On 19/05/2017 16:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 19/05/2017 16:50, RJH wrote:
On 19/05/2017 12:44, MrCheerful wrote:
On 19/05/2017 11:28, Nick wrote:
On 19/05/2017 11:15, MrCheerful wrote:

Taking the lane would have protected the cyclist from the door and
let
the van behind know it couldn't overtake.

'car' not van.

Thank you for the correction, but I'm not sure what difference it
makes.

as there is a van in one of the pictures it could confuse someone.

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

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

IMO (having received 'roadcraft' as a cyclist, motorcyclist and car
driver), you're wrong if you're saying that the cyclist is the casue of
the accident. The fault is in the first instance the van driver for poor
observation, and then the cam-carrying driver for not keeping at a safe
distance.

Of course, cyclists (and that cyclist) might cycle more defensively, on
the reasonable assumption that a motorist will occasionally open a door
into traffic without checking. Happens to me about once very 6 months.

But it's a rock and a hard place - between the aggression of drivers
reacting to defensive cyclists, and poor observation and low skill
catching out cyclists trying to avoid aggressive drivers. So it becomes
a game of risk. I tend to choose a route that cuts down on that risk -
adds about 20% distance to my commute.


The cause of the accident is the van door being opened, but it could
have easily been avoided without any drama, IF the cyclist had kept a
safe distance from the van.


Yes, that's pretty standard - for a car. A bike - even a motorbike - is
different, as I've tried to explain.

Doors being opened carelessly should not be a surprise to any road user,
including pedestrians.

Yet people continue to get hurt.

--
Cheers, Rob