White van in a deliberate swerve on A272

[Vorpal]

Amazing how quickly people try to justify the van driver's behaviour.

Where has anyone done that?

[Velo]

Last time I punched my wife in the face the police didn't seem too bothered about the fact that she'd annoyed me by turning the boxing off the telly, even though any experienced wife would have known not to do that.

You know, it is possible, especially in a heated situation, for both protagonists to be doing something wrong at the same time. Pointing that out does not mean you are saying both errors are equal or that one justifies the other. Not unless someone explicitly says so.

Although in the OP, it's difficult to see what the cyclist did "wrong" and rather easier to spot the driver's errant behaviour.

[Paulatic]

But I'd love to see what happened in the minute or so before the clip started. I get the feeling we are seeing the end of something that started before the clip.

Exactly how I see it, something has happened before this. He'd not cycle out as far as that other than to make a point. Perhaps the driver had earlier attempted an overtake and the cyclist closed it off indicating the double white lines. Now cycling wide to force the point and stop an overtake again, just a thought.

Who knows until next week.

If I was guessing I would say the van had already tried to overtake and met oncoming traffic and squeezed back in close to the cyclist. The oncoming traffic had to stop/slow as you see at the very start of the footage.

[pwa]

But I'd love to see what happened in the minute or so before the clip started. I get the feeling we are seeing the end of something that started before the clip.

Exactly how I see it, something has happened before this. He'd not cycle out as far as that other than to make a point. Perhaps the driver had earlier attempted an overtake and the cyclist closed it off indicating the double white lines. Now cycling wide to force the point and stop an overtake again, just a thought.

Who knows until next week.

If I was guessing I would say the van had already tried to overtake and met oncoming traffic and squeezed back in close to the cyclist. The oncoming traffic had to stop/slow as you see at the very start of the footage.

Makes you wonder why we are not being given more footage showing what happened immediately before.

[Graham]

I would be out that far into the carriageway - when I perceive that someone is going to overtake by squeezing between me and oncoming traffic.
When they could wait a moment for the oncoming traffic to clear.

The video is clearly "dangerous driving" with no mitigating excuses.

[pwa]

I would be out that far into the carriageway - when I perceive that someone is going to overtake by squeezing between me and oncoming traffic.
When they could wait a moment for the oncoming traffic to clear.

The video is clearly "dangerous driving" with no mitigating excuses.

I agree that there are no mitigating excuses. Nobody here disputes that. I find the cyclist's position in the road odd, but I don't find that a reasonable excuse for what follows. And as has already been said, it does look like something has happened leading up to this, so we are probably dropping into the incident half way through without the context.

[Vorpal]

I agree that there are no mitigating excuses. Nobody here disputes that. I find the cyclist's position in the road odd, but I don't find that a reasonable excuse for what follows. And as has already been said, it does look like something has happened leading up to this, so we are probably dropping into the incident half way through without the context.

While I agree that something has happened prior, I don't think that we are dropping into an incident halfway through without context.

Although it seems likely that the road position is due to a prior attempt to squeeze past, that's all we can really say about it. And it may not be. I don't find the road position odd, and I doubt that anything that happened prior to the beginning of the video clip is really relevant; it would just provide a little more information.

[pwa]

I agree that there are no mitigating excuses. Nobody here disputes that. I find the cyclist's position in the road odd, but I don't find that a reasonable excuse for what follows. And as has already been said, it does look like something has happened leading up to this, so we are probably dropping into the incident half way through without the context.

While I agree that something has happened prior, I don't think that we are dropping into an incident halfway through without context.

Although it seems likely that the road position is due to a prior attempt to squeeze past, that's all we can really say about it. And it may not be. I don't find the road position odd, and I doubt that anything that happened prior to the beginning of the video clip is really relevant; it would just provide a little more information.

What happened before will probably not be relevant to the court case, since whatever it is does not excuse the use of the van as a weapon. But I'd like to know just to get the full story. Out of interest.

[reohn2]

Whatever the circumstance prior or during the incident,it can never be an excuse for deliberately using two tonnes of machinery to attempt to injure someone with.
That's what this incident is all about,I hope the penalty is heavy when it does come to court,we'll see.....

[matt_twam_asi]

I know that road very well and there is nothing odd about the cyclist's position. It's a 30mph limit road just on the edge of Cowfold village, the driver would have been "inconvenienced" for a minute at most. The road is easily wide enough to safely pass a cyclist regardless of their position.

Here's the video's starting position on Google streetview for the curious: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.99187 ... 312!8i6656

[pwa]

I know that road very well and there is nothing odd about the cyclist's position. It's a 30mph limit road just on the edge of Cowfold village, the driver would have been "inconvenienced" for a minute at most. The road is easily wide enough to safely pass a cyclist regardless of their position.

Here's the video's starting position on Google streetview for the curious: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.99187 ... 312!8i6656

Looks narrower than the video. That's cameras for you.

[mjr]

Amazing how quickly people try to justify the van driver's behaviour.

Where has anyone done that?

First reply - justification while saying it doesn't excuse violence (so a bit of verbal would have been OK, I guess ):

On a separate and lesser matter, the cyclist is way too far out into the road at the beginning of the clip, at least a full metre further out than I would consider appropriate. It looks like deliberate blocking and maybe explains what made the driver so angry. But that does not excuse the violent response.

With cyclists hating cyclists like this, is it any wonder motorists get off lightly and are merely charged with dangerous driving rather than some sort of violent assault or attempt to kill?

[pwa]

Amazing how quickly people try to justify the van driver's behaviour.

Where has anyone done that?

First reply - justification while saying it doesn't excuse violence (so a bit of verbal would have been OK, I guess ):

On a separate and lesser matter, the cyclist is way too far out into the road at the beginning of the clip, at least a full metre further out than I would consider appropriate. It looks like deliberate blocking and maybe explains what made the driver so angry. But that does not excuse the violent response.

With cyclists hating cyclists like this, is it any wonder motorists get off lightly and are merely charged with dangerous driving rather than some sort of violent assault or attempt to kill?

All the hates on your side.

[boliston]

this is what the cyclist should have done to the van
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/jun/23/road-rage-motorcyclist-kicks-car-pile-up-video

[Vorpal]

Amazing how quickly people try to justify the van driver's behaviour.

Where has anyone done that?

First reply - justification while saying it doesn't excuse violence (so a bit of verbal would have been OK, I guess ):

On a separate and lesser matter, the cyclist is way too far out into the road at the beginning of the clip, at least a full metre further out than I would consider appropriate. It looks like deliberate blocking and maybe explains what made the driver so angry. But that does not excuse the violent response.

With cyclists hating cyclists like this, is it any wonder motorists get off lightly and are merely charged with dangerous driving rather than some sort of violent assault or attempt to kill?

I don't read it that way at all. I don't see any justification of the driver's behaviour in that. I'm sure that pwa is right that the driver *believed* the cyclist was deliberately being an obstruction. It doesn't excuse what the driver did. What the driver did was clearly dangerous driving and I hope that he is convicted.

I believe that the cyclist did absolutely nothing wrong and is entitled to use the full lane in the carriageway. But critising him for doing so would not imply any justification of the driver's actions (or any *hate*).