Near Miss of the Day 168: Van driver crosses solid line, forcing cyclists out of way

fizrar6 wrote:

The van driver certainly gave plenty of notice of his intentions and he changed lane at the very end of the bus/cycle lane. He maybe hit the last few feet of the cycle lane but that is hardly a crime.

Yes it is.

fizrar6 wrote:

Gives us all a bad name.

We're cyclists not van drivers, so how does a bad van driver give cyclists a bad name exactly?

fizrar6 wrote:

The van driver certainly gave plenty of notice of his intentions and he changed lane at the very end of the bus/cycle lane. He maybe hit the last few feet of the cycle lane but that is hardly a crime.

If CycleLondon had been a bit more courteous and aware of his fellow road users this incident wouldn't have happened. He could easily have slowed down and let the van into the lane but deliveratley speeded up to try and make a point of cyclists being vicitmised.

Gives us all a bad name.

Today I learned that cycling in a straight line along a road in a perfectly legal and proper manner is now giving cyclists a bad name if you don't defer to a motorised vehicle and maybe doff your cap to your road tax paying superiors.

fizrar6 wrote:

The van driver certainly gave plenty of notice of his intentions and he changed lane at the very end of the bus/cycle lane. He maybe hit the last few feet of the cycle lane but that is hardly a crime.

If CycleLondon had been a bit more courteous and aware of his fellow road users this incident wouldn't have happened. He could easily have slowed down and let the van into the lane but deliveratley speeded up to try and make a point of cyclists being vicitmised.

Gives us all a bad name.

I agree. Yes, the van driver wasn’t perfect, but the cyclist could see that comming for miles and was looking for trouble or just totally unaware. Both were in the wrong there. The cyclist was never going to safely make it past before the end of the bus lane and the van driver went across fractionally early. Had the cyclist used a little bit of defensive riding and observation it would never have happened. Had the van driver waited until the end of the bus lane he would still have had a cyclist undertakeing him when he was changing lane.

John Smith wrote:

The cyclist was never going to safely make it past before the end of the bus lane and the van driver went across fractionally early.

That's just another might is right comment

Quote:

Had the van driver waited until the end of the bus lane he would still have had a cyclist undertakeing him when he was changing lane.

That's just speculation.

John Smith wrote:

fizrar6 wrote:

The van driver certainly gave plenty of notice of his intentions and he changed lane at the very end of the bus/cycle lane. He maybe hit the last few feet of the cycle lane but that is hardly a crime.

If CycleLondon had been a bit more courteous and aware of his fellow road users this incident wouldn't have happened. He could easily have slowed down and let the van into the lane but deliveratley speeded up to try and make a point of cyclists being vicitmised.

Gives us all a bad name.

 

I agree. Yes, the van driver wasn’t perfect, but the cyclist could see that comming for miles and was looking for trouble or just totally unaware. Both were in the wrong there. The cyclist was never going to safely make it past before the end of the bus lane and the van driver went across fractionally early. Had the cyclist used a little bit of defensive riding and observation it would never have happened. Had the van driver waited until the end of the bus lane he would still have had a cyclist undertakeing him when he was changing lane.

1.  Indicating does not give you priority.

2.  It matters not a fuck how long he had been indicating.  He waits until the lane is clear before he moves into it.  

3.  I didn't see the cyclist speed up.  His speed goes from 8 km/h to 6 km/h during the incident.  How does that constitute 'looking for trouble'? 

Are we inundated with driver trolls these days? 

John Smith wrote:

fizrar6 wrote:

The van driver certainly gave plenty of notice of his intentions and he changed lane at the very end of the bus/cycle lane. He maybe hit the last few feet of the cycle lane but that is hardly a crime.

If CycleLondon had been a bit more courteous and aware of his fellow road users this incident wouldn't have happened. He could easily have slowed down and let the van into the lane but deliveratley speeded up to try and make a point of cyclists being vicitmised.

Gives us all a bad name.

 

I agree. Yes, the van driver wasn’t perfect, but the cyclist could see that comming for miles and was looking for trouble or just totally unaware. Both were in the wrong there. The cyclist was never going to safely make it past before the end of the bus lane and the van driver went across fractionally early. Had the cyclist used a little bit of defensive riding and observation it would never have happened. Had the van driver waited until the end of the bus lane he would still have had a cyclist undertakeing him when he was changing lane.

Tosh.  The cyclist was not 'in the wrong'.  He broke no law, and did not behave in any way that was unlawful, discourteous or dangerous.  Unless of course you count 'not deferring to his betters who pay road tax' as 'discourteous'.  

fizrar6 wrote:

If CycleLondon had been a bit more courteous

Allow me to translate: 

'if Cycle London had known his place and got out of the way of the much more important motor vehicle driver....'

atgni wrote:

Looking for conflict there me thinks. Clearly avoidable. Van indicating for some time before turn.

So, do you think that indicating gives you priority?

hawkinspeter wrote:

atgni wrote:

Looking for conflict there me thinks. Clearly avoidable. Van indicating for some time before turn.

So, do you think that indicating gives you priority?

Nope.
Share the road.
Slow for 2 seconds and don't go up the inside of something indicating.

atgni wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

atgni wrote:

Looking for conflict there me thinks. Clearly avoidable. Van indicating for some time before turn.

So, do you think that indicating gives you priority?

Nope. Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don't go up the inside of something indicating.

I agree with "share the road". I interpret that as meaning don't pull into a lane when it isn't clear never mind how long you've been indicating.

Why couldn't the van have slowed for 2 seconds to have made a safe maneouvre? Safety is more important than courtesy.

hawkinspeter wrote:

atgni wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

atgni wrote:

Looking for conflict there me thinks. Clearly avoidable. Van indicating for some time before turn.

So, do you think that indicating gives you priority?

Nope. Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don't go up the inside of something indicating.

I agree with "share the road". I interpret that as meaning don't pull into a lane when it isn't clear never mind how long you've been indicating.

Why couldn't the van have slowed for 2 seconds to have made a safe maneouvre? Safety is more important than courtesy.

I think the van was slowing into a gap.
We don't see the rear veiw.

atgni wrote:

Looking for conflict there me thinks. Clearly avoidable. Van indicating for some time before turn.

Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.

Van indicating for some time before turn - I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What's your point?

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

Looking for conflict there me thinks. Clearly avoidable. Van indicating for some time before turn.

Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.

Van indicating for some time before turn - I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What's your point?

Share the road.
Slow for 2 seconds and don't go up the inside of something indicating.

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

Looking for conflict there me thinks. Clearly avoidable. Van indicating for some time before turn.

Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.

Van indicating for some time before turn - I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What's your point?

Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don't go up the inside of something indicating.

What you are saying then is that there is no point in any cycle lane, as it is not permissible to underake any cars who are queuing in their lane. This would extend to normal roads where there are 2 lanes and so the road user in lane 1 should not 'undertake' any user in lane 2.

Do you know what a mandatory cycle lane is?

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

Looking for conflict there me thinks. Clearly avoidable. Van indicating for some time before turn.

Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.

Van indicating for some time before turn - I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What's your point?

Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don't go up the inside of something indicating.

What you are saying then is that there is no point in any cycle lane, as it is not permissible to underake any cars who are queuing in their lane. This would extend to normal roads where there are 2 lanes and so the road user in lane 1 should not 'undertake' any user in lane 2.

Do you know what a mandatory cycle lane is?

No. And they weren't queing in this case.
And yes.
I didn't say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

Looking for conflict there me thinks. Clearly avoidable. Van indicating for some time before turn.

Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.

Van indicating for some time before turn - I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What's your point?

Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don't go up the inside of something indicating.

What you are saying then is that there is no point in any cycle lane, as it is not permissible to underake any cars who are queuing in their lane. This would extend to normal roads where there are 2 lanes and so the road user in lane 1 should not 'undertake' any user in lane 2.

Do you know what a mandatory cycle lane is?

No. And they weren't queing in this case. And yes. I didn't say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.

The van driver could also have easily avoided the conflict, and since the van driver was the one not just travelling in a straight line then I’d suggest that the onus falls upon them.

brooksby wrote:

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

Looking for conflict there me thinks. Clearly avoidable. Van indicating for some time before turn.

Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.

Van indicating for some time before turn - I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What's your point?

Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don't go up the inside of something indicating.

What you are saying then is that there is no point in any cycle lane, as it is not permissible to underake any cars who are queuing in their lane. This would extend to normal roads where there are 2 lanes and so the road user in lane 1 should not 'undertake' any user in lane 2.

Do you know what a mandatory cycle lane is?

No. And they weren't queing in this case. And yes. I didn't say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.

The van driver could also have easily avoided the conflict, and since the van driver was the one not just travelling in a straight line then I’d suggest that the onus falls upon them.

