Any Opinions On This Incident Welcomed.

[BSRU]

The a couple of video's of a recent incident:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkMCnNu3-IE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyHw_5kKL7M

According to the investigating officer, apparently it's all my own fault and I'm lucky the driver was so calm.

Apparently I was riding too far from the kerb, the officer had shown it to collegues who agreed with him. When I mentioned being in primary to prevent a close pass due a park car on the right, he was clueless and reiterated being 5 or 6 feet from the kerb.

Next he stated that the driver alleged I had gestured and sworn at him and this seem to be justification for the drivers actions. I should count myself lucky I am not being charged with a public order offence.

The driving standard displayed by the driver did not fall below the required standard to warrant a prosecution.

I was lucky the driver did not assault me.

Having a YouTube channel means I spend my time riding around Swindon deliberately trying to annoy drivers in order to upload videos.

The driver was told off for being a naughty boy and no further action will be taken.

Note, it was a minor incident, no injury to me as I managed to brace myself and minor damage to the rear wheel, it is slightly out of true, it was fine the night before.

[iviehoff]

minor damage to the rear wheel, it is slightly out of true, it was fine the night before.

I had an incident where I collided with a pedestrian who ran out in front of me, no one hurt. In the sudden stop, in a hurry the rear wheel went out of true, had to unhitch the rear brake to proceed. Subsequently 7 of the 9 spokes facing in the same direction on one side of the wheel have failed, one by one. I'm expecting the last two to follow.

I have had a similar reaction from the police in relation to an incident a number of years ago, when I cycled into the rear of a car that overtook and pulled in front of me and then stopped for no apparent reason going down a steep hill. The driver went to the police first and made up some cock-and-bull story. When I turned up, the police threatened to arrest me for something, if I didn't go away, bascially as a tactic to ensure that they didn't have to deal with a minor but complicated incident where the participants told utterly conflicting stories.

[sirmy]

That's the kind of thing any cyclist experiences 4 or times a day, unfortunately as you learnt from the police you just have to live with it, the word is full of idiots like him

[hubgearfreak]

According to the investigating officer, apparently it's all my own fault and I'm lucky the driver was so calm.

according to me, the investigating officer is an buttock like many of his collegues.
i'm not saying that there aren't good policeman, but sadly there's too many crap ones with this sort of shocking attitude where they just don't care that victims are being bullied, if the victim's on a bike

[thirdcrank]

When I watched the first clip, there appared to be no sound track. It's not possible from that to understand why the driver having got partway across the junction turned left have the encounter. The second clip, which begins after the junction has a soundtrack but I can only hear the sound of bike wheels on gravel and the verbal exchanges are impossible to understand.

Is there a version of the first clip available with the sound?

[gentlegreen]

I watched that footage several times and that driver should get a warning just for his speed, let alone for everything else.

If I could stand the thought of looking at that horrible man again, I might check to see if he's wearing an apron ...

[slacker]

Like Thirdcrank I don't understand what happens at the lights to make the guy come after you, why do you pull into the bus stop?
Not that whatever it is excuses him hitting you.

[snibgo]

It looks as if the cyclist is in the centre of the lane, perhaps 2 metres from the kerb. Entirely legal of course, and not obstructive as the road has plenty of space to overtake.

(Personally, on that road I would be just 1 metre from the kerb. I see the argument for taking primary where the car is parked, but taking primary works only where is prevents overtaking. When primary allows a motorist to squeeze through, they will do so.)

The van driver chooses to overtake the cyclist at a place where a car is parked on the opposite side of the road, thus passing too close to the cyclist. There are plenty of clearer opportunities for him to overtake, but that would require him to slow down. Some motorists consider themselves far too important to slow for a cyclist.

But the driver then does a strange maneouvre, reversing at the traffic lights, presumably after seeing the cyclist in his mirrors, and follows the cyclist to the layby.

And then we have the collision. From the rear-facing mirror, the van drives rapidly into the layby, and either misjudges his braking or deliberately rams the bike. The cyclist is there to be seen. The driver knows the cyclist is there. The cyclist is almost stopped when the van enters the layby enters the layby at considerable speed, certainly much faster than the cyclist is moving.

I'm not a lawyer, but this driving seems careless, at least. From the footage, we can see that the cyclist didn't suddenly brake and cause the collision. The collision was entirely the driver's fault.

And then we have the real crunch: the apparent attitude of the police. If the van overtook too closely, so what? The cyclist asked for it by not riding in the gutter. If the van rammed the cycle, so what? The cyclist asked for it by (allegedly) using a rude word. There are no injuries. There is no major damage. The police don't want to know.

The police, poor things, are too busy to deal with no-injury careless driving. It isn't on their radar.

Personally, I try not to get worked up in situations like this. I have (very rarely) had motorists drive deliberately at me. It's very hard to keep cool when someone is apparently trying to kill me, especially knowing that I wouldn't get satisfaction from the police. But it's a skill I'm trying to learn.

[wirral_cyclist]

What you want to hear

Your road position was primary as is your right, the overtake was really too close and the driver should have backed off (slowing to the speed limit) and passed later. He rammed you out of spite and is clearly irate. Police are merchant bankers.

What you don't want to hear...

Secondary on that road would have ensured more room in the overtake, and hence you wouldn't be on here looking for support as none of this would have happened. The driver just misjudged his speed and stopping distance when he tapped you - just as you misjudged your road position when trying to block a faster vehicle for no good reason (he may have been speeding of course, but it's the police's job to deal with speeders).
Your road position approaching the traffic lights was just wrong, the only conclusion to draw is you wanted to remonstrate for the encounter and said something or signalled something (out of earshot/camera sight) that the driver spotted and came to discuss what you percieved to be a problem. Police realise 'something MUST have occured' and call it quits.
Poor camera coverage of you and bad audio leaves more questions than the coverage shows.

General observations

Camera users attract trouble.
Without an overhead 360 degree camera to show all that a 'camera user' (car/bike/whatever) it is only one parties view that we see and that's before thinking about the possibility of selective editing. (Not suggesting that here by the way).

Being in the right is no compensation for being dead.

<Dons a proper helmet and Nomex>

[BSRU]

There is a problem with the sound, the camera is a new version which to correct the problem of wind noise has made it less sensitive, almost useless but at least there is now an option for an external mic. The other problem with the sound is that on one of them I muted, what sound there was by accident.

My road position during the pass was designed to prevent an overtake due to the pinch point created by the parked car on the right, I would ride in exactly the same position if I am in the same situation in the future.

My road position at the lights was to in theory to enable me to have a chat about the close pass, it was a bad idea.

The driver slammed on his brakes and reversed because he states I made a rude gesture, I did not, I did gesture but it was benign and I realise now that any gesturing can easily be misinterpreted, hands tied to the handlebars now.

I rode into the lay-by for two reasons, firstly not wanting to be on an open road with him driving behind me and secondly so that we could have a chat about what had just occurred.

The camera made no difference to me as it was the last thing on my mind during the incident.

[thirdcrank]

In the second youtube post there is apparently a second confrontation when the driver of the van parks at the roadside and walks across to some sort of layby / service road. I'm not at all clear how that came about, and although the driver clearly got a lot off his chest (with at least one of his hands by his side) I can't hear what he was saying.

[snibgo]

My road position during the pass was designed to prevent an overtake due to the pinch point created by the parked car on the right, I would ride in exactly the same position if I am in the same situation in the future.

"Designed to", perhaps, but it didn't actually prevent an overtake because the road is too wide. All it did was put you in greater danger.

Where a pinch point is narrow enough (only one lane wide) that motorists can't comfortably overtake, taking primary makes sense because it prevents any attempts. But if a pinch point is wide enough (as here) that primary won't prevent overtakes, all it does is encourage overtakers to pass too close to you.

I'm not blaming you. The driver should have held back. But your behaviour encouraged him to overtake you too closely.

[stewartpratt]

(snip)

Everything what he said.

I'd add that over-producing/editing the footage with fancy effects and whatnot is probably counter-productive. It'd be easy to wonder if you may well have been a bit selective, or perhaps even enjoy making near-miss videos enough to actually gather them. I'd be inclined to keep it all very plain and matter-of-fact.

Doesn't excuse the driver being a twunt, of course.

[freeflow]

If you were turning left my opinion is that you should have stopped behind him on the far side of the road junction just to your left. BY positioning yoursewlf to the right of the van driver you were sending the message that you were either turning right or going stright on (most pobbly turning right). Still not an excuse for him venting his spleen.

[[XAP]Bob]

Driver should be done for assault - that's what he did.
There was no reason to turn and follow you, let alone ram you at that speed in the layby.