# I hope he reported him.



## Venod (5 May 2017)




----------



## Drago (5 May 2017)

Holy Trump!


----------



## Slick (5 May 2017)

Crazy.


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

I hate these context free videos. Did it happen last week/last month/last year? Were the police contacted?
That wasn't posted by the person who recorded it, just bike-focus viral company on FB.

Anyone know the original source?


----------



## JohnHughes307 (5 May 2017)

The company now has 7 one-star reviews on Google


----------



## Drago (5 May 2017)

Is it real, or an episode of Some Mothers Do 'ave 'em?


----------



## snorri (5 May 2017)

The cyclist didn't appear to check for following traffic before pulling back on to the road, did he know that the camera operator would be holding back?


----------



## Venod (5 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Anyone know the original source?



It came up on my FaceBook feed via a friend, they do have a Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/bikecomesfirst/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

snorri said:


> The cyclist didn't appear to check for following traffic before pulling back on to the road, did he know that the camera operator would be holding back?


Probably wasn't thinking that clearly at all, consider a second before he probably thought he was about to die.

And I would hope any any vehicle who was following would treat another road user being pushed off the road as an opportunity to overtake them.


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

Afnug said:


> It came up on my FaceBook feed via a friend, they do have a Facebook page.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/bikecomesfirst/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf


Yeah, that's just an accumulator of likes.

I've found the video on youtube (following a link on FB), but youtube says "This video is unlisted. Be considerate and think twice before sharing."

What do you think. Should I share?


----------



## david k (5 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Probably wasn't thinking that clearly at all, consider a second before he probably thought he was about to die.
> 
> And I would hope any any vehicle who was following would treat another road user being pushed off the road as an opportunity to overtake them.


That happened to me when I pulled over for an ambulance

And they beeped 

Edit, I was in a car


----------



## damj (5 May 2017)

Tin hat at the ready - curious as to why the rider is so far in the middle of the road. White vans in the town where I work don't take any prisoners


----------



## Biff600 (5 May 2017)

damj said:


> curious as to why the rider is so far in the middle of the road.



I was thinking the same !


----------



## Markymark (5 May 2017)

damj said:


> Tin hat at the ready - curious as to why the rider is so far in the middle of the road.


Double white line so council had decided it was too dangerous to allow overtaking. Rider most likely took primary to avoid illegal overtaking.


----------



## cosmicbike (5 May 2017)

damj said:


> Tin hat at the ready - curious as to why the rider is so far in the middle of the road. White vans in the town where I work don't take any prisoners


Really? Double whites, oncoming traffic. Taking primary to protect himself. You will notice that he starts moving over to a decent secondary position when the solid white is single and for the oncoming traffic to note. I'd have done the same. Van driver is a tosser and should be reported.


----------



## raleighnut (5 May 2017)

I'd say it was taken from a bike of some sort (due to the wind noise) but I'd echo @damj 's comment, why was the cyclist so far out in that road, there was plenty of room for all.

*BUT,* that van driver should have the book thrown at him for the 'punishment pass'.


----------



## damj (5 May 2017)

I get your point, however, I have long stretch of double whites on my commute, many drivers don't care less about this. I value my life more than to dual with large white vans


----------



## Will Spin (5 May 2017)

cosmicbike said:


> Really? Double whites, oncoming traffic. Taking primary to protect himself. You will notice that he starts moving over to a decent secondary position when the solid white is single and for the oncoming traffic to note. I'd have done the same. Van driver is a tosser and should be reported.





raleighnut said:


> I'd say it was taken from a bike of some sort (due to the wind noise) but I'd echo @damj 's comment, why was the cyclist so far out in that road, there was plenty of room for all.
> 
> *BUT,* that van driver should have the book thrown at him for the 'punishment pass'.


I would have taken exactly the same position as the cyclist. Double white lines, oncoming traffic, left hand bend, no way was it safe to allow traffic past. The cyclist does exactly the right thing by moving in at the end of the double white lines.


----------



## smutchin (5 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> there was plenty of room for all.



There wasn't enough room for the van to pass the cyclist safely without crossing the double white lines, which would be illegal.

There's simply no excuse for the van driver's impatience. It's similar to the road I live on, though fortunately I've never had anyone try that manoeuvre on me - it's a busy main road, not very wide, with blind bends, double white lines, still get motorists overtaking when they've no idea whether or not something is coming the other way. They're just stupid. And you can bet it doesn't get them where they're going any quicker.


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

cosmicbike said:


> Van driver is a tosser and should be reported.


Should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.


----------



## raleighnut (5 May 2017)

Really, words fail me. How do you condone riding 6 feet into the carriageway just to stop a van passing on what looks to be a road with a 60mph limit.

Complete 'dickhead' behaviour from both parties on this one, but what do I know as I've only been a cyclist for the past 52yrs.


----------



## nickyboy (5 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Double white line so council had decided it was too dangerous to allow overtaking. Rider most likely took primary to avoid illegal overtaking.



Is it not the case that overtaking is permitted with double white lines providing the thing you're overtaking is travelling below a certain speed?

I'm not saying that the driver was in the right here. But can we clear up the law on solid white line overtaking?


----------



## Glow worm (5 May 2017)

[QUOTE 4789946, member: 9609"]

I really hope this does get reported to the police, and if the cyclist does not report it then maybe someone from that area would report it - was it in Scotland? I will report it if it was.[/QUOTE]

Looks like a Surrey based company. Twats.


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

Glow worm said:


> Looks like a Surrey based company. Twats.


Sussex. Edit: Yeah, it is Surrey, but they are doing work in Reigate and Brighton, and the incident happened in West Sussex apparently.

Their FB is getting rather a lot of comments.

https://www.facebook.com/Vidette-UK-Ltd-469187343216628/posts_to_page?ref=page_internal


----------



## Glow worm (5 May 2017)

And from Twitface..

*Vidette UK Ltd*_‏_ _@_*VidetteUKLtd* _4h4 hours ago_ 


_ Replying to __@_*richmchambers* 


_@_*richmchambers*_ The driver in question was immediately identified and we can reassure you that appropriate action has been taken_

Whatever 'appropriate action' means. Should be locked up.


----------



## Markymark (5 May 2017)

nickyboy said:


> Is it not the case that overtaking is permitted with double white lines providing the thing you're overtaking is travelling below a certain speed?
> 
> I'm not saying that the driver was in the right here. But can we clear up the law on solid white line overtaking?


Yes. It's 10 or 12, I forget which. Either way cyclist was exceeding it in that video.


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

Glow worm said:


> And from Twitface..
> 
> *Vidette UK Ltd*_‏_ _@_*VidetteUKLtd* _4h4 hours ago_
> 
> ...


+1

BTW, we can embed twitter now


----------



## smutchin (5 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> Really, words fail me. How do you condone riding 6 feet into the carriageway just to stop a van passing on what looks to be a road with a 60mph limit.


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

As a rider, I don't care if a driver overtakes illegally or not, that's his problem. I care if they give me enough room. If I'm close to the gutter and there is enough room to pass me unsafely inside the same lane, many drivers will do so even with oncoming traffic. But if you move out so they have to cross the line to pass you, they tend to give you enough space. I guess, once you cross the central line, you might as well go a little further. 

Whether the driver chooses to do that when there are double lines is not my problem (except if he swings back because of on coming traffic, but at least I will have warning of that an can take evasive action).

The only way the cyclist was holding up the driver by his position was if the driver wanted to pass without crossing the the double lines, and that would have definitely put the cyclist at risk of the same sort of inadvertent contact with the van that he was put in deliberately.


----------



## Tanis8472 (5 May 2017)

You may cross a double white line if overtaking a vehicle/cycle etc that is travelling at 10mph or less or passing a stationary object in the road, although you are not permitted to park on roads with double white lines.


----------



## raleighnut (5 May 2017)

smutchin said:


> View attachment 350946


I completely agree with this, the cyclist is in the road position I would use, he isn't sitting twice as far out as the guy in the clip which looks to me to be a position taken to deliberately antagonise anyone else on the road, if there was a 'pinch-point' or a junction nearby I could understand the cyclists road positioning but are you saying that if I'm on a road with 'no overtaking' double white lines I should move into the centre of the lane?


