cyclists turned right when i overtook

Mercdriver

There is no ad hominem attack in my posts. You'd find worse in court, and indeed from an insurance assessor. As Joe Horner says above, the presence of the other cyclist on a 6m wide road that you yourself said was narrower than what another poster said was average is important. Indeed your belief that you shared that the cyclists were riding close together but not riding together suggests to me (and I'm puzzled why it doesn't to you) that he was seeking to overtake the other cyclist in some way.

That should tell you that there is an upcoming possible hazard and far from overtaking, you should be holding back and expecting him to do something.

From your account, I think you could find yourself 100% at fault. The signs of the coming manoeuvre were there - you have described them in the post where you added extra detail. Ok he didn't signal, but he was, if as you say he was not riding together with the other cyclist, in a position where he was likely to overtake.

IMO, If that had been your driving test, you would have been marked a dangerous fault. Lack of anticipation. I had a similar situation in my driving test and the examiner commented favourably on my cautiousness. I suspected that he would move to the right, and he did, without a signal.

kraken776

Mercdriver wrote: »

There is no ad hominem attack in my posts. You'd find worse in court, and indeed from an insurance assessor. As Joe Horner says above, the presence of the other cyclist on a 6m wide road that you yourself said was narrower than what another poster said was average is important. Indeed your belief that you shared that the cyclists were riding close together but not riding together suggests to me (and I'm puzzled why it doesn't to you) that he was seeking to overtake the other cyclist in some way.

That should tell you that there is an upcoming possible hazard and far from overtaking, you should be holding back and expecting him to do something.

From your account, I think you could find yourself 100% at fault. The signs of the coming manoeuvre were there - you have described them in the post where you added extra detail. Ok he didn't signal, but he was, if as you say he was not riding together with the other cyclist, in a position where he was likely to overtake.

IMO, If that had been your driving test, you would have been marked a dangerous fault. Lack of anticipation. I had a similar situation in my driving test and the examiner commented favourably on my cautiousness. I suspected that he would move to the right, and he did, without a signal.

I never said that it was narrower than the average road
I gave a specific width of the road measured on Google earth.
It is clearly wide enough to overtake a cyclist

I also made it very clear when i added details that i observed the cyclist for long enough to know he was not overtaking. This is further evidenced by the fact that he actually did not attempt to overtake - he crossed the road.

So no there was absolutely no sign at all that he would cross the road.

Even if he had overtaken i watched for long enough to reasonably conclude that it was not likely to happen AND I gave enough room that there would not have been a problem if he only overtook.

kraken776

I have already pointed out that the cycle lane was not at all visiable.

Why has this been ignored.
It seams very damaging to most of the "i am at fault" comments on here.

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

I have already pointed out that the cycle lane was not at all visiable.

Why has this been ignored.
It seams very damaging to most of the "i am at fault" comments on here.

So it was the first time you'd driven that road?

sysadmin

My advice - stop posting in this thread until you've spoken to your insurance company and they've decided either way

Your clearly not going to get the response you want here (ie, that it's all the cyclists fault and your blameless in all of this)

So best bet is for you to argue this out with your insurance company and not random strangers on a forum.

Good luck

NBLondon

On the initial description - it did sound as though the cyclist was mostly at fault. I can quite believe in a cyclist suddenly swooping across at an angle to take a side turning (which it was to them) without looking or signalling because I've seen it happen plenty of times (in London anyway). But the presence of another cyclist makes it look more like the OP could/should have held back. From the revised description, it sounds like Cyclist A (the one in the collision) was sitting in Cyclist B's blind spot. Which with the wonderful power of hindsight is a hint that Cyclist A is less than aware of other road users. Was he taking "Primary Position" as a matter of principle? How far out from the kerb was this cyclist before swinging across may be the crucial issue - had he moved out a bit because he knew the cycle lane was coming up (even though the OP didn't)?


And as many have said - proving this in the absence of any other evidence will be difficult. I suggested above that the OP should demand the helmet cam footage or make their insurers do so. This would presumably now show the road positioning and the presence of Cyclist B as well as whether Cyclist A looked back or looked across to the start of the cycle lane.

kraken776

NBLondon wrote: »

On the initial description - it did sound as though the cyclist was mostly at fault. I can quite believe in a cyclist suddenly swooping across at an angle to take a side turning (which it was to them) without looking or signalling because I've seen it happen plenty of times (in London anyway).

This is exactly what happened

NBLondon wrote: »

But the presence of another cyclist makes it look more like the OP could/should have held back.

I have already explained that I held back for long enough to observe that the cyclists position relative to the other was static (ie he was not overtaking) and that when the time came he did not try to overtake, he just turned right.

NBLondon wrote: »

From the revised description, it sounds like Cyclist A (the one in the collision) was sitting in Cyclist B's blind spot. Which with the wonderful power of hindsight is a hint that Cyclist A is less than aware of other road users. Was he taking "Primary Position" as a matter of principle? How far out from the kerb was this cyclist before swinging across may be the crucial issue - had he moved out a bit because he knew the cycle lane was coming up (even though the OP didn't)?

Im not sure that many road users would concluded (without hindsight) that the cyclist was not aware of other road users based on this observation. certainly would not say that there is any negligence in failing to spot this.

as for cycling in the primary position on matter of principal, I think he was in the primary position. there is no way for me to say if this was on a matter of principal since his reason for this are subjective.

NBLondon wrote: »

And as many have said - proving this in the absence of any other evidence will be difficult. I suggested above that the OP should demand the helmet cam footage or make their insurers do so. This would presumably now show the road positioning and the presence of Cyclist B as well as whether Cyclist A looked back or looked across to the start of the cycle lane.

what if he claims the cam was off, battery died, ran out of memory, he lost the memory card since the accident ect?

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

what if he claims the cam was off, battery died, ran out of memory, he lost the memory card since the accident ect?

Your insurance pay out and you take the hit.

Mercdriver

kraken776 wrote: »

I never said that it was narrower than the average road
I gave a specific width of the road measured on Google earth.
It is clearly wide enough to overtake a cyclist

I also made it very clear when i added details that i observed the cyclist for long enough to know he was not overtaking. This is further evidenced by the fact that he actually did not attempt to overtake - he crossed the road.

So no there was absolutely no sign at all that he would cross the road.

Even if he had overtaken i watched for long enough to reasonably conclude that it was not likely to happen AND I gave enough room that there would not have been a problem if he only overtook.

Here's a tip. Try reading posts correctly and thoroughly.

I think it was a huge misjudgement on your part to overtake a vehicle that looked to be about to overtake another vehicle. It's not normal to cycle in the way you describe the cyclist doing unless you intend to take a different path at some point. Your description of the cyclists' (plural) behaviour show a misjudgement on your part that you could guarantee that your manoeuvre would be safe. Unless you can guarantee its safety, you shouldn't undertake the manoeuvre. Ergo, you are at fault IMO.

kraken776

Mercdriver wrote: »

Here's a tip. Try reading posts correctly and thoroughly.

I think it was a huge misjudgement on your part to overtake a vehicle that looked to be about to overtake another vehicle. It's not normal to cycle in the way you describe the cyclist doing unless you intend to take a different path at some point. Your description of the cyclists' (plural) behaviour show a misjudgement on your part that you could guarantee that your manoeuvre would be safe. Unless you can guarantee its safety, you shouldn't undertake the manoeuvre. Ergo, you are at fault IMO.

It sounds like you are the one who needs to carefully read posts

As i have already explained

I OBSERVED then for a PERIOD OF TIME so i knew he was not overtaking
and
he DID NOT overtake.

The sort of behaviour i described is in fact quite common i see it all the time.

Finally to say that I am 100% at fault (rather then partially at fault which would be a different matter) is to ignore the fact that the cyclist turned without signalling or making sure it was safe. No rational person could ignore this negligence.