cyclists turned right when i overtook

Aylesbury_Duck

NBLondon wrote: »

I presume the OP means fallacious - based on a fallacy.


I'm sure the OP's eloquent language and style will go down well in court...

Thanks. I wondered if it might be that but then it could also have been malicious. Somehow it ended up as a weird meld of the two.

I suppose we should be grateful he didn't spell it as fellatious...

kraken776

Retrogamer wrote: »

If you look at the road and can see all of the road and you can see there aren't any junctions etc then that's as good as you're going to get.

Up until this part you were entirely correct. Since this is the best anyone can do in any situation doing this much is always enough for your driving to be competent and their fore blameless.

Retrogamer wrote: »

You were unable to confirm the road was clear ahead but you chose to overtake as it appears to the best of your knowledge it was. But you were wrong.

As we have already discussed it is impossible to establish that there is not something you cant see unless you can see something which you know may obscure your vision (bright light, fog ect).

A person can only take reasonable steps to ensure he does not collide with a hazard. nothing more.

Retrogamer wrote: »

Hence there is some negligence on your part.

nope, none
I did everything a careful and competent driver would do and everything which is possible short of never overtaking at all.

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

I did everything a careful and competent driver would do

Including taking a pedal cyclist out. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Retrogamer

kraken776 wrote: »

nope, none
I did everything a careful and competent driver would do and everything which is possible short of never overtaking at all.

I'm afraid you're wrong.
You can deny it if you like for fun (that's what this thread is for isn't it?)

Not overtaking was an option. You were unable to confirm there was not a junction. As you were not able to confirm there wasn't a junction you should have waited until you were able to confirm it.

If someone has to pull out of their driveway and can't see if any cars are coming, but they do what they can to minimise the chance of cars coming and end up causing an accident, do you think they escape liability?

Retrogamer

The worst thing is when your insurance do pay out (assuming this isn't a manufactured scenario) you're going to be in denial you done anything wrong and you'll potentially make the same mistake again.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

nope, none
I did everything a careful and competent driver would do and everything which is possible short of never overtaking at all.

I don't quite understand the point of the thread then? You clearly have an absolute belief in your total innocence and lack of any liability. Nothing anyone on here has said or will say will change that view even though some are fairly sure you will be held liable for insurance purposes. All you can do is sit tight and if the cyclist makes a claim, suck up the consequences.

kraken776

Retrogamer wrote: »

I'm afraid you're wrong.
You can deny it if you like for fun (that's what this thread is for isn't it?)

Not overtaking was an option. You were unable to confirm there was not a junction. As you were not able to confirm there wasn't a junction you should have waited until you were able to confirm it.

Have you not read my previous posts.

It is impossible to confirm with 100% certainly that something does not exist
at any point on any road there could be a hidden dip, or a dirt track hidden by short grass.

If your reasoning was rational nobody could overtake anything.

Retrogamer wrote: »

If someone has to pull out of their driveway and can't see if any cars are coming, but they do what they can to minimise the chance of cars coming and end up causing an accident, do you think they escape liability?

As long as they were pulling out slowly and carefully until the point they were committed (after this point i am not sure if it is better to continue to pull out slowly or do so quicky to minimise the time exposed to danger) then they should not be liable.

If they cant see cars comming then it is likely to mean that oncomming cars have a blind bend in which case they should be traveling at a speed which allows them to stop withing their visible distance.

If the person pulling out was liable in this situation then by extension junctions near bends could not be used to gain access to a joining road.

Silver-Surfer_2

What have your insurance company said about it?

Retrogamer

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

What have your insurance company said about it?

Nothing because it's a hypothetical situation.

kraken776

I have a confession to make

as some posters have speculated this was indeed a hypothetical situation

Everything about it is entirely true except for one thing.
I did not have a collision with the cyclist.
I reacted in time and stopped (interestingly having almost been hit the cyclist did not even look in my direction)

I said that the cyclist hit my headlight. This is my guess at where the impact would have been.

I was tempted to honk but refrained from doing so because of the presence of the other cyclist.

Anyway i will post the GSV link

A few things to note

- The GSV position is the closest i could get to where my car stopped (not the point at which i started the overtake).

- Although the cycle lane markings are barely visible in the GSV link they are not at all visible from this position (let alone the position where i started to overtake) in a car because the driver seat of a car is much lower than google cars cameras, which are on top of a pole.

- The cycle lane markings can be seen clearly if you move the street view up to them, however this image is out of date. they are very worn today and barely visible even if your next to them.

- the barrier i refereed to is the metal grate one.

- The road has a slight up hill angle, this means the floor level horizontal metal bar of the metal grate covers the markings on the cycle lane until you are very very close.

- The GSV link makes the start of the cycle lane look much closer than it really is. if measured in google earth it is in fact 40 meters away.