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

Yes it was incredibly dangerous, but that doesn't change where liability sits in this instance. It's not about driver Vs cyclist it's about who is executing a manoeuvre.

Cyclist doing something stupid and dangerous does not absolve OP from responsibility of ensuring its safe and clear to execute the manoeuvre.

If someone is doing something stupid and dangerous you don't have the right to carry on and plough into them.

It might not have been a cyclist doing something stupid and dangerous. It could have been an ambulance rushing to a call. It could have been a rider on an out of control horse. It could have been an impatient driver. It could have been a loose dog.

In all of the above scenarios, responsibility remains with OP to check it was safe and clear to turn across the lane.

The proximate cause of the collision was OP turning across the path of the cyclist. OP remains responsible even though the cyclist was an idiot.

I’m not sure that’s correct. There are certainly instances when the motorist wouldn’t be at fault, for example if a pedestrian walked out from behind a parked car. If turning right across oncoming traffic you wait for your opportunity and take it when it comes. I might check my rear view mirror but I wouldn’t check my right-hand mirror - it would take too long in a situation when speed is of the essence. Posters saying otherwise are talking nonsense. There is a strangely moralistic tone sometimes on MN - people are held to unrealistically high standards.

It would likely be a liability split as neither of you were heeding the presence of the other

Its never gone away but isn't compulsory. I'd make it compulsory and make them pay VED and carry insurance.

Whilst you are technically to blame for not checking wing mirror the cyclist was stupid and riding dangerously. Try not to get upset. It could happen to any of us as we all make a mistake at some point.

The car driver is responsible for her own behaviour.

She admitted she didn't check to see what was coming! She turned into path of the cyclist and knocked them off their bike!

Signalling her intention to move when it is safe to do so doesn't give her an excuse to move when it is not!

Like @HundredMilesAnHour I'm both a cyclist and a driver in London and I agree it's like the wild west. We live on a road that runs east west and have to make a right turn across traffic, not at an intersection, to get into our driveway. I can't tell you how many times I've been stopped, indicating, waiting for a gap in traffic, and had an idiot on a bike pass me on the right. And don't even get me started on people on bikes on the pavement.

Glad you were both ok, OP.

An ambulance would have had to cross into oncoming traffic to pass OP, one would hope they had lights and sirens going to alert drivers and they also have an obligation to maintain road safety, especially as there are some road laws they can break when attending an emergency . An out of control horse would be a danger wherever OP was positioned or manoeuvring. An impatient driver would have to perform a highly illegal manoeuvre to do what the cyclist did and an out of control dog is the owners responsibility. No other road user could have gone what the cyclist did without being held at least partly responsible for the outcome.

I don't think anyone is saying that you have a right to plow into anyone because they do something stupid but your earlier point was about the driver being responsible for making sure other road users don't get killed or injured and I asked why the driver was more responsible than the cyclist especially as the cyclist is more at risk. I am not arguing against being a responsible driver I'm simply asking why it's up the driver to make sure other road users are safe even when they are doing unsafe things.

Liability and consequences for the driver do not bring dead people back to life.

I used to be a driving instructor, and I hotly disagree with the advice touted on here "you must always look over your shoulder just before you turn right." Think about it. Do you really look over your shoulder just before turning right, especially if you are trying to turn using a very brief gap in oncoming traffic? It takes time to look over your shoulder (much more than to look in the mirror), and your attention should mostly be on any cyclists and other vehicles coming towards you, who would have priority. The time "looking over your shoulder" is essential is for a very different time: when you move away from the side of the road. This is why on the driving test, they say several times "pull up and park on the left... and drive on when you're ready", to make sure you do this shoulder check. (Another time a shoulder check can be beneficial is when joining a motorway from a slip road, but it must be very brief, because then you're not looking in front: if it takes only half a second, you travel about 15 metres.)

But turning right? Look over your shoulder? Can all the driving perfectionists on here say, hand on heart, that they do this every time, that they always "check over their shoulder" before turning right, every single time? If so, I'm astonished. When you turn right, you have to look at and give way to traffic coming towards you, and pedestrians crossing the road into which you are turning: those two places are where you are mostly looking. You might be waiting for twenty oncoming cars. Imagine trying to look over your shoulder as well as checking there isn't an oncoming vehicle appearing from nowhere or pedestrian in the road to which you are turning. A final right mirror check, maybe, but not an over-the-shoulder check.

The legendary "Mirror-Signal-Manoeuvre" comes earlier. Turning right: mirrors to check for cyclists/motorcyclists like the one described. If you saw one about to overtake you, you would delay your signal until they pass. Then you signal right. From then, anybody with any sense would not overtake on the right. Indeed, the Highway Code said (when it had an informal section when the theory test was new) "Never overtake a vehicle indicating right." Then you manoeuvre into position, and then you're mostly looking at the oncoming traffic.

A cyclist who is foolish enough to overtake you on your right when you are indicating right deserves everything they get. Yes, I know insurers might not see it that way, but like politicians, insurers have neither soul nor sense.

Were you indicating?

Yes - then the cyclist made a substantial input to his falling off?

No - you are largely at fault.

We had a Renault Megane - the one with the bum. Shocking visibility both forward - thick pillars - and rearwards mirror/over right shoulder.

After a bit you got used to its visibility shortcomings. But every so often it was easy to miss something. Fortunately never an accident though.

It might be prudent to report the accident to the police - even though you've no details. Cyclist may have your number/others may also do so and/or have you on film.

More your fault than theirs

Luckily the whizzed off and didn't stop for details or ring the police.
Where I'm completely with you in theory, legally they always blame the driver regardless of circumstances and yes that is completely wrong.

She said she didn't recheck not that she didn't check. The cyclist was overtaking a stationary vehicle, on the right hand side of the car at the point there was a right turn which is highly dangerous. My point is that you can blame the driver as much as you like but the consequences for them don't matter if you are dead or suffer life changing injuries.

Cyclist was in the wrong doing a dangerous manoeuvre.

Wow. I don't think it would have ever occurred to me to re-check my right-hand mirror and blind spot once I had manoeuvred into place, was stationery and indicating. But I hardly ever drive in a city so maybe I would if I was aware of how crazy cyclists were.

Very excellent diagram OP.

Suppose I was driving in a one-way street (the correct way), and I crashed into a cyclist coming in the opposite direction, as they sometimes do in one-way streets. Would it be my fault for "not looking out for cyclists"?

As far as I am concerned, the OP is no more at fault here than somebody who crashes into a cyclist riding the wrong way down a one-way street, or a cyclist who completely ignores a "give way" and rides straight across a main road, in front of fast traffic.

You akwsys need to check your mirrorscand blind spot before every manoevre

sorry to say, you were at fault. It was your action that caused the accident.
If you didn't turn there would have been no accident.
Morally you were in the right, the cyclist was effing stupid but that doesn't make them liable.
They did commit an offence by leaving the scene of an accident. In theory, you should report the accident to the police.

In the extreme, if you had knocked them, even a glancing blow, and under the wheels of a truck and they died, it would have been death by careless driving. (they would have been in the right, but dead)

Doesn't mean they havent subsequently realised the cash potential and "developed' am injury and reported the accident!

She didn't check appropriately as she was about to manoeuvre. That's pretty much the first thing you learn when you start driving. Mirror, check, manoeuvre.

I will blame the driver because it was her fault, legally and morally. She is the one driving the half-ton metal box that will kill people if you aren't extremely careful with it.

The consequences absolutely do matter for her. Jail and the death of a cyclist on her conscience.

Overtaking a stationary vehicle shouldn't be dangerous if the driver of the stationary vehicle drives according to the rules of the road.

Yes, it's completely different.

All these people saying the driver should have checked their mirror when they were stationary, indicating right to turn off into a side road, wtf? Are you really saying the Highway Code says you should do this? I've been driving over 40 years and did not know this. Check mirrors and over shoulder when pulled up on the side of the road before opening the drivers door, yes. But checking to see if someone is illegally overtaking you when you are waiting to turn right?

I would have done the same as you OP. These bikes are a menace

Right lots of you are terrifying! What do you mean you don’t know the Highway Code tells cyclists they can pass stationery or slow moving vehicles on either side?! Yes, you are supposed to check your mirrors before manoeuvring. How is that a thing you aren’t all doing automatically? If you’d been waiting to turn right and didn’t seem to check your wing mirrors again before moving off on a driving test you would be marked down for that.

Bikes and motorbikes will overtake you if you’ve stopped. They are allowed to do this on both sides. You are supposed to look. Wing mirrors have a purpose.

(I remembers years ago there was a poster who was arguing everyone should be forced to retake their driving test every 10-20 years and I agreed with the majority that was was bonkers, and then I read threads like this and think she might have had a point.)

In what world are they "illegally" overtaking you?

It's your responsibility not to drive your car into people and things. Of course you need to look to make sure you don't!!