Accident

amcalester · 20-05-2018 9:12pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I hope every one is OK.

The way you describe it doesn't put you in a good light. I wasn't there so I'm not saying who was in the wrong.
You decided that he was turning. Didn't his indicator tell you this was happening anyway? Regardless of why he hit the breaks you seemed to be cycling too fast and close & not prepared for him to stop.
I'm not having a pop at you. I wasn't there. It's just the way that you describe it. Maybe you are still shaken.
I hope you aren't too badly injured.

OP says he pulled the brakes as hard he could as soon as he saw the indicator and still ended up hitting the car. In fact he was flipping over the handlebars regardless.

Not much he could have done to avoid a car that overtakes him, moves left and then slams on; indicator or no indicator.

amcalester · 20-05-2018 9:17pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Yes. A car in front of you indicating left has right of way. Even in a dedicated cycle lane the car has right of way when indicating & in that lane. If you tried to squeeze in beside him you are undertaking him.

This is not necessarily true.

It is illegal for a cyclist to pass on the left if the motorist is indicating AND likely to complete the maneuver before the cyclist can pass.

I don’t think that’s applicable here though because the OP wasn’t really passing on the left until the motorist started to brake and move left.

Sleeper12 · 20-05-2018 9:24pm

amcalester wrote:

Not much he could have done to avoid a car that overtakes him, moves left and then slams on; indicator or no indicator.

He was too close for the speed he was going.

OP also said he planned to overtake him on the right because he was turning. Op saw that he was turning but didn't slow down. Op didnt slow down because he planned to overtake on the right. The car had to break & op went in the back of the car. Too close for the speed.

Driver sounds like a dick driver too that could use some lessons & a month in driving manners class.
If it were me my windscreen cover sorts out the window (well I don't actually have a back window) & if there was only a scratch on the bumper I wouldn't be looking for anything from the cyclist. End of the day I'd be relieved that no one was badly injured regardless of who's fault

Sleeper12 · 20-05-2018 9:30pm

amcalester wrote:

It is illegal for a cyclist to pass on the left if the motorist is indicating AND likely to complete the maneuver before the cyclist can pass.

In this case op clearly says he knows that he's turning left and is already manoeuvring into the lane

amcalester wrote:

I donâ€™t think thatâ€™s applicable here though because the OP wasnâ€™t really passing on the left until the motorist started to brake and move left.

OP wanted to overtake on the right. He read the situation wrong and got caught with his pants down. It's life. It happens. I'm betting next time op will slow down when he sees the indicator. An indicator is a signal for stopping as well as turning left.

standardg60 · 20-05-2018 9:31pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I hope every one is OK.

The way you describe it doesn't put you in a good light. I wasn't there so I'm not saying who was in the wrong.
You decided that he was turning. Didn't his indicator tell you this was happening anyway? Regardless of why he hit the breaks you seemed to be cycling too fast and close & not prepared for him to stop.
I'm not having a pop at you. I wasn't there. It's just the way that you describe it. Maybe you are still shaken.
I hope you aren't too badly injured.

Thank you.

If the car had been performing a normal left hand turn, ie pulling up level with the junction before turning, i'd have been fine.
They weren't. They were planning on swinging a U-turn in the opening so approached at a 30 angle to the kerb directly from the ramp to where the kerb ended for the turn, directly across my path.

amcalester · 20-05-2018 9:36pm

OP you’ve confused me.

Were you attempting to pass the car on the left while it was indicating to turn left?

Your posts aren’t clear (at least to me).

John_Rambo · 20-05-2018 9:42pm

Cycling two abreast might have stopped the driver overtaking in a situation where he/she clearly should have hung back behind the cyclists.

Absolutely useless to you now OP... and probably a bit annoying, so sorry about that and I hope your knee gets better.

standardg60 · 20-05-2018 10:23pm

amcalester wrote: »

OP you’ve confused me.

Were you attempting to pass the car on the left while it was indicating to turn left?

Your posts aren’t clear (at least to me).

No, the indication to turn left and the veering in were instantaneous.
We were basically travelling in the same direction on a downhill bit of road so freewheeling, car passes, goes two or three metres ahead, slows for ramp, we catch up, car indicates and veers in. Friend has reached the junction, feels car close and moves to left. Driver sees friend and stops dead. I haven't reached the junction so no room on left, hit brakes.

From the ramp to the collision couldn't have been more than two seconds.

amcalester · 20-05-2018 10:31pm

standardg60 wrote: »

No, the indication to turn left and the veering in were instantaneous.
We were basically travelling in the same direction on a downhill bit of road so freewheeling, car passes, goes two or three metres ahead, slows for ramp, we catch up, car indicates and veers in. Friend has reached the junction, feels car close and moves to left. Driver sees friend and stops dead. I haven't reached the junction so no room on left, hit brakes.

From the ramp to the collision couldn't have been more than two seconds.

Then I can’t see how it’s your fault.

Car overtakes you, slows down approaching a speed bump, then indicates, moves left and slams on all pretty much in one maneuver and you go into the back of him.

Get his insurance details and let the insurance company decide if he’s liable.

CelticRambler · 21-05-2018 10:14am

standardg60 wrote: »

They were planning on swinging a U-turn in the opening so approached at a 30 angle to the kerb directly from the ramp to where the kerb ended for the turn, directly across my path.

Am a bit confused about this bit. On Irish roads, a U-turn is done to the right, so are you saying they indicated and pulled to the left even though they were planning to turn right?

If that's the case, was this road wide enough to execute a U-turn? I don't think I've ever come across an urban road that's busy enough to warrant speed ramps and wide enough to allow that kind of manoeuvre.

Rechuchote · 22-05-2018 7:21am

That reminds me: a legal question. If a pedestrian traffic light is red in front of you but the road is empty, can you legally pass through?

cython · 22-05-2018 8:51am

CelticRambler wrote: »

Am a bit confused about this bit. On Irish roads, a U-turn is done to the right, so are you saying they indicated and pulled to the left even though they were planning to turn right?

If that's the case, was this road wide enough to execute a U-turn? I don't think I've ever come across an urban road that's busy enough to warrant speed ramps and wide enough to allow that kind of manoeuvre.

I don't think it's all that confusing, except that technically the manoeuvre probably isn't a U-turn in the traditional/technical sense

(might be more of a q-turn but that doesn't have the same wide understanding!). Rather the driver wanted to turn around, and in order to do so was essentially using the mouth of the junction as one might use a lay-by to effectively widen the road at the point where they were turning (swinging left to allow more space on the right). This had the net effect that they turned into the road at a much shallower angle than they might have if they had been proceeding along the the road.

buffalo · 22-05-2018 9:08am

Rechuchote wrote: »

That reminds me: a legal question. If a pedestrian traffic light is red in front of you but the road is empty, can you legally pass through?

No.

Steoller · 22-05-2018 10:34am

Rechuchote wrote: »

That reminds me: a legal question. If a pedestrian traffic light is red in front of you but the road is empty, can you legally pass through?

No. You must stop at a red light regardless of if it is clear.

average_runner · 22-05-2018 12:39pm

Rechuchote wrote: »

That reminds me: a legal question. If a pedestrian traffic light is red in front of you but the road is empty, can you legally pass through?

Please tell me this is a joke and these people are not on the road, either walking, car or bike

CelticRambler · 22-05-2018 7:06pm

cython wrote: »

I don't think it's all that confusing, except that technically the manoeuvre probably isn't a U-turn in the traditional/technical sense (might be more of a q-turn but that doesn't have the same wide understanding!). Rather the driver wanted to turn around, and in order to do so was essentially using the mouth of the junction as one might use a lay-by to effectively widen the road at the point where they were turning (swinging left to allow more space on the right). This had the net effect that they turned into the road at a much shallower angle than they might have if they had been proceeding along the the road.

That is more or less how I read it the first time, in which case, the driver should have been indicating right, not left ... and, of course, taking extra care to ensure that they had full situation awareness before starting an unorthodox manoeuvre. Even so, is it legal to use a junction in that way? Isn't it the same as crossing the white line to make a left turn? (which plenty of people do, for no good reason!)

standardg60 · 22-05-2018 7:22pm

cython wrote: »

I don't think it's all that confusing, except that technically the manoeuvre probably isn't a U-turn in the traditional/technical sense (might be more of a q-turn but that doesn't have the same wide understanding!). Rather the driver wanted to turn around, and in order to do so was essentially using the mouth of the junction as one might use a lay-by to effectively widen the road at the point where they were turning (swinging left to allow more space on the right). This had the net effect that they turned into the road at a much shallower angle than they might have if they had been proceeding along the the road.

Correct

Rechuchote · 22-05-2018 7:55pm

average_runner wrote: »

Please tell me this is a joke and these people are not on the road, either walking, car or bike

By "these people" you mean me? No, it's a genuine question; I have always thought you were supposed to stop, even when the pedestrian crossing was empty, if the light was red. Someone told me otherwise, and I'm asking for the information. Abuse is nice too, though, thank you.

odyssey06 · 22-05-2018 8:04pm

Rechuchote wrote: »

By "these people" you mean me? No, it's a genuine question; I have always thought you were supposed to stop, even when the pedestrian crossing was empty, if the light was red. Someone told me otherwise, and I'm asking for the information. Abuse is nice too, though, thank you.

In some countries, you can turn left through a pedestrian green light if there are no pedestrians. Not this one.

cython · 22-05-2018 8:11pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

That is more or less how I read it the first time, in which case, the driver should have been indicating right, not left ... and, of course, taking extra care to ensure that they had full situation awareness before starting an unorthodox manoeuvre. Even so, is it legal to use a junction in that way? Isn't it the same as crossing the white line to make a left turn? (which plenty of people do, for no good reason!)

I don't know about the legality, but I will admit to having done the exact same in the car when it's quiet! However, I wouldn't agree that indicating right would be correct, as their first move is still to turn left into the roadway - had they indicated right and the OP passed on the left and been hit, we'd rightly be slating the driver here.

For what it's worth, if I'm doing something like this, I don't do it in one fell swoop (nor has it been suggested the driver here attempted to that I've seen?), but rather I'll pull into the more secondary road and off the road I've been travelling on. I'll use the wide part at the mouth of the more minor road to swing the car around (i.e. off the major road), and stop when positioned to rejoin the main road. I might be somewhat misaligned/mispositioned to conventionally turn right back onto the main road, but only when off the major road would I consider indicating right. In turning into the junction mouth, it's a left indication, full stop, as I leave the road into the mouth of the road on the left.

CelticRambler · 22-05-2018 8:34pm

cython wrote: »

I don't know about the legality, but I will admit to having done the exact same in the car when it's quiet! However, I wouldn't agree that indicating right would be correct, as their first move is still to turn left into the roadway - had they indicated right and the OP passed on the left and been hit, we'd rightly be slating the driver here.

My more recent Rules of the Road training is related to driving HGVs, in which case you indicate RIGHT then pull LEFT to complete the RIGHT turn into a side road, or vice versa when turning left. When there is no possibility of using the full width of the side road, this is considered normal (and the reason the RoR tell motorists not to try passing a large vehicle on either side if it is indicating one way or the other).

With regard to the OPs situation, I would argue that the motorist indicating and moving left when they subsequently declared that it had been their intention to (U-)turn to the right even though the road was not wide enough to allow such a manoeuvre would constitute liability. They were neither pulling in to the kerb nor executing a normal left turn, and gave the OP the "wrong" information on which to base his decision.

cython · 22-05-2018 8:54pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

My more recent Rules of the Road training is related to driving HGVs, in which case you indicate RIGHT then pull LEFT to complete the RIGHT turn into a side road, or vice versa when turning left. When there is no possibility of using the full width of the side road, this is considered normal (and the reason the RoR tell motorists not to try passing a large vehicle on either side if it is indicating one way or the other).

A key difference here is that you are not leaving the road/carriageway as part of either of those manoeuvres. Now perhaps the driver in this scenario also intended not to fully leave the road, in which case I think that's the root of the problem, rather than just their signals. With an HGV most people are also more aware of the need for different approaches as you describe. I certainly wouldn't drive a car in that way and expect people to know what I was at.

CelticRambler wrote: »

With regard to the OPs situation, I would argue that the motorist indicating and moving left when they subsequently declared that it had been their intention to (U-)turn to the right even though the road was not wide enough to allow such a manoeuvre would constitute liability. They were neither pulling in to the kerb nor executing a normal left turn, and gave the OP the "wrong" information on which to base his decision.

Unless the OP got hit by overtaking to the right of the vehicle (which was not described) this is simply finding fault with the driver, rather than identifying anything that contributed to the collision. As far as I can tell while the driver had an eventual intention of turning right, or swinging around in the roadway, they didn't get the chance to do this, so the indication was not wrong or inaccurate in the context of any of the manoeuvre that they got a chance to perform.

standardg60 · 09-06-2022 9:48pm

Hi all, updating this only now as guards took months to get back to me and i'd forgotten about the thread in the meantime and stumbled back across it tonight.

So i stopped posting at the time as i wasn't sure it was a good idea pending any legal repercussions, which really only hit home when i was advised of my rights and cautioned about relying on evidence when giving my statement a couple of days later (never having given one before). Also things took a bit of a sinister turn as there was a toddler in the back seat of the car, and unbeknownst to me at the time (observed by my friend as i was talking to the guard at the scene), the driver was pointing out a cut to a finger of the toddler from the broken glass to another guard.

Had nearly forgotten about the whole thing when the guard rang me, informing me that the super had decided there was no further action required, and the driver had claimed off their own insurance for the window. Reading into that i imagine the driver was told not to pursue further, and pretty much confirmed what i thought that i wasn't to blame. In reality i could have had their guts for garters, but i've never claimed nor been claimed against and plan to keep it that way.

The knee is fine now, though was painful off and on for a couple of years, had a lump on the kneecap which GP advised was a bit of detached cartilage which thankfully has disappeared now, though still and probably will have a couple of 'dents' in the skin to remind me of the collision forever.

Thankfully the whole incident hasn't affected my confidence on the road, it was just one of those freak occurrences.

magicbastarder · 10-06-2022 9:37am

the way i read it - if a car overtakes and then immediately brakes to left turn, that's a brake check. the usual rules about keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front don't apply if the driver of said vehicle themselves create the unsafe distance. so as above, hard to tell without seeing a video of the incident, to figure out quite how long after the overtake it was before they braked. but on the face of it; a driver overtaking another vehicle, knowing he or she going to brake and turn left immediately after, i'd place the ultimate cause on the driver.

fat bloke · 10-06-2022 11:41am

The driver was a complete bellend to overtake ye at all if he was turning left just up ahead. That's the kind of thoughtless sh1t that cyclists have to put up with from drivers all the time and it clearly created the dangerous situation and the incident that followed.

Unfortunately, once he was in front it then became your responsibility to not hit him :(

So had luck dude. As a matter of interest what kind of bike and brakes are we talking about? It's not the easiest thing to do to flip your bike with a handful of front brake.

Squatman · 10-06-2022 11:53am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2057873579/accident

Theres an argument to be made that your friend caused the full thing. He was not entitled to undertake unless he was in a cycle lane - (the lack of reference leads me to believer there is no cycle lane) The distance he indicated away from the junction, whilst small, may well be proportional to the speed involved. Prior to the accidnet, you yourself were about to make an illegal undertaking. Take your scolding, and pay for damages. Driver is innocent. sounds like cyclists left their brains at home before they put the lycra on!