Footage from August comes to light of incident that begs the question: what was the driver up to here then?

A video, originally posted to YouTube in August, has come to light showing an alleged close pass of a cyclist followed by a vehicle collision.

The footage was caught on the headcam of the cyclist whose attention is first drawn to the van when it overtakes him a bit closer than he would have liked.

The van then collides with the back corner of a stationary vehicle that appears to be waiting to parallel park, and the van comes to an abrupt halt.

In the comments on the original YouTube clip it is claimed that the footage was the determining factor for the insurance companies’ investigation, who reportedly found in favour of the car but would have sided with the van without the video.

Further still, the user who posted the video – The Pompey Cyclist – alleges the police would not take his complaint about the close pass.

The proliferation of cyclists using cameras as a safety measure has thrown up some headline videos over the past few months. Among them was the cafe owner from Richmond who got particularly irate with a cyclist and suffered an online backlash as a result.

That incident followed a van driver who was reported to police in Essex after appearing to knock off and then assault a bicycle user.

  • Les Orton

    I guess you live in a city in Spain. I live in the Costa Blanca, the roads here are quiet. Even if I go into the cities (on the bike) they are not as bad as the UK.

  • Glib Kutsenko

    where you live ? because I feel like I am playing with death each time I drive my bike in city. No body know the rules and no one are willing to respect you. This same morning I was almost run over 2 times while 2 different drivers ignored red lights in 2 different junctions.

  • Glib Kutsenko

    por subnormal.

  • simon peacock

    He was either texting, making a telephone call or updating his facebook. Alternatively it seems there is a type of motorist that will , under no circumstances, let a cyclist be in front of them. Their delicate ego’s simply won’t allow it. You know them. They will race passed you at break-neck (that’s your broken neck) speed even if there is a queue of traffic or traffic lights just a few yards beyond. Either that or he was busy looking for his manhood.

  • Andy

    Shouldn’t this sort of thing be left to you tube

  • ScaredAmoeba

    Cyclists using video evidence need to seek professional advice, especially since most Police officers are almost certainly completely incapable of interpreting such video evidence.

    In photography terms, this is an ultra-wide-angle or fish-eye lens. Almost everything is in focus. Great for getting the action-in, but such lenses produce footage that appears deceptively like what the naked-eye would see, but the apparent similarity is deceptive, and probably almost always misunderstood, except by experts (I am not an expert). But when compared directly with what the human eye sees, the deceptive nature of the footage becomes clearer and why it’s easily misunderstood, becomes more obvious. Barrel distortion The human eye sees straight verticals as straight and vertical, while fish-eye lenses distort everything, they only show verticals as straight – if they pass through the centre of the lens’ field of view, if they’re off-centre, they will be curved, increasingly-so, towards the edge of the frame.

    Huge depth of field Almost everything from very close to the lens to infinity is likely in sharp focus, unless limited by camera resolution, lens cleanliness, or movement of camera (including vibration) or object (especially likely in low-light, when shutter-speed is longer and less capable of freezing motion-blur).

    Now the important bits – Exaggerated perspective Compared with the naked-eye, everything seen through a fish-eye lens is distorted – the fall-off in apparent size is greatly exaggerated, so that even objects that are very close appear not so close. Rapid fall-off in apparent size of objects with distance, especially when compared with what’s seen with the naked-eye. e.g. Two identical objects at different distances will appear radically different in size, or objects radically different in size may appear similarly sized due to distortion. Closer=larger, Distant=smaller. Look at the difference in size between the front and rear wheels of vehicles – this is once again evidence of an extreme-wide-angle / fish-eye lens on the video camera

    Speed Exaggeration The exaggeration in apparent size with distance makes speeds seem much higher than in reality.

    If possible the video needs to be reprocessed – see ‘inverse fisheye’, for more information.

  • EB

    Impossible to prove either way, but my experience of drivers, particularly van drivers, would suggest the reason he hit the car is because he was trying to scare the cyclist by swinging in close and didn’t move far enough the other way. There is absolutely no reason for the near pass or hitting that car apart from bad driving.

  • Les Orton

    Having moved to Spain I find cycling here a joy. I have seen 2 accidents between cyclist and car with the police involved, luckily no-one was seriously hurt. The police here have a lot better attitude towards cyclists than the UK. They don’t think OK no-one was hurt let’s just forget it, can’t say the say for the UK, having had my share of incidents with cars.

  • Mike Prytherch

    The sad truth is that the police cannot investigate near misses, a million new police officers wouldn’t be able to keep up with the sheer number.

    How can the insurance company side with the van even without the video, a parked car being hit from behind !