www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30851989
In my view, a bit of both.
The cyclist shouldn't have undertaken the van, nor near to a junction. Nor should he have called the van driver a muppet for being on the phone.
All it did was aggravate the situation. The van driver took offence (who wouldn't!) and swerved into the side of the road. Then let his fists do the talking.
Daftest thing of all though was his company's name all over the van. If you're going to do anything daft in a vehicle, then make sure a name or phone number aren't sign written all over it.
The cyclist was never going to stand a chance tackling a 2 ton steel box on wheels. Perhaps his camera made him feel braver?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 17 Jan 15 at 17:13
|
The cyclist is a bit of an arrogant dick, but the van driver is a total a***. You can't go round smacking people just because they're irritating.
However, there is neither a law against being an arrogant dick nor against being a total a***.
The Police need to get on with more pressing matters.
|
There is more of this video elsewhere. The cyclist didn't undertake. He had been going a lot faster and slowed down (to allow the truck in front of the van to turn left), and cyclists cannot be expected to stop if traffic alongside them stops (just as on a motorway if a lane outside you slows you don't slow to the same speed).
The van driver shouldn't have been on the phone, nor should he have deliberately driven into the cyclist, so he is most at fault. The cyclist should have been less aggressive, and yes maybe the camera made him feel stronger?
|
>> There is more of this video elsewhere. The cyclist didn't undertake.
youtu.be/GFEyULCsUZ0?t=48s
Approx 48 secs in.
Van overtakes cyclist, then slows down because bin lorry in front turns left. The cyclist undertakes the van instead of slowing down behind it. If that's not undertaking then I don't know what is. Looking at the camera footage further, the cyclist keeps looking back after undertaking, obviously wanting an argument with the driver.
>> cyclists cannot be expected to stop if traffic alongside them stops
Why not. Does the highway code not apply to them?
>> (just as on a motorway if a lane outside you slows you don't slow to the same speed).
But on a motorway the vehicles are in separate lanes. In this scenario both the bike and van were sharing the same lane.
|
>> Why not. Does the highway code not apply to them?
Which bit of the HC says a two wheeled road user (pedal or powered) cannot filter past stationary or slower vehicles if spare permits?
|
>> Which bit of the HC says a two wheeled road user (pedal or powered) cannot
>> filter past stationary or slower vehicles if spare permits?
Which bit says that they can?
|
>> Which bit says that they can?
The HC contains a mixture of MUST (required by law) and should (advice). What's not prohibited ot advised against is entirely permissible.
Rule 72 clearly anticipates that cyclists might 'undertake' and the need to watch out for them.
|
>> Rule 72 clearly anticipates that cyclists might 'undertake' and the need to watch out for
>> them.
Rule 67. take care when overtaking (see Rules 162 to 169). (We'll assume it's the same for undertaking as it's still a passing manoeuvre)
Rule 162. Before overtaking you should make sure the road is sufficiently clear ahead.
It wasn't. A bin lorry was slowing down and turning left.
Rule 163. Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so.
It wasn't safe.
Rule 167. DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users.
He came into conflict with another road user.
|
>> >> Rule 72 clearly anticipates that cyclists might 'undertake' and the need to watch out
>> for
>> >> them.
>>
>> Rule 67. take care when overtaking (see Rules 162 to 169). (We'll assume it's the
>> same for undertaking as it's still a passing manoeuvre)
I can hear a sound like a barrel being scraped.....
|
>> I can hear a sound like a barrel being scraped.....
No. That'll be the handlebars of the bike scraping the ground.
|
>> >> Which bit of the HC says a two wheeled road user (pedal or powered)
>> cannot
>> >> filter past stationary or slower vehicles if spare permits?
>>
>> Which bit says that they can?
Section 88 Rules for Motorcylcists which says:
" Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."
Thus explicitly allowing the practice of filtering
|
>>
>> Which bit of the HC says a two wheeled road user (pedal or powered) cannot
>> filter past stationary or slower vehicles if spare permits?
>>
The bit that says that if your section of road ahead is blocked, you have to slow down, not assume that you can ease over into someone else's lane?
It seems to me thare was space for the van to get past, but the cyclist was coming up on the inside and hoped to nip across in front of the van.
|
>> >> Why not. Does the highway code not apply to them?
>>
>> Which bit of the HC says a two wheeled road user (pedal or powered) cannot
>> filter past stationary or slower vehicles if spare permits?
>>
When I took my motorbike test I was told that the examiner would expect me to filter (but sensibly), even if they were following in a car. And that not doing so would lead to a fail. "What's the point of riding a motorbike if you don't make progress through the traffic?"
|
>> When I took my motorbike test I was told that the examiner would expect me
>> to filter (but sensibly), even if they were following in a car. And that not
>> doing so would lead to a fail. "What's the point of riding a motorbike if
>> you don't make progress through the traffic?"
Exactly. Two wheeled road users expect to filter through traffic and others should expect them to do so. Those trying to find a highway code provision preventing it are tilting at windmills.
It does though need to be done safely, it's always risky on nearside. Not just left turns as I've pointed out here but passengers bailing out in jams, pedestrians stepping off kerb, poor carriageway shoulders, gutter clutter and storm drains are all hazards.
In central London traffic it's usually safer on the offside, where people expect to be passed.
|
>> Exactly. Two wheeled road users expect to filter through traffic and others should expect them to do so. Those trying to find a highway code provision preventing it are tilting at windmills.
>>
>> It does though need to be done safely,
Indeed.
And in that clip it was not.
When travelling, be it car, van, bicycle motorbike or by foot, I always attempt to make progress without forcing other roadusers to change direction, slow or speed up.
Not easy, I'll admit but that's my personal aim.
One of my bugbears is fellow bikers filtering and forcing traffic to swerve to miss them...
|
I believe this was Hornchurch on Essex side of London.
There's no reason not to filter past the van, it's what happens in busy urban traffic. It's better done on the offside though and unless cyclist had more assurance than is evident on vid that van was not going to turn left he was a Muppet for putting himself in that position. Not relevant to what happened next though as van did go straight on.
'Calling' motorists in the phone is best avoided. OTOH there are so many and often not in full control of their vehicles, risking others lives for a chat with girlfriend or whatever, that it can be very tempting.
The driver didn't swerve to side of road involuntarily; he deliberately used the van to knock the cyclist off. He could have turned the other cheek, ignored the shout or stopped the call and made an apologetic gesture.
Unless you assume every driver is a psychopath who is prepared to use his vehicle as a weapon there was no 'tackling a 2ton steel' box.
Your comment about the camera says more about you than about the cyclist. How come you don't offer the same gibe to motorists in here when dash cams are suggested?
|
>> Your comment about the camera says more about you than about the cyclist. How come
>> you don't offer the same gibe to motorists in here when dash cams are suggested?
Cams in general have made some people braver. And in some circumstances even bigger idiots.
|
>> unless cyclist had more assurance than is evident on vid that van was not going to turn left he was a Muppet for putting himself in that position. Not relevant to what happened next though as van did go straight on.
>>
The driver didn't swerve to side of road involuntarily; he deliberately used the van to knock the cyclist off. He could have turned the other cheek, ignored the shout or stopped the call and made an apologetic gesture.
1/ The cyclist would not have known that the van wasn't about to turn left so should have slowed/stopped.
2/ he cut dangerously between the truck and van, probably making the van hit the brakes harder than he would have needed to.
3/ he was riding head down - that's apparent by the view whilst riding, against the view when looking backwards at the driver, so wasn't reading the road properly.
4/the van should have held back, but he didn't, which caused a problem for him, ie had he not moved to the left, then he would have at least clashed mirrors with the Renault coming the other way (2.34)
Conclusion? Two muppets that both need to understand how to act on the public highway.
Also, hard to tell but it looks as if the cyclist MAY have tried to grab the drivers hands/ push him away before the driver started hitting him (1.15)
|
>> 1/ The cyclist would not have known that the van wasn't about to turn left
>> so should have slowed/stopped
As my post makes clear, I agree. The cyclist was a Muppet passing the van in that way unless he had more assurance than we can see that it wasn't going left.
>>>> 2/ he cut dangerously between the truck and van, probably making the van hit the
>> brakes harder than he would have needed to.
No he didn't. At best he was alongside. The van was impeded by the slower truck, not the faster cyclist.
>> 3/ he was riding head down - that's apparent by the view whilst riding, against
>> the view when looking backwards at the driver, so wasn't reading the road properly.
I don't think you can assume that. The camera's angle relative to it's mount on his helmet is an unknown.
>> 4/the van should have held back, but he didn't,
Agree
>> Also, hard to tell but it looks as if the cyclist MAY have tried to
>> grab the drivers hands/ push him away before the driver started hitting him (1.15)
So it's an offence for a cyclist to pre-empt a walloping?
|
>> >>>> 2/ he cut dangerously between the truck and van, probably making the van hit
>> the brakes harder than he would have needed to.
>>
>> No he didn't. At best he was alongside. The van was impeded by the slower
>> truck, not the faster cyclist.
>>
>> >> 3/ he was riding head down - that's apparent by the view whilst riding, against
>> >> the view when looking backwards at the driver, so wasn't reading the road properly.
>>
>> I don't think you can assume that. The camera's angle relative to it's mount on his helmet is an unknown.
2/ I disagree..quite clearly you can see the bike move out to go around the truck, and upon looking back you can see the rider looking over the vans bonnet - unless you are watching a different video to me?
3/ I think you can - when he was looking at the driver, both on the bike looking back, and just before the thumping, the camera as giving a viewpoint you would expect to see if it was set to 'see' the same as the riders own eyes..
Last edited by: swiss tony on Sat 17 Jan 15 at 19:52
|
>> 2/ I disagree..quite clearly you can see the bike move out to go around the
>> truck, and upon looking back you can see the rider looking over the vans bonnet
>> - unless you are watching a different video to me?
Maybe we are watching different videos. At 00:03 the cyclist is alongside van and (presumably) sees driver on phone. If you judge the bike's position relative to the kerb in next few seconds there's no evidence of moving significantly to right. By 00:08 the cyclist has been knocked off and is on floor.
>> 3/ I think you can - when he was looking at the driver, both on
>> the bike looking back, and just before the thumping, the camera as giving a viewpoint
>> you would expect to see if it was set to 'see' the same as the
>> riders own eyes..
The rider can move his eyes. The camera is fixed to his helmet.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 17 Jan 15 at 20:03
|
Attempted murder by the van driver.
Must be the cyclist's fault, obviously.
|
>> Attempted murder by the van driver.
What?
|
|
Again, a pair of dicks with not much to choose between them although ultimately the van driver was physically aggressive. Why try to justify either of the idiots?
|
>> Again, a pair of dicks with not much to choose between them although ultimately the
>> van driver was physically aggressive. Why try to justify either of the idiots?
Because (ignoring his failure, which was irrelevant to the assault, to cover possibility of van turning left), apart from 'calling' the driver's use of a phone the cyclist did nothing wrong.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 17 Jan 15 at 19:40
|
>.. the cyclist did nothing wrong.
Would you ride like that carrying the rather wide cardboard box he had strapped behind him?
|
>> Would you ride like that carrying the rather wide cardboard box he had strapped behind
>> him?
It's visible for a fraction of a second AFTER the bike has been decked (so possibly displaced on impact). I cannot therefore give an opinion Whatever it is it has no bearing on the incident.
Bringing it up simply illustrates how much digging some here will do to undermine even the most clear cut cases of egregious behaviour aimed at cyclists.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 17 Jan 15 at 20:19
|
|
It was a simple question so why are the hackles up Brom?
|
Kevin.
Maybe Pavlov was in the saddle for a minute. But even if he'd had an elephant on the rear rack it had no bearing on what happened.
|
>Kevin.
>Maybe Pavlov was in the saddle for a minute.
You are still avoiding my question.
|
>> You are still avoiding my question.
It's impossible to answer properly as 'load' is only visible for a second and it's almost impossible to tell what it is. It has absolutely no relevance to what happened.
I'd happily ride 'like that' with a secure load on a proper rack. Any risk is to the load rather than rider or other road users.
|
>> >.. the cyclist did nothing wrong.
>>
>> Would you ride like that carrying the rather wide cardboard box he had strapped behind
>> him?
Its a plant
|
>> What?
What was the thought in what passes for the van drivers brain as he deliberately sideswipes a cyclist?
If it was 'I'll f*+£ing kill him' then potentially attempted murder. Red mist might be a defence or mitigation at best.
|
|
Now you're just being silly.
|
>> Now you're just being silly.
It's an improbable scenario I agree but not impossible.
|
>> >> Now you're just being silly.
>>
>> It's an improbable scenario I agree but not impossible.
so really not provable in court
|
>> so really not provable in court
>
Depends what's said at interview. A half decent brief would tell him to up the f*** shut.
OTOH , if he mouthed off at length....
TBH I'd be happy if it were prosecuted as (a) dangerous driving and (b) some form of assault.
Unfortunately Dibble and the PCS all to often waiver and go for something lesser and simple.
|
>> >> What?
>>
>> What was the thought in what passes for the van drivers brain as he deliberately
>> sideswipes a cyclist?
>>
>> If it was 'I'll f*+£ing kill him' then potentially attempted murder. Red mist might be
>> a defence or mitigation at best.
Oh get off it. You know as well as I do that there will be no "attempted murder" charge.
Dangerous driving, ABH maybe, but not murder.
|
|
Yes but the van driver could have easily killed the cyclist by driving into him like that.
|
|
I recognise that place, Butts Green Road in Hornchurch. The cyclist should know better than to give a verbal but the van driver was a bit of a psycho.
|
>> Yes but the van driver could have easily killed the cyclist by driving into him
>> like that.
Unlikely, it was a gentle, albeit undoubtedly illegal, painful and possibly injurious, sideswipe but you can't reasonably have expected death to result
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 17 Jan 15 at 18:46
|
"A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is no battle unless there be two."
Seneca, Roman philosopher. 4BC-65AD
|
“Everyone has a plan ’till they get punched in the mouth.â€
Mike Tyson
|
"There is nothing so ridiculous but some philosopher has said it."
Marcus Tullius Cicero 106 BC – 43 BC
|
>> >> Attempted murder by the van driver.
>>
>> What?
OK so I exaggerate to make a point - the point that the van driver knocked the cyclist off the bike and then stopped to beat him up. Unlikely he would die, but he could have.
Topically, where is the defence of free speech here? Or does that only apply to cartoonists?
If the cyclist was my son, I'd counsel him that you never know what sort of neanderthal or psycho you are meeting on the road. But that doesn't make it the cyclist's fault does it?
If you drive at people and start hitting them you should be going to prison - or what else is it for?
|
I have watched the video and the van driver should go to jail.
He deliberately used his car as a weapon to knock the cyclist off his cycle.
He then assaulted the cyclist.
If the cyclist was a police office on a bike what would the outcome be? I bet there would not be an appeal for the driver to hand themselves in, or for the cyclist to report the crime, there would be a man hunt for someone attempting to kill the police officer with serious jail time.
If the van driver is such an a*** to have to use violence because someone said something he didn’t like, then god forbid someone accidently spills his pint down the pub or his kid answers him back, or the next cyclist pulls away from lights too slowly.
|
>> If the cyclist was a police officer....
Then he would have had more sense than to carry out a silly manoeuvre and would have waited for the van to stop before mentioning using the phone. And he probably wouldn't have called him a muppet.
|
|
A pair of idiots that deserve each other, the vast majority of road users are capable of avoiding conflict. The skilled ones can use the road without having any effect on other road users.
|
Driver uses vehicle as weapon, knocks cyclist off bike, uses violence, and we have people looking up the Highway Code to see what the cyclist has done wrong.
Says it all about the attitude to cycling really.
|
Lovely Essex man (sic). He needs a custodial end of. He is an A***.
The cyclist should perhaps purchase some walking boots cos like a large number of cyclists (and NO Bromp, I didn't say all) he seems to think that he is superman and can do what he likes and get away with it and as proven here, life ain't like it.
|
I was in a similar position a while ago.
An ambulance carrying disabled people passed me on my bike, then braked and pulled into the kerb. I braked as hard as I could, but still used the back of the ambulance to stop, fortunately without damage to my bike (sod the damage to the ambulance)!
I lost it! Pulled up next to the driver and yelled something to the effect of them wanting to create more passengers.
The slack jawed geriatric behind the wheel just looked at me without understanding!
|
I don’t cycle now, but I do intend to take it up again later this year.
When I did cycle as a kid I was knocked off twice, once by a car pulling out of a T-Junction when I was on a main road, he didn’t see me. I was 12 and out buying a birthday present for my mum. I ended up in A&E but the police took no action against the driver.
The second time I was crossing a cross roads and a speeding car didn’t see me and knocked my off. I was about 14. It was a new Austin Ambassador and I still remember the seeing the smartly dressed woman passenger urging the driver to carry on as I lay in the road, which he did! Someone from a nearby house heard the accident and saw me in the road and did the right thing.
On both occasions it was a Saturday in daylight.
I always give as much room as possible to cyclists. They cannot move as quickly as a car and cannot stop anywhere near as quickly. Also, being cold and exerted may impair their cognitive functions so they may not perceive risks as quickly those in warm metal boxes, which is another reason to give them a wide berth and the benefit of the doubt.
Not quarter of a mile from where I live is a bridge over a railway line. It is barely wide enough for 2 cars and only 50 feet long. There is no footpath. The number of times I see cars squeezing across pushing cyclists in to the wall is frightening yet it would add no more than 15 seconds to their journey to wait and then pass the cyclist safely on the other side. The mind boggles sometimes as to what the drivers are thinking – or not!
|
|
Has anyone figured out if the cyclist was in one of the vans blind spots when it moved left, I realise that most likely the van driver did not look.
|
>> Has anyone figured out if the cyclist was in one of the vans blind spots
>> when it moved left,
No because we figured the cyclist had got briefly ahead of the van at one point, looked back at him, and shouted abuse at the van driver which would have alerted the driver, even if his clearly visible and in eye contact mate hadn't.
It was a deliberate swerve.
|
>> Has anyone figured out if the cyclist was in one of the vans blind spots
>> when it moved left, I realise that most likely the van driver did not look.
In my first post I was critical of the cyclist's positioning vis a vis the van. He was at risk of a 'left hook' if it turned unexpectedly.
That had no bearing on what actually happened. The driver was clearly aware of the rider an chose to swipe him with the van.
|
>> Driver uses vehicle as weapon, knocks cyclist off bike, uses violence, and we have people
>> looking up the Highway Code to see what the cyclist has done wrong.
>>
>> Says it all about the attitude to cycling really.
Not really, it says it all about the reaction to cyclists general attitudes. No-one woke up one morning and decided to hate cyclists and cycling.
|
>> Not really, it says it all about the reaction to cyclists general attitudes. No-one woke
>> up one morning and decided to hate cyclists and cycling.
There's a grain of truth in there and my objection to red light jumping is mostly along lines of 'bringing the game into disrepute' but the reality is much more complex.
www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate-cyclists
ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/why-do-people-hate-cyclists/
|
>>
>> If the cyclist was my son, I'd counsel him that you never know what sort
>> of neanderthal or psycho you are meeting on the road. But that doesn't make it
>> the cyclist's fault does it?
>>
No. But it would perhaps make your son more wary of cutting in past a white van on a box junction when he has no idea if it will turn left. That mindset is drummed into every rider who does police basic motorcycle training and with good reason. It's the bedrock of defensive driving which is a totally different thing to mimsing and its basic tenets should be taught to cyclists as well if they aren't already.
Disgraceful behaviour by the van driver which is bad enough IMO to put him in court; poor planning by the cyclist which luckily avoided a trip to A&E.
|
|
Watching the footage closely, the van did not knock the cyclist down. As the van pulls in he moves to the left, wobbles the front wheel which catches the kerb and falls onto the pavement. Might have been wearing clips and didn't expect van to stop, so not quick enough to release thus losing balance. Either that or he deliberately keeled over to make the van driver think he had clipped him. Doesn't excuse reaction of van driver though.
|
>>
>> Either that or he deliberately
>> keeled over to make the van driver think he had clipped him. Doesn't excuse reaction
>> of van driver though.
FFS. Is there no depth to which some of you guys won't sink to blame the cyclist.
|
>> FFS. Is there no depth to which some of you guys won't sink to blame the cyclist.
Well he was the one who started it all off. Had he not called the van driver a muppet, then both could have been on their merry way.
Seems though it's in a cyclists nature to argue all the time ;)
|
It'll all come out in the wash. I'll wager the driver will regret his knuckle grazing behaviour.
|
Either that or he deliberately
>> keeled over to make the van driver think he had clipped him. Doesn't excuse reaction
>> of van driver though.
err no. Don't think so, there definitely wasn't room between the van and the kerb to keep cycling!
|
|
And cyclists don't do a football style dive and have a lawyer on speed dial ?
|
>> And cyclists don't do a football style dive and have a lawyer on speed dial
>> ?
You need to learn to fall off gracefully and at the right time to prevent hurting yourself. Ask Bromp, its a trick he hadn't learned.
|
>> You need to learn to fall off gracefully and at the right time to prevent
>> hurting yourself. Ask Bromp, its a trick he hadn't learned.
However many times you've got it right you only have to get it wrong once.
|
>> They are both tits.
Certainly looks like it. One sees both categories on the road all the time. They keep you on your toes and tire you out.
God protect the innocent from these crazed passive-aggressive fiends.
|
|
Gis a look.
Last edited by: MD on Sun 18 Jan 15 at 21:56
|
>> Gis a look.
>>
(.)(.)
;-)
Last edited by: swiss tony on Sun 18 Jan 15 at 22:00
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30869791
It seems the cyclist does not want to press charges.
|
>> >> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30869791
>>
>> It seems the cyclist does not want to press charges.
>>
Wake up... see my 17.04 post...
|
>It seems the cyclist does not want to press charges.
I have carried out an in-depth frame by frame study of the video this evening and can see why:
If you freeze the video at exactly 1:18 you will see that the box tied to the back of the cycle is around 3 to 4ft wide.
Carrying that on the back, the bin lorry must have been very, very close trying to stay out of oncoming traffic when it passed him. To compound the problem it then pulls back sharply in front of him (freeze at 0:40) and begins to turn left. In the meantime the van has overtaken quite closely (but not as closely as the truck) and has to brake for the bin lorry.
The cyclist therefore has reasonable justification to be a bit P'd off.
However, instead of venting his frustration on the real culprit, the cyclist rides down the nearside of the van, gives the driver some grief and then reduces the available road space by riding alongside with a 4ft parcel tied on the back.
In conclusion it was the cyclist to blame.
If he'd chosen Free Delivery at the checkout none of this would have happened.
;-)
|
>> In conclusion it was the cyclist to blame.
>>
Rubbish, three aggressive road users not giving each other road space. Equally shared idiocy. The "Me first" mind set.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 19 Jan 15 at 07:34
|
>> In conclusion it was the cyclist to blame.
Cyclists are never at fault. Everyone knows that ;)
>> three aggressive road users not giving each other road space
Three? Who was the third one then?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 Jan 15 at 10:11
|
>>
>> Three? Who was the third one then?
>>
Harry Lime
|
|
Spooky. Went to see The Third Man on the big screen last Friday night.
|
>> >>
>> Three? Who was the third one then?
>>
The bin lorry driven by Harry Lime.
|
|
Let's see what the courts make of this episode, including possible RTA offences by van driver/owner. twitter.com/mpshavering/status/557102397731115008
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Mon 19 Jan 15 at 16:08
|
Who's to blame? The cyclist or van driver? - No FM2R
