Cyclist collision at mini round about

BeenThroughItAll

arcon5 wrote: »

Filtering ? lol sure. A term bikers seem to like to use when justifying dangerous manoeuvres.

No, it's a term people (including bikers, but also including the non-motorcycling traffic police I recently spent a couple of days with, and others) is a term people use to describe, not justify, perfectly legal, and safe, passage past or through slower moving traffic.


The only people who think it's used to justify 'dangerous manoeuvres' are people who are too insular or stupid to understand what it is.

spadoosh

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

"but they don't man that the incident was the cyclist's fault"

fault is not a binary operation - the more my culpability is reduced the more it becomes the cyclists "fault"

Again the fault is entirely yours, your car should not have been there, thats it end of. You caused that accident.


Youre also assuming that this guy overtook on his way in. in your first posts im fairly sure you said you didnt see him. So you dont really know what he was doing, chances are you just didnt see him (i see this very often). What if the car that was stationary overtook the cyclist while approaching the roundabout but was unable to complete it?

spadoosh

I didn't see him, I imagine when I pulled off he was at the right side of the car at my right so I had no clear view of him

So once again, you dont have a clue. You just didnt see him. You dont know where he came from. He couldve come from an alien spaceship for all you know.

Quite a lot of drivers have a habit of only looking for cars so when they say they didnt see something what they actually mean is they wasnt looking for it. Cyclists you should really be looking for. It requires a bit of brain training.

Did you see the video i posted? Somethings you see, something you have to look for.

spadoosh

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

I know that he wasnt on the round about before me because he wasn't there when i looked - he also told me what direction he came from and he was cycling quickly to beat traffic

"Its unfortunate and you might not have been able to avoid it (no one might have been able to avoid it) but your actions directly led to the cyclist who had right of way hitting you."

So if no one could have avoided it how is it my "Fault" - it surprises me that this forum doesn't like the term "accident"

I included that in the hope of making you feel a bit better yet highlighting you where still at fault. Im sure there are plenty of cautious drivers who wouldve taken extra time and care to make sure the roundabout was completely clear, at which point, the cyclist would have passed.

You dont know that, all you know is that you didnt see him. You dont know where he was as you did not see him. Cycling quickly to beat traffic i would take to assume he had something coming from his right and if he had the speed could continue without having to stop (continuous stopping/starting on a bicycle takes more energy so you try to avoid it as much as possible).

Which further backs up my idea that the car that was stationary went to overtake the cyclist whilst not completing the maneuver, saw traffic from their right so stopped whilst the cyclist was further away from that traffic so had a bit more time to cross the roundabout without having to stop like the car did.

Mercdriver

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

how can a stationary car overtake a cyclist? which backs up my idea the cyclist overtook the car at a junction at speed without lights crossing into a hatched area

Seems our "ideas" are converging here

How do you know what he did when you say you didn't see him? You keep being asked this question and you are still in denial. Out of interest how long have you been driving?

spadoosh

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

how can a stationary car overtake a cyclist? which backs up my idea the cyclist overtook the car at a junction at speed without lights crossing into a hatched area

Seems our "ideas" are converging here

The car begins to overtake cyclist approaching the roundabout (loads more common than a cyclist overtaking on the right approaching a roundabout, particularly if the cyclist is planning on turning left or going straight on). Car breaks for roundabout preparing to give way. Realises they have to give way and comes to a stop without having completed the overtake. The cyclist who isnt on his brakes and therefore maintains momentum decides its safe enough for him to go, for whatever reason the car decides it isnt so stops.

Speed is completely inconsequential in this instance purely because there is no speed restrictions for cycling on general roads.

I believe the likelihood of my scenario is far more common than yours. Obviously this is personal opinion although ive had quite a few experiences of cars overtaking me on my push bike approaching a roundabout for them to turn left cutting across me. That experience has taught me to take primary position approaching roundabouts although its all too common for a lot of cyclists not to do that leading to a situation as i describe above.

reeac

I've just been Googling "cyclists filtering" and have found plenty of case law where the filtering cyclist/motorcyclist has been found partially or even fully responsible for the accident in the T junction situation eg. on the grounds that they should have realised that the overtaken traffic was slow or stationary for a good reason. There are a number of articles written by lawyers on this matter for the benefit of motorcyclists. The law seems to be more sensible than I expected.

spadoosh

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

because the cyclist told me - been driving for 15 years

The cyclist told you he came from that direction and he was cycling fast (again speed is not a factor, fast for most cyclists is less than 20mph). Im guessing he didnt say he overtook a car?

This is the scenario im describing (although i wouldnt say this is the worst of the voertakes im thinking) and the red car stops instead of continuing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDTUQN9JG78

spadoosh

I think this is your 'accident', except theres another car involved that decides to give way to a vehicle coming from the right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwT0YA2OXhU

Minus the high vis of course

mark1959

reeac wrote: »

I've just been Googling "cyclists filtering" and have found plenty of case law where the filtering cyclist/motorcyclist has been found partially or even fully responsible for the accident in the T junction situation eg. on the grounds that they should have realised that the overtaken traffic was slow or stationary for a good reason. There are a number of articles written by lawyers on this matter for the benefit of motorcyclists. The law seems to be more sensible than I expected.

I take it you don't like others filtering either.:o