VIDEO: Van driver forces cyclist off road; QC offers help to sue

Rich_cb wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Err, take another look at the attached picture ... the lane is clearly twice the width of that van, so plenty of space to overtake safely without crossing lanes ... that is if the cyclist had showed good judgment and not chosen to blocked the lane.

 

The van in the picture is touching the centre of the road, illegal when there are double whites.

There is also no gap whatsoever between the van and bike.

So I don't think that picture does show sufficient space.

That looks like a broken white line on his side, to me - that would mean the van could move across it to overtake.

davel wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Err, take another look at the attached picture ... the lane is clearly twice the width of that van, so plenty of space to overtake safely without crossing lanes ... that is if the cyclist had showed good judgment and not chosen to blocked the lane.

 

The van in the picture is touching the centre of the road, illegal when there are double whites.

There is also no gap whatsoever between the van and bike.

So I don't think that picture does show sufficient space.

That looks like a broken white line on his side, to me - that would mean the van could move across it to overtake.

Watch the video.
At the start there are double whites.
The cyclist moves over after they end.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Err, take another look at the attached picture ... the lane is clearly twice the width of that van, so plenty of space to overtake safely without crossing lanes ... that is if the cyclist had showed good judgment and not chosen to blocked the lane.

 

The van in the picture is touching the centre of the road, illegal when there are double whites.

There is also no gap whatsoever between the van and bike.

So I don't think that picture does show sufficient space.

That looks like a broken white line on his side, to me - that would mean the van could move across it to overtake.

Watch the video.
At the start there are double whites.
The cyclist moves over after they end.

So he does: exactly as you say, which suggests the cyclist has plenty of road sense and makes the driver buzzing him during the unbroken lines even more concerning.

Rich_cb wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Err, take another look at the attached picture ... the lane is clearly twice the width of that van, so plenty of space to overtake safely without crossing lanes ... that is if the cyclist had showed good judgment and not chosen to blocked the lane.

 

The van in the picture is touching the centre of the road, illegal when there are double whites. There is also no gap whatsoever between the van and bike. So I don't think that picture does show sufficient space.

Try this...

nbrus wrote:

Try this...

 

You are aware of the effect of perspective right?

You've also placed the cyclist far to close to the kerb.

The safe distance is 75cm.

The road doesn't change width noticeably so the top picture with the two directly side by side gives the true picture.

Rich_cb wrote:

You are aware of the effect of perspective right? You've also placed the cyclist far to close to the kerb. The safe distance is 75cm. The road doesn't change width noticeably so the top picture with the two directly side by side gives the true picture.

Err, safe from what? ... is the grass going to bite his ankles if he gets too close to it?

nbrus wrote:

Err, safe from what? ... is the grass going to bite his ankles if he gets too close to it?

 

If you need that explaining to you then you are clearly not a cyclist.

Rich_cb wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Err, safe from what? ... is the grass going to bite his ankles if he gets too close to it?

 

If you need that explaining to you then you are clearly not a cyclist.

Oh, I'm a cyclist alright ... and I also drive ... I can appreciate that we need to share the road and not try and own it.

nbrus wrote:

Oh, I'm a cyclist alright ... and I also drive ... I can appreciate that we need to share the road and not try and own it.

Well next time you go out, on one of the many rides I'm sure you go on, try riding as close to the edge of the road as you advocated in the picture you posted.

Let me know how it goes...

nbrus wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Err, safe from what? ... is the grass going to bite his ankles if he gets too close to it?

 

If you need that explaining to you then you are clearly not a cyclist.

Oh, I'm a cyclist alright ... and I also drive ... I can appreciate that we need to share the road and not try and own it.

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me.

At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary.

As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road.

Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

 

That is not enough room to safely overtake. If you think it is, then please don't drive. It will be safer for everyone. 

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

 

Rubbish! Please hand in your driver's licence today if you really think that a legal overtaking manouvre could be SAFELY done in this instance.

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

 

I certainly wouldn't want to be overtaken there by a large van trying to squeeze past inside the lane. I also wonder why the desperate rush from this van driver - would anyone really die if his journey was extended by a minute or so?

Which leaves me wondering about the company as a whole - it's all fine for the MD to dismiss this particular driver, but maybe the corporate culture sees travel time as wasted, and demands that it be minimised.

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

 

wtf.

That might - might - qualify as a not-abysmal-overtaking-distance, only if the cyclist was in the dust or on the grass. And you wouldn't ride there, would you?

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

 

A number of factors usually contribute to a collision. You can look at this picture and say technically there is enough room for the driver to get by but it simply is not safe. All it would take is for the cyclist to drift, an animal to startle from the undergrowth and cause the cyclist to swerve, for the car in the opposite carriageway to drift over the centre line. Assuming the van would be looking to pass at 50mph plus on that type of road the foreseable consequences to the cyclist of forcing past massively outweight the inconvenience to the driver of having to moderate their speed for a short distance.

Even then, the cyclist moves back to secondary to allow the van to overtake once it is safe to do so but is subjected to a very deliberate, very aggressive and highly dangerous piece of road rage.

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

 

Except that the van is going to have to accelerate uphill, then cross the centre line, on a bend, towards the oncoming white car with no clear picture of what else might be coming, or how fast. Double white lines are put there for a reason.

If I were the cyclist, I'd have placed myself like that as well to give myself some space on the inside to move to in case the driver behind tried anything stupid. Grass edged roads usually have terrible and wandering road surfaces close to the verge, so I too would want to be well out from the edge of the road.

The thing is, I've just got back from two days touring around Wiltshire and Devon and never encountered anything but polite driving, with lots of cars hanging back and waiting, giving way to me on narrow lanes etc. All the sort of considerate driving you know happens, but rarely see consistently for two entire days.

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

 

That's a Renault Trafic van (you can see the "Trafic" badge on RHS door), so we have a reference dimension of 2m width (1,956mm to be precise - from AutoTrader) I believe this includes wing mirrors.

Its at an angle in the picture, and perspective/camera lenses plays a part, but I think most would agree that if you imagine another Trafic van in the gap indicated by the red line, so the van is parallel to the one in the photo and wing mirrors touching, the nearside wheel of our imaginary van would be firmly on the grass. So the red line indicates a gap of less than 2 metres, I would estimate around 1.5m. 

Now lets condider the distances used on the mat used by WMP (and rolling out nationwide) in Operation ClosePass... rider's wheel 0.75m from kerb (white line), safe passing distance 1.5m = 2.25m total distance that the van would need to be from white line.

For the pass to be safely on the rider would have had to be on the grass to begin with.

CygnusX1 wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

That's a Renault Trafic van (you can see the "Trafic" badge on RHS door), so we have a reference dimension of 2m width ..... snip .... 

For the pass to be safely on the rider would have had to be on the grass to begin with.

Those were my thoughts. I'd looked up transit van width which came up with 1.8m. 

It's always difficult with these videos to judge speed with any degree of accuracy, but the van is clearly far too close behind the rider - that's what struck me when it started playing. Obviously it only gets worse from then on, but the stopping distance looked minimal to me and that alone looks like it should support a dangerous driving charge. 

The other point I'd make is about double, solid white lines: in my experience, they are restricted to only the points where they absolutely have to be. In many places, I see them change to single solid & dashed in places I wouldn't dream of overtaking another car. They're also usually on the type of roads, like this one, where there's not enough space to overtake anything safely whilst staying entirely in your lane. So as others have said, I'd make no criticism of the rider for choosing not to ride in the gutter.

Also as others have said, impressive that he managed to stay upright. 

CygnusX1 wrote:

That's a Renault Trafic van (you can see the "Trafic" badge on RHS door), so we have a reference dimension of 2m width (1,956mm to be precise - from AutoTrader) I believe this includes wing mirrors.

That is actually excluding wingmirrors, it's 2,283mm including

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

 

Double white lines mean you mustn't overtake - even if you don't cross the lines. Whether there was enough room or not is irrelevant.

scrumpydave wrote:

Double white lines mean you mustn't overtake - even if you don't cross the lines. Whether there was enough room or not is irrelevant.

