cyclists turned right when i overtook

Aylesbury_Duck

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

It seems rather odd that someone would get so angry about their hypothetical driving being questioned.

That's why I'm confident that it's not hypothetical. 14 pages of defiance before a "confession" and even after that, a continued spirited defence of his position. Not credible. The late addition then recent deletion of the streetview link is also telling. Why would you spend 14 pages refusing to post a streetview (for an accident you claim didn't happen), then a couple of days after posting it, delete it? I can guess.

kraken776

Some peoiple have been saying i deleted the SVL

I did not, this must have been an error
in the next post (i cant make it appear in this one correctly) is the link to the point where my car stopped, so its approximately the position where i the front of my car would have been in front of the cyclists had nothing gone wrong. so the moment i stated the overtake would have been earlier than this.

This position is 40 meters away from the chicane.
The cycle lane is almost invisible on the GSV and completely invisible in a car (drivers seat lower than a google car cam)

after the near miss the cyclist cycled on the wrong side of the road for 40m before taking the cycle lane

kraken776

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6297396,-1.2793703,3a,75y,192.78h,77.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJikjHXsYVnu1Tqwi0pJdBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Aylesbury_Duck

Thanks for putting the link up again. It was definitely deleted from the previous post.

Now I've seen it properly, it looks to me that you were at fault for trying to squeeze ahead of the cyclists before the chicane. That doesn't excuse the cyclist turning without looking but your protestations about not being able to see the cycle lane are not relevant. The judgement you made in error was in trying to pass the cyclists before the width restriction instead of waiting behind them for another 50 metres or so. What would have probably cost you seconds in staying behind a little longer and seeing the cyclist turn ahead of you will end up costing you your excess and increased premiums from at least shared liability.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Thanks for putting the link up again. It was definitely deleted from the previous post.

Now I've seen it properly, it looks to me that you were at fault for trying to squeeze ahead of the cyclists before the chicane. That doesn't excuse the cyclist turning without looking but your protestations about not being able to see the cycle lane are not relevant. The judgement you made in error was in trying to pass the cyclists before the width restriction instead of waiting behind them for another 50 metres or so. What would have probably cost you seconds in staying behind a little longer and seeing the cyclist turn ahead of you will end up costing you your excess and increased premiums from at least shared liability.

The chicane was 40m ahead at the point when i would have been past/passing the front cyclist
i started my overtake long before this.

There was more than enough room,

furthermore even if 40m was not enough it would not have been a causative factor if the accident happened and so is irrelevant and 40m is more than enough room to abort the maneuver so therefore presents no danger.

Joe_Horner

kraken776 wrote: »

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6297396,-1.2793703,3a,75y,192.78h,77.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJikjHXsYVnu1Tqwi0pJdBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

So, you were overtaking two cyclists on a narrow road, with speed bumps, with an obvious cycle lane (that's why they put those fences across the pavement, you know - they're not for fun, they're to stop cyclists continuing onto the pedestrian only part) and approaching a chicane with a speed bump on the "open" side.

Never mind insurance worries, you're lucky not to be on a careless driving charge even if you hadn't hit a cyclist!

kraken776

Joe_Horner wrote: »

So, you were overtaking two cyclists on a narrow road,

Um no, that is not a narrow road. that road is wide enough for cars to go in both directions at 30mph.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

with speed bumps, with an obvious cycle lane (that's why they put those fences across the pavement, you know - they're not for fun, they're to stop cyclists continuing onto the pedestrian only part) and approaching a chicane with a speed bump on the "open" side.

Nope,

There was no obvious cycle lane.
even on the google camera it is virtually invisible from that position.
as i explained it is completely invisible from the drivers seat

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Never mind insurance worries, you're lucky not to be on a careless driving charge even if you hadn't hit a cyclist!

Please explain how performing a overtake maneuver on that stretch of road is in any way careless

rich13348

kraken776 wrote: »

Um no, that is not a narrow road. that road is wide enough for cars to go in both directions at 30mph.



Nope,

There was no obvious cycle lane.
even on the google camera it is virtually invisible from that position.
as i explained it is completely invisible from the drivers seat



Please explain how performing a overtake maneuver on that stretch of road is in any way careless

Speed bumps and chicanes suggest that you are meant to reduce your speed on that stretch of road. Going 30+mph it must have been an interesting ride over those speed bumps. Not to mention the the cyclists must have been all over the place trying to get over them.

kraken776

rich13348 wrote: »

Speed bumps and chicanes suggest that you are meant to reduce your speed on that stretch of road. Going 30+mph it must have been an interesting ride over those speed bumps. Not to mention the the cyclists must have been all over the place trying to get over them.

if you read my previous posts you will know that both of those statements are false
the speed was 20-30mph
the cyclists were traveling in a straight line

you also seam to have ignored the fact that i moved all the way over into the other lane to overtake

Also, there is only a single chicane on that road which is over 1km long and has good visiability ahead for the whole stretch.

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

if you read my previous posts you will know that both of those statements are false
the speed was 20-30mph
the cyclists were traveling in a straight line

you also seam to have ignored the fact that i moved all the way over into the other lane to overtake

We don't know what's true or false because you're a liar.