Right Hook - Advice

OP
dhd.evans

dhd.evans

Veteran
Location
Dundee
You okay?
Absolutely; as someone said the weasel words came out but presented with the video evidence of the car not indicating, reacting and then cutting across me the chap seemed to accept that we could pursue the legal route or he could settle the bill ASAP and be done. I just want to get back on the road.

Those who know my post history will know this is not my first accident rodeo and I have used legal, part-legal and "gentleman's agreement" methods. My gut feel is this lands in the latter camp. Of course the alarm bells are there but time will tell.

I wonder if he did report it - if not, then we are probably both on a sticky wicket.

As ever, thanks to all for concerns and replies. If it goes belly up at least you can have the satisfaction of telling me you told me so! ^_^
 

Bazzer

Setting the controls for the heart of the sun.
Possibly/Maybe/Nope I have no numbers, but I have seen both quite recently
Having recently been spending far too long on price comparison web sites for child 2, at least two of them have this:

Claims
Have you had or caused had any motor accidents, claims or losses in the past 5 years, no matter who was at fault or if a claim was made?

Edit: Insurers own web sites may be different, but I would be very surprised if the wording was much different.
 

classic33

Legendary Member
Absolutely; as someone said the weasel words came out but presented with the video evidence of the car not indicating, reacting and then cutting across me the chap seemed to accept that we could pursue the legal route or he could settle the bill ASAP and be done. I just want to get back on the road.

Those who know my post history will know this is not my first accident rodeo and I have used legal, part-legal and "gentleman's agreement" methods. My gut feel is this lands in the latter camp. Of course the alarm bells are there but time will tell.

I wonder if he did report it - if not, then we are probably both on a sticky wicket.

As ever, thanks to all for concerns and replies. If it goes belly up at least you can have the satisfaction of telling me you told me so! ^_^
It was more your wording in the post that made me ask if you were alright.
 

I like Skol

Hold my beer and watch this....
What speed is a "fair lick"? If a car was travelling at that speed would it still be a "fair lick". Afaik "fair lick" is not mentioned in the Highway Code.
I think you know exactly what I mean by fair lick. I was trying to be diplomatic, but will spell it out in plain English. From the video, which as I said may be giving an inaccurate impression of the bicycle speed, it would seem that DHD approached the situation far too fast. The speed limit on that lane is probably 30mph but as is oft repeated, this is a limit and not a target, not that such limits apply to cyclists. Doing even 20mph in the situation portrayed would still be excessive and I am sure the highway code frequently mentions reducing speed to suit the prevailing conditions.
The op is in his lane moving forward, the driver has crossed into the wrong lane. If the driver cannot look at oncoming (cycling) traffic as part of his manoeuvre to turn right then he should not turn, or at best stop and turn when he is able to observe oncoming traffic.
The video is gone now so it is just your opinion/memory against mine, but there appear to be a number of faults in your reasoning.

There are no lanes, the driver has not crossed into the wrong lane as it is a single lane road. The driver has just passed a parked car on their nearside and is now ready to turn right. This is similar to the frequently given advice on this forum to 'take the lane' or use a 'strong primary position'. Having effectively blocked the road to oncoming traffic it is then unfortunate that a cyclist travelling at speed comes along and decides to squeeze through the remaining gap.

I accept that the driver could have done better, but they certainly were not reckless. The OP certainly could have exercised more caution given the situation and conditions, I would have done. I didn't see if the car was indicating or not, due to the low quality of the video, but the move was predictable regardless when looking at the car position (stopped or almost stopped, well over to their right). The OP's safety is not just the responsibility of others. He must assume some of that responsibility himself. Coming round a bend and rushing headlong into that situation regardless is a recipe for disaster, which on this occasion it was.

Too many on this forum have a 'driver bad, cyclist good' mantra but this is wrong and unfair, not all drivers are bad and not all cyclists are perfect. Both parties could have done better, which is why I suggest the responsibility is, at best, 50:50.
 
I wonder what we would be saying if the roles were reversed:

"I was on my bike about to turn right when some loony in a Merc came flying round the bend and wiped me out."

In other words, the oncoming road user has some responsibility to allow for a right turner.

In this case, the cyclist may be entitled to some extra consideration as the vulnerable road user, but as Skolly says, apportioning blame is far from straightforward.

All those who say 'claim insurance' assume the insurer will instantly pay up in full.

