Video: Van driver filmed swerving at cyclist

Kadinkski wrote:

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

Thanks for that info. I wouldn't mind if FK had something useful to say, but they seem more intent on stirring things up rather than contributing usefully.

nbrus wrote:

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?

The interpretation I find more likely has already been made several times in this thread - but dismissed by you as 'a lynch mob' (despite the complete absence of any actual lynching or prospect thereof). You felt obliged to come up with an alternative interpretation, and then seem to have trouble accepting that some might not find yours to be the most plausible one.

The main point is, no, we don't know exactly what happened here. That's why it the ideal outcome would be for it to be investigated, and in the absence of that, not everyone has to accept your explanation as the most likely one.

And I'm afraid you did clearly say that 'noone was killed' as if you think that changes the principle involved.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 The interpretation I find more likely has already been made several times in this thread - but dismissed by you as 'a lynch mob' (despite the complete absence of any actual lynching or prospect thereof). You felt obliged to come up with an alternative interpretation, and then seem to have trouble accepting that some might not find yours to be the most plausible one. The main point is, no, we don't know exactly what happened here. That's why it the ideal outcome would be for it to be investigated, and in the absence of that, not everyone has to accept your explanation as the most likely one. And I'm afraid you did clearly say that 'noone was killed' as if you think that changes the principle involved.

Can you please requote the post you are referring to? I'm pretty sure I didn't reply to it and dismiss it as 'lynch mob'.

And in that post are you merely stating an opinion, or do you have arguments backing up your opinion and why it is the most plausible one?

I have no problem at all in accepting your opinion provided you can back it up with plausible arguments. If you can't then its worthless.

Also, and I am NOT having a go at you, but how on earth can you go from my responding to "but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed"  by asking "Was anyone killed here?" ... and you managed to turn this into "So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? " ... what I was trying to say is that this wasn't relevent to the discussion.

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.

nbrus wrote:

how on earth can you go from "Was anyone killed here?" in response to "but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed" and you managed to turn this into "So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? " ... what I was trying to say is that is that this wasn't relevent to the discussion.

But as I see it, it is relevant, because cyclists or pedestrians don't get killed with the first bit of bad driving someone engages in - it more often happens because someone has gotten away with dangerous acts for a while and has acquired a habit of driving like that.

Ergo, if you are arguing that dangerous acts that don't lead to a fatality can be excused without sanction, and forgiven because 'everyone makes mistakes' then you are accepting that we only do anything about those drivers when they actually kill someone (or injure them). Which implies 'sacrificing' that victim in the cause of finally doing something about the bad driver who could have been addressed earlier.

nbrus wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

how on earth can you go from "Was anyone killed here?" in response to "but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed" and you managed to turn this into "So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? " ... what I was trying to say is that is that this wasn't relevent to the discussion.

But as I see it, it is relevant, because cyclists or pedestrians don't get killed with the first bit of bad driving someone engages in - it more often happens because someone has gotten away with dangerous acts for a while and has acquired a habit of driving like that.

Ergo, if you are arguing that dangerous acts that don't lead to a fatality can be excused without sanction, and forgiven because 'everyone makes mistakes' then you are accepting that we only do anything about those drivers when they actually kill someone (or injure them).

You're putting words in my mouth again ... maybe you can't help it, so I'll try and explain. Firstly, I agree with everything you just said.  I will also requote myself " Dangerous drivers should not be on the road." The point of contention is whether or not this driver was driving dangerously, or did the cyclist take unneccessary risk, or was it a case of bad timing and unfortunate circumstances? Everything happened so fast. If you were driving that van could this same situation not have happened to you?

The sudden swing right was dangerous. Not having a wing mirror isn't exactly safe either. If every such instance were to be excused, and more importantly, ignored, because someone could construct an alternative explanation that it was just 'bad timing' then little would ever get done about bad drivers.

At no point have I said the driver should be banned or jailed (yet alone 'lynched') without investigation or a chance to explain, incidentally. I'm saying on balance a deliberate act looks very plausible and even if accidental was objectively dangerous and can't be simply dismissed as self-evidently not requiring any sanction.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

how on earth can you go from "Was anyone killed here?" in response to "but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed" and you managed to turn this into "So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? " ... what I was trying to say is that is that this wasn't relevent to the discussion.

