Or was the cyclist with a death wish

[warthogworrier]

So I'm an experienced driver but fairly new to London driving. I'm always very conscious of cyclists and until today likes to think I was extra courteous to them...

I travel a route regularly where I turn right into a road and then about 60m later turn hard left. As I turned right I noticed there was a cyclist coming up behind me. I was worried she hadn't seen that I was turning left, so I went extra slow and checked in my mirrors for a sign that she had seen (ie either that she was going round me on the other side or had slotted in behind me if she was also turning left). Instead she didn't slow at all and completely undertook me, signalling only that she was turning left literally as she passed me. If I hadn't slammed on the breaks (albeit I was going very slow) I would have hit her, as the road we were turning into is quite narrow and has cars parked on it (so there isn't room for both to turn at the same time).

Being honest I was pretty furious but did I misjudge this ?

Seasoned inner city London driver here! I'm confused as to why you came to a near stop if she was behind you. You are in a car that goes faster than a cyclist so I dont imagine she would have caught up with you in the 60m until the next junction.

It's better to make a decision on what you're doing and then do it rather than dawdle about waiting for a signed letter witnessed by a solicitor confirming she sees you indicating. Just indicate, check you won't squash her and do it.

No the cyclist was also going left.
And undertaking near left turns is just stupid. Even if it’s legal.
There’s a difference between undertaking in a traffic jam and undertaking someone doing a left turn and if you can’t tell the difference you’re a dick head

Cyclists are self-absorbed entitled self-righteous arseholes

I could say the same about anyone who drives a massive 4x4 a mile up the road to drop one small child off at school.

Anyone who makes a sweeping statement about such a diverse group of people is pretty ignorant. It's this kind of hyperbole that has whipped up ridiculous levels of animosity towards cyclists, fuelled by papers like the Daily Fail.

Yes, of course there are shit cyclists, but there are also a vast number of terrible drivers, who are in charge of a tonne of metal and think nothing of texting whilst driving (and are far more likely to kill or injure you than a cyclist), and a ridiculous amount of phone zombie pedestrians who can't be bothered to look up before they step into the road. When you are on a bike, you are sandwiched between these groups, and you also need to pay attention to the shitty road surface to make sure you don't hit a pot hole and end up under an HGV.

I cycle, walk, and drive, and do my utmost to treat all other road users with respect and courtesy. Wearing unflattering lycra doesn't make me a monster.

The cyclist was probably wondering why the fuck you were driving so slowly and decided to try and get past you but, yes, they were very daft to undertake.

OP, you were wrong.

you could have just checked the highway code instead of moaning.

Rule 182/183 are relevant. hope that helps.

Regardless of the legalities, I am interested in why OP attempted the manoeuvre knowing that the cyclist was coming up on her inside?

Drivers base their actions on expectations of what other people are about to do all the time. In this case, unless there was a cycle lane, occupied by a cyclist who cared more about their rights than their safety, then the OP's expectation they would not pass her on the left was reasonable.

If a cyclist is coming up behind you, you don't know that they are going to do something so utterly stupid as trying to cross through the path you've been indicating for some time you intend to take, until they actually do it. Fortunately in this case the OP was hyper-aware and was able to avoid an accident despite the cyclists stupidity,

Rule 183 only requires OP to give way if there was a cycle lane.

petty op said that she was worried the cyclist hadn't registered the left signal. OP was waiting for some indication from cyclists that she was aware that op was turning left; such as passing on the right or falling in behind OPs car. This didn't happen. Therefore OP, by her own words knew that cyclist was still approaching on the inside of the car. Yet, she continued with the manoeuvre. That's attempted murder!

Or criminally negligent manslaughter, at least

I'm an experienced rider of s and I too would be wondering why you were driving in the way you were - it isn't anticipated and would cause a confusion to other road users. Neither though would I undertake you IF you were indicating left. (truth is though a lot of drivers are negligent wankers so I wouldn't undertake at a junction at all as they may well have 'forgotten' to indicate.)

And yes IF you were so worried about the bikist and were making decisions on her behalf re her safety you should not have turned until she was clear. You did contribute to this situation. Just don't do it again.

There are good and bad cyclists and the same goes for drivers.
As a cyclist I have had a lot of abuse.
The worst time was when cycling up a steep hill,traffic lights on red at the bottom behind me so there was a queue coming down the hill on the opposite side.
I'm going as fast as I can,but it's hard going as it's a very steep hill and the traffic behind can't get passed.
When a car finally manages to pass me,the driver shouts out of the window'" Get on the path you fat cunt!'
Charming! And of course wrong as we all know you can't cycle on the pavement.
!'

Ok. Some people are really misinterpreting this!

To be clear I had turned into a road (turning right) EVERYONE turns right as it's a crossroads controlled by traffic lights.

Once on the road there is a pedestrian crossing and then a left turn. The left turn is about 60m from the right turn.

I immediately started signaling left as soon as I was on the road. The cyclist had followed me onto the road and was going pretty fast compatibly (it's a 20 mile limit and I had slowed as I wasn't sure if a pedestrian wanted to use the crossing).

I continued to signal and could see the cyclist coming up behind me, she was moving quite quickly and because of the layout (which I don't think is unusual) and it was sunny I slowed again and turned a little and rechecked my mirrors, to make it (I thought) abundantly clear why I was doing.

I checked again, expecting her to have either gone around me on the other side or slowed behind me (and also signalling left) instead, she undertook me, signalling literally as she passed my door. At this point I was slightly turned, if I'd kept going and not been specifically looking for her she would have driven into my passenger side.

I'm kind of fine with it, in that I was worried that she hadn't noticed me, and I was being cautious, so no I wouldn't have hit her nor would I have completed my move until I was sure where she was. What I didn't expect was for her to undercut me (she was still going pretty fast) and to then be abusive.

Ok, so if I am to come across this again, it seems the beet thing to do would be to indicate as I had done and just keep going. She would have hit me I think, but it would have been her fault, as she was behind me, I was indicating etc. Or should I just let cyclists pass me on the inside when I'm turning left ?

Some times it doesn't matter who is wrong or right. Presumably she didn't want to die and you didn't want to kill her. So act accordingly, even if that means letting someone undertake you when they shouldn't.

No don't hit a cyclist by keeping on going.

You just aren't accepting any observation that doesn't support you, are you?

Don't dawdle and create confusion.

Well, any person who doesn't want to kill another person would take evasive action, if they could foresee that a collision was about to take place, regardless of fault. As the evasive action was a simple act of giving way, I would say it's a no-brainer

However, you appear to think that 'keep going' is appropriate

I don't think you should be driving a car

What I didn't expect was for her to undercut me

you did not go straight, you turned left. so she did not undercut you. If you have a look at the HWC, you will see that in that situation, the cyclist has a) priority and that b) you should check over your shoulder to avoid the blind spot.

tbh, your excuse is worse than your crime.

YWNBU, she's going to get herself killed

Ok, so if I am to come across this again, it seems the beet thing to do would be to indicate as I had done and just keep going. She would have hit me I think, but it would have been her fault, as she was behind me, I was indicating etc. Or should I just let cyclists pass me on the inside when I'm turning left ? If you're turning left, you look in your nearside wing mirror or over your shoulder to see if there are any cyclists, or any other problem on your nearside. Unless the cyclist is a long way behind, you will force them to brake if you try to turn across their path, so you let them pass before turning.

They're on your LHS, so you are turning across their path, therefore they, not you, have right of way.

Or should I just let cyclists pass me on the inside when I'm turning left?

yes, unless they are in a safe/far away distance. You turn. The onus is on you to check that your maneuver does not endanger anyone else. Cyclist is going straight and therefore has priority. doesn't matter if you indicate or not. straight traffic comes first. Is it that hard to understand?

But it's why when I'm driving I always check my left wing mirror as the last thing I do before I start to turn.

That is literally what you're supposed to to. It's right there in the highway code.

I don't get the majority of this thread, the cyclist had right of way as they were in the inside lane, doesn't matter if they were turning left or not. You wouldn't just cut across a bus lane with traffic coming so you could turn left so why do you think you can do it when it's a cyclist?

Rule 182. Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle

That’s what the OP did do I thought?

I think people are misinterpreting a little too. I think OP broadly did the right thing until they turned without looking. In the NL, bicycles always have right if way. Luckily the cyclist turned left too.

Difficult to tell from the description, but I would guess that it was confusion rather than any sort of a deathwish.

I always assume a cyclist is going to undertake me when I’m turning left and just wait until they have passed. I’m driving a ton of metal, they are squishy, I don’t really care if they ‘should’ have seen my indicators, or ‘should’ wait until I’ve completed my manoeuvre.

Nice point Saucery - there is often no perspective taking when it comes to these threads.

If the car was indicating I would have allowed the car to turn. Even if the driver slows down having realised I will be on the inside, I allow them to turn - this allows me to control my destiny (to a point!). This is one of those 50/50 areas. the OP slowed down so the cyclist may have presumed they were being allowed to proceed. Interpretation can be awkward.