- May 9, 2021
Of course he isn't innocent the white van is parked on a traffic island partly across the dropped section for wheelchair access.One can deem that the white van man who has parked the van there is innocent , but he isn't. He has caused a hazard/dnager where approaching drivers can't see beyond him and also he has block the way for any one using the path to see clearly. He should have parked some where more sensible without being a danger to other users.
It is never cut and dry.
Agreed. StationaryWhiteVanMan also be the guy in high-vis in the bus stop(?), possibly doing some maintenance there.Of course he isn't innocent the white van is parked on a traffic island partly across the dropped section for wheelchair access.
'Human Factors' analysis is pretty advanced and widely used in transport accident investigation and prevention.Crashes happen when you've switched off because you know an area 'too well', and have assumptions about what going to happen next.
Life in general would be less hazardous, if awareness of biases formed part of all educational programmes from an early age.Not used in the training of Joe public drivers, as far as I am aware, but could have major benefits both there and in other education programs such as those alternatives to big fines.
Rider is 100% at fault. He's riding the pavement, which is illegal, and the white van is not to blame in any way, shape or form as normal pedestrian traffic isnt going to be coming out from behind it at any more than walking speed.One can deem that the white van man who has parked the van there is innocent , but he isn't. He has caused a hazard/danger where approaching drivers can't see beyond him and also he has block the way for any one using the path to see clearly. He should have parked some where more sensible without being a danger to other users.
It is never cut and dry.
The evidence shows it was 19mph.Does the video suggest the driver of the van, hitting the cyclist, is within the 20mph limit for the road ?
He just disagreed with the outcome for perfectly understandable reasons.The motorist could of easily avoided the fine but due to his poor attitude paid over the odds. Would of been much wiser just to take the awareness course.
I thought this thread was about the silly death wish rider popping out from behind a parked van ?.Even Mr Loophole aka nick freeman has said the driver was wrong.
Keep up Andy, #3 onwards also.I thought this thread was about the silly death wish rider popping out from behind a parked van ?.
The link you've given is his opinion on the old chap who overtook far too close.
Looking at that video... I think it's high time I bought a second camera for the back! In daylight, pretty much any cheapo camera can capture number plates and give drivers passing too close legal problems. They all stink in low light conditions - even the GoPros and Insta360s top out at ISO 6400. Useless!OK, even if you discount the above example as contributory negligence from the motorist for going maybe too fast, it's still stupid and suicidal behaviour from the cyclist.
Let's look at this example of another motorist fined for overtaking a cyclist too close. In my view not too close - perfectly safe, and as I said the other day, the gaps between motorist and cyclist passing in opposite directions on a road narrowed by vehicles parked both sides is going to be a lot less than that. No legislation for that one though.
Here's the video:-
There is also an article in the Daily Telegraph about it, but as it's hidden behind a paywall, I'll copy and paste the entire article below, for ease of reference. The link is here anyway.
Also, how the hell was it filmed? Reverse cameras on the bike? What kind of saddo would review that and submit it with the express purpose of getting someone into trouble?
I mean, we're unpopular enough with car drivers as it is, and this type of action is going to annoy them still further.
The new highway code is wrong and misusing it as law is fundamentally wrong for the following reasons:Even Mr Loophole aka nick freeman has said the driver was wrong.
His words, [ Ill advised not to take the course offered].
They don't have to overtake on narrow roads and lanes, do they?Want to make cycling safer: Bully drivers with immense fines for not precisely following a desirable but not mandatory highway code measure, which is in any case often impossible to adhere to.
I don't think it's anti-social to "Festoon" my bike with cameras to enable me to hold drivers to account for endangering my life by passing too close. If the Police decide to prosecute as a result, it will be for sound reasons. It's anti-social endangering cyclist lives, who are much more likely to be seriously injured in a collision with a motor vehicle.These sort of measures do not increase cycling safety, all they do is encourage the anti-car cycling brigade to festoon their bikes with cameras with the express purpose of giving their anti-social feelings expression by reporting drivers for often imaginary transgressions.
Not many people get killed colliding with another person on the pavement.The whole approach of the authorities needs to change, from bullying about speed and road space usage with unfair penalising, to the right messages of co-operation and courtesy. We all already do this when walking on the pavements, sharing the space when they are busy by making way for each other, showing that this is socially natural to us. Nobody has to have bodycams to ensure this happens, no-one has to be threatened with big fines, because we naturally want to co-operate.
And how often, when out walking these days, do you need to step out of the way of someone who is looking intently at some electronic device in their hand.Not many people get killed colliding with another person on the pavement.