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
-
There are additional lanes on a motorway, if someone decides to drive into you when you're in lane 1 then you might be justified in getting irate and claiming from their insurance.
That's what has happened here, or maybe not depending on the OPs changing view on a a daily basis.
It's not though is it0 -
-
NewUserHere wrote: »Yes and I've read the brilliant responses of the irrational who think a) you shouldn't overtake cyclists on any road other than one with a mile long straight with nothing but fields either side; and b) op is at fault despite the fact a cyclist changed paths without indication and crashed.
All brilliant stuff. But your a merc driver so we don't expect you to understand logic anyway.
If you had read the whole thread you would know that the cyclist changing paths isn't a "fact". It is a figment of the OP's warped imagination. Or possibly not - we will never know.
Even if the incident really occurred, I can see no earthly reason why we should believe the OP's version of it.0 -
If you had read the whole thread you would know that the cyclist changing paths isn't a "fact". It is a figment of the OP's warped imagination. Or possibly not - we will never know.
Even if the incident really occurred, I can see no earthly reason why we should believe the OP's version of it.
Whether it was hypertherical or not doesn't change you is/would be liable own does it!
Why should we believe ops version of events? Well how about because that's all you have to go on! On every thread around here! So are you gonna question the authenticity of every post from now on?
It can only go against op if they base their decisions on forum responses based on incomplete information. So unless you can prove the contrary maybe you should start taking these threads at face value instead of turning detective with no substance0 -
NewUserHere wrote: »Whether it was hypertherical or not doesn't change you is/would be liable own does it!
Why should we believe ops version of events? Well how about because that's all you have to go on! On every thread around here! So are you gonna question the authenticity of every post from now on?
It can only go against op if they base their decisions on forum responses based on incomplete information. So unless you can prove the contrary maybe you should start taking these threads at face value instead of turning detective with no substance
No substance?
We have had two diametrically opposed versions from the OP. In one, the incident really happened. In the other, the whole thing is hypothetical.
Which version do you think we should "take at face value"?0 -
No substance?
We have had two diametrically opposed versions from the OP. In one, the incident really happened. In the other, the whole thing is hypothetical.
Which version do you think we should "take at face value"?
Opposed versions? Brilliant! Because we don't know whether it was real or made up doesn't mean the version of events described are any different.
Lol good one:rotfl::rotfl:0 -
NewUserHere wrote: »It's not though is it
The OPs version is confused and constantly changing, what appears consistent is that he hit or nearly hit a cyclist whilst overtaking.
It doesn't make any difference of the cyclist varied his position in the road, the OP was overtaking and needs to give suitable clearance to avoid a collision. If he was overtaking then he should really be in another lane, eventhough cyclists are obviously narrow and don't take much space in width terms. It's appears he tried to 'nip past' and got can't out by a narrowing road and road furniture which led to the collision or not.
Bottom line is that if you're overtaking the onus is on you to avoid traffic and an accident, whether they be travelling in the same direction as you or coming the other way.0 -
Plus if you are turning right make sure nothings overtaking you.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
Cor - there's a lot of hypotheticals going on here...The OPs version is confused and constantly changing, what appears consistent is that he hit or nearly hit a cyclist whilst overtaking.
It doesn't make any difference of the cyclist varied his position in the road, the OP was overtaking and needs to give suitable clearance to avoid a collision. If he was overtaking then he should really be in another lane, eventhough cyclists are obviously narrow and don't take much space in width terms. It's appears he tried to 'nip past' and got can't out by a narrowing road and road furniture which led to the collision or not.
Bottom line is that if you're overtaking the onus is on you to avoid traffic and an accident, whether they be travelling in the same direction as you or coming the other way.
Of course, it does make a difference if the other road user varied their position; if you are overtaking someone and they swerve out then there will almost inevitably be a coming together.
From the Highway Code:168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.0 -
Cor - there's a lot of hypotheticals going on here...
Of course, it does make a difference if the other road user varied their position; if you are overtaking someone and they swerve out then there will almost inevitably be a coming together.
From the Highway Code:
There have been a lot of hypotheticals in the OPs various versions.
If you are overtaking you really need to be clear of that lane, which wasn't the case here whether it's a bike or car shouldn't make much difference.
A bike or motorbike may vary their position in that lane, but in this case as is common the OP appears to have squeezed past in the same lane.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards