[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.
I didn’t see a huge amount wrong with the van driving until after the box junction TBH. He left the cyclist a decent amount of room and stayed about the same distance from the kerb as he slowed at the junction, the only reason the cyclist was squeezed there was because of the rubbish lorry blocking [i]his[/i] path. After the junction, white van mans behavior is inexcusable.
The driver should not have overtaken in the first place.
rubbish - why not ? - he was making progress - his overtake was a lot clearer than the dodgy undertake by the cyclist - which wasn't the cause of the incident anyway - the prolonged look was.
People complain of cyclists going round looking for trouble with their headcams and this guy certainly looks like he fits that bill, with his spacer board on the rear of the bike.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]which wasn't the cause of the incident anyway - the prolonged look was.
Not sure if you're trolling or just stupid now.
HC Rule 162
Before overtaking you should make surethe road is sufficiently clear ahead
road users are not beginning to overtake you
there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.
[img] 
[/img]
HC Rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example...
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
flanagaj - no-one on here said that, they were just quoting a typically ridiculous and ill-informed comment made on the Daily Mail website
Argh. Ok. I like many have been subjected to such comments during the course of disagreements with Daily Mail reader drivers. I now quote what I posted, and it leaves them looking rather stupid 🙂
Said this a thousand times (looking at the glimpse of the cyclist in the clip) wear trackie bottoms tucked into socks and trainers and a hoodie and ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE GIVES YOU A WIDE PASS. Do the same fully commutered-up and you look like Daniel, the soft lad who works in administration for the council. You can almost hear the drivers thinking 'soft **** get out of my way'.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]with his spacer board on the rear of the bike.
You mean his luggage? 😯 🙄
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
the van driver didn't do that - the cyclist did not swerve.
Plus if you expect that rule to be adhered to in city driving then you are living in a dream world - everyone is trying to make progress and his overtake was fine and did not endanger the cyclist.
Hmm.People complain of cyclists going round looking for trouble with their headcams and this guy certainly looks like he fits that bill, with his spacer board on the rear of the bike.
Please don't hit me I'm this <----> wide = C'mon then! Lets 'av it!
you better show your working out coz I don't think you'll score highly with your answer
"Van driver hands himself in to police after cyclist attack video goes viral"
You mean his luggage?
stop the video and have a look at what he has on the back of his bike - a big box fashioned to give him width - nothing bad in that but then why try to undertake through a gap that is smaller than the width you have imposed on your bike?
if you expect that rule to be adhered to in city driving then you are living in a dream world
Its still the rule and still bad to break it though at least you accept it was broken
The driver is braking as he overtakes - its hard to argue there was space not least as he had to stop for something in front of him during the overtake
Its still the rule and still bad to break it though at least you accept it was broken
and 167 says not to overtake at that junction, but the cyclist did it still, and a lot more dodgily than the overtake from the van.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
the van driver didn't do that - the cyclist did not swerve.
By undertaking in a way you object to. You can't have it both ways - either the driver broke that HC rule or the cyclist's undertake was fine. Which one do you want to pick?
Junkyard has covered your "everybody does it" defence.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]stop the video and have a look at what he has on the back of his bike - a big box fashioned to give him width
You know it's that rather than something he's transporting in the same way you know that he looked at the van antagonisticly?
Please can you let us know if you're trolling?
[quote=TurnerGuy ]and 167 says not to overtake at that junction, but the cyclist did it still
That was caused by the driver's dodgy overtake (DYSWIDT?)
I am not objecting to his undertake, just saying that it was a little bit dodgy the way he did it.
And the overtake from the van did not cause any issues for the cyclist, he did not cut back in and endanger the cyclist.
And the vans overtake was far, far better than the really dodgy, and possibly life-threatening, overtake from the tipper truck who cut right back in sharply.
I wonder what is in that big box strapped to the bike?
[quote=TurnerGuy ]I am not objecting to his undertake
Simply saying that it was what resulted in the incident?
And the overtake from the van did not cause any issues for the cyclist
Because he overtook the van again, which I think we all agree was probably the wrong thing to do. So if he's done the right thing he'd have been forced to brake due to the overtake.
And the vans overtake was far, far better than the really dodgy, and possibly life-threatening, overtake from the tipper truck who cut right back in sharply.
Yeah, what about that?
I wonder what is in that big box strapped to the bike?
I believe TurnerGuy's already worked out that that's where he keeps his sword of self righteousness.
And so the reasoned debate continues to degrade into big hitter territory...... 🙄
