Live blog: Jeremy Vine criticised for claiming taxi driver was at fault in near miss with cyclist; Westminster attacker who drove at cyclists guilty of attempted murder; Lachlan Morton’s GBDuro film + more

37 thoughts on “Live blog: Jeremy Vine criticised for claiming taxi driver was at fault in near miss with cyclist; Westminster attacker who drove at cyclists guilty of attempted murder; Lachlan Morton’s GBDuro film + more”

1. Quote:

   Jeremy Vine posts footage…

   I think I’ll go with 50/50:

   On the one hand, the taxi driver was quite some distance away with a clear line of sight as she clearly committed to going out onto the road.

   On the other hand, the cyclist probably ought to have slowed and looked a bit better before riding out.

   Log In or Register to post comments

2. Having had plenty of near

   Having had plenty of near misses, and having been knocked off by a pedestrian crossing against the lights, I’m afraid this time JV is wrong.  You don’t approach any kind of crossing, as a pedestrian or cyclist, assuming that it’s clear and just go across.  As someone said a few weeks ago, drivers are driving as if they aren’t going to stop, not as if they might have to.  Do we really want to emulate that approach?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • burtthebike wrote:

     Having had plenty of near misses, and having been knocked off by a pedestrian crossing against the lights, I’m afraid this time JV is wrong.  You don’t approach any kind of crossing, as a pedestrian or cyclist, assuming that it’s clear and just go across.  As someone said a few weeks ago, drivers are driving as if they aren’t going to stop, not as if they might have to.  Do we really want to emulate that approach?

     — burtthebike

     Should we not pose the question as to why can’t we do this without fear of death or serious injury? Should there not be priority for the vulnerable at all quarters, isn’t this how we sway the masses to change to active transport as opposed to allowing fear and having to beg in some cases to cross being a massive factor in why they don’t?

     Seems to me that we have a blanket system of might is right/has priority and anyone else getting in the way and/or need heeding to that is likely to get hurt, isn’t that heinous and massively uncivilised and inequitable, should we not reverse that completely?

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • burtthebike wrote:

     Having had plenty of near misses, and having been knocked off by a pedestrian crossing against the lights, I’m afraid this time JV is wrong.  You don’t approach any kind of crossing, as a pedestrian or cyclist, assuming that it’s clear and just go across.  As someone said a few weeks ago, drivers are driving as if they aren’t going to stop, not as if they might have to.  Do we really want to emulate that approach?

     — burtthebike

     Just saying – this is the kind of carnage that the judge in the case of Gemma Brushett has opened the world up to.

     If cyclists have to expect pedestrians to do unexpected things at pedestrian crossings, then car drivers must expect cyclists to do unexpected things a toucan crossings.  And following on the judgement in the Brushett case the cyclist should have let the taxi run into her and claim compensation as she is the more vulnerable road user and due to the fact she had both wheels on the road she was clearly established in the road and had right of way.  No?

     I would have personally liked to see a case like that go to court, and for the solicitor acting the defense of the cylist to rely on the judgement from the Brushett Case to pass on at least 50% of the blame to the taxi driver….. 

     However, the insurance for the driver would bully that case out of going to court.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • craigstitt wrote:

       If cyclists have to expect pedestrians to do unexpected things at pedestrian crossings, then car drivers must expect cyclists to do unexpected things a toucan crossings.  And following on the judgement in the Brushett case the cyclist should have let the taxi run into her and claim compensation as she is the more vulnerable road user and due to the fact she had both wheels on the road she was clearly established in the road and had right of way.  No?

       — craigstitt

       No, no, no!  Because, “Cars”!

       (Its different).

       (Apparently).

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • craigstitt wrote:

       Having had plenty of near misses, and having been knocked off by a pedestrian crossing against the lights, I’m afraid this time JV is wrong.  You don’t approach any kind of crossing, as a pedestrian or cyclist, assuming that it’s clear and just go across.  As someone said a few weeks ago, drivers are driving as if they aren’t going to stop, not as if they might have to.  Do we really want to emulate that approach?

       — craigstitt

       Just saying – this is the kind of carnage that the judge in the case of Gemma Brushett has opened the world up to.

       If cyclists have to expect pedestrians to do unexpected things at pedestrian crossings, then car drivers must expect cyclists to do unexpected things a toucan crossings.  And following on the judgement in the Brushett case the cyclist should have let the taxi run into her and claim compensation as she is the more vulnerable road user and due to the fact she had both wheels on the road she was clearly established in the road and had right of way.  No?

