Wrong to Report?

Paddy The Pirate

I was knocked off my bike this morning by a car that stoppded suddenly and turned left without indicating, i skidded up the left side of the car as it stopped and then was knocked off when the driver continued to turn left without looking. He didn't even realise he'd knocked me off! A motorcyclist riding behind stopped and told me I should take down his number. The drivier told me that I had been in his blind spot (forgetting to mention that he hadnt indicated at all, also somehow not noticing the noise of hitting a cyclist at a fair whack!).
I had two very deep cuts on my elbow, bruises on my knee and hip, and a finger that might be broken or sprained, I'm not sure.

I cycled to a nearby garda station and reported the driver, but I have to say I'm wondering if it was a bad idea?
I feel bad for what might happen to the driver, maybe would it have been better not to report it? I'm honestly not sure, I've been cycling very regularly for years now, but I've never had an incident like this before.

kildare.17hmr

They knocked you down and drove off, dont feel bad for them. Yes you should have reported it

bogmanfan

Totally agree. Driver knocked you down, you have nothing to feel sorry or guilty about. Any damage to you or your bike should be paid for by them also.

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

They knocked you down and drove off, dont feel bad for them. Yes you should have reported it

Dexif

Report all the way. If u were driving a car would you be questioning your decision?

moby2101

Fair play to you for reporting,

ALWAYS REPORT

Cabaal

The excuse of being in their blind spot doesn't cut it, he wasn't driving with due care and attention. As already stated above, always report.

Red Neck Hughie

Paddy The Pirate wrote: »

I was knocked off my bike this morning by a car that stoppded suddenly and turned left without indicating, i skidded up the left side of the car as it stopped and then was knocked off when the driver continued to turn left without looking. He didn't even realise he'd knocked me off! A motorcyclist riding behind stopped and told me I should take down his number. The drivier told me that I had been in his blind spot (forgetting to mention that he hadnt indicated at all, also somehow not noticing the noise of hitting a cyclist at a fair whack!).
I had two very deep cuts on my elbow, bruises on my knee and hip, and a finger that might be broken or sprained, I'm not sure.

I cycled to a nearby garda station and reported the driver, but I have to say I'm wondering if it was a bad idea?
I feel bad for what might happen to the driver, maybe would it have been better not to report it? I'm honestly not sure, I've been cycling very regularly for years now, but I've never had an incident like this before.

Devil's Advocate here but it sounds a lot like you ran into him,
1 he had been stopped,
2 no indicator indeed.... but its an indicator not a promise
3 at a fair whack? your pace then I assume if he had been stopped
4 cycle lane or were you undertaking?
5 yes he turned across you but he has insurance to cover against negligent driving, in otherwords negligent driving is expected and par for the course so...
6 its a car, assume the worst will happen which did, but you neglected a duty of care to yourself. Be very glad it wasn't a truck.

I'm not for a second defending his driving, absolutely report him, if it was up to me he and a couple of dozen drivers I meet every day would lose the right to drive ever again - but a pelvis takes a lot longer to heal than a no claims discount...

Lynchy747

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

Devil's Advocate here but it soulds a lot like you ran into him,
1 he had been stopped,
2 no indicator indeed.... but its an indicator not a promise
3 at a fair whack? your pace then I assume if he had been stopped
4 cycle lane or were you undertaking?
5 yes he turned across you but he has insurance to cover against negligent driving, in otherwords negligent driving is expected and par for the course so...
6 its a car, assume the worst will happen which did, but you neglected a duty of care to yourself. Be very glad it wasn't a truck.

I'm not for a second defending his driving, absolutely report him, if it was up to me - he and a couple of dozen drivers I meet every day would lose the right to drive every again - but a pelvis takes a lot longer to heal than a no claims discount...

Absolute rubbish, if you don't mind me saying! "Stopping" in this case would mean slowing down. It is irrelevant as to what speed paddythepirate was doing. So what about insurance, negligence is not expected thats why there are laws against it. If you are turning left you indicate left, Mirror Signal Manoeuvre. It seems to me as this driver has neglected to look in his mirror and/or signal. If Paddy was coming up the left hand side then the driver should have been able to see him in the mirror. There are no blindspots on a car bar the pillars at the front windscreen.

Therefore, he was fully within his rights to report this crime of dangerous driving. Do you think if another road user (Yes, cyclists are road users too), for example another driver crashed into another car it would just be ignored? Most definitely not!

Red Neck Hughie is simply another driver who thinks they know it all and believes cyclists are secondary road users. Ipso Facto!

Mycroft H

Kinda agreeing with the last post. Experience has shown me that undertaking traffic is a silly practice. Go right past traffic is safer.

However, poor observation on the drivers part. You must yeild all right of way to pedestrians and vehicles when moving from a stationary position. Driver did not do this. Simple check of the left mirror and a check over the shoulder would have prevented this.

Mycroft H

Lynchy747 wrote: »

There are no blindspots on a car bar the pillars at the front windscreen.

Now that is complete rubbish. Have you ever driven a car?

Lynchy747

BX 19 wrote: »

Now that is complete rubbish. Have you ever driven a car?

I have actually. I am talking as visualising from this situation's point of view. The bike rider would have been to the left rear of the car. I am assuming that the cyclist was undertaking on the left. There would have been no visual blindspot applicable in this situation.

CardinalJ

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

but you neglected a duty of care to yourself.

Ah c'mon. I drive more than I cycle, but if I turned left across someone and smacked them off their bike I think if I even suggested to the cyclist that it was their fault I'd expect a serious slap. Neglecting a duty of care to yourself would be if you were drunk out of your mind and wandered in front of a car, and in that case it's still the cars fault for the most part.

You look over your shoulder to check your blind spot, so that excuse doesn't cut it either. OP correct to report. Could have a lasting injury thats not their fault.

Red Neck Hughie

Lynchy747 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish, if you don't mind me saying! "Stopping" in this case would mean slowing down. It is irrelevant as to what speed paddythepirate was doing. So what about insurance, negligence is not expected thats why there are laws against it. If you are turning left you indicate left, Mirror Signal Manoeuvre. It seems to me as this driver has neglected to look in his mirror and/or signal. If Paddy was coming up the left hand side then the driver should have been able to see him in the mirror. There are no blindspots on a car bar the pillars at the front windscreen.

Therefore, he was fully within his rights to report this crime of dangerous driving. Do you think if another road user (Yes, cyclists are road users too), for example another driver crashed into another car it would just be ignored? Most definitely not!

Red Neck Hughie is simply another driver who thinks they know it all and believes cyclists are secondary road users. Ipso Facto!

I cycle 200k each week, 10k+ of it with my 5yo daughter on the crossbar saddle, I don't feel less important but certainly more vulnerable. Yes I also drive so I know drivers **** up. I had a motorbike for most of the last 20 years too so I know bikers **** up.
Rather than rant about drivers not indicating I'd prefer to anticipate the **** up. If you can't read that into my post then I think what I'm saying is lost on you.

Lynchy747

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

I cycle 200k each week, 10k+ of it with my 5yo daughter on the crossbar saddle, I don't feel less important but certainly more vulnerable. Yes I also drive so I know drivers **** up. I had a motorbike for most of the last 20 years too so I know bikers **** up.
Rather than rant about drivers not indicating I'd prefer to anticipate the **** up. If you can't read that into my post then I think what I'm saying is lost on you.

I have nine years experience of riding in road cycling events, it is important to remember that sh1t happens. I understand what you're saying and apologise profoundly but the above is still my view and I think that it should not be a cyclist's responsibility to "anticipate the **** up"

Konkers

Yeah definitely report and let him know that u are. Some drivers need to be taught to develop a bit more awareness of other road users and hazards.

BTW I see it all the time, cyclists undertaking. When I'm on the bike I act like a driver in terms of my road position and try to dominate where my speed or safety necessitate.

Hope u are ok. Get the finger checked out ASAP.

Pembily

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

6 its a car, assume the worst will happen which did, but you neglected a duty of care to yourself. Be very glad it wasn't a truck.

I'm not for a second defending his driving, absolutely report him, if it was up to me - he and a couple of dozen drivers I meet every day would lose the right to drive every again - but a pelvis takes a lot longer to heal than a no claims discount...

I am not defending the driver, he mostly was in the wrong BUT as he said you are lucky it wasn't a truck / bus. I have driven in Dublin and other parts of the country for 6 years and I have cycled for 20 years in the same cities. I trust no one, I don't trust pedestrians / cyclists when I drive and when I cycle I don't trust motorists or pedestrians. Where I am from they don't indicate, you are just meant to know where they are turning. I assume any driver in the left lane will turn left...

I hope you are ok, definitely report, if you were in the wrong and crashed into him he would report the fook out of you!

Lynchy747 wrote: »

Red Neck Hughie is simply another driver who thinks they know it all and believes cyclists are secondary road users. Ipso Facto!

How do you know this?

Mycroft H

Lynchy747 wrote: »

I have actually. I am talking as visualising from this situation's point of view. The bike rider would have been to the left rear of the car. I am assuming that the cyclist was undertaking on the left. There would have been no visual blindspot applicable in this situation.

B and C pillar blind spot. If you have never encountered them while driving I suggest you look them up some time soon.

Lifted directly from the Rules of the Road



The yellow areas are potential areas not usually covered by mirrors. Quick check over your shoulder covers these.

Lynchy747

Lynchy747 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish, if you don't mind me saying! "Stopping" in this case would mean slowing down. It is irrelevant as to what speed paddythepirate was doing. So what about insurance, negligence is not expected thats why there are laws against it. If you are turning left you indicate left, Mirror Signal Manoeuvre. It seems to me as this driver has neglected to look in his mirror and/or signal. If Paddy was coming up the left hand side then the driver should have been able to see him in the mirror. There are no blindspots on a car bar the pillars at the front windscreen.

Therefore, he was fully within his rights to report this crime of dangerous driving. Do you think if another road user (Yes, cyclists are road users too), for example another driver crashed into another car it would just be ignored? Most definitely not!

Red Neck Hughie is simply another driver who thinks they know it all and believes cyclists are secondary road users. Ipso Facto!

Generalise much?

Pembily

Lynchy747 wrote: »

I have nine years experience of riding in road cycling events, it is important to remember that sh1t happens. I understand what you're saying and apologise profoundly but the above is still my view and I think that it should not be a cyclist's responsibility to "anticipate the **** up"

Not your responsibility but it's a damn good idea for your safety!

Red Neck Hughie

Lynchy747 wrote: »

I have nine years experience of riding in road cycling events, it is important to remember that sh1t happens. I understand what you're saying and apologise profoundly but the above is still my view and I think that it should not be a cyclist's responsibility to "anticipate the **** up"

I appreciate the apology. Thanks.

Totally agree 'it should not be a cyclist's responsibility to "anticipate the **** up' but.....

Lynchy747

BX 19 wrote: »

B and C pillar blind spot. If you have never encountered them while driving I suggest you look them up some time soon.

Lifted directly from the Rules of the Road



The yellow areas are potentialareas not usually covered by mirrors. Quick check over your shoulder covers these.

Depends on the situation and car in question

cjt156

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

Totally agree 'it should not be a cyclist's responsibility to "anticipate the **** up' but.....

Surely its every road user's responsibility to anticipate potential hazards. Otherwise you may as well drive/ride/walk blindfolded. Idiots will be idiots; you've got to be prepared for idiocy, unfortunately.

jameverywhere

I am curious if you were undertaking the car in a small gap, or if you were in a cycle lane or a different traffic lane from the car. (I've seen people make left turns across a whole lane of traffic if they think it's clear before)

DEFINITELY report it. alwaysalwaysalways. Even if you're totally at fault. Damn if I ran down a cyclist, even if it was not technically my fault I'd do whatever I could to help the cyclist get medical help and a new bike if the bike was damaged. So all this claptrap about you being in his blind spot and it being your fault is just the dude being mean.

If you were in a cycle lane or a lane further left than the lane the car was turning from, you're 100% not at fault.

if you were undertaking, it's not as clear-cut but still you should definitely report it.

Hermy

Lynchy747 wrote: »

...I think that it should not be a cyclist's responsibility to "anticipate the **** up"

Safety is everyone's responsibility. If your not prepared to anticipate the f*ck ups - regardless of your mode of transport - then prepare to f*ck up yourself.

Paddy The Pirate

To put things straight, I wasnt undertaking him, he stopped so suddenly the only way not to hit into the back of the car was to skid to the left of his car, he then turned left and knocked me off. It was also in a single lane of traffic, with parked cars lining the left of the road i was riding in the centre of the lane to avoid opening doors.

Dermot Illogical

Paddy The Pirate wrote: »

To put things straight, I wasnt undertaking him, he stopped so suddenly the only way not to hit into the back of the car was to skid to the left of his car, he then turned left and knocked me off.

So...you left insufficient braking distance between yourself and the vehicle in front and were unable to safely stop when you needed to, eh?
In any event, you were right to report it. All incidents involving personal injury should be reported.

