Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
"could have been"? because:
sounds like you're very squarely point the blame right at the cyclist in this instance.....
Mishap with cyclist
- Thread starter Usher
- Start date
"could have been"? because:
sounds like you're very squarely point the blame right at the cyclist in this instance.....
This is entirely feasible if he was actually just travelling at a reasonable speed but was in fact much further progressed onto the roundabout than you wish to admit he was. He would have been close enough that he had no other choice other than to try and swerve to avoid you pulling out just in front of him.
It seems a very nuanced situation.
The question is how fast the cyclist was approaching the roundabout. Anyone should be slowing down as they approach a junction.
The cyclist must have been going very fast in order to get in front of the car.
The question is how fast the cyclist was approaching the roundabout. Anyone should be slowing down as they approach a junction.
The cyclist must have been going very fast in order to get in front of the car.
If he accepted payment directly, he can't then claim through insurer afaik so you are probably in the clear 
I few years back I had one try to get around the front of me as I was mid way through turning in to a junction. They face planted hard on my side window (was quite comincal). I got out and gave them an ear bashing and they just cycled off lol. Nothing ever came of it.
I few years back I had one try to get around the front of me as I was mid way through turning in to a junction. They face planted hard on my side window (was quite comincal). I got out and gave them an ear bashing and they just cycled off lol. Nothing ever came of it.
Last edited:
If he accepted payment directly, he can't then claim through insurer afaik so you are probably in the clear
In those circumstances what if you didn't get it in writing the payment was in full and final settlement of all heads of claim?
Wait.. what? Was it a traffic island or a roundabout?
Sounds like OP needs an eyesight test.
I love it how often cyclists are deemed too slow and holding up traffic but the second they have a crash they were OMGGOINGSOFAST.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
Or the car pulled out late.
Or the driver never saw him therefore has no idea where he was (which this sounds like)
He's just assuming he was going at speed because he never saw him.
If he did see him then he wouldn't have pulled out.
The op is trying to make it out the cyclist us at fault but there's no way they could be.
Either he saw the cyclist and therefore should have seen he was going at speed and not pulled out.
Or he didn't see him and then assumes he was going at speed because he wasn't there a second ago.
Which sounds more likely?
That he saw the cyclist coming at full pelt and decided I'm going to cut him up? Or he never saw him and just assumed he came out of nowhere?
Sounds like they gave your car an ear bashing too.
Bring on the highway code change that makes you give way to those crossing a junction.
Honestly I think many drivers are just really poor at judging the speed of bicycles, especially road bikes which move a fair bit quicker than they seem to expect.
It is also very easy to look without seeing. I’m reminded of when I was cycling to work in Geneva and a lady just made a turn across the road into a side road as if I wasn’t there... road was a little wet and as I slammed the brakes and tried to avoid being pancaked the bike slipped out from under me and I went tumbling 20m down the road... almost right at the feet of a policeman funnily enough.
Her excuse - “sorry I didn’t see you”. I even had lights on despite it being daytime!
We all make mistakes, however perfect we think we are. Without being there myself but with how the story goes and what the witness says I think it’s likely OP just looked without really seeing like the lady that tried to flatten me. Be thankful it didn’t come out worse!
It is also very easy to look without seeing. I’m reminded of when I was cycling to work in Geneva and a lady just made a turn across the road into a side road as if I wasn’t there... road was a little wet and as I slammed the brakes and tried to avoid being pancaked the bike slipped out from under me and I went tumbling 20m down the road... almost right at the feet of a policeman funnily enough.
Her excuse - “sorry I didn’t see you”. I even had lights on despite it being daytime!
We all make mistakes, however perfect we think we are. Without being there myself but with how the story goes and what the witness says I think it’s likely OP just looked without really seeing like the lady that tried to flatten me. Be thankful it didn’t come out worse!
They were not crossing, they swerved out from behind traffic to try and overtake me as I was turning. They must have been peddling at 30mph and were not looking where they were going. I pulled out a couple of small dents but never reported it.
Mirror Signal Manoeuvre
As I did...
