Boris.

[Hope]

I think the latest few posts here show the problem.  There seem to be two or more situations being conflated - that of a cyclist trying to 'squeeze through', and that of a cyclist who is overtaken by a car that promptly turns left.  In the first case, it seems likely that the cyclist is approaching from behind a car that is already (hopefully) indicating to turn left.  In such a case, the cyclist is at fault if there is an accident - though with the way that drivers often don't bother indicating their intentions, that could differ.  However, a cyclist is at least less to blame if a car overtakes them and immediately turns left.  I have seen cases where the car hasn't even fully passed the cyclist before they turn, thus not allowing the cyclist to even know of their intention of turning left!!

On the other hand, I have also seen cyclists travelling up the inside of a left-hand turn only lane, and getting angry when they are cut off from going straight ahead by cars turning left!!

Each road user is responsible for both their own and other users' safety and well-being.

I believe that with the careless attitude of some cyclists, the government will soon be forced to introduce an annual registration for all cyclists who use the road (with some form of reg. plates), so that miscreants can be recognised and punished appropriately.

[L.A.]

The Highway code warns drivers not to overtake a bike before they are turning left - which is more often than not the  the reason why the bike will be on your inside in the first place. Secondly it warns that left turning drivers must be aware that there may be traffic moving up on the their inside and of course finally you are never allowed to make a manoeuvre if you don't have right of way (which you don't if the bike is going straight on), nor if it is unsafe (which it won't be if there is a bike on your inside).

In my experience, the problem is the other way round. Cars  are moving slowly in traffic when the suicyclist comes bombing through on the inside.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Highway code warns drivers not to overtake a bike before they are turning left - which is more often than not the  the reason why the bike will be on your inside in the first place. Secondly it warns that left turning drivers must be aware that there may be traffic moving up on the their inside and of course finally you are never allowed to make a manoeuvre if you don't have right of way (which you don't if the bike is going straight on), nor if it is unsafe (which it won't be if there is a bike on your inside).

In my experience, the problem is the other way round. Cars  are moving slowly in traffic when the suicyclist comes bombing through on the inside.

But almost always that car had previously overtaken the bike in the run up to the junction where they plan to turn left. If you are following the Highway Code as a car intending to turn left you should not overtake that bike in the run up to the junction. You should hang behind so you can turn left behind the bike.

It is amazing how often you get overtaken by a car who becomes suddenly oblivious to the fact that you are on their inside. Where on earth do the drivers think you have gone. Suddenly vanished. Then they turn left completely cutting you up and seem completely bemused despite the fact that they'd just overtaken you seconds before.

And you also need to remember that increasingly junctions now have 'ahead' boxes for bikes only which often have a short (or even long) bike lane on the left leading up to it. That cyclist 'bombing through on the inside' may well be riding in a designated bike lane and acting completely legitimately.

But none that changes the fact that you may only make a manoeuvre is you have the right of way and if it is safe to do so. And signalling makes no difference - it only indicates your intentions, it does not give you the right to make a manoeuvre unless those two criteria are met. If you are turning left and there is a bike on your inside going straight on you fail on both counts - you don't have right of way (they do) and you cannot make that manoeuvre safely. Therefore you should not be turning until that bike is safely out of the way.

[ProfessorDavey]

In my experience ...

And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.

Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.

[Rhiannon]

Every day pretty much I head down the narrow lanes into town and back out again. On weekdays I often encounter cycling commuters - apart from the fact some are very slow there's generally no problem.

At the weekend though we get the club riders - even more so since the TdeF came through here last year. They often organise unofficial races and time trials meaning on a ten mile trip I can encounter dozens of riders - if they are racing they can be three or four abreast and in groups of seven or eight. If they are more strung out there is often too small a gap in between in order to overtake safely and pull back in. Some are aware of how difficult the lanes are and pull into driveways or turning places to let traffic by but most don't; I've seen some cycle close to the broken white line in the middle and one guy doing this made obscene hand gestures at every car coming the other way.

I've only one ever had near miss with a cyclist so far - a teenager turned left into a one way street when I did and then cut sharp right across the road in front of me to mount the pavement and cut out a busy junction.

[L.A.]

In my experience ...

And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.

Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.

I'm too fond of life to ever attempt to ride a cycle in a city centre - if anyone makes a mistake it will always be the cyclist who gets mashed.

[ProfessorDavey]

In my experience ...

And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.

Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.

I would have thought common sense would have allowed people to work out a lot of it.

I wouldn't have thought you would need to be a car driver or a cyclist to see certain manoeuvres could lead to harm, which is always going to be worse for the cyclist.

After all I don't have to know about riding a horse to understand roaring past a horse in a noisy car might be problematic.

I disagree - the issues and dangers that are absolutely obvious to a cyclist are often unlikely to be recognised by a driver if they don't also cycle. That's the big difficulty. It is a case of 'walk a day in my shoes'.

I'd also bet there are issues that horse riders face and are really problematic for them that wouldn't be at all obvious if you'd never negotiated a road on horseback.

[ProfessorDavey]

In my experience ...

And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.

Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.

I'm too fond of life to ever attempt to ride a cycle in a city centre - if anyone makes a mistake it will always be the cyclist who gets mashed.

Hmm - thought so. So a non cyclist who can't see beyond the cyclist being at fault.

Spend a week in the saddle in busy traffic and you'll change your tune.

[ProfessorDavey]

Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.

I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.

I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)

You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.

It doesn't matter how small a space they've gone through. If they are going straight on and you are turning left, they have right of way. And it makes no difference if you are signalling or not.

The highway code warns against overtaking left-turning vehicles on the inside - and common sense ought to tell anyone that it is dangerous. The cyclist may well be in the drivers blind-spot, so the most vigilant driver in the world would be unable to see them.

If you are seriously defending such behaviour you are completely irresponsible.

The Highway code warns drivers not to overtake a bike before they are turning left - which is more often than not the  the reason why the bike will be on your inside in the first place. Secondly it warns that left turning drivers must be aware that there may be traffic moving up on the their inside and of course finally you are never allowed to make a manoeuvre if you don't have right of way (which you don't if the bike is going straight on), nor if it is unsafe (which it won't be if there is a bike on your inside).

'Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.'

You suggest you learn your responsibilities as a driver rather than engaging in classic 'victim blaming' - it is their fault they are in hospital because I turned left without realising they were on my inside and mangled them. Nope, it is your fault - you've got the one ton metal box - learn to drive it responsibly and in accordance with the Highway Code and laws of the road.

I had an incident with a cyclist a few years ago, it still puzzles me to this day.

Two lanes one a bus lane with cyclist, me in the other lane both down hill.

I needed to turn in left, saw cyclist, indicated and stopped car  waiting for cyclist to pass LH turn.

Thought I was being polite.

Said cyclist stopped bike and started  swearing furiously at me.

I have never figured out what the cyclists issue was, as I had stopped so I didn't turn across the bus lane in front of them.

I'm always very careful with bikes and try and give them plenty of room.

Sounds as if you did exactly the right thing - no idea why he had a go at you. Seems very odd.

[BashfulAnthony]

In my experience ...

And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.

Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.

I'm too fond of life to ever attempt to ride a cycle in a city centre - if anyone makes a mistake it will always be the cyclist who gets mashed.

Hmm - thought so. So a non cyclist who can't see beyond the cyclist being at fault.

Spend a week in the saddle in busy traffic and you'll change your tune.

What's all this got to do with "Boris"?

[Rhiannon]

In my experience ...

And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.

Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.

I would have thought common sense would have allowed people to work out a lot of it.

I wouldn't have thought you would need to be a car driver or a cyclist to see certain manoeuvres could lead to harm, which is always going to be worse for the cyclist.

After all I don't have to know about riding a horse to understand roaring past a horse in a noisy car might be problematic.

I disagree - the issues and dangers that are absolutely obvious to a cyclist are often unlikely to be recognised by a driver if they don't also cycle. That's the big difficulty. It is a case of 'walk a day in my shoes'.

I'd also bet there are issues that horse riders face and are really problematic for them that wouldn't be at all obvious if you'd never negotiated a road on horseback.

Yes, horses are loons - I've seen a horse nearly buck its rider off because I was walking past with a baby buggy and my daughter's pony freaked once when I was wearing sunglasses. Anything that is vaguely unusual might set a horse off - a car backfiring, loud music from a stereo, a piece of tarpaulin waving in a breeze, a bloke wearing a cycling helmet...you have to give them as wide a berth as possible and crawl past.

Three times in the past week I or another driver that I've witnessed have had to take evasive action because of car drivers overtaking other cars at speed where it wasn't safe to do so. Some cyclists I've seen are irresponsible and rude but they are still likely to come off worse in any accidents they cause. Not so car drivers.

[BashfulAnthony]

Boris is a cyclist 😜

Yes, Rose, but the thread is not about Boris cycling, but about Boris swearing.

[ProfessorDavey]

For Lapsed Atheist.

Some more evidence that if he is turning left and there is a cyclist on his inside he must give the cyclist priority.

http://www.drivingtesttips.biz/turning-left.html

Note the following section:

'As the driver, you should always give way to cyclists and pedestrians crossing the road, even if it means stopping in an inappropriate area.'

And interestingly although there is a single example in the Highway Code that might indicate that it is not advisable for cyclists to pass on the inside of a car signalling left, there are many examples where drivers are reminded that cyclists may be on their inside, including in busy roads and at junctions etc. Plus also the expectation that a left turning car should overtake the cyclist in the first place, and therefore create the situation where they might end up passing on the left.

For example:

151.In slow-moving traffic. You should ... be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

167 stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left

182 Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

183
When turning keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.

[ProfessorDavey]

In my experience ...

And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.

Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.

I would have thought common sense would have allowed people to work out a lot of it.

I wouldn't have thought you would need to be a car driver or a cyclist to see certain manoeuvres could lead to harm, which is always going to be worse for the cyclist.

After all I don't have to know about riding a horse to understand roaring past a horse in a noisy car might be problematic.

I disagree - the issues and dangers that are absolutely obvious to a cyclist are often unlikely to be recognised by a driver if they don't also cycle. That's the big difficulty. It is a case of 'walk a day in my shoes'.

I'd also bet there are issues that horse riders face and are really problematic for them that wouldn't be at all obvious if you'd never negotiated a road on horseback.

Yes, horses are loons - I've seen a horse nearly buck its rider off because I was walking past with a baby buggy and my daughter's pony freaked once when I was wearing sunglasses. Anything that is vaguely unusual might set a horse off - a car backfiring, loud music from a stereo, a piece of tarpaulin waving in a breeze, a bloke wearing a cycling helmet...you have to give them as wide a berth as possible and crawl past.

Three times in the past week I or another driver that I've witnessed have had to take evasive action because of car drivers overtaking other cars at speed where it wasn't safe to do so. Some cyclists I've seen are irresponsible and rude but they are still likely to come off worse in any accidents they cause. Not so car drivers.

I can certainly imagine that riding a horse on a road is very challenging, but because I've never ridden a horse on a road the exact challenges are a bit of a mystery to me.

Same for non cyclists. I doubt many non cycling drivers would come close to understanding the challenged faced by cyclists from pedestrians in busy places stepping out into the road in front of them. It kind of makes no sense, because drivers don't face anything like the same challenge. Somehow there are a group of pedestrian who step off the curb and then (sometimes) look. And of course that puts them just where a cyclist is.

Happened four times to me, requiring minor evasive action, on my journey in this morning. Fairly par for the course.

Also I don't think drivers understand the problems of pot holes to cyclists. If you hit a sizeable one you are likely to end up sprawled over the road (or worse under a bus). So cyclists have to avoid them and that sometimes means swinging a little further out into the road (with associated risk). A driver who is also a cyclist understands this, and tends to give the cyclist a wide berth, a non cycling driver is unlikely to.

Another one - any regular cyclist knows you never cycle nearer than a doors width when passing parked cars (because getting an door opened into you is kind of painful). Yet if you do this you regularly get drivers shouting abuse at you to 'get over' so they can sped past you a hair's breadth away.

You need to be a cyclist to understand the challenges that cyclists face.

[floo]

Last week I was shocked to see what I a man cycling along a  narrow road near our home with a small boy, no more than three at most, cycling behind him. They were in the middle of the road, the boy was obviously just learning to ride his bike and very unsteady. Cars approached from both directions the man mounted the pavement, the little boy stopped in the middle of the road nearly falling off his bike. The bloke didn't seem a bit phased by the near accident, WHAT AN IDIOT!

[ProfessorDavey]

Last week I was shocked to see what I a man cycling along a  narrow road near our home with a small boy, no more than three at most, cycling behind him. They were in the middle of the road, the boy was obviously just learning to ride his bike and very unsteady. Cars approached from both directions the man mounted the pavement, the little boy stopped in the middle of the road nearly falling off his bike. The bloke didn't seem a bit phased by the near accident, WHAT AN IDIOT!

Doesn't seem very sensible at all.

But there is a bit of an issue that the only safe place you the younger kids to cycle is on the pavement but increasingly there are 'anti-cyclist' pedestrians who know the law - i.e. that cyclists can't ride on pavements. So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think it is a really good idea to get kids cycling early and safely (albeit nominally illegally) on pavements. With a recognition of respect for others using the pavement. Once they are confident enough, then you can begin to get them riding in a highly supervised manner on the road and progress from there. So currently my 8-year old does quite a lot of cycling, on the way to various clubs and sometimes to school. She's too young (in my opinion) to be on the road, so the pavement it has to be.

[ProfessorDavey]

I guess I am lucky.

Where I live there is over 200miles of cycle way so not coming into contact with traffic is relatively easy.

