Without seeing the location I am making an assumption but given you did not see the cyclist prior to impact is it possible that he had come from the far side of the roundabout and the car to your right had stopped to give way to the cyclist from his right who you then pulled into the path of.

Have you assumed he passed the car to your right or has this been confirmed.

The problem with arguing he had no front light is that without photos it is your word against his so if he says he had a light you would be found at fault.

You have a duty to report this to the police within 24 hours or could face prosecution for failing to report. Before the regulars argue you only have to report if he is injured the police will take the view a cyclist knocked off his bike is likely to be injured. You also need to inform your insurers so they can make enquiries into cctv before any footage is wiped at 30 days.

Just be pleased you aren't facing a prosecution to be honest

Hi he informed me where he entered the round about from and it is as I said.

He said at the scene he didn't need an ambulance and was not injured. I have looked at reporting and it states to report if I am injured or if my vehicle is damaged which is not the case. I gave my details at the scene, my phone number and my registration number

Was there a cycle path a little further up on the other side of the road?

No dont think so

The OP seems obsessed with the cyclist not wearing a helmet, would you have seen them if they were wearing one? Or thought i wont pull out because he is wearing a helmet?

You sound inexperienced and probably would benefit from some extra training.

No im obsessed he didnt have lights in the dark

Only if it was after sunset.

Only if the bike was manufactured after October 1985, and it was after sunset.

No.

Lighting up time is 30 minutes after sunset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighting-up_time

not for cyclists its at sunset

yes it was after sunset

Have you got a link to legislation that says there is a requirement to "light up" half and hour before "lighting up time"?

While out cycling this afternoon in the dismal weather, every other car had no lights on at all & some were black in colour.

The Road Traffic Act 1991, s.42; The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.

is. As soon as the sun drops behind the horizon bicycle lights should be switched on even if there may be plenty of light left to see by on a clear evening. Failure to have the correct lights or reflectors can result in being issued a Fixed Penalty Notice where the maximum is £30[6] or you can be subject to a maximum fine of £1000 in the courts.

I'm having difficulty imagining this. Was the cyclist on the mini-roundabout approaching from your right and you didn't see him, or was he approaching from your rear and trying to overtake, and you turned across his path? Either way, it looks a bit like a 50/50 to me. He should have been riding with more care, and you should have been looking a bit harder.


If it was dusk, then he should have had a front light, regardless of the laws around lighting-up time. If you're wearing black and with only a rear light in poor lighting conditions, then expect something bad to happen to you, especially if you go charging through junctions in traffic. (I saw two road cyclists on the bypass here tonight exactly the same.) Since DRLs became more common on cars, I seem to see more cars with lights on in poor or fading light, as if people are putting lights on earlier than they used to 5-10 years ago. So, naturally, we are starting to look for actual lights at junctions, not the vehicles themselves. I'm not saying that is right, but it is worth bearing in mind for less visible road users.


Unless it is a bright sunny day, I generally have a blinking light front and rear, and steady lights at night, and after dusk/dark I usually have a bit of hi-viz on as well. Simple self-preservation. And like all two-wheel riders, I assume everyone is out to kill me and ride accordingly. Sounds like your guy was a bit careless, which puts you both a bit in the wrong. Until we know more about the exact circumstances, it's hard to say.


His lack of a helmet is irrelevant to your argument. It is not a legal requirement and is still (surprisingly) a matter of choice, thank goodness.

Were you wearing a helmet?

Hi:

correct the cyclist on the mini-roundabout approaching from your right and you didn't see him

But I would add to that that when I approached the round about he was not the first vehicle, he must have overtook the first vehicle to my right on their right if that makes sense, making it impossible for me to see through the vehicle to my right. As I made progress across the roundabout and looked directly in-front of me to avoid the possibility of people pulling out (which is kind of normal on mini-round abouts these days), he hit my wing on the right

I think it's unfortunate & it could happen to anyone of us.
But sadly I think you will be found at fault.
Some cyclists do take stupid chances in dark clothing with no
Lights :-(

It sounds unlucky, but can't see how it won't be deemed your fault.

If you were being prosecuted, having no lights would form part of your defence. In this case your insurer could argue, but I can't imagine they'd bother.

There's no requirement to wear a helmet, so that's irrelevant. That said, there was a case recently (I think it was a death) where the judge indicated there was some fault on the cyclist for not wearing a helmet.

I can tell you precisely why you probably didn't see him. The same reasons that most 'looked but failed to see' accidents occur, which you pretty much suggest in not quite so many words.

These are to do with effective observation. Generally people combine, in varying measure, making decisions too quickly, and failing to double check their decision making.

How often, for example, do you see a car approach a give way junction fast, throw a quick glance right and pull out left, causing either approaching traffic to brake, or then having to brake heavily for something they should have seen to their left before emerging. It doesn't take much for this sort of behaviour to degenerate into a more serious incident.

Let's have a look at some of the clues:

The smaller the roundabout, the quicker danger will reach you, so the more careful you have to be with your observations to stay safe. My alarm bells are ringing.

No it really doesn't necessitate anything of the sort. It means that following an appropriate observation you might decide to proceed onto the roundabout if you are sure there are no other dangers and you are sure of the other driver's intentions.

However, what usually happens when someone lets another person out is that the beneficiary feels the need to rush and get on with it (which you are kind of hinting at in how you have written it). Which results in mistakes being made in observation. It is why learner drivers are taught never to flash or wave another road user to do something.

This says very strongly to me that once you have made the decision to move forward you have stopped looking right - if you hadn't you would have seen him at least even if you couldn't avoid the collision. Check, and double check before committing over the give way lines, then check again even as you are entering the roundabout/junction. Too often people stop looking too early.

Learner drivers are often taught at give way lines to Look, Assess, Decide and Act. How long do you think it takes to go through these steps? Trust me as someone who does this stuff day in and day out, most drivers approach too fast and don't take enough time making decisions. Fast approaches and quick observations feel like good driving until the day they let you down...