       I would have personally liked to see a case like that go to court, and for the solicitor acting the defense of the cylist to rely on the judgement from the Brushett Case to pass on at least 50% of the blame to the taxi driver….. 

       However, the insurance for the driver would bully that case out of going to court.

       — burtthebike

        

       You are ignoring the fact that they are two different sets of circumstances. In the Gemma Brushett case there was a number of pedestrians already established on the crossing, the cycles decided to carry on and she panicked and stepped back.

        

       In this case the cyclist crossed an empty crossing when there was a car coming.

        

       The cases are totally different and in this case the cyclist has far more culpability than Gemma Brushett.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • craigstitt wrote:

       Having had plenty of near misses, and having been knocked off by a pedestrian crossing against the lights, I’m afraid this time JV is wrong.  You don’t approach any kind of crossing, as a pedestrian or cyclist, assuming that it’s clear and just go across.  As someone said a few weeks ago, drivers are driving as if they aren’t going to stop, not as if they might have to.  Do we really want to emulate that approach?

       — craigstitt

       Just saying – this is the kind of carnage that the judge in the case of Gemma Brushett has opened the world up to.

       If cyclists have to expect pedestrians to do unexpected things at pedestrian crossings, then car drivers must expect cyclists to do unexpected things a toucan crossings.  And following on the judgement in the Brushett case the cyclist should have let the taxi run into her and claim compensation as she is the more vulnerable road user and due to the fact she had both wheels on the road she was clearly established in the road and had right of way.  No?

       I would have personally liked to see a case like that go to court, and for the solicitor acting the defense of the cylist to rely on the judgement from the Brushett Case to pass on at least 50% of the blame to the taxi driver….. 

       However, the insurance for the driver would bully that case out of going to court.

       — burtthebike

        

       You are ignoring the fact that they are two different sets of circumstances. In the Gemma Brushett case there was a number of pedestrians already established on the crossing, the cycles decided to carry on and she panicked and stepped back.

        

       In this case the cyclist crossed an empty crossing when there was a car coming.

        

       The cases are totally different and in this case the cyclist has far more culpability than Gemma Brushett.

       Log In or Register to post comments

3. You’d have to assume that it
   You’d have to assume that it was a case of “sorry, I didn’t see you, mate” – perpetrated by the cyclist. Just goes to show, even cyclists can be at fault. As to JV’s comment, well, the taxi did slow down to avoid any collision, even if without much grace. JV would do better to keep his powder dry for the myriad cases which better deserve it.

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. It looked like the cyclist
   It looked like the cyclist didn’t carry out the look before manoeuvre, not a fleeting glance. She was carrying way to much speed to change direction to cross over road. I couldn’t see what the green light on the posts were indicating?

   My opinion cyclist was reckless with her safety

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. Had there been a collision

   Had there been a collision there I can’t see that the taxi driver would have been charged with anything never mind have to argue their case, on the basis of that video then I would agree with that decision.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • EK Spinner wrote:

     Had there been a collision there I can’t see that the taxi driver would have been charged with anything never mind have to argue their case, on the basis of that video then I would agree with that decision.

     — EK Spinner

     Actually, just because it’s your right of way and the other person is the wrong side of the highway code, that still does not give permission to run the offending party down. You still have to do your best to preserve life and limb. Had the taxi driver ploughed on regardless, asserting right of way instead of trying to avoid a collision, I doubt they would have got off free.
     And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Sriracha wrote:

       Had there been a collision there I can’t see that the taxi driver would have been charged with anything never mind have to argue their case, on the basis of that video then I would agree with that decision.

       — Sriracha

       Actually, just because it’s your right of way and the other person is the wrong side of the highway code, that still does not give permission to run the offending party down. You still have to do your best to preserve life and limb. Had the taxi driver ploughed on regardless, asserting right of way instead of trying to avoid a collision, I doubt they would have got off free.
       And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.

       — EK Spinner

       This is getting into the realms of it being all well and good being right when you’re dead. How close would the driver have to have been to the crossing for it to be a bad idea for the cyclist to just fly across? Because I’d say she was pretty close to that line.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • vonhelmet wrote:

         Had there been a collision there I can’t see that the taxi driver would have been charged with anything never mind have to argue their case, on the basis of that video then I would agree with that decision.

