cyclists turned right when i overtook

AdrianC

Mercdriver wrote: »

what about near side and offside. That would make it perfectly clear.

Yes, it would. But it still doesn't scale past three lanes.

Car_54

Mercdriver wrote: »

what about near side and offside. That would make it perfectly clear.

Only to those who understand the terms, which I suspect is a minority. What's wrong with left and right?

bod1467

I don't know why some people are still so hung up on the terms rich used ... I mean, virtually everyone knows what was meant.

It's the same as when people talk about Road Tax ... it's not called that, and hasn't been for a very long time (if ever), but everyone knows what is meant.

So how about we drop this side show hijack and get back to the OP's topic?

Silver-Surfer_2

bod1467 wrote: »

I don't know why some people are still so hung up on the terms rich used ... I mean, virtually everyone knows what was meant.

It's the same as when people talk about Road Tax ... it's not called that, and hasn't been for a very long time (if ever), but everyone knows what is meant.

So how about we drop this side show hijack and get back to the OP's topic?

Why? He's not going to come back, it's dark outside so doesn't matter.

Mercdriver

Car_54 wrote: »

Only to those who understand the terms, which I suspect is a minority. What's wrong with left and right?

near and off side work no matter what country you drive in for a start.

almillar

The fact you're arguing so much over the naming conventions only highlights the confusion over what different people call things.
Especially the inside and outside land, and AdrianC's photo arguing that the 'inside' lanes would be closest to the 'central' reservation. That explanation makes sense to me, and is contrary to what I would call the 'inside'.
But hold on, if I talked about 'undertaking' someone on the motorway, wouldn't I be corrected on here, by people telling me it's 'overtaking on the INSIDE'?!
Confusion!

The cyclist - even if there was a sign for a cycle lane, the cyclist still just randomly crossed the road without looking or indicating - even if OP sees a sign for a cycle lane, and 'expects the unexpected' - should he really not overtake just because he sees a sign for a cycle lane?

JP08

almillar wrote: »

The cyclist - even if there was a sign for a cycle lane, the cyclist still just randomly crossed the road without looking or indicating - even if OP sees a sign for a cycle lane, and 'expects the unexpected' - should he really not overtake just because he sees a sign for a cycle lane?

Well the highway code tells you not to overtake at any junction ... and to treat cyclists like any other road user. You wouldn't overtake another car at a right turn junction would you ? Even if they hadn't got their indicators on - cos they might have a bulb out ?

bod1467

JP08 wrote: »

Well the highway code tells you not to overtake at any junction ... and to treat cyclists like any other road user. You wouldn't overtake another car at a right turn junction would you ? Even if they hadn't got their indicators on - cos they might have a bulb out ?

My wife witnessed a collision last night, between a car and a motorbike. The bike was overtaking one car on the approach to a junction on the right ... which the car next in front was taking!

Not sure of the extent of any injuries, but the biker would be at fault here.

Car_54

almillar wrote: »

The cyclist - even if there was a sign for a cycle lane, the cyclist still just randomly crossed the road without looking or indicating - even if OP sees a sign for a cycle lane, and 'expects the unexpected' - should he really not overtake just because he sees a sign for a cycle lane?

His best course of action would be to sound the horn to alert the cyclist before overtaking. Of course, the cyclist might be deaf as well as stupid ...

kraken776

Thanks for all the replys

Its a dam shame that the discussion got sidetracked
and i am also worried about the attitude of a handful of idiots who seam to think that the incident was my fault unless there is absolutely no way i could have predicted or avoided it, or worse still that its my fault no matter what.

One thing i would like to add,
I have checked the area of the crash oh google maps and my car stopped some distance away from where the cycle lane starts on the opposite pavement.

This means that even if i knew the cyclist was going to turn right I could not have known it would have happened at that specific point (although i still would not have tried the overtake because it was close enough that it may have resulted in the cyclist turning into my rear side door)

It also means the cyclist must have intended to cycle on the wrong side of the road for a good 20-30 meters (but not on the opposite pavement because as i said it had a barrier crossing it.