Van driver narrowly avoids cyclist
Discussion
Integroo said:
saaby93 said:
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
I do think the hysteria about attempts on the cyclists life etc. are unhelpful though - it seems to me the driver was driving carelessly and dangerously, rather than out to hurt or scare the cyclist.
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.
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.
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 JoeDriving 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.
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 said:
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 JoeDriving 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.
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 said:
heres 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?
its 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.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?
sun in eyes, slow down to appropriate speed for visibility....
M-SportMatt said:
saaby93 said:
heres 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?
its 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.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?
sun in eyes, slow down to appropriate speed for visibility....
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
cb1965 said:
So he deserves a good kicking as he potentially did something he didn't mean to due to any number of factors, some of which we maybe don't have at our disposal? And people on here wonder why the pro cycling lobby get such a bad reputation??? FFS! I give up!
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.This whole idea of yours that it's all a pro-cycling lobby rather than an anti-people getting away with s
t driving lobby is amazing by the way. cb1965 said:
Got to love a kangaroo court full of cyclists!! Must be so hard being so wonderfully perfect lol!
Mate if you're just going to contribute nonsense to support your anti-cycling agenda, please don't bother. Your view seems to be that nobody was harmed, the cyclist should just accept van drivers may get a little close to killing him sometimes, why is everyone getting so worked out. Which is frankly dangerous nonsense, but you won't be persuaded otherwise. 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
cb1965 said:
So he deserves a good kicking as he potentially did something he didn't mean to due to any number of factors, some of which we maybe don't have at our disposal? And people on here wonder why the pro cycling lobby get such a bad reputation??? FFS! I give up!
Do you honestly think the van driver didn't mean to do any of the dangerous manoeuvres seen on the video? Really? Deluded.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.
It's difficult to mitigate against a charge of driving without due care and attention for WVM at a minimium
He might be a saint and this is a one off. Then again he might be a 24/7/365 bell end
Point is, that cyclist could have been one of your children, your wife/SO, even a valued employee. Do you really want to share road space with that kind of driver?
If you don't have children, wife/SO or valued employees and find WVM driving acceptable you might like to consider if there's a correlation there
He might be a saint and this is a one off. Then again he might be a 24/7/365 bell end
Point is, that cyclist could have been one of your children, your wife/SO, even a valued employee. Do you really want to share road space with that kind of driver?
If you don't have children, wife/SO or valued employees and find WVM driving acceptable you might like to consider if there's a correlation there
saaby93 said:
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
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 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 better achieved it
Why do some people post things that arent there
Why not leave the thread if you've nothing of value to add.
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
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 better achieved it
Why do some people post things that arent there
Why not leave the thread if you've nothing of value to add.
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?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff