Van driver narrowly avoids cyclist
Discussion
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?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....
If he was intending to teach the cyclist a lesson by a close pass then considering the differential speeds and the consequent split second timing of the serves then he was playing with fire, no question to my mind of section 2 Road Traffic Act offence, dangerous driving. Difficult to get a prosecution for that, so section 3 RTA careless.
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.
Disappointed with police response frankly. Boardman might be a bit of a tit at times, but he is right on this generally.
saaby93 said:
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?https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/profile.asp?h=...
FiF said:
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....
If he was intending to teach the cyclist a lesson by a close pass then considering the differential speeds and the consequent split second timing of the serves then he was playing with fire, no question to my mind of section 2 Road Traffic Act offence, dangerous driving. Difficult to get a prosecution for that, so section 3 RTA careless.
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.
Disappointed with police response frankly. Boardman might be a bit of a tit at times, but he is right on this generally.
Both of which are nonsense.
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?Both of which are nonsense.
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
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.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.
.
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 said:
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?Both of which are nonsense.
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
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!1e3I'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
Zoom out
You may well change your mind now.....
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!1e3I'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
Zoom out
You may well change your mind now.....
As they were both turning right the van should have just tucked in behind the bike and waited turn?
Integroo said:
saaby93 said:
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?Both of which are nonsense.
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
saaby93 said:
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!1e3I'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
Zoom out
You may well change your mind now.....
As they were both turning right the van should have just tucked in behind the bike and waited turn?
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
M-SportMatt said:
saaby93 said:
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!1e3I'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
Zoom out
You may well change your mind now.....
As they were both turning right the van should have just tucked in behind the bike and waited turn?
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
Though I don't think it was deliberate (I don't think the van driver saw the cyclist), I think it was careless and dangerous driving.
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 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
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 said:
ve 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.
Excellent backtracking....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 said:
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 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
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 said:
k 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?
Yes, he should. But only if he'd seen him. As I said before, fast road, heading into the sun, cyclist very vulnerable.As they were both turning right the van should have just tucked in behind the bike and waited turn?
I still don't think the van was deliberately trying to punish the cyclist. I think he saw him at the last minute and swerved round him. Thankfully!
RicksAlfas said:
saaby93 said:
k 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?
Yes, he should. But only if he'd seen him. As I said before, fast road, heading into the sun, cyclist very vulnerable.As they were both turning right the van should have just tucked in behind the bike and waited turn?
I still don't think the van was deliberately trying to punish the cyclist. I think he saw him at the last minute and swerved round him. Thankfully!
RicksAlfas said:
Yes, he should. But only if he'd seen him. As I said before, fast road, heading into the sun, cyclist very vulnerable.
I still don't think the van was deliberately trying to punish the cyclist. I think he saw him at the last minute and swerved round him. Thankfully!
And how do you explain away the fact there was a lot of empty space ahead but he swerved back in as close as possible to the cyclist anyway.........I still don't think the van was deliberately trying to punish the cyclist. I think he saw him at the last minute and swerved round him. Thankfully!
RicksAlfas said:
saaby93 said:
k 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?
Yes, he should. But only if he'd seen him. As I said before, fast road, heading into the sun, cyclist very vulnerable.As they were both turning right the van should have just tucked in behind the bike and waited turn?
I still don't think the van was deliberately trying to punish the cyclist. I think he saw him at the last minute and swerved round him. Thankfully!
I agree with you, it wasn't deliberate. It doesn't mean it wasn't a poor, dangerous and criminal piece of driving.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff