Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

345 replies

PapayaMarmalade · 27/10/2026 12:50

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

Was I on the wrong? (Knocking cyclist off bike)
OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
PapayaMarmalade · 28/10/2026 18:35

sanityisamyth · 28/10/2026 17:59

Where else would you expect something to overtake you? It’s always on the right hand side? If you were turning right you absolutely should have checked your offside mirror before turning. It’s definitely on you.

Well, I did check once I started indicating and before I initially moved towards the centre line. I just never thought anyone would overtake once I had moved over and was waiting, indicating, for a gap on the other side. I was so close to the middle of the road there really wasn’t space for anyone to pass me without crossing over onto the other side against the flow of traffic. It is common for bikes and motorbikes to do this in London to overtake slower moving traffic on the left I’ve just never seen it when a car is about to turn right.

OP posts:
Velumental · 28/10/2026 18:38

bridgetreilly · 27/10/2026 21:27

Exactly. OP was clearly at fault. I can’t believe how many people are blaming the cyclist.

Finally some sense!

Velumental · 28/10/2026 18:39

PapayaMarmalade · 28/10/2026 18:35

Well, I did check once I started indicating and before I initially moved towards the centre line. I just never thought anyone would overtake once I had moved over and was waiting, indicating, for a gap on the other side. I was so close to the middle of the road there really wasn’t space for anyone to pass me without crossing over onto the other side against the flow of traffic. It is common for bikes and motorbikes to do this in London to overtake slower moving traffic on the left I’ve just never seen it when a car is about to turn right.

Edited

Doesn't matter what occurred to you, you moved without checking it was safe to do so, youw ent from stationery to moving without looking. Very stupid

PoliteRoseJoker · 28/10/2026 18:48

Prepared to be told I'm completely wrong (and/or an idiot), but if a car overtook another car indicating to turn right, that second car/driver would surely be in the wrong. Why is it any different for cyclists / motorbikes?

IzzyLeng · 28/10/2026 18:58

PoliteRoseJoker · 28/10/2026 18:48

Prepared to be told I'm completely wrong (and/or an idiot), but if a car overtook another car indicating to turn right, that second car/driver would surely be in the wrong. Why is it any different for cyclists / motorbikes?

I do think you’re wrong. The over taking car wouldn’t be at fault. They have priority over a car turning right who should be checking their mirrors.

FunPreventionOfficer · 28/10/2026 18:58

Six of one, half dozen of the other. You should’ve checked your mirrors again but the cyclist when filtering should have been looking for anything turning at a junction.
If you haven’t already, report it online to the relevant police force, just to cover yourself and don’t say that you didn’t check your mirror.

greenleader · 28/10/2026 19:15

DP had a very similar incident last year although it was a motorbike overtaking rather than a cyclist. For what it's worth the insurance outcome was 50:50.

ArtieChoke · 28/10/2026 19:18

IzzyLeng · 28/10/2026 18:58

I do think you’re wrong. The over taking car wouldn’t be at fault. They have priority over a car turning right who should be checking their mirrors.

try putting it into AI and the overtaking car would be 50-70% liable

and here are the reasons

Joliffe v Hay (1991): A classic UK case where a driver turning right at a junction was struck by an overtaking vehicle. The court apportioned 70% liability to the overtaking driver and 30% liability to the turning driver, noting that the overtaker had primary responsibility for a safe maneuver, while the turner failed to check their mirrors adequately.

Pell v Moseley (2003): In similar circumstances, courts have also split liability 50/50 based on mutual negligence—the overtaker for passing in an unsafe place/manner, and the turner for turning across traffic without verifying the path was clear.

  • The Overtake Location: Passing right at a clearly marked junction or entrance is a major strike against the overtaking driver.
  • Signaling and Timing: Did the car in front signal in good time, or did they suddenly swerve without warning?
Jamie8888 · 28/10/2026 19:34

Worth a read of the highway code for cyclists, (google) that said overtaking is at the risk of those overtaking , by lime bike was this bike battery powered if so its not a bike in the true sense and of course they can travel at some speed, I would also look at the highway code on reporting and you would be wise to report the incident to the police and your insurers , appreciate its unlikely they will do anything as they failed to stop at the scene themselves but cover yourself

Holiday24 · 28/10/2026 19:51

This happened to me once about 20 years ago when a moped tried to overtake me as I was turning right. Luckily no harm was done and he actually apologised once I jumped out to check he was ok.

But I definitely learnt my lesson! It has made me very cautious ever since, I always do a double check in my mirror and check my blind spot before i turn, even if I checked already before indicating.

