Video: Van driver filmed swerving at cyclist

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.

brooksby 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.

"Incompetence not malice"  

("Psst, wanna buy a bridge...?")

...monthly subscription to "Kool Aid Drinkers Anonymous"...
Malice forethought....

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.

alansmurphy wrote:

Like Columbo, I'm back for more. Your defence is that he knows he can't see left of his vehicle so he's trying to give a bit more room to the cyclist down the left. How did he know the cyclist was on his left?

He didn't, but there are cyclists on the cycle path on the right going by at the time he makes this maneouver ... maybe they reminded him that cyclists might also be on the road behind him?

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:

alansmurphy wrote:

Like Columbo, I'm back for more. Your defence is that he knows he can't see left of his vehicle so he's trying to give a bit more room to the cyclist down the left. How did he know the cyclist was on his left?

He didn't, but there are cyclists on the cycle path on the right going by at the time he makes this maneouver ... maybe they reminded him that cyclists might also be on the road behind him?

An embarrassing display of apologist mental gymnastics.

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.

kitsunegari wrote:

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Like Columbo, I'm back for more. Your defence is that he knows he can't see left of his vehicle so he's trying to give a bit more room to the cyclist down the left. How did he know the cyclist was on his left?

He didn't, but there are cyclists on the cycle path on the right going by at the time he makes this maneouver ... maybe they reminded him that cyclists might also be on the road behind him?

An embarrassing display of apologist mental gymnastics.

Here's another one...

The van driver sees a gap in the traffic and moves to overtake the car in front. As he does this he catches a glimpse of the cylist in his right mirror, so he immediately tries to turn back in to avoid a collision. This might actually be a better explanation ... in fact I'm convinced we've now found the answer.

The point is we all make mistakes sometimes and it doesn't mean we are incompetent drivers. Experience makes us better drivers/cyclists. Please note that this driver only had a right mirror and was mostly blind to what was behind him. The cyclist came out from nowhere and quickly. The driver was taken by surprise.

This is why we have debates ... it allows us to get to a better answer. It was someone else in an earlier post that spotted the missing mirror ... and that one thing has been key to understanding this puzzle.

CygnusX1 wrote:

Hold on guys, I just need to pop out for some more popcorn...

No need: I've got loads left from the helmet review that never ignited...

nbrus wrote:

The point is we all make mistakes sometimes and it doesn't mean we are incompetent drivers. Experience makes us better drivers/cyclists.

Just checking, but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed to allow a driver to become a better driver? Is there, like, an exchange rate or something?  

brooksby wrote:

nbrus wrote:

The point is we all make mistakes sometimes and it doesn't mean we are incompetent drivers. Experience makes us better drivers/cyclists.

Just checking, but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed to allow a driver to become a better driver? Is there, like, an exchange rate or something?  

Was anyone killed here? Dangerous drivers should not be on the road. In the case being discussed here, did the driver really do anything wrong or was this just a case of an unfortunate sequence of events and circumstances?

Mungecrundle wrote:

Van driver momentarily drifts to the left. Suddenly realising that he has no visibility due to lacking a nearside mirror, and anticipating that there could possibly be a cyclist in that danger zone he takes emergency evasive action by violently, and with no thought for his own safety, swinging his van to the right and into the path of oncoming traffic. Surprised at the appearance of a cyclist who has now overtaken him on the right, he accelerates as hard as his van will go in order to catch up with the cyclist in order to offer his profuse apologies and a free months subscription by way of making amends before the cyclist slips away up the inside of the stationary traffic queue. He gets so close to the back wheel of the bike that he is caught out by the drafting effect. The inept cyclist is completely oblivious to the fact that he is literally sucking the van onto his own back wheel and certain destruction. Fortunately our heroic van driver is at the top of his game and still able to come to a screeching emergency stop just before colliding with the rear of the car in front.

In many respects the cyclist was damned lucky that the van driver was so highly skilled at the art of van driving. I hope the Police are able to track him down and give him the nbrus award for outstanding vanmanship.

Interesting theory, but implausible ... there is no nbrus award for outstanding vanmanship.

Something else to consider ... the cyclist hasn't reported the incident ... might that be because he was satisfied with the drivers explanation/apology? Neither do I see any aggression between the two parties following the event. The van driver doesn't try to cut the cyclist down when he is overtaken a second time and the cyclist doesn't appear nervous of overtaking the van a second time. Maybe the person that posted the video already knows this, but decided that he could earn some cash by posting it on you-tube and stirring things up?

nbrus wrote:

brooksby wrote:

nbrus wrote:

The point is we all make mistakes sometimes and it doesn't mean we are incompetent drivers. Experience makes us better drivers/cyclists.

Just checking, but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed to allow a driver to become a better driver? Is there, like, an exchange rate or something?  

Was anyone killed here? Dangerous drivers should not be on the road. In the case being discussed here, did the driver really do anything wrong or was this just a case of an unfortunate sequence of events and circumstances?

So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'?

I was undecided whether you were arguing in good faith or were just a disguised petrolhead, but that argument pushes me to the latter.

As for your second question - that's what the police and justice system are supposed to determine. Ideally they'd be doing that. Possibly they would if the cyclist involved made an official complaint. But he might consider it a waste of time to do so, not least as he may not even know there's video of it (I don't see how he would, unless he happens to read this site).

Did you post similar points on threads about the Putney jogger, by the way? Lots of commentators seemed to think he acted deliberately. Did you warn about 'lynch mobs' on those threads too?

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?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

brooksby wrote:

nbrus wrote:

The point is we all make mistakes sometimes and it doesn't mean we are incompetent drivers. Experience makes us better drivers/cyclists.

Just checking, but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed to allow a driver to become a better driver? Is there, like, an exchange rate or something?  

Was anyone killed here? Dangerous drivers should not be on the road. In the case being discussed here, did the driver really do anything wrong or was this just a case of an unfortunate sequence of events and circumstances?

So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? I was undecided whether you were arguing in good faith or were just a disguised petrolhead, but that argument pushes me to the latter. As for your second question - that's what the police and justice system are supposed to determine. Ideally they'd be doing that. Possibly they would if the cyclist involved made an official complaint. But he might consider it a waste of time to do so, not least as he may not even know there's video of it (I don't see how he would, unless he happens to read this site). Did you post similar points on threads about the Putney jogger, by the way? Lots of commentators seemed to think he acted deliberately. Did you warn about 'lynch mobs' on those threads too?

Go read what I said again ... you've obviously put your own interpretation on things ... I said none of the things you are suggesting and have no intention of getting into an argument with you.

I would also like to make clear that I don't know what actually happend here and neither does anyone else. The best we can do is examine the evidence and come up with the most plausible answer. If you have a better more plausible view regarding the incident then please can you share it with the rest of us and we'll try and pick it apart to reach a better conclusion? Or maybe you've simply decided to pick sides with no real arguments to back up your view, except maybe attacking anyone that proposes a view different to your own? Would that be about right?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? I was undecided whether you were arguing in good faith or were just a disguised petrolhead, but that argument pushes me to the latter. As for your second question - that's what the police and justice system are supposed to determine. Ideally they'd be doing that. Possibly they would if the cyclist involved made an official complaint. But he might consider it a waste of time to do so, not least as he may not even know there's video of it (I don't see how he would, unless he happens to read this site). Did you post similar points on threads about the Putney jogger, by the way? Lots of commentators seemed to think he acted deliberately. Did you warn about 'lynch mobs' on those threads too?

That's FK's modus operandi - putting words into the mouths of others. I find it very odd to be honest.

Kadinkski wrote:

 

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? I was undecided whether you were arguing in good faith or were just a disguised petrolhead, but that argument pushes me to the latter. As for your second question - that's what the police and justice system are supposed to determine. Ideally they'd be doing that. Possibly they would if the cyclist involved made an official complaint. But he might consider it a waste of time to do so, not least as he may not even know there's video of it (I don't see how he would, unless he happens to read this site). Did you post similar points on threads about the Putney jogger, by the way? Lots of commentators seemed to think he acted deliberately. Did you warn about 'lynch mobs' on those threads too?

That's FK's modus operandi - putting words into the mouths of others. I find it very odd to be honest.

 

It's more that some people's arguments are confused to the point where they don't seem to understand the meaning of their own words.