You are reading a single comment by @BigFatAl and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@BigFatAl
aaaaarrggghh just typed a fucking long post and it disappeared!
Here we go (again).
To prove that someone is negligent is to demonstrate that the third party did not act with the foresight of a reasonable man.
Undertaking is tricky because of this. For example...
Scenario 1 - You are cycling along a traffic free country lane when you undertake a stationary bus. You are then hit by a car turning into the junction. It might be argued that it was down to you to ensure that you could undertake your manouvere safely, and that the motorist could not forsee that a cyclist would undertake a bus on a largely traffic free piece of road.
Scenario 2 - You are cycling through London and passing a lot of slow moving/stationery traffic. As you pass a car, you are hit by a turning vehicle who has been 'flashed' by that motorist. In this instance you could argue that the turning motorist should have exercised a greater degree of caution knowing that the road would be used by cyclist who might have been undertaking vehicles due to the road conditions.
Does this make sense?