         — vonhelmet Actually, just because it’s your right of way and the other person is the wrong side of the highway code, that still does not give permission to run the offending party down. You still have to do your best to preserve life and limb. Had the taxi driver ploughed on regardless, asserting right of way instead of trying to avoid a collision, I doubt they would have got off free. And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.— SrirachaThis is getting into the realms of it being all well and good being right when you’re dead. How close would the driver have to have been to the crossing for it to be a bad idea for the cyclist to just fly across? Because I’d say she was pretty close to that line.— EK Spinner

         This is basic hazard perception, you as the driver present a hazard to the vulnerable road user, this we know as fact. It is not as the driving test makes out hazards that are presented to you as the driver for the most part. In this situation the greater responsibility should be with the operator of the machine that does kill and maim tens of thousands every year, that it doesn’t and isn’t pressed by gov and police is at the root as to why those numbers are that high.

         In this case you assess that the person crossing may well likely not stop (judging their speed and distance to crossing as you might when a motor comes from your left), you can make this assessment well in advance of the crossing. You sound your horn in advance and slow at the same time, let the vulnerable road user cross, this completely removes the hazard you present to them 100%, you cede your priority, this should be basic driving 101.

         in these circumstances it is the ONLY option to guarantee no conflict, it’s not dangerous for you either on cycle or in a motor to do this in traffic IF you are bothering to be doing your hazard perception/reading the road around you all the time as you should.

         This should be the norm not the exception, particularly in a civilised society, we would be massively better as a society if this were the case.

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • Sriracha wrote:

       . . . And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.

       — Sriracha

       In fact I would replace “often” with “pretty much universally” at every roundabout I’ve ever been to.  And whilst I don’t think that really applies here, since the cyclist could have done with looking, the practice of accelerating aggressively to prove a point is appallingly widespread.

       Log In or Register to post comments

6. Just daft to use a crossing

   Just daft to use a crossing without looking, more so when the lights are against you.

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. Didn’t a cyclist recently get
   Didn’t a cyclist recently get found partly responsible for doing the same thing to a pedestrian. It’s the same thing here, albeit a more favourable outcome, just that the modes have shifted up one.

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. Taxi driver gave a warning,
   Taxi driver gave a warning, slowed almost to a stop. Yeah, we might believe we would be better drivers in the same circumstances, but enough action was taken to avoid a collision, both parties have a near miss story and hopefully learn something.

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. Pedestrians step out into the

   Pedestrians step out into the road all the time on my commute, dashing for trains or buses, trying to cross between gaps in the motor traffic or just plain step out into the road with out looking because they’re on their phone.  You slow or stop as the situation demands, just because you have priority (you do not have any right of way) doesnt mean you musn’t do what you can to avoid a  collision.  We all do stupid things from time to time and I know my ass has been saved by observant and careful road users in the past 

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. So was Salih Khater a wanna

    So was Salih Khater a wanna-be Islamist terrorist?  Or just an apolotical-generically-deranged motorist?  The linked video is missing for me.

    The upside of the story though, is that any wanna-be terrorist will hopefully get the message that there’s very little point targetting cyclists, because the media won’t be interested and the authorities won’t care.

    Log In or Register to post comments

11. The JV incident is a bit meh.

    The JV incident is a bit meh.  Cyclist was naughty crossing against the lights, taxi driver was a bit selfish and arrogant as motorists almost always are (a courteous person would have stopped despite having priority, and just made a point to scowl or wag a finger at the rule-breaker), but the cyclist was always likely to stop in time.

     

      Hardly worth getting worked up about either way, certainly not when compared to all the times I’ve known similar things happen when the lights were _red_ for the driver or it’s a zebra-crossing.

    Log In or Register to post comments

12. Vine is wrong, the cyclist
    Vine is wrong, the cyclist was at fault, the taxi driver (and I can’t believe I defending one) did exactly the right thing, slowed to a near stop and used his/her horn to alert the cyclist that they were there.

    As for MTB riders jumping the TdF, I hope it stops before some talentless YouTuber trys it and it all ends in tears.

