drivers. It's why people think that keeping up with the car in front is more important than sticking to the speed limit.
What if that was not a cycle lane, but a zebra crossing? Does a lorry not need to stop for that once it's committed to a turn?
It is not that hard to work through the duty of care for the lorry driver once you understand the road layout.
So happy I live nowhere near a city. Never seen such a weird layout of junctions, cycle lanes, give ways . What an absolute mess.
One of the problems with road use is that the rules constantly emphasise priority instead of emphasising that road space is shared and whilst there is a hierarchy of road use, it is in everyone's interest to share the space responsibly. And remember, priority can only be given not taken.
Should one assume that all give way marking are not there and come to a crawl at every side road. Of course not. The cyclist was perfectly within their right mind to expect the driver to stop at the give way line.
Funny thing, and i wish I'd had a camera. At a light controlled junction downtown, a driver of an artic with a trailer at least 25 feet from kingpin to axles needed to make a right turn into a 4 lane highway in heavy traffic. It took him a full cycle if the lights and then some to get his turn made without hittimg anything at all. All of the traffic just waited for him to finish the maneuver instead of crowding him. (I'd even stopped a length back from the stop line in case he was turning left.( Note for those unfamiliar, I'm in the US. )
Cyclists is not riding on the inside of a vehicle signalling or slowing down to turn left - the cyclist is in the separate cycle lane. If I was driving the truck I would have stopped at the give way and made sure the cycle lane was clear before proceeding - as one would expect. The cyclist is travelling at a suitably low speed, and as we can see stops quickly and does indeed avoid an incident. There is no need for the cyclist, as you suggest, to slow down from slow. Give way, means give way. The only shortcoming in this video is that of the truck driver.
I agree,if I was on the bike,I would have assumed he can't see me,as it is quite an acute turn,with obstacles to his vision,and would have slowed my bike earlier.However,that is clearly a cycle lane he is crossing,with give way markings,so if he was unable to see clearly he should have stopped regardless to make sure.There was no sign of the truck having any intention to pause
The cyclist does make it a non-event in safety terms. He braked to a complete stop as soon as it became clear that the fire service vehicle was going to blow through a give way. He is allowed to feel a little bit miffed about being cut up, just like drivers are allowed to post up clips when they get cut up. What should be noted is that while the Fire vehicle might have had an obstructed view of the cammer on approach (and we can see his mirrors when he starts indicating, so not really), there is another bike approaching the other way and also forced to a stop, which the driver would have been able to see clearly throughout the manoeuvre.
The issue here is the stupid road layout. The driver of the fire vehicle can’t see the cyclist until they have committed to the turn, given the section of road from making the turn to the give way lines barely fits a moped it demonstrates that the driver doesn’t have enough room to come to an angle in which they can observe the cycle line. The sensible option would be for lights to be installed if we are going to continue with these cycle highways which seem to be the new big idea that look good on paper but in reality present dangerous situations like this where cyclists seem to think they are perfectly safe protected by having right of way so I’ll not take any reasonable precautions to prevent an issue from occurring if I can.
We can't just blame the road layout on this one. The cyclist speeds up to make a point, causing the incident to begin with
I'm always weary of these "adapted vehicles" and not just when I'm cycling, In this case basically a medium-large single decker bus that's had most of its windows removed making it a rolling blind spot. You don't see as many now, but those camper vans where the camper bit was about 3 foot wider than the tiny minivan cab it's built around were pretty deadly too.
Google earth Jamaica road and George row in south east London, the road is inbetween Tower bridge road and Rotherhithe tunnel, the side street leads to a fire station which the fire service vehicle was heading back to.
Hope this cyclist never needs the fire service! But everything nowadays has become a "Drama" of some sort. Self entitled people of, all ilks, thinking they are above everyone else and theirs is the only opinion that matters. Time for these "self entitled" to stand back and address their shortcomings before posting and commenting on others. This clip shows what should have been a non-event, not as a catastrophic injustice to the cyclists' ego. Well explained by Ashley Neal.
My impression was that the fire truck signaled his turn in plenty of time. The bike path is well away from the road at that point, and the cyclist may not have been seen. However just like driving, the cyclist can make it a non event by planning ahead. By freewheeling, and possibly braking a little ahead of time, he would arrive at the junction after the fire service vehicle had passed. Instead he barreled up to the junction at speed expecting the vehicle to stop for him. Problem is that once a HGV has committed to moving, it takes a lot to slow it down.
As a cyclist I genuinely worry about some of the riders in these clips. Whilst the onus may be on protecting more vulnerable users, it’s still important to be able to have enough common sense to protect yourself in situations such as this.
sums it up brilliantly, not to many cycling lunatics in the comments either
I think noodles - like many other cyclists and drivers - has fallen in to the trap of thinking that the vehicle itself is the entity that should give way, and not the driver. He didn't consider whether the driver can see in his direction, he just assumed that the fire engine could see him as he could see it. If cyclists had lessons and tests like all other road users, they'd know that an important part of taking priority is making eye contact with the driver giving way to ensure they have seen you, and if you cannot see their eyes, to make sure to be ready to react if they pull out. Even if the Fire service vehicle had stopped at the give way line there was no way they could ever see down the cycle path to their left as it was too far away for their mirrors and to close for their window - that junction is almost a perfect example of how to kill cyclists - make sure the cyclists have to ride in the blind spots of all the traffic on the road, and then give them priority so the blind vehicles have to guess whether to stop or not. The architect should be ashamed.
They did make it a “non-event”. Did you miss the part where they braked to prevent a collision from the fire engine failing to give way?
Did you miss the part where he converses out loud with himself and anyone prepared to listen and then posted it on x. Clearly they did the utmost to make it an event.
@rsmith8875 the last possible second is all the driver gave him. Unless your argument is that cyclists should slow down at every single junction in case a driver decides not to give a **** about giving way
I have 3 things
1.the command vehicles HAVE BLINDSPOTS
2.the lfb got to the junction first and indicated
3.He was never gonna get to that junction
I like Ashley, always the voice of reason…