Driver deliberately hits cyclist with her car (Video)

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.

morana

NO

CramCycle

T-Maxx wrote: »

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.

Assault with a deadly weapon?

Tombo2001

T-Maxx wrote: »

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.

Ah sure look he did nothing wrong it was the cyclists fault.....if he pays for a new puncture repair kit that should cover it.

CramCycle

jon1981 wrote: »

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

MOD VOICE: 74 posts and it hasn't been closed was more surprising.