• If the truck driver was indicating and the cyclist still went up the inside they are also partly to blame so this sounds about right to me. You should not undertake an indicating vehicle so must share some blame. Sounds reasonable to me.

    I'm no judge, but as cyclists we must accept we share some responsibility for our actions and consequences, understanding that the risk of major injury death is against us.

  • Agreed, if the vehicle (bike) is behind the indicating vehicle when it is already committing to the turn...unless the vehicle is already parallel or going at a speed that would be deemed unsafe to turn ie the turning vehicle turns without adequate consideration for approaching traffic.

    I'd not bomb it alongside and into an indicating vehicle, but frequently vehicles turn without checking their mirror, or think the path is clear when it isn't. To be honest, anything bigger than a chelsea tractor you'd be stupid not to hang back from.

  • I've got no issue with some con neg, but 30% is a lot. on the face of it the cyclist hasn't broken a law(from the limited information) Most motorists that aren't wearing a seat belt only get 15% con neg against them. The judge is a motor centric prick, as every, perhaps.

About

Avatar for pdlouche @pdlouche started