Van driver narrowly avoids cyclist

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

Then stop starting deliberately inflammatory threads

Another of your strawman?
I dont and this thread isnt ( unless you want to make it so)

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

"I know, I'll start a thread on cycling because we haven't had one since yesterday"

Keep trying - another strawman?
This isnt a cycling thread unless you want to make it so
but PH does have a number of cycling threads every day - is that a problem for you?
Have you thought of starting a thread 'cycling threads - we havent had one since yesterday'
and leave this one alone

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

"Van driver narrowly avoids cyclist"

Nope, no cycling content here. You know *exactly* how these threads pan out, for someone who doesn't cycle you sure get involved in enough of them.

More strawman
No-one said there was no cycling content
and who says I don't cycle? - are you back in personal attack mode?
As I said above give it a rest - ease up a bit
Leave the thread alone

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

So when you said "This isn't a cycling thread" that's an example of no-one saying there's no cycling content?

think about it

WinstonWolf said:

If you don't want people who cycle to post on your threads don't start threads with the word "cyclist" in the title. Genius idea, eh?

another strawman?
Where have I said I don't want people who cycle to post?

Is it possible for you to make a post that doesnt begin with something that isnt true, followed by an argument against as if it is?

And dont reply in the same manner

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

Best hope you never have an accident, your posting history will seriously work against you over in court.

If you want to gripe about someone can you make your own thread about it - ta

[saaby93]

Integroo said:

I think the point is this: most of the time, nothing happens. It only takes once for the cyclist to be dead and the van drivers life to be ruined.

Hence the topic of this thread, thanks for getting it back on track.
Everyone needs to be more aware

[saaby93]

FiF said:

Thank f*** for someone getting it back on topic. In my watching of the video one can just about accept the justification that for whatever reason the van driver saw the cyclist at the last second as a possible explanation for the lateness of the swerve left, but what's the excuse for the close swerve right just to make sure of the, what SO perceive to be, deliberately close pass? That's just my interpretation and what was going on in the van cab and mind of driver only they know.

This posted earlier methinks
- the cyclist 'If I hold centre lane, it'll hold you all up but at least you know I'm here'
the driver ' if someone makes a mistake you'll get run over there mate - safer to keep right of lane'
Although the van did some avoiding (and maybe more) - does it look like the bike did, or was affected?
Who's right is up for grabs

saaby93 said:

bigandclever said:

You get a bit more of the start, and a couple of extra angles, of the video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBrCM3wggU

Still looks odd layout to me
All the same looking at it longer, is the bike 'trying to make the point' they can use up the whole lane rather than keeping right
and conversely the van 'trying to make the point' the bike could move over to the right.

It's not one of these two numpties meet each other videos?
In the end they both made their point and the world carried on.

[saaby93]

Does having a helmet/ dash/dual cam make a difference ?

[saaby93]

ok if we get back to the cam footage - the bike has both front and rear just in case something might happen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBrCM3wggU
See the van indicating right before noticing the bike

[saaby93]

Integroo said:

I'm going to start a game of PH cycling thread bingo. 'Strawman' is in the first square.
Also, I watched a car run a red light this morning...whilst I sat on my bike, at the light. Thought it was only evil cyclists that did this ...

The key point is in bold above.

Well yes you've said strawman appears a lot around your posts
( or is that also a strawman )

Anyway if you want to start a thread about red light jumping or bingo feel free - there are no red lights anywhere to be seen in the opening video, so no need here

[saaby93]

Sa Calobra said:

In addition: If it was a 'argh cyclist must swerve' the van driver would jump to the other side of the road in a big swerve. The cam footage alongside shows a close uniform line been carried on as the van completes the pass.

the van was indicating right before swerving around the cyclist and I asked near the thread beginning why are both of them so keen to use the offside lane. Someone posted there's a right turn just up ahead. The video shows a car just behind the van.

Sa Calobra said:

I've said this before- I once wore tracksuit bottoms tucked into my socks and trainers, no helmet on my commute and guess what? Everyone gets well over when overtaking.

Full cycling kit and you immediately look a soft touch.

It's not a soft touch - just the opposite - the threads on risk compensation and helmets have discussed it.
If you're on a bike in normal clothes take a doddery granny on a basket bike, you tend to be more wary and other road users give you much more space.
If you look professional with the full cycling gear (including a helmet & cams), you're more likely to go for a gap when it appears, look confident, and in compensation other road users feel they need to allow less space.
Consequently which is likely to have higher collision rate?

