Van driver narrowly avoids cyclist
Discussion
Nickfrog & Deen
Watch the video back
The cyclist is well into the slip road before the van even gets to where the cyclist pulled out from, the van wasn't indicating either at that point ( the point the cyclist had crossed the road, not at the decision point)
There was plenty of room for the van to either slow behind the cyclist or pass safely and pull in and brake.
There was no need to pass so fast and so close, if you are apportioning any blame at all to the cyclist i wonder what your driving is like.....
Watch the video back
The cyclist is well into the slip road before the van even gets to where the cyclist pulled out from, the van wasn't indicating either at that point ( the point the cyclist had crossed the road, not at the decision point)
There was plenty of room for the van to either slow behind the cyclist or pass safely and pull in and brake.
There was no need to pass so fast and so close, if you are apportioning any blame at all to the cyclist i wonder what your driving is like.....
Byker28i said:
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?Doesn't excuse the van driver's subsequent actions, although at least he avoided a collision.
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.
but the cyclists will
M-SportMatt said:
Nickfrog & Deen
Watch the video back
The cyclist is well into the slip road before the van even gets to where the cyclist pulled out from, the van wasn't indicating either at that point ( the point the cyclist had crossed the road, not at the decision point)
There was plenty of room for the van to either slow behind the cyclist or pass safely and pull in and brake.
There was no need to pass so fast and so close, if you are apportioning any blame at all to the cyclist i wonder what your driving is like.....
I have watched the video carefully - the fact that the van wasn't indicating should have acted as an additional deterrent for the cyclist not to gamble, which IMO he did (this is still no excuse for what the driver did btw, just an attempt at understanding both behaviours), as it implied no inherent deceleration from the van.Watch the video back
The cyclist is well into the slip road before the van even gets to where the cyclist pulled out from, the van wasn't indicating either at that point ( the point the cyclist had crossed the road, not at the decision point)
There was plenty of room for the van to either slow behind the cyclist or pass safely and pull in and brake.
There was no need to pass so fast and so close, if you are apportioning any blame at all to the cyclist i wonder what your driving is like.....
If you think that the cyclist didn't gamble, I respect your view, I just don't share it and I wonder how your riding is like.
Sadly the world is imperfect and as a cyclist discretion is often the better part of valour, particularly against a white van driver with the sun in his eyes.
I am very happy with my driving btw. You should cut out all that confrontational stuff you know, it's possible to have a civilised discussion from different points of view. The thing is, neither you nor I were there at the time and neither of us can be sure of whether the cyclist took a chance or not.
Edited by nickfrog on Tuesday 18th July 14:50
Integroo said:
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?But at the end of the day, nothing happened. No one was even inconvenienced, let alone injured.
Having watched the video again, it still seems a reasonable rather than a ridiciculous hypotheseis .
The driver did a last minute course correction to avoid hitting the cyclist. What's dangerous or irresponsible about that ?
sparkythecat said:
I've stated the facts and suggested a hypotheseis.
Having watched the video again, it still seems a reasonable rather than a ridiciculous hypotheseis .
The driver did a last minute course correction to avoid hitting the cyclist. What's dangerous or irresponsible about that ?
Just let me know when you are out on the roads and I'll make sure I stay off my bike!Having watched the video again, it still seems a reasonable rather than a ridiciculous hypotheseis .
The driver did a last minute course correction to avoid hitting the cyclist. What's dangerous or irresponsible about that ?
If you had done the same wouldn't it occur to you that your driving was pretty poor?
nickfrog said:
I have watched the video carefully - the fact that the van wasn't indicating should have acted as an additional deterrent for the cyclist not to gamble, which IMO he did (this is still no excuse for what the driver did btw, just an attempt at understanding both behaviours), as it implied no inherent deceleration from the van.
If you think that the cyclist didn't gamble, I respect your view, I just don't share it and I wonder how your riding is like.
Sadly the world is imperfect and as a cyclist discretion is often the better part of valour, particularly against a white van driver with the sun in his eyes.
I am very happy with my driving btw. You should cut out all that confrontational stuff you know, it's possible to have a civilised discussion from different point of views.
Riding is fine thanks, 25 years as an adult riding on the road and counting.If you think that the cyclist didn't gamble, I respect your view, I just don't share it and I wonder how your riding is like.
Sadly the world is imperfect and as a cyclist discretion is often the better part of valour, particularly against a white van driver with the sun in his eyes.
I am very happy with my driving btw. You should cut out all that confrontational stuff you know, it's possible to have a civilised discussion from different point of views.
I remain steadfast that the cyclist gave the van plenty of room, regardless of the van turning or not, look again there was room behind and in front of the cyclist, the van had ample room to take that turn without going anywhere near the cycle, that's why the cyclist went across. Or are you suggesting that all vehicles on a road wait until no other vehicles are in sight in case they are dangerous intimidatory morons.
Look at the inset camera at 16 seconds and tell me the cyclist is remotely at fault pulling across the junction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBrCM3wggU
Edited by M-SportMatt on Tuesday 18th July 14:56
M-SportMatt said:
nickfrog said:
I have watched the video carefully - the fact that the van wasn't indicating should have acted as an additional deterrent for the cyclist not to gamble, which IMO he did (this is still no excuse for what the driver did btw, just an attempt at understanding both behaviours), as it implied no inherent deceleration from the van.
If you think that the cyclist didn't gamble, I respect your view, I just don't share it and I wonder how your riding is like.
Sadly the world is imperfect and as a cyclist discretion is often the better part of valour, particularly against a white van driver with the sun in his eyes.
I am very happy with my driving btw. You should cut out all that confrontational stuff you know, it's possible to have a civilised discussion from different point of views.
Riding is fine thanks, 25 years as an adult riding on the road and counting.If you think that the cyclist didn't gamble, I respect your view, I just don't share it and I wonder how your riding is like.
Sadly the world is imperfect and as a cyclist discretion is often the better part of valour, particularly against a white van driver with the sun in his eyes.
I am very happy with my driving btw. You should cut out all that confrontational stuff you know, it's possible to have a civilised discussion from different point of views.
I remain steadfast that the cyclist gave the van plenty of room, regardless of the van turning or not, look again there was room behind and in front of the cyclist, the van had ample room to take that turn without going anywhere near the cycle, that's why the cyclist went across. Or are you suggesting that all vehicles on a road wait until no other vehicles are in sight in case they are dangerous intimidatory morons.
Look at the inset camera at 16 seconds and tell me the cyclist is remotely at fault pulling across the junction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBrCM3wggU
Edited by M-SportMatt on Tuesday 18th July 14:56
The van driver was going too fast, and pulled into the filter lane into the cyclist. He is entirely at fault.
GreatGranny said:
Just let me know when you are out on the roads and I'll make sure I stay off my bike!
If you had done the same wouldn't it occur to you that your driving was pretty poor?
Unlike the driving Gods of PH, who'd have one believe that their driving behaviour is at all times exemplary, and a shining beacon to other road users, I'm not perfect and have been known to make the occasional mistake. Perhaps that makes me a little more tolerant of others that err, and a little less likely to condemn. If you had done the same wouldn't it occur to you that your driving was pretty poor?
In any event, thanks for the kind offer. If you'd just keep off the A588 and the A683 you should be quite safe.
M-SportMatt said:
Riding is fine thanks, 25 years as an adult riding on the road and counting.
I remain steadfast that the cyclist gave the van plenty of room, regardless of the van turning or not, look again there was room behind and in front of the cyclist, the van had ample room to take that turn without going anywhere near the cycle, that's why the cyclist went across. Or are you suggesting that all vehicles on a road wait until no other vehicles are in sight in case they are dangerous intimidatory morons.
Look at the inset camera at 16 seconds and tell me the cyclist is remotely at fault pulling across the junction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBrCM3wggU
I tried but sadly failed to convey my point of view. It really is not down to fault but survival IMO. If you feel that "not being at fault" is sufficient to stay alive with all your limbs intact on UK's roads then you and I have a very different outlook on life's priorities, without this being a judgement of value btw.I remain steadfast that the cyclist gave the van plenty of room, regardless of the van turning or not, look again there was room behind and in front of the cyclist, the van had ample room to take that turn without going anywhere near the cycle, that's why the cyclist went across. Or are you suggesting that all vehicles on a road wait until no other vehicles are in sight in case they are dangerous intimidatory morons.
Look at the inset camera at 16 seconds and tell me the cyclist is remotely at fault pulling across the junction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBrCM3wggU
I do think he was slightly at fault incidentally, for pulling out and it did indeed prove marginal, probably because the van driver didn't spot him straight away, which is unsurprising with the sun in his eyes (this is NOT an excuse, the van driver remains a cock socket) - road conditions have to be taken account of as part of decision making.
As I said, I am more conservative than this cyclist when I am on my bike but I have no issues if others want to fight for their right to party.
nickfrog said:
M-SportMatt said:
Riding is fine thanks, 25 years as an adult riding on the road and counting.
I remain steadfast that the cyclist gave the van plenty of room, regardless of the van turning or not, look again there was room behind and in front of the cyclist, the van had ample room to take that turn without going anywhere near the cycle, that's why the cyclist went across. Or are you suggesting that all vehicles on a road wait until no other vehicles are in sight in case they are dangerous intimidatory morons.
Look at the inset camera at 16 seconds and tell me the cyclist is remotely at fault pulling across the junction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBrCM3wggU
I tried but sadly failed to convey my point of view. It really is not down to fault but survival IMO. If you feel that "not being at fault" is sufficient to stay alive with all your limbs intact on UK's roads then you and I have a very different outlook on life's priorities, without this being a judgement of value btw.I remain steadfast that the cyclist gave the van plenty of room, regardless of the van turning or not, look again there was room behind and in front of the cyclist, the van had ample room to take that turn without going anywhere near the cycle, that's why the cyclist went across. Or are you suggesting that all vehicles on a road wait until no other vehicles are in sight in case they are dangerous intimidatory morons.
Look at the inset camera at 16 seconds and tell me the cyclist is remotely at fault pulling across the junction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtBrCM3wggU
I do think he was slightly at fault incidentally, for pulling out and it did indeed prove marginal, probably because the van driver didn't spot him straight away, which is unsurprising with the sun in his eyes (this is NOT an excuse, the van driver remains a cock socket) - road conditions have to be taken account of as part of decision making.
As I said, I am more conservative than this cyclist when I am on my bike but I have no issues if others want to fight for their right to party.
Integroo said:
This. The cyclist had plenty of space - the van driver wasn't even visible when he started to move.
The van was quite clearly visible even before the cyclist crossed the "Give way" line which was after he started to move.He had plenty of time to brake and stop at the line but decided not to. It was quite marginal though.
nickfrog said:
The van was quite clearly visible even before the cyclist crossed the "Give way" line which was after he started to move.
He had plenty of time to brake and stop at the line but decided not to. It was quite marginal though.
Its nothing to do with survival......the van had more than enough room, the ONLY issue here is that the van swerved at the cyclist, which is impossible to predict by waiting at the junction looking at random vehichles, as the next one could do the same, my point which you are ignoring is what do you expect the cyclist to do? He cant wait until there are no cars in sight as he'd literally be there hours. It was a more than safe crossing and decision to go by the cyclist.....oh and by the way, its much better to be balanced and moving before you cross the line than to push out and fumble the pedal in the middle of a busy road, but then as an experienced cyclist you knew that right....He had plenty of time to brake and stop at the line but decided not to. It was quite marginal though.
As for not spotting him, the guy had a dayglo yellow luminous jacket on......
Edited by M-SportMatt on Tuesday 18th July 15:46
M-SportMatt said:
Its nothing to do with survival......the van had more than enough room, the ONLY issue here is that the van swerved at the cyclist, which is impossible to predict by waiting at the junction looking at random vehichles, as the next one could do the same, my point which you are ignoring is what do you expect the cyclist to do? He cant wait until there are no cars in sight as he'd literally be there hours. It was a more than safe crossing and decision to go by the cyclist.....oh and by the way, its much better to be balanced and moving before you cross the line than to push out and fumble the pedal in the middle of a busy road, but then as an experienced cyclist you knew that right....
As for not spotting him, the guy had a dayglo yellow luminous jacket on......
You're doing the confrontational thing again As for not spotting him, the guy had a dayglo yellow luminous jacket on......
. No need.It is indeed better to be balanced but can you remember me saying the opposite ? Is it worth taking a gamble like I think he did for the sake of balance ?
Hi vis doesn't really change the fact that the guy had the sun in his eyes.
Strawman arguments and binary thinking don't really interest me hence me not responding to them normally.
Look, we don't agree as I am more conservative - it doesn't make you particularly wrong nor right and it probably corresponds to the grey area between thinking "it'll be fine" and "actually that's probably a bit marginal because of that t
t in the van". It's not an exact science otherwise there would never be any issues on the road.Have you bought the Golf R btw ?
nickfrog said:
M-SportMatt said:
Its nothing to do with survival......the van had more than enough room, the ONLY issue here is that the van swerved at the cyclist, which is impossible to predict by waiting at the junction looking at random vehichles, as the next one could do the same, my point which you are ignoring is what do you expect the cyclist to do? He cant wait until there are no cars in sight as he'd literally be there hours. It was a more than safe crossing and decision to go by the cyclist.....oh and by the way, its much better to be balanced and moving before you cross the line than to push out and fumble the pedal in the middle of a busy road, but then as an experienced cyclist you knew that right....
As for not spotting him, the guy had a dayglo yellow luminous jacket on......
You're doing the confrontational thing again As for not spotting him, the guy had a dayglo yellow luminous jacket on......
. No need.It is indeed better to be balanced but can you remember me saying the opposite ? Is it worth taking a gamble like I think he did for the sake of balance ?
Hi vis doesn't really change the fact that the guy had the sun in his eyes.
Strawman arguments and binary thinking don't really interest me hence me not responding to them normally.
Look, we don't agree as I am more conservative - it doesn't make you particularly wrong nor right and it probably corresponds to the grey area between thinking "it'll be fine" and "actually that's probably a bit marginal because of that t
t in the van". It's not an exact science otherwise there would never be any issues on the road.Have you bought the Golf R btw ?
I am extremely disappointed the police decided not to act in this instance, I think their decision is basically indefensible. They claim that resource problems mean they can only deal with serious incidents. Firstly, this was a pretty serious incident, certainly for the cyclist. Secondly, a little resource applied to making sure all drivers are aware how to behave around cyclists may save a lot of resource from scraping them up off the road.
Integroo said:
Mate, a gamble? The cyclist had loads of time. The van driver was travelling too quickly, and turned into the cyclist, who was already established in the far lane, and then swerved past him. The cyclist is not to blame, and wasn't cycling aggressively.
I have abundantly expressed my views and I totally understand that you don't agree. Mate. For absolute clarity, I am not defending the van driver.
nickfrog said:
You're doing the confrontational thing again . No need.
It is indeed better to be balanced but can you remember me saying the opposite ? Is it worth taking a gamble like I think he did for the sake of balance ?
Hi vis doesn't really change the fact that the guy had the sun in his eyes.
Strawman arguments and binary thinking don't really interest me hence me not responding to them normally.
Look, we don't agree as I am more conservative - it doesn't make you particularly wrong nor right and it probably corresponds to the grey area between thinking "it'll be fine" and "actually that's probably a bit marginal because of that tt in the van". It's not an exact science otherwise there would never be any issues on the road.
Have you bought the Golf R btw ?
You're doing the ignoring thing again...what do you propose the cyclist was supopsed to do? It doesn't get much better than that to cross that junction, it was in NO way marginal at all. Theres plenty of other people on here making the same judgement and not one person has said the cyclist made a marginal decision to pull out. There is also no way Boardman would pipe up if there was any doubt at all as to the cyclists decision here.. No need.It is indeed better to be balanced but can you remember me saying the opposite ? Is it worth taking a gamble like I think he did for the sake of balance ?
Hi vis doesn't really change the fact that the guy had the sun in his eyes.
Strawman arguments and binary thinking don't really interest me hence me not responding to them normally.
Look, we don't agree as I am more conservative - it doesn't make you particularly wrong nor right and it probably corresponds to the grey area between thinking "it'll be fine" and "actually that's probably a bit marginal because of that t
t in the van". It's not an exact science otherwise there would never be any issues on the road.Have you bought the Golf R btw ?
As for the Golf, I have a half hour test booked on thursday with a view to running through the money, once thats on the table and assuming the half hour goes ok then i'll be requesting the extended test. Obviously not an odd request given its generated so many pages of discussion ;-)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff