[quote=aracer ]
scotroutes » Van overtakes on zig-zags - WTF???
I checked up on that, and not actually illegal or breaking the HC to overtake a cyclist there. The HC says vehicle, but the law referenced specifically says motor vehicle. Not good practice maybe, but amongst all the other stuff in that video it's kind of irrelevant.Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I'd always assumed that it includes bikes too.
[quote=theocb ]
these words do not go together.Yes they do. See my post just above yours.no mitigating circumstances. However,
Yes they do.We have a winner 😀
A double trailer logging lorry did exactly this to me on the road running down Loch Ness. Fortunately, I was able to bunny hop sideways up the (5") kerb. Chased him for a few miles before coming to my senses.
Firmly on the side of the cyclist here. Pointless overtake by a wannabe silverback.
Staggering to me that people are saying the cyclist gave the van driver (who was on the phone and would immediately be banned in parts of the US/Canada) no other option but to carve him into the kerb and start pushing him about.
WTF are you guys on? The van driver is grade A chavscum.
JVL no one is saying the van driver had no other option. The fact is the cyclist DID have another option, and that was not to ride up the inside of the van.
Yes the van shouldn't have over taken him, but he did. The safest thing for the cyclist to have done at that point was to hang back. No one is questioning who is in the wrong.
All the macho men who say the cyclist wasn't wrong by going up the inside, that's fine, go ahead and do it, be macho, you are a cyclist and have rights after all, but the fact is you are more likely to end up dead than a cyclist who hangs back and just accepts they are the most vulnerable road user and therefore treats everyone who drives around in a metal box as having the potential to kill them.
Quite possibly / no doubt (depending on your stance) a poor piece of cycling, a fair chance that cyclist goes 'looking for trouble' for want of a better phrase, and a disgraceful response from the driver.
There's often a 'but he did this first and he shouldn't have' undertone to these driving discussions. It doesn't matter.
For those saying the the event was 100% avoidable...maybe..for us cycling gods.
But...imagine it's your slightly nervous other half, or less experienced teenage child cycling on a busy road for the first time (after getting used to cycling with dad on the more quiet routes). Yes, they make a little faux pas...do THEY deserve to get rammed off the road??.
It's like that Australian driving advert... [b]people make mistakes. You make mistakes.[/b] no one deserves their own mistakes to have someone else amplify the stress and danger of them.
DrP
[quote=FunkyDunc ]All the macho men who say the cyclist wasn't wrong by going up the inside
Hadn't realised I was a macho man. The cyclist wasn't wrong to go up the inside (personally I'd argue that he was just riding, as the van never completed the overtake properly). Hence not in any way to blame for the incident at all.
I'm happy to agree that from the perspective of riding in the safest way possible it wasn't a very good idea, but that's not exactly what some people are suggesting, and to be honest a complete irrelevance. If we're going there, then I'd suggest that the distance he's riding from the kerb is a bigger issue.
This has now made our favourite newspaper - the surprising thing to me is the lack of anti-cyclist comments. Maybe the knuckle draggers haven't woken up yet.
http://www.****/news/article-2912039/Shocking-moment-cyclist-knocked-bike-assaulted-swearing-van-driver.html
Also a newspaper we seem to tolerate slightly more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/virals/11349859/Watch-Cyclist-knocked-off-bike-then-attacked-by-van-driver.html
But it is possible for the driver to be 100% to blame for knocking the cyclist off his bike, getting out of the van and violently abusing the cyclist AND there have been ways possible for the cyclist to avoid being in a position where this happened to him.
Yep, the cyclist could've driven instead. 🙄
Forget the microanalysis of the rider's / van's road position. Is it EVER excusable to physically assault someone?
No.
From personal experience it seems like physical violence is the first resort for many in the UK now. Not a good situation.
Is it EVER excusable to physically assault someone?No.
Agreed. That bit's very, very easy. There has been no argument about that whatsoever. It's such an easy, cut and dried point that the conversation moved on to a different aspects of the incident.
From personal experience it seems like physical violence is the first resort for many in the UK now. Not a good situation.
Agreed again. Scary.
Noticed from the off the rider is riding on the double-yellows, then inexplicably veers out enough to make the passing truck too close. I imagine at this point hes done a hand gesture of some sort/has got himself wound up so when the van passes (tbh) as close as all the others on this narrow road he does something similar that winds up probably a lairy bloke anyway. [b]The squeeze then the assault DO NOT make it right. Full stop though.
[/b]
TBH I've been shoved like that by a dog walker in Calderdale. I'm more concerned about the guys deliberate road move/sqeeze into the kerb than the shoving.
We wouldn't accept this instant violence or try to victim blame in any other situation.
"Did you see Dave just dragged Linda outside by her hair and slammed her head in the car door like in Lock, Stock"
"Really, why?"
"She got herself a pack of post it notes from the stationery cupboard without checking if Dave needed any"
"Well, obviously Dave over reacted but Linda could have avoided the situation if she'd been a bit more considerate. Also, I saw her ask Fred not to smoke in the office once so she's probably just looking for trouble."
Okaaaay
[quote=bails ]We wouldn't accept this instant violence or try to victim blame in any other situation.Which is why no one has done it on this thread either.
Pretty much my thoughts (after what a *ing that driver was) did wonder if the evil quote would be described as a bit ott but as you've already posted it I'll add a plus 1 🙂Bad drivers on their phones are a danger to everyone, especially cyclists which some of us on here are.Also, it's often said that for evil to triumph, all it takes is to good men to do nothing.
I'm guessing he'd prefer not to have been assaulted, it's just a pity that [i]on it's own[/i] taking some video footage round to a copshop and saying "look at this nob driving while chunnering into his fone" will get you a polite smile and "don't let the door hit you on the way out" you ave to wait until you're physically assaulted to complain about someone's irresponsible behaviour.Maybe his method is questionable but it looks like he's getting results in this case.
could have been intentional, could also have been crosswind, momentary loss of balance, or one of the myriad of other things that can happen - you know, the reason why drivers are supposed to give cyclists more than the bare minimum needed to get passed without clipping us if we stay 100% 🙂 on our line.then inexplicably veers out enough to make the passing truck too close
Hmmm, the macho me would have done pretty much as the cyclist did (apart from the gutter riding). There would have been less chance of the bin lorry or the van trying to push through that way.
The chilled me would have said nothing about the van driver being on his phone and that would have been the end of it.
Whether I actually would say something really would have depended on my mood at the time.
Ultimately the driver being on the phone is illegal and thats what probably caused the incident in the first place, the driver's inattention.
Sure the cyclist could have positioned themselves better and ridden differently, but these are not failings that we punishable by a beating.
In an ideal world nobody should have to ride (or drive) defensively, but in the real world its necessary and will continue to be necessary until everyone on the road can all play nicely. It'll never happen over here until people like the landscape gardener are taken to pieces by the legal system.
Having watched that properly with sound again, the driver seems to think that the cyclist had ridden intentionally into the side of his [s]van[/s] weapon. Whether that was genuine or blame shifting im not sure. Either way, mentalist driver.
Automatic one week driving bans for using a mobile like that while driving, with employers having to hold a job open. Every time. Needs adding to the Greens manifesto
too late to edit my last post, but if you're talking abou tthe one at 35seconds he moves out as he is passing a junction with a car approaching from the side - I do that quite a lot aswell, plenty of people stop well over the giveway line at junctionsthen inexplicably veers out enough to make the passing truck too close
nah, after the muppet comment the van definitely pulls closer to the pavement until it hits the cyclist so either driver did it on purpose or is inept aswell as a psychothe driver seems to think that the cyclist had ridden intentionally into the side of his van
Its obvious the van pulls to the left into the cyclist, hence why suggested the driver was indeed a mentalist. The fact the driver actually says this further confirms he was actually oblivious that he'd just pulled in to the cyclist or wants to confuse the cyclist by blaming them.
or he was talking about the bit by the dirt lorry.