Agreed.

brooksby wrote:

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

Looking for conflict there me thinks. Clearly avoidable. Van indicating for some time before turn.

Obviously trying to force your way into a mandatory cycle lane will cause conflict and was clearly avoidable.

Van indicating for some time before turn - I find that too when I am at a side road trying to turn right. What's your point?

Share the road. Slow for 2 seconds and don't go up the inside of something indicating.

What you are saying then is that there is no point in any cycle lane, as it is not permissible to underake any cars who are queuing in their lane. This would extend to normal roads where there are 2 lanes and so the road user in lane 1 should not 'undertake' any user in lane 2.

Do you know what a mandatory cycle lane is?

No. And they weren't queing in this case. And yes. I didn't say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.

The van driver could also have easily avoided the conflict, and since the van driver was the one not just travelling in a straight line then I’d suggest that the onus falls upon them.

.. is the right answer. 

Van driver changing lane - van driver's responsibility to see that the space into which he drives, is clear.  

Nothing else to say, no more debate, move along.  

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

No. And they weren't queing in this case. And yes. I didn't say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.

I see you believe might is right and it's ok to use a mandatory cycle lane if the alternative is to wait a few seconds, so little left to discuss.

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

No. And they weren't queing in this case. And yes. I didn't say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.

I see you believe might is right and it's ok to use a mandatory cycle lane if the alternative is to wait a few seconds, so little left to discuss.

Still no to both your assertions.
Try reading what I write maybe.

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

No. And they weren't queing in this case. And yes. I didn't say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.

I see you believe might is right and it's ok to use a mandatory cycle lane if the alternative is to wait a few seconds, so little left to discuss.

Still no to both your assertions. Try reading what I write maybe.

You realise the van driver instigated the confrontation by not obeying the rules of the road and illegally entering the bus lane while also putting a vulnerable road user in danger?

Maybe, when people are telling you that what you're saying is clearly wrong, you should review what you are communicating rather than tell people to read it again?

There is a good chance this van is one of those I saw that had concertina'd between other vans and lorries near Oval this week.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

No. And they weren't queing in this case. And yes. I didn't say the van was right. I said the bike could easily have avoided the conflict.

I see you believe might is right and it's ok to use a mandatory cycle lane if the alternative is to wait a few seconds, so little left to discuss.

Still no to both your assertions. Try reading what I write maybe.

You realise the van driver instigated the confrontation by not obeying the rules of the road and illegally entering the bus lane while also putting a vulnerable road user in danger?

Maybe, when people are telling you that what you're saying is clearly wrong, you should review what you are communicating rather than tell people to read it again?

Yes and yes. And the cyclist decided to plough on saving no time as getting stuck behind the moped immediately afterwards.
Hirsute simply keeps claiming I think or say things that I don't or haven't. Hence it would be handy if they read what I wrote rather than making things up. See very first comment.

atgni wrote:

 Yes and yes. And the cyclist decided to plough on saving no time as getting stuck behind the moped immediately afterwards. Hirsute simply keeps claiming I think or say things that I don't or haven't. Hence it would be handy if they read what I wrote rather than making things up. See very first comment.

Perhaps you should read what you wrote.

You said "share the road". In order to do this, the driver would have to enter the mandatory lane which they shouldn't do.

Your very first comment was "Van indicating for some time before turn" which you have never explained what relevance that has, then you go on to make an erroneous claim about "going up the inside".

You also claimed he sped up whereas the speed shown in the video is that he slowed down.

Seems you don't like people pointing the implications or contradictions of your comments.

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

 Yes and yes. And the cyclist decided to plough on saving no time as getting stuck behind the moped immediately afterwards. Hirsute simply keeps claiming I think or say things that I don't or haven't. Hence it would be handy if they read what I wrote rather than making things up. See very first comment.

Perhaps you should read what you wrote.

You said "share the road". In order to do this, the driver would have to enter the mandatory lane which they shouldn't do.

Your very first comment was "Van indicating for some time before turn" which you have never explained what relevance that has, then you go on to make an erroneous claim about "going up the inside".

You also claimed he sped up whereas the speed shown in the video is that he slowed down.

Seems you don't like people pointing the implications or contradictions of your comments.

Where did I say this? "You also claimed he sped up whereas the speed shown in the video is that he slowed down."
I'll give you a hint - I didn't. That's where this reading thing comes in.

