Van driver narrowly avoids cyclist

[saaby93]

What's going on here?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-beds-bucks...
Anyone know the layout and why everyone wants to be in the offside lane?

[saaby93]

Ok understood - going to turn right up ahead
is it a filter lane or just a normal offside lane?
Would anyone else be taking a line closer to the central reservation to do that?
However the van driver could get in the nearside lane much better than that too!
No bunnies harmed

[saaby93]

Killboy said:

Lol at anyone thinking that was not deliberate.

Are there 3 deliberates there?
Cycling - left of centre of offside lane - deliberate?
Driving - close pass to left of bike - deliberate?
Driving - avoid collision - deliberate?

Speeding? is there a lower than NSL limit there?

[saaby93]

Integroo said:

I'll always take the lane if cycling on the right to take a right turn - you're not where cars expect you to be

Doesnt that mean theyre more likely to run into you, if they havent noticed?
Surely youre best off to right of lane, so if they havent, theyre past.

[saaby93]

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]

Integroo said:

No. The cyclist was in the correct and safest position for him to be in.

What says it's correct or safest than being well over to right?
Accepted this video shows it ended up being safe.

[saaby93]

Of course cyclists can cycle in NSL. It'll be 70 on a DC and as someones said the right turn somewhere up ahead - how far - who knows. Does this being 50 make a difference?

If the police had come out wouldn't they have had a chat with both of them?

Probably not as it might have appeared on youtube

[saaby93]

nickfrog said:

For me this is a 90%/10% where the cyclist still has a small proportion of the responsibility.

From previous threads it's best not to split it that way.
Instead give each of them a score for numptiness if it's 70:70 each (choose other scores) that's fine

[saaby93]

oh c'mon surely there's plenty of time there for the bike to pull out and across

It's what happened next thats a bit dim

[saaby93]

glasgow mega snake said:

I am extremely disappointed the police decided not to act in this instance, I think their decision is basically indefensible. They claim that resource problems mean they can only deal with serious incidents. Firstly, this was a pretty serious incident, certainly for the cyclist. Secondly, a little resource applied to making sure all drivers are aware how to behave around cyclists may save a lot of resource from scraping them up off the road.

If theyd have acted, like this thread, wouldnt they have given both a 'chat' and sent them on their ways
Be more aware out there

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 18th July 16:35

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

saaby93 said:

If theyd have acted, like this thread, wouldnt they have given both a 'chat' and sent them on their ways
Be more aware out there

Absolutely no need at all to have a chat with the cyclist.

on the same basis nor the driver
Hence why it's been filed?
Best use of resource

[saaby93]

JuniorD said:

While not deliberate, that's a pretty hairy hear miss. Particularly in light of an incident last week in N.Ireland in which a 4x4 rear-ended four cyclists on a dual carriageway, killing one and seriously injuring another

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ir...

Slightly different as a club run
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Do they know how it happened yet

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

The driver was clearly speeding and swerved deliberately and unnecessarily at the cyclist....and as the police tweeted they will contact the driver with some 'advice'....

It cant be that clear or there wouldnt be this many pages about it - do you have some other evidence?

[saaby93]

M-SportMatt said:

saaby93 said:

t cant be that clear or there wouldnt be this many pages about it -

Of course it would, there's plenty of anti-cyclists on here

That would be based on similar clear evidence?
Whats it called when someone imagines things that aren't there?

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

saaby93 said:

M-SportMatt said:

saaby93 said:

t cant be that clear or there wouldnt be this many pages about it -

Of course it would, there's plenty of anti-cyclists on here

That would be based on similar clear evidence?
Whats it called when someone imagines things that aren't there?

Are you saying there isn't an anti-cycling sentiment on PH?

You frequently fan the flames yourself...

I dont need to fan the flames

As far as I can tell the only anti people here are anti numpty-driver and anti numpty-cyclist

There are a few other numpties who conflate that to anti all cyclists and try to generate anti motorist in response
It's like trying to give 5 year olds trifles without them finding other uses than eating

Anyway isnt the lesson here, if someone is going to try to cycle down the centre of the offside lane of a dual carriageway, someone else is going to try to suggest to them theyre safer keeping to the far side of it
Whether one is really safer than the other is up for grabs

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

cb1965 said:

shouldbworking said:

What would you call it? I wouldn't call it a deliberate attempt on the riders life, I would call it a deliberate attempt to intimidate a vulnerable road user as well as dangerous driving to the point it could easily have ended up as a manslaughter charge.

That's becuase you have an agenda. Without a lot more evidence I don't think you can call it anything of the sort, but then that doesn't ever seem to worry people like you. Fortunately the police are a bit more sensible!

Google the Ten Pence Short prison diary thread.

That didnt happen here, the van driver managed to avoid

Why do a number of people in this type of thread find the need to play strawman and talk about something that didnt happen, then argue as if it did? If anyone hasnt noticed - it's not helpful.

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 18th July 21:56

[saaby93]

DoubleD said:

Integroo said:

DoubleD said:

M-SportMatt said:

DoubleD said:

The video would seem to suggest otherwise

No, the video shows someone swerving at a cyclist......

Yeah, probably because the van driver was annoyed that the cyclist was riding in the middle of the road.

Oh, right, so it's the cyclists fault that the van driver drove recklessly and dangerously and risked the cyclists life.

Did i say that?

No you didnt
I said one post earlier and this is another example
Why do a number of people in this type of thread find the need to play strawman and talk about something that didnt happen, then argue as if it did?
If anyone hasnt noticed - it's not helpful, just fills up thread pages

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

Reading the prison diary is always helpful. I've considered my responsibilities toward other road users more since that happened.

Despite all the bravado here there can be serious consequences for poor driving.

Imagine if CB's posting history was examined in the same way 10PS's was. He'd be screwed...

Only by you it seems?
Why do you like making personal attacks on people
( wary of being accused of just having done same )
Why not try giving it a break and talk about the topic - ease up a bit

[saaby93]

Integroo said:

'Strawman' must be in vogue, people say it on PistonHeads all the time, despite me literally never hearing anyone using it in real life.

Can you see why you see it a lot near your posts

DoubleD said:

Integroo said:

DoubleD said:

Integroo said:

Oh, right, so it's the cyclists fault that the van driver drove recklessly and dangerously and risked the cyclists life.

Did i say that?

No, but you suggested that the cyclist would have been safer on the right hand side of the lane, despite the fact that generally the centre of the lane is safer on those situations, as it may avoid aggressive manoeuvres from angry drivers (though I don't necessarily think the van driver did it deliberately, I think he was driving carelessly and too quickly).

Yes. I said that the cyclist would be safer nearer the verge. I did not say that the cyclist was at fault.

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

You started another thread on cycling, what did you expect?

not sure I expected anything - maybe a bit of debate - It would be good to have less of the false arguments

WinstonWolf said:

CB seems to be a bit of a tt,
.

you do yourself no favours - are you expecting him to come back with the same to you?
and its not helpful to the thread