----------



## mjr (5 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> but are you saying that if I'm on a road with 'no overtaking' double white lines I should move into the centre of the lane?


Yes, basically, unless the lane is over 5m wide. I'm sure someone has a copy of the government's Cyclecraft book handy and can confirm whether it is in there.


----------



## Will Spin (5 May 2017)

I don't agree that it's a position that would deliberately antagonise other road users. Regardless of the white line, there just isn't room for a safe overtake with the oncoming traffic, so I'd move right out so that the traffic behind is discouraged from making a dangerous overtake.


----------



## raleighnut (5 May 2017)

mjr said:


> Yes, basically, unless the lane is over 5m wide. I'm sure someone has a copy of the government's Cyclecraft book handy and can confirm whether it is in there.


I'd sooner have breakfast on a plate tomorrow rather than administered by a tube.


----------



## Crackle (5 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Yes. It's 10 or 12, I forget which. Either way cyclist was exceeding it in that video.


I think it's 10. I have a similar piece of road. I've tried every position, it makes no difference, they still come past, so now I choose a few feet out and keep an eye out and just get out the farking way of the tossers who want to pass me in the same lane without crossing the line. For some reason they know they can't cross the line but they don't seem to know about the circumstances.


----------



## smutchin (5 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> are you saying that if I'm on a road with 'no overtaking' double white lines I should move into the centre of the lane?



Swings and roundabouts, innit. If the cyclist in that clip hadn't been riding that far out, the van driver would probably have tried to overtake sooner, possibly with much the same result.

In my experience, most motorists don't respond in such a hostile fashion when I take the lane. You get some who honk or drive as close as possible behind you to be intimidating, but I've never had one deliberately drive me off the road.


----------



## smutchin (5 May 2017)

Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane


----------



## raleighnut (5 May 2017)

smutchin said:


> Is it a cyclist's right to take the lane?
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane


The road in that clip isn't a 'narrow' road though and also it is a 'left hand bend', now if it was a 'right hander' with the danger of an idiot coming the other way running a bit wide into oncoming traffic then maybe you could be justified but that cyclist (and the van driver) are just being dickheads.


----------



## dfthe1 (5 May 2017)

*Rule 129*

*Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid.* This means you *MUST NOT* cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (5 May 2017)

if it was safe to overtake the Van Driver could have done it by completely crossing the white lines earlier. If it wasn't safe to overtake that way (regardless of the legalities) then it wasn't safe to overtake at all. The driver was not held up by the rider's primary positioning.


----------



## Tanis8472 (5 May 2017)

dfthe1 said:


> *Rule 129*
> 
> *Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid.* This means you *MUST NOT* cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.



Basically what I said then


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> The road in that clip isn't a 'narrow' road though and also it is a 'left hand bend', now if it was a 'right hander' with the danger of an idiot coming the other way running a bit wide into oncoming traffic then maybe you could be justified but that cyclist (and the van driver) are just being dickheads.


No, the cyclist may be a dickhead (I would argue not) but the driver is a violent and dangerous thug who should be in jail. This is just the same as if he leant out the window and fired a gun at the cyclist. His deliberate action could have easily killed the cyclist.

Or would everyone be banging on about the cyclist's riding if the driver had shot at him, as long as he missed?


----------



## winjim (5 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> No, the cyclist may be a dickhead (and would argue not) but the driver is a violent and dangerous thug who should be in jail. This is just the same as if he leant out the window and fired a gun at the cyclist. His deliberate action could have easily killed the cyclist.
> 
> Or would everyone be banging on about the cyclist's riding if the driver had shot at him, as long as he missed?


I read the thread up to this point before I watched the clip. Now I usually view these things with some skepticism as they can be a storm in a teacup, so I was wondering what the cyclist had done and what I might have done differently. I also take the view, which I think you've taken in previous threads, that bad driving doesn't necessarily need to be criminalised, but licensing be much stricter and licences taken away if drivers aren't up to standard.

Then I watched the clip. I don't give a flying fark what the cyclist was doing, that driver needs to be in prison.


----------



## steveindenmark (5 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Double white line so council had decided it was too dangerous to allow overtaking. Rider most likely took primary to avoid illegal overtaking.



But he is not a police officer. Its not his job to prevent illegal overtaking.

This all looks a bit fake to me. But if it is real. The cyclist should not have been in the middle of the road and the van driver should be in prison.


----------



## Markymark (5 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> But he is not a police officer. Its not his job to prevent illegal overtaking.
> 
> This all looks a bit fake to me. But if it is real. The cyclist should not have been in the middle of the road and the van driver should be in prison.


It's not about preventing it because it's illegal. It's illegal because it is dangerous. He's preventing a dangerous overtake.


----------



## mjr (5 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> I'd sooner have breakfast on a plate tomorrow rather than administered by a tube.


You're far more likely to end up tube fed by encouraging one of these nobbers to attempt an overtake into a blind bend or other obstruction, they then meet oncoming traffic and they choose to sideswipe you rather than collide with the other vehicle. Sideswipes are far more common than being hit from behind.

I've been taking lanes for decades, although I do prefer to avoid high conflict routes where reasonably possible. The result has been occasional honking and maybe one shout a year. No collisions yet.


----------



## mjr (5 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> But he is not a police officer. Its not his job to prevent illegal overtaking.
> 
> This all looks a bit fake to me. But if it is real. The cyclist should not have been in the middle of the road and the van driver should be in prison.


With that level of understanding of cycling practices, it's just as well you're not a police officer either


----------



## steveindenmark (5 May 2017)

looking at that clip. I cannot see how the van overtaking would be dangerous solely because those lines are on the road. We all know that highway authorities put lines on the road in the most stupid of places. Put your hands up if you have never crossed a double white line. The cyclist wasn't stopping a dangerous overtake. He was hogging the centre of the lane.


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> He was hogging the centre of the lane.


SO WHAT? Someone tried to kill him. Why are you going on about his lane position?

Let's say he was a pedestrian, on a foot path, shouting obscenities at the driver. He shouldn't do that. Do you think that would justify the driver mounting the pavement and trying to mow him down?


----------



## raleighnut (5 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> But he is not a police officer. Its not his job to prevent illegal overtaking.
> 
> This all looks a bit fake to me. But if it is real. The cyclist should not have been in the middle of the road and the van driver should be in prison.


Yep, another 'Ronnie Pickering' type incident to me, I'd love to see what happened before the clip that has been posted.

*But* I also thouroghly agree with @jefmcg , that van driver should be charged with attempted murder.


View: https://youtu.be/r0dcv6GKNNw


Notice how the moped rider 'winds up' the idiot at the start of the vid.


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> This all looks a bit fake to me.


It's real. The van livery is for a company that exists and does business in the area. There is no way they would have allowed their van to be used.

Oh, and if anyone is in Reigate, they are currently renovating the Black Horse pub there. Maybe have a word with them, or the owners.


----------



## Cuchilo (5 May 2017)

http://vidette.co.uk/ A building company for the leisure industry , lets hope they don't get a center parcs contract


----------



## boydj (5 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> looking at that clip. I cannot see how the van overtaking would be dangerous solely because those lines are on the road. We all know that highway authorities put lines on the road in the most stupid of places. Put your hands up if you have never crossed a double white line. The cyclist wasn't stopping a dangerous overtake. He was hogging the centre of the lane.



An overtake would have been dangerous because of the oncoming traffic.


----------



## steveindenmark (5 May 2017)

boydj said:


> An overtake would have been dangerous because of the oncoming traffic.


We don't know how long the saga had been going on. One the traffic had past it would not have been dangerous.


----------



## steveindenmark (5 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> SO WHAT? Someone tried to kill him. Why are you going on about his lane position?
> 
> Let's say he was a pedestrian, on a foot path, shouting obscenities at the driver. He shouldn't do that. Do you think that would justify the driver mounting the pavement and trying to mow him down?



No I don't. But you didn't bother to read my previous post.


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> No I don't. But you didn't bother to read my previous post.


You mentioned the cyclist in both posts but the driver only once. You said the rider was wrong. As him being wrong is not the criminal action here, we should stop going on about it.

