cyclists turned right when i overtook

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

I am angry at the fact that I can start a SAFE overtake and someone else can turn in front of my at the critical moment without warning or looking and some people form the opinion that i was somehow to blame.

But it wasn't a safe overtake, was it? There were already two cyclists riding abreast, or effectively abreast. You elected to pass them both which was already riskier than had you been overtaking just the one cyclist from your original post which in turn, would have been riskier than sitting behind them until two became one or they both turned off. It was your decision to pass, which on countless similar occasions might come to nothing but which on this occasion resulted in a collision. The onus is on you to make the judgement and to overtake safely.

Not that it matters to your case, but I consider you at least morally partially to blame and from an insurance standpoint, I reckon you'll be held totally liable. The other party is unlikely to confirm your story that he suddenly changed course without checking or signalling.

Aylesbury_Duck

...and still no link to the location, despite being asked for it on the first page and on several occasions since. It could be the most substantive piece of information for this whole incident. Supposedly the crux of the OP's case is the existence, location, signage and visibility of a cycle lane, much of which could probably be determined with a streetview. Yet we don't have it.

Car_54

kraken776 wrote: »

I am angry at the fact that I can start a SAFE overtake and someone else can turn in front of my at the critical moment without warning or looking and some people form the opinion that i was somehow to blame.

You originally asked "Can anyone advise me if I am likely to be held at fault for this?"

You are now angry that some people have replied in the affirmative. So what was the point of asking?

Nobbie1967

This reminds me of the long insurance thread started by Madgob where he just kept on arguing with everyone. I think he was trying to say that Esure were by far the best insurer or something similar

Some people just like to argue the toss rather than accept an answer they don't like.

So Kraken776, how this for you:

The cyclist was 100% to blame and the insurance company will find them at fault and you will keep your NCB.

Happy now:rotfl:

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Why not just post a link to the location on google maps? No one is going to be able to ascertain where you live from it.

I am being paranoid about this

Knowing my luck the cyclist himself might be reading this thread and right now there is not enough in it to prove that I am talking about the same incident (that he knows about).
Aure the events may sound similar to him but thats not specific enough, accident happen all the time.

If I post a SVL it will look more likely to a 3rd party that it was the same incident.

It is VERY VERY unlikely but something like that has happened to me before.

I dont want that because there have been a lot of people speculating facts which i did not state and there is every possibility that someone from the insurance company will read these, make the mistake of thinking that I wrote them and payout.

rich13348

kraken776 wrote: »

I am being paranoid about this

Knowing my luck the cyclist himself might be reading this thread and right now there is not enough in it to prove that I am talking about the same incident (that he knows about).
Aure the events may sound similar to him but thats not specific enough, accident happen all the time.

If I post a SVL it will look more likely to a 3rd party that it was the same incident.

It is VERY VERY unlikely but something like that has happened to me before.

I dont want that because there have been a lot of people speculating facts which i did not state and there is every possibility that someone from the insurance company will read these, make the mistake of thinking that I wrote them and payout.

Insurance are going to pay out anyway.

kraken776

rich13348 wrote: »

If the cyclist is not insured, but you provided him with your details (which is the law by the way) then he can open a claim directly with your insurers,thus circumventing you and your gaggle of lawyers.
Chances are your insurance company will pay out at the very least 50/50 as there is no independent witness.
As for going to court you will have to lose in the county court then appeal to the high court.
As a lot of people on hear have already stated you will most likely lose so that works you your favour.
If you threaten the other party they could go to the police and you could be cautioned for threatening behaviour which would come up in court and the judge would take a dim view of that.
Have you even told your insurers of the accident you had. If not your insurers will not be happy with that either.
Also you have to limit your costs to what is reasonable so the judge may well not award you all your costs if he feels you are trying to bump up your costs to make it worse for the other party.
Also you assume you will win in court, this is not a foregone conclusion and you could lose in court court then the high court and the court of appeals and if your legal cover choose not to take your case then you will have to foot the bill for the other parties costs yourself.
Or take your insurers to court to where once again you might lose and have even more costs to pay.
Then you could take your lawyer to court for misrepresenting you and you might lose that also and have more costs to pay. Contine ad infinitum.

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

You're wrong there.

I agree with silver surfer on this one

People think that if you do something that make some else feel threatened/fearful or even something someone else is harassed by that it is an offence.

However this alone is not enough.

There are a wide range of offences which cover this sort of thing.
But they must always be committed intentionally or knowingly (sometimes should have known is sufficient).
Even then harassing behavior is not unlawful if you have a reasonable excuses.

(If it was someone who you try to take to court could tell you that you have committed harassment against them and will go to the police if you dont drop the case, something which seams to happen a lot)

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

I am being paranoid about this

Knowing my luck the cyclist himself might be reading this thread and right now there is not enough in it to prove that I am talking about the same incident (that he knows about).
Aure the events may sound similar to him but thats not specific enough, accident happen all the time.

If I post a SVL it will look more likely to a 3rd party that it was the same incident.

It is VERY VERY unlikely but something like that has happened to me before.

I dont want that because there have been a lot of people speculating facts which i did not state and there is every possibility that someone from the insurance company will read these, make the mistake of thinking that I wrote them and payout.

You accept 50/50 blame so they'll be paying out anyway.

Given what's been posted if the third party is reading this they'll know who you are.

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

I agree with silver surfer on this one

People think that if you do something that make some else feel threatened/fearful or even something someone else is harassed by that it is an offence.

However this alone is not enough.

There are a wide range of offences which cover this sort of thing.
But they must always be committed intentionally or knowingly (sometimes should have known is sufficient).
Even then harassing behavior is not unlawful if you have a reasonable excuses.

(If it was someone who you try to take to court could tell you that you have committed harassment against them and will go to the police if you dont drop the case, something which seams to happen a lot)

Somehow I don't think you do.

You may well be convicted of harassment or threatening behaviour, but that conviction will have no bearing on this case so the judge would not be interested.

kraken776

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Somehow I don't think you do.

You may well be convicted of harassment or threatening behaviour, but that conviction will have no bearing on this case so the judge would not be interested.

I never said that threatening the claimant with excessive costs would not be illigal.
I merely said that those types of offences have to be done intentionally or knowingly and even then a reasonable excuse (such as saying you will take appropriate lawful action) is a defense.