Mishap with cyclist

Usher said:
I wonder if this will get reported to the police and should I cover myself by reporting my version of it first or just wait to see what happens.
Click to expand...
I was always under the impression you had to report an incident involving a vehicle to the police within 24Hrs (maybe 48).

Sounds like cycle arrogance to me. It was probably them thinking they could get around you and you would stop as they believed they had right of way but roundabouts arent aways that simple.
 
Last edited:
Tony Edwards said:
I was always under the impression you had to report an incident involving a vehicle to the police within 24Hrs (maybe 48).

Sounds like cycle arrogance to me. It was probably them thinking they could get around you and you would stop as they believed they had right of way but roundabouts arent aways that simple.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but what? Roundabouts aren't always that simple? It is as simple as:
Mr_Sukebe said:
Priority right. The cyclist had right of way.
Click to expand...
 
Ultimately, you have hit a vulnerable road user (arrogant most likely and probably clueless but still vulnerable nonetheless) if he claims this will only go one way IMO.
 
Priority warriors really are the scourge of the roads. Having priority does not absolve the road user of their overriding obligation to apply an appropriate amount of care.

Whether or not that was the case here, we will never know. Just thought I’d use the opportunity for a mini rant :D
 
Tony Edwards said:
If you are already in a roundabout it doesnt give anyone on the right the right to also enter it and smash into you because they think they have right of way.
Click to expand...

Whilst true, that doesn't sound like what has happened here realistically does it?

We've got a car who just 'began to move out' at 'about 15mph' and has clipped the back of a vehicle that has approached from the right. If it was a motorbike doing 90mph I could kinda see how that scenario would develop in theory but not a cyclist.
 
Tony Edwards said:
If you are already in a roundabout it doesnt give anyone on the right the right to then also enter it and smash into or try to get in front of you because they think they have right of way.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the OP?

He hit the rear wheel of the cyclist. Now I am not a physicist or even the sharpest tool in the box, but hitting the rear wheel would indicate the cyclist was already on the roundabout, and clear of the OPs car, no?
 
dLockers said:
I'm sorry but what? Roundabouts aren't always that simple? It is as simple as:
Click to expand...
Give way to vehicles on your right unless you are already on the roundabout. Approaching any give way at a speed where you do not have an ability to stop is foolhardy whether a car or a bike. Also people should drive/ride with a bit more anticipation of what others may be doing.

If it was two cars it would probably be knock for knock. Cyclist complicates things but I tend to side with @Uther that the cyclist was a bit gung ho and going a bit fast. How many cyclists actually still use hand signals on a bike. I do.
 
Hagar said:
Give way to vehicles on your right unless you are already on the roundabout. Approaching any give way at a speed where you do not have an ability to stop is foolhardy whether a car or a bike. Also people should drive/ride with a bit more anticipation of what others may be doing.

If it was two cars it would probably be knock for knock. Cyclist complicates things but I tend to side with @Uther that the cyclist was a bit gung ho and going a bit fast. How many cyclists actually still use hand signals on a bike. I do.
Click to expand...
He hit the rear wheel.

Does anyone on OCUK even read the OP anymore?
 
Kenai said:
Whilst true, that doesn't sound like what has happened here realistically does it?

We've got a car who just 'began to move out' at 'about 15mph' and has clipped the back of a vehicle that has approached from the right. If it was a motorbike doing 90mph I could kinda see how that scenario would develop in theory but not a cyclist.
Click to expand...
Could be yes.

dLockers said:
Did you even read the OP?

He hit the rear wheel of the cyclist. Now I am not a physicist or even the sharpest tool in the box, but hitting the rear wheel would indicate the cyclist was already on the roundabout, and clear of the OPs car, no?
Click to expand...
It could have been. OP approaches roundabout see its clear on the right and starts to enter the roundabout. Person on the right approaching at speed doesnt bother to stop despite someone already in the roundabout infront of them and decides they can just get around the car as they feel as the came in from the right they have right of way. Its not the same as coming out of a side street for instance. Dont some roundabouts have give way lines as well?

It would be a totaly different scenario if the cyclist was already on the roundabout and traveling around from say 12 o'clock rather than 3 o'clock.

Doing 15mph suggest they were already fully commited in the roundabout unless they entered the roundabout and went straight to 5.5k revs in first gear.
 
Tony Edwards said:
Could be yes.

It could have been. OP approaches roundabout see its clear on the right and starts to enter the roundabout. Person on the right approaching at speed doesnt bother to stop despite someone already in the roundabout infront of them and decides they can just get around the car as they feel as the came in from the right they have right of way. Its not the same as coming out of a side street for instance. Dont some roundabouts have give way lines as well?

It would be a totaly different scenario if the cyclist was already on the roundabout and traveling around from say 12 o'clock rather than 3 o'clock.
Click to expand...
Now that is a fascinating story. How about we stick to facts though? OP did quick look right, entered the roundabout from a rolling start (15mph, he said himself), and didn't spot the cyclist. He clipped the cyclists rear wheel meaning the cyclist had already cleared a full 2 thirds of his length before OP realised.

Which is more likely? Your fantasy land rendition coupled with a passive aggressive generalisation about cyclists, or the one where we can all probably relate to?

Roundabouts famously have this problem and it is compounded by people who do the same quick look right even when another car is in front of them. Front car sees something rear car doesn't, bang. I'd argue the number 1 cause of trivial road incidents.
 
Witnesses comments sound the most important, if her testimony says you were on the roundabout, then responsibility could be shared.

Sounds like you had stopped, then decided to pull on at same instant as he rolled straight onto roundabout
but cyclists know the score, their vulnerability, so, a bad judgement on both sides.

Not sure car crash avoidance system would ever be effective for a low profile cyclist ? - so in good faith shouldn't even consider that.

very lucky he's not badly injured, and, if bike frame not damaged.
 
dLockers said:
He hit the rear wheel.

Does anyone on OCUK even read the OP anymore?
Click to expand...
Yes I read that he hit the rear wheel, but directly from behind, obliquely, from the side? Reading between the lines a bit it could have been any. Quote: i clipped his rear wheel with my nearside. End quote. Knowing what tarts many cyclists are in traffic (I do ride a bike) I suspect it is not cut and dried rear end collision territory.
 
At the end of the day with no 3rd party evidence, hitting the back wheel of a bike on a roundabout is only going to go one way.
 
Prepare to be entered without lube, from your explanation and the fact the cyclist has a witness backing up his story this will only go one way.
 
robj20 said:
At the end of the day with no 3rd party evidence, hitting the back wheel of a bike on a roundabout is only going to go one way.
Click to expand...
There is third party evidence. A witness came up to berate OP at the scene and offer support to the cyclist.
 
Hagar said:
Yes I read that he hit the rear wheel, but directly from behind, obliquely, from the side? Reading between the lines a bit it could have been any. Quote: i clipped his rear wheel with my nearside. End quote. Knowing what tarts many cyclists are in traffic (I do ride a bike) I suspect it is not cut and dried rear end collision territory.
Click to expand...
Okay but object facts and "knowing that cyclists are tarts" have different weighting in deciding which way to settle a claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom