Cyclists have accused the BBC of “adversarial clickbait framing” and promoting an anti-cycling agenda, following a Radio Scotland call-in debate which asked listeners: “Is public sympathy for cyclists wearing thin?”
The discussion, which formed the headline topic on Radio Scotland’s Mornings programme on Wednesday, comes in the same week BBC broadcaster Jeremy Vine announced he will no longer post videos of his cycle journeys through London, admitting that the “the trolling just got too bad” and “the anger they generate has genuinely upset me”.
However, introducing the Mornings show on BBC Radio Scotland and referring to Vine’s decision to step away from the social media cycling furnace, presenter Kaye Adams asked listeners whether a “toxic relationship” has developed “between cyclists and other road users”, including pedestrians.
Meanwhile, record-breaking around-the-world cyclist Mark Beaumont told the programme that he has “limited sympathy” for Vine and questioned the broadcaster’s “real motivation” behind posting cycling videos on the internet.
Earlier this week, we reported that Vine had decided to quit uploading videos of his commutes through London, featuring instances of poor, distracted, and sometimes dangerous driving, on X (formerly Twitter) due to the continuous abuse he receives from the social media platform’s users.
The BBC and Channel 5 presenter has been sharing videos from his commutes and other rides around London for years, the clips often viewed millions of times. They regularly attracted thousands of comments and were often the basis for news stories here on road.cc and national newspapers’ websites.
Vine’s bike was stolen from outside his home last week and he told his 765,000 Twitter followers that the theft had “made me think” about whether, when he gets a new bike, he wants to “go back into the trolling furnace”.
Outlining the extent of the abuse, the broadcaster revealed there are “at least two death threats” against him currently being investigated by the police and a new cycling video “would make my phone physically heat up in my pocket”.
The decision has made headlines across the national press, and saw ITV’s Tour de France commentator, and active travel podcaster, Ned Boulting pen a lengthy opinion piece on the issue.
In the article, Boulting, who hosts the Streets Ahead podcast alongside active travel campaigners Laura Laker and Adam Tranter, admitted that “99 times out of a hundred” Vine is correct in his stance on cycling and dangerous driving in London.
“But just because he’s right, it doesn’t mean that he’s right,” Boulting conceded, arguing that while Vine’s “intentions were impeccable”, he “got it wrong” by making cycling appear inherently dangerous.
“Far from promoting cycling to a wider audience, I feel that it made cycling seem militant, deeply scorned by a loud majority of road users and pedestrians, unpopular, a little unhinged frankly,” Boulting wrote.
When asked this week, during his eponymous Channel 5 show, whether his videos had an impact in making the roads safer, Vine himself admitted that “they have made drivers angrier”.
“Is it just getting up the nose of motorists?”
That debate, then, proved the focus of Wednesday’s Mornings show on BBC Radio Scotland, as presenter Kaye Adams attempted to offer both Vine’s stance on cycling videos, alongside that held by Boulting and others.
“I guess what Jeremy would say is that he just wants to be a very visible cyclist,” Adams told the programme’s listeners, as part of a segment titled “Is public support for cyclists wearing thin?”
“And there are lots of people out there now who are every visible cyclists, [who believe] they have a place on the road, that they deserve a place on the road, many of them wearing helmet cameras so if there is an encounter they can establish what the facts of the matter are.
“Is there anything wrong with that, with saying, ‘here, I am, I’m a cyclist and I’m earning my place on the road’?”
She continued: “Or is it just getting up the nose of motorists? Ned Boulting mentioned the word ‘toxic’ – have we now got a toxic relationship between cyclists and other road users?
“And we should include pedestrians in that, too. That’s my main role now, as I wander along the Clyde pathway – and yeah, I have to say, sharing a path with cyclists can be a bit tricky, when there’s lots of them.
“Lots of them are very nice, lots of them go past you incredibly fast, as I’m doddering along. But I guess, it’s your responsibility as a pedestrian to be aware, as well.
“Has the relationship got worse between cyclists and other road users? The ideal, of course, is that all road users share the road in an amicable fashion. But are we now in a situation where we have ‘team cyclist’ and ‘team driver’, with the pedestrian wavering about in-between?”
However, that particular framing has been widely criticised by cyclists on social media, who have claimed it helps promote an anti-cycling agenda.
“Why the ludicrous adversarial clickbait framing?” John Sutton asked under BBC Radio Scotland’s Facebook post on the topic.
“Cyclists are drivers are pedestrians. There are considerate road users and inconsiderate road users. The latter category cause far more harm if they are in a motor vehicle.”
“No, support isn’t waning at all,” agreed Graham Smout. “Most rational people support cycling. It’s just the vocal minority and the media who are inexplicably anti-cycling.”
“The media’s efforts to that end are indeed getting results,” added Ryan King. “I live in a place where the media doesn’t promote a ‘them and us’ conflict between cyclists are other road users. In fifteen years of cycling here I have never once encountered any conflicts between cyclists and motorists.
“Sadly, I see such conflicts frequently when back in the UK. Getting people to hate each other is a core of British news media on TV, on the radio, and in print.”
“Do you just post hate and take a stance, or are you actually addressing the information?”
However, appearing on BBC Radio Scotland as a guest, long-distance cyclist Mark Beaumont, the holder of the around-the-world cycling record, argued that Vine’s videos were, in fact, key to stoking division between road users.
“I hope the debates stays on whether it is helpful to share videos like this,” Beaumont told Adams. “I know Jeremy, and he’s quite a character, and when you think about the nature of his radio show, and he is a public personality, my question would, what’s the real motivation around posting?
“I have a concern that if you’re posting stuff on social media, then be definition – especially on X – you are going to divide opinion. I’m afraid I do have limited sympathy. If you think you’re encouraging people to get out and safely share the roads… I do have big questions about sharing videos which have a ‘which camp do you stand in’ mentality.
“The lifeblood of Jeremy as a radio presenter is about having strong views on things, and I’m not sure that’s where we’re going to find a middle ground.”
When asked by Adams whether Vine’s videos help to illustrate the extent to which bad driving occurs on the UK’s roads, the Scottish ultra-cyclist continued: “I’m questioning what you do with that information. You have to understand the perspective on cameras.
“I’m an active cyclist, people pass me far too close all the time. But the perspective on a camera lens does distort things, they do make things look very differently than they do in real life. And if you then post that information on a social media clip, and you weren’t there, you’ve got to question what was going on. Do you just post hate and take a stance, or are you actually addressing the information?
“And I wouldn’t discourage anybody from having the information, many of us have cameras in the car or on our bikes, but it’s what you then do with that. If it’s an issue, I’d raise it with the right people, instead of posting it on X and encouraging people to take a divisive stance. I’m not sure that helps the issue.
“I drive all the time, I cycle all the time, I want a space where my kids can feel safe out on the road, and the core question of this call-in should be about how we create that space and that culture.”
However, not everyone agreed with Beaumont’s focus on Jeremy Vine’s role when it comes to road safety and division.
On Facebook, Ronnie Brunton wrote: “Whilst people die on roads all day every day, the majority caused by vehicles – but hey, look, someone on a bike.”
60 thoughts on ““Ludicrous adversarial clickbait”: BBC asks, “Is public sympathy for cyclists wearing thin?” – as around-the-world cyclist Mark Beaumont claims Jeremy Vine’s bike videos “encourage division””
This cycle/car thing needs
This cycle/car thing needs serious attention – triple the passing width make outright illegal to go within 30ft of a cyclist and any infringement of the above gets an outright ban…killing someone with a car is the easiest way to get away with murder!
Demonizing the people who
Demonizing the people who kill less people than motorists was a great coup for the motoring industry
Cyclists are a group, drivers
Cyclists are a group, drivers are individuals. Its almost as simple as that. When a driver cuts them up its a twat on the roads. When a cyclist annoys them its “fucking cyclists”.
That and inventing jaywalking
That and inventing jaywalking. In fact – they’ve been doing it for decades, with leaded petrol, with “light trucks / SUVs” etc.
To have got a monopoly (and improvement) on the position the horse played in human affairs for thousands of years – that’s impressive also… (Horses were a sign of an individual’s wealth and rank, required by the military – as well as being the tractor and motor for the HGV of the time etc.)
Governments have their cake
Governments have their cake and eat it. For years they effectively encourage car use by widening roads, providing parking and all at the expense of pedestrians. They ignore complaints or pleas for decades. Drivers understandably got used to being the apex predators.
Then there’s a change of heart. The government start poaching road space, changing the highway code. Is it any wonder lots of car drivers are unhappy angry people?
Perhaps they should build bike roads? Or decide to sacrifice the verge on one side of the road to make bike paths.
It can look simple but it is
It can look simple but it is really not easy to effect this level of change. However it’s also not like there aren’t examples they can follow if they really want to make a change.
For better and worse cycling and other active travel infra mostly works at a rather local level. The positive side of that is that it’s possible to work with people here and there and bring in small improvements at local level. The down side is that the “bigger picture” can get lost. Some things can’t really be “patched” without at least a “network-level” redesign. If the (much bigger) money isn’t there to support better public transport people will keep driving. Working at a local level can end up with slow delivery of patchy, disconnected or non-standard stuff. Or at worst “invented here” useless or actively dangerous rubbish.
Perhaps we could best copy some of how change worked in Seville which developed a cycling network “from nothing” in a relatively short time? Or the still 2nd rate infra but “good enough and quicker and cheaper than the gold standard” that characterises some Scandinavian systems?
“…..have we now got a toxic
“…..have we now got a toxic relationship between cyclists and other road users?”
Yes, but it’s been toxic for a very long time, at least partly due to the MSM being dominated by drivers who view cyclists as an out group that can safely be attacked now that they can’t attack women or coloured people. How fortunate that the BBC, dedicated as it is through its charter to fairness, has never even thought about attacking that same out group.
Much.
Funny how nobody ever
Funny how nobody ever complains about drivers having a dashcam.
I ride through Southampton common several times a week and when I see people startled by the presence of me on a bicycle I wonder why they have ignored the bell that I rang 30m back and why, if they find cyclists startling, they have chosen to play fetch with their dog on the cycle path instead of the huge open area that I’m forbidden to cycle on.
Same problem in Richmond Park
Same problem in Richmond Park. There is a fantastic network of paths along with beautiful open countryside and forests. Yet pedestrians choose to walk in the road.
My personal favourite is
My personal favourite is hikers/ramblers/walkers on the bike lane, when there’s a nicely gravelled footpath 2 metres to the side. It’s almost as though they don’t want to get their nice walking boots a little dirty.
bensynnock wrote:
Ah, but they only have them for evidence just in case – they don’t go around “looking for trouble” to film.
*removes tongue from cheek*
This is a fairly typical
This is a fairly typical comment on a uk dash cam video
“The thing I like about these videos is knowing the drama queens looking for content are having to watch the comments on the videos they sent in”.
And from what I understand,
And from what I understand, the majority of reports about dangerous drivers and from other drivers.
But no one complains about them…
Never called vigilantes…
Never called vigilantes…
My most common cycle lane
My most common cycle lane danger are people who like to absentmindedly play at walking the tightrope on cycle lane markings while they walk and talk with a friend.
I get it, I’m not anti-fun, but perhaps a thinner dedicated ‘tight rope’ line marking or painted footprints could be done to keep everyone safe and happy?
Beaumont’s always come a
Beaumont’s always come a cross as a bit of a publicity seeking persona himself.
I did enjoy his 80 days
I did enjoy his 80 days around the world book. Got it from the library.
Well, I guess it probably
Well, I guess it probably helps to publicise yourself when you’re an athlete relying on sponsorship to pay for the next challenge.
Over the last five years
Over the last five years something very bad has happened to drivers’ attitudes to cyclists. How much of that increase in animosity is due to Mr. Vine I wonder?
Pub bike wrote:
None?
Agreed, apart from the few
Agreed, apart from the few that recognise their own bad behaviour and feel aggrieved that he would dare to post it.
I haven’t watched many of his videos, just the occasional one linked from here, and I often think to myself ‘is that it?’ A little bit of anticipation would be a good thing – obviously it’s hard to judge distances from an action cam video, but to my eye it seems that drivers turning right across his path were a fair way away when they started their manoeuvre and would cause minor inconvenience at worst. Not worth getting so riled up about IMHO. And as for the one about the twat in the van who drove onto the cycle lane, it was obvious that he was going to have to reverse. Yes, the driver should have checked carefully that it was clear, but there’s no way I would have cycled directly behind the van at that point.
Next to none I’d say, Vine is
Next to none I’d say, Vine is a well known media personality, his stuff always got alot of press coverage, it has impacted some drivers attitudes. I did have the classic, ‘who do you think you are Jeremy Vine?’ when I told one driver they were on my cycle cam after a close pass, and that was years ago as I don’t bother talking to drivers now.
But all of that angst was there long before youtube was a popular thing. I was getting grief off drivers at least 15 years ago and cycling schemes even 20years ago always created lots of unpopular press.
Almost zero I would wager. I
Almost zero I would wager. I reckon that 90% of the population either have no idea who he is or have no idea that he posts cycling content on social media. The biggest thing thats changed in the past 5 years is increased cycling infrastructure (however shit it might be), the increased negative media reporting on cyclists in right wing rags and the massive increase in ebikes/delivery riders.
In order of importance I would suggest its:
Then at about 100 or so is Jeremy Vine.
Cyclists who pile through
Cyclists who pile through pedestrian crossings etc don’t help either. The number of injuries they cause is obviously very low, and far, far lower than those caused by drivers doing the same, jumping red lights etc, however it’s the perception that’s important – a cyclist whizzing past someone crossing the road can be pretty scary. The person it happened to will probably recant the experience to their friends and family, spreading the word about ‘killer cyclists’, whereas they wouldn’t tell people about the nice person on the bike who stopped when they were supposed to. Which doesn’t help the majority of us who do follow the HC (though I confess to rarely stopping when cycling if pedestrians are waiting to cross at a junction as I’m more concerned that a driver behind me wouldn’t stop).
Though absolutely the MSM and the others in your list are in the correct order. If only the Daily Heil, BBC et al would describe things correctly – illegal motorbikes rather than Ebikes, collisions or incidents rather than accidents, etc etc. Ah well, we can dream…
Could a way of changing
Could a way of changing perceptions be annual publishing of KSI stats, with clear differentiators between causes (ie, driver, cyclist etc) alongside the £value general increase in motor insurance renewals caused by the insurance companies making losses due to dangerous drivers?
Once it becomes clear where the issues are, hopefully we won’t be so vilified.
Heres hoping people are sensible… despite today’s election results.
The deaths are so common that
The deaths are so common that they only make the news if the number of dead in a particular incident seem particularly high or there’s something really tragic. Numbers get published, but never get reported as “front page” or make it onto TV. The guardian always has them, but well down the page. And because of a hatred of doing a bit of math, nobody puts the number in any context, “what, 4-5 people will be violently killed on our roads just because they were trying to get somewhere, a pedestrian a day, one a week on pavement, verge or crossing!”
Probably about three posts’
Probably about three posts’ worth more than Cycling Mikey?
Five years you say? Could it be that nobody’s recovered from the lockdown grumps?
Sure, media will amplify and echo stereotypes and “argument” … but cyclists have been “in the way” since there were cars.
I think now there are just more people driving, more of them feeling time-pressured, perhaps more disappointed that the fancy car the bank still owns isn’t getting them more status, more distracted by being on their phone and startled to find a cyclist appearing “from nowhere” in front of them when they look up (and so immediately blaming the cyclist not their own lack of observation) …
Did lockdown ever really end
Did lockdown ever really end for the people who live in boxes of glass and metal?
99.9% of the animosity is due
99.9% of the animosity is due to the toilet rag newspapers that are funded by industries that feel threatened by a rise in cycling. I find it ironic that people call Vine out for his highlighting the everyday dangers that cyclists suffer from motorists, but have no issue with all the media personalities using anti-cycling stories to increase their personal profiles. At least Vine is trying to improve safety on the roads, whereas they are increasing the danger by stirring up hatred just for clicks.
If Jeremy is right 99% of the
If Jeremy is right 99% of the time, where are the calls for the police to do more about the dangerous driving?
Beaumont is right in his
Beaumont is right in his observation of “two camps,” but badly wrong in how he defines them. They aren’t split over cycling; they are split over road safety. Bad driving kills far more other drivers and their passengers than it does cyclists, but drivers somehow seem to miss this because they’ve come to accept bad driving as a norm.
And yes, there is a toxic relationship between cyclists and some drivers, but it has little to do with their choices of transportation and almost everything to do with a transportation system that has encouraged drivers to believe they have a right to get around quickly and easily in cities.
Angry drivers don’t hate cyclists because they are cyclists per se. They hate cyclists because “those bastards are moving while I’m stuck here traffic, dammit! And that just isn’t fair!”
I don’t film drivers, but I do interact with them. I smile at them and try to be friendly when they are stuck at stoplights. When they rocket away from stoplight to beat a cyclists to one or one of the many stoplights ahead, and you catch up on them on a bike thre, you should see the reaction when you smile at them again.
Try it yourself. You’re likely be amazed at the hostility created by being stuck in traffic while someone else is freely moving. It isn’t by accident that motorists are happy to cut off cyclists, as Vine has many times documented. It’s petty clear that those who do it are thinking this:
“I’ve been passed in traffic by cyclists to my side so many times that I’ll be damned if I’m going to let that SOB safely pass before I make my turn! He can use his bloody brakes like I need to do so often!'”
Call this motonormativity or windshield bias or carthink or whatever you want, but don’t ignore the influence the comfortable, easy-to-operate modern motor vehicle has on the brain of the individual at the controls. He or she might be driving the vehicle, but the vehicle is often, and sadly, driving his or her thinking.
“I’ve been passed in traffic
“I’ve been passed in traffic by cyclists to my side so many times that I’ll be damned if I’m going to let that SOB safely pass before I make my turn! He can use his bloody brakes like I need to do so often!'”
I am always prepared and never let myself get caught out with this sort of antic. I never show any emotion aferwards either, which infuriates them even more.
I’ve often wondered about the
I’ve often wondered about the jealousy/envy many drivers must feel after spending thousands on cars, only to see cyclists spend a fraction of the cost with no real detriment to jouney times.
Most people can cycle, distances can vary with age etc, its just about getting people to overcome their fears and do it.
mitsky wrote:
Whilst also getting fitter, healthier, and, let’s not beat about the bush here, looking a lot sexier (yours truly excepted). That’s at the root of so much of the hostility towards cyclists, I’m convinced. As the old saying has it, cars burn money and make you fat, bikes burn fat and save you money.
Quite frankly Radio
Quite frankly Radio Shortbread’s Kaye Adams is toxic. Tune in to any of her shows* and it is the same no mattter what the topic is. All she is interested in is shouting at callers.
* though you will not get that time back.
But it’s a call in show right
But it’s a call in show right ?, the whole point of them thesedays is for irrational shouty debates, because it drives more callers to call in, and convinces the people running the stations they’ve got audience engagement.
Of couse there are a few
Of couse there are a few idiots just as there are a few cycling idiots. However, I cycle the roads of Hampshire regularly and find most motorists polite and helpful. Without conducting anything but a “straw poll” that view would seem to be shared by my colleagues in our cycle group (which offers 15-20 rides a week). In return, we go out of our way to be helpful to motorists; for example pulling in where possible to let them pass on narrow lanes, spiltting our string into groups of 3 or 4 with a sensible gap when on busy roads, not riding two abreast unless there is a sensible amouth of space to do so and so on. I appeciate that may not be particularly relevant on busy London streets but I still feel that approach is a better way to improve motorists view of cyclists than being overly critical. Of course, it doesn’t generate so much discussion, agression or media comment.
Albionrt wrote:
I’m with you on the first two, but there’s a balance on riding two abreast – sometimes narrower roads are precisly where you do want to do it, to deter close passes.
HWC Rule 213:
On narrow sections of road, on quiet roads or streets, at road junctions and in slower-moving traffic, cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane, rather than towards the side of the road. It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations.
Agreed!
Agreed!
Beaumont is right. I find
Beaumont is right. I find Vine intensely annoying, a noisy, virtue-signalling, vigilante twat.
I’ve ridden for 45 years, I used to road race, I was a 1st Cat, I rode 10,000 miles a year, over the years I lost three mates to errant motorists, not paying attention or racing each other, none of them got prosecuted.