FunkyDunc - Member
The van had over taken the cyclist, the cyclist then stupidly undertook the van, and had a go at the van when the space disappeared, sorry cyclist was in the wrong for that. If he hadn't been so stupid then the incident wouldn't have happened.
The cyclist did nothing illegal. He can "filter" inside the van legally (even if it's not advisable with a van, lorry or bus). Having a go at the driver was about him being on the phone, not the space (though he might have been annoyed at that also). Verbal shout is no particular offence unless calling someone a muppet is an offence.
Only thing he did wrong was to wind up a thug and yes it's a stupid thing to do, though you shouldn't have to expect every other driver to be a thug idiot. Personally I would have looked at him and thought twice. Does seem this rider is a bit of a warrior for his cause by what I've heard of his YT account (now deleted apparently), and asking for trouble.
The van driver has bucket loads of failures though before the incident, mainly in overtaking dangerously with insufficient space and of course being on the phone. Add to that attempted murder and GBH, and if it ever gets to court he'll get a pat on the back and sent off scot free.
Daily Fail are on the case, so watch for the anti-bike comments in there
http://www.****/news/article-2912039/Shocking-moment-cyclist-knocked-bike-assaulted-swearing-van-driver.html
Had the driver been "foreign" then attitudes would be very different. Probably down as an act of terrorism and the police would be all over it.
It's bugger all to do with what's illegal / legal . It's more about minimising risk, and that put him at more risk
A lorry was turning left, a van was in front of him, yet he decided to go up the inside
Presumably it's not essential to find the victim in order to prosecute the perpetrator. There's clear evidence of a crime there, that should be enough to trigger an investigation and ask what the perpetrator has to say for himself.
I guess from now on bike rage incidents will be followed by violent theft of the camera. The ante is raised.
Be interesting to see if footage like this hitting mainstream news sites will make people consider how vulnerable cyclists can be on the roads.
Essex cops are trying to trace the victim. Seems he doesn't want to be involved though, or maybe as suggested earlier he's been talking to lawyers if he's got history of incidents like this on video.
I would think the police can't act on the video alone. Driving offence is minimal on the video, can't see him on the phone. Running over the bike they could do him for but probably too costly to take to court for the outcome of a few points on his licence if that, and punching the guy probably requires the "victim" to press charges. I think unless there's proof of injury to make it GBH, it's just common assault or something and needs someone to make a complaint.
I question why hes filming his commute- that says hes had near misses before. Whether it to do with a mix of riding/driving fault or driving who knows but when I had two near misses I stopped cycling into town. Those near misses (in my case) were one lunatic who threatened to run me over from behind next time and a lorry driver with dark shades on in a autumn dark morning.
Lee Taylor - You ****in' run under me, ya ****!
Impressive move by the cyclist...
and punching the guy probably requires the "victim" to press charges
A crime's a crime, it's presumably the CPS's choice whether to prosecute, not the victim's.
But I'm just guessing, any legal folks know about this?
I question why hes filming his commute
Because he doesn't want to be left in the lurch if he's involved with a 'non-stop' driver, or a driver makes a false counter accusation? So that there's a clear record of what's happened?
I film my commute (but don't put it on Youtube :wink:) for insurance purposes. The police (round here anyway) really don't care what drivers do to you when you're on a bike*, but at least if I've got the camera then the prat who's run me over is going to get stung in the pocket because he can't wriggle out of liability on the insurance front.
*A few years back a driver came up behind me on a residential road, beeped his horn, then overtook over a hump back bridge. He met a car coming the other way so side-swiped me then stopped, got out, ran over, knocked me to the ground and punched my in the face half a dozen times while I was lying tangled up in my bike because I "hit his car". He told the police "I beeped my horn at a cyclist but he didn't get out of the way so I punched him" (I swear, word for word!). The police told me there was nothing wrong with the driving and asked him to write a letter of apology because it was either that or nothing. He wrote "I regret that we bumped into each other". 🙄
Edit: As for charging without a victim. Driving offences obviously can be dealt with without a victim reporting the crime. Some others can too, e.g. I think affray can, but assault would need a victim (IANAL).
