why is this even up for debate?

StuartsProjects

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 9, 2021
497
286
It's not a cut 7 shut case, I'm afraid the van driver is part responsible as well it's one of those 60/40 or 70/30 incidents.
Does the video suggest the driver of the van, hitting the cyclist, is within the 20mph limit for the road ?
 
Last edited:

Nealh

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 7, 2014
17,246
6,740
59
West Sx RH
The Satnav or GPS indicates he was slowing to below 20mph , what is clear is no one has any idea if anyone is approaching from behind the van parked because line of sight is nil. So any approaching speed can be deemed to fast. Although unfortunate for the driver (wrong place wrong time) the onus is on him to be careful.
 
Last edited:

soundwave

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 23, 2015
12,861
5,281

skip to 15mins riding round those lanes round here the cars have nowhere to go some parts are so narrow im mm from hitting there wing mirrors going 30mph but im so used to it now i dont even think about it plus they just dont care either.
 

Nealh

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 7, 2014
17,246
6,740
59
West Sx RH
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.
 

nigelbb

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 19, 2019
258
225
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.
Of course he isn't innocent the white van is parked on a traffic island partly across the dropped section for wheelchair access.
 

richtea99

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 8, 2020
403
264
Of course he isn't innocent the white van is parked on a traffic island partly across the dropped section for wheelchair access.
Agreed. StationaryWhiteVanMan also be the guy in high-vis in the bus stop(?), possibly doing some maintenance there.
That doesn't make the parking OK, but it would explain it.
It's like meeting an Openreach van parked half on / half off the road whilst they're having a digging/cabling session. You need your tools pretty close to be efficient, or you end up crossing/re-crossing the road which is itself a hazard each time.

It's one where both the moving van driver and cyclist may know the junction quite well, but haven't taken into account what's changed - the parked van. Crashes happen when you've switched off because you know an area 'too well', and have assumptions about what going to happen next.
 

matthewslack

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2021
746
467
Crashes happen when you've switched off because you know an area 'too well', and have assumptions about what going to happen next.
'Human Factors' analysis is pretty advanced and widely used in transport accident investigation and prevention.

One subset of HF is 'biases', two of which are 'expectation bias', which you describe, and 'plan continuation bias', which covers continuing to overtake when backing off is the better choice.

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.

It has been found that knowing that biases exist is very powerful in enabling the pilot/ship's officer/ train driver to recognise them when they occur, and change their immediate actions to nullify the bias. The same would be true of road users.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: guerney

guerney

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 7, 2021
4,224
1,478

AndyBike

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 8, 2020
458
204
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.
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.

But say for example it was a cyclepath, which it isnt. On any T junction it would be the responsibility of a rider using it to give way. The rider just came right out into a road, and he also fails because he didnt take into account that his view was blocked.
The rider should have been made to pay the drivers costs for repairs.
 
Last edited:

Nealh

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 7, 2014
17,246
6,740
59
West Sx RH
Blame for this one can't simply be laid at the feet of the rider though he was a mug for taking the chance, other factors as already mentioned are at play.
If one was an advanced driver all hazards woud be taken in to account and one would not presume it is safe or ok to just enter that turning even at or under the speed limit.

Today with the changes in the HWC the driver is deemed to be at fault as the onus of greater responsibility is on them.
If he was able to see beyond the van he would have seen the cyclist and should have been ready to stop to give way, the same applies with the van blocking his view. He simply can't react to what occurred fast enough, he should have stopped.

In time we may here of the ending, once the accident has been fully investigated.
 
Sep 13, 2020
102
55
Does the video suggest the driver of the van, hitting the cyclist, is within the 20mph limit for the road ?
The evidence shows it was 19mph.

What else could/should he have done to avoid the collision? I'm all ears.

Stop the vehicle completely, and then walk over to make sure there isn't a cyclist about to speed straight into the road, from behind the parked van? I mean even with the new legislation, there is a limit to the driver's obligations, beyond which it becomes completely farcical.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AndyBike and flecc
Sep 13, 2020
102
55
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.
He just disagreed with the outcome for perfectly understandable reasons.

That's not having a "poor attitude". It simply means he stuck to his principles and disputed the decision. As is his legal right in a democracy.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AndyBike and flecc

Nealh

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 7, 2014
17,246
6,740
59
West Sx RH

AndyBike

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 8, 2020
458
204
Even Mr Loophole aka nick freeman has said the driver was wrong.
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.

Excuse me if i've missed it and its further down. Im not on twitter so only get the top story for a few seconds before a blocker sign in pops up.
 

Nealh

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 7, 2014
17,246
6,740
59
West Sx RH
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.
Keep up Andy, #3 onwards also.
The Audi guy has been mentioned a few times in this thread, so one has to start from the beginning as with many threads the stories get integrated.
 
Last edited:

guerney

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 7, 2021
4,224
1,478
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.
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!
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
50,842
28,680
Even Mr Loophole aka nick freeman has said the driver was wrong.

His words, [ Ill advised not to take the course offered].
The new highway code is wrong and misusing it as law is fundamentally wrong for the following reasons:

The Highway Code is and always has been advisory, recommending the ideal while recognising that the ideal is not always possible or even desirable or necessary, according to circumstances.

If a recommendation in the highway code is essential, then it should be removed from the code and made absolute in law, enabling everyone to know exactly what is required at all times.

Instead with our utterly useless UK governments, in lieu of adequate road facilities and sensible laws we get these sort of half cocked compromises:

Want to encourage cycling: Paint a white line on the road near the kerb and call it a cycle lane.

Want to make junctions safer: Paint a circle in the middle and call it a mini roundabout.

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.

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.

This won't make cyclists safer, it just increases the level of hatred drivers and cyclists often have for each other and look at where that sort of hate can lead. We've just learnt that two people have been brutally murdered over a simple parking dispute, LINK

It's not enmity we should be encouraging on the roads by enforcing potentially unfair measures, nor being obsessed with speeds. It's courtesy we should be encouraging, a recognition that we are not fighting for road space, we are SHARING it, preferably with understanding, not antipathy.

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.

The authorities approach should be entirely about exploiting this natural behavioural tendency by encouraging it continues when using any other means of transport.
.
 

I893469365902345609348566

Esteemed Pedelecer
Oct 20, 2021
299
88
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.
They don't have to overtake on narrow roads and lanes, do they?



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.
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.



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.
Not many people get killed colliding with another person on the pavement.
 
Last edited:

StuartsProjects

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 9, 2021
497
286
Not many people get killed colliding with another person on the pavement.
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.

It must be common sense, with no need for a publicity campaign by the authorities, that you look where your going when out walking in public, yet so many people now dont.

So much for 'co-operation'.