cyclists turned right when i overtook

arcon5

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

Nobody really knows as the OP won't provide the additional info that might help clarify the situation. Even then we've only got one side of the story. Given that we've only heard half the story and many think the insurer will find the OP at fault suggests that this is in no way clearcut that the OP was blameless. If many think this with only the OP's version, then what will the insurer conclude when they have the cyclist's version of events?

Probably because everybody knows insurers only look after their interest! If they can avoid being pursued by paying out a few hundred quid they'd usually go that way just to mitigate their potential losses.

No different to the fact they pay out for tens of thousands of false whiplash claims. Just because they've paid out doesn't mean the "victim" genuinely had the injury.

OneLeggedPig

kraken776 wrote: »

FAIL


Going on to talk about a child is called emotional blackmail. It is also equally as falicious and only an idiot would not see through it.

This is why i have so little respect for the "i am at fault" croud
SO many have them have made "speculations" like this.
.

It's not emotional blackmail- it's a hazard you as a motorist should be considering. You are in charge of a very dangerous machine and these possibilities should always be in your mind when making decisions such as overtaking.

I don't really see why you are persisting here. What are you hoping to achieve? It doesn't matter if everyone suddenly decides you are right. You asked if you are likely to be held liable, and people have given their opinion on that.

kraken776

OneLeggedPig wrote: »

It's not emotional blackmail- it's a hazard you as a motorist should be considering. You are in charge of a very dangerous machine and these possibilities should always be in your mind when making decisions such as overtaking.

I don't really see why you are persisting here. What are you hoping to achieve? It doesn't matter if everyone suddenly decides you are right. You asked if you are likely to be held liable, and people have given their opinion on that.

You have deliberately cut off the first piece of my post and the last piece
the parts that renders any reference to a child irrelevant.

Nobbie1967

arcon5 wrote: »

Probably because everybody knows insurers only look after their interest! If they can avoid being pursued by paying out a few hundred quid they'd usually go that way just to mitigate their potential losses.

No different to the fact they pay out for tens of thousands of false whiplash claims. Just because they've paid out doesn't mean the "victim" genuinely had the injury.

Exactly, that's why everybody has been advising the OP that the insurer is likely to find them at fault, which was the original question. The OP appears to be arguing for the sake of it now, maybe they're bored at work.

Joe_Horner

arcon5 wrote: »

And what did this motorist do that was so different to any other motorist?

Yep, you guessed it, nothing

Well, he hit a cyclist which is different to what most other motorists do.

Mercdriver

arcon5 wrote: »

If op saw an entrance it's irrelevant!
If op saw a snack bar with a cycle storage unit should she have stayed behind.

Cycle lane doesn't equal swerve across the road!


This is the kind of logic that suggests if you overtake a vehicle waiting to turn right in to a junction then the person turning in to it is at fault.

The OP has given out information piecemeal, so I was simply establishing what stopped him seeing the junction and the cycle lane. If it was parked cars alongside the field for instance.

I don't understand with no parked cars on the right hand side and a field how he failed to see the junction. As he is unwilling to provide a google maps reference, it isn't possible for anyone to see things from his perspective, yet he wants everyone to agree with him or hw will continue to throw his toys out of his pram.

kraken776

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Well, he hit a cyclist which is different to what most other motorists do.

See this is why myself and at least one other poster have described certain people as idiots.

Hitting a cyclist on its own does not in any way prove that I am a bad driver.
To come to this conclusion on this fact alone is to ignore all other aspects of the case and or speculate facts which support your conclusion

Ignoring significant amounts of information and making up information is what idiots do

kraken776

Mercdriver wrote: »

Yet you didn't see the junction or the cycle lane that might have enabled you to anticipate better. As you won't share a google maps reference I don't see how you didn't see the hazards here. A vehicle potentially overtaking another halfway across a lane in a carriageway suggests caution already. If the visibility was so poor that you didn't see the junction why did you undertake the overtake?

You are speculating facts which you can use against me AGAIN
I never said that visibility was poor.
I said that a cycle lane could not be seen.
Objects can be out of view from specific perspective even in the best visibility conditions

Mercdriver wrote: »

These are all questions you would be asked in court. Would you call the plaintiff's barrister a fool and an idiot? (Enjoy your time in clink for contempt of court)

In criminal cases a defendant cannot be compelled to testify and i certainly would not
I also would not want to testify in a civil case, I would communicate only in writing.

kraken776

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

Exactly, that's why everybody has been advising the OP that the insurer is likely to find them at fault, which was the original question. The OP appears to be arguing for the sake of it now, maybe they're bored at work.

everybody has not been advising against me
SOME people have been advising against me
just thought I would clear that up for you

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

I recently had an accident with a cyclist

I attempted to overtake him and as I was doing so he turned right and collided with my left headlight. This was a very sudden movement, he literally turned sharply to the right just as I was alongside his rear.

- This happened in a residential area in a 30 limit with a wide clear road.
- I did not exceed the speed limit to overtake.
- The road was clear for a very long distance in front and nothing was coming the other way.
- I moved all the way over into the opposite lane for the overtake.
- The cyclist did not signal.
- The cyclist did not do anything else to hint that he was about to turn (did not look behind, did not look to the right or where he intended to turn to, did not start to move further to the right ect)
- There was no junction or turning on the left (or anywhere else nearby for that matter).
- There was no cycle lane on ether side of the road at or before the point of the accident but there is a cycle lane on the pavement on the other side of the road which starts about 40 meters from where i started my overtake. There is a fence on the pavement at the start of the cycle lane so it was not visible from my position.

My insurance company tell me that his story is that he was turning right into the cycle lane and that I should have predicted that he would do this. I think this is absurd and unfair.
However i am worried about it because i have heard stories or people being held responsible in this sort of situation if there is a junction on the right.

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

Also,
The cyclist had a helmet cam, This will not show anything that i did because he did not look back. Could it be used to prove what happened and can be be forced to submit the footage?

In the op you asked.

The answer was yes.

Thirteen pages in the answer is still yes.

Maybe it's time to stop feeding you.