Van driver narrowly avoids cyclist

[saaby93]

FiF said:

If however it wasn't intentional, and due to him seeing the cyclist late, then still piss poor driving falling well below the standard, into the sun just making it worse, approaching junction, vehicles emerging, slow down ffs if you can't see. Still S3 offence.

That deals with the first swerve to the left, but then we have the really close swerve to the right. Nine of us know etc was going on there, only the driver does, but none of it can be explained away in any good justifiable way.
.

I know - someone said theres a right turn up ahead and in the video there's a car behind he might have cut up in going left, so might have tried to go back right out the way.
There could be all sorts of reasons - who knows
I was looking to see how close the move right was by the reaction of the cyclist, swerving right or something- can you see some?

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

saaby93 said:

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

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.8991057,-0.6128993,127a,35y,90.99h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3

Zoom out
You may well change your mind now.....

ok so it's both a dual carriageway and it has slips



As they were both turning right the van should have just tucked in behind the bike and waited turn?

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

Yes, given the cyclist was across miles before the van became a factor, I cant even see the van signalling when the cycle pulls out.
However, even if the van wanted to hurry and get past there was ample room in front of the cyclist without squeezing him....the van HAD to consiously steer into the lane, so going that close to the cyclist was a decision IMO

Ive been previously taken to ask with this
To me the van was 'miles' away when the bike pulled across but it's been said that you shouldn't pull out in front if they have to brake
We know the van did brake but was it that close? On the other hand the HC says something like everyone has a duty to avoid where possible
and the van did avoid but not necessarily in a manner expected by the bike

Going to the van pulling back in to make the turn we're going to have look again at the video to see how inconvenienced the bike was, sometimes camera angles can be deceptive.

[saaby93]

Integroo said:

Mate if you're just going to contribute nonsense to support your anti-cycling agenda,

Who is it that brings up the so called ' anti-cycling' agenda?
Is it something else that doesnt exist?

[saaby93]

Ares 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

Sorry....where did I say he did try and knock the cyclist off their bike.

Why do some people post things that arent there?

[saaby93]

If the van gets it wrong you can see these stills show it's about a foot inside the bikes lane as it passes. Would that usually be an issue for passing? Looks tight but check camera angles.
You can also make out how much the bike has moved over after the pass.

[saaby93]

Integroo said:

And it starts again.

Maybe we should all meet up for a pie and a pint or whatever sometime

Integroo said:

The biker wasn't gambling, he had absolutely loads of time and space. He didn't gamble that the van was going straight on, he followed the rules of the road. If the van wishes to change lane, he should look where he is bloody going, and if a cyclist is there, slow down and slot in behind him, or go past him and slot in in front of him in a safe manner.

Perhaps we need to work out what peeps mean by safe?

The bike made it across the road but the car behind stayed put
The bikes out in centre lane, which may not be where the van expected it to go but it's seen seen the bike and swerved around it.
Maybe not ideal but everyone's seen to carry on pretty much as they were afterwards

[saaby93]

DoubleD said:

WinstonWolf said:

DoubleD said:

cb1965 said:

Hate to say it but when I ride and am in a situation like that I get as far right as possible so that faster traffic can pass me to turn right. Yes I know that is probably not in the Highway Code etc. but I think self preservation in those sort of situations. Basically I find being in the middle of the road more dangerous than being at the edge, but maybe that's just me.

Yep I agree. No way I would ride in the middle of the road.

Riding in the gutter is far riskier...

I disagree

There was no gutter here

[saaby93]

InitialDave said:

I'm surprised people seem to not understand about positioning yourself to discourage overtaking when it would be a danger. It's a fairly established technique for proactively managing other traffic to ensure your safety.

It is and there are places you can use safely for instance in urban spaces where the road narrows and there is a centre island. Trying to use it on a DC, when traffic barrelling up at speed and hoping theyve read up about primary and secondary positioning
Anyway let's not blame one or the other but accept some people make mistakes, other people deal with it and the world can carry on

[saaby93]

Ares said:

The gutter is littered with holes, debris, drain covers and allows drivers to think they can squeeze past.

There is no gutter

I could also say looking at the vid, there are no holes debris or drain covers and there's nothing wrong with allowing vehicles to get past if there's room

However there is no gutter.
Can we stop talking about just what the cyclist did?

