Van driver narrowly avoids cyclist
Discussion
saaby93 said:
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 anglesDistance 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 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 anonymous-user on Thursday 20th July 22:30
TheRainMaker said:
So basically the bike pulled out when the van was only 50 meters away traveling around 30 mph and indicating to turn right.
Van would have been in full view of the biker.
PS maths is not my strong point so this may all be balls.
So, what you are saying is that the van would have been in full view of the cyclist and could therefore have chosen NOT to enter the slip road immediately behind him only to swerve back out around him, as a sensible driver would have just continued along the carriageway and then entered the slip road ahead of the cyclist?Van would have been in full view of the biker.
PS maths is not my strong point so this may all be balls.
Edited by TheRainMaker on Thursday 20th July 22:04
TheRainMaker said:
Ares said:
Bulls
t. By the time he started indicating, the bike had pulled out, crossed the road and was well in the slip road/filter lane.
Stop making things up t. By the time he started indicating, the bike had pulled out, crossed the road and was well in the slip road/filter lane.
you can't tell if the indicator is on or off before 7 secs.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
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
Ares said:
Right, So you can't see it, because the van is so far away, so he pulled out with so much spare room he was well inside the filter lane well before the van came close enough to see it's indicator, regardless how fast the van was travelling.
I'm guessing here, you have no idea how a 1080p camera with an 180-degree lens differs from a human eye....JuniorD said:
TheRainMaker said:
So basically the bike pulled out when the van was only 50 meters away traveling around 30 mph and indicating to turn right.
Van would have been in full view of the biker.
PS maths is not my strong point so this may all be balls.
So, what you are saying is that the van would have been in full view of the cyclist and could therefore have chosen NOT to enter the slip road immediately behind him only to swerve back out around him, as a sensible driver would have just continued along the carriageway and then entered the slip road ahead of the cyclist?Van would have been in full view of the biker.
PS maths is not my strong point so this may all be balls.
Edited by TheRainMaker on Thursday 20th July 22:04
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!PS, that concrete thing on the right, that's called a gutter...
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!PS, that concrete thing on the right, that's called a gutter...
Look at all the detritus in the non existent gutter in the video
saaby93 said:
Does it matter?
No, it doesn't, which is why the Police couldn't give a hoot. It's just things that have been said in this thread are total garbage.
Van was traveling way in excess of 50-70 (Integroo), in fact, it was traveling at 30 mph.
The cyclist started moving as the van was barely in sight (M-SportMatt), in fact, the van was 50 meters away when he crossed the white lines.
I can get to 15/20mph in a less than 2 seconds and would certainly do that in that circumstance (Ares), well this guy didn't, he averaged 10 mph over 32 meters.
Right, So you can't see it (indicator) because the van is so far away (Ares), well no, you can't see it on the footage because the footage is shot on a cheap camera with a field of view of 180.
According to someone on the "another cyclist dies in London" thread, filter lanes are only a suggestion.... Is this correct or incorrect.
What we can see from the footage is a bike traveling from a Major to a Minor road and making another vehicle change its course.
What would have happened if a car had pulled out on a bike doing 30 mph from a distance of 50 meters and then drove at 10 mph?
Edited by TheRainMaker on Friday 21st July 11:02
TheRainMaker said:
saaby93 said:
Does it matter?
No, it doesn't, which is why the Police couldn't give a hoot. It's just things that have been said in this thread are total garbage.
Van was traveling way in excess of 50-70 (Integroo), in fact, it was traveling at 30 mph.
The cyclist started moving as the van was barely in sight (M-SportMatt), in fact, the van was 50 meters away when he crossed the white lines.
I can get to 15/20mph in a less than 2 seconds and would certainly do that in that circumstance (Ares), well this guy didn't, he averaged 10 mph over 32 meters.
Right, So you can't see it (indicator) because the van is so far away (Ares), well no, you can't see it on the footage because the footage is shot on a cheap camera with a field of view of 180.
According to someone on the "another cyclist dies in London" thread, filter lanes are only a suggestion.... Is this correct or incorrect.
What we can see from the footage is a bike traveling from a Major to a Minor road and made another vehicle change its course.
What would have happened if a car had pulled out on a bike doing 30 mph from a distance of 50 meters and then drove at 10 mph?
TheRainMaker said:
The cyclist started moving as the van was barely in sight (M-SportMatt), in fact, the van was 50 meters away when he crossed the white lines.
The video link I posted shows the van coming into sight as the cyclist starts to move, pause at 1 second and see, its there in full colour.Edited by TheRainMaker on Friday 21st July 11:02
I dispute the 50m away 100%
The van was not made to change course at all by the cyclist, the cyclist was only in front of the van once the van had pulled from the main carriageway into the slip, there was adequate room to pull in either behind the bike or in front of it whether the van was speeding, doing 50 mph or doing 30 mph.
End of
WinstonWolf said:
TheRainMaker said:
saaby93 said:
Does it matter?
No, it doesn't, which is why the Police couldn't give a hoot. It's just things that have been said in this thread are total garbage.
Van was traveling way in excess of 50-70 (Integroo), in fact, it was traveling at 30 mph.
The cyclist started moving as the van was barely in sight (M-SportMatt), in fact, the van was 50 meters away when he crossed the white lines.
I can get to 15/20mph in a less than 2 seconds and would certainly do that in that circumstance (Ares), well this guy didn't, he averaged 10 mph over 32 meters.
Right, So you can't see it (indicator) because the van is so far away (Ares), well no, you can't see it on the footage because the footage is shot on a cheap camera with a field of view of 180.
According to someone on the "another cyclist dies in London" thread, filter lanes are only a suggestion.... Is this correct or incorrect.
What we can see from the footage is a bike traveling from a Major to a Minor road and made another vehicle change its course.
What would have happened if a car had pulled out on a bike doing 30 mph from a distance of 50 meters and then drove at 10 mph?
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
TheRainMaker said:
saaby93 said:
Does it matter?
No, it doesn't, which is why the Police couldn't give a hoot. It's just things that have been said in this thread are total garbage.
Van was traveling way in excess of 50-70 (Integroo), in fact, it was traveling at 30 mph.
The cyclist started moving as the van was barely in sight (M-SportMatt), in fact, the van was 50 meters away when he crossed the white lines.
I can get to 15/20mph in a less than 2 seconds and would certainly do that in that circumstance (Ares), well this guy didn't, he averaged 10 mph over 32 meters.
Right, So you can't see it (indicator) because the van is so far away (Ares), well no, you can't see it on the footage because the footage is shot on a cheap camera with a field of view of 180.
According to someone on the "another cyclist dies in London" thread, filter lanes are only a suggestion.... Is this correct or incorrect.
What we can see from the footage is a bike traveling from a Major to a Minor road and made another vehicle change its course.
What would have happened if a car had pulled out on a bike doing 30 mph from a distance of 50 meters and then drove at 10 mph?
TheRainMaker said:
What would have happened if a car had pulled out on a bike doing 30 mph from a distance of 50 meters and then drove at 10 mph?
Lets see if I get sucked into this 
Rather than a car take a tractor
The van could easily have done the same thing, tucked in behind - waargh it's going far slower than I thought, undertaken it and carried on
A tractors bigger than a bike though, so may not be a fair comparison
FiF said:
Again, agreed. It's impossible to tell from the footage if the van was signalling when the cyclist made the decision to go. Based on the unintelligent moves suspect not, doesn't appear to be a forward thinking driver to me, perhaps not very much going in between the ears, full stop, rule off.
Equally on that point, the cyclist took the decision to pull out in front of a van assuming it was going straight on rather than turning off. I mean, cyclists aren't know for their patience
So based on that unintelligent moves, doesn't appear to be a forward thinking cyclist to me, even if he thinks he's fully in the right, protected by cyclecams, perhaps not very much going in between the ears, full stop, rule off
Realistically it was said days ago, Cyclist pulled and into filter lane, van driver didn't anticipate the cyclist staying out so far, or not moving off so quickly and took avoiding action. Van driver takes the majority of the blame for the close pass, but the cyclist has to take a small proportion as well. Thats probably why the coppers weren't interested.
As said days ago, only the self righteous cyclists wont have it, because it doesn't fit their perceptions that everyone is out to get them
Possible a subject for a separate thread, but is it time to ban cyclists from major roads?
There's usually a MAMIL (Middle-aged Man In Lycra) holding up traffic on A roads these days, especially when the Tour de France is on.
Even when you get past, they catch up at traffic lights, ride the pavement to get to the front of the queue and hold everyone up again.
You can usually find them riding in the middle of the road, because it's safest (not in the gutter - I get that) and then gesturing when you overtake because you hadn't given them the space they deemed appropriate, despite the fact you've passed as far as possible on the other side of the road.
Heaven help you if you come across a calamity, sorry peleton, of weekend riders, two or three abreast. "We've got every right to be here, we've got cameras you know" as they ride blocking NSL roads at 10-15mph.
So an easier life for everyone. Cyclists can't ride on major roads unless there's a bike lane, thus avoiding the major cause of friction. Less interaction at speed means less accidents, less reasons for cyclists/motorists to complain. With the major roads freed up, drivers will be more tolerant when coming across riders on minor roads.
Sorted.
Right, now about antisocial Horse Riders
There's usually a MAMIL (Middle-aged Man In Lycra) holding up traffic on A roads these days, especially when the Tour de France is on.
Even when you get past, they catch up at traffic lights, ride the pavement to get to the front of the queue and hold everyone up again.
