Bicycle Collision with Car - Who is at fault!?

You are suggesting that the car crossed a lane - it didn't. This is where the analysis is drawn and you're picking on the wrong person. The driver was in his lane and the cyclist tried passing him on the inside in his own lane - Nobody should attempt to pass within the same lane on a junction, whether inside or outside.

~Matt

No. I did not say that. I was merely putting forward an equivalent situation. The cyclist had no intention of overtaking, no warning that the car would turn left in front of him, and no chance to avoid the crash, just as a car wouldn't have in the circumstances I described.

Well no, that's not an equivalent situation, as in that case the car in the right lane would have been in the wrong lane in the first place. A more realistic 'equivalent' situation would be a car hitting the car it was following because it failed to respond to the car ahead manoeuvring to turn.

I'll also go out on a bit of a limb here and say I wouldn't particularly check my mirrors before turning left unless I'd noted a particular hazard (granted, a cyclist would constitute such a hazard). I will have just passed the area, and so noted anything that could be an issue, and any vehicle approaching from behind is the give way vehicle. Obviously I would be monitoring the mirrors as normal but my I would primarily be focusing on the road ahead of me and where I was turning.

So my cycle insurance just got back to me with their decision about my collision with another car that occurred around 2 weeks ago. They say 'I MAY be at fault' and won't be pursuing uninsured losses with the third party insurance. wtf does 'may' mean. I don't agree with their decision at all but maybe I'm wrong and would like some other opinions on this.

Anyways this is what happened:...

.

My first thoughts are that it comes down to the indicator. If you cannot prove that the driver wasn't indicating then you are probably going to be considered at fault

So my cycle insurance just got back to me with their decision about my collision with another car that occurred around 2 weeks ago. They say 'I MAY be at fault' and won't be pursuing uninsured losses with the third party insurance. wtf does 'may' mean. I don't agree with their decision at all but maybe I'm wrong and would like some other opinions on this.

Anyways this is what happened:

I was cycling down a road and approaching a junction. Around 15 metres before the junction I safely overtook two fellow cyclists and pulled back into the left side of the road. The lights at the junction were solid green and there was a blue car in front of me. My intentions were to go straight ahead. Just as I get to the junction this blue car suddenly turns left and I get left hooked and crash into the side of his car. I used my brakes a little, but it was too late to avoid impact. If I had braked too hard I would have flipped over.

Now this car did not indicate that he was turning left, if he did, I would have stayed in the middle of the road after overtaking the other two cyclists and would have overtook the blue car and gone straight ahead but I thought he had the same intentions as me and so I pulled back in to the left side of the road to go straight ahead. The driver argues he did indicate (it was an incredibly sunny day).

Nevertheless, even if he did indicate the driver should have checked his mirrors before turning. I overtook two other cyclists before the junction meaning I was in the middle of the road and in plain view of the drivers mirrors. He didn't check his internal mirror, nor did he check his left mirror before turning. Me as I cyclist in a cycle path have right of way. If a car wants to cross my path, he has to check his mirrors. It is my decision to give way or not. I should not have to brake hard or change my course of direction suddenly just to let another motorist through. If you indicate with in good time I am more than happy to give way.

Anyways any opinions? Thanks.

fair point for the first one.

if he had checked his mirrors he would've seen me.

i never undertook, overtook, filtered. i was at ALL TIMES behind the car and because of my speed could not stop in time and hit the side of his car.

like i said before i was behind it by at least 5 metres but because he suddenly turns left i could not stop in time.

i assumed he was going straight because he did not indicate left or right? isn't that what they're for?

don't want to bait out this thread to insurance company.

hope this helps brah.

To be fair, the fact you cycled into the side of his car means you were an unsafe distance if you didn't undertake. As the car yes didn't signal, but what if he had to swerve out of the way of a child? So you were either too close, or you did undertake. You're asking opinions of people, who are experienced drivers, or had similar situations. I think from reading, you are 50% to blame, but all the driver needs to say is he did indicate (as you said sunny day) and there's a considerable possibility that you are 100% to blame - at least in the eyes of the courts and insurers. That's from a neutral perspective.

This thread is TWO YEARS OLD.

I wanna know how the court battle went