We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
cyclists turned right when i overtook
Options
Comments
-
Silver-Surfer wrote: »We don't know what's true or false because you're a liar.
well you cannot speculate facts which allow you to conclude that i was doing anything wrong and expect any conclusions based on speculatedfacts to have any weight0 -
well you cannot speculate facts which allow you to conclude that i was doing anything wrong and expect any conclusions based on speculatedfacts to have any weight
We can speculate all we like.
You drove like a !!!! and had an accident that's my conclusion and you won't change it.
0 -
Silver-Surfer wrote: »We can speculate all we like.
You drove like a !!!! and had an accident that's my conclusion and you won't change it.
No i did not
i drove in a safe and lawful manner.0 -
-
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
The road is wide enough for cars to pass at that speed but so are parts of the single track roads I take to work each day. They're still too narrow to safely overtake anything but a single cyclist on though.
The cycle lane (or a similar hazard) is obvious because there are those fences across the pavement. They're used to allow pedestrians through while stopping cyclists and for very few (if any) other reasons. While they're not an "official road marking" they're a huge, very visible, fence shaped give-away that there's almost certainly a cycle lane on the other side of them. If you didn't realise that at the time then you will next time, won't you? Or probably not seeing as you appear to be determined not to learn anything from this.
As for overtaking on that stretch of road, it's careless because - between the speed bumps, the chicane, and the up-coming cycle lane (which you should have recognised from the street furniture) - there are too many hazards to make an overtake there sensible rather than waiting approximately 10 seconds (at a leisurely 9mph behind the cyclists assuming your stated 40m distance) until you're clear of the chicane and on to open road.0 -
Silver-Surfer wrote: »See the lies just keep coming.
You took an innocent cyclist out with your careless actions.
lmao
with just a single sentence you have managed to make 3 mistakes
1)
A cyclist was not taken out at all
2)
the cyclist was not innocent he was negligent. He turned without looking or signaling. no rational person could describe this as "innocent"
3)
There was absolutely nothing careless about my actions. I performed a safe overtaking maneuver on a clear road which gave me at least 2 meters clearance between myself and the cyclists with visibility into the far distance0 -
lmao
with just a single sentence you have managed to make 3 mistakes
1)
A cyclist was not taken out at all
2)
the cyclist was not innocent he was negligent. He turned without looking or signaling. no rational person could describe this as "innocent"
3)
There was absolutely nothing careless about my actions. I performed a safe overtaking maneuver on a clear road which gave me at least 2 meters clearance between myself and the cyclists with visibility into the far distance
I'll refer you back to your OP where your careless actions took out the cyclist. :whistle:0 -
Joe_Horner wrote: »The road is wide enough for cars to pass at that speed but so are parts of the single track roads I take to work each day. They're still too narrow to safely overtake anything but a single cyclist on though.
A false and irrelevant analogy
False because on those narrow roads both cars have to slow down to a crawl and watch their wing mirrors carefully to pass each other, on the road in question there is no need to slow down to for particularly wary of cars traveling in the opposite direction
irrelevant because on the road in question there was enough room to overtake the cyclists with more than 2m space between my car and the nearest one.Joe_Horner wrote: »The cycle lane (or a similar hazard) is obvious because there are those fences across the pavement.
They're used to allow pedestrians through while stopping cyclists and for very few (if any) other reasons. While they're not an "official road marking" they're a huge, very visible, fence shaped give-away that there's almost certainly a cycle lane on the other side of them. If you didn't realise that at the time then you will next time, won't you?
Nope
Fences like that can be seen in many places and for many reasons. a person does not show negligence if he does not infer that a cycle lane exists just because of those. and even if they could they were 40m away from the point of the incident and on the opposite side of the road.
Furthermore a person only needs to have clear vision up to 20m to be legally qualified to drive. the cycle lane was 40m away and obscured.
Oh i have learned something from thisJoe_Horner wrote: »Or probably not seeing as you appear to be determined not to learn anything from this.
I have got a high quality dash cam alreadyJoe_Horner wrote: »As for overtaking on that stretch of road, it's careless because - between the speed bumps, the chicane, and the up-coming cycle lane (which you should have recognised from the street furniture) - there are too many hazards to make an overtake there sensible rather than waiting approximately 10 seconds (at a leisurely 9mph behind the cyclists assuming your stated 40m distance) until you're clear of the chicane and on to open road.
Um no
There are not "too many hazards"
It is not possible for there to be too many hazards because between the start and would have been finish point of my overtaking place they is not one hazard
NOT ONE
The nearest hazard before where i started was a right turn, i was past that before starting
the nearest hazard after is the chicane and i would have finished the overtake at least 20m before reaching it.
There were no parked cars or obstacles, clear vision for a very long distance ahead and at least 2m between myself and the nearest cyclist.0 -
The thing is, Kraken:
(1) I can see the hazards just from that GM link without a problem.
(2) You say they're not there.
Yet I'm not the one who knocked a cyclist off his bike. Nor have I ever misread a road - or another road user - to the extent that I've had an accident.
So my reading of that road, which would have delayed me by about 10 seconds and avoided the collision, is demonstrably better than your reading, which led to an accident.0 -
Joe_Horner wrote: »The thing is, Kraken:
(1) I can see the hazards just from that GM link without a problem.
(2) You say they're not there.
Yet I'm not the one who knocked a cyclist off his bike. Nor have I ever misread a road - or another road user - to the extent that I've had an accident.
So my reading of that road, which would have delayed me by about 10 seconds and avoided the collision, is demonstrably better than your reading, which led to an accident.
Basics init.
But he went at it like a bull in a chine shop and gobbed it. :rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards