Virgin Media says it is looking into an incident in which a driver of one of its vans was filmed swerving towards a cyclist who was overtaking it.
According to the timestamp on a video shot by the dashcam of a vehicle immediately behind the van, the incident took place on 29 June.
The footage, which was taken close to the Golden Days Garden Centre in Cheadle, Greater Manchester, was uploaded to YouTube on 31 July with the title, “Van Trying to Hit a Cyclist.”
The description of the video reads: “Van driver trying to hit a cyclist twice. “
As the rider overtakes the van, the driver swerves sharply to the right, forcing the cyclist to take evasive action.
The cyclist then moves to the nearside of the vehicle, unclips and has a brief conversation with the driver, who moves the vehicle to the left.
While the general consensus on social media is that the driver deliberately swerved at the cyclist, another explanation could be that he simply did not see him and that the rider overtaking the fan coincided with the van driver deciding to overtake a vehicle in front that may be waiting to turn left into the garden centre, although that is not clear from the footage.
The incident was flagged to Virgin Media by Twitter users this morning and the company requested further details.
If you are the cyclist involved, or know who the rider is, we’d be very interested in learning what the van driver’s explanation was.
Hi, Philip. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Can you confirm where and when this occurred, please? ^ZR
— Virgin Media (@virginmedia) August 6, 2017
The episode seems is reminiscent of one we reported on that happened in April in which a van driver in Sussex swerved into a cyclist, forcing him off the road.
The driver was sacked by his employers immediately they became aware of the footage.
> Sussex van driver filmed forcing cyclist off road to appear in court
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
138 thoughts on “Video: Van driver filmed swerving at cyclist”
Oh dear another stupid,
Oh dear another stupid, dangerous driver caught on film, who will be subsequently tracked by their employer and sacked, followed by dangerous driving charge. Yippeeee
No question that it was a
No question that it was a deliberate move by the van driver, he sees the cyclist approaching in his mirror and closes the left gap, see’s him go right and makes a determined effort to take him out.
Hopefully this is now an EX-employee.
How do you categorise such an
How do you categorise such an action, dangerous driving would seem inadequate?
Grahamd wrote:
It wasn’t dangerous driving, it was assault with a deadly weapon, and the driver should be charged appropriately.
To save others wasting quite so much time, it starts at 2:55.
Shocking ! I’d hope
Shocking ! I’d hope accidental rather than deliberate – be interesting to know what was said.
With people like this, I find
With people like this, I find it really hard to sympathise for the dystopian future when driving jobs will be replaced by self driving vehicles.
Who knows, one day maybe this driver will have to become a cycle courier to earn his living…
I’d go with the second
I’d go with the second explanation, the driver went to overtake without checking his mirrors first. Incompetent but not malicious
spen wrote:
The van driver clearly moves left just as the cyclist approaches, then swerves right when the cyclist tries to pass him on the right.
If he was going to overtake why would he move left first?
This looks completely deliberate to me.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’d go with the second explanation, the driver went to overtake without checking his mirrors first. Incompetent but not malicious
— Rich_cb The van driver clearly moves left just as the cyclist approaches, then swerves right when the cyclist tries to pass him on the right. If he was going to overtake why would he move left first? This looks completely deliberate to me.— spen
Why did he move left before swinging right? Because 90 % of drivers think they’re driving in a rally and thats what you do to go around a corner, swing one way then the other. They call it counter steering, cant believe you’ve never seen an idiot do this instead of slowing when the approach a junction. The bad part is he obviously didnt check his mirrors first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering
spen wrote:
No, just no.
He could not have possibly overtaken the entire queue of traffic in front of him in the 9 second gap between the blocking manuever and the car coming towards the van….. so rule out overtaking.
And it was not a U turn either, because of the fact that he could not have completed the maneuver in one turn (again into the face of oncoming traffic) and secondly if he was going to U turn why after the discussion with the cyclist did he continue on with his journey.
Nothing about the way the driver acted is ever going to convince me that this was anything other than a deliberate attempt to prevent the cyclist from making progress by way of filtering.
This was not careless driving, it was not dangerous driving it was assault with a deadly weapon
spen wrote:
If you actually read the wikipedia article you linked to, you’d see that countersteering is something that motorbikes and bicycles do, not vans. The only reason you’d steer the wrong way in a rally is to control the way the car handles loose surfaces and/or under/oversteer. There is absolutely no reason that this van driver would steer left and then sharply right other than to attempt to prevent the cyclist overtaking.
DaveE128 wrote:
Maybe the van is rear-wheel drive, and maybe it was going much quicker than it appears in the video.
And maybe the road is shale, not tarmac as it appears, and it is actually on a bend, not straight as it appears in the video, and the driver was just about to have a good old drift around it.
Or maybe spen is in a hole and can’t stop digging.
spen wrote:
Please for the love of all that is good can you stop being an apologist for this disgraceful behaviour. The motorist pulled a block followed by a vicious counter block. There was no excuse for it whatsoever. Everything in the clip shows this. The slow moving traffic. The lot.
There’s no reason whatsoever for what you claim is a counter turn. You just don’t do this with transits/minibuses at speed or viciously as it will throw the vehicle over. Also the traffic is backing up. Again because of the height the driver is sitting he can see this and should know an overtake is impossible.
Quite simply, this individual shouldn’t be allowed to carry a set of car keys let alone sit behind the wheel of a vehicle.
spen wrote:
I don’t think so. He can’t overtake. There is a fairly constant stream of trffic coming the other way and I assume judging by the speed, the car and the van are in a queue of traffic, so there wasn’t room to overtake
RedfishUK wrote:
There’s an eight second gap in the traffic when they both try to pull out, more than enough time for a white van man.
spen wrote:
no doubt in my mind this was deloberate, you do not position you vehicle right up against the kerb when thinking about overtaking. It is only done by drivers trying to prevent cyclists filtering up the inside.
This is the perfect example why filtering on the right may not be better than filtering on the left. I’d rather be pushed onto the kern than into oncoming traffic.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Again, countersteering
spen wrote:
Really? I couldn’t disagree more.
Only the driver will know what his intentions were but it looked a deliberate act to me.
This isn’t a motoring offence
This isn’t a motoring offence, it’s an assault plain and simple and should be charged as such but add in an 18month ban for good measure anyway.
I hope this cunt gets what’s coming to him but sadly unlikely.
I thought he was looking to
I thought he was looking to do a U-turn actually.
What was he supposedly
What was he supposedly overtaking?
And that’s why I hope Jeremy
And that’s why I hope Jeremy Clarkson gets a hospital-acquired infection. Oh come on, it’s just a joke like on Top Gear.
why is this being
why is this being investigated by virgin media rather than the police?
kraut wrote:
Maybe it is being investigated by the police. We don’t know who the cyclist was (road.cc is asking for them to come forward), so isn’t it possible (devil’s advocate) that a complaint was already made? Do the police accept “third-party” complaints (ie. from the person in the following vehicle, not the the cyclist)?
why is this being
why is this being investigated by virgin media rather than the police?
I know this stretch of road
I know this stretch of road well. It used to be a relatively safe route in and out of south manchester. The local council turned it in to a very dangerous road for cyclists to use. The road was more than wide enough to share with traffic. However the council narrowed the road significantly to add a mixed use cycling path and footpath (on the right and side of the road in the video). The victim in the video would have to cross on coming traffic to get on the path for a few hundred metres only to be deposited into the oncoming traffic when the path runs out. It’s impossibly dangerous to use.
Worse still, and I think of rellavance to this situation, is that traffic on this road now expects cyclists to actually use the cycle path. Since it’s inception I’ve been treated to punishment passes and actual verbal abuse directing me to get off the road and on to the cycle path, on a number of occasions. I now avoid this road whenever possible.
Jumbotron wrote:
By strange coincidence, I rode this very route on my way from the Peak District back home to Liverpool on Sunday. I did exactly this – bottled out on the road so crossed oncoming traffic to get on the shared-path, weaved past the irritated pedestrians/prams/dogs/softball players and then hit the end of the path only to have to cross both lanes again. Waste of time and much more dangerous for all those involved.
I’d like to believe it was
I’d like to believe it was just an accident but it totally wasn’t. You don’t do a minor swerve left before overtaking. Also look at the vehicle in front of the van, it’s way ahead so you would’t start over taking there anyway. And finally its such a violent swerve to the right that it can only be either to take the cyclist out, or it’s some crazy U-turn manoover which it clearly wasn’t.
This is how that conversation
This is how that conversation went:
Van Driver: “Get on the fucken cycle path, what are you on the road for, road tax blah blah blah”
Cyclist: “Um…?”
Its madness, its honestly insane, why would a human-being try to kill another human-being that happens to be on a bike because they are overtaking them or not using a cycle path or whatever?
Kadinkski wrote:
The ”law abiding” driver who’s out there dealing out vigilanty justice to cyclists who won’t use cycle paths … You can bet that the driver doesn’t go up to people when he doesnt have the size advantage of van vs bike and threaten them when they cross at intersections before they get the green man symbol.
What a douche, does not deserve to be allowed to drive on public roads.
And that’s why I only use Sky
And that’s why I only use Sky, a media company that invests in cyclists, not tries to kill them…
gazpacho wrote:
Think you better google ‘Sky team bus close pass’.
dottigirl wrote:
No-one likes a smart arse 😉
Apologies if stated
Apologies if stated previously. If you use virgin media and you cycle. Stop using virgin media.
I cant believe anyone doesnt
I cant believe anyone doesnt think that was completely deliberate by the van driver
its not just the turn to the left or sudden veer to the right, its when the cyclist is trying to then move off, and the van driver is still using their van to intimidate them all that stop start stuff, theres nothing in front of the van at that point to hold it up like that, cyclist took the right choice to stay well clear after that.
But I suspect like alot of tv cable installers they are just subcontracted, they dont work for Virgin directly, even though their van might have the right logos on it.
Awavey wrote:
All the Virgin liveried vans I see around these parts (South Manchester) also include the name “Kelly Communications”, part of Kelly Group (kelly dot co dot uk).
Hmm actually appears to me he
Hmm
Quote:
Yet they’re still the face of Virgin to the man in the street. It should be important to them how these people represent their brand.
Want to work for us?
You must adhere to these guidelines.
Would the driver pull that
Would the driver pull that stunt on a motorcyclist ? Having watched a lot of YouTube, I’d say it’s possible.
I tried to watch the video
I tried to watch the video and read the article, but the page keeps auto-scrolling to an advertisement video with sound. Road.cc, you are making your website impossible to use.
There is no way that was
There is no way that was anything other than an attack.
Deliberately blocks the left and then swerves violently to the right when the cyclist goes to overtake.
There was a discussion on another thread not so long back about the body language of vehicles. The body language of this van is anger and aggression. There is nothing methodical, just a violent sawing at the wheel in frustration at another road user when the first blocking manouver is thwarted. There is no car in front waiting to turn left, there is no reason visible that the van driver was taking evasive action to avoid something else, e.g debris in the road. To remove all doubt, after the cyclist is in front, just look at the speed the van picks up almost hitting the back of the bike before having to brake hard to avoid the stationary vehicles in the queue of traffic.
I hope all his / her tools fell on the floor, and that a letter from the Police will be landing on the doormat ready for when he / she gets home from their last day at work having been escorted from site after an uncomfortable meeting with HR.
The left block is all too
The left block is all too common in stationary or very slow moving traffic. Driver sees bike coming thinks ‘no way im letting this fecker pass’ and basically kerbs thier car. The usual response is to go right, if safe, as this chap did, usually not followed by a second block/ take outmanoeuvre though! Hope the driver gets his comeuppance.
Wow!! That’s crazy, the
Wow!! That’s crazy, the driver is so lucky he didn’t actually hit the cyclist. Hope he’s been fired and had licence suspended for that.
I totally agree with
I totally agree with Mungecrundle.
From the moment the van driver spots the cyclist the van’s movement forwards and to the side are exclusively aggressive and clearly deliberate.
Sacked and charged with at least dangerous driving must be the penalty for this idiot.
Warning – if you tweet
Warning – if you tweet virginmedia about the incident they attempt to get your tweet deleted and your account shut down.
Kadinkski wrote:
That’ll lose them my 70 quid a month.
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
I wouldn’t give them £70 a month, what a ripoff! Think of the interesting things you could go and do with the money.
Life’s too short to spend so much of it watching a load of crap on TV ( there’s still a load of it available for free with the terrestrial channels).
A general question: How many hours a month do you actually watch? Subtract the adverts. How much actual content are you watching?
Returning to the topic, deliberately endagering a life = dismissal and driving ban. If he did that to a police officer I’m sure it would happen but as he did it to a pleb cyclist the chances are slim.
Simon E wrote:
I think you’re on the wrong forum if you want to debate what the poster should / shouldn’t subscribe to with his / her own money.
ibr17xvii wrote:
It’s only an opinion – just like yours – and Jack has surely been around long enough to know that it’s his money, not mine. Equally, you won’t get very far trying to make me spend money on satellite or cable TV.
Simon E wrote:
70 quid is for phone, broadband and TV.
I have no TV upgrade options in place.
This money covers most of the entertainment for a family of four and gives me over 100Mbps of internet speed.
This family of four live in the west of Scotland where it rains 75% of the time and is dark after work/school for 40 % of the year. In the bits in between we do lots of stuff outdoors.
Incidentally, I also manage to fit in over 5000 miles of cycling every year.
The ISP alternatives in my area don’t offer what Virgin media do. None of the above means I happily give them 70 quid a month though.
Attempted vehicular assault.
Attempted vehicular assault.
Why are Virgin Media
Why are Virgin Media investigating this when it is clearly a case of assault for the police to look into?
Probably too busy policing people’s Twitter feeds for imagined hate crimes.
Has it been reported to the
Has it been reported to the police?
https://twitter.com/gmptraffic/status/894621327654617088
btw, is there a general Twitter thread for this please?
EDIT: This one? https://twitter.com/CyclingMikey/status/894461975484387328
One would wager this isn’t
One would wager this isn’t the first time it’s happened. More likely the first time the driver has been caught.
Virgin media is complete shit
Virgin media is complete shit. I just posted this on facebook:
Virgin are really pissing me off. After two days without broadband for six hours, they sent me an email telling me they were increasing prices for their “Award-winning reliability service”. And then it happened again for two days. So having failed four times in a week, they sent me a letter, which arrived on the 5th, telling me about work they were planning to do on the 2nd. As well as that, I’ve had seemingly endless phone calls exhorting me to get a new mobile phone, and I’m afraid I was rather less than polite to the last one. I’m investigating other isps and there seems to be quite a few out there. Whoever they are, they’ve got to be more competent than this shower.
Including the van driver.
I started a whole thread
I started a whole thread about this very stretch of road a while back.
http://road.cc/content/forum/216348-cycle-lane
Drivers seem to have no idea that a ‘cycle lane’ on the wrong side of the road is not much use if you have to cross a two fast moving lanes to use it.
Nothing but a caution for the
Nothing but a caution for the driver by employer…maybe.
The thing is if he is seen doing this, in a liveried works can then what does he do in his own car?
Bad day? Take it out in a cyclist.
Fight with the wife ditto.
Hit the driver with a fine, points and also should be fired as he does represent his firm?
Disgraceful.
Nothing but a caution for the
Nothing but a caution for the driver by employer…maybe.
The thing is if he is seen doing this, in a liveried works can then what does he do in his own car?
Bad day? Take it out in a cyclist.
Fight with the wife ditto.
Hit the driver with a fine, points and also should be fired as he does represent his firm?
Disgraceful.
Does it need a comment? Well,
Does it need a comment? Well, undoubtedly he’s an ex-employee within a few hours of this being aired. Karma will get him, it always does: It already has. Be nice to have seen the driver’s reaction when he was told that there was someone behind during this incident, with a camera…….
must be some sort of coded
must be some sort of coded message here…can only presume that “I was pulling out to overtake a car turning into a garden centre” is some some sort of variation on “I was blinded by the sun”…anyone watching the video and believing the van driver intended an overtake must fall in that percentage of the population that should never be allowed a driving license…hope keeps his job but has to cycle to appointments…hope the police pursue it and the courts give a good license suspension and that it gets plenty of publicity…might be dreaming there…certainly I’ve had a couple of incidents recently where I reckon I’ve seen the driver looking to see if a camera after the event…hopefully those people that can think will start to think twice before being dangerously aggressive
Google ‘Operation Considerate
Google ‘Operation Considerate – Reporting’ and make sure this is reported. It will be taken seriously.
Another possibility is that
Another possibility is that the van driver doesn’t want to let the cyclist overtake him as then he will be forced to travel at 15 mph when the cyclist hogs the lane making it difficult to get past.
nbrus wrote:
You do know this is a cycling website… for people who ride bikes on the road?
However, in response to your comment, 15mph would be a hell of a lot faster than that van was driving… maybe if a few more people got on their bikes, that van driver would not be caught in congestion.
Also in response… in 20+ years of motoring, I’ve never come across a cyclist making it difficult to pass them. I’ve come across plenty of cyclists simply riding along where road infratructure and / or traffic volume have meant it was not safe to pass for a period of time (generally not very long at all)… there is a distinct difference.
As for this van driver… countersteering my backside. It was deliberate.
What worries me more, is people putting forward the overtake as an option. Why, where, how was the van going to overtake? Overtake the whole queue of traffic? overtake into oncoming traffic…. if you were going to do that, why sit in a queue patiently before overtaking at that particular time.
There is no reason, nothing to suggest that the van driver was overtaking, only in the minds of the minority who feel indoctrinated to defend the motorist at all costs.
What information am I missing that suggest that the violent swerve to the right, following the defensive move to the left was not a deliberate attempty to halt the path of the cyclist.
nbrus wrote:
OK, I’ll bite:
– The van is crawling along at less than walking pace in a huge queue of traffic.
– The road is wide enough that the van would easily be able to overtake a cyclist, just as it’s plenty wide enough for the cyclist to overtake the van if the driver wasn’t a prick.
– No cyclist would put himself in danger by swerving across the road to prevent being overtaken by two tons of moving van.
Even in the highly unlikely event that the traffic disappears, the road narrows and the cyclist swerves around for no good reason, does any of that justify the actions of the van driver that could easily have resulted in serious injury or death?
Enough polite reasoning – you’re either a troll or a moron. Probably both.
srchar wrote:
The mere fact that someone puts forward some reasoning for why the van driver may have behaved in a particular manner (i.e. in an attempt to try and understand the situation), does not mean that they agree with what happened.
Ok, I’ll admit that my post looked like bait, and it worked … you took the bait. It was a valid point none the less, and you countered my comment with an alternative view … congratulations, that is the point of debate. Chances are we would never have heard your views had you not taken the bait.
Wondering what his previous
Wondering what his previous overtake was like – when the footage starts, we see the van then the cyclist, so it’s possible there’s already been one event or confrontation.
What Jumbotron said x 1000
What Jumbotron said x 1000
This also applies to every other bit of half arsed cycle infrasture in the UK. The councils only put in bike lanes so they can increase the speed limit or develop business when planning permision requires cycling provision.
It’s cycnical and duplicitous, the real question is why does this happen in the UK and not the rest of Europe?
The answers is we keep selecting corporate fags as MP’s and Councillors.
This is exactly my commute
This is exactly my commute home!
30 mins earlier and it probably would’ve been me being filmed. The traffic on this road backs up for a long way as there are 2 sets of traffic lights in a very short space. On the RHS is a multiuse path for cyclists and pedestrians but this is normally only used by cyclists who are going in the other direction, most cyclists stay on the road when going in the direction that this cyclist is going in.
What an absolutely idiotic manoeuver by the van driver. He is obviously annoyed that he’s going to be stuck in traffic for around 20mins and wasn’t happy that a cyclist was going to overtake him.
Those commercial vans all have stickers on them now pointing to the LHS stating how it’s dangerous to undertake, what are you supposed to do???
Noelieboy wrote:
Don’t some van drivers even claim that cyclists should hang back as they cannot be seen? This one had no problems seeing cyclist as was able to use mirrors to great effect.
#NoBlindSpot
Anyone cycling around there (except when traffic is crawling) is braver than me, it’s bad enough driving.
don simon wrote:
I’m not entirely certain, but it appears that the van’s passenger side wing mirror has been knocked off and there is just a circle of grey plastic there?
All too common to see people driving with no mirrors, or with them still folded in from being parked.
gonedownhill wrote:
Looks like you’re correct. Which make me question how the driver knew the bike was coming up on the inside.
The swerve to the left, crossing the white line to try and stop the rider and then the acceleration to have a second blocking attempt point to this driver facing a ban. Let’s hope we get a follow up with good news.
The only problem I think is that the driver will blame the cyclist for any employment problems caused and be worse in the future.
So is the position that the
So is the position that the police will only do something if the cyclist affected complains to them personally?
At first I thought it was possible it was a mistake, but on viewing the relevant bit of the video a couple more times it seems to me it had to be deliberate.
Gift where have I been an
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.
spen wrote:
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Realistically what is more likely;
A van driver attempts a rally style overtaking manoeuvre at low speed in a queue of traffic where it doesn’t appear possible to overtake.
Or,
A van driver acts like a dick.
Answers on a postcard…
Rich_cb wrote:
or if you go with the doobiest of all the brothers…
What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
spen wrote:
He executed the maneuver exactly as he intended it. It was a purposeful block, followed by an even more aggressive block seeing as the first attempt failed.
By any chance Spen do you happen to work for Virgin Media, driving a van with the registration YE61YMT?
spen wrote:
“Incompetence not malice”
(“Psst, wanna buy a bridge…?”)
brooksby wrote:
…monthly subscription to “Kool Aid Drinkers Anonymous”…
Malice forethought….
spen wrote:
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:
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:
You know, if pursuing things as malice gets a few merely incompetent drivers off the road, I wouldn’t feel bad about it.— spen
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:
One can be trained to be a better driver, the other needs putting under medical oversight.
Vehlin wrote:
Let’s be honest: our joke-writing partnership needs work.
davel wrote:
Nope … needs medical oversight.
spen wrote:
Why would anyone care whether he’s utterly incompetent or utterly evil? Either way he should never drive again.
oldstrath 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.
— oldstrath Why would anyone care whether he’s utterly incompetent or utterly evil? Either way he should never drive again.— spen
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:
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:
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.
— Mungecrundle Why would anyone care whether he’s utterly incompetent or utterly evil? Either way he should never drive again.— nbrus
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.
— oldstrath 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.— spenAt 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
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:
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:
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:
One simply does not launch their vehicle onto the wrong side of the road to allow a cyclist to pass…..— craigstittCould 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:
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:
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.— davelYou 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:
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:
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:
…
— FluffyKittenofTindalos 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.— nbrus
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:
Which was at least your third reference to a ‘lynch mob’, including ‘the lynch mob has been silenced’, seemingly referring to every previous poster.
Notice the sudden forward
Notice the sudden forward acceleration before the cyclist is clear of the front of the van after the original attempt at taking him out. Clearly the driver trying to intimidate the rider! Unintentional my arse!
I think the driver is on his
I think the driver is on his phone.
As you can see at the end of the video, he’s got no left wing mirror, so there’s no way he could have seen the cyclist to make an intentional block. What it looks like to me is that he’s started accelerating as traffic clears in front of him, as he does this the van drifts off to the left. Which makes me think his left hand isn’t on the wheel and putting too much pressure on with the right.
He then sees a gap in traffic, and goes to overtake the silver car in front of him, without checking his mirror and nearly splats the cyclist.
So my view here is that it’s gross incometence coupled with a vehicle that shouldn’t be on the road without that other mirror rather than actual malice.
Vehlin wrote:
If it were malice then he would be touting his horn and stopping to have an argument, but instead he remains calm, so you may be correct. This may have been a case of poor judgment rather than gross incompetence as everyone makes mistakes and hopefully learns from them. Too many people on here are far to quick to judge. It’s much harder driving a van than it is a car as you don’t have the benefit of a rear view mirror. He should have taken more care.
nbrus wrote:
If it were malice then he would be touting his horn and stopping to have an argument, but instead he remains calm, so you may be correct.
[/quote]
You’ve obviously not met that many people who have acted out of malice, I envy you. I’ve come across plenty of people who appear calm while putting my life in danger with their vehicle, goading for a reaction while smirking and getting off on it. Not everyone blasts their horn either so don’t expect every angry person to react in the same way.
NorthEastJimmy wrote:
Its difficult to be certain about anything, but thanks for the tips.
Are you sure we are all
Are you sure we are all watching the same video, where is he looking to go with an overtake? Why after this event does he not look to overtake? Why didn’t he indicate and check his mirror?
Also, the angle he comes out at compared to where the car is in front. So much so that one on here thinks it may be about to u-turn.
I know it’s a cycling site but ‘we’ don’t always automatically defend the bike. There’s a thread on the forum at the moment where a cyclist is getting some criticism where it is very much 50:50 or in my opinion at least 60% drivers fault. Anyone looking for excuses for the driver here is simply a moron!
Wow .. the lynch mob has been
Wow … the lynch mob has been silenced.
So you’re saying he’s driving
So you’re saying he’s driving too close to the car in front and randomly swerving left and right after possibly being involved in a collision earlier that day.
You’ve certainly changed my mind. Excellent driver, well done sir.
Like Columbo, I’m back for
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?
alansmurphy wrote:
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:
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?
— alansmurphyAn embarrassing display of apologist mental gymnastics.
kitsunegari wrote:
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.
nbrus wrote:
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:
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?
nbrus 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?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
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?
— brooksby 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?— nbrusGo 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?
That’s FK’s modus operandi – putting words into the mouths of others. I find it very odd to be honest.
Kadinkski wrote:
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.
Kadinkski wrote:
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:
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:
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:
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.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
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).— nbrus
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?
nbrus wrote:
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).— FluffyKittenofTindalos
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?— nbrus
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][quote
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.
I get the feeling nbrus is
I get the feeling nbrus is just having a laugh at everyone now by just coming up with rediculous ‘possible’ theories just to prove a point that other theories are just that.
Hold on guys, I just need to
Hold on guys, I just need to pop out for some more popcorn…
CygnusX1 wrote:
No need: I’ve got loads left from the helmet review that never ignited…
Van driver momentarily drifts
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.
Mungecrundle wrote:
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?
The driver should NOT have
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…
alansmurphy wrote:
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.
nbrus wrote:
Yes, yes you should, why don’t you pop off now and get on it?
No, the cyclist was looking
No, the cyclist was looking to filter through stationary traffic and could have done so without crossing the white line. Again, the van driver clearly can’t and won’t check their mirror if it was an attempted overtake and failed to indicate.
And you’ve demonstrated a lack of ability to read the responses of others. The cycle path is ridiculously short and requires crossing 2 lanes of traffic to enter and exit (around 500 metres apart). If you’d do that for a minute of riding then you’re probably not a serious cyclist or commuter. And if you were to do so with this van driver on either side of the road you would still likely have been on trouble.
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…
alansmurphy wrote:
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.
Having looked at this again,
Having looked at this again, the driver most likely passed this rider a few moments before the camera car picked up the cyclists on the road(the Virgin media van was just a little further up the road). He began to pinch the kerb in anticpation of the rider coming up, but has the rider went right to pass him he swerved his vehicle to block(knock him off). You can see the rider is reluctant to pass virgin van later, whilst he fumbles for his phone.
A premeditated action against a vulnerable rider. a driver who has obviously got some issue with cyclists.
Surprised it isn’t a white
Surprised it isn’t a white van. FFS, lets hope the driver is identified and sacked, then prosecuted.
Another one with no update as
Another one with no update as to what happened. Does Road.cc know what the Virgin investigation decided abou ttheir employee (hopefully ex-employee)?
fatsmoker wrote:
No. The site puts this shit up to get clicks which earns ad revenue and then does fuck all.
I reactivated my twitter
I reactivated my twitter account (never actually used it) just to ty and get a response about this. They only replied when they thought they lost me as a customer but now I’ve posted the link to the video….silence.