cyclists turned right when i overtook

Car_54

NBLondon wrote: »

It does sound like the cyclist rides there everyday and was intending to head for the start of the cycle lane by the shortest route. If there was no signal, no looking back before a sudden turn towards a cycle lane that the OP couldn't see then I don't see how the OP should be expected to predict that other than being wary of a cyclist just because they are a cyclist. So yes, demand the helmet cam footage to show whether the cyclist looked back before manoeuvring and how sharply they turned.

Who are you suggesting should demand it? And under what power?

Joe_Horner

Car_54 wrote: »

Who are you suggesting should demand it? And under what power?

The Accountability of Cyclists Act 2019 - one of the first laws I plan to introduce when I become Transport minister.

It will also make it an offence for them to bimble along back roads, with no safe overtakes, at 15 mph ignoring laybys that they could easily move into (without even slowing / stopping) to let you pass.

Back on topic:

cycle + cycle lane starting on right = bad place to overtake because he's likely to want to go that way. Basic anticipation.

So at least some responsibility on the OP for not waiting a few seconds longer until the cycle lane's "established" and you know what the cycle intends to do.

OnanTheBarbarian

the case is most likely a 50/50

OP overtakes near a junction - this is risky and demonstrates possible breach of duty of care

Cyclist fails to check or signal before executing right hand turn - breach of duty of care.

dannyrst

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The Accountability of Cyclists Act 2019 - one of the first laws I plan to introduce when I become Transport minister.

It will also make it an offence for them to bimble along back roads, with no safe overtakes, at 15 mph ignoring laybys that they could easily move into (without even slowing / stopping) to let you pass.

Back on topic:

cycle + cycle lane starting on right = bad place to overtake because he's likely to want to go that way. Basic anticipation.

So at least some responsibility on the OP for not waiting a few seconds longer until the cycle lane's "established" and you know what the cycle intends to do.

First paragraph of new law...

"All Cyclists must destroy their bikes and buy cars. If they insist on being healthy, feel free to walk." - Consultation from Jeremy Clarkson.

Joe_Horner

dannyrst wrote: »

First paragraph of new law...

"All Cyclists must destroy their bikes and buy cars. If they insist on being healthy, feel free to walk somewhere away from roads - pedestrianism is un-natural and others shouldn't be made to watch." - Consultation from Jeremy Clarkson.

Proposed amendment no. 1 :beer:

bod1467

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

the case is most likely a 50/50

OP overtakes near a junction - this is risky and demonstrates possible breach of duty of care

Cyclist fails to check or signal before executing right hand turn - breach of duty of care.

Per OP's description, the start of the cycle lane wasn't (well) signed thus OP was unaware of the impending hazard, thus the cyclist suddenly moving across could not have been predicted or anticipated.

I agree though that it'll probably go 50:50, in which case it may go 100% to OP since the cyclist may not have (nor requires) insurance for using the road.

AdrianC

rich13348 wrote: »

Where I come from we don't need 3 lanes fancy southern beggars that you all are.
But as you asked

Inside. Middle. Outside.

So is the inside lane the one nearest the centre, the inside of the road, and the outside lane the one nearest the kerb, the outside of the road?

No, thought not.

And that's why referring to L1/2/3/4/5/6/7 makes so much more sense.

rich13348

AdrianC wrote: »

So is the inside lane the one nearest the centre, the inside of the road, and the outside lane the one nearest the kerb, the outside of the road?

No, thought not.

And that's why referring to L1/2/3/4/5/6/7 makes so much more sense.

I'm not making you use any words AdrianC you use whatever words you want.
Nobody I have spoken has every had trouble understanding inside or outside, until you of course. Maybe that says more about you than me?

foxy-stoat

kraken776 wrote: »

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?

If the OP ever comes back, I will answer the questions asked:

If the cyclist was injured or decides he wants to claim for damage to his bike, then you will be held liable by who ever no win no fee solicitor he uses, pass the letters to your insurers. What your insurance company does is down to them - nothing really to do with you now you have notified them. If they decide they want to see the cam footage they can only ask - if there is any footage that shows he is at fault then he wont submit it, he will say the battery was flat etc etc. No way to force him, only the Police can do that if a crime has been committed.

If you decide you want to claim for the damage you could start a small claims track but if it went to court you will be asked to supply independent witness or the Judge will probably rule 50/50. If you want to claim on your own insurance you can, less the excess. You or your Insurers will need to PROVE negligence for you to 100% win, if no witnesses then 50/50 is best outcome. You will be able to claim half of your excess or half of the cost of repair if you pay yourself.

If the cyclist has no valid insurance then you will have to get the cash out of him, easier said than done. Maybe his household insurance has liablity, not sure if it covers push bikes.

Good luck

Joe_Horner

rich13348 wrote: »

I'm not making you use any words AdrianC you use whatever words you want.
Nobody I have spoken has every had trouble understanding inside or outside, until you of course. Maybe that says more about you than me?

Besides which, giving them numbers does beg the question of are they numbered from left to right or right to left?

Regardless of the technical accuracy or otherwise, just about everybody understands what's meant by "fast lane" and "slow lane". It may be wrong to a pedant but it's probably the least ambiguous description available

Besides, not sure the Eagles would have done so well with "Life in The Overtaking Lane" or "Life in Lane 3" - just doesn't scan right :rotfl: