Video: Van driver filmed swerving at cyclist

spen wrote:

Gift where have I been an apologist for the driver, he's an incompetent idiot but not a psychopathic axe murder!  The fact that you can't properly execute the maneouver he attempted just shows his lack of skill and judgement.

 

There are frankly far too many people on here far too willing to play the victim.

 

It's incompetence not malice, get over it.

All your posts on the thread try to excuse the motorist of deliberately attempting to harm/block another road user as incompetence/omitting to look/counter steer. So yes. Apologist. 

People are granted a licence to operate machinery on the roads as they have allegedly attained the required skills. They are meant to demonstrate courtesy, consideration and care towards other road users. Something this individual seems incapable of doing. 

You would also think that before Virgin Media allowed him to operate one of their vehicles they would have screened him first before handing him the keys of a liveried vehicle. In two of my previous jobs I had to sit a short test before taking any of the fleet on the roads and it was strenuously impressed to me that my actions on the road were perceived as representative of the company. 

spen wrote:

It's incompetence not malice, get over it.

You know, if pursuing things as malice gets a few merely incompetent drivers off the road, I wouldn't feel bad about it.

vonhelmet wrote:

spen wrote:

It's incompetence not malice, get over it.

You know, if pursuing things as malice gets a few merely incompetent drivers off the road, I wouldn't feel bad about it.

Exactly.

People supporting the idea that it's incompetence over malice... What's your point?

You do realise that even if you're right (and you're not), it means that the driver is a bell-end who thinks it's appropriate to drive a van all over the road on a whim, rather than a psychopath who thinks it's appropriate to deliberately drive at a cyclist?

davel wrote:

Exactly.

People supporting the idea that it's incompetence over malice... What's your point?

You do realise that even if you're right (and you're not), it means that the driver is a bell-end who thinks it's appropriate to drive a van all over the road on a whim, rather than a psychopath who thinks it's appropriate to deliberately drive at a cyclist?

One can be trained to be a better driver, the other needs putting under medical oversight.

Vehlin wrote:

davel wrote:

Exactly.

People supporting the idea that it's incompetence over malice... What's your point?

You do realise that even if you're right (and you're not), it means that the driver is a bell-end who thinks it's appropriate to drive a van all over the road on a whim, rather than a psychopath who thinks it's appropriate to deliberately drive at a cyclist?

One can be trained to be a better driver, the other needs putting under medical oversight.

 

Let's be honest: our joke-writing partnership needs work.

davel wrote:

Vehlin wrote:

davel wrote:

Exactly.

People supporting the idea that it's incompetence over malice... What's your point?

You do realise that even if you're right (and you're not), it means that the driver is a bell-end who thinks it's appropriate to drive a van all over the road on a whim, rather than a psychopath who thinks it's appropriate to deliberately drive at a cyclist?

One can be trained to be a better driver, the other needs putting under medical oversight.

 

Let's be honest: our joke-writing partnership needs work.

Nope ... needs medical oversight. 

spen wrote:

Gift where have I been an apologist for the driver, he's an incompetent idiot but not a psychopathic axe murder!  The fact that you can't properly execute the maneouver he attempted just shows his lack of skill and judgement.

 

There are frankly far too many people on here far too willing to play the victim.

 

It's incompetence not malice, get over it.

Why would anyone care whether he's utterly incompetent or utterly evil? Either way he should never drive again.

oldstrath wrote:

spen wrote:

Gift where have I been an apologist for the driver, he's an incompetent idiot but not a psychopathic axe murder!  The fact that you can't properly execute the maneouver he attempted just shows his lack of skill and judgement.

 

There are frankly far too many people on here far too willing to play the victim.

 

It's incompetence not malice, get over it.

Why would anyone care whether he's utterly incompetent or utterly evil? Either way he should never drive again.

Maybe it was just poor judgment? ... I'm pretty sure almost every driver will have at some time made an error. There would be no vehicles left on the road if anyone who made an error was banned from driving. Yes, that would be nice, but also impractical.

nbrus wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

spen wrote:

Gift where have I been an apologist for the driver, he's an incompetent idiot but not a psychopathic axe murder!  The fact that you can't properly execute the maneouver he attempted just shows his lack of skill and judgement.

 

There are frankly far too many people on here far too willing to play the victim.

 

It's incompetence not malice, get over it.

Why would anyone care whether he's utterly incompetent or utterly evil? Either way he should never drive again.

Maybe it was just poor judgment? ... I'm pretty sure almost every driver will have at some time made an error. There would be no vehicles left on the road if anyone who made an error was banned from driving. Yes, that would be nice, but also impractical.

One error of judgement, well that happens, the initial block by moving left, maybe you could put that down to inattention. But the violent swerve to the right, just as the cyclist overtakes? That is stretching credibility to breaking point. Then there is the extreme acceleration almost clipping the rear wheel of the bike once it is in front.

3 lapses of concentration or loss of basic vehicle control in less than 20 seconds? Really? You want us to give the benefit of the doubt?

Bit like yourself, one absurd posting on the subject can be forgiven, multiple posts, well I'm pretty sure I know for certain what kind of arsehole you are.

Mungecrundle wrote:

nbrus wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

spen wrote:

Gift where have I been an apologist for the driver, he's an incompetent idiot but not a psychopathic axe murder!  The fact that you can't properly execute the maneouver he attempted just shows his lack of skill and judgement.

 

There are frankly far too many people on here far too willing to play the victim.

 

It's incompetence not malice, get over it.

Why would anyone care whether he's utterly incompetent or utterly evil? Either way he should never drive again.

Maybe it was just poor judgment? ... I'm pretty sure almost every driver will have at some time made an error. There would be no vehicles left on the road if anyone who made an error was banned from driving. Yes, that would be nice, but also impractical.

One error of judgement, well that happens, the initial block by moving left, maybe you could put that down to inattention. But the violent swerve to the right, just as the cyclist overtakes? That is stretching credibility to breaking point. Then there is the extreme acceleration almost clipping the rear wheel of the bike once it is in front. 3 lapses of concentration or loss of basic vehicle control in less than 20 seconds? Really? You want us to give the benefit of the doubt? Bit like yourself, one absurd posting on the subject can be forgiven, multiple posts, well I'm pretty sure I know for certain what kind of arsehole you are.

At least I don't resort to name calling ... and of course you know all the facts here and are not just putting forth opinion. You are of course free to put forward your opinion and the rest of us will listen. Resorting to name calling just because you don't agree with someone else proposing a different possible view on events is going a little bit OTT. A debate isn't a debate if its one-sided. Maybe you should go gather a lynch mob and go round and visit the guy and not bother listening to his side of the story first?

I've had another look at the video and it does look like the driver was deliberately trying to cut up the cyclist, but past experience tells me that things aren't always as they appear. It would help if the cyclist involved could post and tell us what was said when he confronted the driver. I would also add that as a cyclist myself I am pretty enraged by this event, just like the rest of you here, but I've learned to not make quick judgments as its so easy to get things wrong. Lets hope that appropriate justice is eventually served.

Take a look at 3:23 on the video ... it looks like the driver is explaining to the cyclist that his left mirror is missing ... the cylist appears to point to this as he notices, then acknowledges this, then nods at the driver twice ... as if saying, ok I understand now. So the driver may simply have been moving away from the ouside of the road (where he couldn't see as no left mirror) to make room for cyclists to get past (there are other cyclists on that road). He did drift left, realised this, then attempted to move quickly back out towards the middle of the road (a location where he wouldn't have expected a cyclist to be).

Take a look at 3:23 on the video ... it looks like the driver is explaining to the cyclist that his left mirror is missing ... the cylist appears to point to this as he notices, then acknowledges this, then nods at the driver twice ... as if saying, ok I understand now. So the driver may simply have been moving away from the ouside of the road (where he couldn't see as no left mirror) to make room for cyclists to get past (there are other cyclists on that road). He did drift left, realised this, then attempted to move quickly back out towards the middle of the road (a location where he wouldn't have expected a cyclist to be).

[/quote]

If the van isn't in  roadworthy state why was it allowed on  road?

nbrus wrote:

 

Take a look at 3:23 on the video ... it looks like the driver is explaining to the cyclist that his left mirror is missing ... the cylist appears to point to this as he notices, then acknowledges this, then nods at the driver twice ... as if saying, ok I understand now. So the driver may simply have been moving away from the ouside of the road (where he couldn't see as no left mirror) to make room for cyclists to get past (there are other cyclists on that road). He did drift left, realised this, then attempted to move quickly back out towards the middle of the road (a location where he wouldn't have expected a cyclist to be).

 

Fair play, nbrus: you've pinged around like a pinball on speed, but in your quest to absolve the driver of being a cyclist-squasher, I think you've landed on a plausible explanation.

(now we've just got to establish the kind of deranged maniac who drives a van with only one mirror  )

davel wrote:

nbrus wrote:

 

Take a look at 3:23 on the video ... it looks like the driver is explaining to the cyclist that his left mirror is missing ... the cylist appears to point to this as he notices, then acknowledges this, then nods at the driver twice ... as if saying, ok I understand now. So the driver may simply have been moving away from the ouside of the road (where he couldn't see as no left mirror) to make room for cyclists to get past (there are other cyclists on that road). He did drift left, realised this, then attempted to move quickly back out towards the middle of the road (a location where he wouldn't have expected a cyclist to be).

 

Fair play, nbrus: you've pinged around like a pinball on speed, but in your quest to absolve the driver of being a cyclist-squasher, I think you've landed on a plausible explanation.

(now we've just got to establish the kind of deranged maniac who drives a van with only one mirror  )

as much as I'd like toaccept that he was just moving out to the middle of the road.... nope nope nope.  If he was moving out to the middle of the road to allow cyclists to pass why did he move so agressively and so far out onto the wrong side of the road?  

One simply does not launch their vehicle onto the wrong side of the road to allow a cyclist to pass.....

craigstitt wrote:

as much as I'd like toaccept that he was just moving out to the middle of the road.... nope nope nope.  If he was moving out to the middle of the road to allow cyclists to pass why did he move so agressively and so far out onto the wrong side of the road?  

One simply does not launch their vehicle onto the wrong side of the road to allow a cyclist to pass.....

Could it be that he didn't have much of a gap with the car in front so attempted to move out as far as possible given the tight space? Maybe misjudging things a little? One can only guess. Also, maybe his left mirror only got damaged earlier that day ... is it illegal to drive around with a missing left mirror? What would you do? At least we can now rule out malicious intent. Most importantly we've all now seen how easy it is to be fooled into adopting a lynch mob mentaly when the evidence appears so convincing. Its part of being human I suppose ... we can't help ourselves.  

nbrus wrote:

At least we can now rule out malicious intent. Most importantly we've all now seen how easy it is to be fooled into adopting a lynch mob mentaly when the evidence appears so convincing. Its part of being human I suppose ... we can't help ourselves.  

easy. tiger... I accept that there might be more to this than meets my cycnical eye, and that might be altogether more innocent.

But I still think the most likely explanation for someone looking like they were driving at a cyclist deliberately is that they were driving at a cyclist deliberately.

The 'lynch mob mentality', the jumping to the most depressing (and probably most obvious) conclusion, the anger, arises from the fact that the attitude seemingly exhibited by the motorist here is all-too-frequently encountered daily by readers of the site. I don't think anybody really wants to hate motorists, but you can't blame people for their attitudes being shaped by frequent experiences.

davel wrote:

easy. tiger... I accept that there might be more to this than meets my cycnical eye, and that might be altogether more innocent.

But I still think the most likely explanation for someone looking like they were driving at a cyclist deliberately is that they were driving at a cyclist deliberately.

The 'lynch mob mentality', the jumping to the most depressing (and probably most obvious) conclusion, the anger, arises from the fact that the attitude seemingly exhibited by the motorist here is all-too-frequently encountered daily by readers of the site. I don't think anybody really wants to hate motorists, but you can't blame people for their attitudes being shaped by frequent experiences.

You are correct ... and I've even fallen victim to this myself, but I'm wiser now. Even though I've nearly been mowed down by a van squeezing past me on a busy narrow road (I could have licked the paint off that van), I've been lucky enough to have not been involved in an accident with a vehicle. Bad motorists are a minority group. Thankfully.

nbrus wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

as much as I'd like toaccept that he was just moving out to the middle of the road.... nope nope nope.  If he was moving out to the middle of the road to allow cyclists to pass why did he move so agressively and so far out onto the wrong side of the road?  

One simply does not launch their vehicle onto the wrong side of the road to allow a cyclist to pass.....

Could it be that he didn't have much of a gap with the car in front so attempted to move out as far as possible given the tight space? Maybe misjudging things a little? One can only guess. Also, maybe his left mirror only got damaged earlier that day ... is it illegal to drive around with a missing left mirror? What would you do? At least we can now rule out malicious intent. Most importantly we've all now seen how easy it is to be fooled into adopting a lynch mob mentaly when the evidence appears so convincing. Its part of being human I suppose ... we can't help ourselves.  

So you've convinced yourself at least that he isn't a murderous thug, merely an incompetent and dangerous tit who drives an unroadworthy vehicle badly. Well done, but I still fail to see why treating him as a would be  murderer would be a terrible thing if it gets him off the road. Either way, he's still ridiculously dangerous.

nbrus wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

as much as I'd like toaccept that he was just moving out to the middle of the road.... nope nope nope.  If he was moving out to the middle of the road to allow cyclists to pass why did he move so agressively and so far out onto the wrong side of the road?  

One simply does not launch their vehicle onto the wrong side of the road to allow a cyclist to pass.....

Could it be that he didn't have much of a gap with the car in front so attempted to move out as far as possible given the tight space? Maybe misjudging things a little? One can only guess. Also, maybe his left mirror only got damaged earlier that day ... is it illegal to drive around with a missing left mirror? What would you do? At least we can now rule out malicious intent. Most importantly we've all now seen how easy it is to be fooled into adopting a lynch mob mentaly when the evidence appears so convincing. Its part of being human I suppose ... we can't help ourselves.  

Is it a coincidence that the last post I noticed of yours was on an earlier thread on a bad van driving video, where you were again defending the driver? As I remember it, on that one you popped up almost immediately after bikelikebike got banned, and picked up the baton precisely where he'd dropped it, making much the same argument he'd been making in the same thread (in a noticeably different prose style, granted, but it did make me wonder for a moment, given that there seem to be more resurrections round here than in an episode of The Walking Dead).

And I think you are being a bit sneaky in using a phrase like 'lynch mob'. What lynching is happening here or likely to happen? What power do cyclists posting on a thread have to affect this guy?

People expressing their interpretation of an event are not a 'lynch mob', that requires them to actually do something bad or cause something bad to be done, to the target.

I think the ideal for most people here would be an actual police investigation and proper legal process to find out what happened. But seems unlikely we'll even get that, so talk of 'lynchings' seems silly hyperbole to me.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

...

Is it a coincidence that the last post I noticed of yours was on an earlier thread on a bad van driving video, where you were again defending the driver? As I remember it, on that one you popped up almost immediately after bikelikebike got banned, and picked up the baton precisely where he'd dropped it, making much the same argument he'd been making in the same thread (in a noticeably different prose style, granted, but it did make me wonder for a moment, given that there seem to be more resurrections round here than in an episode of The Walking Dead).

And I think you are being a bit sneaky in using a phrase like 'lynch mob'. What lynching is happening here or likely to happen? What power do cyclists posting on a thread have to affect this guy? People expressing their interpretation of an event are not a 'lynch mob', that requires them to actually do something bad or cause something bad to be done, to the target. I think the ideal for most people here would be an actual police investigation and proper legal process to find out what happened. But seems unlikely we'll even get that, so talk of 'lynchings' seems silly hyperbole to me.

1. What has any other thread got to do with this one? And how do you expect to have any meaninful discussion if its all one-sided with everyone taking up the same view? Pointless wouldn't you agree? I would like to be clear that I will offer an alternative view if a particular area hasn't been covered and this does not mean that I am voicing my opinion on the matter as that may be entirely different. The only way to get to the truth is by putting everything on the table for debate ... you will get a lopsided  and false conclusion if everyone simply follows along with the same view. Maybe you disagree?

2. As to lynch mob ... well if you were that driver would you like to be put in an empty room with the other posters here and face justice? What are your chances of explaining your way out?

nbrus wrote:

Most importantly we've all now seen how easy it is to be fooled into adopting a lynch mob mentaly when the evidence appears so convincing. Its part of being human I suppose ... we can't help ourselves.  

Which was at least your third reference to a 'lynch mob', including 'the lynch mob has been silenced', seemingly referring to every previous poster.

Kadinkski wrote:

Warning - if you tweet virginmedia about the incident they attempt to get your tweet deleted and your account shut down.

That'll lose them my 70 quid a month.