But unfortunately I don't have eyes in the side of my head and need to look where I am going. There is always going to be a few second gap where morons can do moron things and you don't see them. I'm not going to feel bad about Darwinism on a bike getting injured.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
How does a dashcam capture somebody coming from the right and if they were on the roundabout before you?
Associate
Ok so here is my take on this as a claims adjustor...
A few things aren't adding up and I would question straight away...you say you didn't see the cyclist u til impact, yet you say he was travelling at breakneck speed, this straightaway doesn't look good for you as how can you judge the speed of someone approaching you if you haven't seen them.
You were travelling at approx 15mph at the point of impact, this tells me that you didn't stop before entering the roundabout.
By your own admission you looked right once, and were then looking straight ahead therefore haven't check properly before entering the roundabout.
You have hit the rear wheel of the bike with your nearside, this shows that the bike must have been already established on the roundabout before you entered it.
You have admitted liability at the scene, granted that mean jack all as any decent liability adjustor will argue that you were in shock following the accident.
You already know the cyclist has a witness in their favour and you have no independent evidence of your own, therefore absolutely no way of fighting any liability disputes.
The highway code states that you should be aware of possible vulnerable road users and take extra care, this will go against you.
Also, speed is not an indicator of liability, particularly if that speed cannot be proven and as mentioned above you stating that he was travelling at breakneck speed suggests that you had seen him.
Ultimately, you will be liable for this and your insurer should have told you this right off the bat rather than give you false hope of a split liability.
A few things aren't adding up and I would question straight away...you say you didn't see the cyclist u til impact, yet you say he was travelling at breakneck speed, this straightaway doesn't look good for you as how can you judge the speed of someone approaching you if you haven't seen them.
You were travelling at approx 15mph at the point of impact, this tells me that you didn't stop before entering the roundabout.
By your own admission you looked right once, and were then looking straight ahead therefore haven't check properly before entering the roundabout.
You have hit the rear wheel of the bike with your nearside, this shows that the bike must have been already established on the roundabout before you entered it.
You have admitted liability at the scene, granted that mean jack all as any decent liability adjustor will argue that you were in shock following the accident.
You already know the cyclist has a witness in their favour and you have no independent evidence of your own, therefore absolutely no way of fighting any liability disputes.
The highway code states that you should be aware of possible vulnerable road users and take extra care, this will go against you.
Also, speed is not an indicator of liability, particularly if that speed cannot be proven and as mentioned above you stating that he was travelling at breakneck speed suggests that you had seen him.
Ultimately, you will be liable for this and your insurer should have told you this right off the bat rather than give you false hope of a split liability.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
you don't need eyes in the side of your head, you look ahead to ensure it's clear, you sweep your gaze right ensuring the road is clear from ahead and to the right and maintain looking right until you've pulled out.
that few second gap is exactly when you should be checking right, because that's where you're reasonably meant to be expecting moronic activity to be coming from.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
Dashcams the decent ones give a very wide angle view. I was genuinely surprised how much they actually captured when I fitted one in the wife's car.
Also you can get dual cams and use the other at the rear so now you have a lot of information about what is going on around the car albeit there is blind spots it's never going to cover everything it should at least build up an accurate picture of what is going on.
I'm saying if the other party was genuinely at fault. Which in this case I have always argued the opposite the driver was 100% at fault.
If the other person is at fault there is a good chance of you being able to prove that with dashcam evidence than simply saying the guy was going too fast with zero evidence or witnesses.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
Grabs popcorn and awaits Tony Edwards and op's response.
?
the witness is in the motorists favour - did we read the same thing
How much do you ever trust the drivers rendition anyway ? no one looks once, and puts their blinkers on ;
but, yes, daft to write that down in as real testament, maybe they do ?
I regularly (pause 15mins during weekly runs ) see a lot of car drivers at roundabouts contesting with their stop/start and auto gearbox getting frustrated who eventually go for it, against a car, relying on the other submitting.
BREAKNECK SPEED
So quick he couldn't stop but quick enough two witness (one, his wife, lols) could see him and the OP saw him long enough to make the comment he was going breakneck speed.
Evidently not because the witness is not in the motorists favour