cyclists turned right when i overtook

kraken776

fred246 wrote: »

I have never really understood this thread. An average UK A road is 11 metres wide. If the cyclist was on the left approx 1m from the kerb and the car was overtaking in the right hand lane that leaves a gap of 4.5m. Did the cyclist suddenly turn to the right and cycle 4.5m across the road before being hit by the car?

This is the second time I have seen this comment has come up.
I ignored it before because It is based entirely on pure speculation and and making up facts which i did not state but it now seams that i must correct this.

First of all the road in question is 6m wide.

Second of all I never said that the cyclist was on the left of the left hand lane, i made no comment about which part of the lane he was in.

There were actually 2 cyclists cycling almost 2 abreast (the one on the right was slightly behind the other and i observed them for long enough to know that one was not overtaking the other)

The one on the right is the one which pulled out, the other one did not pull out and also did not stop for the accident.

The cyclist i hit was actually in the middle of the lane the whole time and had been for the whole time i could see him.

The distance he had to travel to get in front of my car would have been about 2m

A person would travel far quicker than I could have reacted.

kraken776

OneLeggedPig wrote: »

Hard to say without seeing... but really when overtaking you should have been so wide of him that even if he did suddenly turn he wouldn't collide with you.

Does sound like an unlucky one though. I am a cyclist and would never suddenly turn out like that.

Nope

When overtaking a car it is impossible on most roads to be so wide that you wont collide if the car suddenly turns.
but no one would say you should not overtake a car.

When on a motorway you constantly pass traffic in a different lane which could suddenly turn.
But no one would suggest you should never pass a car on a motorway

When you see someone waiting to pull out from the left up ahead they may pull out in front of you.
Do you slow down to a stop every time you see someone waiting to pull out from the left just because if you dont they might pull out in front of you?

A similar argument could be made of use of roundabouts

The point is that if someone does something negligent then it is his fault and the other person has no liability at all unless he also contributed some negligence to it.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

As one of a seemingly growing "handful of idiots" (who hasn't recently had an accident with a cyclist), to answer your original question, I think you will be held at fault for this.

absurd opinion
The cyclist did not signal or show any sign of intent.
The cyclist pulled out into a different lane without making sure it was safe.

to suggest that i should be held completely responsible is to completely ignore the cyclists acts/omissions which were were highly negligent.

No rational person could argue that the cyclist was not negligent or that the cyclists negligence did not cause the accident. therefore no rational person could argue that i was 100% responsible (50/50 is a different matter)

It is effectively saying that if one person behaves negligently he has no blame
and some excuse must be found for holding a different person 100% liable.

no matter how careful i was being, no matter how many precautions i took people like you are always going to make up some excuses to hold me completely liable and completely ignore the negligence of the cyclist,

Madness

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

absurd opinion
The cyclist did not signal or show any sign of intent.
The cyclist pulled out into a different lane without making sure it was safe.

to suggest that i should be held completely responsible is to completely ignore the cyclists acts/omissions which were were highly negligent.

It is effectively saying that if one person behaves negligently he has no blame
and some excuse must be found for holding a different person 100% liable.

Madness

Why are you bothering to post?

All you want is for someone to agree with you.

You cannot prove the cyclist didn't indicate or look before he made the manoeuvre. It's your word against his so you'll have to carry some of the blame and increased insurance costs that go with it.

fred246

So two cyclists who didn't know each other were nearly cycling two abreast for long distances. I wouldn't have thought that was very common. A bit weird to find a stranger cycling next to you.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

As one of a seemingly growing "handful of idiots" (who hasn't recently had an accident with a cyclist), to answer your original question, I think you will be held at fault for this.

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Why are you bothering to post?

All you want is for someone to agree with you.

You cannot prove the cyclist didn't indicate or look before he made the manoeuvre. It's your word against his so you'll have to carry some of the blame and increased insurance costs that go with it.

There is a difference between actually doing something wrong.
and what the "evidence" suggests.

kraken776

fred246 wrote: »

So two cyclists who didn't know each other were nearly cycling two abreast for long distances. I wouldn't have thought that was very common. A bit weird to find a stranger cycling next to you.

I agree

But the fact that one turned and the other didn't, and the second one did not stop very strongly suggests that they were not together.

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

There is a difference between actually doing something wrong.
and what the "evidence" suggests.

Exactly and the evidence suggests you're in the wrong. You cannot prove otherwise so deal with it.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

absurd opinion
The cyclist did not signal or show any sign of intent.
The cyclist pulled out into a different lane without making sure it was safe.

to suggest that i should be held completely responsible is to completely ignore the cyclists acts/omissions which were were highly negligent.

No rational person could argue that the cyclist was not negligent or that the cyclists negligence did not cause the accident. therefore no rational person could argue that i was 100% responsible (50/50 is a different matter)

It is effectively saying that if one person behaves negligently he has no blame
and some excuse must be found for holding a different person 100% liable.

no matter how careful i was being, no matter how many precautions i took people like you are always going to make up some excuses to hold me completely liable and completely ignore the negligence of the cyclist,

Madness

You started the thread with a summary of the situation and asked:

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

Having read your description, I have concluded that you are likely to be held at fault. If you want a different answer, why didn't you ask for a bunch of responses backing your view of culpability that you can send to your insurers to help your case?

I'm not quite sure why you bothered to post. You've clearly formed an absolute view on the matter. Whatever we post, supportive or critical, will not make a jot of difference to your situation and is obviously not going to change your view.

Madness? Yes, you're right.

kraken776

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Exactly and the evidence suggests you're in the wrong. You cannot prove otherwise so deal with it.

No it does not

There is no evidence at all against me. None

Furthermore I do not have to prove anything. If the cyclist wants to claid against my insurance the burden of proof is on him. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. This means the cyclist must prove beyond 50% certainly that I was wrong and he cannot do this because there is no evidence against me.