Gurgle

Paddy The Pirate wrote: »

i skidded up the left side of the car as it stopped

Am I the only person who actually read the OP?

kincsem

Some drivers turn left across a cyclist not realising that they turn and slow down. It is not like normal overtaking where they continue past another vehicle while maintaining a higher speed that takes them clear.
Always report. You get compensated for your injuries and damage. The driver learns that it is a move that he/she needs to eliminate.

the_syco

Paddy The Pirate wrote: »

The drivier told me that I had been in his blind spot (forgetting to mention that he hadnt indicated at all, also somehow not noticing the noise of hitting a cyclist at a fair whack!).

DON'T FEEL BAD! If he gets points and a warning, he may look at his blind spot next time; these idiots often nearly cause stupid accidents when they try to merge into other cars on the motorway & duel-carriageway!

DePurpereWolf

BX 19 wrote: »

B and C pillar blind spot. If you have never encountered them while driving I suggest you look them up some time soon.

Lifted directly from the Rules of the Road



The yellow areas are potential areas not usually covered by mirrors. Quick check over your shoulder covers these.

So, considering this stupid picture, where are the mirrors for, decoration?

The 'blind spot' is not the motorcyclists issue, it's the car drivers. It's his responsibility to see what is happening around him.

Lumen

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

So, considering this stupid picture, where are the mirrors for, decoration?

Mirrors are for tracking the position of other road users in order to keep an updated mental picture of what's going on around you.

So (for instance) you use them to plan the general timing of a lane change but don't rely on them solely to judge whether it's safe.

Or use them to decide how much space to leave to the vehicle in front, e.g. leave more space in front when you're being tailgated.

Canis Lupus

Curious, if a bike wasn't involved in this incident at all but two cars, as in the OP car in front stops suddenly and turns and the following car crashes into him my understanding is the car behind is at fault (I don't know the legal ramifications of not indicating).

Does this same principal not apply to a cyclist? Unless the OP was in a cycle lane is the driver legally at fault here?

Lumen

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Curious, if a bike wasn't involved in this incident at all but two cars, as in the OP car in front stops suddenly and turns and the following car crashes into him my understanding is the car behind is at fault (I don't know the legal ramifications of not indicating).

Does this same principal not apply to a cyclist? Unless the OP was in a cycle lane is the driver legally at fault here?

The nearest equivalent case would be where a car in lane 2 suddenly cuts across lane 1 to turn left and the car in lane 1 drives into the side of it.

In that case the turning car would be at fault, I think.

The analogy fails because in the car case the turning car would be in the wrong lane for turning, whereas in the bike case the car cannot drive in the cycle lane and is therefore in the correct lane for turning.

A problem, as usual, is the odd status of cycle lanes.

hans aus dtschl

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

The 'blind spot' is not the motorcyclists issue, it's the car drivers. It's his responsibility to see what is happening around him.

Being "in the right" is of little comfort when you can't cycle/walk/breathe.

Canis Lupus

I would imagine you're right with the lane changing scenario but on a 'normal' 2 lane road road without a cycle lane I would have thought the either the bike or a car would ultimately get done for going into the back of another vehicle? (assuming driver in front says I did use my indicators your honour).

With a cycle lane it's different, normally at a junction the outside changes to broken white line which defines cross only if safe to do so. Least that has always been my understanding and the OP would need to clarify if he was in a cycle lane at the time of the incident.

Regardless of the legal aspect the driver was still a tard although god knows I've done that myself, daydream then whoops, almost passed my turn.

Mycroft H

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

So, considering this stupid picture, where are the mirrors for, decoration?

The 'blind spot' is not the motorcyclists issue, it's the car drivers. It's his responsibility to see what is happening around him.

It was to show a poster who did not believe that blind spots other then the one near the windscreen do exist.

And of course its the car drivers responsibility, I never said it wasn't.

Picture was to illustrate a point.

Hermy

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

The 'blind spot' is not the motorcyclists issue, it's the car drivers. It's his responsibility to see what is happening around him.

And if the car driver shirks his responsibility?

DePurpereWolf

Hermy wrote: »

And if the car driver shirks his responsibility?

A driver who shirks his responsibility can always drive into a cyclist, he doesn't need a blindspot to justify his unresponsible action. He could drive intoxicated, or with welders glasses on. He could choose to text or play angry bird on his phone.

The question is: who is responsible.

When cycling I will try and prevent myself from cycling in anyones blindspot. But it may just happen that I find myself in that location and I can't do anything about it. When I get knocked over, there is no such excuse as you were in my blindspot. 1, there is no blindspot. 2, it might not have been my fault I got there in the first place.

