Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Driver deliberately hits cyclist with her car (Video)

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    daheff
    Registered Users Posts: 5,866 ✭✭✭daheff


    Blowfish wrote: »
    Second one in a few days in the UK: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/van-driver-cyclist-bike-video-helmet-cam-vidette-uk-ltd-a7721216.html

    From what I saw, the cyclist was deliberately cycling in the middle of the lane to annoy the van driver...clearly trying to provoke the van driver. Van driver has no excuses though for what he did. Both should be taken off the road after this.
    Weepsie wrote: »
    Yeah by the van driver. Cyclist hitting the van to let it know it's too close is not provocation and I can only assume you're trolling if you think so.
    I can only assume you are a card holder of the militant cyclists club if you believe the cyclist was behaving in a proper manner and that this incident was all the van drivers fault.


  • Options
    #33
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Prior to the incident they were both being dicks imo.

    I've no idea how i'd react if someone kicked my car but i have had someone come at me through the window in a car park and my gut reaction was to take the offensive rather then wait for the fist..

    This reaction caught both of us by surprise and on seeing me come at him he immediately backed down..

    I'm not an aggressive person. Quite the opposite. Even as a young lad I was never involved in fights and never wanted to be.. But you never ever know how the other person will respond if you come at them with aggression so it's always best to just walk away..

    That said, there can never ever be an excuse for this level of violence and she deserves a lengthy custodial sentence.


  • Options
    #34
    robyntmorton
    Registered Users Posts: 4,263 ✭✭✭robyntmorton


    daheff wrote: »
    From what I saw, the cyclist was deliberately cycling in the middle of the lane to annoy the van driver...clearly trying to provoke the van driver. Van driver has no excuses though for what he did. Both should be taken off the road after this.

    I can only assume you are a card holder of the militant cyclists club if you believe the cyclist was behaving in a proper manner and that this incident was all the van drivers fault.

    As opposed to cycling in the middle of the lane in order to discourage an overtake when it was not safe to do so?

    It was all the van driver's fault, and to think otherwise is deluded.


  • Options
    #35
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    daheff wrote: »
    From what I saw, the cyclist was deliberately cycling in the middle of the lane to annoy the van driver...clearly trying to provoke the van driver. Van driver has no excuses though for what he did. Both should be taken off the road after this.

    I can only assume you are a card holder of the militant cyclists club if you believe the cyclist was behaving in a proper manner and that this incident was all the van drivers fault.


    Hmmmm ... your viewpoint is disturbing. Everyday drivers, cyclists annoy me but i guess it's their fault if I make an attempt on their life.

    Of course the cyclist being rammed off the road by an action close to attempted murder is ALL the van drivers fault!


  • Options
    #36
    kerplun k
    Registered Users Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭kerplun k


    I really can’t believe some of the responses in this thread. In both cases a driver attempts to severally injure/kill someone, and people are debating how much a d**k the victim was. It’s unreal. It really highlights people’s attitude towards cyclists.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    vrt12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭vrt12


    robyntmorton wrote: »
    As opposed to cycling in the middle of the lane in order to discourage an overtake when it was not safe to do so?
    We can all see the video. There is clearly lots of room to overtake without even crossing the white line.

    It is these self appointed enforcers of the rules of the road that give cyclists a bad name.

    Free wheeling in the middle of the road, clearly deliberately trying to provoke a reaction against the driver of a 3 ton white van and then posting his stupidity on the internet. Smart bloke. Even if he were in the right, it's not going to be much help to him when he's being rolled over by a 3 ton van. Clear stupidity. Pull over, give the van room, let him pass and get on with your cycle without a 2nd thought. It's not that difficult.


  • Options
    #38
    robyntmorton
    Registered Users Posts: 4,263 ✭✭✭robyntmorton


    vrt12 wrote: »
    We can all see the video. There is clearly lots of room to overtake without even crossing the white line.

    It is these self appointed enforcers of the rules of the road that give cyclists a bad name.

    Free wheeling in the middle of the road, clearly deliberately trying to provoke a reaction against the driver of a 3 ton white van and then posting his stupidity on the internet. Smart bloke. Even if he were in the right, it's not going to be much help to him when he's being rolled over by a 3 ton van. Clear stupidity. Pull over, give the van room, let him pass and get on with your cycle without a 2nd thought. It's not that difficult.

    Okay, I'll bite. The video starts on a double solid white line. In all my time driving that says to me "don't even think about overtaking".

    The cyclist has every right to take the lane if they feel it is safer, and did so. The freewheeling or not is irrelevant.

    When the road opened up the cyclist moved over, and then the van driver made his move.

    We have no idea what the cyclist's motive was. We have no idea what the relationship between the cyclist and the person recording the video is. For all we know they are completely unrelated, and it was not done deliberately to "post his stupidity on the internet".

    I'll agree with the clear stupidity comment though, but not on the part of the cyclist. When you're in charge of "a 3 ton white van" you have a responsibility to not act like a d*ck. The driver totally failed in that responsibility, deserved to be fired for it, and would absolutely deserve any criminal conviction that comes his way.


  • Options
    #39
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,940 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    robyntmorton wrote: »
    As opposed to cycling in the middle of the lane in order to discourage an overtake when it was not safe to do so?
    vrt12 wrote: »
    We can all see the video. There is clearly lots of room to overtake without even crossing the white line.

    It is these self appointed enforcers of the rules of the road that give cyclists a bad name.

    Free wheeling in the middle of the road, clearly deliberately trying to provoke a reaction against the driver of a 3 ton white van and then posting his stupidity on the internet. Smart bloke. Even if he were in the right, it's not going to be much help to him when he's being rolled over by a 3 ton van. Clear stupidity. Pull over, give the van room, let him pass and get on with your cycle without a 2nd thought. It's not that difficult.

    It is a solid white line, there are three oncoming vehicles before the cyclists starts to move over (after they have passed).

    It is funny what people miss when they have decided who is to blame. The cyclists may have looked provocative but it is clear if he pulled in, the van would have unsafely went for an overtake (oncoming traffic, solid white line etc.)


  • Options
    #40
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 20,079 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    kerplun k wrote: »
    I really can?t believe some of the responses in this thread. In both cases a driver attempts to severally injure/kill someone, and people are debating how much a d**k the victim was. It?s unreal. It really highlights people?s attitude towards cyclists.

    I can easily believe some of the responses in this thread, and they go a good way towards explaining what underlies some people's less than impressed view of some types of cyclists.


  • Options
    #41
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,512 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    daheff wrote: »

    I can only assume you are a card holder of the militant cyclists club if you believe the cyclist was behaving in a proper manner and that this incident was all the van drivers fault.

    It was entirely the van driver's fault. It's a different incident and off topic


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,683 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    vrt12 wrote: »
    We can all see the video. There is clearly lots of room to overtake without even crossing the white line.

    It is these self appointed enforcers of the rules of the road that give cyclists a bad name.

    Free wheeling in the middle of the road, clearly deliberately trying to provoke a reaction against the driver of a 3 ton white van and then posting his stupidity on the internet. Smart bloke. Even if he were in the right, it's not going to be much help to him when he's being rolled over by a 3 ton van. Clear stupidity. Pull over, give the van room, let him pass and get on with your cycle without a 2nd thought. It's not that difficult.

    Janey Mack.

    A continuous white line means Do Not Overtake. Full stop. It doesn't mean, do not overtake unless you can squeeze through inside the white line.

    This is just unbelievable whataboutery.

    I'm convinced that a lot of people who drive just full stop hate cyclists, have no interest in the notion that cyclists have rights on the road.


  • Options
    #43
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,512 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    cnocbui wrote: »
    The cyclist swore at her, then he kicked her mirror. He isn't blameless. The driver clearly should not have rammed him and should be punished.

    No, she swore at him after he pointed out she on the phone, and rather calmly by all accounts. This was after her careless driving saw her nearly hit him in the first place.


  • Options
    #44
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,683 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    cnocbui wrote: »
    The cyclist swore at her, then he kicked her mirror. He isn't blameless. The driver clearly should not have rammed him and should be punished.

    Classic victim blaming....

    I'm not excusing it BUT.....


  • Options
    #45
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,512 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    Also, every time a driver swears at me, I'm going to know assume I can smash their window and physically attack them. So long as they start it though, then I think it's justified. That's what I'm getting from some posters here.


  • Options
    #46
    vrt12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭vrt12


    CramCycle wrote: »
    It is a solid white line, there are three oncoming vehicles before the cyclists starts to move over (after they have passed).

    It is funny what people miss when they have decided who is to blame. The cyclists may have looked provocative but it is clear if he pulled in, the van would have unsafely went for an overtake (oncoming traffic, solid white line etc.)

    It is not the cyclists responsibility to enforce the rules of the road. As a cyclist I will take care of my own safety first and foremost and the safety of others. Being in the right or wrong doesn't come into it. There is no argument here, we can all see the video we can all see the cyclist could have moved over and let the van past and this would be an everyday occurrence for most cyclist. It's not a matter of being entitled to the road just as much as cars, or being on the right side of the rules of the road. It's just common sense and a matter of safety. In fact a matter of life and death and that is no exaggeration.


  • Options
    #47
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,512 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    vrt12 wrote: »
    It is not the cyclists responsibility to enforce the rules of the road. As a cyclist I will take care of my own safety first and foremost and the safety of others. Being in the right or wrong doesn't come into it. There is no argument here, we can all see the video we can all see the cyclist could have moved over and let the van past and this would be an everyday occurrence for most cyclist. It's not a matter of being entitled to the road just as much as cars, or being on the right side of the rules of the road. It's just common sense and a matter of safety. In fact a matter of life and death and that is no exaggeration.

    The cyclist has a responsibility to make sure their own safety is maintained. That's all they were doing. They were not enforcing the rules of the road. They were cycling defensively.

    You're trolling, nothing else.


  • Options
    #48
    vrt12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭vrt12


    Tombo2001 wrote: »

    A continuous white line means Do Not Overtake. Full stop. It doesn't mean, do not overtake unless you can squeeze through inside the white line.

    You are wrong. It means do not cross the line.


  • Options
    #49
    vrt12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭vrt12


    Weepsie wrote: »
    You're trolling, nothing else.

    Classic. you know you've won an argument when someone pulls the troll card.


  • Options
    #50
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,617 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    vrt12 wrote: »
    We can all see the video. There is clearly lots of room to overtake without even crossing the white line.
    hmm. let's allow the cyclist 50cm between his shoulder and the side of the road, which is clearly not 'cycling in the middle of the road'.
    then allow 50cm for the cyclist himself.
    then allow 1.5m for a safe overtake.
    then allow 2m for the width of the van.

    that's a 4.5m wide lane?


  • Options
    #51
    vrt12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭vrt12


    Weepsie wrote: »
    The cyclist has a responsibility to make sure their own safety is maintained. That's all they were doing.
    Wow. The cyclist was maintaining their own safety by cycling in the middle of the road and blocking a clearly very disgruntled van driver. come off it. Who is the troll here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,512 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    vrt12 wrote: »
    You are wrong. It means do not cross the line.

    You're allowed to cross them to overtake cyclists, stationary objects, etc

    And no you're not winning anything. You're repeating nonsense claims


  • Options
    #53
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,512 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    vrt12 wrote: »
    Wow. The cyclist was maintaining their own safety by cycling in the middle of the road and blocking a clearly very disgruntled van driver. come off it. Who is the troll here.

    The cyclist had the lane. It wasn't safe for the van driver to pass while there was oncoming traffic. Double white lines in the UK signify a hazard. The cyclist was right to take the lane.


  • Options
    #54
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,617 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    vrt12 wrote: »
    Wow. The cyclist was maintaining their own safety by cycling in the middle of the road
    you're actually correct. gold star.


  • Options
    #55
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,683 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    vrt12 wrote: »
    Wow. The cyclist was maintaining their own safety by cycling in the middle of the road and blocking a clearly very disgruntled van driver. come off it. Who is the troll here.

    God bless the cyclist; they made the assumption that the van driver wouldn't try to deliberately maim them.

    The cyclist behaved exactly the way I would in a taxi lane where there is very little room - that is to say; If I keep to the left, this good behind me might try to overtake, when there CLEARLY isn't enough room....as such, I will cycle in the middle so they wont be able to overtake me....

    But your logic is right......

    .....So next time I see an elderly person with a cane walking slowly down the middle of the street....holding me up......instead of pulling over to let me past....well yes like you say that's really a provocation isn't it.:confused: Same thing.


  • Options
    #56
    vrt12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭vrt12


    Weepsie wrote: »
    The cyclist had the lane. It wasn't safe for the van driver to pass while there was oncoming traffic. Double white lines in the UK signify a hazard. The cyclist was right to take the lane.
    I've already stated it's not a question of right or wrong. I feel like I am trying to reason with children. There is a high probability that someone reading this is going to end up in an accident. See where this righteous attitude gets you when you're bouncing across a bonnet.


  • Options
    #57
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 20,079 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Weepsie wrote: »
    No, she swore at him after he pointed out she on the phone, and rather calmly by all accounts. This was after her careless driving saw her nearly hit him in the first place.
    There was an exchange of words and gestures. The complainant admits he should not have followed and that he kicked her wing mirror.

    Since the prosecutor said that, and was not prepared to state that the cyclists words were placid and non inflammatory, as he claimed to a paper, I choose not to believe him. He didn't swear at her, but he did then go and kick her mirror? As they say actions speak louder than words.

    She shouldn't have been on her phone, she shouldn't have sworn and rudely gestured at the cyclist and she certainly shouldn't have deliberately rammed him as she did.

    He shouldn't have kicked her mirror, he admits that himself. My saying that does not mean I condone her actions.


  • Options
    #58
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,683 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    vrt12 wrote: »
    I've already stated it's not a question of right or wrong. I feel like I am trying to reason with children. There is a high probability that someone reading this is going to end up in an accident. See where this righteous attitude gets you when you're bouncing across a bonnet.



    You think it was safe to pull over to the left and let the van overtake.

    Nobody else thinks so.

    We all cycle - not just you. Based on our collective experience of whats safe and whats not - we believe the cyclist correctly took the view that it wasn't safe to encourage the Van to overtake him by keeping tight to the left - as that would be dangerous.......you are recommending that he deliberately put himself at risk. The rest of us feel the cyclist tried to de-risk the situation.

    It takes a special type of arrogance to say 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong'.


  • Options
    #59
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,940 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    MOD VOICE: At vrt12, as a new poster, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here but form now on, learn to be more civil. If you believe someone is trolling, you report it, you do not call it out in thread. As for the more regular forum posters, the same applies to you all, learn to be more civil or take a break from posting.


  • Options
    #60
    vrt12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭vrt12


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    God bless the cyclist; they made the assumption that the van driver wouldn't try to deliberately maim them.

    The cyclist behaved exactly the way I would in a taxi lane where there is very little room - that is to say; If I keep to the left, this good behind me might try to overtake, when there CLEARLY isn't enough room....as such, I will cycle in the middle so they wont be able to overtake me....

    But your logic is right......

    .....So next time I see an elderly person with a cane walking slowly down the middle of the street....holding me up......instead of pulling over to let me past....well yes like you say that's really a provocation isn't it.:confused: Same thing.
    Says who? You? So you cycle in the middle with a 2 ton vehicle coming up behind for your own safety? you're mad. As in mad, ted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,512 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    vrt12 wrote: »
    I've already stated it's not a question of right or wrong. I feel like I am trying to reason with children. There is a high probability that someone reading this is going to end up in an accident. See where this righteous attitude gets you when you're bouncing across a bonnet.

    There's a higher probability of an accident by not taking the lane though as it encourages dangerous overtaking that might be entirely unintentional.

    This was an intentional hitting of the cyclist

    If I'm bouncing across a bonnet it's because a driver behind me is a criminal or grossly negligent like this van driver.

    Your advice is terrible and is more dangerous too


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement