-
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.
HousecatHST-
Yea, I would say 30% is pretty high, but it depends how much weight you give hazard perception, common sense, experience, road laws etc. I'd want to always side with the cyclist, but going anywhere near any HGV qualifies to me as gambling, especially if it's straddling lanes.
Key problem for me in the case study is that there was a set of traffic lights, so it would be fair to assume a cyclist will filter to the front of traffic, but get caught out when the lights turn green. A strong rider might risk it for a whip skid, but it's still gambling.
pdlouche
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.