cyclists turned right when i overtook

Aylesbury_Duck

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Probably under investigation from the local plods for careless driving. He'll get a few points for this I bet.

If the cyclist was injured then presumably it was reported.

Silver-Surfer_2

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

If the cyclist was injured then presumably it was reported.

I should think so, given the evasive nature of this thread it was probably quite serious due to excessive speed.

kraken776

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

I should think so, given the evasive nature of this thread it was probably quite serious due to excessive speed.

you need to re-read my OP
i clearly stated my speed

you should also re read my posts about speculating facts

Silver-Surfer_2

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Nah, not buying it. Your indignation and anger were all too real.

Enjoy paying the excess and the increased premiums, and be more careful next time.

Some would call it a guilty conscience.

Aylesbury_Duck

A bit like the stonewall refusal to provide a streetview link and the belated recall of the second cyclist. All done to add weight to his argument and deny anyone more information that might undermine his version of events. Not that it matters, his insurer will make up their own mind.

[Deleted User]

Was the cyclist in the middle of the lane ready to turn right?

Was the OP giving the cyclist space when overtaking e.g a car width?

I haven't read the full thread but sounds like the OP was a MGIF trying to skim past the cyclist at whatever cost.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

A bit like the stonewall refusal to provide a streetview link and the belated recall of the second cyclist. All done to add weight to his argument and deny anyone more information that might undermine his version of events. Not that it matters, his insurer will make up their own mind.

I have already pointed out that you cannot infer anything negative about me for mentioning the second cyclist later and initially refusing to post a SV link.

Repeating this type of behavior is stupid.

OneLeggedPig

Silver-Surfer_2

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

A bit like the stonewall refusal to provide a streetview link and the belated recall of the second cyclist. All done to add weight to his argument and deny anyone more information that might undermine his version of events. Not that it matters, his insurer will make up their own mind.

They're probably awaiting the outcome of the other investigation before finally deciding.

Aylesbury_Duck

I wonder if the insurer knows of the existence of the second cyclist, or whether they're going to be informed belatedly when OP sees things not going his way in the case? Or perhaps the second cyclist was invented by the OP to justify him colliding with the cyclist on the other side of the road? If he was going too fast, it would explain why he wasn't able to avoid the bike once it started to turn and eventually hit it in the other lane?