Don't go up there!

[S.Giles]

Is it possible that from their vantage point, they could tell that the truck was not about to move, due to the traffic stopped ahead of it? I personally would have held back unless I could see something that would suggest the truck was going to remain stationary for long enough for me to pass it safely.

Hearing someone shouting something at me from an adjacent bicycle would probably increase my desire to overtake the truck in order to get away from them!

 

[Pale Rider]

Is it possible that from their vantage point, they could tell that the truck was not about to move, due to the traffic stopped ahead of it? I personally would have held back unless I could see something that would suggest the truck was going to remain stationary for long enough for me to pass it safely.

Hearing someone shouting something at me from an adjacent bicycle would probably increase my desire to overtake the truck in order to get away from them!

I believe it is likely the first cyclist could see the red light and queue of stopped traffic, enabling him to make the reasonable presumption the lorry would not move in the time he was cycling beside it.

 

[theclaud]

Is it possible that from their vantage point, they could tell that the truck was not about to move, due to the traffic stopped ahead of it?

I reckon so.

 

[Wobblers]

I reckon so.

In which case, it would be safer to pass on the outside, there's a damn sight more room and you're far more visible. There is at least one cyclist who does that.

ETA: On the far lane, not between the tipper truck and car!

 

[theclaud]

In which case, it would be safer to pass on the outside, there's a damn sight more room and you're far more visible. There is at least one cyclist who does that.

ETA: On the far lane, not between the tipper truck and car!

I'm not recommending the manoeuvre. I'm just pointing out that people seem to invest a ot in the simplistic mantra that one must NEVER ride up the inside of a truck, when in some cases it isn't actually especially dangerous. Me, I like an escape route in situations like that, but I often make manoeuvres at junctions I know well that others would consider dangerous. My mum appears to consider everything involving bikes and traffic to be dangerous.

 

[Dommo]

Agreed that it can sometimes be a better option to get past on the inside, but there's a pretty clear message that you're ignoring when you're having to squirm your way through a gap between a solid wall and 30 ton tipper truck! I think it's the combo of the two that make this even worse. If you're squeezing past a vehicle but with a pavement escape zone then maybe it might be considered less risky, but with nowhere to go but into the wheel arches this is suicidal.

 

[CopperBrompton]

If you're squeezing past a vehicle but with a pavement escape zone then maybe it might be considered less risky, but with nowhere to go but into the wheel arches this is suicidal.

That's my view. Even if you can see the vehicle can't move away before you're past, the unexpected can still happen. For example, police car behind (some of which are unmarked) gets a call, puts on siren, all traffic squeezes left.

The chance of that happening while I'm alongside the truck or bus, slim enough that I'm happy with a pavement escape plan (which I have once had to use). But with no escape plan, I'm not going to do it to save a few seconds.

 

[Archie_tect]

Lorry drivers always have the responsibility to ensure it's safe to move off, but sadly personal responsibility to not endanger yourself clearly doesn't stop cyclists from doing dangerous stuff, so in those circumstances if the lorry moves off during a cyclist's dangerous filter causing injury it's the lorry driver that gets the blame. I can see that would be a harsh judgement in those circumstances though in London during rush hour having to wait until every cyclist around you has left adequate space for a lorry to move may mean they can't move off safely at all... the only way to ensure it's not deemed to be your fault is to be stationary which clearly isn't an option. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

...which brings us full circle to the improvements to achieve all round vision with no blind-spots- and educate cyclists to stop doing stupid stuff.

 

[bianchi1]

There are three posts in a row above this one that mention 'escape plan'.

As a general rule, if a manover involves a planned escape route...I don't do it!

 

[w00hoo_kent]

There are three posts in a row above this one that mention 'escape plan'.
As a general rule, if a manover involves a planned escape route...I don't do it!

Every manoeuvre you do should have an escape plan attached to it. Generally you don't have to overthink it, but if you don't know where you are going to go should something unexpected happen then you're doing it wrong. You probably just aren't realising you have one in place.