    Log In or Register to post comments

13. I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t

    I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t think the cyclist was at fault has completely lost touch with the notion of personal responsibility. Yes we all make mistakes, and yes we all owe a duty of care to one another, but if you chose to cross the road against a red light, without stopping and without looking you really are placing an awful lot of trust in, and reliance on, every other road user to compensate for your own stupidity. Try that in South Australia and you’re not going to last very long.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • CyclingInGawler wrote:

      I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t think the cyclist was at fault has completely lost touch with the notion of personal responsibility. Yes we all make mistakes, and yes we all owe a duty of care to one another, but if you chose to cross the road against a red light, without stopping and without looking you really are placing an awful lot of trust in, and reliance on, every other road user to compensate for your own stupidity. Try that in South Australia and you’re not going to last very long.

      — CyclingInGawler

       

      As I said, I don’t think there’s much of a case against the driver in this one, and would save the outrage for all the cases where it’s the driver who is going aginst the red, but I do wonder how what you say relates to the Aliston case.  (Or, as mentioned already, the Brushett case)

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

        I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t think the cyclist was at fault has completely lost touch with the notion of personal responsibility. Yes we all make mistakes, and yes we all owe a duty of care to one another, but if you chose to cross the road against a red light, without stopping and without looking you really are placing an awful lot of trust in, and reliance on, every other road user to compensate for your own stupidity. Try that in South Australia and you’re not going to last very long.

        — FluffyKittenofTindalos

         

        As I said, I don’t think there’s much of a case against the driver in this one, and would save the outrage for all the cases where it’s the driver who is going aginst the red, but I do wonder how what you say relates to the Aliston case.  (Or, as mentioned already, the Brushett case)

        — CyclingInGawler

        From what I’ve read about both the Aliston and Brushett cases I tend to think they’ve been harshly treated, particularly in Aliston’s case who, as has been said by many before, would probably not have been in the same legal position if he’d been driving and not cycling. But because I don’t agree with the outcomes of those cases I don’t feel that they absolve the cyclist here from behaving in a manner similar to the pedestrians in the cases you mention. 

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • CyclingInGawler wrote:

      I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t think the cyclist was at fault has completely lost touch with the notion of personal responsibility. Yes we all make mistakes, and yes we all owe a duty of care to one another, but if you chose to cross the road against a red light, without stopping and without looking you really are placing an awful lot of trust in, and reliance on, every other road user to compensate for your own stupidity. Try that in South Australia and you’re not going to last very long.

      — CyclingInGawler

      I was under the impression that if you even ride a bike AT ALL in South Australia you’re not going to last very long…  

      Log In or Register to post comments

14. Why, both crossed without

    Why, both crossed without properly looking?  Both had established themselves on the carriageway? Both crossed on red?

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

15. So let me get this right, in

    So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

    pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

    cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

     

    And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong…

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • John Smith wrote:

      So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

      pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

      cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

       

      And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong…

      — John Smith

       

      Or to put it another way;

      Rules of this site:

      1. The cyclist is always right

      2. When the cyclist is wrong refer to rule 1

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • freespirit1 wrote:

        So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

        pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

        cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

         

        And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong…

        — freespirit1

         

        Or to put it another way;

        Rules of this site:

        1. The cyclist is always right

        2. When the cyclist is wrong refer to rule 1

        — John Smith

        or to put it another way 5 people died on the UK roads today as the result of collisions involving motor vehicles, 5 people will die tomorrow, and every day for the rest of this year and the next, and the one after that…but yeah cyclists grrr!!!

        what people are commenting on is the down right hypocrisy where if a pedestrian walks out in front of a cyclist without looking, its the cyclists fault if they hit that pedestrian,but if a cyclist rides out in front of a motor vehicle in almost the same setup…its still the cyclists fault for simply being in the way.

        many of us do not feel this is equitable, therefore the “rules” people are adopting are simply reflecting how officialdom treats cyclists as follows

        1 cyclist is always wrong

        2 refer to rule 1.

        Log In or Register to post comments

      • freespirit1 wrote:

        So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

        pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

        cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

         

        And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong…

        — freespirit1

         

        Or to put it another way;

        Rules of this site:

        1. The cyclist is always right

        2. When the cyclist is wrong refer to rule 1

        — John Smith

         

        I’m tired of this pathetic passive-aggressive way of trolling without actually attempting to construct a meaningful argument.  It’s a hallmark of conservative-minded people across a lot of different topics.  Contribute something useful or don’t bother.

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • John Smith wrote:

      So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

      pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

      cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

       

      And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong…

      — John Smith

      no, you haven’t got it right, you clearly haven’t the capacity to grasp what’s going on have you, exactly like freespirit!

      We are making the point that there is an inequity in the law as it is applied to various road users.

      Motorists basically get carte blanche to do what they like and blame absolved at virtually every avenue, then pedestrians next and finally people on bikes who have to take the brunt of responsibility for not just not getting killed.hurt but also have to do the same when it’s a supposed more vulnerable road user such as a pedestrian (except we know that peds do more harm than people on bikes on our streets!)

      When the cyclist came onto the road this is no different to the lady who died when Alliston was convicted of her death, if the motorist had time to sound his horn then he would have been found guilty of the cyclists death if that had been the outcome. The pedeestrian in the Alliston case was not found to be at fault, the pedestrian the other week was only found to be 50% to blame despite the blind ignorance/walking into the path of the cyclist who again braked and diverted away but the opedestrian collided with him. All we want is equity in the application of the rules/law as it is for other road users. 

      People like you simply aren’t capable of understanding the basic concept of equity and the similarities between cases where people on bikes are having the law and standard of behaviour to be held to being applied differently, even when compared to a road user that we know maim and kill by the tens of thosusand every year!

      jog on sonny!

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

        When the cyclist came onto the road this is no different to the lady who died when Alliston was convicted of her death, if the motorist had time to sound his horn then he would have been found guilty of the cyclists death if that had been the outcome.

        — BehindTheBikesheds

        Exactly!

        IIRC the fact that Alliston was able to sound his horn and shout out was used against him when he was on trial for hitting a woman who’d walked out in front of him, and whom he’d tried to avoid.

        So, it should be that if the taxi had time to sound his horn, and didn’t make any attempt to otherwise avoid hitting the cyclist, then the full force of the Law should have come crashing down on the taxi driver if he’d hit her.

        Except we know that it wouldn’t have…

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • John Smith wrote:

      So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

      pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

      cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

       

      And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong…

      — John Smith

      Let’s say it was cyclist approaching the crossing on the road, do they still have to stop for the cyclist who couldn’t be bothered to look or take any care?

      I’ve  had a few close calls with some morons cycling through red or straight off the pavement – they couldn’t give a shit about other cyclists, but apparently I should be arguing for equity or something.

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • John Smith wrote:

      So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

      pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

      cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

       

      And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong…

      — John Smith

      Perhaps you may also want to go and check google for the definition of the word “Sarcasm” because you clearly do not grasp the concept which is being employed by some commentators in this thread regarding Jeremy Vine.

      Specifically sarcasm being used to highlight the disparity in the way the law is applied to to cyclists in comparison to other road users in many circumstances. 

      For example Charlie Alliston was jailed for killing a pedestrian whilst cycling a fixie with no rear brakes, yet 18 year old Max Coopey kills 2 pedestrians whilst driving his parents Audi A5 whilst over the legal limits for Cannabis and also had Codeine in his system was recorded as a “road traffic collision” despite the 18 year old driver stating that “you don’t slow down for the possibility of someone being on the other side of a blind corner” and “Any drug combination can affect your ability to drive safely, but I wasn’t, in my opinion, under the influence of cannabis.”

      The reason he was driving his parents car was because his car was off the road due to a prior accident.

      Yes very different circumstances but both resulted in deaths of pedestrians yet the cyclist was jailed and the car driver never even received a driving ban for killing 2 pedestrians.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • craigstitt]

        [quote=John Smith]

        The reason he was driving his parents car was because his car was off the road due to a prior accident.

        Yes very different circumstances but both resulted in deaths of pedestrians yet the cyclist was jailed and the car driver never even received a driving ban for killing 2 pedestrians.

        — John</strong><br />[quote=craigstitt

        And further to that case, had the parents informed their insurance company of his recent accident before his drive, if not he was possibly driving without valid insurance.

        Log In or Register to post comments

16. Everybody seems to be

    Everybody seems to be concentrating on the JV story. Am I the only one who is wondering why it took the jury 2 DAYS to find Ars*#ole Khater guilty! I reckon 2 minutes would have been about 118 seconds too long.

    Log In or Register to post comments

17. Are we allowed to consider

    Are we allowed to consider both are at Fault – we dont HAVE to pick a side.

    The cyclist clearly shouldnt have crossed when she did 

    but the taxi driver shouldnt have just have barrelled on through

     

    Log In or Register to post comments