And he's not wrong.


----------



## raleighnut (5 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> You mentioned the cyclist in both posts but the driver only once. You said the rider was wrong. As him being wrong is not the criminal action here, we should stop going on about it.
> 
> And he's not wrong.


He is a 'daffodil' though.


----------



## sarahale (5 May 2017)

The cyclists does hit the van with his hand when they overtake but perhaps this was more of a self defence action as he felt threatened by their close proximity. 

No excuse for what the van driver then decides to do. No good will ever come from driving, or cycling, in a rage. 

Cyclist should of moved over and reported van to police for dangerous driving rather than trying to block it himself which I feel was what he was attempting to do. I could be wrong though!


----------



## raleighnut (5 May 2017)

[QUOTE 4790255, member: 9609"]I think a great many would be bemoaning his poor shot. 

Weird isn't it how being on the highway turns normal principles upside down - even here on a cycling forum some are verging on justifying barging the cyclist out of the way.[/QUOTE]
Sorry @User9609 but I've been all the way back through the thread and can't find anyone suggesting the cyclist being 'barged' out of the way is OK, I've posted that he's a 'self righteous dick' but the van drivers action is inexcusable .


----------



## jefmcg (5 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> Sorry @User9609 but I've been all the way back through the thread and can't find anyone suggesting the cyclist being 'barged' out of the way is OK, I've posted that he's a 'self righteous dick' but the van drivers action is inexcusable .


It's implicit in the criticisms of his riding.

Time for another patented joan-analogytm

Let's imagine a similar incident where the driver was enraged by the rider's jersey, and let's further stipulate that it is a very ugly paisley pattern consisting of mostly puce and mauve** that no one in their right mind would wear, and we would take surreptitious photos of it if we saw it on the road to share on social media.

If the driver in the video leaned out the window and said "Take off that ugly jersey, you farker" and then pushed the rider off the road with his van, no one here would say (I hope!) "Yes, the driver should go to jail, but the cyclist should not have been wearing that ugly jersey"

The way many posters have been mentioning the riders position in the same "breath' as the assault suggests that those posters feel the rider is partly responsible.

** for real life examples, check some of @Accy cyclist's polls


----------



## Cuchilo (5 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> paisley pattern consisting of mostly puce and mauve


I have a mankini like that .


----------



## Globalti (6 May 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> We all know that highway authorities put lines on the road in the most stupid of places.



Highways authorities don't spend money on paint for fun; they put it in places where there's a bad accident record or an obvious hazard. The rules are actually very clear on how roads must be signed and painted.


----------



## I like Skol (6 May 2017)

What an interesting thread, I will add the voice of reason and experience now.
There is clearly much, much more to this than we are being shown and I would hazard a guess that there is a considerable amount of interaction between these two in the run up to the clip we see.
The van driver is a knuckle dragging chimp and should not be on the road for a very long time (I consider a 12-18 month ban to be appropriate for a first offence of this nature).
The cyclist needs to wind his neck in a bit because his style of self-righteous cycling is massively increasing his risk exposure when on the road.
I am both an experienced urban cyclist (I've done it all my life) and an experienced driver. I have done the 40kpa driving job in large vans. I ride on the roads with my kids. I have an inkling of what it means to share the road with ALL users.
The person riding the cyclecam that caught all this action was using the road a bit more considerately and clearly felt that they had been passed by the van in the film without undue danger or threat, or I am sure we would also be seeing that evidence of a close pass.
It is not ideal but there really was no need for the cyclist to block the road in this manner (looks as though there was a hint of weaving going on, but without the previous footage can't be sure on this) and given the limited view of the road that we are given I am sure I wouldn't be riding so obstructively. Trust me, I am no timid gutter bunny and anyone who has ridden with me will know I am certainly not afraid of being an assertive cyclist. There was no need for that incident to become the confrontation that it did and the cyclists experience of using the road could be considerably less dangerous and a lot more enjoyable if he was not so adamant in enforcing his 'rights'!


----------



## Drago (6 May 2017)

Should be a lifetime ban. If he were a shotgun owner and clubbed a cyclist with his Beretta he'd have his certificate withdrawn for life, so why should he get his licence back when he clubs someone with an equally deadly van?


----------



## winjim (6 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> What an interesting thread, I will add the voice of reason and experience now.
> There is clearly much, much more to this than we are being shown and I would hazard a guess that there is a considerable amount of interaction between these two in the run up to the clip we see.
> The van driver is a knuckle dragging chimp and should not be on the road for a very long time (I consider a 12-18 month ban to be appropriate for a first offence of this nature).
> The cyclist needs to wind his neck in a bit because his style of self-righteous cycling is massively increasing his risk exposure when on the road.
> ...


I see what you're saying, and normally I would be advocating not making our mind up until we'd seen the unedited footage, and trying to learn from it as road users, both drivers and cyclists. The trouble is, when you see an assault with a vehicle that's as bad as that, everything else sort of fades into irrelevance.


----------



## smutchin (6 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> I will add the voice of reason and experience now.



And you accuse the cyclist in the clip of being self-righteous!


----------



## Drago (6 May 2017)

Hell yeah Reiver. I've always said being alive is much nicer than being dead but righteous, not that there's evidence that was the case in this example. These plums that get into road rage are idiots, and are all to quick to moan when they get run over, thumped or stabbed. You never know what kind of butter you're dealing with.


----------



## Milkfloat (6 May 2017)

Drago said:


> Should be a lifetime ban. If he were a shotgun owner and clubbed a cyclist with his Beretta he'd have his certificate withdrawn for life, so why should he get his licence back when he clubs someone with an equally deadly van?



Personally I would have hoped the Chief Constable would not have issued the licence in the first place - now if we were talking about a Browning rather than a wishywashy Beretta the licence should have been granted without the current 3 month delay.


----------



## burntoutbanger (6 May 2017)

Their Facebook page appears to be down now, last time I looked there were loads of comments and questions about this being posted.

I drive a HGV myself and that driver should be sacked, banned for as long as the legal process allows and receive a custodial sentence.


----------



## Drago (6 May 2017)

But Beretta owners also have a crossbow and match grade air rifles


----------



## smutchin (6 May 2017)

I find it deeply disappointing that in a forum for cyclists there are so many apologists for crap driving. 

The personal abuse and accusations of arrogance etc aimed at the cyclist are entirely unwarranted. Some of the comments here are shameful.


----------



## Tim Hall (6 May 2017)

Drago said:


> But Beretta owners also have a crossbow and match grade air rifles





> This sort of gun is really a lady’s gun, and not a really nice lady at that.


----------



## Milzy (6 May 2017)

What company is it???


----------



## growingvegetables (6 May 2017)

Milzy said:


> What company is it???


http://vidette.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/HS-Policy-2016.pdf


----------



## Alan O (6 May 2017)

It's made it into the national press now...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...video-helmet-cam-vidette-uk-ltd-a7721216.html


----------



## Glow worm (6 May 2017)

Drago said:


> You never know what kind of butter you're dealing with.


----------



## jo from the other place (6 May 2017)

Those here and elsewhere who think the person riding the bike was somehow antagonistic or a nob or had it coming or showed lack of awareness, just go to prove how necessary it was for him to take primary in that stretch of the road. There simply was no room to overtake safely and legally, so his road positioning was irrelevant to the passage of the van. If you think otherwise, you should not be in charge of a motor vehicle on public roads.

A Renault Trafic has an external width of 1.9m. The furthest right the van driver could have positioned themselves legally is shown below. That leaves 1.5m of road space on its nearside. The absolute minimum space required for the bike rider would have been 2.25m, and arguably much more than this for a high sided van travelling on a 50mph road.


----------



## Alan O (6 May 2017)

Well, I wasn't going to, but I will add my opinion here because I'm a little saddened to see comments getting (understandably) a little heated and some arguing against things that nobody has said.

I honestly don't see anyone here even vaguely justifying the van driver's actions - for me it was clearly a criminal act that deliberately endangered the life of another road user. The driver should be prosecuted, and I sincerely hope that's what happens.

As for the cyclist's use of primary positioning, well, I think he was entitled to do that if he thought it was the safest course of action in the circumstances - and as we don't have the full experience of being there and only have a very limited video clip to rely on, I don't think we can judge the wisdom of his actions either way.

Personally, I would almost never use primary positioning on a road like that, and will sometimes even slow right down and pull close in to let traffic pass me - I'm never in a hurry, and I think that if I want respect from other road users, it is important for me to show that respect first.

So, to sum up, imo: Van driver wrong, very very wrong. Cyclist not wrong, but wisdom of approach debatable.

Alan


----------



## Alan O (6 May 2017)

jo from the other place said:


> A Renault Trafic has an external width of 1.9m. The furthest right the van driver could have positioned themselves legally is shown below. That leaves 1.5m of road space on its nearside. The absolute minimum space required for the bike rider would have been 2.25m, and arguably much more than this for a high sided van travelling on a 50mph road.
> 
> View attachment 351063


I would love it if I ever got that kind of space from overtaking vehicles - it's nice to dream like that, but it's a fantasy to think it's remotely likely.

When I'm out riding, I'm more than satisfied if I get something close to that 1.5m between the kerb and the overtaking vehicle.

Oh, and surely no, it's not "_arguably much more than this for a high sided van travelling on a 50mph road_" - it's the actual speed of the vehicle that matters, not the speed limit, isn't it?

Alan


----------



## Milkfloat (6 May 2017)

Drago said:


> But Beretta owners also have a crossbow and match grade air rifles



I would not have thought a Beretta would have fitted a real man like you?


----------



## Drago (6 May 2017)

It was a new Beretta or a used something else. Pretty good value for a new weapon.


----------



## Origamist (6 May 2017)

Yesterday, I was walking along the pavement and there was a slow moving old lady in the centre of path. I could have waited 4 secs or so, but I decided to barge past and push her into the grass verge. I was bigger, moving faster and in a hurry and she was deliberately blocking me. I hope you will all agree it was her debatable pavement positioning that forced me into dispensing a violent but valuable lesson.


----------



## Alan O (6 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> Yesterday, I was walking along the pavement and there was a slow moving old lady in the centre of path. I could have waited 4 secs or so, but I decided to barge past and push her into the grass verge. I was bigger, moving faster and in a hurry and she was deliberately blocking me. I hope you will all agree it was her debatable pavement positioning that forced me into dispensing a violent but valuable lesson.


That's perhaps an amusing parody, but not of any opinions I have seen actually offered here - it is possible to criticize both _a_ and _b_ without suggesting that _a_ justified _b_, and that's all I've seen.

Alan


----------



## mjr (6 May 2017)

Alan O said:


> Personally, I would almost never use primary positioning on a road like that, and will sometimes even slow right down and pull close in to let traffic pass me - I'm never in a hurry, and I think that if I want respect from other road users, it is important for me to show that respect first.


That's not respect. That's supplication. See https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2013/10/11/the-most-basic-respect/ or more swearily http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2013/04/showing-respect-to-motorists.html?m=1


----------



## smutchin (6 May 2017)

Alan O said:


> it is possible to criticize both _a_ and _b_



Thing is, there are no grounds to criticise _a_.


----------



## Alan O (6 May 2017)

mjr said:


> That's not respect. That's supplication. See https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2013/10/11/the-most-basic-respect/ or more swearily http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2013/04/showing-respect-to-motorists.html?m=1


I think that depends on the combative/cooperative nature of one's attitude. My long experience has led me to believe that most road users are respectful to the rights of other road users, and I think an approach of "_We're sharing this, how can I help?_" has been more fruitful than one of "_We're fighting for the same space and I'm determined to win_".

Alan


----------



## Alan O (6 May 2017)

smutchin said:


> Thing is, there are no grounds to criticise _a_.


That does not negate my critique of the parody - my point is that nobody in this discussion has suggested that _a_ justifies _b_.

Alan


----------



## Milzy (6 May 2017)

I can't find a link to google review. They've taken their Facebook page down. I want to fire some bullets at them.


----------



## winjim (6 May 2017)

Milzy said:


> I can't find a link to google review. They've taken their Facebook page down. I want to fire some bullets at them.


Their Twitter's down too. Shame. It could have been a good opportunity for them to very publically do the right thing. Unless their lawyers have advised them not to I guess. I wonder exactly who was driving the van...


----------



## JohnHughes307 (6 May 2017)

Milzy said:


> I can't find a link to google review. They've taken their Facebook page down. I want to fire some bullets at them.


google "vidette uk ltd" and the google review show up in the search results. There are now 128 one-start reviews!


----------



## jo from the other place (6 May 2017)

Alan O said:


> ... and I think an approach of "_We're sharing this, how can I help?_" has been more fruitful than one of "_We're fighting for the same space and I'm determined to win_".



I'm all for politeness. But riding over to the left in the circumstances of the video would do no-one any favours and is certainly not "polite". It would encourage a dangerous overtake that puts the rider at risk or encourages the driver to perform an illegal manoeuvre.

Note also that the rider in the video ~was~ being polite in moving over to the left as soon as he passed the solid double centre line section.


----------



## Alan O (6 May 2017)

winjim said:


> Their Twitter's down too. Shame. It could have been a good opportunity for them to very publically do the right thing. Unless their lawyers have advised them not to I guess. I wonder exactly who was driving the van...


A lot of small firms really have no idea how to handle a social media presence (in fact, a lot of big ones don't either - like United Airlines). So I'd cut them a bit of slack until they can get their act together.

Alan


----------



## Alan O (6 May 2017)

jo from the other place said:


> I'm all for politeness. But riding over to the left in the circumstances of the video would do no-one any favours and is certainly not "polite". It would encourage a dangerous overtake that puts the rider at risk or encourages the driver to perform an illegal manoeuvre.
> 
> Note also that the rider in the video was polite in moving over to the left the moment the solid double centre lines stopped.


Oh yes, sure, I was speaking generally - as I suggested earlier, not having been there I'm not able to judge the circumstances of this specific example of adopting primary position.


----------



## Milzy (6 May 2017)

Grab a beer and read all the google comments LMAO.


----------



## I like Skol (6 May 2017)

Alan O said:


> A lot of small firms really have no idea how to handle a social media presence (in fact, a lot of big ones don't either - like United Airlines). So I'd cut them a bit of slack until they can get their act together.
> 
> Alan


If I was that drivers boss that van would now be back in the possession of the company and the driver would be calling into the office on Monday morning to collect his dismissal paperwork.


----------



## Alan O (6 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> If I was that drivers boss that van would now be back in the possession of the company and the driver would be calling into the office on Monday morning to collect his dismissal paperwork.


I would hope so too, and that might indeed be the case.


----------



## jefmcg (6 May 2017)

winjim said:


> Their Twitter's down too. Shame. It could have been a good opportunity for them to very publically do the right thing. Unless their lawyers have advised them not to I guess. I wonder exactly who was driving the van...





jefmcg said:


> Oh, and if anyone is in Reigate, they are currently renovating the Black Horse pub there. Maybe have a word with them, or the owners.



They are renovating a pub owned by White Brasserie,twitter link above. I imagine they could put pressure on them, if it brought them bad publicity.


----------



## Origamist (6 May 2017)

Alan O said:


> That's perhaps an amusing parody, but not of any opinions I have seen actually offered here - it is possible to criticize both _a_ and _b_ without suggesting that _a_ justified _b_, and that's all I've seen.
> 
> Alan



If my comments were aimed directly at you, I would have had the courtesy to quote your post.

My point, if it needs further clarification, is that there is a tendency to try and explain and excuse awful, life threatening driving in a way that in most other contexts would be considered absurd, callous or nonsensical victim blaming.


----------



## User33236 (6 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> If I was that drivers boss that van would now be back in the possession of the company and the driver would be calling into the office on Monday morning to collect his dismissal paperwork.


I would also be contacting the police in whose region the incedent took place making an offer of passing on driver details should they be or choose to be investigating.


----------



## Alan O (6 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> If my comments were aimed directly at you, I would have had the courtesy to quote your post.


Well, while you were perhaps not addressing me directly, this is a public forum and I believe I have the right (within the terms and conditions of the forum) to respond to public posts as I see fit and am not restricted to only those specifically directed at me - if you make a post on a public forum, you should expect responses from other forum members.


