cyclists turned right when i overtook

Joe_Horner

kraken776 wrote: »

Thanks for all the replys

[...] 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 [...]

How to win friends and influence people.

It may seam [sic] that way to you sew (see what I did there?), as one of that "handful of idiots", allow me to explain:

Accidents on the road that genuinely can't be anticipated or avoided are incredibly rare. In fact, they're so rare that it's safe to say that if you're involved in an accident then you DID either miss or not take account of something that could have prevented it.

That's not the same as saying its "their fault" in an insurance / police charge sort of way any more that saying it's someone's fault if they get struck by lightning.

If you notice a storm's happening and don't take appropriate cover, then even though you're not "at fault" you still bear some responsibility for what happens to you because you could have acted to mitigate the damage.

Hopefully you'll survive and learn not to shelter under the biggest tree in the field next time. If you survive and insist that "it was the storm's fault, there was nothing I could do" then you're a fool and are likely to get struck again sooner or later.

Same applies here - you could have prevented the accident by not overtaking at that point.

The accident was caused by the cyclist ("their fault") but you could have prevented it by reading the road (cycle lane coming up on the far side), anticipating that the cyclist might move towards it, and delaying your overtake by the few seconds it would have taken to cover those 20 or 30 metres you mention.

If you believe that's an unreasonable amount of thinking to do on the road then remember that there are plenty of drivers out there who anticipate far more than that all the time and they tend to be the ones who don't hit other road users - even the idiotic ones - regardless of "fault".

Retrogamer

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 ?

That's what hand signals are for. It seems the cyclist used to hand signals as well as failed to check the road was clean before changing lanes.

Joe_Horner

Retrogamer wrote: »

That's what hand signals are for. It seems the cyclist used to hand signals as well as failed to check the road was clean before changing lanes.

Trusting a driver to indicate correctly is well known to be risky, why would trusting a cyclist to use hand signals correctly be any different?

Car_54

kraken776 wrote: »

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.

Your original question was: "Can anyone advise me if I am likely to be held at fault for this."

A straightforward request, inviting the answers yes or no. Since you consider anyone answering "yes" to be an idiot, what was the point of asking?

kraken776

Car_54 wrote: »

Your original question was: "Can anyone advise me if I am likely to be held at fault for this."

A straightforward request, inviting the answers yes or no. Since you consider anyone answering "yes" to be an idiot, what was the point of asking?

This is a complete straw-man
i never said that

rich13348

kraken776 wrote: »

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?

Yes you did.

kraken776

rich13348 wrote: »

Yes you did.

I was not referring to the point which you have highlighted
i was referring to the second point

custardy

kraken776 wrote: »

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.

Well post the google co ordinates

Sicard

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Trusting a driver to indicate correctly is well known to be risky, why would trusting a cyclist to use hand signals correctly be any different?

Because a car driver is protected by a tank-like environment but a cyclist is protected by an egg shell and any cyclist that doesn't use hand signals is in fact an idiot.

Car_54

Laurie_Sicard-Askey wrote: »

Because a car driver is protected by a tank-like environment but a cyclist is protected by an egg shell and any cyclist that doesn't use hand signals is in fact an idiot.

If so, the great majority of the cyclists I see are idiots.

It's always nice to have your prejudices confirmed.