From the CPS website, affray is :
Under section 3 of the Act, it must be proved that a person has used or threatened:
unlawful violence;
towards another;
and his conduct is such as would cause;
a person of reasonable firmness;
present at the scene;
to fear for his personal safety.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_offences/#Affray
whereas assault is:
"An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force" so you'd need the victim to say "I apprehended/feared/expected the immediate infliction of unlawful force" for an assault to have been committed.
Some of the comments on here remind of those Daily Mail readers making comments such as -
'What did she expect going out dressed like that'.
Why would we want to place any blame on the cyclist?
It's not blame apportionment.
There's only one person running a cyclist off the road with a tonne and half of van, and only one person doing the shoving and the punching.
What people are doing is picking apart the incident with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (not available to the cyclist at the time) and the knowledge that the driver is a moronic thug (again, ^...), and trying to work out what somebody else could do in a similar situation to avoid it happening to them.
It's learning, not blame-storming.
Why would we want to place any blame on the cyclist?
the incident certainly wouldn't have happened if the cyclist hadn't made that dodgy move to undertake just before the hatched box...
I don't think that he would have passed his cycling proficiency test, if they still existed.
When cyclists start paying road tax and insurance I'll start feeling sorry for them. They act as if they own the road and yet pay absoluteley nothing for it. And what's with all the head cams ? They are out there looking for a fight. Glad this guy got what he deserved.
on the daily fail website...words fail me...
the incident certainly wouldn't have happened if the cyclist hadn't made that dodgy move to undertake just before the hatched box...
that's not relevant to the violent assault.
*A few years back a driver came up behind me on a residential road, beeped his horn, then overtook over a hump back bridge. He met a car coming the other way so side-swiped me then stopped, got out, ran over, knocked me to the ground and punched my in the face half a dozen times while I was lying tangled up in my bike because I "hit his car". He told the police "I beeped my horn at a cyclist but he didn't get out of the way so I punched him" (I swear, word for word!). The police told me there was nothing wrong with the driving and asked him to write a letter of apology because it was either that or nothing. He wrote "I regret that we bumped into each other".
Flipping heck. Are you going to leave it there? Not sure I could.
what's their STW login?When cyclists start paying road tax and insurance I'll start feeling sorry for them. They act as if they own the road and yet pay absoluteley nothing for it. And what's with all the head cams ? They are out there looking for a fight. Glad this guy got what he deserved.
that's not relevant to the violent assault.
yes it is, if he had been riding a bit better the incident wouldn't have happened.
When cyclists start paying road tax and insurance I'll start feeling sorry for them
they have a point about insurance.
quite a few of us do have it you know, not that I think I'm about to inadvertently cause several thousand pounds worth of damage mind - just so I can tell ill informed idiots* to STFU 🙂they have a point about insurance.
*just to be crystal clear, that wasn't aimed at you TG
yes it is,
No. It's not.
*just to be crystal clear, that wasn't aimed at you TG
it's ok, I have liability insurance as well.
As was pointed out on an insurance thread recently, it seems if you've got contents insurance covering the bike away from home then chances are you have 3rd party insurance anyway. Which I didn't know. Still not entirely convinced it's intended to cover you crashing into someone though. It's more about liability cover for personal possessions. If your bike was stored somewhere and fell on someone, or that kind of thing.
yes it is, if he had been riding a bit better the incident wouldn't have happened.
The person who's responsible for the violent assault is the person who did it not the victim.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]that's not relevant to the violent assault.
yes it is, if he had been riding a bit better the incident wouldn't have happened.
As discussed above, not only is there nothing much wrong with his riding, but it is as relevant as the fact that he got out of bed in the morning, or that he chose to use a bike rather than a car. Or that a woman went out wearing a short skirt.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]When cyclists start paying road tax and insurance I'll start feeling sorry for them
they have a point about insurance.
🙄 Most cyclists have insurance - I reckon the proportion of uninsured is probably not too dissimilar to the proportion of uninsured car drivers - the latter are of course far more likely to do far more damage to 3rd parties.
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/accident-insurance-3
Jesus Christ people, the situation was the guy didn't ride perfectly, could that have been resolved without him being knocked over and assaulted, yes it could. Was it, no. End of, the driver was out of order by a massive margin above that of the cyclist. There should be no need for a group of 'road users' of any description to fall out about this so SORT IT OUT.
I am a road user, whether that be on foot as a pedestrian, on a bike as a cyclist, or in the car I pay a VED and insurance bill for yearly. As each of these I both accept that I have a responsibility to act responsibility and also to treat others with respect.
[quote=deadkenny ]As was pointed out on an insurance thread recently, it seems if you've got contents insurance covering the bike away from home then chances are you have 3rd party insurance anyway. Which I didn't know.
You beat me to it. But just to clarify, it's any contents insurance, you don't need to have cover for your contents away from home, the personal liability cover is a standard part of the policy whether or not you take that out.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30846362 ]made the bbc website now.[/url] He'll probably hand himself in soon.
How big do we think is the financial loss caused to people/companies/organisations by people riding around uninsured on bikes and causing accidents?
It's a genuine question..I have no idea, but I suspect its a very small number indeed or the courts would be full of claims for damages against cyclists and I don't think they are.
Obviously there are some instances where a mistake by someone riding a bike causes a financial loss, but is it really worth bringing in a bureaucracy to legislate and manage that cyclists should have insurance?
Bearing in mind that cycling organisations give away insurance for free to members anyway the cost of providing it must be very low, so presumably any successful claims on it are negligible.
Motor Insurance is a special case as the damages and financial loss a car can do to others is often very large, so it makes sense to ensure that anyone who wishes to drive one carries some sort of guaranteed ability to cover costs if they were to **** up. For other activities, this level of indemnity is probably unrealistic, although obviously it doesn't exempt eg walkers, cyclists, skateboarders, wheelchairists and pogostickers from liability if they were to cause an accident...it's just that they are orders of magnitude less likley to to cause big costs if they do.
Where would you draw the line re compulsory insurance...a 3 year old on an Islabike balancebike in the park?
No. It's not.
yes it is...
They gave him space as they overtook, moved back into the lane and then carried on parallel to the curb, not cutting him out and actually leaving that space he was trying to undertake into.
He then antagonistically looked at the passenger as he undertook as if they were doing something wrong whereas their driving looked pretty reasonable for city center driving.
If he hadn't have done that then there would not have been the incident.
The cyclist may have contributed to the erm, shall we say "point of contention"* but only 1 person escalated it to a traffic incident (contact between vehicle/person) and then escalated it to further to physical assault.
*but this seems to stem from the fairly universal thought that motorists should be able to overtake a cyclist at any point and the cheeky oiks shouldn't then reciprocate when motorist then gets held up, and of course people don't take criticism of their driving very well on the whole.
apart from driving whilst on the fone.their driving looked pretty reasonable for city center driving.
Not really sure why some people struggle to accept that you can say that the cyclist may have done stuff that was less than ideal, while also saying that IN NO WAY MEANS IT WAS HIS FAULT that he got assaulted.
Friend of mine left her bike unlocked on the back of her truck outside a shop - it got nicked. The only people to blame are the scumbags that nicked it, that doesn't mean that leaving your bike unlocked outside a shop is a good plan though.
It really does seem like everything has to be black and white for some people or they genuinely can't handle it.
[quote=gwaelod ]How big do we think is the financial loss caused to people/companies/organisations by people riding around uninsured on bikes and causing accidents?
...
Bearing in mind that cycling organisations give away insurance for free to members anyway the cost of providing it must be very low, so presumably any successful claims on it are negligible.
As explained in my link above, household insurers give it away for free as well.
Find myself somewhat dumbfounded some people think the cyclist was responsible for being assaulted rather then the assaulter. Nothing else to say really. /out.
He then [i]antagonistically[/i] looked at the passenger
Inference much!? how do you know how he looked at them? All you know is his head/camera turned in that direction. And since when does looking at someone funny get you a beating anyway?
whereas their driving looked pretty reasonable for city center driving.
Comparing crap driving to lots of other crap driving doesn't mean it was reasonable.
Ask yourself if driving like that in a driving test would get you a mark?
Since the driving test is the [i]bare minimum requirement [/i]to be allowed to legally drive on our roads, anything that would get you marked down in a test is not really reasonable*, whether other people do it as well or not.
*obviously occasional leeway required for genuine mistakes for any road user, but you're still in the wrong if you do it. And the standard of driving and action from other road users should be enough to ensure that any minor mistake doesn't earn you a collision or a kicking.
And that's before you even open the can of worms that is the driver being on the phone.
whilst I agree I think the courts tend to differ, doing stuff that would probably have the examiner telling you to stop the car so he could walk back to the test centre seems to pass the "reasonable" test when argued in court.Since the driving test is the bare minimum requirement to be allowed to legally drive on our roads
their driving looked pretty reasonable for city center driving.
Overtaking when unsafe
Using phone whilst driving
Knocks cyclist off bike with vehicle
Aye it is indeed reasonable driving and no mistake
yes it is...
It's still not.
They gave him space as they overtook, moved back into the lane and then carried on parallel to the curb, not cutting him out and actually leaving that space he was trying to undertake into.
Cyclist is allowed to make progress.
He then antagonistically looked at the passenger as he undertook as if they were doing something wrong whereas their driving looked pretty reasonable for city center driving.
Impossible to tell from the video
If he hadn't have done that then there would not have been the incident.
Doesn't matter. He did not behave in a manner which warranted criminal assault. There is only one person in the wrong here and it's not the cyclist.
Find myself somewhat dumbfounded some people think the cyclist was responsible for being assaulted rather then the assaulter. Nothing else to say really. /out.
Your life must be quite difficult if you are dumbfounded by things which you have only imagined happening.
whilst I agree I think the courts tend to differ, doing stuff that would probably have the examiner telling you to stop the car so he could walk back to the test centre seems to pass the "reasonable" test when argued in court.
Sadly yes 🙁 but that's a whole other topic right there!
Inference much!? how do you know how he looked at them? All you know is his head/camera turned in that direction.
why did he turn to look in that direction for so long then if not to look at the van ?
Comparing crap driving to lots of other crap driving doesn't mean it was reasonable.
watch again, the van didn't do anything bad until he cut in to knock the cyclist down, before then it was normal driving.
Overtake was unnecessary otherwise the cyclist wouldn't have been able to undertake him straight away.
When cyclists start paying road tax and insurance I'll start feeling sorry for them. They act as if they own the road and yet pay absoluteley nothing for it. And what's with all the head cams ? They are out there looking for a fight. Glad this guy got what he deserved
A slight correction is required here. Road tax is based on vehicle emissions and engine size. Do you have the same argument with cars that don't have to pay road tax due to their low emissions?
why did he turn to look in that direction for so long then if not to look at the van
Your claim was that he looked at them antagonistically not that he looked at the van.
IE you said he looked in a certain way not at a certain thing
I only read the last post... there really are some pillocks blaming the cyclist, aren't there?? Don't answer, I ain't reading any more. Maybe he was carrying an offensive helmet light, maybe he [i]looked[/i] in the wrong direction at the wrong time. Bloody cyclists eh. 🙄
it was normal driving.
is it normal to use your phone?
is it normal to overtake when there is not enough space to get past and you then get "undertaken" by the thing you overtook?
Some of the areguments on here are at least intellectually defendable if untrue Yours is just factually untrue unless you wish to call illegal and poor judgement "normal driving" - you may have a point there 😉
flanagaj - no-one on here said that, they were just quoting a typically ridiculous and ill-informed comment made on the Daily Mail website
Yup, normal, everyday, not-that-good city driving up to the stop at the dust cart turning. Not very attentive (on the phone) not a lot of foresight, automatically overtaking the cyclist despite the turning lorry ahead, not realising (or caring) that he was boxing in a cyclist at the upcoming stop.
That sort of driving winds me up, but thug in the van probably didn't even think. Cyclist then responds to this with an undertake at a risk spot, then cuts in front of the van, just as the van has enough room to start moving.
If someone cuts you up while you're driving, if you then take the next opportunity to cut them up, is that standing up for yourself in the face of bad driving, or is it more bad driving?
2 wrongs don't make a right.
And:blah, blah, blah - done it to death already: None Of This Excuses The Voilent Actions That Followed, It's Just An Attempt To Understand What Happened And Learn From It, That's All.
Or NOTETVATFIJAATUWHALFITA, if anyone needs to copy and paste for later.
He got punched because he [i]looked at the van[/i]? Seriously?
That's up there with being arrested for wearing a loud shirt in a built up area.
is he wearing the shirt antagonistically?
thought they were seeking the cyclist, I should hope with the evidence available they already know exactly who the driver is even with our hard pressed underfunded police force and the low priority cycling related incidents seem to garner.made the bbc website now. He'll probably hand himself in soon.
So more a case of giving them a call rather than handing himself in no?
I'll add it to the lexiconOr NOTETVATFIJAATUWHALFITA, if anyone needs to copy and paste for later.
just watching the first 30 seconds of that video (before the van incident) reminds me why there are so few people using bikes as part of their daily life in the UK. small, narrow lanes (not helped by bollards) and the sheer volume of traffic.
i returned "home" over christmas to Chelmsford (not really "home") and was shocked at the number of cars going through town on a normal day. at rush hour it was crazy bad.
**** commuting by bike through that. in fact, sod it all together.
maybe i'm lucky here in Germany that there are separated bike paths running paralell to just about every major road. many of the bike paths are not ideal, but they do prevent you putting yourself in the wrong position.
Cyclist cuts in front of van just as the rubbish truck is clear enough for the van driver to get past.I wouldn't done that, it would have failed my "Dick Move? Y/N" test, even given the previous dick move by the van driver. What's the point?
+1
rider could have avoided the incident if he held back just a touch and let the van go. he may have been in the "right", but he could have saved himself a lot of trouble.
i had an incident a few years back where a woman accelerated past me leaving <3" between her mirror and my bars. i saw red. pelted past her and blocked her turn onto a large 6 lane road. she stopped. and the then gunned it into me. fortunately i sprung off the bike and managed to ninja-roll my way to safety.
since then i've been less reluctant to put myself infront of cars with idiot drivers.
take it easy, guys.
the only reason he was able to undertake again so quickly was because of the vehicle in front of the van turning left. He then undertook across the junction, which is something the highway code advises not to do.
As I say he was passed with reasonable distance.
The cyclist was shit undertaking him but the behaviour of the van driver is unjustifiable.
"Aracer - As explained in my link above, household insurers give it away for free as well."
Aye - soz..post crossed
the only reason he was able to undertake again so quickly was because of the vehicle in front of the van turning left. He then undertook across the junction, which is something the highway code advises not to do.
The driver should not have overtaken in the first place.
[quote=nedrapier ]Cyclist then responds to this with an undertake at a risk spot, then cuts in front of the van, just as the van has enough room to start moving.
At which point does he cut in front of the van? I've watched several times and still can't spot it.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]the only reason he was able to undertake again so quickly was because of the vehicle in front of the van turning left. He then undertook across the junction, which is something the highway code advises not to do.
As I say he was passed with reasonable distance.
The vehicle which was slowing down and indicating before the van overtook. There was nowhere near as much space as the HC recommends on the overtake.