You can usually find them riding in the middle of the road, because it's safest (not in the gutter - I get that) and then gesturing when you overtake because you hadn't given them the space they deemed appropriate, despite the fact you've passed as far as possible on the other side of the road.
Heaven help you if you come across a calamity, sorry peleton, of weekend riders, two or three abreast. "We've got every right to be here, we've got cameras you know" as they ride blocking NSL roads at 10-15mph.
So an easier life for everyone. Cyclists can't ride on major roads unless there's a bike lane, thus avoiding the major cause of friction. Less interaction at speed means less accidents, less reasons for cyclists/motorists to complain. With the major roads freed up, drivers will be more tolerant when coming across riders on minor roads.
Sorted.
Right, now about antisocial Horse Riders
Byker28i said:
Possible a subject for a separate thread, but is it time to ban cyclists from major roads?
There's usually a MAMIL (Middle-aged Man In Lycra) holding up traffic on A roads these days, especially when the Tour de France is on.
Even when you get past, they catch up at traffic lights, ride the pavement to get to the front of the queue and hold everyone up again.
You can usually find them riding in the middle of the road, because it's safest (not in the gutter - I get that) and then gesturing when you overtake because you hadn't given them the space they deemed appropriate, despite the fact you've passed as far as possible on the other side of the road.
Heaven help you if you come across a calamity, sorry peleton, of weekend riders, two or three abreast. "We've got every right to be here, we've got cameras you know" as they ride blocking NSL roads at 10-15mph.
So an easier life for everyone. Cyclists can't ride on major roads unless there's a bike lane, thus avoiding the major cause of friction. Less interaction at speed means less accidents, less reasons for cyclists/motorists to complain. With the major roads freed up, drivers will be more tolerant when coming across riders on minor roads.
Sorted.
Right, now about antisocial Horse Riders
If they keep passing you they're quicker than you There's usually a MAMIL (Middle-aged Man In Lycra) holding up traffic on A roads these days, especially when the Tour de France is on.
Even when you get past, they catch up at traffic lights, ride the pavement to get to the front of the queue and hold everyone up again.
You can usually find them riding in the middle of the road, because it's safest (not in the gutter - I get that) and then gesturing when you overtake because you hadn't given them the space they deemed appropriate, despite the fact you've passed as far as possible on the other side of the road.
Heaven help you if you come across a calamity, sorry peleton, of weekend riders, two or three abreast. "We've got every right to be here, we've got cameras you know" as they ride blocking NSL roads at 10-15mph.
So an easier life for everyone. Cyclists can't ride on major roads unless there's a bike lane, thus avoiding the major cause of friction. Less interaction at speed means less accidents, less reasons for cyclists/motorists to complain. With the major roads freed up, drivers will be more tolerant when coming across riders on minor roads.
Sorted.
Right, now about antisocial Horse Riders
Byker28i said:
Possible a subject for a separate thread, but is it time to ban cyclists from major roads?
There's usually a MAMIL (Middle-aged Man In Lycra) holding up traffic on A roads these days, especially when the Tour de France is on.
Even when you get past, they catch up at traffic lights, ride the pavement to get to the front of the queue and hold everyone up again.
You can usually find them riding in the middle of the road, because it's safest (not in the gutter - I get that) and then gesturing when you overtake because you hadn't given them the space they deemed appropriate, despite the fact you've passed as far as possible on the other side of the road.
Heaven help you if you come across a calamity, sorry peleton, of weekend riders, two or three abreast. "We've got every right to be here, we've got cameras you know" as they ride blocking NSL roads at 10-15mph.
So an easier life for everyone. Cyclists can't ride on major roads unless there's a bike lane, thus avoiding the major cause of friction. Less interaction at speed means less accidents, less reasons for cyclists/motorists to complain. With the major roads freed up, drivers will be more tolerant when coming across riders on minor roads.
Sorted.
Right, now about antisocial Horse Riders
We could just ban knob heads like you from the road, would make life better for everyone. There's usually a MAMIL (Middle-aged Man In Lycra) holding up traffic on A roads these days, especially when the Tour de France is on.
Even when you get past, they catch up at traffic lights, ride the pavement to get to the front of the queue and hold everyone up again.
You can usually find them riding in the middle of the road, because it's safest (not in the gutter - I get that) and then gesturing when you overtake because you hadn't given them the space they deemed appropriate, despite the fact you've passed as far as possible on the other side of the road.
Heaven help you if you come across a calamity, sorry peleton, of weekend riders, two or three abreast. "We've got every right to be here, we've got cameras you know" as they ride blocking NSL roads at 10-15mph.
So an easier life for everyone. Cyclists can't ride on major roads unless there's a bike lane, thus avoiding the major cause of friction. Less interaction at speed means less accidents, less reasons for cyclists/motorists to complain. With the major roads freed up, drivers will be more tolerant when coming across riders on minor roads.
Sorted.
Right, now about antisocial Horse Riders
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff