White van man strikes again

[Black Country Ste]

Replace the OP cyclist with a police cyclist/car..............The clever money is on the driver getting a ticket or a visit to magistrates.

Also to the OP and any other helmet cammers, don't go to 'normal' response police with stuff like this, they're full to overflowing with crim dam, assaults, thefts, domestics et al. Ask to speak to the local traffic bobbies - they positively salivate over stuff like this.

I have an appointment to see Plod about the close HGV pass I posted in the commuting thread. I specifically asked to speak to a traffic officer but will probably end up with a toothless bobby who will claim they cycle too and I 'wasn't hit so what's the problem?' Of course, the problem is as exactly as Glenn said, if driving like that is deemed acceptable through non-enforcement then people will continue to be put off cycling. Keith Peat wins.

 

[arghill]

I think I see little bike graphics painted on the road.

Have not seen those around here apart from on cyclepaths, what is it supposed to be indicating?

If it is 'look out for cyclists' then it is obviously wasted paint!

 

[Hip Priest]

[QUOTE 2580678, member: 30090"]If ever there was an advert for riding in primary.[/quote]


Yes.

The OP isn't to blame for that appalling overtake, but if you're keeping up with traffic you should be in primary.

 

[glenn forger]

I think I see little bike graphics painted on the road.

Have not seen those around here apart from on cyclepaths, what is it supposed to be indicating?

If it is 'look out for cyclists' then it is obviously wasted paint!

They've trialed them in Hackney and Cambridge and Norwich. It is to raise consciousness. Not a bad idea, shame we have to paint the roads to remind drivers to take care around cyclists.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Van driver was poor (and dangerous).

Cyclist wasn't "asking for it" in the unfortunate words of judges in my youth, but certainly didn't ride to optimise his longevity.

I am broadly in favour of primary (being out in the traffic flow) at these low speeds and it is often my default position in slow traffic. But I don't call it 'primary' and have never been comfortable doing so - it seems a lttle 'jargonese' to me and most other road users have no clue what it means. In some ways its use excludes other (significant) road users from the debate about position and safety.

I think some less experienced cyclists, some younger riders whose reading exceeds their roadcraft and some who are perhaps looking for confrontation (or roadside dialogue) have a weird habit of taking 'primary' at every whiff of being able to justify it. To me, that is not a positive and cooperative attitude towards sharing the roads. Swinging into primary far, far before a pinch point or staying in primary between parked cars 200 metres apart just looks silly and childish, but used with good rear vision, good eye contact and with a mind to the speed of the traffic, primary has its place.

In the OP vid, riding out in the traffic stream was the answer. Many of us have been doing that since before the word 'primary' was popularly used and since long before the rise of the headcam.

OP, throw the camera away, look behind you and own the roadspace you occupy.

 

[Jezston]

Funny how the usual people come out to admonish someone for using a camera when a motorist makes a dick move on them.

 

[glenn forger]

It's all very well advocating primary, one car had already passed, it would be a brave cyclist who dominated the road all the way round the corner, especially with massive revving going on behind. Had the cyclist insisted on blocking the van things could have escalated, discretion being the better part of valour.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Funny how the usual people come out to admonish someone for using a camera when a motorist makes a dick move on them.

And also funny how they seem to blame the cyclist's position, regardless of the fact it is the OVERTAKING VEHICLE DRIVER'S R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y to pass safely regardless of what they are faced with/overtaking. Coupled with the fact the move was pulled on a vulerable road user in a built up area out side a SCHOOL....! And then the pillock van driver just pulled up and stopped 100m later - gaining exactly how much time (considering the OP was clearly keeping up with traffic)?

 

[Hip Priest]

It's all very well advocating primary, one car had already passed, it would be a brave cyclist who dominated the road all the way round the corner, especially with massive revving going on behind. Had the cyclist insisted on blocking the van things could have escalated, discretion being the better part of valour.

I'm not a particularly brave cyclist, and I'd have taken the lane. If you leave a gap, an idiot will often fill it. I don't really want to get hung up on the guy's position though. The van driver was to blame.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Funny how the usual people come out to admonish someone for using a camera when a motorist makes a dick move on them.

And also funny how they seem to blame the cyclist's position, regardless of the fact it is the OVERTAKING VEHICLE DRIVER'S R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y to pass safely regardless of what they are faced with/overtaking. Coupled with the fact the move was pulled on a vulerable road user in a built up area out side a SCHOOL....! And then the pillock van driver just pulled up and stopped 100m later - gaining exactly how much time (considering the OP was clearly keeping up with traffic)?

If either of you mean my post (#36), I do not blame the cyclist and do not admonish anyone for using a camera. If you are referring to another post, my apologies for responding.

I am quite clear in saying that the driving was poor and dangerous. I blame the driver.

I do not find the positioning of the bicycle optimal and I say so (I hope) politely and constructively. I do not blame the cyclist.

I do find the way some cyclists seem to concentrate more on their footage than their riding quite worrying, geeky and unsettling (Trafficdroid and Matthew_T inter alia), but I am not against camera use per se.

I do not carry a camera and never have. I find that situations like the one shown in the clip are often avoidable. We can get in a terrible tizzy about WVM or any other road user, but venting spleen on the Internet and shouting "Got you on camera!" may not be the answer.

I am not a terribly good driver or cyclist, but I have been doing both (often quite high mileages) for several decades. It is not unheard of for overtaking road users to cut it fine, offer punishment passes and even 'brake test' those they are passing. It happens to bicycles, cars and motorcycles. I do not blame the cyclist at all, but there are things one can do to make the OP scenario less likely.

 

[PK99]

It's all very well advocating primary, one car had already passed, it would be a brave cyclist who dominated the road all the way round the corner, especially with massive revving going on behind. Had the cyclist insisted on blocking the van things could have escalated, discretion being the better part of valour.

in that situation i always move into the middle of the traffic stream as there is no space to overtake. As i do so, keeping up with the traffic flow, I give a "stay back" signal and "thumbs up" when the driver does

 

[PK99]

I do not carry a camera and never have. I find that situations like the one shown in the clip are often avoidable. We can get in a terrible tizzy about WVM or any other road user, but venting spleen on the Internet and shouting "Got you on camera!" may not be the answer.

.[/quote]



Just as it is argued that wearing a helmet leads to risk compensation, I think some camera users tend to ride less defensively than they should. In the video in question, the defensive option would have been to assertively take the lane. The OP chose instead to ride passively, leaving a gap for Jonny Chancer to use and Jonny duly obliged.

Whatever the wrongs of the drivers driving, I would hope that the op, faced with a similar situation in the future, would choose to take the middle of the traffic stream.

 

[Jezston]

Just as it is argued that wearing a helmet leads to risk compensation, I think some camera users tend to ride less defensively than they should.

You are implying that wearing a camera makes you ride less defensively?

I'd imaging most people ride less defensively than they should, because in our culture we all seem to be brought up to believe we as cyclists are supposed to stay on the left, out of the way. Having a camera doesn't make a difference to that.

 

[JKility]

Whenever I am cycling im always making the decision whether to cycle passively or in primary, there are certain roads within Bristol where I've had a previous close-encounter and therefore decided to cycle primary, in this case, this is another road where I will cycle primary, for me it is always down to the road it self, if i know it's not wide or theres a risk of someone overtaking me dangerously then I will obviously think about moving to primary. The reason why I did not cycle primary here is that it is already a narrow road (As you can see there are cars parked on the opposite side of the road) and I've cycled on this stretch with no issues at all, I've had cars overtake me there safely and I've had no problem, obviously with this case this is obviously different, the van driver no matter how much I was keeping up with traffic wanted to get in front of me. Riding primary here would, as someone has previously stated, probably cause the van to rev behind my self or even use his horn., I've had this on another stretch where I ride primary and had cars beeping their horns, it doesn't bother me, my priority is my safety, not how quick you get to wherever you want to go.

As for the camera use, I will of course use a camera on the journeys I make on my cycle, the reason as in this case is, evidence. Let me tell you, I've previously had a case where a hire van had previously turnt a corner in front of me cutting me up, I reported it to the hire company and they came back to me telling me the driver said that it didn't happen... thats where the evidence of the camera comes in, I was able to prove that it did happen. What if I had actually got hit by this van and hadn't had my camera, yes there may be witness's around but maybe not always accurate (people may not remember everything etc), but a camera would and therefore would be evidence available to use in court.

I said in the video 'Got you on camera', it was my reaction to what happened, having to evasively take action and brake hard like that because of his dangerous driving is of course going to p*ss me off and therefore that was my reaction at the time, I know some car drivers are the same when a car cuts them up....

 

[JKility]

Just an update on this. complainted to the IPCC who refered into to Avon and Somerset Police, one of the inspectors was taking the complaint and dealing with it, contacted me letting me know that although there was no criminal charges etc he will send the registered owner of the vehicle a official police caution including a letter with the link to the video on and also send me a copy to.