DePurpereWolf

BX 19 wrote: »

It was to show a poster who did not believe that blind spots other then the one near the windscreen do exist.

And of course its the car drivers responsibility, I never said it wasn't.

Picture was to illustrate a point.

But picture was stupid....

xkcd.com/386/

BostonB

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

But picture was stupid....

xkcd.com/386/

No it wasn't. The picture was an example. Different vehicles have better or worse blinds spots. As a cyclist it does you no good to ignore that and assume you have been seen, which so many seem to to do.

That doesn't excuse a driver for not clearing his blind spots before making a turn, or changing lane. Especially if they've just passed that cyclist. As a cyclist you see this all the time, have to be extra wary passing and approaching side roads and junctions as a result.

BostonB

Lynchy747 wrote: »

...There are no blindspots on a car bar the pillars at the front windscreen....

Apart from being wrong that's a seriously dangerous mindset, for a cyclist.:eek:

Even when driving on a motorway, its very important to check for cars sitting in your rear blind spots in the other lanes.

Hermy

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

A driver who shirks his responsibility can always drive into a cyclist...

And that's why the blind spot is the motorcyclists issue.

seavill

in the past few years I have become a regular cyclist. Although I do admit drivers do some stupid things (as do some cyclists) in this case from the second explanation I feel the driver has got a lot of unwarrented stick here from posters.

You were driving directly behind the middle of the car in front, he stops suddenly, you are too close to stop in time and shoot up the inside of him, undertaking him almost (without the intent of getting past him). Seems to me you were too close to stop in time, and it was your fault.

What if a child ran out from the right hand side, he stops suddenly, you are unable to stop and shoot up the inside of him and you end up hitting the child causing injuries full speed. Still the drivers fault that you were too close going too fast? I think not.
Although I do agree everything like this should be reported just in case from either side I do believe you were at fault here, in was not a case of you being on his inside and he was not checking his mirrors, you were behind him which he anticipated would be where you would stay if he turned left. If he did a sudden turn he would not have had time to see you in his mirrors considering the speeds we are talking about here.

DePurpereWolf

Hermy wrote: »

And that's why the blind spot is the motorcyclists issue.

Alright mister needs-to-have-the-last-word, always expect the unexpected and so on.

A blind spot is a spot a driver can not directly observe, but needs mirrors to see. It is not an excuse to cause an accident.

DePurpereWolf

BX 19 wrote: »

...



The yellow areas are potential areas not usually covered by mirrors. Quick check over your shoulder covers these.

Sorry BostonB, bt the picture and text are just wrong.
The yellow areas ARE covered by mirrors.

Mycroft H

seavill wrote: »

Although I do agree everything like this should be reported just in case from either side I do believe you were at fault here, in was not a case of you being on his inside and he was not checking his mirrors, you were behind him which he anticipated would be where you would stay if he turned left. If he did a sudden turn he would not have had time to see you in his mirrors considering the speeds we are talking about here.

Absolutely silly statement. Car hits cyclist and the cyclist is judged at fault? Please tell me from the one post the OP has made in this thread how can you make a deduction that the cyclist was at fault?

A car or cyclist for that matter has no right of way when moving from a stationary position. None whatsoever.

And a sudden turn? A car should not be making a sudden turn under normal driving conditions and certainly not when turning left or right without making proper observation and giving way to other traffic.

Car hits cyclist. Car at fault. Cyclist in less then ideal position but not at fault. Fairly black and white here.

seavill

BX 19 wrote: »

Absolutely silly statement. Car hits cyclist and the cyclist is judged at fault? Please tell me from the one post the OP has made in this thread how can you make a deduction that the cyclist was at fault?

A car or cyclist for that matter has no right of way when moving from a stationary position. None whatsoever.

And a sudden turn? A car should not be making a sudden turn under normal driving conditions and certainly not when turning left or right without making proper observation and giving way to other traffic.

Car hits cyclist. Car at fault. Cyclist in less then ideal position but not at fault. Fairly black and white here.

Before you go calling other peoples statements silly I would actually read the thread properly before you make yourself look any more stupid.

If you refer back to the 2nd page of this thread you will see the 2nd post from the OP. I will let you refer to this before we discuss any more

Mycroft H

seavill wrote: »

Before you go calling other peoples statements silly I would actually read the thread properly before you make yourself look any more stupid.

If you refer back to the 2nd page of this thread you will see the 2nd post from the OP. I will let you refer to this before we discuss any more

That does not change too much. Cyclist was a bit close, car should have still yielded right of way. You think that is stupid?

seavill

BX 19 wrote: »

That does not change too much. Cyclist was a bit close, car should have still yielded right of way. You think that is stupid?

I will take that as an apology. If the cyclist was directly behind the car as explained the cyclist did not have right of way. The cyclist should not have been "undertaking". In the end of the day the cyclist was too close to stop in time hence forcing them to take this evasive action.

I will go back to the point made earlier about if this was 2 cars, one does not leave enough space to break in time and shoots up the inside and causes damage to both cars, who is at fault?

Cyclists have to take responsibility at times too, the cyclist had no right of way up the inside as no car has. The cyclists clearly indicates they were not even cycling on the far left of the road, they were in the centre which also changes the argument.

With the question I posed if the car had not turned left but had stopped for a child but the cyclist shoots up the inside hitting the child running across the road is the car still at fault? no because the cyclist had no business doing what they did, they were going too fast and travelling too close to the car to stop in case of an emergency. the fact that the car turns left is irrelevant to the actions of the cyclist preceding what happened.
Had we been discussing two cars here everyone would be saying the 2nd car is completely at fault for being too close to stop.

Mycroft H

seavill wrote: »

I will go back to the point made earlier about if this was 2 cars, one does not leave enough space to break in time and shoots up the inside and causes damage to both cars, who is at fault?

Firstly, you would want to grow a thicker skin if you think your owed an apology.

Anyway, different circumstances here. Apples and oranges. Car from a stationary position turns into traffic. Whether the traffic should be there or not, does not negate the fault from the driver of the car. You have no right of way from a stationary position.

seavill wrote: »

Cyclists have to take responsibility at times too, the cyclist had no right of way up the inside as no car has. The cyclists clearly indicates they were not even cycling on the far left of the road, they were in the centre which also changes the argument.

Refer to earlier point about moving from a stationary position. And as you like analogies so much, if it was a pedestrian walking alongside a car and the car turned left from a stationary position into the the pedestrian, would the pedestrian be at fault?

seavill wrote: »

With the question I posed if the car had not turned left but had stopped for a child but the cyclist shoots up the inside hitting the child running across the road is the car still at fault? no because the cyclist had no business doing what they did, they were going too fast and travelling too close to the car to stop in case of an emergency. the fact that the car turns left is irrelevant to the actions of the cyclist preceding what happened.

Again, a totally different situation. In that case the cyclist would be at fault. The turning left from a stopped position is very relevant here.

seavill wrote: »

Had we been discussing two cars here everyone would be saying the 2nd car is completely at fault for being too close to stop.

In the case of a child being hit by a car that could not stop? Well then yes. If you were directly replacing the cyclist by another car in what happened with the OP, well then no.

seavill

BX 19 wrote: »

Firstly, you would want to grow a thicker skin if you think your owed an apology.

Anyway, different circumstances here. Apples and oranges. Car from a stationary position turns into traffic. Whether the traffic should be there or not, does not negate the fault from the driver of the car. You have no right of way from a stationary position.



Refer to earlier point about moving from a stationary position. And as you like analogies so much, if it was a pedestrian walking alongside a car and the car turned left from a stationary position into the the pedestrian, would the pedestrian be at fault?



Again, a totally different situation. In that case the cyclist would be at fault. The turning left from a stopped position is very relevant here.



In the case of a child being hit by a car that could not stop? Well then yes. If you were directly replacing the cyclist by another car in what happened with the OP, well then no.

When I started to get into cycling properly I spoke with a few people I know in a cycling club. At the time I was given the advice of never go up the inside of anything (obviously unless in a cycle lane or on a 2 lane road). The advice i was given was this was classed as undertaking whatever your reason which is illegal. Was this advice correct or incorrect? If incorrect it obviously changes everything I previously posted.

bearing the outcome of the above in mind as a cyclist I would still lay blame with the cyclist. If I am cycling and a car stops suddenly in the road, I have no idea what the hell they are doing, they may turn right, they may turn left, they may just continue on. To me the correct procedure would be to stop and see what the hell they are up to and once I know then proceed in the correct manner. If i was driving my car and someone did that I defo would not go inside or outside them as god only knows what they are up to.
I would still feel that cyclists need to have more common sense on certain issues and it is not always the drivers fault. In the end of the day if someone stops in front of you, you being in a car, motor bike, or bike you should be able to stop safely in time, if you do this no accident is caused. People are stupid they stop in the middle of roads, they don't indicate etc etc etc. As the following car/bike you must be prepared for this.