helmet cam justice

[Neil]

Anyone notice the start of the clip - he cycles up the inside of the bus - there is no bike lane - this is a move a lot of people do but it is undertaking even when the bus is at a standstill. It is illegal and very dangerous for both people that might alight form the bus and for the cyclist if the driver doesn't notice him.

Filtering is not "undertaking" and is not illegal. Bikes and motorbikes do it quite a lot in heavy traffic, and done carefully, is perfectly acceptable. You'll see police motorbikes do it in plenty of circumstances, sometimes even under instruction.

As to people leaving the bus - there are rules (not sure I'd go as far as saying law, but certainly rules) about that, and it should only be done at bus stops.

The cyclist could have avoided the collision by braking slightly when the van over took at the first point or even once round the corner - I know he shouldn't have to but it was the easier option from the viewpoint his camera gave.

I think you've touched on it, there - he shouldn't have to, but I'd also agree, being pragmatic and worrying about your own safety, first, are probably better priorities, than standing on principle.

That said, most footage I see from helmet cameras seems to make many incidents not look as bad as they really are. I suspect were the "incident" filmed from a perspective, that seeing what went on from another angle may make it look even worse.

 

[rosstheboss]

Hmmmmm...

Lets look at this from the van driver's point of view......

There's a cyclist shouting at me, banging on the side of my van as I'm going round a corner?!?!?

The cyclist didn't really do himself too many favours did he - trying to turn left TWO ABREAST with a van?!?!?! That's just bloody stupid, not to mention dangerous!!!

I'm sorry but that footage is a case of 6 and two 3s

The van driver overreacted... really? did he? The cyclist put himself in that situation and then banged on the side of the van whilst shouting, how would you react?!?!?

The cyclist was without fault.... really? was he? He might want to do his cycling proficiency test again, and read up on undertaking a vehicle with huge blind spots whilst go round a corner

I try my best to keep myself safe when riding on road - which includes trying not to piss other road users off, assuming everyone else wants to kill me, and certainly not banging on the side of people's vehicles while shouting at them!!!

 

[Neil]

Hmmmmm...

Lets look at this from the van driver's point of view......

There's a cyclist shouting at me, banging on the side of my van as I'm going round a corner?!?!?

The van came from behind the cyclist, though. He should have known the cyclist was there - what did he expect, if he looks the other way, the cyclist will just disappear?

Personally, I think the cyclist didn't do himself any favours with the "Stay right! Stay right!" shouting - but all the same, I understand why he did.

The problem is, like the proper use of the horn for vehicles, what he did by shouting was a competely reasonable thing - 'cept in this instance, he did it to a completely unreasonable person.

The cyclist didn't really do himself too many favours did he - trying to turn left TWO ABREAST with a van?!?!?! That's just bloody stupid, not to mention dangerous!!!

Conveniently ignoring, just for a second, who's got most to lose - the same applies to the van driver.

The cyclist is traffic just as much as the van.

I'm sorry but that footage is a case of 6 and two 3s

The van driver overreacted... really? did he?

Yep - completely.

And did what a lot of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians do (for that matter, people in general) - completely fail to accept they were in the wrong, and overreact to compensate - because the alternative, that they were actually being a to55er is clearly too difficult for their egos to handle.

The cyclist put himself in that situation and then banged on the side of the van whilst shouting, how would you react?!?!?

Personally - I'd at least give some thought to why that happened, and perhaps wonder if maybe I hadn't given enough room...

But hey - that's just me, being completely unreasonable with my reasonableness...

The cyclist was without fault.... really? was he?

Personally, I'd say his main fault was in not looking after number 1.

Beyond that, I completely understand why commuting cyclists feel they have to defend their place in traffic. Not saying I'd do it myself, but I'm glad they're up on that wall defending my rights, so to speak...

He might want to do his cycling proficiency test again, and read up on undertaking a vehicle with huge blind spots whilst go round a corner

He didn't undertake - the van got part way into overtaking, and only properly overtook after the corner, then cutting up the cyclist, at a guess, because he was pi55ed off with him. Then completely overreacted when the cyclist got shirty about having his health and well-being threatened because the van driver didn't like having a lower class of road-user try and assert some space as they were both going 'round the corner

I try my best to keep myself safe when riding on road - which includes trying not to piss other road users off, assuming everyone else wants to kill me, and certainly not banging on the side of people's vehicles while shouting at them!!!

Well I get your point - and don't disagree.

What I would say, though, is that the cyclist clearly felt his safety was significantly compromised - and let's not forget, the courts agreed with that. And as such felt he the van driver needed to know about that.

As I mentioned, not really the approach I'd take, but in some ways, I'm glad there are cyclists willing to assert their place on the road - because reading comments in several places about this clip, I've come to the conclusion that most in society object to the cyclist's place on the road.

 

[rosstheboss]

Neil, I've driven vans a lot over the years, certainly through towns and cities and although I've never seen fit to jump out and start a fight with a cyclist, I've seen some very self righteous riding that has made my blood boil at times, certainly assuming that a vehicle has 360 degree vision at all times is one of them.

Banging on the side of a tradesman's van and shouting at him (which would be unintelligable from inside the van I'd wager) would certainly provoke a lot of people to react, especially when it's just gone round a corner. Yes, the van overtook the cyclist at one point, but I would expect something I'd overtaken to not then try and get past me going round a corner that I'd braked at. Personally I'd have let the van go on his way, not antagonised it.

 

[Neil]

Neil, I've driven vans a lot over the years, certainly through towns and cities and although I've never seen fit to jump out and start a fight with a cyclist, I've seen some very self righteous riding that has made my blood boil at times, certainly assuming that a vehicle has 360 degree vision at all times is one of them.

So the cyclist was self-righteous, but van driver was just reacting naturally?

Righto.

That's why the courts found in favour of the cyclist?

Banging on the side of a tradesman's van and shouting at him (which would be unintelligable from inside the van I'd wager) would certainly provoke a lot of people to react, especially when it's just gone round a corner.

OK - now put that in context of not just feeling a bit irritated that somebody has slighted your pride, but that somebody's driving has actually endangered your life.

And again, why do you think the courts ruled in the cyclist's favour?

Just courting popularity with the youtube generation - or do you think, perhaps just for a second, that there may well be a distinct divergence in equity in reacting to the whole thing?

Yes, the van overtook the cyclist at one point, but I would expect something I'd overtaken to not then try and get past me going round a corner that I'd braked at.

Is it possible, that the cyclist just maintained their current course and speed, and had no reason to brake?

In fairness, if the van had given the cyclist enough room there probably wouldn't have been any incident, but I suspect he was riled about the cyclist shouting to give him room, and decided to do the complete opposite to assert his manhood.

And just for once, it was caught on camera, prosecuted and convicted, and maybe - just maybe - angry WVM has had an opportuinity to ruminate on the damage that can potentially be done, driving around in a big hunk of metal, around cyclists, with unfettered ego.

Personally I'd have let the van go on his way, not antagonised it.

Most likely, I would have done, too.

All the van driver faced was slight detriment to his overblown pride and ego. The cyclist faced potential injury (or worse) from a van driver who can't keep his fragile ego in check.

 

[rosstheboss]

Sorry Neil, I didn't realise cyclists were beyond reproach and shouldn't actually give way in a potentially dangerous situation!!!

As others have also said in this thread, cyclists can be just as bad as any other road users, so why do you have to assume that it is everyone else's fault?

 

[Neil]

Sorry Neil, I didn't realise cyclists were beyond reproach and shouldn't actually give way in a potentially dangerous situation!!!

And likewise, I didn't realise van drivers were beyond reproach and shouldn't actually give way in a potentially dangerous situation.

See how that works?

As others have also said in this thread, cyclists can be just as bad as any other road users,

I said as much in my first post in this thread...

so why do you have to assume that it is everyone else's fault?

1. I don't
2. Any assumption I have about the van driver, in this example, has been firmly and roundly endorsed and supported by the justice system - and just for a minute, you take a second to consider why that might have happened.

 

[silverclaws]

Let us all remember, we are the most vulnerable traffic on the roads, we don't have the motor to even attempt to accelerate out of a problem, and nor do we have a metal cage around us. Our lighting, braking and direction indication is plain poo compared to other two wheeled traffic and we don't have the road presence.

So, whether we are in the right or the wrong, the law says or it doesn't, practice defensive driving, treat every vehicle as a deadly weapon in the hands of a person with no brain, either that, or just keep off the roads for they are the veritable killing ground for cyclists.

This is why my in built proclivity for paranoia actually has a use, I trust no one on the roads and certainly do not trust other's direction indicators, they can mean little and it is best adopted when out on the road to watch what the driver of vehicles are upto, they look in a daze or you get that feeling, trust your instincts.

As to them behind, do yourself a favour, and get yourself a helmet or bike mounted rear view mirror, so you can see hazards as they approach.

Oh, and I always cycle in accordance with the highway code, no pavement except where permitted, and if I have to go on the pavement, dismount and walk, and certainly no skipping traffic lights, as with many drivers now, red does not mean stop. Cycle in accordance with the law, and if an altercation kicks off, well, you know your are in the right and doing everything possible to ensure your survival on the roads.

Laws exist for the protection of all of us, if we do our best to adhere to the law, perhaps we wouldn't have so many problems out there on the roads.

 

[Easy_Rider]

Surely you only overtake if safe to do so and you can pull back in after the manouvre, safely, you should not cause traffic to brake or slow down for you, that's a fail on a driving test. So the van driver should not have overtaken in the first place.

 

[lumos2000]

am i missing somthing, after the initnal incident the van driver used his van as a wepon and tryed to drive the guy off the road he then slamed his breaks on hoping the guy would ride into him he then got out his van and tryed to punch the guys head in. all the cyclist was doing was makeing his presence know as it was obvious the van driver was oblivious to his suroundings (possably on the phone). how is that sort of behaviour defendable?