Accident

standardg60 wrote: »

he had passed back up to the inside as the car slowed for the ramp, not the turn, and before any indication was given

That doesn't matter - going up the inside of any moving vehicle is madness.

circular flexing wrote: »

Yes but would you do it if there was a junction 20 feet after the ramp? It's all about situation awareness. Now if the traffic was moving slowly (e.g. because of a tailback) and there were no junctions coming up, then I would say that proceeding slowly up the inside is probably safe but always be aware of the fact that a car might pull into the left for no reason. Yes they would (potentially) be in the wrong but what use is that if you are the one who ends up seriously injured.

I approach all cycling with the following in mind: 1) I'm going to come out the (physically) worse off in any impact with a car. 2) one of the cars surrounding me is going to do something unpredictable.

You do know that a motorist is supposed to indicate well before a junction (20ft does not satisfy that requirement), and before manoeuvring, check mirrors...not indicate at the last minute.

Please don’t put the onus on the cyclist to second guess every single motorist. Motorists have responsibilities to all other road users.

standardg60 wrote:

Intrigued by the replies so far..is a car entitled to take up my space on the road just by an indicator. In a split second I took the lesser of two evils..self preservation kicks in.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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!)

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 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.

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!

https://goo.gl/maps/yiJPfEJ7JsiJTgsC6

A common sense approach on the road can sometimes mean as much as the rules of the road.

Let the bigger guy in front make his move. Slow down. Wait. Patience.