We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

cyclists turned right when i overtook

Options
1121315171868

Comments

  • Aylesbury_Duck
    Aylesbury_Duck Posts: 15,662 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    OP, we're into the eighth page of this thread. Have you got the answer you were looking for? It seems that most posters conclude from your own descriptions of the incident that you are likely to be held at fault. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant. You can call people's views absurd, irrational, idiotic or whatever you like, it doesn't make a difference other than to portray you as belligerent and so certain of your total innocence that you're not prepared to even entertain suggestions that your own driving might have made at least a small contribution to the accident. You won't post a street view link for reasons which aren't credible but which would allow people to have significant extra information with which to form a view.

    Eight pages of argument and counterargument will not influence the decision of your insurer but they've certainly created an impression of you as a person and a driver. If you deal with your insurers the way you have dealt with people on here, they'll definitely be paying out....
  • Joe_Horner
    Joe_Horner Posts: 4,895 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited 12 June 2016 at 7:06PM
    kraken776 wrote: »
    Nope
    This is an absurd and irrational opinion and several other posters have already challenged it.
    If the person turning right does so at a late enough moment (which is what happened) there is not going to be time to ovoid the collision


    Again NO
    if i say multiple different things then unless i copy/paste the exact same text every single time there are always going to be slight differences. To deliberately find some trivial difference in my words and claim that this amounts to a contradiction is a very transparent ad hominem attack. behaving in this manner discredits YOU not me because it highlights the fact that you dont have a strong counter argument to my claim.



    Not if something happens at a very late moment.

    Tell you what, seeing as my opinions about the possibility of anticipating / avoiding this sort of situation are (according to you) absurd, how about we resume this discussion when you've been driving 30+ years and never had an accident. Oh, wait, that's never going to happen for you now, is it? :beer:

    Whereas it has happened for me because I'd take it as a very real, very personal, insult to my driving ability if I ever let any other idiot cause me to hit something just by doing something that could be anticipated.

    Which means I make a point of learning, honestly and without excuses, from every close call and always look for what I might have done differently to make them "less close" instead of burying my head under the "I couldn't avoid it / it was, like, totally their fault dude" comfy blanket.



    eta: Incidentally, the difference in your words between "he turned as I was already passing him" and "he turned so close that I braked but couldn't avoid him" is a bit more than trivial - it's potentially the difference between something you really couldn't avoid and something that you could have. Not that you'll ever accept that of course seeing as it appears that Fate made you hit him.

    eta again: Also, what you describe isn't an ad hominem attack. That would be something like "you're clearly a narrow-minded prat who won't even consider another ppoint of view so it was obviously your fault". Which, despite the temptation with the way you're behaving, I've never actually said.
  • prowla
    prowla Posts: 13,984 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    OP, we're into the eighth page of this thread. Have you got the answer you were looking for? It seems that most posters conclude from your own descriptions of the incident that you are likely to be held at fault. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant. You can call people's views absurd, irrational, idiotic or whatever you like, it doesn't make a difference other than to portray you as belligerent and so certain of your total innocence that you're not prepared to even entertain suggestions that your own driving might have made at least a small contribution to the accident. You won't post a street view link for reasons which aren't credible but which would allow people to have significant extra information with which to form a view.

    Eight pages of argument and counterargument will not influence the decision of your insurer but they've certainly created an impression of you as a person and a driver. If you deal with your insurers the way you have dealt with people on here, they'll definitely be paying out....
    I had a quick scan and it doesn't look to me like most posters have said that?
  • prowla
    prowla Posts: 13,984 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Joe_Horner wrote: »
    eta: Incidentally, the difference in your words between "he turned as I was already passing him" and "he turned so close that I braked but couldn't avoid him" is a bit more than trivial - it's potentially the difference between something you really couldn't avoid and something that you could have. Not that you'll ever accept that of course seeing as it appears that Fate made you hit him.
    Perhaps the wordology should have been "he turned as I was already into performing my manoeuvre", since you evidently pull out a distance behind (and accelerate, eg. from 15 to 30 mph) rather than driving right up behind the cyclist and suddenly jumping a few feet sideways.
  • almillar
    almillar Posts: 8,621 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Well the highway code tells you not to overtake at any junction ... and to treat cyclists like any other road user. You wouldn't overtake another car at a right turn junction would you ? Even if they hadn't got their indicators on - cos they might have a bulb out ?

    Yes - fair point, if the junction was clearly signed.
    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

    kraken776 - that's an awful lot of new information - and you have the cheek to call people 'idiots' when they don't agree with you, because you've left them to make assumtions without the full facts.

    You've seen my reply, I think the cyclist is most at fault, but you need to fill in more info - WAS THERE a cycle lane, and WAS IT signed?
    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.

    You should give a cyclist the same as you would give a car.
    There is no evidence at all against me. None

    There is damage to your car, a bike, and possibly an injury to a cyclist. This is 'evidence'. I don't know whether it's against you or not.
  • sysadmin
    sysadmin Posts: 205 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    you will be found at fault for this.

    The cyclist will say that you have hit the front / side of him whilst completing your overtaking manouver and unless you've got witnesses / footage to proove otherwise he will win.

    His insurance (which is about £30 per year btw) or no win no fee solicitor will talk to your insurance company and they wont start to fight it due to the sums involved.

    Deepening on his make / model of bike, cost of clothing (if it was damaged) they will just pay out and your insurance will go up.

    Insurance companies dont like to fight cyclists as unless there is 100% proof that the accident was the cyclists fault, the risk of injury is very high when colliding with a metal box.
  • kraken776
    kraken776 Posts: 133 Forumite
    almillar wrote: »
    You've seen my reply, I think the cyclist is most at fault, but you need to fill in more info - WAS THERE a cycle lane
    ,

    There was a cycle lane going along the pavement on the other side of the road.

    This cycle lane started AFTER the point where the accident occurred.

    I would not consider this to be a junction in any sense since it is just the start of a new lane (abit its on the pavement).

    I have returned to the site several times since then and carefully looked at the start of the cycle lane each time to determine when it becomes visible. It DOES NOT become visible until after the point where the collision occurred because the only evidence of it is the cycle symbol painted on the ground and there is a obstruction going across the pavement just before the start of it which means you cant see it until your are at a steep angle to it (ie are close to it)
    almillar wrote: »
    and WAS IT signed?
    No
    No signs at all,
    Except for the one painted on the ground which as I said cannot be seen until you are at a close angle to it
  • kraken776
    kraken776 Posts: 133 Forumite
    sysadmin wrote: »
    you will be found at fault for this.

    The cyclist will say that you have hit the front / side of him whilst completing your overtaking manouver and unless you've got witnesses / footage to proove otherwise he will win.

    His insurance (which is about £30 per year btw) or no win no fee solicitor will talk to your insurance company and they wont start to fight it due to the sums involved.

    Deepening on his make / model of bike, cost of clothing (if it was damaged) they will just pay out and your insurance will go up.

    Insurance companies dont like to fight cyclists as unless there is 100% proof that the accident was the cyclists fault, the risk of injury is very high when colliding with a metal box.

    I see so my insurer can elect not to fight a claim
    and still take my no claims bonus away and increase my premium anyway.

    Can i sue my insurer for this
  • sysadmin
    sysadmin Posts: 205 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    you could try, but you wont win
  • Silver-Surfer_2
    Silver-Surfer_2 Posts: 1,850 Forumite
    kraken776 wrote: »
    I see so my insurer can elect not to fight a claim
    and still take my no claims bonus away and increase my premium anyway.

    Can i sue my insurer for this

    Why would you want to sue?

    You agreed to them doing this.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.