Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • kraken776
    • By kraken776 8th Jun 16, 7:18 PM
    • 122Posts
    • 2Thanks
    kraken776
    cyclists turned right when i overtook
    • #1
    • 8th Jun 16, 7:18 PM
    cyclists turned right when i overtook 8th Jun 16 at 7:18 PM
    I recently had an accident with a cyclist

    I attempted to overtake him and as I was doing so he turned right and collided with my left headlight. This was a very sudden movement, he literally turned sharply to the right just as I was alongside his rear.

    - This happened in a residential area in a 30 limit with a wide clear road.
    - I did not exceed the speed limit to overtake.
    - The road was clear for a very long distance in front and nothing was coming the other way.
    - I moved all the way over into the opposite lane for the overtake.
    - The cyclist did not signal.
    - The cyclist did not do anything else to hint that he was about to turn (did not look behind, did not look to the right or where he intended to turn to, did not start to move further to the right ect)
    - There was no junction or turning on the left (or anywhere else nearby for that matter).
    - There was no cycle lane on ether side of the road at or before the point of the accident but there is a cycle lane on the pavement on the other side of the road which starts about 40 meters from where i started my overtake. There is a fence on the pavement at the start of the cycle lane so it was not visible from my position.

    My insurance company tell me that his story is that he was turning right into the cycle lane and that I should have predicted that he would do this. I think this is absurd and unfair.
    However i am worried about it because i have heard stories or people being held responsible in this sort of situation if there is a junction on the right.

    Can anyone advise me if I am likely to be held at fault for this.

    Also,
    The cyclist had a helmet cam, This will not show anything that i did because he did not look back. Could it be used to prove what happened and can be be forced to submit the footage?
Page 29
    • kraken776
    • By kraken776 13th Oct 16, 5:59 PM
    • 122 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    kraken776
    Also the obsession with ad hominem attacks. One of my old philosophy lecturers reckoned ad hominem was a perfectly legitimate argument against an idiot who couldn't reason.
    Originally posted by Manxman in exile
    I agree,
    There are however problems with this

    1)
    Idiots dont like being called idiots.

    As soon as you tell them they are an idiot on a forum an indefinite barrage of insults, disrespectful comments, attention seeking comments and logical fallacies starts. (they react the same way if you do it in person as well but at least in such situations they cant keep it up indefinitely).
    To give an example this thread started getting spammed by trolls as soon as I referred to a "handful of idiots". These same individuals are still continuing the types of behavior mentioned even today (many months later).

    At least one of these people had not even posted before I made the comment in question and since then has repeated many many of the listed behaviors over and over, and despite the fact that I have explained his/her mistakes to him/her many times keeps doing the same things over and over.

    2)
    Sometimes other people hold it against you if you disrespect other people, even if it is justified.

    I dont think this one needs any explanation. although on a forum it can result in a mod deleting your posts.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 13th Oct 16, 6:23 PM
    • 31,502 Posts
    • 26,167 Thanks
    custardy
    The gift that keeps on giving.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 13th Oct 16, 6:31 PM
    • 597 Posts
    • 363 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    I agree,
    There are however problems with this

    1)
    Idiots dont like being called idiots.

    As soon as you tell them they are an idiot on a forum an indefinite barrage of insults, disrespectful comments, attention seeking comments and logical fallacies starts. (they react the same way if you do it in person as well but at least in such situations they cant keep it up indefinitely).
    To give an example this thread started getting spammed by trolls as soon as I referred to a "handful of idiots". These same individuals are still continuing the types of behavior mentioned even today (many months later).

    At least one of these people had not even posted before I made the comment in question and since then has repeated many many of the listed behaviors over and over, and despite the fact that I have explained his/her mistakes to him/her many times keeps doing the same things over and over.

    2)
    Sometimes other people hold it against you if you disrespect other people, even if it is justified.

    I dont think this one needs any explanation. although on a forum it can result in a mod deleting your posts.
    Originally posted by kraken776
    It's not ever justifiable to be disrespectful in any circumstances. It can be understandable in certain situations but never justifiable.
    • Aylesbury Duck
    • By Aylesbury Duck 13th Oct 16, 10:07 PM
    • 227 Posts
    • 185 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    Oh kraken, you are hilarious. Everyone's a fool but you, of course!

    What did your insurers say?
    • NBLondon
    • By NBLondon 14th Oct 16, 9:12 AM
    • 1,090 Posts
    • 6,582 Thanks
    NBLondon
    Hmmm.

    Kraken's thanks to post ratio (at time of this post) a little under 2%

    Mercdriver's a little under 60%
    Aylesbury's a little over 85%
    Joe Horner's around 81%
    Silver-Surfer nearly 60%
    Retrogamer just over 100%


    I know which of these I think is an idiot...
    One day I'll think of something witty - Apparently I have!
    • Head The Ball
    • By Head The Ball 14th Oct 16, 12:26 PM
    • 1,794 Posts
    • 3,821 Thanks
    Head The Ball
    Hmmm.

