I hope he reported him.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Globalti

Legendary Member
We all know that highway authorities put lines on the road in the most stupid of places.

Highways authorities don't spend money on paint for fun; they put it in places where there's a bad accident record or an obvious hazard. The rules are actually very clear on how roads must be signed and painted.
 

I like Skol

A Minging Manc...
What an interesting thread, I will add the voice of reason and experience now.
There is clearly much, much more to this than we are being shown and I would hazard a guess that there is a considerable amount of interaction between these two in the run up to the clip we see.
The van driver is a knuckle dragging chimp and should not be on the road for a very long time (I consider a 12-18 month ban to be appropriate for a first offence of this nature).
The cyclist needs to wind his neck in a bit because his style of self-righteous cycling is massively increasing his risk exposure when on the road.
I am both an experienced urban cyclist (I've done it all my life) and an experienced driver. I have done the 40kpa driving job in large vans. I ride on the roads with my kids. I have an inkling of what it means to share the road with ALL users.
The person riding the cyclecam that caught all this action was using the road a bit more considerately and clearly felt that they had been passed by the van in the film without undue danger or threat, or I am sure we would also be seeing that evidence of a close pass.
It is not ideal but there really was no need for the cyclist to block the road in this manner (looks as though there was a hint of weaving going on, but without the previous footage can't be sure on this) and given the limited view of the road that we are given I am sure I wouldn't be riding so obstructively. Trust me, I am no timid gutter bunny and anyone who has ridden with me will know I am certainly not afraid of being an assertive cyclist. There was no need for that incident to become the confrontation that it did and the cyclists experience of using the road could be considerably less dangerous and a lot more enjoyable if he was not so adamant in enforcing his 'rights'!
 

winjim

Smash the cistern
What an interesting thread, I will add the voice of reason and experience now.
There is clearly much, much more to this than we are being shown and I would hazard a guess that there is a considerable amount of interaction between these two in the run up to the clip we see.
The van driver is a knuckle dragging chimp and should not be on the road for a very long time (I consider a 12-18 month ban to be appropriate for a first offence of this nature).
The cyclist needs to wind his neck in a bit because his style of self-righteous cycling is massively increasing his risk exposure when on the road.
I am both an experienced urban cyclist (I've done it all my life) and an experienced driver. I have done the 40kpa driving job in large vans. I ride on the roads with my kids. I have an inkling of what it means to share the road with ALL users.
The person riding the cyclecam that caught all this action was using the road a bit more considerately and clearly felt that they had been passed by the van in the film without undue danger or threat, or I am sure we would also be seeing that evidence of a close pass.
It is not ideal but there really was no need for the cyclist to block the road in this manner (looks as though there was a hint of weaving going on, but without the previous footage can't be sure on this) and given the limited view of the road that we are given I am sure I wouldn't be riding so obstructively. Trust me, I am no timid gutter bunny and anyone who has ridden with me will know I am certainly not afraid of being an assertive cyclist. There was no need for that incident to become the confrontation that it did and the cyclists experience of using the road could be considerably less dangerous and a lot more enjoyable if he was not so adamant in enforcing his 'rights'!
I see what you're saying, and normally I would be advocating not making our mind up until we'd seen the unedited footage, and trying to learn from it as road users, both drivers and cyclists. The trouble is, when you see an assault with a vehicle that's as bad as that, everything else sort of fades into irrelevance.
 

Drago

Legendary Member
Hell yeah Reiver. I've always said being alive is much nicer than being dead but righteous, not that there's evidence that was the case in this example. These plums that get into road rage are idiots, and are all to quick to moan when they get run over, thumped or stabbed. You never know what kind of butter you're dealing with.
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
Should be a lifetime ban. If he were a shotgun owner and clubbed a cyclist with his Beretta he'd have his certificate withdrawn for life, so why should he get his licence back when he clubs someone with an equally deadly van?

Personally I would have hoped the Chief Constable would not have issued the licence in the first place - now if we were talking about a Browning rather than a wishywashy Beretta the licence should have been granted without the current 3 month delay.
 
Last edited:

burntoutbanger

Veteran
Location
Devon
Their Facebook page appears to be down now, last time I looked there were loads of comments and questions about this being posted.

I drive a HGV myself and that driver should be sacked, banned for as long as the legal process allows and receive a custodial sentence.
 
Top Bottom