We've got a good cycle path near us (on an old railway), but you still need to get to it which for my daughter for the time being means on pavements.

[BashfulAnthony]

Last week I was shocked to see what I a man cycling along a  narrow road near our home with a small boy, no more than three at most, cycling behind him. They were in the middle of the road, the boy was obviously just learning to ride his bike and very unsteady. Cars approached from both directions the man mounted the pavement, the little boy stopped in the middle of the road nearly falling off his bike. The bloke didn't seem a bit phased by the near accident, WHAT AN IDIOT!

Doesn't seem very sensible at all.

But there is a bit of an issue that the only safe place you the younger kids to cycle is on the pavement but increasingly there are 'anti-cyclist' pedestrians who know the law - i.e. that cyclists can't ride on pavements. So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think it is a really good idea to get kids cycling early and safely (albeit nominally illegally) on pavements. With a recognition of respect for others using the pavement. Once they are confident enough, then you can begin to get them riding in a highly supervised manner on the road and progress from there. So currently my 8-year old does quite a lot of cycling, on the way to various clubs and sometimes to school. She's too young (in my opinion) to be on the road, so the pavement it has to be.

Children under 10 cannot be held criminally responsible,  though their parents can may be held responsible for their behaviour.   I doubt many would object to a very young child riding on the pavement.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Last week I was shocked to see what I a man cycling along a  narrow road near our home with a small boy, no more than three at most, cycling behind him. They were in the middle of the road, the boy was obviously just learning to ride his bike and very unsteady. Cars approached from both directions the man mounted the pavement, the little boy stopped in the middle of the road nearly falling off his bike. The bloke didn't seem a bit phased by the near accident, WHAT AN IDIOT!

Doesn't seem very sensible at all.

But there is a bit of an issue that the only safe place you the younger kids to cycle is on the pavement but increasingly there are 'anti-cyclist' pedestrians who know the law - i.e. that cyclists can't ride on pavements. So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think it is a really good idea to get kids cycling early and safely (albeit nominally illegally) on pavements. With a recognition of respect for others using the pavement. Once they are confident enough, then you can begin to get them riding in a highly supervised manner on the road and progress from there. So currently my 8-year old does quite a lot of cycling, on the way to various clubs and sometimes to school. She's too young (in my opinion) to be on the road, so the pavement it has to be.

Children under 10 cannot be held criminally responsible,  though their parents can may be held responsible for their behaviour.   I doubt many would object to a very young child riding on the pavement.

I've had a few comments - not often but it does happen.

[L.A.]

151.In slow-moving traffic. You should ... be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

167 stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left

182 Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

183
When turning keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.

All of which is fine: if there is a cyclist in front of you, you don't cut them up. The problems arise when a cyclist comes from behind and tries to overtake you on the inside  - not in a cycle lane, but in the few inches between you and the kerb. Is that lawful or sensible?

In many ways the law doesn't matter. When the law of the land comes head to head with the laws of physics - the laws of physics win. When a heavy hard object hits a light squelchy object, light squelchy will always come out second best, and for the cyclist, being in the right would be of little consolation.

[ProfessorDavey]

151.In slow-moving traffic. You should ... be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

167 stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left

182 Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

183
When turning keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.

All of which is fine: if there is a cyclist in front of you, you don't cut them up. The problems arise when a cyclist comes from behind and tries to overtake you on the inside  - not in a cycle lane, but in the few inches between you and the kerb. Is that lawful or sensible?

In many ways the law doesn't matter. When the law of the land comes head to head with the laws of physics - the laws of physics win. When a heavy hard object hits a light squelchy object, light squelchy will always come out second best, and for the cyclist, being in the right would be of little consolation.

But fundamentally this comes down to the fundamental rules that govern road use. Namely that when turning you must give priority to other road users that have priority over you. In this case if you are next to a bike and they are on your inside, they are going straight on and you are turning left, they have priority. Simple as that. And it is your responsibility as a road user to be aware of what is going on around you and act accordingly. That's what the Highway Code says, hence all the stuff about being aware of cyclist who may be passing on either side.

Can a cyclist legitimately pass on your inside - sure they can in just the same manner as you can pass on the inside of another car that might be in slower moving or stationary traffic. And if they are going straight on they have priority over you if you are turning left.

And you keep talking about this mythical bike that appears behind you. In normal traffic cars move faster than bikes so it is very rare that a bike will come up behind you when you are perhaps in traffic at a junction that wasn't there earlier on when you were travelling faster. In most cases that bike coming up behind you on the inside will be the bike that you overtook a few seconds before. Where on earth do you think it will have gone - miraculously disappeared. The bottom line is to recognise your responsibilities, to understand that you don't 'own the road' and that sometimes bike will have priority over you, and to take special care because your error may put them in hospital or worse while the worst you are likely to suffer is the need to get your front wing repaired.

Stop victim blaming and take some responsibility for your own actions.

[Udayana]

I guess I am lucky.

Where I live there is over 200miles of cycle way so not coming into contact with traffic is relatively easy.

We've got a good cycle path near us (on an old railway), but you still need to get to it which for my daughter for the time being means on pavements.

The law on riding on pavements is ridiculous, so is widely ignored and not enforced. Children should be explicitly allowed, up to a certain age/wheel size. Adults should be prosecuted - unfortunately many now ride on pavements or footpaths; for some reason they, incorrectly, think it is safer.

Many of the cycle paths, lanes or even shared use, bike + pedestrians, paths are very badly designed and can be less safe than cycling properly on the roads - often due to the motorist turning left issues as discussed above. I suspect that many of the designers just don't cycle.

If an adult is riding with a child on the road, usually the child should be in front so the adult can see them at all times and shout instructions as needed.

In all cases care and consideration should prevail - swearing and other offensive behaviour is not useful or helpful.

[L.A.]

And you keep talking about this mythical bike that appears behind you. In normal traffic cars move faster than bikes so it is very rare that a bike will come up behind you when you are perhaps in traffic at a junction that wasn't there earlier on when you were travelling faster. In most cases that bike coming up behind you on the inside will be the bike that you overtook a few seconds before. Where on earth do you think it will have gone - miraculously disappeared. The bottom line is to recognise your responsibilities, to understand that you don't 'own the road' and that sometimes bike will have priority over you, and to take special care because your error may put them in hospital or worse while the worst you are likely to suffer is the need to get your front wing repaired.

There is nothing mythical about these cyclists. Typically traffic speed varies, stopping and starting in response to lights ahead, so cyclist are able to move faster than cars at times. Like the majority of drivers, I do my utmost to check what all vehicles around me are doing but the reality is that cycles can easily move into a blind-spot and be missed; especially when they come up on the inside. Even if you've passed them a few hundred yards earlier it's no indication of where they might have gone since.

As you point out, cyclists are very vulnerable so it's difficult to understand why they sometimes behave so recklessly.

[Udayana]

In this, circumstance, which I encounter quite often, I either:
a) wait behind the vehicle or slow down behind it
b) overtake on the inside (undertake) and wait in front of it - sometimes having to cross the stop line so I can be clearly seen
or
c) stop by it but make sure that the driver has seen me - I expect the driver to give way, especially as I can usually start off faster than them
d) where possible of-course I pull out and overtake on their outside - eg in a queue or if they are ahead of me but still waiting to turn left

The most dangerous for me is when a car overtakes me then turns left in front of me without giving me any room even to slow down. I should not have to slow down or stop: just because it was going faster than me when it overtook does not mean that I cannot have caught up with it - and be parallel on their inside by the time they have slowed down for their turn.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is nothing mythical about these cyclists. Typically traffic speed varies, stopping and starting in response to lights ahead, so cyclist are able to move faster than cars at times.

Which is exactly my point - in busy traffic there will be times when the car is moving faster and will likely overtake the bike, and then other times when the car is slowed and the bike overtakes. So you will most likely have already overtaken the bike during the time when you are traveling faster. It isn't rocket science to realise that when you are slowing down the bike is likely to be quite legitimately moving through the slowed traffic, and quite possibly on your inside. Why then is it so difficult for you to take extra care to ensure you are confident that bike isn't on your inside (you know it is round and about somewhere because you've recently overtaken it).

Like the majority of drivers, I do my utmost to check what all vehicles around me are doing but the reality is that cycles can easily move into a blind-spot and be missed; especially when they come up on the inside. Even if you've passed them a few hundred yards earlier it's no indication of where they might have gone since.

Sure they might have turned off or be overtaken on the out-side. But they may just as likely be on your inside and it isn't rocket science to expect that's where they may well be. The responsibility is on you in your one ton car to check very carefully before making a manoeuvre that could end that person's life.

And what ever happened to mirror, signal, manoeuvre. If you were regularly checking in your rear view and wing mirrors surely you'd be aware of where that bike that you'd just overtaken was. And that it might have ended up in your blind spot. The whole point about mirrors is you check them regularly so there should be no way that you suddenly discover something in your blind stop. With bikes and cars moving at different speeds there really is no excuse - if a bike is in your blind stop now, but is travelling faster than you because traffic has slowed then a few seconds earlier it wouldn't have been in your blind spot.