cyclists turned right when i overtook

ARandomMiser

The OP made a very obvious mistake and for that reason, and that reason only, should be held 100% responsible - after hitting a cyclist you should always reverse backwards and forwards a few times to ensure the job is done properly ......... hypothetically of course.

Joe_Horner

kraken776 wrote: »

Driving close to the speed limit, that is bellow the speed limit
bellow the recognized safe speed
is EXCEEDING the standard of driving that is considered to be safe

You have stupidly picked on a behavior that EXCEEDS safe standards and described it as idiocy and in doing so have demonstrated idiocy yourself

Not going to bother with any of the rest of the post because this one part makes it clear that you either don't drive, shoyldn't be driving, or are purely on a wind up.

The speed limit is in no way, ever, in any situation, a "recognised safe speed" and being below it does not automatically make you safe

Now please go away, troll.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

I was not in an unexpected place, when you pull out of a driveway you look in both directions.

Don't be ridiculous, of course you were in an unexpected place. Do you expect to encounter vehicles travelling towards you on the wrong side of the road? Earlier in your account you claimed that the cyclist (after you narrowly missed him...yeah, right) rode on the wrong side of the road for a distance, an implied criticism of his hypothetical riding. Yet when you drive for tens of metres on the wrong side of the road, it's entirely correct?

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

I did not wait for the chicane because it was far enough ahead for me to complete my maneuver long before i reached it. therefore it was irrelevant.

Rubbish. Of course it's relevant. It was part of the environment you were driving in and an obvious and signed road feature. Its existence created the conditions for the collision so how can it be irrelevant?

You seem to take the view that anything and everything more than a few inches from the end of your bonnet is irrelevant and nothing to do with you. Let me guess, you're about to trot out that rubbish about the sight test for the test being 20 metres and therefore that anything beyond 20 metres away is irrelevant...

This is great stuff. The more you argue, the more you are showing up your frightening driving arrogance and ignorance of important visual clues around you. None of us is a perfect driver, we are all learning all the time, from our own mistakes and errors of judgement, most of which thankfully don't result in collisions. However, to learn anything in any walk of life, you have to acknowledge that there is always more to learn. It's a poor driver that arrogantly assumes right of way and right to uninterrupted progress by quoting from the Highway Code in a way that suits his circumstances. You've yet to concede that any aspect of your driving in this situation was lacking in judgement when plenty on here can build a picture of several failings in just the 50 metre stretch of road you describe and illustrate. And that's before we even arrive at the scene of the accident. Yes, I think we can pretty much all agree that the cyclist played his part in the accident, but you played a big part to create the conditions where what would have been cycling behaviour to shake your head at and drive on became something that was unneccesary and will hit you in the pocket.

Sicard

ARandomMiser wrote: »

The OP made a very obvious mistake and for that reason, and that reason only, should be held 100% responsible - after hitting a cyclist you should always reverse backwards and forwards a few times to ensure the job is done properly ......... hypothetically of course.

I know you jest but this actually happens in the Philippines. To kill a pedestrian et al there costs the perb about 10,000 pesos which goes to the family but if the victim lives it costs a lot more.

qwert_yuiop

Yoicks. Twenty pages later.

Just count yourself very lucky you didn't kill the bloke. Leave it at that.

Please.

Mercdriver

kraken776 wrote: »

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.

Have a look at the back of a Highway code for me, and tell me (including thinking time) what the stopping distance is from 30mph.

Hint: it's more than 20m. So your 20m limit (which is to do with being able to read a number plate, not the limit of your actual vision) is fallacious by definition. God I hope there aren't drivers out there that can't see anything beyond 20m... Looking is another thing entirely.

The hazard you keep avoiding which is staring you in the face is that you were overtaking not one vehicle but TWO on a road with traffic calming measures. That strikes me as a stupid thing to do. Note this isn't an ex hominum attack as I am not calling you stupid, just saying you did something which is stupid. If you are a properly trained driver you would not be taking a manoeuvre like this in teh way that you did.

Accident or no, you were driving carelessly.

kraken776

Mercdriver wrote: »

Have a look at the back of a Highway code for me, and tell me (including thinking time) what the stopping distance is from 30mph.

Hint: it's more than 20m. So your 20m limit (which is to do with being able to read a number plate, not the limit of your actual vision) is fallacious by definition. God I hope there aren't drivers out there that can't see anything beyond 20m... Looking is another thing entirely.

You have taken my reference to 20M completely out of context and I suspect that you have done this deliberately.

Mercdriver wrote: »

The hazard you keep avoiding which is staring you in the face is that you were overtaking not one vehicle but TWO

IRRELIVANT

What matters is how much width there was in the road
There were more than 1.5 meters between me and the closest cyclist, and even more space that i could have moved over into if necessary.

Your comment about there being 2 verticals effectively means that if cyclists are riding 2 abreast then it is not acceptable to overtake them. this of course would be nonsense.

I observed them for long enough to know what there current course and behavior was.

It is not my fault that one of them did something grossly negligent which could not have been predictable from the position where i started my overtake

Mercdriver wrote: »

on a road with traffic calming measures. That strikes me as a stupid thing to do. Note this isn't an ex hominum attack as I am not calling you stupid, just saying you did something which is stupid. If you are a properly trained driver you would not be taking a manoeuvre like this in teh way that you did.

Nope
Speed bumps are there to encourage people to slow down for them under threat of increase wear and tear damage to their car.

They do not make it unsafe to travel at the 30mph speed limit.
There is no reason why a person cannot temporally increase his speed because of them.

They have absolutely no relevance at all to the act of overtaking.
They have absolutely no relevance at all to what happened.
They were in no way a cause or foreseable cause for what happend.

Therefore they are completely irrelivant

Mercdriver wrote: »

Accident or no, you were driving carelessly.

Nope i was not.
of course if you wish to dispute this you can always find some case law where people have been convicted of driving carelessly and explain how these prove that my driving was careless. Of course we both know that you cannot do this.

Nobbie1967

kraken776 wrote: »

You have taken my reference to 20M completely out of context and I suspect that you have done this deliberately.



IRRELIVANT

What matters is how much width there was in the road
There were more than 1.5 meters between me and the closest cyclist, and even more space that i could have moved over into if necessary.

Your comment about there being 2 verticals effectively means that if cyclists are riding 2 abreast then it is not acceptable to overtake them. this of course would be nonsense.

I observed them for long enough to know what there current course and behavior was.

It is not my fault that one of them did something grossly negligent which could not have been predictable from the position where i started my overtake



Nope
Speed bumps are there to encourage people to slow down for them under threat of increase wear and tear damage to their car.

They do not make it unsafe to travel at the 30mph speed limit.
There is no reason why a person cannot temporally increase his speed because of them.

They have absolutely no relevance at all to the act of overtaking.
They have absolutely no relevance at all to what happened.
They were in no way a cause or foreseable cause for what happend.

Therefore they are completely irrelivant




Nope i was not.
of course if you wish to dispute this you can always find some case law where people have been convicted of driving carelessly and explain how these prove that my driving was careless. Of course we both know that you cannot do this.

It's funny, but the more you write, the more it is clear that you do not understand what constitutes safe driving behaviour. I think it's pretty likely that most of the posters on this thread would have avoided the incident with the cyclist as they can see that there are many hazards that would make an overtake unsafe. The fact that you still can't see this merely proves a lack of insight on your part. No amount of bluster and name calling will change that, but it's funny watching you try:rotfl:

Carry on:T

Aylesbury_Duck

Everything beyond the boundary of Kraken's car seems to be dismissed as "IRRELIVENT". He is totally incapable of reading anything into the wider context of the environment he's in.

Driveways and concealed entrances - irrelevant.
Speed humps - irrelevant.
Width restriction - irrelevant.
Second cyclist - irrelevant.
Cycle lane - irrelevant.
Cycle lane gate - irrelevant.

Just what is relevant Kraken? Let me guess. Just the cyclist's behaviour? Of course...