Driver deliberately hits cyclist with her car (Video)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

vrt12

Weepsie wrote: »

You're trolling, nothing else.

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

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?

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.

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.

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. Same thing.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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. 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.

cnocbui

Weepsie wrote: »

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.

When I was a bit younger, and rode my bike, to-and-from high school, every single school day, rain or shine, for five years, my route took me across a very, very busy 2 lane bridge. The road itself was and is classed as a national highway.

Not once, ever, did I enforce my safety and ride across in the middle of the lane of a busy highway, holding up and inconveniencing probably a minimum of 30 cars, trucks and buses each time; no, every single time I cycled as close to the left as I possible could, literaly within 3-4" of the guard rail. Trucks, especially, would pass me within a scant couple of inches.

Stuff your holier-than-thou riding defensively high-horsery!

vrt12

Weepsie wrote: »

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.

Yes, I agree. Doesn't stop you from bouncing across that bonnet though.

cnocbui

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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'.

No, you are wrong, I think it was perfectly safe for that cyclist to have ridden to the left. He had far more room than I ever did crossing that bridge i mentioned in my previous post.

daheff

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

As somebody else has already stated, its not the cyclists job to stop other road users breaking the law. If the cyclist felt it was unsafe to continue on the road in front of this van (fearing it might attempt a dangerous manouevre ) why not pull off the road onto the grass completely out of the way??

The Van driver should not have done what was done. It was dangerous driving (and probably assault with a deadly weapon). I'm not defending it. I'm saying that the van driver was antagonised from what i saw (and i'm guessing if we saw the couple of mins beforehand there would be more) and that the cyclist is also to blame here for contributing to the dangerous road use by both parties.

jon1981 wrote: »

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!

Not what i said. And its not attempted murder unless its premeditated. Attempted manslaughter at best.

Weepsie wrote: »

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

And also brought up by somebody on this thread.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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

Nobody else thinks so.

I think so. The cyclist should have pulled off the road completely if they felt oncoming traffic was a potential danger to them. Why put yourself in harms way?

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The rest of us feel the cyclist tried to de-risk the situation.

I think the cyclist added to the risk in the situation.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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

sure does....that comment can be directed your way too!**

* and yes i know it could be directed mine too.

CramCycle

cnocbui wrote: »

Not once, ever, did I enforce my safety and ride across in the middle of the lane of a busy highway, holding up and inconveniencing probably a minimum of 30 cars, trucks and buses each time; no, every single time I cycled as close to the left as I possible could, literaly within 3-4" of the guard rail. Trucks, especially, would pass me within a scant couple of inches.

Do you think the two are related?

cnocbui

CramCycle wrote: »

Do you think the two are related?

I wasn't complaining.

lucernarian

cnocbui wrote: »

When I was a bit younger, and rode my bike, to-and-from high school, every single school day, rain or shine, for five years, my route took me across a very, very busy 2 lane bridge. The road itself was and is classed as a national highway.

Not once, ever, did I enforce my safety and ride across in the middle of the lane of a busy highway, holding up and inconveniencing probably a minimum of 30 cars, trucks and buses each time; no, every single time I cycled as close to the left as I possible could, literaly within 3-4" of the guard rail. Trucks, especially, would pass me within a scant couple of inches.

Stuff your holier-than-thou riding defensively high-horsery!

That's histrionics, pure and simple. I always cycle close to the edge of the road but in situations where someone's going to try to "squeeze" past, it's entirely sensible and warranted to move out. Though I've rarely had the need to do that in my own judgement, I wouldn't begrudge anyone doing it.

It reminds me of the Simpsons scene about speed limits: sure it will save a few lives, but millions will be late! Incredible to think that people take that satire literally.

robyntmorton

daheff wrote: »

As somebody else has already stated, its not the cyclists job to stop other road users breaking the law. If the cyclist felt it was unsafe to continue on the road in front of this van (fearing it might attempt a dangerous manouevre ) why not pull off the road onto the grass completely out of the way??

The Van driver should not have done what was done. It was dangerous driving (and probably assault with a deadly weapon). I'm not defending it. I'm saying that the van driver was antagonised from what i saw (and i'm guessing if we saw the couple of mins beforehand there would be more) and that the cyclist is also to blame here for contributing to the dangerous road use by both parties.

We have no way of knowing if the cyclist took the lane as an act of self preservation (preventing a dangerous overtake - intentional or no), or as an act of vigilante rule enforcement. I like many others here would see it as self preservation, and would take the same course of action.

To pull into the grass completely, as you suggest, would relegate the cyclist to second class citizen on the road, giving up all right of way. The cyclist has as much right to the road as the motorist.

Should cyclists (as a whole) just stop cycling on everything except tracks and closed roads, for fear that every motorist approaching behind us may go full psychopath and attempt to maim or kill us? Or should we keep doing our thing with the (reasonable) expectation that most people in vehicles approaching behind us are reasonable people who will not (intentionally) try to kill us?

I can only disagree with your opinion that the cyclist is also to blame. As I have previously said, taking the lane was an act of self preservation as opposed to intentionally antagonising another road user. Either way, the response given by the van driver was hyperbolically out of proportion. That is something that I think everyone will agree on.

jon1981

74 posts in and nobody has brought up "road tax" ? Disappointed

T-Maxx

Looking at around the 7 second mark, it's clear to me that the cyclist could have easily moved over to let the van through. Could =/= should, and I think that's where the issue often lies.

Personally I would've moved over.

The van driver's action is obviously incredibly dangerous, and as such should be prosecuted. With what exactly he should be charged though is the tough question.