Wrong. Just plain wrong.

Rule 129

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

Same applies if there is a parked car, fallen tree or other obstruction on your side of the road where to "not cross" the white line would mean that you are unable to proceed.

I had a car tailgating me on a bendy stretch of road with double whites and he refused to overtake, even though I could see the road was perfectly clear and was waving him through - he gesticulated to the double white lines.

As we entered the little village, the double whites ceased and he squeezed past on the narrowest pinch point as soon as he could. He wasn't concerned about not killing me. Just about not crossing these double whites! If only it worked the same at advanced stop lines or cycle paths marked with a solid white line...

scrumpydave wrote:

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

 

 

Double white lines mean you mustn't overtake - even if you don't cross the lines. Whether there was enough room or not is irrelevant.

That's not strictly true. They mean you can't cross the line unless you're turning right, passing something stationary or a bike/horse/road-roller etc moving slower than 10mph.  So technically you can pass whilst remaining inside the line as long as you're complying with other road laws. However, since it would almost certainly be unsafe in a motor to overtake anything within the lane (unless it was unfeasibly wide) you would not be driving with due care, so effectively you can't overtake.  You could as a cyclist potentially overtake another cyclist whilst remaining in the lane perfectly legally.   

Rule 129

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

CygnusX1 wrote:

That's not strictly true. They mean you can't cross the line unless you're turning right, passing something stationary or a bike/horse/road-roller etc moving slower than 10mph.  So technically you can pass whilst remaining inside the line as long as you're complying with other road laws. However, since it would almost certainly be unsafe in a motor to overtake anything within the lane (unless it was unfeasibly wide) you would not be driving with due care, so effectively you can't overtake.  You could as a cyclist potentially overtake another cyclist whilst remaining in the lane perfectly legally.   

STILL not true!

You may cross the double white lines to overtake a horse, cyclist etc moving at less than 10mph. Or to turn right, or to pass a stationary object .

The lines are primarily there to prevent passing another car (doing say 25mph in a 30 zone) which would be dangerous due to the width of the road, the sightlines etc but passing a bike doing 10mph can actually be safely achieved under many circumstances.

There's a road near me (which I ride and drive regularly) that has a lot of double whites but I've never had any problems either overtaking bikes when I'm driving or being overtaken by cars when I'm riding. Yes there are certainly occasions where a vehicle has to wait to safely overtake (due to oncoming traffic, sightlines, parked vehicles etc) but there are plenty of very safe overtaking places (for a car passing a bike or horse) even with double whites.

crazy-legs wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

That's not strictly true. They mean you can't cross the line unless you're turning right, passing something stationary or a bike/horse/road-roller etc moving slower than 10mph.  So technically you can pass whilst remaining inside the line as long as you're complying with other road laws. However, since it would almost certainly be unsafe in a motor to overtake anything within the lane (unless it was unfeasibly wide) you would not be driving with due care, so effectively you can't overtake.  You could as a cyclist potentially overtake another cyclist whilst remaining in the lane perfectly legally.   

STILL not true!

You may cross the double white lines to overtake a horse, cyclist etc moving at less than 10mph. Or to turn right, or to pass a stationary object .

The lines are primarily there to prevent passing another car (doing say 25mph in a 30 zone) which would be dangerous due to the width of the road, the sightlines etc but passing a bike doing 10mph can actually be safely achieved under many circumstances.

There's a road near me (which I ride and drive regularly) that has a lot of double whites but I've never had any problems either overtaking bikes when I'm driving or being overtaken by cars when I'm riding. Yes there are certainly occasions where a vehicle has to wait to safely overtake (due to oncoming traffic, sightlines, parked vehicles etc) but there are plenty of very safe overtaking places (for a car passing a bike or horse) even with double whites.

I didn't say it was illegal to pass a bike in a car whilst remaining to the left of the line, just that places where you can do so safely because the lanes are wide enough are few and far between (you seem blessed in living in an area where this is not the case).  If you can do so safely then its pefectly legal, if its not safe then you would be driving without due care. Hence the key word effectively.   

My example of bike + bike holds for any two road users who can fit side by side in the lane with a safe gap, so horse + bike, bike + motorbike, bike + car  even wide load + wide load are all legal as long as the lane is wide enough.   

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

 

No, there isn't. You haven't taken account of the natural varying of line that a cyclist will take (you don't cycle dead straight, ever) and also the wing mirrors of the van. A wing mirror striking the cyclist on the back of the head is likely to kill, even if they're wearing a helmet (see David Irving case, and also the recent one on the A338 at Fordingbridge - in both cases initial impact was between head and wing mirror). Also, note the position of the oncoming blue car which has moved to the nearside in it's lane to avoid the van. 

Your red line needs to be measured from the right hand side of the white line as well as that demarcates the edge of the carriageway.

Cyclist should be a minimum of 75cm from that edge of the white line, and driver needs to give a further 1.5m clearance from wing mirror to cyclist's shoulder. 

Overall, better for cyclist to take the lane and I'd have done exactly the same thing, including moving to the left as soon as broken line appeared. Only difference would have been that I'd have been in the hedge/ditch as I don't have those handling skilzz.

What hasn't been considered here is that he could have so easily been hit by a following vehicle if he'd lost control...

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me. At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn't enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary. As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he's moving over a bit. He doesn't really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road. Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could've moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.

Below is a picture of the section you are refering to ... there appears to be loads of room and the van isn't even on the white lines ...

 

What? That isn't "loads of room". You clearly have never been on a bike.

nbrus wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Err, take another look at the attached picture ... the lane is clearly twice the width of that van, so plenty of space to overtake safely without crossing lanes ... that is if the cyclist had showed good judgment and not chosen to blocked the lane.

 

The van in the picture is touching the centre of the road, illegal when there are double whites. There is also no gap whatsoever between the van and bike. So I don't think that picture does show sufficient space.

Try this...

 

And you don't think that, had the cyclist been to the left, the van would also have been further to the left?  As anyone who rides knows, the further left you are, the closer the cars come because the drivers don't feel they have to move out at all.

nbrus wrote:

Van driver deserved to be sacked for that outragous manouver ... he had a right to be angry, but using his van as a weapon is beyond belief ... should get jail time if I had my way.

Cyclist should not have been in the middle of the lane ... there was plenty of room for a safe overtake without him blocking the entire lane to other traffic. Do pedestrians/walkers put themselves in the middle of the road to stop vehicles overtaking (there are no pavements on that road)? No, because that would be way too dangerous. A bike is no wider than a pedestrian and not much faster when compared to other traffic. Glad he's ok, but imagine the carnage if he was two-abreast with a riding buddy.

Yes, I can understand my opinion will not be welcome, but as most here are themselves road cyclists it isn't surprising that most opionions will be fairly one-sided in regards to taking the lane. I will even do it myself when necessary, but I think in this example it was not.

The cyclist felt he had to be in primary position for his own safety and you weren't there so I think he's in a better position to make that judgement.
Pedestrians should always face oncoming traffic when there is no path so this situation would not arise for them.

nbrus wrote:

Van driver deserved to be sacked for that outragous manouver ... he had a right to be angry, but using his van as a weapon is beyond belief ... should get jail time if I had my way.

Cyclist should not have been in the middle of the lane ... there was plenty of room for a safe overtake without him blocking the entire lane to other traffic. Do pedestrians/walkers put themselves in the middle of the road to stop vehicles overtaking (there are no pavements on that road)? No, because that would be way too dangerous. A bike is no wider than a pedestrian and not much faster when compared to other traffic. Glad he's ok, but imagine the carnage if he was two-abreast with a riding buddy.

Yes, I can understand my opinion will not be welcome, but as most here are themselves road cyclists it isn't surprising that most opionions will be fairly one-sided in regards to taking the lane. I will even do it myself when necessary, but I think in this example it was not.

The driver "had a right to be angry"? Why, because he was he'll up for oh, at least 30 seconds? What happens if a traffic jam holds him up for an hour? He gets out his RPG launcher?