Drivers that don't admit liability

[Angelfishsolo]

Amen to that.

That simple truth informs my conduct around potentially turning cars.

 

[Mad at urage]

That simple truth informs my conduct around potentially turning cars.

Same here, as does

Stopping pedaling and starting to brake in the midst of heavy traffic can just as easily have an inattentive driver into your back wheel, so the sensible response is not necessarily going to be braking whenever someone starts to overtake.

Put the two together and SM's situation can occur without any blame on the cyclist.

 

[blockend]

As I said earlier, unpredictability is the cyclists' greatest ally. If you behave like a car drivers will treat you like one, in spite of your lack of acceleration or braking. I wasn't there so can't attribute blame either way but if I was guessing I'd say the driver couldn't car less about the rider's safety. As that state of mind is not uncommon it's best to prepare for the worst than expect due diligence.

If diligence means defensive riding that verges on paranoia, it's still better than broken bones. As I also said involuntary left turns are always an option and better a rush of adrenaline and a bad temper than knowing your rights and getting flattened.

 

[Holdsworth]

Clicky it's yet to arrive, may be worth waiting until I've abused it a little.

I have one on order as well due in part to the answer to my earlier post. It is yet to arrive.

I for some unknown reason decided to order the camera on it's own and spend £5 more than the sd card package getting a same size one from the high street. I am terrible at planning purchases

 

[SportMonkey]

Mine arrived Thursday, seemed to work alright. I had an old MicroSD from my last phone though.

 

[SportMonkey]

I just heard back from the police, no case:

Witness: saw driver brake and indicate. No comment about my position.
Driver: had passed me, indicated, checked rear view, turned and I cycled in to the side of her.
Me: driver hadn't passed me and turned.

Notably, if the driver didn't see me in the rear view I was in her blind spot, i.e. along side her.

 

[fossyant]

Right then - it's time for solicitors ! Or give up, and call it a bad day !

What a mess !

 

[davefb]

I just heard back from the police, no case:

Witness: saw driver brake and indicate. No comment about my position.
Driver: had passed me, indicated, checked rear view, turned and I cycled in to the side of her.
Me: driver hadn't passed me and turned.

Notably, if the driver didn't see me in the rear view I was in her blind spot, i.e. along side her.

why would you cycle into side of her?

the back, i could see how that might be 'ahh, but you hit back of a vehicle'.. but how can it possibly be that she did an okay move if you hit the side of her ?

'dear mr police officer , since the nice driver wasnt at fault, then please can you explain how i must cycle in order to avoid hitting the side of cars'

stupid

 

[Mad at urage]

why would you cycle into side of her?

the back, i could see how that might be 'ahh, but you hit back of a vehicle'.. but how can it possibly be that she did an okay move if you hit the side of her ?

'dear mr police officer , since the nice driver wasnt at fault, then please can you explain how i must cycle in order to avoid hitting the side of cars'

stupid

This.
If you hit the side of her she must have been turning across you. When she turned left she is not supposed to do so in such a way as to cause the cyclist she just overtook to brake. If you needed to brake (which you presumably would have had to to avoid hitting her) then she has just contravened the HC section 167 twice in a single manoevre.

167DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

• approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
• where the road narrows
• when approaching a school crossing patrol
• between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
• where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
• when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
• at a level crossing
• when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
• stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left

My italics. Whilst the HC is not law

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

The driver is clearly responsible for the collision!
Personally I would write back to the police who wrote to you, copying the Chief Constable and asking how they can decide whe is not to blame when she has so clearly contravened the HC.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

This.
If you hit the side of her she must have been turning across you. When she turned left she is not supposed to do so in such a way as to cause the cyclist she just overtook to brake. If you needed to brake (which you presumably would have had to to avoid hitting her) then she has just contravened the HC section 167 twice in a single manoevre.

My italics. Whilst the HC is not law
The driver is clearly responsible for the collision!
Personally I would write back to the police who wrote to you, copying the Chief Constable and asking how they can decide whe is not to blame when she has so clearly contravened the HC.

+1

 

[SportMonkey]

I was told there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute either way, my assumption is as we're both uninjured, that it's not worth their time. The police man had stated he saw the dent and her assertion was that was caused by me cycling in to her. My Allez is still usable, which means the impact had to be side to side. I did brake and turn round the corner as she came across; I had no option.

Still, got a cycle claim company on it, lets hope this now costs her a small fortune.

 

[siadwell]

The only way I can see that she could legitimately claim that you cycled into the side of her car would be that she began the turn well before you approached the junction, then for some reason that she could not anticipate, she was unable to complete the turn, at which point you blindly crashed into her vehicle as it sat across the cycle lane.

Unless she made such a statement to the police originally, she shouldn't be able to use this as a defence now. A decent lawyer should have a field day.

 

[benb]

Good luck, let us know any further developments.

 

[davefb]

I can only assume the police are not taking any action because that isnt bad enough..

doesnt stop an insurance claim though

 

[spen666]

I haven't got one as yet but I'm begining to think the same way

You'll need someone who is good at balancing so they don't fall off your head