On 19/05/2017 19:23, MrCheerful wrote:
On 19/05/2017 18:49, RJH wrote:
On 19/05/2017 16:52, MrCheerful wrote:
On 19/05/2017 16:06, Nick wrote:
On 19/05/2017 12:44, MrCheerful wrote:

The camera car was not making any attempt to overtake afaics.


I'm not sure but it looked to me as if the car was closing on the
cyclist as if it were going to overtake. Given what happened we can see
why close overtakes are so dangerous.


If cyclists had compulsory roadcraft education before being allowed on
the road, crashes like this one would be greatly reduced.

Possibly but the danger clearly can from the van and the car. I feel it
is more their responsibility to avoid accidents than it is the
cyclists.

If everyone used the roads defensively then crashes would reduce, that
has to include cyclists.

People make mistakes all the time, that will always happen, but as can
be seen in this incident, the cyclist would not have crashed if he had
been riding at a sensible distance from the side of the van. The
cyclist positioning had been chosen by the cyclist, better education in
roadcraft would have meant he made a better choice.

I information: the van has a door that may open.
P Position: Further away, would obviate the problem if the door is
opened.

You've not mentioned the car approaching from behind as an 'I' affecting
'P'. We don't know the sound coming from that car - could be they're
holding in second to intimidate the cyclist. maybe an earlier
altercation. Or not.

And as I've tried to explain, a cyclist has to weigh up the risk - say,
the driver tailing them and contact, or the possibility of a door
opening. They then estimate the greater risk.

That road looks like a pile of accidents waiting to happen - narrow,
parked cars, busy. I'd avoid it on a cycle.




If the cyclist was actually frightened by the car behind, then he would
pull over (I would) and let him past.

Yes, me too. I couldn't outrun a car, even in an urban area. Not should
I. The cyclist in question certainly seems capable of pace - which in no
small part contributed IMO. But that's all factored in when getting from
A-B, and estimating risk.

In my last 'doored' experience I stopped in time. Advantage of being
sloth-like ;-)

I doubt the cyclist had the
slightest clue about the car behind him, in my experience of following
cyclists they practically never look over their shoulders.


Obviously I can't speak for all cyclists, but again, to guess, I do
think you're wrong about 'clue'. Rear-approaching traffic is a major
concern.

Not so much about not looking - I don't see that often, and it scares
the life of of me. I went out with a mate and he swerved violently as he
turned right, into traffic, causing vehicles behind to stop quickly.
Then, when he was in the centre of the road, he stopped and indicated.
He has impaired hearing and is, well, a bit thick. But even so.

That said, I'm sure he is *aware* of the risk. But he's simply the type
of person who believes the world should move around him. He rarely
cycles or walks, and can't drive - which in large part explains why he's
made it to his 60s.

I 'lifesave' and have a mirror. It's such a huge part of urban cycling.

The cyclist was not riding in a safe position for the circumstances.

Yes agreed.

Training would have helped, hopefully he was not seriously hurt and will
learn from his errors, as will the van driver.

And if we extend this conversation to the cause of the accident, general
awareness needs equal billing. But at the top of this conversation
should be road design. For example:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/may/09/how-80-forgotten-1930s-cycleways-could-transform-uk-cycling

That we understood the principles in the *30s* says a great deal about
our society.


--
Cheers, Rob