Cyclist collision at mini round about

NBLondon

spadoosh wrote: »

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.

I think is quite feasible - more likely than a cyclist overtaking on the right and cutting across - which would be borderline suicidal!

spadoosh wrote: »

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

I think you're muddying the water with these videos rather than adding anything to your perfectly good description.

dacouch wrote: »

Does the hatched area have a solid white line on the outer part of it or a broken white line?

Is it a white hatched area or a yellow hatched area?

This is a good question. Emma said it was a small mini-roundabout (not that there are many big ones!) so would it have a box junction? It might have a small hatched triangle. A Google link might help us, Emma....

just_trying wrote: »

You decided to pull out, and you hit the cyclist.

No, the cyclist hit her.

just_trying wrote: »

He had the right of way not you,

You are surmising here. If Emma was already on the roundabout when the cyclist entered, then it could be argued that she had right of way - y'know - give way to vehicles already on the roundabout?

just_trying wrote: »

you choose to enter the roundabout doesn't matter that the car was stationary you took that as your opportunity.

Yep - that bit is poor judgement by Emma.

Mercdriver

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

Finally someone with some common sense. The hatched area is just a hatched area with white lines, its not surrounded by solid lines but by dashed so entering is okay if safe to do so, but having looked these markings are used to deter cyclists from overtaking on the right. I agree completely that I was on the round about first

For the umpteenth time, how do you know? You didn't see him, remember? So how can you know you were on the roundabout first?

cubegame

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

Ok do the maths retard. He told me he was going fast to take over traffic to his right. I looked and your corrected didn't see him - why - because he wasn't there, he was going fast remember. So I pull out and HE HITS MY SIDE

If you insist you didn't see him because he wasn't there then how his his lack of lights or bright clothing relevant?

Having read the thread thoroughly it is obvious you are at fault and posted on a motoring forum expecting some form of reinforcement of your feeling that you are not. It hasn't happened, thus prompting increasingly defensive behaviour and subtle shifting of the facts as your try to tweak your backstory (such as around sunset becoming after sunset).

trinidadone

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

Ok do the maths retard. He told me he was going fast to take over traffic to his right. I looked and your corrected didn't see him - why - because he wasn't there, he was going fast remember. So I pull out and HE HITS MY SIDE

Hello Emmasundersagain, I completely understand where you are coming from, you was hit by the bike, so the probability of you carrying out the turn first, and actually being on the roundabout first is quite high. I would be grateful if you can edit the work after "maths" especially as that word can be considered offensive to other moneysavers.

Remember i also informed you, to use your ignore button, there are a number of trolls on your thread who simply want to have a argument, as appose to an intelligent frank of words. Good luck!!

almillar

I have always accepted that filtering is LIKE overtaking, but I'm pointing out that it's not the same. The difference is essentially that overtaking requires an entire lane (or at least serious width) whereas filtering can be done without having your own lane. I've no idea if there's legislation around it in law (the dictionary doesn't count) but it IS mentioned in the highway code.
In the context of this thread, I'm banging on about it because people are calling it the same as overtaking. It's not. And all vehicle drivers need to know about it, because all vehicle drivers may encounter 'filterers'. OP clearly didn't deal very well with the one they encountered.

Classically, I think, filtering refers to passing between a vehicle and a kerb or between two vehicles e.g. a green filter arrow signs permit traffic to make a turn whilst going straight ahead is banned by a red light and in order to do this the vehicle often has to get past stationary traffic which is forbidden to move

Not sure if you've read the rest of the thread, but you're talking about a FILTER LANE. We're talking about FILTERING, which is (motor)cyclists moving up in between traffic without their own lane. There is no FILTER LANE AFAIK in this example.

I'm just suggesting that - the cyclist should have taken over when safe to do so and entering into hatched areas should be cautionary they are probably put there with the aim to prevent these types of things happening

So it's white hashed lines, with broken white lines around the edge? 'Only enter if safe to do so'.
You're still stuck with failing the fundamental 'give way to the right' even with the contributing factors I've already acknowledged. The only possible defence you have, is if it was 30 mins after lighting up time, because at that time he would require lights, or shouldn't have been on the road. Otherwise, you caused the accident, he contributed towards it.

it stopped to as you suggest probably allow other cars from its right to pass, so I as a reasonable driver took it as my opportunity to leave

You missed 'after checking it was safe to do so'.

The hatched area is just a hatched area with white lines, its not surrounded by solid lines but by dashed so entering is okay if safe to do so

Can you please give us a Google Maps link?

Either you pulled out in front of him, or you had to stop in the middle of a roundabout because he was flying round it out of control. Was he trying to cross lanes?

Mercdriver

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

Ok do the maths retard. He told me he was going fast to take over traffic to his right. I looked and your corrected didn't see him - why - because he wasn't there, he was going fast remember. So I pull out and HE HITS MY SIDE

Wow. Just wow. Can you please tell me where I have been less than civil to you? Disagree by all means but do grow up. You have been wildly inconsistent in this thread.

First you didn't see him, he came out of nowhere and he struck you on the right wing of your car. Now you know he pulled out while you were on the roundabout even though you didn't see him. And now he hit you in the centre of the car. Where in the centre of the car is the right wing?

I wonder whether you had a post reported because of name calling before hence why you had to come into your own thread with a different username. If I were you, I'd prepare another one, assuming the mods don't ban your IP address this time.

It was around sunset, so while light may have been fading, unless it was persisting down, you should have seen him, if you were indeed looking for him. The fact is as I have stated elsewhere is that most drivers are looking for other cars, not cycles and that's why they don't see them. You're never too experienced to learn from mistakes. But you do have to accept you make them first.

Have a nice day. Quit the anger and the name calling. It doesn't make your case any more persuasive.

trinidadone

Mercdriver wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. Can you please tell me where I have been less than civil to you? Disagree by all means but do grow up. You have been wildly inconsistent in this thread.

First you didn't see him, he came out of nowhere and he struck you on the right wing of your car. Now you know he pulled out while you were on the roundabout even though you didn't see him. And now he hit you in the centre of the car. Where in the centre of the car is the right wing?

I wonder whether you had a post reported because of name calling before hence why you had to come into your own thread with a different username. If I were you, I'd prepare another one, assuming the mods don't ban your IP address this time.

It was around sunset, so while light may have been fading, unless it was persisting down, you should have seen him, if you were indeed looking for him. The fact is as I have stated elsewhere is that most drivers are looking for other cars, not cycles and that's why they don't see them. You're never too experienced to learn from mistakes. But you do have to accept you make them first.

Have a nice day. Quit the anger and the name calling. It doesn't make your case any more persuasive.

Telling another poster to "grow up" hardy "civil" is it? The poster is new to moneysavingexpert. Discrediting the poster with

"I wonder whether you had a post reported because of name calling before hence why you had to come into your own thread with a different username. If I were you, I'd prepare another one, assuming the mods don't ban your IP address this time".

no wonder the poster is not taking you seriously, and you call this "civil"?

Mercdriver

trinidadone wrote: »

Telling another poster to "grow up" hardy "civil" is it? The poster is new to moneysavingexpert. Discrediting the poster with

"I wonder whether you had a post reported because of name calling before hence why you had to come into your own thread with a different username. If I were you, I'd prepare another one, assuming the mods don't ban your IP address this time".

no wonder the poster is not taking you seriously, and you call this "civil"?

You make me laugh. You ignore any opinion that doesn't align with your own very distorted view.

I told her to grow up because she called me a retard. She complained earlier in the thread that she had been barred so started a new handle. The moderators of this forum are VERY lenient from my experience, so I would say that it would be unusual if not unheard of for them to bar someone for no reason.

if you think it's grown up to call someone a retard because they disagree with you, then you have lost any tiny shred of credibility you have.

Why don't the two of you set up your own forum where you can decide the rules for yourself and just say "Yes, I agree with you" repeatedly, rather than this rather arrogant and childish attitude that exists here in these two threads where the motorist can do nothing wrong and it must have been the cyclist at fault?

I cycle very rarely indeed now, as am always on the road. I make mistakes and sometimes miss things. So do you. There is no such thing as perfection.

trinidadone

Mercdriver wrote: »

You make me laugh. You ignore any opinion that doesn't align with your own very distorted view.

I told her to grow up because she called me a retard. She complained earlier in the thread that she had been barred so started a new handle. The moderators of this forum are VERY lenient from my experience, so I would say that it would be unusual if not unheard of for them to bar someone for no reason.

if you think it's grown up to call someone a retard because they disagree with you, then you have lost any tiny shred of credibility you have.

Why don't the two of you set up your own forum where you can decide the rules for yourself and just say "Yes, I agree with you" repeatedly, rather than this rather arrogant and childish attitude that exists here in these two threads where the motorist can do nothing wrong and it must have been the cyclist at fault?

I cycle very rarely indeed now, as am always on the road. I make mistakes and sometimes miss things. So do you. There is no such thing as perfection.

Because you are once again getting personal, i will leave it there.

spadoosh

OP you where in the wrong, you wont convince me otherwise and i highly doubt you would convince an investigation otherwise. I think most would agree. Take from that what you will, abstaining responsibility will not benefit you.

ETA If there is an investigation you best have a much clearer memory of what was said and what you did and did not see, your changing and faltering recount of what happened will also not help you.

Thats all im willing to put into this thread. Be well (and try not to cause accidents! :P)