Cyclist behind Van

[pablo]

Decision made.

Which was? Hopefully doing the right thing.

 

[johnm]

I can picture the scene - heavy traffic, moving slowly. Cyclist sees a large vehicle in front - perfect hiding place! He quickly manoeuvres across the lane and stops the bike 10mm off the back bumper of the van - job done.

Or maybe, it was a narrow street (as you say) and the cyclist was somewhere up to 1.5m from the kerb (as per guidelines) and traffic grinds to a halt. Realistically the cyclist could potentially need to be several metres back for the van driver to see him.
Typical though - a cyclist filters down the side and they are in the wrong, or they sit in the traffic and they are still in the wrong. Where would you prefer the cyclist to sit (other than in a car)?

Is that not the reason why those green boxes at the front of traffic lanes are everywhere?
You would expect them to sit in sight. If your behind a van, sit on either side of it so you can be seen in the mirrors....or is that not common sense? If I'm out on the motorbike (when it wasn't in pieces) in traffic and behind any type of lorry or van you sit normally on the far right so you can see the driver in the mirror. If you can see him he can see you.
Is that completely the wrong logic to take? why would you in a blind spot?

 

[CharlySkunkWeed]

Which was? Hopefully doing the right thing.

The decision is that I don't care what he does.

 

[pablo]

A) the green boxes are a bloody curse for everyone. they are useful to cyclists if you can get to them (filtering up to the front while the lights go green is not a nice experience). Also it encourages bad feelings to cyclists imo. In many occasions a cyclist is going to gain nothing by filtering up, but will hold up the cars they just filtered past.

B) There is nothing to say the cyclist was actually in the blind spot. Most will sit by the kerb where they can see the lights to get ready to go etc. There is no benefit in sitting in a vans blindspot as you can see nothing around it. Given the driver decided to reverse in stopped traffic its not certain if the cyclist was actually in the blindspot. Did the driver only check his drivers mirror or both? You could easily check the drivers side only and think there was a gap to the car behind.

None of us were there so, but its hard to argue why you reversed, in traffic, into a stationary cyclist.

 

[pablo]

The decision is that I don't care what he does.

like

 

[CharlySkunkWeed]

Cyclist was right in the middle of the doors of the van.

Listen guys we could argue over it all day. I just wondered on the legal/insurance side of it.

 

[Chris666]

Cyclist was right in the middle of the doors of the van.

Listen guys we could argue over it all day. I just wondered on the legal/insurance side of it.

The van reversed into the cyclist - driver to blame.

Replace cyclist with pedestrian/car/van/lorry/motorcycle, the blame wouldn't shift

 

[CharlySkunkWeed]

I'm going to hide in front of a bus , can't wait for my claim.

 

[Chris666]

Chuck me a few quid and I'll witness it

 

[Jethro]

I'm away out for a spin on the bike right now.
I must remember to deliberately find a few blind spots as life just isn't worth living any more.

 

[Deleted member 13907]

Is that not the reason why those green boxes at the front of traffic lanes are everywhere?
You would expect them to sit in sight. If your behind a van, sit on either side of it so you can be seen in the mirrors....or is that not common sense? If I'm out on the motorbike (when it wasn't in pieces) in traffic and behind any type of lorry or van you sit normally on the far right so you can see the driver in the mirror. If you can see him he can see you.
Is that completely the wrong logic to take? why would you in a blind spot?

Personally, I rarely use the green box, but then I rarely cycle in towns, or in heavy traffic.
To me, it makes no sense, as your ultimately holding up the traffic further and as @pablo already said, just increases bad attitudes.
I would generally pull over to the side of the road and let a batch of cars through and then tag onto the back of them, unless its downhill in a 30 or something, where I'm going to be moving every bit as fast as any other traffic should.
Also, I generally would sit to the side of the vehicle, the same way as you have suggested you do.
Without having seen the incident take place, it's difficult to know exactly what happened.
But ultimately, someone reversed in traffic (is that even allowed?) and struck a more vulnerable road-user.
Yes, we could argue that the cyclist could have done more to protect themselves, the same way as if a cyclist is struck someone might say they should have had hi-vis, or if they had hi-vis they should have had lights, or if they had lights they should have been brighter, etc....

 

[Cooper]

No plans to close this thread, I think its a bit unfair to ask the forum membership for advice and then have it wiped out.

 

[CharlySkunkWeed]

No plans to close this thread, I think its a bit unfair to ask the forum membership for advice and then have it wiped out.

I don't mind , was just hoping for similar experiences rather than a car Vs cyclist row.
I can personally see it from both sides , and have told him so. He caused it and knows it so no denying it but he did everything possible before reversing (ok so there's not much we can do other than check our mirrors). But on the other hand the cyclist was in a silly place and just "fell over" when faced with having to back up on his bike and I can't see how or why he'd feel the need to claim.
As said, I just wanted to give him some advise on the legal/insurance side of it as me and him have already discussed all the other aspects of what happened.

 

[pablo]

the attitude that the cyclist "just fell over" is a little condescending though. cyclists dont like falling over, what feels like a light tap to a van can knock a cyclist on their ass right and quick and cause considerable injury and damage to the bike.

I very much doubt the cyclist did anything intentionally. on the flip side they might have smelled a claim and went all oscar winner over the whole thing, cyclists can be douchebags too.

 

[CharlySkunkWeed]

the attitude that the cyclist "just fell over" is a little condescending though. cyclists dont like falling over, what feels like a light tap to a van can knock a cyclist on their ass right and quick and cause considerable injury and damage to the bike.

I very much doubt the cyclist did anything intentionally. on the flip side they might have smelled a claim and went all oscar winner over the whole thing, cyclists can be douchebags too.

Who knows. Seems a whole lot a balls and I'm just glad it's not my problem.

I mean what will he get out of it ? A couple of hundred quid ? Will drivers insurance hit the roof ?

 

[Coog]

If you're clipped in it can be pretty easy to fall over. Plus the shoes have virtually no traction on the road seeing as they're 99% hard plastic with a small contact point with the road. It's very possible that even seeing the reverse lights flick on could panic him/her and make them fall over. I know I'd fill my trunks if I was clipped in behind a van and I saw the reverse lights flick on.

 

[Chris666]

Any damage to the bike?

 

[BBSBOY]

Cyclists should be made to have insurance too. What is the difference in a car, motorbike or a bicycle. You can still cause damage to a car or pedestrian on a bike.

I have even seen some of them hold themselves up by putting their hands on a car at lights or in traffic. It's very rare that I would see a cyclist that actually follows the rules of the road.

In this case I think it's the van drivers fault but the cyclist didn't help themselves. They likely should have tried to be visible to the driver of the van.

 

[CharlySkunkWeed]

Any damage to the bike?

Nope.

 

[Chris666]

Cyclists should be made to have insurance too. What is the difference in a car, motorbike or a bicycle. You can still cause damage to a car or pedestrian on a bike.

I have even seen some of them hold themselves up by putting their hands on a car at lights or in traffic. It's very rare that I would see a cyclist that actually follows the rules of the road.

In this case I think it's the van drivers fault but the cyclist didn't help themselves. They likely should have tried to be visible to the driver of the van.

Insurance again: most if not all of the cyclists on RMS are club members thus have insurance and/or extensions on house insurance policies. (I have both)

So "we" would hardly disagree with mandatory insurance.

 

[Deleted member 13907]

Cyclists should be made to have insurance too. What is the difference in a car, motorbike or a bicycle. You can still cause damage to a car or pedestrian on a bike.
I have even seen some of them hold themselves up by putting their hands on a car at lights or in traffic. It's very rare that I would see a cyclist that actually follows the rules of the road.
In this case I think it's the van drivers fault but the cyclist didn't help themselves. They likely should have tried to be visible to the driver of the van.

It's like I have said before - there are two types of cyclist on the road - those who want to cycle and those who have to cycle.

Those who want to cycle will more often than not be part of a club, or at very least be licensed through British Cycling or Cycling Ireland - it's a very minimal cost so it would be stupid not to.
(i.e. they don't just have insurance, but also a license as well)
The vast majority of these cyclists will stick to the rules of the road and are very aware that they are under constant scrutiny from other road users.
The only accusation thrown at this group that is viable is that they sometimes ride two-abreast.
They are entitled to do so and do it primarily for safety - both for their own safety and to make it easier to pass (the group will be half the length of a group riding single file).
Many of these cyclists would be covering up to 200 miles a week and therefore see more than their fair share of 'near misses' on a regular basis - hence the emphasis on safety, riding 'defensively' etc.

The second group - those who cycle because they have to - are those who maybe cycle because it's their only affordable mode of transport.
I used to often see a builder in his steel toe boots, hi vis jacket and hard hat cycling through town, bouncing on/off the footpath, cycling through red lights, etc.
They aren't really part of the whole cycling fraternity and are probably riding around on 10 year old, rusty, steel bikes.
Whereas most real cyclists would probably tell you that their bike cost more than their first car and probably gets washed/serviced more often than their car.

 

[stevieturbo]

Cyclist gets reversed into but Stevie still finds a way to blame him.

Standard anti-cyclist drivel

And where did I blame the cyclist ? I just said it is an incredibly ****ing stupid thing to do....ya know, basic survival instinct, self protection, common sense. What many cyclists dont seem to have.

The same way you dont walk out in front of a bus etc.

 

[stevieturbo]

Where would you prefer the cyclist to sit (other than in a car)?

It's blatantly obvious. Where they can be seen by anyone who might pose a risk to them. It really isnt rocket science if you like to stay alive and uninjured.

 

[Chris666]

And where did I blame the cyclist ? I just said it is an incredibly ****ing stupid thing to do....ya know, basic survival instinct, self protection, common sense. What many cyclists dont seem to have.

The same way you dont walk out in front of a bus etc.

In pretty much every post you make when cyclists are the topic.

You'd be squealing like a molested pig if the cyclist rode up either side of the van and damaged it, so when a rider does as advised and gets reversed into they shouldn't have been there either.

There seems to be no middle ground or any chance of reason with you. Each thread increases in ridiculousness

 

[Deleted member 13907]

It's blatantly obvious. Where they can be seen by anyone who might pose a risk to them. It really isnt rocket science if you like to stay alive and uninjured.

It's all well and good saying that, but think about it logically for a moment. For all we know, there was a puddle at the edge of the road, or it was just a particularly rough surface, meaning that the cyclist couldn't have sat in the optimal position.
Or, he was maybe riding defensively - knew the road was narrow and didn't want some driver trying to squeeze past him while he was stopped (which happens all too often) and therefore held out into the road a bit to prevent that happening.
I agree that the best place would have been somewhere were he could see the mirrors and in 99% of circumstances that's what I personally would have done, but it's not one of those things where one rule covers all circumstances.

You could really turn your response on it's head too and say that the van driver shouldn't have been carrying out a blind manouver (I'm sure he was well aware of his blind spot) that could cause a risk to anyone.
Let's not forget that he probably has a blind spot at the front corner of his vehicle too, where another cyclist could have been had he been positioned safely behind another large vehicle in front, who he could have struck just as easily.
There's only so much any cyclist can do.