Mishap with cyclist

[Psycho Sonny]

One thing that doesn't add up for me.

You say you were already on the roundabout but you clipped his rear wheel? Wouldn't he have hit you if you were already on the roundabout. He's got the offside or rear of your car surely.

This is all that matters.

As soon as insurance finds out he clipped the rear wheel of the bike with the front of his car it's game over.

OP clearly needs to learn what the rules of the road are and in future be more aware like his wife was.

There is no way a cyclist enters a roundabout and gets in front of you with zero warning. He clearly either never looked or took so long to depart he never bothered checking again or didn't check properly.

OP is in the wrong here and there is nothing else to add. He's lucky not to have seriously hurt the cyclist and should be much more careful in future.

 

[Royal Fleet]

Given the circumstances it is highly unlikely the insurance company would go into the nuances of who was where and when. Unless the OP can prove excessive speed on the part of the cyclist then it is an open and shut one with the OP being held liable.

 

[Dis86]

I'm sorry but what? Roundabouts aren't always that simple? It is as simple as:

Incorrect. Vehicles already on the roundabout have priority.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Incorrect. Vehicles already on the roundabout have priority.

Are you arguing right doesn't have priority or adding an additional point?

I feel it is the latter as you aren't stupid enough to argue the first. However your obtuse post is making me second guess myself

 

[Dis86]

Are you arguing right doesn't have priority or adding an additional point?

I feel it is the latter as you aren't stupid enough to argue the first. However your obtuse post is making me second guess myself

You said there's one rule. That's wrong. There is an additional rule in the order of precedence for right of way on a roundabout.

 

[robj20]

Incorrect. Vehicles already on the roundabout have priority.

But as a roundabout is clockwise only cars on the roundabout come from the right.

 

[Dis86]

But as a roundabout is clockwise only cats on the roundabout come from the right.

I don't think felines come in to it.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

You said there's one rule. That's wrong. There is an additional rule in the order of precedence for right of way on a roundabout.

 

[Maccapacca]

OP let us know when you want the thread deleted

 

[Tony Edwards]

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.

Are you a cyclist by any chance?

There were no vehicles in sight anywhere so I began to move out. I had checked to the right and was now looking forwards, Suddenly a cyclist was coming downhill from the right at breakneck speed, he shot straight onto the island and my wife saw him and shouted but too late.
He shot straight in front of me and I clipped his back wheel with my nearside and he came off.

He claimed it was my fault as he saw me pull out without looking and I should give way to vehicles from the right.

Saw them pull out but still entered the roundabout. It doesnt say when the cyclist entered the roundabout. If it was after the car had entered its the cyclist fault. If the car entered after the cycle its the car drivers fault.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Given the circumstances it is highly unlikely the insurance company would go into the nuances of who was where and when. Unless the OP can prove excessive speed on the part of the cyclist then it is an open and shut one with the OP being held liable.

Exactly.

Right of way doesn't matter one jot here. The provable facts do.

Damage is to the rear wheel of bike and front end of ops car if any.

Op's only way out of this would be saying that the cyclist was riding backwards and rode into the front of his car.

I'm not sure how successful that argument would be though. Well I am sure but essentially if he tells the story he told us to insurance it's his fault not the cyclists.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Are you a cyclist by any chance?

Saw them pull out but still entered the roundabout. It doesnt say when the cyclist entered the roundabout. If it was after the car had entered its the cyclist fault. If the car entered after the cycle its the car drivers fault.

Moral of the story? OP should let his wife drive.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Are you a cyclist by any chance?

Saw them pull out but still entered the roundabout. It doesnt say when the cyclist entered the roundabout. If it was after the car had entered its the cyclist fault. If the car entered after the cycle its the car drivers fault.

Can the driver prove where the cyclist was?

If not it doesn't matter he will be found at fault.

There was a famous shooting in Glasgow where a guy walked up to another and shot him in broad daylight with loads of witnesses. Everyone knew what happened. It got thrown out of court because not a single witness came forward to testify. Reason being the guy was a well known gangster and the other was a rival. The police knew he did it, everyone did however zero proof.

OP has zero proof and because cyclist was hit on rear wheel it's his fault. Unless like I say he states the cyclist was riding backwards around the roundabout the opposite way.

The fact there is a witness who came forward and said op is at fault I'm pretty sure that won't hold up on both the account of the witness and how ridiculous it sounds.

 

[Kenai]

Are you a cyclist by any chance?

Saw them pull out but still entered the roundabout. It doesnt say when the cyclist entered the roundabout. If it was after the car had entered its the cyclist fault. If the car entered after the cycle its the car drivers fault.

He'd have to have a jet strapped to his bike to enter the roundabout after a car that's doing 15 mph, cover ground across the roundabout to reach the next exit, then get across the front of the already moving car and then be hit in the back wheel.

Or the OP pulled onto a roundabout without looking properly and clipped the back of a cyclist that was already coming past him.

I know which one I think is vastly more likely to be a reflection of reality

I think the fact the OP immediately offered to pay for the repairs shows his immediate gut feeling was that he'd done something wrong too.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Can the driver prove where the cyclist was?

If not it doesn't matter he will be found at fault.

Oh I certainly agree with you on that.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

He'd have to have a jet strapped to his bike to enter the roundabout after a car that's doing 15 mph, cover ground across the roundabout to reach the next exit, then get across the front of the already moving car and then be hit in the back wheel.

Or the OP pulled onto a roundabout without looking properly and clipped the back of a cyclist that was already coming past him.

I know which one I think is vastly more likely to be a reflection of reality

I think the fact the OP immediately offered to pay for the repairs shows his immediate gut feeling was that he'd done something wrong too.

You forgot to mention the eyewitness that saw everything and said op was in the wrong.

 

[jpaul]

wth a witness saying he was on the roundabout , the liabilities in play.

There is no way a cyclist enters a roundabout and gets in front of you with zero warning. He clearly either never looked or took so long to depart he never bothered checking again or didn't check properly.

If you are a cyclist, there are split second moments of judgement, motorist decides to pull on, as you arrive with your low inertia+momentum, and, you have equal rights,
and could, stupidly, roll the dice.

 

[robj20]

Another thing, aren't you supposed to contact the police at the scene for these sort of incidents.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Oh I certainly agree with you on that.

So it doesn't really matter then it's a pointless argument.

As far as insurance and the police are concerned OP is in the wrong.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Another thing, aren't you supposed to contact the police at the scene for these sort of incidents.

No you contact insurance unless you want the driver done for something like driving recklessly or without due care and attention.

Then you call the police if you want to press charges. Otherwise it's medical and insurance matter depending on injuries.

Unless you think the driver is dodgy like doesn't have insurance or a license, etc could be various reasons but your implying that it's a criminal matter if you want to involve the police.