    Kraken's thanks to post ratio (at time of this post) a little under 2%

    Mercdriver's a little under 60%
    Aylesbury's a little over 85%
    Joe Horner's around 81%
    Silver-Surfer nearly 60%
    Retrogamer just over 100%


    I know which of these I think is an idiot...
    Originally posted by NBLondon
    <<< Can I join in please.
    When I was growing up plastic surgery was a bit of a taboo subject. These days if you mention botox no one raises an eyebrow.
    • Aylesbury Duck
    • By Aylesbury Duck 14th Oct 16, 12:30 PM
    • 227 Posts
    • 185 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    <<< Can I join in please.
    Originally posted by Head The Ball
    I've just helped your ratio....not that it needed it!
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 14th Oct 16, 5:33 PM
    • 3,660 Posts
    • 3,031 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    Hmmm.

    Kraken's thanks to post ratio (at time of this post) a little under 2%

    Mercdriver's a little under 60%
    Aylesbury's a little over 85%
    Joe Horner's around 81%
    Silver-Surfer nearly 60%
    Retrogamer just over 100%


    I know which of these I think is an idiot...
    Originally posted by NBLondon


    [KRAKEN]
    Well, obviously the idiots are the ones who aren't thanking me for all the useful posts I'm giving them. Like, DUHHHH!
    [/KRAKEN]


    Think I'm getting to understand his logic a little too well after months of reading this thread
    • kraken776
    • By kraken776 23rd Oct 16, 3:04 AM
    • 122 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    kraken776
    Hmmm.

    Kraken's thanks to post ratio (at time of this post) a little under 2%

    Mercdriver's a little under 60%
    Aylesbury's a little over 85%
    Joe Horner's around 81%
    Silver-Surfer nearly 60%
    Retrogamer just over 100%


    I know which of these I think is an idiot...
    Originally posted by NBLondon
    Here is some advice.

    If you are going to cite evidence and use it against someone you need to do 2 things
    1 - make sure it is relevant
    2 - make sure it is not easy for the other person to evaluate and explain and giving an obvious explanation.

    If you dont do both of these things the person you are trying to use it against will turn the tables on you and use your comment to make you look stupid by pointing out that it is not relevant.

    I will now do just that

    1)
    The "thanks" stats have absolutely no connection with the previous thing which i said, if you believe they do then you need to explain why. without this explanation they are just irrelevant information which do not help you at all.

    2)
    A single Post can have an unlimited number of "thanks" but on this forum there is no such thing as a negative "thanks"
    This means a small handful of idiots can boost their own "thanks" by each giving each others posts a "thanks" and any amount of negative opinion against them will never be shown.
    Since each post counts as +1 to the posters ratio but can attract an unlimited number of "thanks" a single post only needs 1 thanks to create a 100% thanks ratio but could generate the "thanks" needed to maintain a 100% thanksosts ratio for 10 or more of the posters posts.

    In fact I would like you to appolgise for thinking that I would not point this out.
    • Aylesbury Duck
    • By Aylesbury Duck 23rd Oct 16, 10:13 AM
    • 227 Posts
    • 185 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    Here is some advice.

    If you are going to cite evidence and use it against someone you need to do 2 things
    1 - make sure it is relevant
    2 - make sure it is not easy for the other person to evaluate and explain and giving an obvious explanation.

    If you dont do both of these things the person you are trying to use it against will turn the tables on you and use your comment to make you look stupid by pointing out that it is not relevant.

    I will now do just that

    1)
    The "thanks" stats have absolutely no connection with the previous thing which i said, if you believe they do then you need to explain why. without this explanation they are just irrelevant information which do not help you at all.

    2)
    A single Post can have an unlimited number of "thanks" but on this forum there is no such thing as a negative "thanks"
    This means a small handful of idiots can boost their own "thanks" by each giving each others posts a "thanks" and any amount of negative opinion against them will never be shown.
    Since each post counts as +1 to the posters ratio but can attract an unlimited number of "thanks" a single post only needs 1 thanks to create a 100% thanks ratio but could generate the "thanks" needed to maintain a 100% thanksosts ratio for 10 or more of the posters posts.

    In fact I would like you to appolgise for thinking that I would not point this out.
    Originally posted by kraken776
    You're wrong. Negative opinion can be shown. You've had 29 pages of it. It just hasn't registered with you.

    Following your display of mathematical brilliance, I will add that if you post nothing at all, I will thank you for it and you will therefore have an infinitely high thanks-to-post ratio.
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 23rd Oct 16, 12:56 PM
    • 3,660 Posts
    • 3,031 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    Following your display of mathematical brilliance, I will add that if you post nothing at all, I will thank you for it and you will therefore have an infinitely high thanks-to-post ratio.
    Originally posted by Aylesbury Duck

    Thanks for that useful suggestion, Aylesbury D
    • Aylesbury Duck
    • By Aylesbury Duck 25th Oct 16, 11:37 AM
    • 227 Posts
    • 185 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    Kraken, you're not masquerading as "emmasaunders" on the "Cyclist collision at mini roundabout" thread, are you? The similarities in posting style are striking!

    "I've had an accident with a cyclist, do you think I'm at fault?"
    "Yes"
    "You're all idiots!" etc, etc.

    For pages and pages.
    • NBLondon
    • By NBLondon 25th Oct 16, 12:24 PM
    • 1,090 Posts
    • 6,582 Thanks
    NBLondon
    In fact I would like you to appolgise for thinking that I would not point this out.
    Originally posted by kraken776
    I was quite aware that the statistics quoted are not a reliable indicator of posting quality... There's an even simpler explanation that on other areas of these forums, thanks are used not necessarily to indicate agreement but merely that a particular post has been read and this therefore can lead to ratios well above 500%. You would have to analyse the pattern of thanks in a given thread to have an indication of whether it was a reliable indicator and then include the possibility of cliquing.


    My final post in that statement is a deliberate non-sequituur introduced for comic effect and the responses indicate that it was successful, at least in part.


    I have no need to appolgise [sic] except to those who wish this thread would end but I would like to thank you for taking the bait and entertaining many of us once again.


    Perhaps you'd like to help emmasaunders (once and again) out too?
    One day I'll think of something witty - Apparently I have!
    • BeenThroughItAll
    • By BeenThroughItAll 25th Oct 16, 1:07 PM
    • 3,463 Posts
    • 2,773 Thanks
    BeenThroughItAll
    the trouble with this thread is people are looking to blame others - what happened to kraken could have happened to anyone - this forum is full of who is at fault, yes the insurance company may find him to be at fault, who cares, i gaurantee the police didn't pursue a prosecution though, if he was so wreckless why not?
    Originally posted by emmasaundersagain
    When worlds collide. Or threads... one of those at any rate.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 25th Oct 16, 4:47 PM
    • 31,502 Posts
    • 26,167 Thanks
    custardy
    the trouble with this thread is people are looking to blame others - what happened to kraken could have happened to anyone - this forum is full of who is at fault, yes the insurance company may find him to be at fault, who cares, i gaurantee the police didn't pursue a prosecution though, if he was so wreckless why not?
    Originally posted by emmasaundersagain
    Nothing happened. It was a hypothetical incident......
    • almillar
    • By almillar 26th Oct 16, 1:03 PM
    • 6,503 Posts
    • 2,560 Thanks
    almillar
    yes the insurance company may find him to be at fault, who cares
    kraken does. That was his question. Until he revealed that it was hypothetical. Everyone in the forum is banging on about blame because posters ask 'did I do wrong?', 'what else could I have done?', 'what will the police/insurance do?', then SOME posters don't like the advice they're given...
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 26th Oct 16, 5:07 PM
    • 3,660 Posts
    • 3,031 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    the trouble with this thread is people are looking to blame others - what happened to kraken could have happened to anyone
    Originally posted by emmasaundersagain
    Nope, can safely say that there's absolutely no way in the world it could have happened to me.

    Because, having read his description of the alleged incident and having "walked" the Google street view for the location he gave there is absolutely no way I would have been reckless enough to try an overtake there.
    • kraken776
    • By kraken776 30th Oct 16, 2:11 AM
    • 122 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    kraken776
    Nope, can safely say that there's absolutely no way in the world it could have happened to me.

    Because, having read his description of the alleged incident and having "walked" the Google street view for the location he gave there is absolutely no way I would have been reckless enough to try an overtake there.
    Originally posted by Joe Horner
    UM
    that road is more than a 1/2 mile long straight with very clear visibility ahead and no reason not to overtake most of the time.
    Overtaking on this road is not in any way reckless

    furthermore describing overtaking here as "reckless" does not magically make it so.

    By attempting to defend your irrational point of view by describing the action in question with a negative word, without actually explaining what is wrong with the action in question discredits you not me because it highlights the fact that your view cannot be supported by rational arguments and will not stand up to any scrutiny

    well done.
    Last edited by kraken776; 30-10-2016 at 2:14 AM.
    • Richard53
    • By Richard53 30th Oct 16, 5:56 AM
    • 2,218 Posts
    • 1,916 Thanks
    Richard53
    By attempting to defend your irrational point of view by describing the action in question with a negative word, without actually explaining what is wrong with the action in question
    Originally posted by kraken776
    "Reckless, adj. Utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless"


    That explains what is wrong.


    Sorry, what would have been wrong, had the incident ever happened.
    If all misfortunes were laid in one common heap whence everyone must take an equal portion, most people would be contented to take their own and depart. (Attrib. to Socrates)
    • Aylesbury Duck
    • By Aylesbury Duck 30th Oct 16, 8:36 AM
    • 227 Posts
    • 185 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    that road is more than a 1/2 mile long straight with very clear visibility ahead and no reason not to overtake most of the time.
    Overtaking on this road is not in any way reckless
    Originally posted by kraken776
    You yourself provided plenty of reasons not to overtake when you (eventually) provided the streetview. We can all see them.
    You were reckless. Why else did you have an accident that was your fault?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

145Posts Today

3,350Users online

Martin's Twitter