Ignorant of highway code and lights on bikes law

[Inertia]

*Adds some names to The List*

Id recommend a spreadsheet for working with a large list,

 

[Ticktockmy]

Not being a lawyer as some seem to be on this thread, as I read the situation. Whilst the OP was driving well as in law with due care and consideration for other road users. The fact he had seen the cyclist riding towards him without lights, means in my mind he had a duty of care to insure that he did not continue in a fashion which would have further endangered the cyclist. However, if because the cyclist did have lights then if the OP had not seen him, then he could have a good argument for running him down.

Silly me, my last sentence should have read as "However, if because the cyclist did NOT have lights then if the OP had not seen him, then he WOULD have a good argument if had run him down" Sorry if i upset peeps for sounding as it was ok to run down a cyclist using lights.

 

[User10119]

Silly me, my last sentence should have read as "However, if because the cyclist did NOT have lights then if the OP had not seen him, then he WOULD have a good argument if had run him down" Sorry if i upset peeps for sounding as it was ok to run down a cyclist using lights.

Lights or no...

There's no such thing as a 'good argument' for running someone down - there are only mitigating factors.

 

[winjim]

Silly me, my last sentence should have read as "However, if because the cyclist did NOT have lights then if the OP had not seen him, then he WOULD have a good argument if had run him down" Sorry if i upset peeps for sounding as it was ok to run down a cyclist using lights.

It's not a terribly good argument either way, even less so if it was broad daylight. We know the op saw the cyclist, we know it was prior to lighting up time, so the discussion about lights is a distraction really.

There is an discussion to be had about priority. It sounds to me like the op had priority and decided to exercise it, the cyclist may have thought he had priority and decided to exercise it, both had to take evasive action. So from the op's point of view I think it comes down to whether he reasonably thought the cyclist was going to stop and give way at the roundabout...

 

[MiK1138]

No but i'd say it would be wise of them to cycle carefully in dark wet conditions. Not hurtle down a road at a roundabout where anything could happen. This twonk on a bike wasn't going to stop for anything.

So if you knew that why didn't you react accordingly. you can't be responsible for eejits but you can be responsible for your reaction to them

 

[MiK1138]

It's not a terribly good argument either way, even less so if it was broad daylight. We know the op saw the cyclist, we know it was prior to lighting up time, so the discussion about lights is a distraction really.

There is an discussion to be had about priority. It sounds to me like the op had priority and decided to exercise it, the cyclist may have thought he had priority and decided to exercise it, both had to take evasive action. So from the op's point of view I think it comes down to whether he reasonably thought the cyclist was going to stop and give way at the roundabout...

Going by post #63 the OP presumed the cyclist was not for stopping but proceeded to make his maneuver anyway.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

@Accy cyclist are you allowed to drive at night (at all) I thought there was some doubt a while ago about your sight being marginal? But you do lead an exciting life, you have more incidents in a week than I have in years,

 

[mustang1]

I disagree. When you are going round the roundabout, as Accy was doing, you have right of way over anyone waiting to get on the roundabout.

Yes, I agree with this. That's why they have the broken give way lines to the entrance of the roundabout. The way acct describes it, he was correct.

The no lights thing is a different matter (and I also don't agree with what the 2nd guy said about about age Vs lights).

 

[mustang1]

The regulations have been covered on here many times before but in case you've missed it, here is a good summary of the rules. It is a bit long and has a few twists and turns but is well worth reading:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

Whoa I did not know that. Thanks for posting this .

 

[mustang1]

What does the Highway Code say about horses ? Just wondering .

... Particularly regarding what/when/where they do their business after a hearty lunch (and do they need the hazard flashers on while doing it) .

 

[Accy cyclist]

If you encountered the same roundabout scenario again, what, if anything, would you do differently?

Probably pretend i hadn't seen him and run him over this time.

 

[Accy cyclist]

I'm not sure where to start with the OP, I'll satisfy myself with a simple comment: you were in the wrong.

You didn't reply. I'm still wondering why you thought i was in the wrong.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

You didn't reply.

Neither did you with regards to your multiple trips to the opticians & if I remember correctly your concerns over you rvision

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Probably pretend i hadn't seen him and run him over this time.

And you wonder why you get so much stick.

 

[Accy cyclist]

And you wonder why you get so much stick.

What do you think the indicates? Yes,i was being sarcastic in my reply.