But as I see it, it is relevant, because cyclists or pedestrians don't get killed with the first bit of bad driving someone engages in - it more often happens because someone has gotten away with dangerous acts for a while and has acquired a habit of driving like that.

Ergo, if you are arguing that dangerous acts that don't lead to a fatality can be excused without sanction, and forgiven because 'everyone makes mistakes' then you are accepting that we only do anything about those drivers when they actually kill someone (or injure them).

You're putting words in my mouth again ... maybe you can't help it, so I'll try and explain. Firstly, I agree with everything you just said.  I will also requote myself " Dangerous drivers should not be on the road." The point of contention is whether or not this driver was driving dangerously, or did the cyclist take unneccessary risk, or was it a case of bad timing and unfortunate circumstances?

Everything happened so fast ... the driver couldn't see what was behind him (broken left mirror), the cyclist appeared out from nowhere as the driver executed an overtaking maneouvre, the driver then tried to avoid a collision when he noticed the cyclist in his right mirror.

If you were driving that van could this same situation not have happened to you?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The sudden swing right was dangerous. Not having a wing mirror isn't exactly safe either. If every such instance were to be excused, and more importantly, ignored, because someone could construct an alternative explanation that it was just 'bad timing' then little would ever get done about bad drivers.

At no point have I said the driver should be banned or jailed (yet alone 'lynched') without investigation or a chance to explain, incidentally. I'm saying on balance a deliberate act looks very plausible and even if accidental was objectively dangerous and can't be simply dismissed as self-evidently not requiring any sanction.

The van driver goes to overtake the car in front, he checks his mirror, all is clear, he executes the maneouver, checks the view in front, looks back again and spots a cyclist on his right, he immediately pulls back in to avoid a collision. Conclusion: He's a dangerous driver and shouldn't be allowed on the road.

If it was a deliberate act of aggression, then yes he should be punished accordingly, but go read my posts discussing this and review the video footage referred to in my post ... are you still convinced that this was a deliberate act? If you've not reviewed my posts and arguments, then there is nothing more to discuss. You'll find them on page 4 (one discusses video footage and lack of mirror, other has possible explanation of the violent right swing maneouver, though I've already summarised that above).

And please note FK that I am NOT picking on you ... in fact I agree with what you have said (mostly), so maybe we're just not understanding each other correctly. I'm not sure what the solution to that is as I don't really want to go back and forth arguing over nothing. Lets leave it at that.

nbrus wrote:

... the cycle path on the right might have been a safer place to ride ... I'd have been on that.

Yes, yes you should, why don't you pop off now and get on it?

alansmurphy wrote:

The driver should NOT have tried to execute an overtake, the traffic in front is stopped and there wasn't the gap to do so. If you think that he can execute an overtake then he hasn't done it with the required care and attention. Either way it is dangerous / careless / wreck less driving. The other 10 excuses you've come up with either make the driver or you a bellend...

Didn't the cyclist also execute an overtake? Would that not also make him a bellend? Overtaking a vehicle that is overtaking another vehicle ... just saying.

And I agree that the driver should NOT have tried to execute that maneouver, given his limited visibility ... and now thinking about it, how was he going to pull in safely if his left mirror was missing? ... so yes, I've changed my mind ... he was wreckless (assuming he was going for an overtake). That van should not have been on the road. However, there was no malicious intent, which was the main point of discussion in this thread. I'm not sure about your penguin theory though.

Mixing it with traffic is dangerous ... it scares me ... the cycle path on the right might have been a safer place to ride ... I'd have been on that.

alansmurphy wrote:

You haven't suggested a potential heart attack yet, maybe that happened. Escaped penguin from the zoo turned the wheel. A customer (on speaker phone obviously) told him Virgin was a valued service and had good connection. Keep digging...

A potential heart attack? Implausible as the driver clearly manages to continue driving after the event and even has enough time to stop and chat.

Penguin turned the wheel? Again implausible ... who was operating the pedals?

Virgin having happy customers? Again implausible ... too expensive and keep putting up prices.

fatsmoker wrote:

Another one with no update as to what happened. Does Road.cc know what the Virgin investigation decided abou ttheir employee (hopefully ex-employee)?

No. The site puts this shit up to get clicks which earns ad revenue and then does fuck all.