Cyclists fighting back against oafish drivers

rustyboy21

custardy wrote: »

did the van follow this then?

It is a matter of who you view it.

The van was obviously wanting to overtake, the cyclist looks to me to be wanting to stop him.

Therefore both were in the wrong, as I see it

custardy

rustyboy21 wrote: »

It is a matter of who you view it.

The van was obviously wanting to overtake, the cyclist looks to me to be wanting to stop him.

Therefore both were in the wrong, as I see it

did the courts agree he overtook when it was safe and legal to do so?

Azari

rustyboy21 wrote: »

Azari

FYO copied from the highway code

Overtaking and being overtaken

168

Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.

All perfectly correct but not in any way applicable here because the van driver never passed the cyclist until he knocked into him.

The problem here, which all of those who seem determined to blame the cyclist are, either through inability to understand the clip or through willful intransigence, missing, is not that the van tried to overtake but that he moved to the left when there was absolutely no reason to do so. The road ahead of him was clear in the direction in which he was traveling on both sides and he should have been maintaining a position well to the right because a) he was about to pass a parked vehicle and b) he was currently passing the cyclist.

It was his unnecessarily move to the left that got him into trouble from the motoring POV, not the overtaking maneuver as it should have been accomplished.

And as a law abiding cyclist do you follow the following rules as per highway code?

Of course.

Although if you had the slightest traffic sense you would realise that this hardly ever applies to cyclists since they cannot keep up with, let alone accelerate to, the speed of a passing car.

rustyboy21

custardy wrote: »

did the courts agree he overtook when it was safe and legal to do so?

The film evidence, shown to the court, was in addition to the legal proceedings and charges brought up against the driver. I am not and ever have siad that the van driver was in the right. I said that cyclists also have a duty of care when embarking on driving on hte road.

Both were in the wrong here, the van driver for side swiping the cyclist and the cyclist for not wearing the required high viz eqpt available, as shown in the link.

rustyboy21

off to work now, so will respond later

Azari

rustyboy21 wrote: »

It is a matter of who you view it.

The van was obviously wanting to overtake, the cyclist looks to me to be wanting to stop him.

Therefore both were in the wrong, as I see it

Because you are determined to see wrong on the part of the cyclist where none exists and seem to have so little road sense that you can actually misunderstand what you have been shown in order to make a case for that.

The van could have passed the cyclist quite safely had it not been for the unnecessary, and completely unpredictable shift to the left when he should have been keeping well to the right.

The police, the CPS and the court could all see this.

It's just a pity that a few people here can't.

Azari

Heliflyguy wrote: »

You dont seem to want to admit they were both in the wrong do you?

Obviously not.

Because it is most unusual to blame one road user when he is side-swiped by another who has no reason whatsoever to be shifting his position to the left.

custardy

rustyboy21 wrote: »

The film evidence, shown to the court, was in addition to the legal proceedings and charges brought up against the driver. I am not and ever have siad that the van driver was in the right. I said that cyclists also have a duty of care when embarking on driving on hte road.

Both were in the wrong here, the van driver for side swiping the cyclist and the cyclist for not wearing the required high viz eqpt available, as shown in the link.

required? by whom
so in hi viz,this wouldnt have happened?

Azari

rustyboy21 wrote: »

The film evidence, shown to the court, was in addition to the legal proceedings and charges brought up against the driver. I am not and ever have siad that the van driver was in the right. I said that cyclists also have a duty of care when embarking on driving on hte road.

Both were in the wrong here, the van driver for side swiping the cyclist and the cyclist for not wearing the required high viz eqpt available, as shown in the link.

Really, if you believe that the lack of high visibility clothing played any part in this event you are even more stupid than you have appeared so far.

The van driver knew perfectly well that he was overtaking the cyclist. Had he not seen him he would have run over him from the rear.

Trying to use a completely irrelevant piece of information in your increasingly desperate attempt to try and shift blame to an innocent party is just making you look like a fool.

rustyboy21

''Although if you had the slightest traffic sense you would realise that this hardly ever applies to cyclists since they cannot keep up with, let alone accelerate to, the speed of a passing car. ''

In a built up area, such as cities, a cyclist can get to far faster speeds than a motorist can, especially if they drive in such wanton abandon.

There again, you are slighting my comment in such a demeaning manner, acting as you have the right to hold the only valid viewpoint. everyone has the right to express their views