AnswerIsNo · 28/10/2026 20:08

"Cyclists" do, at times occupy a parallel universe

Yes, you could have checked your o/s wing mirror, but then again, you generally don't expect to be overtaken on your right hand side, while turning (presumably indicating) and by a cyclist

Your cyclist completed their game of FAFO for the day

The one that keeps replaying in my mind is waiting at the stem of a lighted T-junction, lights go green for me (straight on and filter right), I'm moving off to turn right and some absolute twonk cycles straight across the arm of the T from left to right against their red light. If I had blindly accelerated on green without checking in with myself and my surroundings, I could have easily got the following result:

Earth's population = n - a stupid

Also, as an ex-roadie, people charging around the place at 30mph, while sat motionless on illegally-modified "electric scooters with optional pedalling function" are not cyclists, they are Darwin Award short-listers and often up to shady stuff.

The only thing they are exercising is their right to die unexpectedly at speed due to having an inverse ratio of ability v belief

JeffLebowski · 28/10/2026 20:24

I'd say it's 50:50. As a motorcycle rider, I know that passing someone on the right when they're indicating right and you're next to a junction is a really dumb thing to do. As a car driver, I know that not doing a last minute life-saver shoulder check before making a potentially hazardous manoeuvre is a really dumb thing to do, particularly as the greatest risk would be to cyclists and motorcyclists who would be at particular risk of bodily harm.

Both parties made hazardous manoeuvres with insufficient care and attention to other road users. Therefore it's 50:50.

Musetotheangels · 28/10/2026 20:41

Doesn't matter where you were, where they were etc, its illegal to hit a cyclist. However did you hit him? Or did he hit you? That's the big difference...

BeddysMum · 28/10/2026 21:36

In my experience, in court you would be unlikely to find any blame apportioned to the cyclist given that courts consider them to be the more "vulnerable" road user and tend to put the greater duty of care onto the vehicle driver.
In theory you should have checked your mirrors and blind spot and seen him. There is case law for a similar incident involving a motorcycle rather than a lime bike, which if I remember rightly from my days in motor claims, apportioned 75% blame to the car driver and 25% contributory negligence to the motorcyclist.
It's not a clear cut thing as far as the common law aspect goes, but you're lucky they got up and left the scene without injury or making a fuss or you could have ended up in a bit of hot water!
(Disclaimer: Not legal advice!)

Booboobagins · 28/10/2026 22:54

Def onus on you. Lots of cyclists killed by car drivers doing exactly that.

Glad nnone was hurt though... salutory lesson methinks.

Notanotherrestructure · 28/10/2026 23:18

You need to report it to your insurer who will open a claim but will close it if no-one comes forward within 6 months. You might need to log it with the police online too.

Wooky073 · 28/10/2026 23:24

When I was visiting family on outskirts of london I was in right hand lane doing 20mph in a 20 mph zone attempting to turn left when a driver zoomed up the inside bus lane, speeding at about 40mph and going straight on over a left turn as I only lane as trying to turn left. I saw him and stopped but he collided as he went straight on, Insurance still found me at fault as he said I hit him. I never expected him to be in that lane or speeding or misusing lanes. Lesson is always check and check again as there are many crazies on the road.

SandyCastles · 28/10/2026 23:38

ArtieChoke · 28/10/2026 19:18

try putting it into AI and the overtaking car would be 50-70% liable

and here are the reasons

Joliffe v Hay (1991): A classic UK case where a driver turning right at a junction was struck by an overtaking vehicle. The court apportioned 70% liability to the overtaking driver and 30% liability to the turning driver, noting that the overtaker had primary responsibility for a safe maneuver, while the turner failed to check their mirrors adequately.

Pell v Moseley (2003): In similar circumstances, courts have also split liability 50/50 based on mutual negligence—the overtaker for passing in an unsafe place/manner, and the turner for turning across traffic without verifying the path was clear.

  • The Overtake Location: Passing right at a clearly marked junction or entrance is a major strike against the overtaking driver.
  • Signaling and Timing: Did the car in front signal in good time, or did they suddenly swerve without warning?

It would be better if you'd just look up rule H3 of the highway code rather than keep saying the same thing, none of those references mean anything as they were nothing to do with filtering, one was car vs car, and because they are before the 2022 rule change 'heirarchy of road users'.. which is what is the important thing in OPs incident, there's even a picture to illustrate that a bicycle filtering from behind you has priority going straight on, and you have to give way to them before you make your turn, I'll include it but the tagline says "Rule H3: Wait for the cyclist to pass the junction before turning"

Bicycles are allowed to filter:
RULE 163: Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you.

Cars SHOULD give filtering cyclists priority
RULE 76 (for cyclists) - Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road

RULE 160: be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them.

Heirarchy of road users (2022) determines that cyclists and motorcyclists are more vulnerable that cars and should be given priority:
Rule H3 - Rule for drivers and motorcyclists
You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.

You should not turn if a cyclist is filtering up behind you
Rule 211 - It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are waiting alongside you, coming up from behind, coming out of or moving off from junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve, just as you would do with a motor vehicle.

Rule 180 (turning right into a side road) 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

I do think the rule is troublesome, as overtaking a vehicle about to turn is dangerous, and I can't think why any cyclist would do that deliberately as they are advised to use caution and not overtake at junctions, but the whole point of it is that filtering is perfectly legal yet a filtering cyclist may not be able to see you indicating, especially if your road position is poor, or if you are indicating at all.. so they need to put the onus on the car driver to give priority to the more vulnerable road user.. it isn't a MUST rule, but it is a should rule, and if you hit a filtering cyclist, that you should have given way to, because you didn't check for them then you will be in big trouble.. there are plenty of posts on here saying the same thing has been tested in court and the car driver is found 100% at fault if it is after 2022.

OP has had a lucky escape tbh.

Was I on the wrong? (Knocking cyclist off bike)
ArtieChoke · Yesterday 04:46

SandyCastles · 28/10/2026 23:38

It would be better if you'd just look up rule H3 of the highway code rather than keep saying the same thing, none of those references mean anything as they were nothing to do with filtering, one was car vs car, and because they are before the 2022 rule change 'heirarchy of road users'.. which is what is the important thing in OPs incident, there's even a picture to illustrate that a bicycle filtering from behind you has priority going straight on, and you have to give way to them before you make your turn, I'll include it but the tagline says "Rule H3: Wait for the cyclist to pass the junction before turning"

Bicycles are allowed to filter:
RULE 163: Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you.

Cars SHOULD give filtering cyclists priority
RULE 76 (for cyclists) - Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road

RULE 160: be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them.

Heirarchy of road users (2022) determines that cyclists and motorcyclists are more vulnerable that cars and should be given priority:
Rule H3 - Rule for drivers and motorcyclists
You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.

You should not turn if a cyclist is filtering up behind you
Rule 211 - It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are waiting alongside you, coming up from behind, coming out of or moving off from junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve, just as you would do with a motor vehicle.

Rule 180 (turning right into a side road) 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

I do think the rule is troublesome, as overtaking a vehicle about to turn is dangerous, and I can't think why any cyclist would do that deliberately as they are advised to use caution and not overtake at junctions, but the whole point of it is that filtering is perfectly legal yet a filtering cyclist may not be able to see you indicating, especially if your road position is poor, or if you are indicating at all.. so they need to put the onus on the car driver to give priority to the more vulnerable road user.. it isn't a MUST rule, but it is a should rule, and if you hit a filtering cyclist, that you should have given way to, because you didn't check for them then you will be in big trouble.. there are plenty of posts on here saying the same thing has been tested in court and the car driver is found 100% at fault if it is after 2022.

OP has had a lucky escape tbh.

the diagram you put up even shows the cyclist on the left 🙈

you may interpret the Highway code in that way, but a court is not doing the same.

SandyCastles · Yesterday 10:29

ArtieChoke · Yesterday 04:46

the diagram you put up even shows the cyclist on the left 🙈

you may interpret the Highway code in that way, but a court is not doing the same.

You're making yourself look silly to be honest, cyclists can filter on the left and the right and you should not cut across them (right hook/left hook depending on which side they are).. The highway code isn't the argos catalogue, the words explain the rules, the picture explain the concept.

Saying the court will not interpret the 2022 highway code changes is again, a ridiculous statement backed up with zero facts.

You could do any sort of research which will confirm how the heirarchy rules affect liability in collisions, but here is some info from a solicitors firm dealing with actual claims in the present day:

Who is at fault when a driver hits a cyclist in the UK?
In most UK driver-vs-cyclist collisions the driver carries primary fault. Since 29 January 2022 the Highway Code H1 hierarchy places the greatest responsibility on the road user who can do the greatest harm, and rule H3 forbids cutting across a cyclist going ahead at junctions.

Three new introductory rules - H1, H2 and H3 - were added to the Highway Code on 29 January 2022 and they together set the modern UK priority position. A cyclist is therefore always positioned above the driver in the hierarchy on a driver-vs-cyclist collision file.

Common UK driver-cyclist collision patterns
Left-hook. A driver turning left across the path of a cyclist continuing straight ahead on the nearside catches the cyclist with the front nearside or middle of the vehicle. Rule H3 forbids cutting across a cyclist going ahead; rule 184 covers the general approach to a side-road turn. Liability normally rests 100% on the turning driver. Frequency is highest at urban side-road turns where mandatory cycle lanes are marked.
Right-hook. The mirror equivalent. A driver turning right across an oncoming cyclist's path. The same H3 priority engages and the same liability default applies. Frequency rises sharply at signal-controlled junctions with filter arrows, because cyclists at advance stop lines under rule 178 sit ahead of the motor traffic and the right-turning driver's sightline is compressed.

A right-hook collision happens when a motorist turns across the path of a cyclist—either overtaking them and immediately turning right, or turning right across a cyclist who is filtering past slow-moving or stationary traffic.

Obviously cyclists have a duty of care and personal safety, are advised to use caution when filtering, so they are not automatically blameless, but because they legally have priority AND are they are legally the more vulnerable road user the law IS on their side in the event of a collision.

There are at least two people on this thread who have detailed the exact collision as OPs and been surprised that they have been found 100% at fault.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page