I hope he reported him.

[Drago]

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]

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]

[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]

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

 

[mjr]

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.

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.

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]

[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]

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]

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]

Driver to appear in Crawley Magistrates' Court soon:


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

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.


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!
View attachment 386894

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

 

[boydj]

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]

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.