Origamist said:


> My point, if it needs further clarification, is that there is a tendency to try and explain and excuse awful and life threatening driving in a way that in most other contexts would be considered absurd, callous or nonsensical victim blaming.


You have my full agreement on that, but my point is that nobody here has done that.

Alan


----------



## burntoutbanger (6 May 2017)

User33236 said:


> I would also be contacting the police in whose region the incedent took place making an offer of passing on driver details should they be or choose to be investigating.



Unless the driver is the boss, boss's son/daughter etc.

Edited to say it's probably gone a bit past the point of the company turning the driver in now and I would expect the company to get a visit from the Rossers first thing Monday morning, if they haven't already.


----------



## User33236 (6 May 2017)

burntoutbanger said:


> Unless the driver is the boss, boss's son/daughter etc.


True if it's the boss. Personally, if one of my kids did something as stupid and dangerous I'd have no problem shopping them or, better still (and likely for them too) get them to go to the police themselves.


----------



## Origamist (6 May 2017)

Alan O said:


> Well, while you were perhaps not addressing me directly, this is a public forum and I believe I have the right (within the terms and conditions of the forum) to respond to public posts as I see fit and am not restricted to only those specifically directed at me - if you make a post on a public forum, you should expect responses from other forum members.



Yes, you have a good understanding of the basic principles of an online forum.



Alan O said:


> You have my full agreement on that, but my point is that nobody here has done that.



Which is why I didn't quote anyone on this thread. Seriously though, it would take a nano second of research on any social media platform to uncover the warped thinking I'm satirising.


----------



## Alan O (6 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> Which is why I didn't quote anyone on this thread. Seriously though, it would take a nano second of research on any social media platform to uncover warped thinking I'm satirising.


Fair enough - I think we are converging on mutual understanding and agreement.

Alan


----------



## Milzy (6 May 2017)

Hey guys peace not war man.


----------



## LewisLondon (6 May 2017)

From their facebook page, big apology from the owner and it looks like the driver has been sacked. Good response as a minimum


----------



## Milzy (6 May 2017)

The driver says he was having family problems which contributed to his actions. As he was an engineer he would have been on a decent wage. He will be having even bigger family problems now. The knobber.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 May 2017)

Driver has been fired


----------



## winjim (6 May 2017)

winjim said:


> Their Twitter's down too. Shame. It could have been a good opportunity for them to very publicly do the right thing. Unless their lawyers have advised them not to I guess. I wonder exactly who was driving the van...


Back with a big apology. Driver dismissed, driver awareness course instigated. Social media was down due to abusive messages they were receiving. So there we go, publicly doing the right thing.

ETA: I would still, in this instance, rather the police were involved and hope that Vidette would cooperate should that be the case.


----------



## Milzy (6 May 2017)

You can't beat a good which hunt!


----------



## fossyant (6 May 2017)

Personal problems don't excuse that.


----------



## winjim (6 May 2017)

Milzy said:


> You can't beat a good which hunt!


As in "Which hunt was driving that van?"


----------



## Milzy (6 May 2017)

Cyclists have also taken to Google to express their displeasure, resulting in the company having a one star rating on the search engine. lol a few from this forum!!


----------



## burntoutbanger (6 May 2017)

Good response from the company I feel. Driver should now be charged, imprisoned and banned.

Feel the company may still suffer in the short term, time will tell.


----------



## winjim (6 May 2017)

Milzy said:


> Cyclists have also taken to Google to express their displeasure, resulting in the company having a one star rating on the search engine. lol a few from this forum!!


I hope they revise their opinions in light of the apology and the actions taken by the company.


----------



## Drago (6 May 2017)

Its a shame they waited until they were sure it wouldn't go away before making a positve comment.


----------



## flake99please (6 May 2017)

JohnHughes307 said:


> google "vidette uk ltd" and the google review show up in the search results. There are now 128 one-start reviews!





I like Skol said:


> If I was that drivers boss that van would now be back in the possession of the company and the driver would be calling into the office on Monday morning to collect his dismissal paperwork.




This is an apparent statement from one of the company directors....

*I am writing this letter to express my sincere apologies to the cyclist that was very unfortunate to experience a very irresponsible and dangerous move by an engineer driving one of Vidette's vehicles on Sunday 30th April.

My wife and I are both very keen cyclist ourselves so fully appreciate the impact/trauma that a near miss like this would have on anyone in this situation.
I have now interviewed the driver and can honestly say the he is so full of remorse and fully understands how lucky he and the cyclist have been on this occasion and swears to never let himself get into a position like this again He stated that he was having personal problems with his family and his mind “was all over the place” and that he is so sorry. I do believe him and could tell his apology was genuine, however we cannot condone nor let this behaviour have any place within our company, we have decided to make an example here and to promote driver awareness going forward. He has been dismissed from immediate effect!
This experience has made me realise that I can do something to help reduce this sort of behaviour on our roads so have decided to introduce a driver awareness course into our already busy H&S training matrix for all our employees. The AA seem to have a nice one called Driver Alertness Education, I have actioned this to be investigated & organised immediately.
Adding to the above, I have had full backing & agreement in these decisions from all of our management team.
I hope this letter will also be of comfort to the other road users & cyclists who have written their concerns.

NB - I was on holiday until early this morning which made an immediate answer nigh on impossible. I understand that the vast majority of mails and social media comments are from concerned genuine people however, we received some really hurtful mails wishing all sorts of medical curses on our office staff which swayed me into taking down the access from our web site & social media pages.

Sincere apologies,

Ian Frazer*


----------



## Drago (6 May 2017)

Apparently some barrister type who fancies himself as a bit tasty in the court room has offered to advise the victim for free.

The only downside of the driver being sacked is he now has mitigation to present to the court when sentencing is considered.


----------



## Milkfloat (6 May 2017)

Fair play to the company if what he has written can be believed.


----------



## 400bhp (6 May 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> Fair play to the company if what he has written can be believed.


Agree, although I winced at the "I'm a cyclist and so is my wife" type comment.


----------



## Markymark (6 May 2017)

400bhp said:


> Agree, although I winced at the "I'm a cyclist and so is my wife" type comment.


I'm a cyclist and so is my wife.


----------



## jefmcg (6 May 2017)

Ok, at this point I think the company has done all it should ... at this point. I don't think they should volunteer the driver to the police, unbidden, on the basis of a video.

If either the victim or the witness step forward, or indeed anyone who has seen this on facebook/youtube report it, and the police decide to take action, and approach the company for the driver's name, they should tell them. 

I also do believe the driver's reasons. We've all made little errors in the heat of the moment. Sadly, though, if you make a "little error" by wielding a weapon (a van or a gun) then unfortunately, it is an error that may follow you for the rest of your life. 

Lucky for the driver and the victim that no one was injured. His anger didn't kill anyone. But that's just luck. And his bad luck it was on video. If this incident had killed the cyclist, but there was no video, I suspect the driver would have walked away. I suspect if the camera(wo)man hadn't had a camera, just described what they had seen (with a dead cyclist) the CPS/police might be reluctant to press charges.

Late Saturday ramblings.... sorry


----------



## Tim Hall (6 May 2017)

400bhp said:


> Agree, although I winced at the "I'm a cyclist and so is my wife" type comment.


Not as much as I winced at "going forward".


----------



## winjim (6 May 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> Not as much as I winced at "going forward".


It's the unnecessary exclamation mark that I don't like!


----------



## Drago (6 May 2017)

But he and his Wife are cyclists!

!


----------



## growingvegetables (7 May 2017)

400bhp said:


> Agree, although I winced at the "I'm a cyclist and so is my wife" type comment.


Hmm - I'll disagree ever so gently there.

I've had three or four such responses to some of my videos - basically, the boss saying "Joe Bloggs didn't know I ride a bike myself, and s**t himself silly."


----------



## jefmcg (7 May 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Hmm - I'll disagree ever so gently there.
> 
> I've had three or four such responses to some of my videos - basically, the boss saying "Joe Bloggs didn't know I ride a bike myself, and s**t himself silly."


You are agreeing with him.


Just sayin'


----------



## jefmcg (7 May 2017)

flake99please said:


> a near miss





Orwellian rewriting of the incident, so not really funny.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 May 2017)

Milzy said:


> You can't beat a good which hunt!



Was that a SPELLing error?


----------



## Drago (7 May 2017)

Cunobelin said:


> Was that a SPELLing error?



Nah, he simply enjoys searching all over for his consumer magazines.


----------



## betty swollocks (7 May 2017)

The driver was 100 percent to blame for this horrible act.
And anyone who thinks otherwise and especially if they claim to be a cyclist, ought to be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Milzy (7 May 2017)

Cunobelin said:


> Was that a SPELLing error?


No, which knobber in the company was to blame? Witches aren't real so I don't recognise them, just like God.


----------



## Tim Hall (7 May 2017)

Milzy said:


> No, which knobber in the company was to blame? Witches aren't real so I don't recognise them, just like God.


God doesn't recognise witches? You learn something new every day.


----------



## Milzy (7 May 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> God doesn't recognise witches? You learn something new every day.


Just like some folk won't recognise that they were groomed as a child.


----------



## Tin Pot (7 May 2017)

Afnug said:


>




Here's a big hissy fit about this on Facebook in a triathlete group Im a member of. Lots of cyclist haters there.


----------



## jefmcg (7 May 2017)

Milzy said:


> Witches aren't real


Yes, but witch hunts are real.


----------



## Drago (7 May 2017)

Some of the detractors must have a coronary when they come up behind a tractor doing a similar speed that's not 18" wide and in the gutter for their convenience.

Pull back, chill, over take when and only when it is safe. What is so difficult about that for the car driving complainers?


----------



## Phaeton (7 May 2017)

betty swollocks said:


> The driver was 100 percent to blame for this horrible act.
> And anyone who thinks otherwise and especially if they claim to be a cyclist, ought to be ashamed of themselves.


Why?


----------



## raleighnut (7 May 2017)

[QUOTE 4792677, member: 43827"]I was groomed as a child and hated every minute of it.

Much preferred running round with my hair uncombed, and fluff on my jumpers, but my Mum was fussy like that.[/QUOTE]
It was the 'scrubbing of the face' with a corner of a licked hanky that I objected to. (normally performed in front of an audience as I recall)


----------



## jefmcg (7 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> It was the 'scrubbing of the face' with a corner of a licked hanky that I objected to. (normally performed in front of an audience as I recall)


As far as I can tell, it was pretty nearly obligatory on public transport.

Parents don't seem to spit on their children as much these days. May explain the rise in asthma and allergies


----------



## raleighnut (7 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> As far as I can tell, it was pretty nearly obligatory on public transport.
> 
> Parents don't seem to spit on their children as much these days. May explain the rise in asthma and allergies


As I recall I was generally dressed as 'Little Lord Fauntleroy' at the time as well.

Plus this was in the charts at the time


View: https://youtu.be/AXvYs4O6doo


----------



## User16625 (8 May 2017)

cosmicbike said:


> Really? Double whites, oncoming traffic. *Taking primary to protect himself. *You will notice that he starts moving over to a decent secondary position when the solid white is single and for the oncoming traffic to note. I'd have done the same. Van driver is a tosser and should be reported.



and look how effective his protection was! Riding in that manner for protection is like walking into a pride of lions armed only with a chunk of meat to defend yourself.

I'm not sayin the van driver had any right to do what he did, but I will try to mitigate coming into conflict with motorists by just letting them go when ever practical. I'm guessing that van driver is a pig farmer.


----------



## Drago (8 May 2017)

So ride on then left and have everyone try and kill you by accident, or ride in primary and have a few try and kill you deliberately.


----------



## Phaeton (8 May 2017)

Drago said:


> So ride on then left and have everyone try and kill you by accident, or ride in primary and have a few try and kill you deliberately.


Life is not black & white


----------



## Drago (8 May 2017)

There are two options under discussion above. Black and white. Ying and yang. Laurel and Hardy.


----------



## Phaeton (8 May 2017)

Drago said:


> There are two options under discussion above. Black and white. Ying and yang. Laurel and Hardy.


Yep the cyclist was Laurel & the van driver was Hardy


----------



## Drago (8 May 2017)

The cyclist was the guest star brought in for just that episode. He was the straight man doing nothing lawfully or morally wrong, while the comedy occurred around him.


----------



## Phaeton (8 May 2017)

Drago said:


> The cyclist was the guest star brought in for just that episode. He was the straight man doing nothing lawfully (wrong)


Granted


Drago said:


> or morally wrong,


What has morals got to do with it?


Drago said:


> while the comedy occurred around him.


you class that as comedy?


----------



## Drago (8 May 2017)

A wiser cyclist would have just braked at that point, but people can't control their egos and can't live with themselves if they think someone has got the better of them.


----------



## mjr (8 May 2017)

Drago said:


> Pull back, chill, over take when and only when it is safe. What is so difficult about that for the car driving complainers?


At a guess "waaaaah it's not the driving fast along mysteriously empty roads that most car adverts promised! Everyone says cars mean personal freedom but I'm now spending about a fifth of the median income to keep the car running and I'm cross about it! The arrogant cyclist is refusing to share the road and let me exercise my right to drive faster! Don't these bloody cyclists know the government say that cars are essential for people in rural areas like I am now?"


----------



## Origamist (8 May 2017)

[QUOTE 4793110, member: 9609"]he did appear to hit / thump the side of the van, and it was possibly this action that prompted the van driver to escalate the situation to an unacceptable level. *If he had not struck the van in what I guess was retaliation for the horrible bullying and close pass then the van driver may not have tried to knock him off.*I I can't help but think that a wiser cyclist could have diffused the situation much earlier. Slapping the side of a vehicle whilst it is passing (esp. one who is already showing dangerous aggression) is seldom going to work out well.[/QUOTE]

When you factor in reaction times and the manoeuvre that you are suggesting (supposedly brought about by the cyclist fending off the van) it would take too long for this to impact on what is taking place. Watch how it unfolds again - at that speed there is simply not enough time for the driver to absorb and react to the cyclist’s behaviour. It was deliberate attempt to side swipe a cyclist; the push/slap at the van took place when the van was already perilously close and getting closer still.


----------



## Phaeton (8 May 2017)

News update, the cyclist was actually a co-worker of the van driver who had ridden to the place of work on the bike & was now riding home. What was observed was not in fact a hate crime of a van driver on a cyclist but a couple of work colleagues messing around.


----------



## mjr (8 May 2017)

[QUOTE 4793110, member: 9609"]he did appear to hit / thump the side of the van, and it was possibly this action that prompted the van driver to escalate the situation to an unacceptable level. If he had not struck the van in what I guess was retaliation for the horrible bullying and close pass then the van driver may not have tried to knock him off. I can't help but think that a wiser cyclist could have diffused the situation much earlier. Slapping the side of a vehicle whilst it is passing (esp. one who is already showing dangerous aggression) is seldom going to work out well.[/QUOTE]
I'm not so sure... it's not clear from the video whether it's a hit or just putting a hand on... putting one's hand on a too-close vehicle can be a way to ensure that any further swerves/wobbles by the vehicle push you away (as in the video) rather than knock you off - that's why the pros used to be allowed to hold onto the team/medical cars in certain circumstances where they needed to be very close together. As far as I know, it's illegal in normal traffic and still somewhat risky, but so was what had already happened by then.


----------



## mjr (8 May 2017)

Phaeton said:


> News update, the cyclist was actually a co-worker of the van driver who had ridden to the place of work on the bike & was now riding home. What was observed was not in fact a hate crime of a van driver on a cyclist but a couple of work colleagues messing around.


Citation required. The wording of the company statement seems rather odd in that case.

Still looks like criminally bad driving, either way.


----------



## Phaeton (8 May 2017)

mjr said:


> Citation required.


Why Mr Trump never gives one


----------



## snorri (8 May 2017)

Phaeton said:


> Why Mr Trump never gives one


Who is Mr Trump, should we know him?


----------



## wormo (8 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Yes. It's 10 or 12, I forget which. Either way cyclist was exceeding it in that video.


A traffic officer did a presentation and questions & answers spot at my mum's WI in the Yorkshire Dales a couple of years ago, and one of the ladies asked him about crossing double white lines when overtaking cyclists. His response was that as long as safe to do so with regards on coming traffic then it was better to cross the lines when overtaking a cyclist from a safety point of view. His division would not pull up a driver for doing so. If memory serves me right, he thought that the speed of 10/12 mph was a bit out of date (don't hold me to this last bit)


----------



## winjim (8 May 2017)

wormo said:


> A traffic officer did a presentation and questions & answers spot at my mum's WI in the Yorkshire Dales a couple of years ago, and one of the ladies asked him about crossing double white lines when overtaking cyclists. His response was that as long as safe to do so with regards on coming traffic then it was better to cross the lines when overtaking a cyclist from a safety point of view. His division would not pull up a driver for doing so. If memory serves me right, he thought that the speed of 10/12 mph was a bit out of date (don't hold me to this last bit)


What were the alternatives? It's certainly better than attempting to overtake without crossing the lines. But is it really better than just chilling out, keeping a safe distance and waiting? And if it is safe wrt oncoming traffic, what are the lines for?


----------



## wormo (8 May 2017)

winjim said:


> What were the alternatives? It's certainly better than attempting to overtake without crossing the lines. But is it really better than just chilling out, keeping a safe distance and waiting?


From memory the A65 near them has some quite long double lines witha crawler lane on the opposite side.

To me makes sense, keeps traffic moving and stops ridiculous close passes because people wont cross lines. A relative of mine swore blind the other week that you could not cross the lines in any circumstances.

In a perfect world people would wait but that is not going to happen so may as well make it as safe as possible.


----------



## raleighnut (8 May 2017)

Phaeton said:


> News update, the cyclist was actually a co-worker of the van driver who had ridden to the place of work on the bike & was now riding home. What was observed was not in fact a hate crime of a van driver on a cyclist but a couple of work colleagues messing around.


That has the ring of truth about it.


----------



## mjr (8 May 2017)

wormo said:


> In a perfect world people would wait but that is not going to happen so may as well make it as safe as possible.


Yes. By holding primary position through double white lines, giving yourself more room to swing left without chancing the verge like the cyclist in the opening post.


----------



## mjr (8 May 2017)

Phaeton said:


> Why Mr Trump never gives one


In that case, I'll believe it about as much as I do him, then!


----------



## wormo (8 May 2017)

mjr said:


> Yes. By holding primary position through double white lines, giving yourself more room to swing left without chancing the verge like the cyclist in the opening post.



Don't disagree


----------



## Alan O (8 May 2017)

I was reading the online newspaper reports of the story, and one of them (I forget which) said that Sussex Police are investigating.


----------



## Origamist (8 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> That has the ring of truth about it.



I think the poster is pulling your leg...


----------



## raleighnut (8 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> I think the poster is pulling your leg...


I take it you've never worked in that type of environment, I've seen shopfitters/barfitters firing nail guns at each other across a site and have lost count of the number of bikes that have been 'farked about' with all in the name of 'avin a larf'


----------



## jarlrmai (8 May 2017)

Do the police make allowances for "avin a larf" with dangerous vehicles on the public highway?


----------



## Origamist (8 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> I take it you've never worked in that type of environment, I've seen shopfitters/barfitters firing nail guns at each other across a site and have lost count of the number of bikes that have been 'farked about' with all in the name of 'avin a larf'



If you want to believe this is a prank, I'm not going to stand or cycle in your way [insert gag here].


----------



## raleighnut (8 May 2017)

jarlrmai said:


> Do the police make allowances for "avin a larf" with dangerous vehicles on the public highway?


Funny you should say that, I was once cycling to work and whilst cycling at 25mph round the 3 lane junction 21 roundabout (just off the M1) a car was inches from my rear wheel when it sounded its horn, it then drew level with me (again inches away) to reveal the driver, a Detective Constable who also happened to be a drinking buddy of mine, he thought it was funny.


----------



## raleighnut (8 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> I think the poster is pulling your leg...


He could be but as others have posted there is more to this than we see in the video I'm sure.


----------



## Origamist (8 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> He could be but as others have posted there is more to this than we see in the video I'm sure.



Yes, the ghost of Jeremy Beadle was driving and Lord Lucan was the cyclist. You heard it here first....


----------



## Phaeton (8 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> I think the poster is pulling your leg...


I was but it's not beyond the realms


raleighnut said:


> He could be but as others have posted there is more to this than we see in the video I'm sure.


I'm sure you're right, there are clearly a lot of pencil pushers on this forum who have never been witness to the robust jocular antics on a building site. Also stunts & stuff that were pulled 30-40 years ago would not be deemed acceptable today.


----------



## jefmcg (8 May 2017)

Phaeton said:


> Also stunts & stuff that were pulled 30-40 years ago would not be deemed acceptable today.


Yup, and there was no such thing as rape in marriage then, either.

This could have been a "prank" (newspeak for bullying), but the apology does not reflect that fact. Do you have insider knowledge, or are you just guessing?

Of course if it was work place "hijinks"** extended to the open road, the boss had more reason to fire him, as any subsequent injury to the cyclist at the hands of the "prankster"** could have very easily lead to the company being sued as well as the "comedian"**.

And it's quite likely the boss likes his staff, and would rather none of them were killed.

**bullying/bully/bully. etc


----------



## cyberknight (8 May 2017)

Phaeton said:


> News update, the cyclist was actually a co-worker of the van driver who had ridden to the place of work on the bike & was now riding home. What was observed was not in fact a hate crime of a van driver on a cyclist but a couple of work colleagues messing around.


Messing around , thats what its called nowadays when you nearly kill someone ?
Bloke at work says he would run a cyclist over , i know he is being a k**b for the sake of it but i am glad i go a different direction home to him.

Back on track maybe the cyclist is diddling the drivers mrs which is why he has personal issues ?... exit wild speculation mode.


----------



## jefmcg (8 May 2017)

cyberknight said:


> Messing around , thats what its called nowadays when you nearly kill someone ?


This is an example from Australia, but I bet the same thing happens here.



> ..co-workers putting a live mouse down the apprentice's shirt, spraying liquid nails in his hair and ripping his work shorts.
> 
> In once instance, <BOSS> snatched the apprentice's phone and posted sexually explicit comments to a female friend's social media page.
> [..]
> "I would rather be burnt, bruised, assaulted, drenched in glue, water, paint, weeks' old coffee and spat on all over again than to relive a week of the psychological torment I endured," he told the court.


Those guys would definitely steer a van into the poor kid.


----------



## I like Skol (8 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> I think the poster is pulling your leg...





Phaeton said:


> I was but it's not beyond the realms...


Guys RTFT! It wasn't workplace related, prank, bullying or other! This thread is now going seriously OT and just turning into a moan about any injustice........


----------



## jefmcg (8 May 2017)

I like Skol said:


> Guys RTFT! It wasn't workplace related, prank, bullying or other! This thread is now going seriously OT and just turning into a moan about any injustice........


I don't think it was, but there isn't enough evidence in this thread to say either way.

Earlier in the thread people wanted to see what happened in the minute before the video starts before they could comment, but now you think we can intuit their whole lives by a 15 second clip?

And really, we've pretty well covered everything we know about this incident in the first 150 posts, I think it's ok to go off topic by page 13.


----------



## smutchin (8 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> there is more to this than we see in the video



Or maybe there isn't. We don't know either way. So stop making shoot up.


----------



## Bonacentral (8 May 2017)

IMO this is the very definition of clickbait!!

Hopefully most of us on here are cyclists? My initial thought was WTF is the guy riding in the middle of the road when, from appearances there is no need. 

Then I saw the van swerve into him purposely. 

As others above have said, it's a short clip and we don't know what happened before. BUT there is no excuse for driving like that irrespective of what happened before. 

Having said that I do seem to see a prevalence of blokes on bikes riding 2 abreast in built up areas having a mothers meeting, not once even looking over their shoulder or having the consideration to button it until they get in a safe place to do so.

Please don't misinterpret that for what it is!? 

I'm constantly doing life savers and if it's a built up or narrow road I'll make sure I'm in single file and speak up if whatever I have to say is so important. 

People in general are just tossers without much common sense!!


----------



## raleighnut (8 May 2017)

smutchin said:


> Or maybe there isn't. We don't know either way. So stop making shoot up.


I'll think you'll find it was the twunt @Phaeton making 'shoot' up, I just commented that it was entirely possible/plausible'

1 question, does anyone know if the cyclist has made a complaint to the police about this yet ?


----------



## Drago (8 May 2017)

Need or not, he's lawfully entitled to do so. A tractor would be travelling at a similar speed, itself taking up the full lane, and I'm sure the van driver would not swipe a tractor aside.

Each lane is for one stream of traffic, not for two to squeeze by side by side. Morally, legally, and technically the cyclist was doing nothing wrong with his positioning, and the overtaking vehicle has complete responsibility for conducting the manoeuvre safely, not for the slower vehicle to facilitate that on their behalf.


----------



## Origamist (8 May 2017)

raleighnut said:


> I'll think you'll find it was the twunt @Phaeton making 'shoot' up, I just commented that it was entirely possible/plausible'
> 
> 1 question, does anyone know if the cyclist has made a complaint to the police about this yet ?



Sussex Police are investigating after a complaint. I do not know if it was the cyclist who was side-swiped that complained though.


----------



## raleighnut (8 May 2017)

[QUOTE 4794300, member: 43827"]Why would the cyclist make a complaint to the police about Phaeton making shoot up? He'd be better off complaining to them about the van driver.[/QUOTE]
That's almost funny.


----------



## jarlrmai (8 May 2017)

The cops might actually be more likely to do something about that than the bad driving.


----------



## mjr (9 May 2017)

Bonacentral said:


> Hopefully most of us on here are cyclists? My initial thought was WTF is the guy riding in the middle of the road when, from appearances there is no need.


If you wonder why the guy was riding in the middle of the lane when there are double-whites, please ask your local council about cycle training.

Even when you ride in the middle of the lane, you still get some idiots overtaking across double-whites:





That cyclist had started to move left since the overtake started, having seen the oncoming car that's just visible beside the signpost. The sign is to warn of a cycle route leaving/joining the road on the right ahead, so overtaking there would be stupid even without the bend and brow.



Bonacentral said:


> Having said that I do seem to see a prevalence of blokes on bikes riding 2 abreast in built up areas having a mothers meeting, not once even looking over their shoulder or having the consideration to button it until they get in a safe place to do so.
> 
> Please don't misinterpret that for what it is!?


What is it? It reads like a party political announcement of the Motoring Supremacy Party. You should almost always change lanes to overtake a cyclist in built-up areas (5m+ lanes are rare there), so it's irrelevant whether they're 2 abreast... or even 3 or 4 although that's discouraged by the Highway Code.



Bonacentral said:


> I'm constantly doing life savers and if it's a built up or narrow road I'll make sure I'm in single file and speak up if whatever I have to say is so important.


Oh I see - "bloody cyclists daring to be sociable while travelling - why can't they be forced into single file silence like the motorists"?


----------



## Tin Pot (9 May 2017)

[QUOTE 4794343, member: 9609"]
For my own part - I was once waiting to cross the road when I spotted one of my best mates driving along so I pretended to step out in front of him, at the exact same time as I stepped forward he done a little swerve towards me for a laugh. It ended up being far far to close for comfort, his wing mirror hit me.[/QUOTE]

What a pair of clowns! Can you submit this to the Darwin awards in the "At Risk Survivor" category?


----------



## mjr (16 May 2017)

http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2017/05/is-it-ok-to-ram-cyclists.html writes "There's not a personality test before someone drives. If we want to make our roads safer, I think we need to change that. If you believe a fair response to someone irritating you is or can ever be to threaten their safety or even assault them, you need to be off the roads. We need you not to be driving. Nothing else is reasonable."

New section to the theory test? Anyone here think it would have stopped their younger self or any of their acquaintances? Wouldn't people just learn how to fake the test, same as some do the practical and drive like a daffodil as soon as they're licensed?


----------



## Tin Pot (16 May 2017)

mjr said:


> http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2017/05/is-it-ok-to-ram-cyclists.html writes "There's not a personality test before someone drives. If we want to make our roads safer, I think we need to change that. If you believe a fair response to someone irritating you is or can ever be to threaten their safety or even assault them, you need to be off the roads. We need you not to be driving. Nothing else is reasonable."
> 
> New section to the theory test? Anyone here think it would have stopped their younger self or any of their acquaintances? Wouldn't people just learn how to fake the test, same as some do the practical and drive like a daffodil as soon as they're licensed?



There was a study ages ago into the neurotic behaviour associated with driving - I don't think a personality test would help, because the neurosis only surfaced while driving. Perfectly reasonable people at other times.


----------



## Origamist (11 Jul 2017)

Driver to appear in Crawley Magistrates' Court soon:


View: https://mobile.twitter.com/sussex_police/status/884735882854617088


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Dec 2017)

Origamist said:


> Driver to appear in Crawley Magistrates' Court soon:
> 
> 
> View: https://mobile.twitter.com/sussex_police/status/884735882854617088




According to Twitter, the offending driver has been given "18mnth driving ban, extended retest and 160 hrs of community service."

Given the weak response of the courts in many RTCs where vulnerable road users are the victims, I'd call that a result - although I believe that weaponising a van to assault someone should attract a prison sentence.


----------



## T4tomo (11 Dec 2017)

Well deserved with the driving ban, but appears lenient on the assault side.

In those situation on fast roads, if they can't be avoided you are safest cycling a reasonable but not excessive distance from the kerb, say 18", then you have a bit of room if you get squeezed but you aren't seen as trying to enforce when the driver overtakes, let them make their own decision to break the law/ double white line. Courteous drivers will still wait until it's safe, but idiots won't try to kill you.

The moral high ground is little use if you are dead.


----------



## mjr (11 Dec 2017)

T4tomo said:


> if they can't be avoided you are safest cycling a reasonable but not excessive distance from the kerb, say 18",


I'm pretty sure that's bad advice contrary to Cyclecraft and Bikeability. I think you're pretty much certain to be close-passed on busy roads doing that. Do it if you enjoy cheap thrills, but it's your funeral.



T4tomo said:


> Courteous drivers will still wait until it's safe, but idiots won't try to kill you.


But there are far more clueless drivers than killer idiots, so it seems like minimising the wrong risk.



T4tomo said:


> The moral high ground is little use if you are dead.


Indeed - there's no use saying "oh but I was so well-behaved and avoided offending idiot drivers" when a clueless one has failed to squeeze past and knocked you down dead - that's why it's important to ride central in narrow lanes!


----------



## T4tomo (11 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> I'm pretty sure that's bad advice contrary to Cyclecraft and Bikeability. I think you're pretty much certain to be close-passed on busy roads doing that. Do it if you enjoy cheap thrills, but it's your funeral.
> 
> 
> But there are far more clueless drivers than killer idiots, so it seems like minimising the wrong risk.
> ...


Not talking about narrow lanes though are we? Talking about fast A roads.


----------



## boydj (11 Dec 2017)

T4tomo said:


> Not talking about narrow lanes though are we? Talking about fast A roads.



Fast 'A' roads - all the more reason not to be cowering in at the kerb - that's just asking to be close-passed.


----------



## mjr (11 Dec 2017)

T4tomo said:


> Not talking about narrow lanes though are we? Talking about fast A roads.


Looks like a narrow lane to me, as it's not wide enough for a white van to pass a cyclist with sufficient clearance.


----------



## jefmcg (11 Dec 2017)

Doctor, I've got this terrible feeling of deja vu.


----------



## si_c (12 Dec 2017)

T4tomo said:


> In those situation on fast roads, if they can't be avoided you are safest cycling a reasonable but not excessive distance from the kerb, say 18",


That's gutter hugging. Secondary should be 2-3 feet from the curb, further out on narrow lanes. Otherwise you have no space to maneuver around potholes, ice or other road detritus let alone poor driving from other road users.

18 inches is far too close to the left.


----------