That's a risky assumption, although experience seems to suggest insurers take a pragmatic view of claims for a few hundred pounds - it costs more to dispute them than pay them.
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
All those who say 'claim insurance' assume the insurer will instantly pay up in full.
I don't think anyone's of that view at all, @berty bassett even emphasised "it is a long winded frustrating process going down the legal road".

The advice to claim against the driver's insurance is better than leaving it to the scruples of a man who "was very insistent that insurance is not an option", is balking at the possibility of a £300 or more bill, and claims to be unemployed.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
From the video, which as I said may be giving an inaccurate impression of the bicycle speed, it would seem that DHD approached the situation far too fast.
That's easy to say after the fact, as a collision occurred. However, was it unreasonably fast? I don't think it looked like it. Maybe @dhd.evans has a GPX recording and can clarify the last speed recording before the incident.

There are no lanes, the driver has not crossed into the wrong lane as it is a single lane road. The driver has just passed a parked car on their nearside and is now ready to turn right. This is similar to the frequently given advice on this forum to 'take the lane' or use a 'strong primary position'. Having effectively blocked the road to oncoming traffic it is then unfortunate that a cyclist travelling at speed comes along and decides to squeeze through the remaining gap.
You say "decides to squeeze through the remaining gap", I'd say "was left with nowhere else to go". It's a tough call: on first viewing, I thought in that situation I might attempt an emergency turn (USA site, so see "turning left" for a situation like this right-cross), but on seeing the close examination of the road later in the video, it loosituationks like it may have been too wet for that and could have resulted in a low-side skid/crash leaving the rider on the road in front of the unobservant motorist's vehicle, which could have been much worse.

If the motorist thought they had "effectively blocked the road to oncoming traffic" then they failed to remember two-wheeled oncoming traffic and may have proceeded without looking properly.

I accept that the driver could have done better, but they certainly were not reckless.
I think that's far from certain (reckless = "it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous"), but even if so, were they careless ("the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver")?

The OP's safety is not just the responsibility of others. He must assume some of that responsibility himself. Coming round a bend and rushing headlong into that situation regardless is a recipe for disaster, which on this occasion it was.
That's still assuming "rushing".

Also, let's compare with a similar everyday situation: when did you ever see a motorist proceeding straight ahead through a T on a priority route (as you put it earlier) "aim for a gap that is [narrower than 3x their vehicle's] width without considering the [oncoming] vehicles intended actions and without slowing to check if [they] are actually seen by the driver and it is safe for [them] to proceed"? That's almost every motorist on almost every road, isn't it?

Too many on this forum have a 'driver bad, cyclist good' mantra but this is wrong and unfair, not all drivers are bad and not all cyclists are perfect. Both parties could have done better, which is why I suggest the responsibility is, at best, 50:50.
I suggest that's far too harsh for the reasons above - and I feel that far too many on this forum have a personal-responsibility/"only crap cyclists crash" mantra, which is also wrong and unfair. Calling this 50:50 just because both parties might have maybe been able to do things differently seems unreal to me: one vehicle was proceeding straight ahead along the priority route and its rider seemed to grab handfuls of brake as soon as they saw what was happening, while the other was turning across its path and its driver apparently failed to react before the collision. The burden is clearly on the road user turning across a priority flow. Even at worst, this should be nearer 80:20 against the driver IMO.
 

I like Skol

Hold my beer and watch this....
That's still assuming "rushing".
It certainly looked quick in the video clip. Unfortunately we don't have the video anymore, neither do we have any speed logs from the OP to confirm or contest the appearance of rapid progress.
You say "decides to squeeze through the remaining gap", I'd say "was left with nowhere else to go". It's a tough call:
Only 'nowhere else to go' due to the excessive speed. If DHD had considered the situation (wet road, single lane highway, junction and other road users) and heeded the 'SLOW' warning that was painted on the road in big, white, well defined letters, he would have had a lot more time to think through the situation. The driver would also have had more time to spot him.
We can argue the whys and wherefores until the cows come home, we weren't there and have limited information to go on and hindsight is a magical thing, but it would seem the vehicle was showing many of the signs that suggest it was about to turn, and me personally having just entered the scene at that kind of speed from around a hidden bend would be wondering if the driver had seen me. Assuming they had would be a mistake.

And no, I do not believe only crap cyclists crash. Each situation is different and must be considered on its own merits.
 
Top Bottom