Too Much Excitement On The Commute Home

[Plax]

I think the van driver was in the wrong, however I noticed nothing aggressive in his tone and to be frank the OP ddn't really give him a chance to apologise, just called him an unnecessary rude word and cycled off.

 

[BSRU]

I think the van driver was in the wrong, however I noticed nothing aggressive in his tone and to be frank the OP ddn't really give him a chance to apologise, just called him an unnecessary rude word and cycled off.

When you have almost been sent flying over someone's bonnet because of their total stupidity your not really interested in their apology.

 

[Plax]

When you have almost been sent flying over someone's bonnet because of their total stupidity your not really interested in their apology.

Very true, but at the same time what do you really think the van driver is going to focus on? The fact that he nearly run a cyclist over or the verbal abuse the cyclist gave him afterwards? I suspect the latter, whereas if the "altracation" had been more civil he'd be more likely to think about his actions and admit the error and not focus on the behaviour of the abusive cyclist. There is usually always an initial element of denial and transference when somebody has made a mistake and the manner in which the "victim" deals with that mistake can affect whether, in their period of reflection, the wrong-doer admits their error or goes on the defensive and continues to deny it and/or get aggressive (and subsequently makes cyclists the focus of his rage).
Just saying. I'm in no way condoning the van drivers actions, he was definitely in the wrong. I just think calling him the W word wasn't really required and may have tainted the drivers perception of cyclists if he has heard it.

 

[BentMikey]

Sorry Plax, I'm not focusing on your comment here, but it does make me laugh when I read about "tainting the image of cyclists". I don't think anything we could do would make our public image any worse than it currently is.

That said, of course you're right, it's far better to behave nicely all the time, regardless of the other person's reaction. This can be exceptionally satisfying when their behaviour vs your niceness makes them look even worse than the scum they are.

 

[Plax]

Well you know public image isn't necessarily the views of all the public, and there is such a thing as damage limitation and turning the tide of popular opinion blady blah. You're more likely to get a rant down the pub about an abusive cyclist than about a nice polite one that pointed out the error of your ways and made you feel like a n*b. Glad I could make you laugh though, I do try

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think the van driver was in the wrong, however I noticed nothing aggressive in his tone and to be frank the OP ddn't really give him a chance to apologise, just called him an unnecessary rude word and cycled off.

There was nothing, whatsoever, gratuitous or unnecessary about the use of that profanity in that context imo.

 

[Herbie]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci0ns6K93-g

Aye too much excitement...close shave that one.

 

[BSRU]

Very true, but at the same time what do you really think the van driver is going to focus on? The fact that he nearly run a cyclist over or the verbal abuse the cyclist gave him afterwards? I suspect the latter, whereas if the "altracation" had been more civil he'd be more likely to think about his actions and admit the error and not focus on the behaviour of the abusive cyclist. There is usually always an initial element of denial and transference when somebody has made a mistake and the manner in which the "victim" deals with that mistake can affect whether, in their period of reflection, the wrong-doer admits their error or goes on the defensive and continues to deny it and/or get aggressive (and subsequently makes cyclists the focus of his rage).
Just saying. I'm in no way condoning the van drivers actions, he was definitely in the wrong. I just think calling him the W word wasn't really required and may have tainted the drivers perception of cyclists if he has heard it.

I understand what you are saying but at that moment in time I did not care about the drivers perceptions of cyclists, especially as he appeared to think he had done thing wrong.

 

[daSmirnov]

I think the van driver was in the wrong, however I noticed nothing aggressive in his tone and to be frank the OP ddn't really give him a chance to apologise, just called him an unnecessary rude word and cycled off.

The trouble is when you think you're about to be taken out you don't think, you just react on auto pilot. I had a lovely couple who almost took me out on a round-about last year, they were inches from smacking into my rear wheel at a fair clip. I jumped off the bike and started shouting something about pulling the hell over.

They obviously thought twice about if they should - who wouldn't with an obviously young well fit and handsome super angry cyclist yelling at you - but they did and a few seconds is all you need to calm down and we left on good terms. Some people will just yell back at you, some people will recognise they messed up and apologise and make sure you're alright.

Looking back at it now, I often wish I hadn't "over-reacted" in that way, but at the time I just couldn't help it - I was furious.

But it's the same when I get a close pass, my right hand just has to make the WTF are you doing hand-gesture. Must resist.

 

[400bhp]

Very true, but at the same time what do you really think the van driver is going to focus on? The fact that he nearly run a cyclist over or the verbal abuse the cyclist gave him afterwards? I suspect the latter, whereas if the "altracation" had been more civil he'd be more likely to think about his actions and admit the error and not focus on the behaviour of the abusive cyclist. There is usually always an initial element of denial and transference when somebody has made a mistake and the manner in which the "victim" deals with that mistake can affect whether, in their period of reflection, the wrong-doer admits their error or goes on the defensive and continues to deny it and/or get aggressive (and subsequently makes cyclists the focus of his rage).
Just saying. I'm in no way condoning the van drivers actions, he was definitely in the wrong. I just think calling him the W word wasn't really required and may have tainted the drivers perception of cyclists if he has heard it.

I can read as far as the second line. Has my prescription got worse?

 

[steveoo]

Very close that one,everyone makes a mistake now and then.If he apologises fair play if not give the twat a slap.

 

[Rahul Sapariya]

In terms of who's fault it is, the video shows that it is the drivers fault, not the cyclists. If you are riding on the left side of the road (so the correct side of the road) then you have priority on the road and have to give way to no one unless there is a red light or giveway lines because you are joining onto another road. The cyclist was riding straight on the road and a car pulls into that lane. What would happen if that wasn't a cyclist but a car, would people still say it wasn't the van drivers fault? No, they'd blame him. Now a cyclist is a form of traffic and is treated as such. The cyclist looked like he was in secondary position (about a foot or 2 from the curb) but the cyclist should not have to worry about traffic on the other side of the road.

Furthermore, after the van driver misses the cyclist, you see traffic behind the cyclist that is held up by the van driver doing a 3 point turn along with traffic in his own lane being held up. So the van driver was completely at fault. Too often am I held up by some idiot car driver who thinks this location (whatever road that is busy it seems) is perfect for a 3 point turn. Now some people who are car drivers will say that is perfectly fine but I put this to them, did your driving instructor tell you it was alright to do a 3 point turn when there are cars? The answer is no and so if that van driver is doing a 3 point turn there when there is traffic without looking first, then he is in the wrong.

Anyone disagrees, reply to the comment