Was I on the wrong? (Knocking cyclist off bike)

[PapayaMarmalade]

I was driving in London this week, and paused to wait for a gap before I turned right off a single lane two way 20mph road.

As I turned, a lime bike came whizzing down the centre of the road from behind me on my right hand side - I didn’t see them and knocked them off. They were probably on the central dotted line or maybe slightly over on the wrong side of the road. They got up and sped off before I even had my wits together to pull over and check if they were okay.

It shook me up and I realise I should have rechecked my right hand mirror again before turning - I just wasn’t anticipating a cyclist overtaking me on my right hand side.

Whilst I should have been more careful to recheck my mirror, was I legally in the wrong?

Diagram attached hopefully

Anything like this will be decided on its own facts. Ordinary decisions in the courts may be persuasive; they're not authority.

If the motorcyclist was reckless/too fast he shared the blame. If he'd been careful and at a moderate speed it's 100% on the driver.

Internet says this is indeed split liability - cyclist has broken most of the Highway Code’s overtaking rules plus using due care and attention, but hierarchy rule means failing to check mirror at the last moment puts some responsibility on the driver - going to 70/30 cyclist’s responsibility rather than 50/50.

It would appear to rest on whether the bike was “there to be seen”. So if it had dodged out of traffic rather than being “there to be seen” it would bear heavier liability.

I stand corrected with regard to the “hierarchy of road users” which (not now living in UK) is new to me and seems an insane idea. If a pedestrian tries their luck by wandering in front of a car the pedestrian gets killed and “but there is a hierarchy” is absolutely zero use.

What an awful rule. You should never have to give way to traffic BEHIND you. That's what they have eyes for! I've gone and double checked the rules where I am and we have to giveway to oncoming traffic. Nothing about giving way if some idiot decides to overtake you when you're indicating you're turning.

Happened to ExDp but with a motorbike rather than a bike. ExDp hit and injured the biker who was trying to overtake us as we were turning right. Our car was stationary and indicating. After much discussion, turned out bikes/motorbikes have right of way, even on the outside and ExDp should apparently have checked the mirrors better. How, I don't know as the biker was travelling at speed. All sympathy, OP. It's scary.

It won't be that case, because it is the new road heirarchy rules that dictate a motorcyclist or cyclist filtering from behind (on either side) has priority over a car.

I think you are getting confused because the rules for cars and the rules for cyclists/motorcyclists/other more vulnerable road users are different, cars are not allowed to overtake another car if it is indicating because they are the same with regards to heirarchy, which is what the rules you are citing are referring to, but the telling part is in this paragraph:

• stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left. Do not cut across cyclists going ahead, including those using cycle lanes and cycle tracks (see Rule H3)

Rule 180 cited above by a PP clarifies it, when turning right:

Rule 180
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

If you're making a manoeuvre where the timing is so tight you don't have time to check that the manoeuvre is safe, you shouldn't be doing it.

Right...

meanwhile you have just arrived on a short slip road for a dual carriageway ....

Some things about driving ARE unsafe and there is no perfect answer. You are delusionalnif you think there is always a perfect answer to everything

The fact that you think making sure you have time to do a quick life-saver glance over your shoulder before a potentially dangerous manoeuvre is "delusional" speaks volumes about your attitude towards driving. Maybe you should consider doing an IAM course or similar.

I think it's odd to say you have to turn your head completely the opposite way to where you are driving to check your blind spot and it takes up a frightening amount of time.. you aren't checking your blind spot by doing that, you are checking the entire road behind you which is what your mirrors are supposed to be for?

Your blind spot check is the final quick glance over your shoulder immediately before pulling out, after you have judged/matched your speed, indicated and lined yourself up, checked mirrors.. it is literally the final quick thing you do before moving, a second at most, if that. I normally do it twice when joining a dual carriageway or motorway with fast moving traffic, once as I arrive at my driving line, then assess everything else, then a quick glance once again before moving.

In a standard car the blind spot is just over your shoulder, not behind you, the problem OP had was that she didn't even check her mirror before turning, let alone her blind spot, the cyclist came from behind her but she didn't see him because she didn't check her mirror before moving off.

That car regulation doesnt prevent huge number of deaths and accidents

Cities with car restrictions are the best to walk around.

No, different one. Very recent, like this year recent. And was 100% against the car. I wonder if in the one where it went 50/50 was the motorcyclist speeding?

Yeah it does, obviously.

I guess, apart from the 1.19 million deaths worldwide per year, cars have a great safety record

If you come from behind and make an unsafe overtake then that's on you.

OP, as you were sat there and indicating then I feel no sympathy for this "cyclist" at all.

Even though he had priority?

From a personal safety point of view it was a risky move, but he had priority to come past her and she was supposed to give way to him.

rule 167 No Overtaking on the Right: Do not attempt to pass a vehicle that has signaled a right turn.

Really stupid on the cyclist here

SandyCastles

how are you getting that the cyclist overtaking a vehicle that is indicating to turn right has priority?

OP hadn't signalled though

op states she was indicating to turn right, yesterdays post at 19.23 they state they were indicating to turn right

I've had drivers do this, when Im indicting to turn right and they have overtaken me. Cyclists nor motorists, nor pedestrians have a monopoly on stupid move on the highway

How ever many times posters repeat this it won't suddenly be true.

If you're turning left or right into a road you need to check carefully you're not crossing someone else's path.

What happened here is exactly like the left hook where a motor vehicle cuts across a cyclist on their nearside. In fact as an urban cyclist I'd much rather overtake on the offside to mitigate the risk of left hooks - as well as myriad other kerbside hazards.

do you have evidence to back up this claim?

yet the rules state rule 167 No Overtaking on the Right: Do not attempt to pass a vehicle that has signaled a right turn.

turning left into a side junction is not the same as another road user overtaking you

The Highway Code has a hierarchy of wording.

MUST NOT is prohibitive - see rule 165

DO NOT as in Rule 167 is advice - for the obedience of fools and guidance of the wise as somebody said.

The cyclist was either foolhardy and saw but ignored @PapayaMarmalade's indicator or he failed to see it at all. That doesn't absolve the OP of blame.