UKH

Interesting one..

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6998625/Cyclist-narrowly-avoids-cr...

Had it been a truck turning in I'd say its totally the fault of the truck. Left turn across an inside lane.

In the US we all stop or slow around blue lights for this reason.

I think the rider is in the wrong TBH. But whats the law in the UK?

As a runner/rider I'm typically on the side of the other road users than vehicles.

If its this one;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6998625/Cyclist-narrowly-avoids-cr...

Then the person on a bike is a total idiot and completely at fault. 

Cyclist was an idiot. Appeared to have his head down and was apparently deaf. 

To be fair there was a no left turn sign, so he wouldn't have been expecting anyone to turn.

Considering that is a Daily mail link, I'd imagine that neither the cyclist of the fire engine existed and its all made up to drive people to their site. 

Quite so.

Interesting contrast between a couple of posts above: one says "the cyclist was an idiot", yep, that seems fair - he made a pretty stupid mistake and almost paid a high price for it.  Everybody is an idiot sometimes, mostly we get away with it and the best of us learn from the experience and try not to do it again.

Another says "the cyclist is an idiot" - subtly different and rather more judgemental.  Maybe the sheep has never made a stupid mistake, lucky guy.

The article says: "The motorbike driver posted the video online, commenting: 'Just about sums up them lycra-clad c****'." 

Which is really unhelpful.  This sort of "them and us" attitude is a big part of what leads to excessive aggression on the roads, close passes and wotnot - people are literally getting killed because of this shit.  We need to stop thinking of other road users as somehow 'other' - whatever their mode of transport they are human beings just like us.

The biker comes across as a bit of a judgemental prick, but he's a private individual and people sometimes are - what's the Daily Mail's excuse?

(Oh, and by the way Daily Mail, in English as we speak and write it a motorbike has a 'rider' not a 'driver' you bunch of semi-literate bellends.)

Haven't watched the video because I don't want to give the Daily Heil the clicks, but AIUI whatever vehicle you're in you're legally expected to give right of way to an emergency vehicle with sirens and lights going regardless of who would normally have right of way - essentially, they're expected to run red lights, pull out of side streets etc and you're expected to deal with it. (Interestingly, you technically aren't allowed to do anything you wouldn't normally be allowed to do to get out of the way, although I'd imagine that it'd be a cold day in hell before the police actually took action against someone for, say, edging through a red light to get out of the way of the ambulance behind them.)

Side point, but surely if anyone doesn't want to start a game of collective responsibility between groups of road users it has to be bikers?

All bets are off when there are blue lights and sirens around, not least of all because motorists will do the most bizarre and irrational things to get out of the way.

He was also a complete muppet for being totally unaware of what was going on around him.   What does he think the blue flashing lights and siren are for, if not to announce, 'This is not normal, stay out of the way'?

Said as a 26-40 miles-a-day London cycle commuter

In the US even if you are on the opposite side of the road you stop. The argument being that the ambulance could need to get to a drive way or something across you. I thought it was all a bit drastic at first but it makes sense.

Admire the sentiment.
(I haven't watched the video either btw, but I saw a couple of stills and get the gist.)

On the blue light thing, the highway code says:

"Emergency and Incident Support vehicles.
You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights and sirens or flashing headlights, or traffic officer and incident support vehicles using flashing amber lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you."

It isn't just a question of leaving you to deal with it though, drivers on blue lights are *very* much expected to deal with it too.  They're expected to run reds lights, turn against road signs and such with extreme caution.  (And they do, they have to, people often panic and do ridiculous things.)

Incidentally, I spent some time trawling through a couple of 'road traffic' type forums a while back while I was looking to contest a parking ticket.  Apparently if you cross a red light to let an ambulance by and get flashed, you have no grounds to object to the points and the fine.  The "while complying with all traffic signs" above gives you no wiggle room.

There was actually a thread in which someone (who seemed perfectly credible) said he'd done similar to let a police car through when they turned on the blue lights behind him and they promptly turned them off again and booked him for running the light.

Well, that's all part of it eh? Everybody thinks everybody else is the problem!

I think both driver and cyclist should take a degree of blame, the cyclist should have been more aware of his a surroundings, and the the fire engine moving out right inorder to swing left should have been a big give away.  

But an experienced driver in London should also be well aware of likely hood of cyclist undertaking vehicles, thus the driver should have anticipated the likelihood that the bike would continue along side the fire engine, as it was turning left when the road side didn't allow it, he should have brought the fire engine to a pause to check for bikes etc on his inside. 

So I think both driver and cyclist must take a degree of responsibility.

