alamcculloch:
Our cyclist was riding very fast for an urban envirnoment ,its possible that the tipper driver had no idea of his presence.I would have ridden further out in the road so as to be seen and block dangerous overtaking moves.
Trust me the tipper driver knew exactly what the cyclist was doing or the idiot wouldn’t be here to have posted the video.
Why would that be considered as a dangerous overtaking move,presumably based on the clearance left at the cyclists side ?,assuming that the cyclist’s undertaking move/s on traffic previously to that seems to be considered as not dangerous considering that the clearance between the cyclist and traffic being undertaken,including the truck,was the same in both cases.No doubt it’s just yet more bs double standards by cyclists like the contradiction in saying that they want to be seperated from motor traffic while at the same time saying that they want to stay on the roads which is actually what caused the problem in this case. 
No surprise you also seem to have conveniently/selectively overlooked that issue of the cyclist ignoring the cycleway directing the idiot off the road and onto the pavement which of course was then wide enough and actually formed the cycleway,which the ■■■■■■ on the bike should have been following,according to the signs for the shared cycleway/pedestrian way,from that point on past the bus stop in order to have avoided the non ‘issue’ with the truck anyway.Instead of which the cyclist decided that he was too important to use the cycleway provided and stayed on the road instead.Which seems to contradict the bs from the cyclist lobby that they want segregation from motor traffic.While your agenda seems the same in being instead of trying to fix the problems by getting the cyclists off the road you seem to be saying let’s have cyclists running around in the middle of the road making it virtually impossible for traffic to overtake them safely.
Which would obviously increase casualty rates,including head on crashes,between motor vehicles.That’s assuming that drivers,who’ve been caught out under that regime,would want to take that head on crash option rather that just moving back in on the cyclist being overtaken to avoid it under your ideas.
However going by your logic the same could be said about the tipper and car drivers in the video in that they should have moved over into the cycle lane to block a dangerous undertaking move by the cyclist.No doubt the double standards of the cycling lobby would go as far as to say that such a move would be a case of obstructing the cyclist regardless of the clearance space required which seems to vary depending on wether it suits the cyclist cause in the case of undertaking traffic with very little clearance,or not in the case of motor vehicles overtaking cyclists when the amount of clearance required mysteriously seems to change/increase for some reason. 
.
Ironically in this case one of the cycling supporters,who supposedly wants segregation for cyclists from road traffic and is moaning about cyclists being supposedly overtaken dangerously by trucks,has posted an example to support his case which actually destroys it and proves mine.In that cyclists are generally just a bunch of raving re claim the streets supporters who are acting in a suicidal way on the roads in order to further their bs cause.Which in reality is just one of victimising motor traffic drivers on the roads when the zb’s have been given the provision to get them off the roads in order to provide them with the segregation which they say they want but which they obviously in truth don’t.While also showing the double standards bs applied by cyclists in respect of the amount of clearance,which they say they want,when being overtaken by vehicles,but which they obviously choose to reduce by a massive margin,on a selective basis,when they want to undertake those same vehicles themsleves.
