cyclists turned right when i overtook
Options
Comments
-
Joe_Horner wrote: »The thing is, Kraken:
(1) I can see the hazards just from that GM link without a problem.
Very well
List all the hazard's with 30m ether side of the GSV location (60m distance in total which I would say is the relevant area)
within the relevant distance yesJoe_Horner wrote: »(2) You say they're not there.
I also have not knocked a cyclist of his bike.Joe_Horner wrote: »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.
But even if I did it would not have been my fault because he unexpected changed direction while i was maintaining a steady trajectory.Joe_Horner wrote: »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.
As I said there was no collision
Furthermore you dont know that waiting another 10 seconds would have avoided a collision. For all you know the other one may have decided to suddenly swerve right across the road at the exact moment when you said that you would have turned.0 -
Very well
List all the hazard's with 30m ether side of the GSV location (60m distance in total which I would say is the relevant area)
within the relevant distance yes
I also have not knocked a cyclist of his bike.
But even if I did it would not have been my fault because he unexpected changed direction while i was maintaining a steady trajectory.
As I said there was no collision
Furthermore you dont know that waiting another 10 seconds would have avoided a collision. For all you know the other one may have decided to suddenly swerve right across the road at the exact moment when you said that you would have turned.
And I refer you back to this.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?
So which version do we believe Walter?0 -
Silver-Surfer wrote: »And I refer you back to this.
So which version do we believe Walter?
Why would you make reference to my OP when i have since make a post explaining that there was no accident?
A post which you yourself have aknoladged.0 -
-
Silver-Surfer wrote: »Basics init.
But he went at it like a bull in a chine shop and gobbed it. :rotfl:
Yep, it's basics.
What I find genuinely worrying is this (his bold):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.
Within the 200m of road between Bradstocks Way (the "road on the right") and the chicane there are 6 private entrances on the left (several with high hedges) plus a field entrance and a farm track - both partially concealed, 2 speed bumps, and 13 (!!) private entrances on the right, again many partially concealed by hedges.
Note that those 13 entrances (that's one every 15 metres, or just under one per second at 30mph) are on the side that he pulled across to which not only limits his view past the hedges but puts him in an unexpected position for anyone emerging.
Yet there was, to quote him again, "NOT ONE" hazard in that stretch of road!!!!0 -
You really don't help yourself, do you Kraken?
Not one hazard? You're kidding me? As others have pointed out, there are plenty between the points you refer to. Granted, there is a likelihood that on many occasions driving down this road, nothing might occur, but the hazards are nonetheless present. Your insistence that they don't exist is quite some revelation now we have the pictorial evidence, and recalling your numerous posts in this whole thread, undermines a lot of what you have stated to be fact. It calls into question your insistence you were doing nothing wrong and the fault lies solely with the other party. It's quite clear that you were taking risks, attempting a manoeuvre that really wasn't safe even without the cyclist's own manoeuvre. That there were two cyclists, abreast, or to all intents and purposes abreast, and despite the speed humps, driveways and upcoming chicane, you tried to get past so as not to delay your journey by a few seconds.0 -
So in a few days' time, if you change your story again and admit to the accident, am I to assume that we should then completely ignore the current period of your argument? You seem to think that people should give you some sort of amnesty for everything that went before your "confession" and accept that everything that follows is totally factual. The trouble is, some don't know which version to believe any more. I know that I am certain that your first version is the real one. You spent so long arguing the case before getting boxed in, changing the outcome was the only face-saving way out.Why would you make reference to my OP when i have since make a post explaining that there was no accident?
A post which you yourself have aknoladged.
What would be a fitting end to this thread would be for you to have the decency to let us know the outcome from your insurers. After all, we could all learn from that, which is presumably why you posted in the first place?0 -
Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »[...] Granted, there is a likelihood that on many occasions driving down this road, nothing might occur, but the hazards are nonetheless present. [...]
I do think that's a problem with the current driving test (particularly the computer game part) where learners are taught that it's not a hazard until it starts "developing". The problem with that is that it makes all hazard avoidance reactive rather than anticipatory.
Sitting hazard perception tests when teaching my OH to drive I was gobsmacked by one clip where the mother with toddler and pushchair on the pavement didn't count as a "hazard" until they turned towards the road. With a toddler getting away from their mum, that's too late!0 -
Its like in 1984 where they suddenly switch sides and start fighting the party and Winston and the team work 2 days straight to remove all knowledge of the old alliance and rewrite all history.Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »So in a few days' time, if you change your story again and admit to the accident, am I to assume that we should then completely ignore the current period of your argument? You seem to think that people should give you some sort of amnesty for everything that went before your "confession" and everything that follows is totally factual. The trouble is, some don't know which version to believe any more. I know that I am certain that your first version is the real one. You spent so long arguing the case before getting boxed in, changing the outcome was the only face-saving way out.
What would be a fitting end to this thread would be for you to have the decency to let us know the outcome from your insurers. After all, we could all learn from that, which is presumably why you posted in the first place?0 -
Sticking with the Orwellian theme, you could say that Kraken's approach to this accident and the apportion of blame has been....four wheels good, two wheels bad.Its like in 1984 where they suddenly switch sides and start fighting the party and Winston and the team work 2 days straight to remove all knowledge of the old alliance and rewrite all history.
1. Whatever goes upon two wheels is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four wheels is a friend.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards