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

No they are not entitled but it’s up to the driver to check to coast is completely clear before turning right.

Of course it’s your fault if you turn without checking the road is clear.

It's ok everyone saying re check your mirrors before turning, but at some stage you also have to look ahead and to the right when you turn. In that time a bike can easily cut from your left behind you and be overtaking when you turn. Saw it twice in Dublin last week. The left undertake was blocked with traffic and they cut across behind and overtook at speed a car indicating to turn right. Both times the driver could easily have killed them through no fault of the driver.

Well the cyclist was in the wrong, but so was she for not checking her wing mirror and blind spot directly before turning in.

It's bit like pedestrians walking behind your car when you've started reversing. They are fucking idiots but I still don't want to kill or injure them.

No one should overtake a car paused in the middle of the road indicating to turn right, that’s just stupidity.

Someone's stupidity doesn't reduce your own liability unless it was so reckless and extreme as to be unforeseeable.

When you undertake a manoeuvre you must make sure it is clear and safe to do so. Not "clear and safe apart from prats or people breaking the law". Clear and safe full stop.

She said she did check but didn't recheck

Well the cyclist didn't check when they were overtaking. Could you argue cyclist hit the car rather than the other way round

We can't be looking everywhere at once and at a certain point, you do have to move so it's reasonable to expect others to take care of their own safety. Sounds like the cyclist was cycling recklessly.

Cyclist was overtaking on the offside as should be the case. You should have checked your mirror and probably looked over your shoulder 'lifesaver' fashion.

Doing that sort of overtake, and I did a lot of station>office>station miles on a Brompton when I worked in London, you need to be super cautious to exactly the trap you sprung on this guy.

Still a helluva lot safer than scooting down the nearside of traffic.

Cyclists in London are a law to themselves. Over the years, I have been hit twice and nearly hit another couple of times by cycles while crossing the road in London on a pedestrian light.
OP, my advice to you would be expect cycles to come from anywhere and to get a dashcam. My husband got a dashcam after driving in London and someone just stepped straight out in front of him to cross the road. There was heavy traffic and he was driving quite slowly and did manage to stop. He doesn’t know how much of this was down to the cars built in safety system.

Cyclists fault really they overtook when you were clearly indicating and waiting to turn. They scarpered so that's the reason why and hopefully you won't hear anything. You may just want to mention it to your insurance company as information only just in case you have any comeback.

But most people turning right would have been right up against the line on the right side. The cyclist would have probably been cycling on the wrong side of the road.

No, in this case the proximate cause of the collision was OP turning across the path of the cyclist.

The fact he shouldn't have been on that path doesn't change it.

If OP was stationary or the cyclist had turned across her path, then the proximate cause would be the actions of the cyclist.

I’m a cyclist and I think if you were indicating then it was on them. You cannot turn right all the while looking in your rear view mirror, you need eyes on the road during the manoeuvre.

I think the onus is on you (or any driver) to check that it's completely safe/clear before making a manoeuvre (check mirrors and blindspots). However, the cyclist should have also been watchful and anticipating vehicles that may do right turns. I say that as a cyclist, motorcyclist and a car driver. I do a lifesaver look before I change lane/make a manoeuvre (whether I'm on motorbike, bicycle or in car) - I've been knocked off my bike twice: both times from cars pulling on to main road (that I was cycling on) from side roads. So, I'm super cautious. I rarely filter (on motorbike or car) for same reason.

I do think that cycling proficiency testing should be brought back, as I've found over past 20 odd years that some cyclists are bloody awful with their road sense and following highway code. It's dangerous, and paints the rest of us cycling folk in a bad light. Don't get me started on a lot of the idiots I see illegally riding scoots and motorbikes. Drives me nuts!!

Fucking hell!

You are driving a big metal box around that can kill pedestrians and cyclists.

Yes, it is up to you to make sure you don't!

I don't think that makes any difference.

If OP was being overtaken by a car on the 'wrong' side of the road and pulled into its path they, and not the overtaker, would surely be to blame.

Cyclist was not observant and not practicing defensive riding.

Surely up to cyclist to not overtake a vehicle that is turning right. That's never going to end well

They were in the wrong to overtake someone waiting to turn right (you said you were indicating). You should have had another check in your mirror before turning but I think the cyclist was going to get in am accident sooner or later riding like that. Be thankful they rode off and move on.

I've had to vote that you're unreasonable OP because liability-wise, you are at fault for proceeding with the manoeuvre without checking. The same is true if that bicycle was a car that had suddenly decided to overtake you as you turned. If insurance had been involved, your no claims would be taking the hit. That doesn't remove the fact though that the cyclist was an absolute knobhead for overtaking you when it was clear you were going to turn. They really should start taking some responsibility for their own safety.

Cyclist was an idiot and if they keep riding like that it may well happen to them again, but you were at fault here.

Of course you should have checked just before turning - that's pretty basic.

What I find shocking is that you're even questioning whether you were at fault.

No I agree, I just suddenly got confused! Was a genuine question. Luckily I wasn't driving a car at the time.

Why is the driver more responsible for keeping the cyclist alive than the cyclist? Of course you can prosecute a driver for bad driving but that's no comfort if you are dead. The cyclist overtook a car signalling to turn right which was incredibly dangerous, they were lucky they weren't seriously injured.