'You can pay for my f****** leg!' Dashcam footage captures foul-mouthed clash between a VERY angry cyclist and driver after they collide at a junction

This is the moment a car collided with a cyclist at a junction - sparking a foul-mouthed argument between the two road users as to who was in the wrong.

The incident, which was caught on camera in an unidentified part of Britain, shows the motorist approaching a junction and turning left.

At the same time a cyclist overtakes him on his left hand side and the two vehicles briefly bump into one another, though not hard enough to cause anyone damage.

The motorist approaches a junction and turns left as a cyclist overtakes him on his inside and the two collide

Collision: The two vehicles briefly bump into one another, though not hard enough to cause anyone damage

The cyclist is quick to turn around and vent his frustration with a series of hand gestures before the motorist informs the man that he has filmed the collision.

He says: 'I was indicating, you were driving on the pavement,' as the cyclist asks him to pull over so they can talk away from the main road.

The cyclist can then be heard saying: 'I turned around and you weren't indicating,' before the motorist responds: 'It's illegal to ride on the pavement.'

The pair continue to argue and the cyclist can be heard swearing at the driver as he claims he is going to call the police to ensure the man 'pays for the damage'.

The cyclist replies: 'Why don't you pay for the damage to my f****** leg?'

The motorist then appears to get support from an unidentified woman. He asks her: 'Was I indicating?' and she replies: 'Yes, he was indicating and you weren't even looking.'

The clip concludes with the motorist saying: 'You're f***** mate.'

The video was posted to the Idiot UK Drivers Exposed Facebook page, where viewers shared their thoughts regarding who was in the wrong.

Angry: The cyclist is quick to turn around and vent his frustration with a series of hand gestures

Response: The motorist informs the man he has filmed the collision and tells him that he was indicating left

Some stated that the cyclist should not have been on the pavement on the approach to the junction as it is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835.

Facebook users also said that the cyclist should have been aware of the car indicating and should not have crossed the road when he did.

One wrote: 'Cyclist at fault, if he had been on the road he'd probably still be at fault as he was behind the car.'

But others looked upon the cyclist more favourably and suggested the motorist should have been more aware of the bike's presence.

And some viewers picked up on the fact the driver could have used his side mirror more productively to prevent the minor collision from occurring.

One wrote: 'I love all the comments about the cyclist shouldn't have been on the pavement.

'How many cars park on the pavement restricting the use of the pavement for pedestrians and the use of drop curbs? More than cyclists riding on the pavement.

The video was posted to the Idiot UK Drivers Exposed Facebook page, where viewers shared their thoughts regarding who was in the wrong

Some viewers stated that the cyclist should not have been on the pavement on the approach to the junction

'Yes, he should have stopped and checked but also the driver should have been aware of him also. Both at fault, driver more so.'

Among the two extremes, some viewers claimed both road users were in the wrong.

One said: '60/40 cyclist at fault (on path) car driver should have anticipated cyclist and junction. Ignorant cyclist and arrogant driver.'

While another wrote: 'Both in my view, cyclist shouldn't have been on the pavement and riding straight across the road.

'As for the car driver this is exactly what you learn hazard perception for, anticipating hazards ahead of you, the car driver should have thought the cyclist may be a danger and held back a bit.

'Just my opinion, I feel both are to blame or just let it go and accept people make mistakes.' 

Other viewers looked upon the cyclist more favourably and suggested the motorist should have been more aware of the bike's presence