This is the driver's fault, but I think we have reached the point where the law needs to be amended. The idea that a cyclist can just ride up the inside of a turning car and expect it to give way is stupid and inconsistent with how other road users work.

@defencewithac Driver complied with his/her obligations - checked mirrors and gave way to the cyclist. Cyclist broke rule 74 by riding down the inside of a vehicle indicating left.

@deloreancars 74 is if the cyclist is turning left.

@defencewithac @deloreancars Last sentence

@cammyk_67 @deloreancars Which applies if you're turning left, hence why the rule is called 'turning'. If however you're going onwards: Rule 76 Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road.

@defencewithac @cammyk_67 You're trying to split hairs in the face of common sense. 74 states "Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left" This is when neither the cyclist nor the vehicle is yet turning left, but the vehicle is clearly preparing to do so.

@deloreancars @cammyk_67 No, it is specific to the cyclist turning, which is why it's labelled with its own subheading 'turning' and why there is a section later specifically on going ahead, which is 76. They could not spell this out more for you.

@defencewithac @deloreancars @cammyk_67 Well, they COULD, by having ALL the things that apply only "If you intend to turn left" in bullets after a heading saying "If you intend to turn left:". The rule is ambiguous if read in isolation; not obvious "If you intend to turn left" implicitly applies to the next sentence.

@defencewithac @deloreancars @cammyk_67 (I realise we can be confident of the true meaning if we read rules 74 & 76 together and observe that 76 contradicts any interpretation of 74 as forbidding filtering straight past left-turning traffic. But we shouldn't need to work that hard to extract the meaning from the text!)