The Cyclist and the Fire Service Vehicle from 'X' 

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.

You can tell immediately, that the fire truck driver can't see the cyclist at all!

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.

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 :)

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.

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".

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 RU-vid.

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

I'm a cyclist and car driver (4 bikes 1 car) The cyclist in this case was a bit of a prat.

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.

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.

Looks as though the cyclist was racing to keep up with the fire truck and cause an issue for content.

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

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.

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.

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 "

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.

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!

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

Watching this clip all i have to say to the cyclist is JEEZ REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!.

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.

This is the human version of a fly travelling towards the blue light zapper.

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?

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...

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.

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 driver of the fire truck failed to do the obligatory x-ray blindspot check.

I would have made it a none event , regardless of any article

Another bad cycling take. He wasn't undertaking. He's on a different carriageway. And the vehicle had a give way line. If they can't see to check it's safe at the give way one then they should proceed with way more caution than they did.

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.

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 RU-vid, 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.

Cycling mikey mindset: use my vulnerability to make a statement.

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.

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.

Why are such vehicles even allowed to be sold? Here in the US, most trucks are increasingly being fitted with look down mirrors on the nearside as more cyclists are taking to the streets.

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.

That is a very badly set out junction... The driver wouldn't have been able to see the cyclist from the instant he starts turning left... Should have been a non-event.

Rule 74 doesn't apply here - the cyclist is approaching a junction _on the right_ from which a vehicle is emerging.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think it's a content push. any excuse to get clout. add that to the fact so many people want to appear like a victim and you can see how this could go from miles away.

Cyclists should be able to treat a junction the same as any other road user, being expected to act like every junction is a give way for you is not only unfair but dangerous as drivers learn that they can cut across cycle lanes, tracks, pedestrian crossing (with reference to pedestrians), and other crossing places with impunity and they do. This attitude of "I'm not giving way at junctions (like the highway code requires) because I might get rear ended" is being supported by people failing to assert their priority. Cars, HGVs, LGVs, vans, etc. have come to learn not to check because their bullying of other road users particularly cyclists and pedestrians is expected and when a cyclist or pedestrian does not bend over for them they are criticised as if the situation was equal in the first place.

Pleased to see they haven't donated all the fire service vehicles to Ukraine. As a cyclist I would have slowed up a bit and given some leeway to the driver, who is on the right hand side of the cab and has much else to look out for. On a bicycle you have to assume that you are invisible and that every vehicle is there to kill you as your starting point. Then be polite.

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.

Well, two wrongs have never made a right, but positive attitudes multiply to better outcomes.

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.

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.

Bottom line he crossed a give way line and there was something coming.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

If that counts as a near miss, I'm not sure what to call actual close calls.

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

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.

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.

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.

In my view the fire engine does nothing wrong, the cyclist comes from miles back and actually speeds up to involve themselves in a situation. The cyclist needs to engage their brain a bit more the situation was obvious and they were desperate to make it worse so it could be posted.

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.

Asheley ... spot on ... its called self preservation .. big truck is going to kill , dont fight it

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 😂

My driving instructor once advised me there are hospitals mortuaries and cemeteries full of people who had right of way.

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

Once again a cyclist trying to put themselves in danger to prove a point. Generally it is just the attitude of people from this country. People here really have an "I have to be right" mindset and it stinks. No wonder we're firmly down the drain as a nation.

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."

please show me one frame where the driver's head is visible in the cyclist's camera. that was only an event because the cyclist intentionally made it one. even a left hand drive vehicle would have had the cyclist in its blind spot. and only a true (insert epithet here) decides to have a right of way dispute with an emergency services vehicle. as somebody once said, what if it was your mum or kids they were going to help?

It doesn’t matter who’s right, it only matters who’s left. By riding at 30ft long bright red vehicles with limited visibility that have used their indicators to give more than enough warning of a manoeuvre, just to prove you’re right, increases the risk of death or injury for only one of these road users.

The cyclist did make it a non event. The “Jeez” comment was for his viewers otherwise not really RU-vid material.

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 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

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.

As you say, priority is given not taken. The cyclist should have just eased off and there wouldn't have been an issue. The attitude of "it's my priority so I'm not stopping" is a dangerous one to take, especially for a cyclist. More common sense is needed when we all share the same roads.

If the cyclist knows the road, why would they slow down? There are give way lines on the fire trucks path. If the truck drive could not see the cycle path was clear, they should have stopped at the give way lines, until they were sure it was safe to proceed. Instead the careered round the corner so fast that they had to use the opposite lane (lucky no one was there).

"Make it a non-event" - as far as I can see, that's exactly what the cyclist did. No-one got hurt, nothing got damaged, the cyclist could stop on his side of the road. Personally I'd have slowed a bit earlier and hopefully have avoided actually having to stop, but that's purely from a momentum perspective, not safety. This isn't the same as some of your other clips where contact is actually made because the cyclist insists on their priority. I guess it comes down to the extent to which it's desirable for cyclists to meekly back off in these scenarios to such an extent that the driver doesn't even realise there was a problem. These conflicts don't arise because the motorist is being deliberately aggressive, or because they've momentarily taken their eye off the ball, but because they don't even realise there's a cycle path there or that there might be cyclists around. With that in mind, I think it can be helpful for cyclists to show clearly that they were endangered and inconvenienced by the motorist. A motorist who sees that a cyclist they didn't see has had to stop in the middle of the road may learn something that they wouldn't learn if the cyclist was still several tens of metres away. As to "cyclists need to understand the limitations of what HGV drivers can see" - yes, sure. But isn't it more important that HGV drivers understand the limitations of what they themselves can see? No, you can't always see what's in the cycle lane to your left before turning. So why the freak continue your turn? Whether the cyclist was there or not, the fire truck should have given way, stopping if necessary at a point where the driver could see any cyclists.

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.

The cyclist had about three business days to slow down, and still had to rapidly slow down, exclaiming "jeez" as though the fire truck did something sudden and unexpected. Anyone with any observation skills could see this coming a mile away, and anyone with any sense of self-preservation would have slowed down far earlier.

Entitlement kills! There are so many things wrong with London cycling culture compared to rest of the world. Cycling is like a relatively new technology that they struggle to understand.

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

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.

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.

So happy I live nowhere near a city. Never seen such a weird layout of junctions, cycle lanes, give ways . What an absolute mess.

Whoever redesigned the roads and gave priority to cyclists has blood on their hands. The French have this spot on. Two words on a sticker on every large vehicle ANGLES MORTS which translates into BLIND SPOTS. Other road users should always be aware of the blind spots on larger vehicles. It is practically impossible in this clip for the driver to see the prat on a bike.

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?

There is no question that the cyclists made this happen for clicks or views. He didn't really even need to do very much he simply had to observe the vehicle ahead and time his arrival to pass stern of the engine.

As a motorcyclist, you learn to survive by anticipating mistakes by others. Otherwise, you die very easily!! In this instance, the cyclist had clear view of the firetruck and his intention to turn left well in advance. Just adjusting his speed to see whether the truck was going to stop or proceed would have resolved the problem. It is far easier to stop and start a pushbike than a large lorry! I would always consider giving way to emergency vehicles as a matter of courtesy (and even artic lorries in certain circumstances) unless it was dangerous to do so. I find that cyclists possess an arrogance once they get peddling and seem disinclined to moderate their speed unless compelled to do so, especially on dual paths ( pedestrians and cyclists).

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.

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.

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.