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 20th July 14:28

[saaby93]

Ares said:

As a cyclist, typically riding 250-350km per week, he was right not to have waited, it was a perfectly safe manoeuvre made unsafe by the actions of the van driver.

You'll have to put scores on safe and unsafe there
They both seem to pretty much carry on ok

[saaby93]

Integroo said:

saaby93 said:

Ares said:

As a cyclist, typically riding 250-350km per week, he was right not to have waited, it was a perfectly safe manoeuvre made unsafe by the actions of the van driver.

You'll have to put scores on safe and unsafe there
They both carried on ok

It doesn't make it okay simply because the cyclist wasn't killed.

I didnt say it did
But you can score both of them, there's been enough views either side by now, if you can take it all into account. The total for both doesnt have to be 100, score them separately against best and worst that each could have done

[saaby93]

frisbee said:

I'm thinking of starting a catering service for all the people on this thread who are too timid to pull out if there is anything in sight. They must be getting pretty hungry by now.

Ice cream might go down well too
Keep the popcorn out the way

[saaby93]

ojoman said:

You can take what examples you like:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/...

But penalties are quite often very light indeed.

The penalty is for what the driver did - not the outcome, no matter how good nor bad.
That's the way our system of justice works although it is beginning to change
The guy hit black ice after that he was no more than a passenger
The courts applied the appropriate penalty at the time £180 and 6 points.
You get a similar approach when someone sneezes, at that point theyre not in control (= no liability) although obviously they'll do their best

So that means here
What did the cyclist do
What did the driver do

[saaby93]

DoubleD said:

Yes i agree that the concrete edge is a gutter.

Doess anyone have a better photo of it?
All I can see is kerbing and tarmac up to it
Some DCs have 6 inches concrete flat surface next to the kerb or a couple of feet wide shallow concrete channel which I suppose could be called gutter but I cant see any here

[saaby93]

is it necessary to keep posting the whole set?
anyway how did you get the distance? and what difference does it make?

[saaby93]

TheRainMaker said:

People were saying the van was speeding, it wasn't.

Distance was worked out by the van passing the lamp post at 4 secs, then one van length past the arrow on the floor at 10 sec.

The dashed white are at set intervals. We've used those in the past to work out someones speed but you do have to watch camera angles
The van doesnt go that quickly past the bike possibly 10-20mph differential - i dont know. It can be worked out too.

It's the camera that bothers me. it may be giving a false impression.
The bike didnt try to make a significant move, if the pass seemed as dangerous as being portrayed

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 20th July 22:30

[saaby93]

TheRainMaker said:

Distance was worked out by the van passing the lamp post at 4 secs, then one van length past the arrow on the floor at 10 sec.

lamposts are at 200metre intervals? or have you found something else?

[saaby93]

I cant see there being much of an issue with the distance the bike pulled out in front of the van, although Ive been taken to task when saying same in other threads where someones pulled out with what looks reasonable distance and a posters come back with - but they had to slow so it couldnt have been ok.
If the bike was travelling down the DC in the same direction as the van, it would still have had to do something when it caught up, it's normal.

Surely it's what happened next that's the issue ere
Would most people on a bike have kept in to the right in that situation
Is that what the van was expecting
Did the van at the last moment realise otherwise and swerved around rather brake hard behind
Was it as close as the camera gives the impression?
Was the van trying to hint the bike would be safer more to the right
Did the van need to cut back in so early for the turn ahead?
Does it matter?

What would we have done before these cams were invented

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

cb1965 said:

WinstonWolf said:

cb1965 said:

WinstonWolf said:

Riding in the gutter is far riskier...

There was no gutter and if he had been to the right there was acres of space for the van. It's not rocket science!

And how much training have you had? People say "bloody cyclists should have training" well guess what, some of us have and when we point out that gutter hugging is riskier the uneducated still disagree

PS, that concrete thing on the right, that's called a gutter...

Some of us have had training, but also have the added benefit of intelligence which tells us when and when not to do exactly as we have been trained. You're not in that 'some of us' btw! HTH!

And yet you don't know what a gutter is

Not sure the other posters know any better either
Look at all the detritus in the non existent gutter in the video