MIG 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

Bad luck, my arse. If you've not JUST seen them go red, assume they're
about to go green, and be on the defensive.

Same applies t'other way round - as long as you've not JUST seen 'em go
green, you should assume they're about to go red, and be prepared to stop.

the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front.

So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights change.

If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation,
but otherwise I'd try to get to the front.

Why the impatience?

So indicating does make a difference (whether that was the situation in
Cambridge I don't know).

What ever happened to "discretion is the better part of valour"? "He who
runs away lives to fight another day"?

Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that
you're meant to overtake stuff...?