Van driver narrowly avoids cyclist

[Ares]

Adz The Rat said:

Ares said:

Bring it to public attention? Seems to have worked.

I suppose so, but 9 out of 10 of the public won't give a monkeys.

That's the failing of 9 out of 10 members of the public then.

But if just one of the 10% of people who DO give a monkey's, then give a cyclist an extra metre of space and save his/her life, then it's worth doing?

[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

[nickfrog]

M-SportMatt said:

deeen said:

Was the cyclist at a "Give Way" line? Does that mean he should have waited until he could have pulled out without impeding a vehicle on the main carriageway?

Doesn't excuse the van driver's subsequent actions, although at least he avoided a collision.

The cyclist was already off the main carriageway ( see video ) and the van clearly has a lot more space in front to pull in further along when joining the cyclists lane..........you do have eyesight and a driving license?

I think your last sentence was not particularly necessary.

I was thinking the same thing as deeen before I saw his post. I think the cyclist slightly mis-judged the speed of the van (which probably had accelerated hard after the camera so was probably speeding), was too optimistic and took a little bit of a gamble or perhaps it was simply down to the (unjustified) excess speed. Yes there were around 5 seconds between crossing the Give way line and the near-miss but that probably doesn't give the van driver much time to react / make a decision.

What I think happened then is that the van driver got pissed off (rightly or wrongly) as he felt impeded (rightly or wrongly) and then made a point of near-missing rather than use all the space he had further along.

This is in no way an attempt to excuse the van driver who is clearly a moronus maximus, but as a cyclist I wouldn't have taken that gamble against a white van, although like someone said this is precisely why I only ride off-road (which also happens to be a million times more fun).

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

[scenario8]

deeen said:

Ares said:

deeen said:

Was the cyclist at a "Give Way" line? Does that mean he should have waited until he could have pulled out without impeding a vehicle on the main carriageway?

Doesn't excuse the van driver's subsequent actions, although at least he avoided a collision.

Was he impeding the vehicle?

I'd say yes, because he caused the van driver to hit the brakes?

You're right. Those trannies hug the corners like they're on rails. If it wasn't for that pesky cyclist he probably only would have needed to flip it down a gear and then full throttle through that right hander.

[FiF]

When the cyclist made his decision to go was the van signalling a right turn. I'd suggest not as he only appears to start signalling right after he has entered the right lane and is starting the last second avoidance. Piss poor driving.

[nickfrog]

Mr GrimNasty said:

How was that even close? The van dived around him a bit, but as he passes his nearest side was only just on the lane line, and the cyclist is in the middle of the whole lane next to it.

And appealing to Boardmen for objectivity - pfffffft - sorry (yes I know champion/personal loss etc.), but he is the worst sort of figurehead, his attitude stinks, the favorite talking head for all things cycling on BBC radio, he'll only be happy when cars are banned.

Probably posts as Heeebeeeegeeeebees on here!

Ridiculous post.

[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

[Adz The Rat]

Ares said:

That's the failing of 9 out of 10 members of the public then.

But if just one of the 10% of people who DO give a monkey's, then give a cyclist an extra metre of space and save his/her life, then it's worth doing?

Fair enough, I will agree with you there.

[M-SportMatt]

deeen said:

I'd say yes, because he caused the van driver to hit the brakes?

not at all, the driver had to brake for the junction anyway and could easily have braked in his current lane and further past the cyclist, there is a lot of spare room.......

[nickfrog]

saaby93 said:

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

Fair enough, so I'll give:

the van driver 90 out of 100 (where 100 would have meant he failed not to hit the cyclist)
the cyclist 10 out of 100 (where 0 would have meant he didn't pull out and waited for the van to come past)

[sparkythecat]

It's obvious that the the driver just didn't see the cyclist until the last minute. The long shadows indicate that the sun was low in the sky which may have been an issue.
But at the end of the day, nothing happened. No one was even inconvenienced, let alone injured.

[nickfrog]

M-SportMatt said:

Not at all, the driver had to brake for the junction anyway and could easily have braked in his current lane and further past the cyclist, there is a lot of spare room.......

But AFAIK he shouldn't brake in the current lane anyway as he will then impede the cars behind him. I understand that a deceleration / acceleration lane is there to dampen speed differentials. I genuinely don't mean to be the devil's advocate, I promise.

[deeen]

M-SportMatt said:

ot at all, the driver had to brake for the junction anyway and could easily have braked in his current lane and further past the cyclist, there is a lot of spare room.......

Yes all true, but "Give Way" does not mean "Pull out, if you think the oncoming driver can probably avoid you"!

[RumbleOfThunder]

Complete non event but they still managed to waste Police time between them. Well done tts.

[DJP]

Torquey said:

Must have been here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.899086,-0.611050...

As a cyclist I get passes like that every other day (normally by Taxi's). Life goes on - if you want to cycle accept the risks and get on with it. Don't cry to the internet every time someone does something you don't like.

Edited by Torquey on Tuesday 18th July 11:49

That^^.

It's hardly the worst thing that I've ever seen.

(And yes, I am also a cyclist).

[okgo]

It is just 100% not needed.

So why are people excusing it? There is NO NEED to do that, but some in a van thinks its ok to become a lawmaker with his car?

[M-SportMatt]

deeen said:

Yes all true, but "Give Way" does not mean "Pull out, if you think the oncoming driver can probably avoid you"!

He wasn't signalling, so the cyclist was out of his lane and not impeding had the van continued on.........

[M-SportMatt]

nickfrog said:

But AFAIK he shouldn't brake in the current lane anyway as he will then impede the cars behind him. I understand that a deceleration / acceleration lane is there to dampen speed differentials. I genuinely don't mean to be the devil's advocate, I promise.

When approaching a junction you should always be prepared to brake.....or do you just blast through at 50mph foot to the floor and eyes closed?

[Integroo]

sparkythecat said:

It's obvious that the the driver just didn't see the cyclist until the last minute. The long shadows indicate that the sun was low in the sky which may have been an issue.
But at the end of the day, nothing happened. No one was even inconvenienced, let alone injured.

This is a ridiculous position to take. The driver drove dangerously and irresponsibly and could have killed a cyclist ... oh but because he didn't, it's fine?

[Byker28i]

nickfrog said:

M-SportMatt said:

deeen said:

Was the cyclist at a "Give Way" line? Does that mean he should have waited until he could have pulled out without impeding a vehicle on the main carriageway?

Doesn't excuse the van driver's subsequent actions, although at least he avoided a collision.

The cyclist was already off the main carriageway ( see video ) and the van clearly has a lot more space in front to pull in further along when joining the cyclists lane..........you do have eyesight and a driving license?

I think your last sentence was not particularly necessary.

I was thinking the same thing as deeen before I saw his post. I think the cyclist slightly mis-judged the speed of the van (which probably had accelerated hard after the camera so was probably speeding), was too optimistic and took a little bit of a gamble or perhaps it was simply down to the (unjustified) excess speed. Yes there were around 5 seconds between crossing the Give way line and the near-miss but that probably doesn't give the van driver much time to react / make a decision.

What I think happened then is that the van driver got pissed off (rightly or wrongly) as he felt impeded (rightly or wrongly) and then made a point of near-missing rather than use all the space he had further along.

This is in no way an attempt to excuse the van driver who is clearly a moronus maximus, but as a cyclist I wouldn't have taken that gamble against a white van, although like someone said this is precisely why I only ride off-road (which also happens to be a million times more fun).

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

This - no further discussion needed,
but the cyclists will