cyclists turned right when i overtook

bod1467

As I said very early on in this thread ... I don't believe you're at fault for causing the accident. However, as there are no witnesses and for the lack of other evidence, then I believe the insurance company will at best go 50:50, ergo holding you partly at fault in insurance terms.

The almost 200 posts since then have not changed my view.

Mercdriver

kraken776 wrote: »

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.

So you see this behaviour of cycling close together and then moving without signalling all the time? So do I. I drive in London regularly in London and cyclists changing direction without indicating is indeed a regular occurrence. But then, when I see these events regularly, I know to anticipate that it may happen and exercise caution, as there may well be a turning coming soon or some other hazard.

That is what you failed to do inspite of you seeing this behaviour regularly.

almillar

OK, so there was no signage, and you're not willing to provide a Street View link.
With the information I've been provided with, I have to say, 1st time on that road (OP?), I would have done the same thing. He waited, observed 2 cyclists going at the same speed, no junctions, and he overtook. Why not?!
OP - I have no idea what your insurance company will do, but in the lack of EVIDENCE, and maybe the small size of the claim, it may make more FINANCIAL sense for them to pay out, than to pay an employee to work on the case. That's insurance!

qwert_yuiop

Here's what I'd do if I'd done this:

1) count myself extremely lucky not to have killed a man, or possibly worse, put him in a wheelchair.

2) pay the man

3) fix my car

4) make sure I never let this happen again.

Whose fault? Forget about that.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Four, actually, but then again, who's counting? One bike became two halfway through this story.

IRRELIVANT

Adding extra details later on in no way discredits me

I have already explained why this is to someone else who tried to point this out (might have been you)

Attempting this a second time after i have explained why it does not look bad on me in anyway was plain stupid.

kraken776

bod1467 wrote: »

As I said very early on in this thread ... I don't believe you're at fault for causing the accident. However, as there are no witnesses and for the lack of other evidence, then I believe the insurance company will at best go 50:50, ergo holding you partly at fault in insurance terms.

The almost 200 posts since then have not changed my view.

I have no problem with people saying that the evidence is a problem
I have no problem with people saying its 50/50

I however have a big problem with people saying that i am 100% at fault when i clearly described an instance of someone pulling out in front of my path, without warning. AFTER I had set out on that path.

kraken776

Mercdriver wrote: »

So you see this behaviour of cycling close together and then moving without signalling all the time? So do I. I drive in London regularly in London and cyclists changing direction without indicating is indeed a regular occurrence. But then, when I see these events regularly, I know to anticipate that it may happen and exercise caution, as there may well be a turning coming soon or some other hazard.

That is what you failed to do inspite of you seeing this behaviour regularly.

I suspect that you are deliberatly misinterpreting my words here
but i will give you the benefit of the doubt

I DO NOT see this behaviour of cycling close together and then moving without signalling all the time?

What i see all the time is cyclists riding closely together even thou they may or may not be together.

As for pulling out without warning.
Well i do observe that but there is no possible way for me to know when it will happen. and although to a certain extent i can keep some distance between me and cyclists I can only get so far away and have to do manuvers (like overtaking) them at certain times. SO if they pull out without warning at the last possible moment and at speed there is nothing i can do.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

IRRELIVANT

Adding extra details later on in no way discredits me

I have already explained why this is to someone else who tried to point this out (might have been you)

Attempting this a second time after i have explained why it does not look bad on me in anyway was plain stupid.

You are a combative soul, aren't you? Why do you assume any point made which disagrees with your opinion is an attempt to discredit you? You don't need my help.

The extra bike is far from irrelevant. It became an important detail once it was revealed.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

I have no problem with people saying that the evidence is a problem
I have no problem with people saying its 50/50

I however have a big problem with people saying that i am 100% at fault when i clearly described an instance of someone pulling out in front of my path AFTER I had set out on that path without warning.

Blimey, you've even managed to argue with someone who actually believes you didn't cause the accident!

If you have such a "big problem" with people disagreeing with you and suggesting you are at fault, why did you start the thread by asking people:

"Can anyone advise me if I am likely to be held at fault" - those were your very own words.

Nobbie1967

kraken776 wrote: »

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

Yes, you are likely to be held at fault for this by your insurance company. If the head cam footage shows the cyclist at fault, then it's unlikely they'll hand it over to help your case. This will simply come down to your word against theirs and therefore the insurance company would rather pay out a relatively small sum than fight a court battle with costly lawyers.

As to who was as fault, it's likely you both were as most accident involve mistakes on both side, but all we have to go on is your description of what happened, so how can we make a judgement when we haven't heard the other side's story.

I don't see why you're arguing the toss over this for 10 pages when you've already been told the answer several times - Yes, you are likely to held at fault. That might not be accurate or fair, but it is what is likely to happen.