Now look at the opening video and guess the line a granny on a bike would have taken and whether the van would have carried out the same manouvre.

[saaby93]

Ares said:

He swerved, the video shows it. Maybe he didn't mean to, in which case he's a danger on the road as doesn't know what he's doing being the wheel of a van. But logic dictates he does know what he's doing and so the swerve was intentional.

Of course the swerve is intentional - if he hadnt swerved, the driver would be in front of at least an inquest and no-one would have been available to post up the cam footage.
Some people need to get a grip of reality

[saaby93]

LocoCoco said:

To the posters who think that the van driver aimed at the cyclist and swerved at the last second as some kind of intimidation:

Driving straight at somebody then turning away at the last second isn't intimidating at all if you're doing it behind their back and they cannot see you.
It's like pointing a gun at a blind person, they won't even know what's happening.

If the van was trying to intimidate the cyclist he would have lined up his maneuver and driven in a straight line as close to the cyclist as possible, probably with an accompanied beep of the horn of a choice of profanities.

Seems probable that van driver was dazzled/distracted and only noticed the cyclist at the last second.

Not sure how this isn't a dangerous driving charge for the van driver (very nearly taking out a cyclist seems to fit dangerous) and I would think that getting a conviction for careless would be a near sure thing with those videos as evidence.

Theres mitigation though - you have to consider the ordinary Joe

If ordinary Joe driving along, ok sun in their eyes, would the ordinary person expect to find a relatively stationary bike centre of outside lane.
If you go with no they wouldnt normally expect it, what happened next? a collision?
The driver on spotting the cyclist did a swerve around and successfully avoided
Wouldnt that more likely end up with a well done, than a taking down?

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

Iits not centre of the outside lane is it.....its a slip road......and its irrelevant whether he's in the middle or not as to leave enough room to pass he'd have to straddle the adjacent lane anyway or join it fully.

Is it a slip road? Why are there so many lanes if it is- do you have a layout or map?
I've been reading it as a dual carriageway with a right turn coming up, either way theyve both wanted to be in the right lane
Which direction is the traffic the other side the centre verge

[saaby93]

shouldbworking said:

By your logic, if you were crossing the road and someone nearly ran you over because they'd not seen you, or perhaps had a bad day, or had a headache, or some other reason, that would be ok then.

Surely you wouldnt be crossing the road if there was something coming, unless you hadnt seen them?
It works best if everyone tries to make allowances for each other - sometimes it doesnt work out though

[saaby93]

Ares said:

And I said twice, he needed his collar felt. A good kicking was tongue in cheek - but he'd get that if he tried to knock me of my bike.

More strawman?
No ones saying the van driver tried to knock the cyclist off their bike
or at least if it was - it was an abysmal attempt - ploughing straight on would have achieved it , and you can see the van driver avoided that
Why do some people post things that arent there

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

saaby93 said:

Ares said:

And I said twice, he needed his collar felt. A good kicking was tongue in cheek - but he'd get that if he tried to knock me of my bike.

More strawman?
No ones saying the van driver tried to knock the cyclist off their bike
or at least if it was - it was an abysmal attempt - ploughing straight on would have achieved it , and you can see the van driver avoided that
Why do some people post things that arent there

Have you learned a new expression?

What new expression?

[saaby93]

Integroo said:

Genuinely never heard anyone use strawman outside of PistonHeads, where it is used in every single cycling thread to rebuff any argument against the anti-cycling rhetoric.

List us every single cycling thread its used in?

[saaby93]

Integroo said:

saaby93 said:

Integroo said:

Genuinely never heard anyone use strawman outside of PistonHeads, where it is used in every single cycling thread to rebuff any argument against the anti-cycling rhetoric.

List us every single cycling thread its used in?

No thanks, I have better things to do with my time.

Another strawman then - a false argument

[saaby93]

Integroo said:

The argument of those in support of the van driver seems to be (a) it was a mistake, leave it be and/or (b) the cyclist pulled out in front of him.

Both of which are nonsense.

Has anyone said they support the van driver?


Look and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I dont think you'd realised your posting style was to raise something that wasnt true then argue against it as if it was i.e. strawman
However there's enough true stuff to discuss without resorting to making things up.
If we can stick to that, this thread would probably about half this length
Can you give it a go?

Someone's going to post up where someone says they did support the van driver
Never mind
If you catch me out, inadvertently doing a strawman let me know - I'm only human too