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

 Yes and yes. And the cyclist decided to plough on saving no time as getting stuck behind the moped immediately afterwards. Hirsute simply keeps claiming I think or say things that I don't or haven't. Hence it would be handy if they read what I wrote rather than making things up. See very first comment.

Perhaps you should read what you wrote.

You said "share the road". In order to do this, the driver would have to enter the mandatory lane which they shouldn't do.

Your very first comment was "Van indicating for some time before turn" which you have never explained what relevance that has, then you go on to make an erroneous claim about "going up the inside".

You also claimed he sped up whereas the speed shown in the video is that he slowed down.

Seems you don't like people pointing the implications or contradictions of your comments.

Just to clarify your mis statements.
It's a bus lane not a mandatory cycle lane.
Going up the inside is not erroneous, the cyclist was behind the not queing van or you would not have seen the indicators before they got up the inside.
Incident entirely avoidable by regardless of whether the van crossed the lane marking just by the cyclist observing the indicators. Better if the van hadn't crossed the lane marking but avoidable either way.
Most of this comments section avoidable by you reading what I wrote or by me remembering I was reading a website where some people blindly believe cyclists can do no wrong.
I'm not in your gang obviously. Enjoy your riding.

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

 Yes and yes. And the cyclist decided to plough on saving no time as getting stuck behind the moped immediately afterwards. Hirsute simply keeps claiming I think or say things that I don't or haven't. Hence it would be handy if they read what I wrote rather than making things up. See very first comment.

Perhaps you should read what you wrote.

You said "share the road". In order to do this, the driver would have to enter the mandatory lane which they shouldn't do.

Your very first comment was "Van indicating for some time before turn" which you have never explained what relevance that has, then you go on to make an erroneous claim about "going up the inside".

You also claimed he sped up whereas the speed shown in the video is that he slowed down.

Seems you don't like people pointing the implications or contradictions of your comments.

Just to clarify your mis statements. It's a bus lane not a mandatory cycle lane. Going up the inside is not erroneous, the cyclist was behind the not queing van or you would not have seen the indicators before they got up the inside. Incident entirely avoidable by regardless of whether the van crossed the lane marking just by the cyclist observing the indicators. Better if the van hadn't crossed the lane marking but avoidable either way. Most of this comments section avoidable by you reading what I wrote or by me remembering I was reading a website where some people blindly believe cyclists can do no wrong. I'm not in your gang obviously. Enjoy your riding.

Dunning-Kruger Effect in full effect

Presumably the cyclist was also "behind" the vehicle two lanes over? I presume you haven't passed a driving test.

atgni wrote:

hirsute wrote:

atgni wrote:

 Yes and yes. And the cyclist decided to plough on saving no time as getting stuck behind the moped immediately afterwards. Hirsute simply keeps claiming I think or say things that I don't or haven't. Hence it would be handy if they read what I wrote rather than making things up. See very first comment.

Perhaps you should read what you wrote.

You said "share the road". In order to do this, the driver would have to enter the mandatory lane which they shouldn't do.

Your very first comment was "Van indicating for some time before turn" which you have never explained what relevance that has, then you go on to make an erroneous claim about "going up the inside".

You also claimed he sped up whereas the speed shown in the video is that he slowed down.

Seems you don't like people pointing the implications or contradictions of your comments.

Just to clarify your mis statements. It's a bus lane not a mandatory cycle lane. Going up the inside is not erroneous, the cyclist was behind the not queing van or you would not have seen the indicators before they got up the inside. Incident entirely avoidable by regardless of whether the van crossed the lane marking just by the cyclist observing the indicators. Better if the van hadn't crossed the lane marking but avoidable either way. Most of this comments section avoidable by you reading what I wrote or by me remembering I was reading a website where some people blindly believe cyclists can do no wrong. I'm not in your gang obviously. Enjoy your riding.

Poor example to try and fight that battle on, in this instance the cyclist didn’t do anything wrong!

atgni][quote=hirsute wrote:

I'm not in your gang obviously.

I for one, am grateful.

Has anyone been in touch with the company that owns the van and asked for their views? 

Edit: I've just asked them if they have any comment to make http://www.debaltd.co.uk/contactus.html

2nd edit, a response:

"Good morning Richard,

This incident will be investigated thoroughly. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Kind regards,

Irene Lesnikova

Operations Manager

DEBA UK LIMITED

Cooling Tower Engineering & Environmental Services"