I'm not sure on the precise legal position since the fire engine appears to be making a banned turn; I know emergency services are allowed to do such things if necessary under blue lights but it does require extra care on their part when doing so.

However convention is that all road users should give way to blue-light emergency vehicles to make whatever manoeuvre they need to make, as one day it might be you that needs them.  So shooting up the inside of a fire engine is foolish in the extreme.  Furthermore I hope the cyclist's poor choice did not substantially delay the fire engine getting to whoever needed it.

What are you on about? Video clearly shows fire engine with left indicator flashing.

Was the cyclist wearing earphones?

In the very distant past I dealt with insurance claims for a multinational.  Back then I am pretty sure that regardless of what a vehicle being driven under blue light protocols was doing, it was still governed by the same rules as any other car if something went wrong, ie it can’t just fly through a red light with zero onus on it to ensure it isn’t safe to do so.  If a fire engine drives through a red light and kills a mother and baby crossing the road, they are open to the same prosecution as a normal car driver.

Things may have changed over the decades but I would be surprised if a vehicle making a manoeuvre outwith what would normally be expected is exempt from these rules.

just watched the video.  The cyclist had zero chance of seeing the indicator.  As far as he was aware fire engine was going straight ahead.  Tight turning wagon basically means it turns on a 6pence in relation to the road space for cyclist.  Cyclist should have been more aware as it had sirens and blues going but unfortunately fire engine has to ensure its safe to make that manoeuvre 

I don't think so, but given that he clearly knew the fire engine was there I'm not sure how that would have made any difference.

I wasn’t referring to an indicator, there was a road sign clearly showing No Left Turn, so it’s understandable that the cyclist wouldn’t expect someone to turn down there.

Why is there a need to blame and ridicule anyone for this unfortunate accident?

Fair enough - I'd misinterpreted your comment. 

Has the DM reported on cars breaking rhe rules? Wondering if they'd be interested in footage of a car taking an illegal left turn and going through a green pedestrian signal?

Liar! You are in fact a ghost and are typing this from beyond the grave as no rider is alive who rides that much in London.

Because sensible people learn to ride or drive defensively. If you hear a siren as you should then you move into ultra defensive mode. 

Because people are dicks, sometimes dicks with bikes, sometimes dicks with keyboards. 

I wonder if they reported this, for instance...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48146525

Why, yes they did: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6984137/Smiling-BMW-driver-smashes... - that article is dated the day before the BBC one, by the way.

It wasn't particularly hard to find.  There's this thing called Google...unfortunately the results it provides can sometimes turn out to undermine preconceived notions that some people might harbour.

Not just defensive, but accommodating.  Give an emergency vehicle the space to make any manoeuvre it wishes, which isn't always a conventionally legal one, particularly somewhere like London.  You might need it next - indeed he quite possibly did need a different type of blue light vehicle as a result...

One thing two wheels (human and petrol powered)  has taught me - expecting the expected is an easy way to pain.  Anticipating the unexpected and checking for it is the key to avoiding pain.

Yes, this, a hundred times.

There is absolutely no point in having "Here lies X, he knew he had legal right of way" on your gravestone, or worse (and to me it would be a *lot* worse) "Here lies X, he made a mistake, but Y knew he had legal right of way".

It's not that long ago that there was a video up of a bunch of cyclists going streight ahead in a left turn only lane and one of them almost ended up under a wagon that was quite legally going streight ahead in his own lane yet some people on here were saying that the cyclist was okay to do that. 

Maybe because the cyclist was a prick?. Its quite simple Realy, blue flashing lights = hang back and let them get on with it. A fire engine is a massive thing driven by very well trained drivers who need 360 degree eyes to be able to see all the muppets around them.  Who in their right mind would undertake one? The chances are had the fire engine been going forward and the guy managed to undertake it he would then have caused it to be delayed whilst the truck tried to safely overtake him again. 

Flashing blues means get out of the way and stay out of the way. The lights are flashing because they are potentially trying to save a life. 

That section is a "should" not a "must". As such it isn't legally binding. This is what the Highway Code says:

"Legal aspects. Certain rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements and are identified by the words 'must' or 'must not'. ... Although failure to comply with the other rules would not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, the Highway Code may be used in court under the Road Traffic Act to establish liability."

I mention this only because the OP was asking about the law in the UK. The cyclist in this instance was an idiot and lucky not to be injured or worse.

not a ghost - just sodding invisible - hence the five lights and two cameras!

I had a look at the film and have to say the motorcyclist come across as a being a bit prejudiced as the rider doesn't appear to have scrap of Lycra on him.