[Misc] Team Bike or Team Van?

[Bozza]

[tweet]861844327068205056[/tweet]

Full link: https://twitter.com/BBCSussex/status/861844327068205056

 

[maltaseagull]

Bike rider is way too far over but that doesn't excuse the moron in the van.

 

[OzMike]

Van, the bike is in the middle of the bloody road.
He should be nicely tucked into the side, so that the van could pass, but oh no had to keep in the middle of the road, tit.

 

[n1 gull]

Unbelievable total bully throw the book at the moron in the van

 

[pb21]

The cyclist was causing some mild annoyance/being a bit silly, the van driver could have killed the cyclist.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

The cyclist is being an inconsiderate bellend, but he's not endangering anyone. The van driver however is crazy and could have seriously injured him. I'd give 5 out of 10 for twatishness for the cyclist and 9 out of 10 for white van man.

 

[pb21]

Van, the bike is in the middle of the bloody road.
He should be nicely tucked into the side, so that the van could pass, but oh no had to keep in the middle of the road, tit.

So it's ok to drive into things in the middle of the road deliberately?

 

[wolfie]

The cyclist has as much right to occupy the left hand side of the road as the motorist, who should have treated him in the same way as another car or van (ie waited until the road was clear, indicated and overtaken carefully) So no real debate about this one.

 

[OzMike]

So it's ok to drive into things in the middle of the road deliberately?

At least the van driver was considerate enough to wait till there was a nice grassy spot.

 

[OzMike]

The cyclist has as much right to occupy the left hand side of the road as the motorist, who should have treated him in the same way as another car or van (ie waited until the road was clear, indicated and overtaken carefully) So no real debate about this one.

No road tax, no rights.

 

[Bold Seagull]

VAN DRIVER SACKED

Couple of things I would note:
1. The incident is clearly preceded by something before this footage. The rider is obviously with at least one other person, probably a group. The Van driver is already beeping his horn etc. before he gets to him, and has most likely been wound up previously to getting to the rider we see.

2. The rider we see obviously feels that the van will attempt to pass him regardless of oncoming traffic and not give him enough space if he tucks in left. He therefore feels it is safe to 'take the road' to ensure the van driver will only pass if it is safe (note the central lines in the footage - the driver shouldn't be passing on this bend anyway).

Easy to make conclusions from a short bit of footage. BUT, it must take a big tough man to drive a van into a cyclist. What a cock.

Clearly cyclist wins for a quality bit of bike handling onto the grass and back onto tarmac. Cyclist enjoys the rest of his Sunday ride, van driver is now unemployed.

 

[wolfie]

No road tax, no rights.

Of course, he deserved to be injured because of that ! Incidentally, there is no such thing as road tax.

 

[heathgate]

The cyclist has as much right to occupy the left hand side of the road as the motorist, who should have treated him in the same way as another car or van (ie waited until the road was clear, indicated and overtaken carefully) So no real debate about this one.

The van driver should be prosecuted..... but the cyclist has no right to dominate a lane that probably has a 40 or 50 speed limit.. code says you should keep a consistent and appropriate speed in line with limits and prevailing conditions .... something like that.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[W.C.]

Team bike. Throw the van **** in prison.

 

[The Clamp]

No road tax, no rights.

I thinking you still have the right to life.

From the short bit of video evidence I'm team bike. Whatever happens you don't try and Deliberately hurt anyone on the roads, dangerous enough place to be as it is, without the likes of that van driver.

 

[wolfie]

The van driver should be prosecuted..... but the cyclist has no right to dominate a lane that probably has a 40 or 50 speed limit.. code says you should keep a consistent and appropriate speed in line with limits and prevailing conditions .... something like that.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

For most of that clip, overtaking is not allowed anyway - double white lines. This applies to any vehicle, including a bicycle.

 

[Peter Grummit]

Cyclist did well to stay upright.

From CPS guidelines:

Dangerous Driving
The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the RTA 1988 is committed when a person's standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

Dangerous driving is an either way offence carrying a level 5 fine and/or 6 months' custody in the magistrates' court.

In the Crown Court, the maximum penalty is 2 years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

Wherever the case is dealt with, the court must disqualify the driver from driving for at least a year and order an extended retest (section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). Where "special reasons" are found for not disqualifying the court must endorse the driver's licence with 3-11 penalty points unless there are, again, "special reasons" for not doing so.

Prosecutors should note the following relevant factors:

Both parts of the definition must be satisfied for the driving to be "dangerous" within the meaning of the Act - Section 2A(1) of the RTA 1988.
There is no statutory definition of what is meant by "far below" but "dangerous" must refer to danger of personal injury or of serious damage to property

Charging Practice
Dangerous driving includes situations where the driver has of his or her own free will adopted a particular way of driving, and also where there is a substantial error of judgement, that, even if only for a short time, amounts to driving falling far below the required standard. If the driving that caused the danger was taken as a deliberate decision, this would be an aggravating feature of the offence.

It is important to remember that the manner of the driving must be seen in the context of the surrounding circumstances in which the driving took place (for example amount of traffic, visibility, weather conditions, excess speed etc.) and these unique factors will be relevant in reaching an appropriate charging decision in each case.

The test for "dangerousness" is an objective one: persistent disregard of, say, traffic directions (be they "stop", "give way" or traffic lights) may be evidence that the manner of the driving has fallen far below the standard required, thus making a charge of dangerous driving appropriate.

The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:

racing or competitive driving;
failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or when in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home;
speed, which is particularly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions;
aggressive driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles or driving much too close to the vehicle in front;
disregard of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis, would appear to be deliberate;
disregard of warnings from fellow passengers;
overtaking which could not have been carried out safely;

 

[neilbard]

Both are pair of tw**s on this occasion!

But I'm on the side of the motorist in general the times cyclists ride two a breast they take the p**s and its dangerous!

 

[Bold Seagull]

The van driver should be prosecuted..... but the cyclist has no right to dominate a lane that probably has a 40 or 50 speed limit.. code says you should keep a consistent and appropriate speed in line with limits and prevailing conditions .... something like that.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Chief inspector Ian Vincent, Cycle Task Force, said:
"There is no specific Metropolitan police service guidance on cycle safety. We refer cyclists to the Highway Code and Transport for London's (TfL) cycling safely page, which recommends cyclists ride assertively, away from the gutter. If the road is too narrow for vehicles to pass you safely, it may be better to ride in the middle of the lane to prevent dangerous overtaking."


Duncan Pickering, cycling manager at road safety charity the Institute of Advanced Motoring (IAM), said:

"A bicycle is a vehicle on the road and a person riding it has the right to act like any other person on the road.We all hear of cases where someone gets too close to the left and there are very unfortunate consequences if a lorry driver doesn't see them.'Some motorists think it is a divine right to be moving at whatever speed they want and a cyclist is holding them up. I'm afraid it is tough if a cyclist holds them up. In most urban areas traffic moves slowly so a cyclist doesn't hold up traffic."


Highway Code doesn't mention cyclists 'taking a lane', but Rule 163 does clearly state a vehicle overtaking a bike or horse must give it as much room as they would another vehicle.

 

[Driver8]

For most of that clip, overtaking is not allowed anyway - double white lines. This applies to any vehicle, including a bicycle.

No it doesn't. You are allowed to overtake a slow moving vehicle (e.g. Tractor/Bike etc) on double white lines.