On 23 Oct, 10:03, Adrian wrote:
"J. Chisholm" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was
disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating.

To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters.

If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then
the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to-
rights guilty.

If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with a
junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are
irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre,
basically committing suicide.

Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon pulled
up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly to blame.
If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then the cyclist
is utterly to blame.

The best survival tactic for the cyclist is to get to the front, or
else they are bound to be on the inside of something when the queue
moves. Sometimes due to bad luck, the lights change just as you are
trying to get to the front.

If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that
situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. So indicating
does make a difference (whether that was the situation in Cambridge I
don't know).