 

[bianchi1]

Every manoeuvre you do should have an escape plan attached to it. Generally you don't have to overthink it, but if you don't know where you are going to go should something unexpected happen then you're doing it wrong. You probably just aren't realising you have one in place.

I don't see how you can possibly plan for the unexpected? The rare or infrequent perhaps but If you have an escape plan in mind, the chances are the thing you are planning to escape from isn't that 'unexpected'.

A couple of the posts above mentioned a pavement escape route. That tends to imply they are fully aware that they may be putting themselves in a blind spot, and that the vehicle they are undertaking may turn left into them...but it's ok because they can jump out of the way. This is not an unexpected outcome...it is being planned for.

Personally I don't put myself in that position, because I don't believe I can fully plan for unexpected issues...as by definition, I don't expect them to happen!

 

[w00hoo_kent]

OK, you are riding along in traffic, there is a car in front of you that you are keeping pace with. Do you know what you'll do if the car suddenly comes to a halt because of something you can't see in front of it? If you do, even if the answer is 'I come to a safe and controlled stop because I am leaving the regulation gap between me & the car' then you are riding with an escape plan (it may also be 'I go in to this clear bit of road to the left/right' or whatever). If the answer is 'I hit it up the arse because I had nowhere to go' then you aren't riding with an escape plan.

It's all a bit high falutin, but it's there for a very good reason.

No you can't anticipate the specific unexpected thing that is going to happen, but you can know what you are likely to do in the situation that something does and having the options already thought of saves you time if you need to make a quick decision. No, you might not ever think 'that traffic isn't going to move for three minutes, I can get up that gap on the left because of that' but people do. The difference between it being a bit of a risk and a stupidly foolhardy thing to do is what options there are to get out of the manoeuvre if things start going wrong.

 

[Dommo]

This is not an unexpected outcome...it is being planned for.

Always expect the unexpected!

Seriously though, when we're talking here about "unexpected" we're talking about things as previously mentioned by w00hoo such as a police car behind forcing the vehicles to move before the lights change. What I was suggesting with the pavement comment is that at least there's an emergency option. It's about gauging the chances of the various possibilities so I guess "unexpected" is not the right word - maybe "non-standard" is better

Really, we all spend much of every ride assessing the likelihood of "non-standard" outcomes. For example, I'm riding along and a car is trundling along at a variable 10-15 mph with the driver looking lost. I know it's a bad idea to pass the car on either side since they are obviously trying to decide which side road to turn into.

Anyway, I think we're pretty much all in agreement here that the video shows a shocking level of risk-taking that none of us would ever contemplate. Luckily this time they got away with it and maybe Gaz's shouts from behind might ring in their head the next time they are planning something similar.

 

[bianchi1]

OK, you are riding along in traffic, there is a car in front of you that you are keeping pace with. Do you know what you'll do if the car suddenly comes to a halt because of something you can't see in front of it? If you do, even if the answer is 'I come to a safe and controlled stop because I am leaving the regulation gap between me & the car' then you are riding with an escape plan (it may also be 'I go in to this clear bit of road to the left/right' or whatever). If the answer is 'I hit it up the arse because I had nowhere to go' then you aren't riding with an escape plan.

I don't see this as an escape plan? When you are moving with traffic you are traffic, you slow with it and speed up with it leaving appropriate gaps and hoping those behind do the same At no point are you leaving/escaping that flow.

If you really want to plan for the unexpected, what happens if your brake blocks all fall off at that very instance the car stops? Does this alter the speed you ride or gap you leave? How about that buzzard that's diving at you from behind or the sink hole that's about to open up to your right?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I think the problem is we're arguing semantics rather than road safety. I'm pretty sure if we all planned for massive improbabilities then it'd get silly, but feel free to ask for an apology after your next buzzard attack.