Van driver narrowly avoids cyclist

[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

[Ares]

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

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

[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

[Ares]

TheRainMaker said:

Ares said:

There was no gamble. He just perhaps assumed the Van driver wouldn't be a c**t and would follow the rules of the road. (he was wrong).


And bikes seldom go as slow as 5-10mph FWIW.

Oh rules have changed have they?

He won't have been going more than 5-10 mph he had just pulled out of a junction from a minor to a major road FWIW...

Not that know off. Indication/speed/passing distances/undertaking/moving lanes/lane discipline....I think they've remained fairly static.


And trust me, if he was pulling out onto a 50mph road he will have got up to speed very very quickly. I can get to 15/20mph in a less than 2 seconds and would certainly do that in that circumstance.

[Ares]

M-SportMatt said:

DoubleD said:

I would still have positioned myself near the verge and not near the line between 2 lanes.

Best of luck changing sides further down in traffic then, or when a lorry just pushes you into the verge because you've left an open invitation to them.

This is not like cycling in a town with slow traffic

Thats the difference between commuting cyclists and leisure cyclists.

[Ares]

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!

Define a gutter in a road?

For me it's the side of the road where the camber is at it's lowest and where drain covers are positioned.

[red_slr]

Lets play the game of ride like a t*t and film it from 4 different angles and see how long it takes put some ones back up.
Then to top if off when the dibble call me out on it I will go crying to someone else and get them to stick their nose in.
FFS people need to grow up and just go about their business like everyone else.

[Ares]

TheRainMaker said:

OK so who would be at fault if a you pulled onto the motorway at 30mph into lane 1 and then pulled into lane two forcing traffic traveling @ 70mph coming up behind you to take avoiding action.

Bike should have waited, worse case should have been over to the right knowing traffic could well have been coming off the main carriage way at 50 mph.

It's embarrassing to be a cyclist sometimes.

And if you won't pull out when you think there may be a car coming down within 10secs, how long would you wait?

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.

[Ares]

TheRainMaker said:

Because it keeps you alive you halfwit, flipping heck.

I do the same kind of manoeuvre, several times a week, I'm still alive, and have never come close to being hit in such a circumstance in the last 20,000km of cycling.

[Ares]

saaby93 said:

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

There is a gutter at the side of every road. There is debris at the side of every road.

[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

[Ares]

red_slr said:

Lets play the game of ride like a t*t and film it from 4 different angles and see how long it takes put some ones back up.
Then to top if off when the dibble call me out on it I will go crying to someone else and get them to stick their nose in.
FFS people need to grow up and just go about their business like everyone else.

I suspect he pretty much was, until a van passed a couple of inches from his left hand with a 20/30/40mph speed difference.

As I've said above, try standing right on the edge of a station platform when a train masses 6 inches from you. Would you feel perfectly comfortable?

[Ares]

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 was still unsafe. Or are you saying something is only unsafe if it causes an accident?

So it's safe to drive past a school at 90mph if everyone carries on OK?

[Integroo]

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.

[Byker28i]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMux_1bKGz0

[anonymous-user]

InitialDave said:

cb1965 said:

Yep, worked a treat for him

The events shown in the video are not a product of the cyclist's decision. He made the right decision for the road layout. What transpired after that was due to the van driver who was not driving properly, not the cyclist who was riding properly.

Your argument is that he should use road positioning that is safer for a rare eventuality, instead of that which is safer for a common one.

Well, it's what I do and I'm still here and don't have any whinging about a near miss as a result to contribute either. Some cyclists create their own dramas to an extent much like the latest set of DCWs in cars.

[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

[Integroo]

saaby93 said:

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

I don't even know what nonsense you're talking about anymore.

The cyclist cycled in a perfectly safe and predictable manner.

The driver drove carelessly and/or dangerously.

[WinstonWolf]

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...

[ojoman]

ash73 said:

Agree, no idea why there needs to be any discussion.

Because there is a sentiment of "Poor, beleaguered motorist" on these forums and they can seemingly do nothing wrong. They are constantly "persecuted" and "maltreated" and seemingly wallow in a victim culture.

The very opposite in fact exists. You can take what examples you like:

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

But penalties are quite often very light indeed.

Now don't get me wrong, I use the car, motorbike and cycle (not all at the same time) and good and bad exist using all forms of transport. However, it does seem that when I am using the bike the real throbbers start coming out of the woodwork. Alpha Taxis in Liverpool, you have a real gashrot in your ranks.