[Misc] Team Bike or Team Van?

[hans kraay fan club]

Quite possibly.
Equally possible is that the riders were riding 3 abreast the driver gave a little toot to say he was there.
Got a volley of abuse while the outside rider stayed where he was in the road, to 'teach him a lesson'.

Do either things warrant being run off the road, of course not.

But in the video did the rider do everything possible to keep himself safe?
No, no he didn't.

Solely from the clip you can see, do you think it likely that the driver in question, saw the group in the distance, eased of his accelerator to keep a safe distance, and gave a gentle, friendly toot to warn them of his presence?

I'm quite happy to pass judgment that the driver is a moron, solely from the clip available. Especially so given that he chose to act in such a manner in a liveried company vehicle.

 

[Badger Boy]

I have voted for a Score Draw, I suspect there is more to the story than the 15 second clip that we saw but even putting those doubts out of mind, and judging this only on the evidence provided, I do feel the cyclist should be to the left of the lane to allow the motorist to pass. It might not be a legal requirement, but it's certainly a fair expectation. Nothing excuses the behaviour of the van driver, so I am more team Cyclist than team Van but I feel there's justification for a score draw here.

 

[Stat Brother]

Solely from the clip you can see, do you think it likely that the driver in question, saw the group in the distance, eased of his accelerator to keep a safe distance, and gave a gentle, friendly toot to warn them of his presence?

I'm quite happy to pass judgment that the driver is a moron, solely from the clip available. Especially so given that he chose to act in such a manner in a liveried company vehicle.

As said, from the clip I think, and I'm sure the rest of the geeks will agree, something happened before hand.
The fact that it's not on the clip doesn't sit comfortably with me as a person of the bike.

Again though irrespective of the initial incident it's not comparable to the actions of the driver.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I have voted for a Score Draw, I suspect there is more to the story than the 15 second clip that we saw but even putting those doubts out of mind, and judging this only on the evidence provided, I do feel the cyclist should be to the left of the lane to allow the motorist to pass. It might not be a legal requirement, but it's certainly a fair expectation. Nothing excuses the behaviour of the van driver, so I am more team Cyclist than team Van but I feel there's justification for a score draw here.

Utterly ridiculous. Seriously.

Here's a football analogy:
Referee gives a free kick to Player A, but to stop him taking it quickly, Player B picks up the ball and holds on to it whilst walking back into shape. He's acting annoyingly - I for one hate this. If Player A goes over and punches him square in FACE to get the ball back, would you consider that a 'draw' too?

 

[Nixonator]

Utterly ridiculous. Seriously.

Here's a football analogy:
Referee gives a free kick to Player A, but to stop him taking it quickly, Player B picks up the ball and holds on to it whilst walking back into shape. He's acting annoyingly - I for one hate this. If Player A goes over and punches him square in FACE to get the ball back, would you consider that a 'draw' too?

If someone punched Dean or Ramirez in the face i'd consider that a draw

 

[W.C.]

Some people seem to think people are made of rubber, or that we live in a road runner style world where the worst thing you get is a comedy lump on the head. Mental.

 

[nicko31]

You can see we're entering the closed season now

 

[Badger Boy]

Utterly ridiculous. Seriously.

Here's a football analogy:
Referee gives a free kick to Player A, but to stop him taking it quickly, Player B picks up the ball and holds on to it whilst walking back into shape. He's acting annoyingly - I for one hate this. If Player A goes over and punches him square in FACE to get the ball back, would you consider that a 'draw' too?

Actions have consequences. In this case, the consequence of the cyclist unacceptably riding in the middle of the road was an unnacceptable gesture from the van driver who has since been sacked.

Personally, I think everyone should dust themselves off and agree that the cyclist shouldn't have stayed in the middle of the road and the van driver shouldn't have deliberately run him into the grass. Both were in the wrong, to different extremes admittedly, but it's a score draw for me and doesn't need to be hyped up too much.

To use your football analogy, it's a red card for the punch and a yellow card for being a ****. Proportionate punishment for their crimes, just as it is in this van vs cyclist case.

 

[surlyseagull]

No road tax, no rights.

Sorry but does that count for an electric car or a hybrid or any other vehicle that pays nothing or next to nothing tax .

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Actions have consequences. In this case, the consequence of the cyclist unacceptably riding in the middle of the road was an unnacceptable gesture from the van driver who has since been sacked.

Personally, I think everyone should dust themselves off and agree that the cyclist shouldn't have stayed in the middle of the road and the van driver shouldn't have deliberately run him into the grass. Both were in the wrong, to different extremes admittedly, but it's a score draw for me and doesn't need to be hyped up too much.

To use your football analogy, it's a red card for the punch and a yellow card for being a ****. Proportionate punishment for their crimes, just as it is in this van vs cyclist case.

You are completely wrong about the cyclist unnaceptably riding in the middles of the carriageway (not the middle of the road, as he'd be on the white lines).
He is in the correct position for a left handed bend.

 

[neilbard]

 

[Tooting Gull]

It's a horrific piece of driving by the van, could easily have resulted in death or serious injury to the cyclist.

Mind you, I made the mistake on social media today of trying to make some more general and wider on safety and shared road use by cyclists/motorists as someone who does both - big mistake. Every now and again you get reminded it is just not worth it on Twitter!

Personally I don't think some cyclists help themselves in the country (on roads like this one) by riding 2/3 abreast talking, and in cities by shooting lights and riding on pavements although lack of infrastructure has a big part to play, and that means money.

But if people genuinely want improved safety and fewer accidents rather than just have a pop at the other lot, dialogue and action has to be better than it is now.

 

[Bold Seagull]

[MENTION=28481]neilbard[/MENTION] - getting a bit desperate now...no one is saying cyclists SHOULDN'T obey the Highway Code. No one is saying there are not proportionally equal numbers of idiots on bikes as there are in vehicles. You've been burned, I'd leave it at that...

 

[neilbard]

[MENTION=28481]neilbard[/MENTION] - getting a bit desperate now...no one is saying cyclists SHOULDN'T obey the Highway Code. No one is saying there are not proportionally equal numbers of idiots on bikes as there are in vehicles. You've been burned, I'd leave it at that...

In what way have I been burned? Please explain.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Actions have consequences. In this case, the consequence of the cyclist unacceptably riding in the middle of the road was an unnacceptable gesture from the van driver who has since been sacked.

Personally, I think everyone should dust themselves off and agree that the cyclist shouldn't have stayed in the middle of the road and the van driver shouldn't have deliberately run him into the grass. Both were in the wrong, to different extremes admittedly, but it's a score draw for me and doesn't need to be hyped up too much.

To use your football analogy, it's a red card for the punch and a yellow card for being a ****. Proportionate punishment for their crimes, just as it is in this van vs cyclist case.

So not a 'draw' at all then. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Bold Seagull]

In what way have I been burned? Please explain.

yeah whatever, road tax, ved, highway code, I don't know, I've lost count of the number of things you've got wrong so far...

 

[mccraque]

I am pretty sure that the highway code says that you should give a cyclist as much room as you would a car when overtaking. So whereas I agree that it looks like the cyclist was being antagonistic, The van shouldn't have overtaken unless he could give that amount of space.

Cyclist being a tool or not, there's times when a car is bar clippingly close to you as a cyclist, and you've got no room to swerve around a massive pothole/broken glass or whatever that so often litter our roads. I am not saying that the cyclist in the video was doing that

I cycle. I drive. I get both sides....but White van man is an utter **** in this video. Could have killed or significantly injured the guy and all for 30 seconds road rage. Take him out of the van and I bet he's nowhere near as tough.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

The cyclist is in a safe area of the road, approaching a left hand bend, with double white lines. If you think that is goading the van driver, then you need to relearn the Highway Code.

Yes the cyclist is approaching a bend, albeit an almost non existent bend so there was no need to be pissing off faster road use on such a small vehicle and stick to the middle of his carriage way as soon as the van guy beeped him he could have moved over but he didn't, i wouldn't wind up a person in a van while on a flimsy bike, it's asking for trouble unless you know the vicars driving it.

When i ride my bike i respect other road users this guy was on a wind up.

Yes there is double white lines so the van driver waited for them to change before overtaking, so within the highway code i believe.

But i am sure you will have read it backwards and point it out to me if i'm wrong.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes there is double white lines so the van driver waited for them to change before overtaking, so within the highway code i believe.

But i am sure you will have read it backwards and point it out to me if i'm wrong.

He didn't he was clearly trying to pass while there is oncoming traffic with double lines on the road, the cyclist's position is the only thing that stops him attempting it. It is only because the oncoming traffic stops that he then overtakes, I think the white lines were completely irrelevant to him. Had the cyclist been over to the left, personally I have little doubt he would have tried to squeeze passed even with the oncoming traffic.

 

[Commander]

Cyclists are often annoying, often dangerous, and often have serious attitude problems. They don't, however, deserve to be run over.