But the way Vine sanctimoniously lectures drivers just pisses them off and is liable to make them more aggressive towards cyclists. He nearly got himself squashed when he stopped to shout at the van driver who turned incorrectly down a bike lane, only to panic and stick it in reverse and crush Vine’s bike.
I shout at drivers sometimes if they’be been malicious, sometimes I politely engage in conversation at the next set of lights to tell them how they put me in danger and they might be genuinely surprised, but Vine’s manner just makes things worse. He sees a situation developing where a driver has fucked up, and it’s as if carries on sailing into it just to make his point on video. Stopping making his videos means he’ll probably live longer now, he won’t feel he has to do that.
“Vigilante”? Please use a
“Vigilante”? Please use a dictionary.
Don’t lecture me, vigilante
Don’t lecture me, vigilante is also a well known colloquial term easily applicable to a sanctimonious virtue-signaller such as Vine.
Reminds me of:
Reminds me of:
I’m not a great fan of the man. And as many have written it seems “when someone in a car has made an error” is the worst possible moment for someone else to educate them.
On the other hand – if nobody tells children when they’ve gone wrong – or perhaps better why and what they should have done – how will they ever learn?
Vo2Maxi wrote:
Vine didn’t even (as far as I’m aware) submit his videos to the police for further action, he just shared them on social media for illustrative purposes. So even by the demonstrably innaccurate definition of being someone who sends videos to the police he wasn’t a “vigilante”. You’re just wrong on this one I’m afraid.
Vine is clearly a shit
Vine is clearly a shit cyclist or looking for trouble. For the last 5 years I’ve done 22 miles a day across London. In that time I’ve had one near miss (cement mixer, passing in the left, my fault) and have hit 2 cars, one van and one bus (all my fault – they have better braking distances). The greatest dangers are cyclists, illegal e bike twats and pedestrians, none of whom show any awareness of laws or traffic and leave you little time to react. Surely it’s incumbent on you as a cyclist to be aware of your surroundings and cycle appropriately.
Looking for trouble, cyclist
Looking for trouble, cyclist myself, ride XX miles, never had any trouble from motorists, idiotic cyclists are the greatest problem …
Can I call bingo or would you like to add “vigilantes”?
I’d add that the road cc
I’d add that the road cc response to anything is that cyclists are never wrong. Traffic signals: wrong or shouldn’t apply to cyclists. Motorists: shouldn’t be on the roads. Pedestrians harmed walking across roads: clearly not hit by (legal) cyclists. Fundamentally it’s everyone else’s fault
Basil wrote:
You must cycle on a different planet to most of us, then.
Or you are a troll who hasn’t sussed that road.cc isn’t really a sensible place for out-grouping people who cycle, you muppet.
It seems likely that whenever
It seems likely that whenever someone talks about dangerous cyclists its because they’ve seen Basil going by on his bike!
Basil wrote:
Braking distances for a bicycle and a car at 20 mph are pretty much identical at approximately twelve metres. If your collisions were your fault it’s not because they have better braking distances but because you’re not very good or aware; you’ve ridden into four vehicles in the last five years and they were all your fault? I ride 30 miles across London most days and haven’t hit anything in the last five years, or indeed in the thirty-odd years before that. Perhaps it’s not Vine who’s a shit cyclist…
No cyclists or pedestrians – none – have any awareness of laws or traffic? Jog on trollster.
The temerity to call someone
The temerity to call someone else a shit cyclist, then admit to 4 at-fault crashes in 5 years.
I don’t consider myself a great cyclist, but in the 15 years since I got back on a bike as an adult, I’ve hit the deck 4 times – twice involving nobody else (learning clipless pedals), once when two others in a group of cyclists touched wheels, and one left hook where the driver only indicated as they turned and I was alongside their rear door.
You’ve literally just
You’ve literally just described yourself as a shit cyclist, but I doubt you cycle anyway. I do a cycle commute 20 miles each way, and every trip has at least one cunt in a vehicle risk my safety for their convenience or prejudice. I have a radar, camera, and certainly am aware of my surroundings but none of that makes one iota of difference if the twat in the vehicle decides to close pass me or pull out in front of me. But you’d know this if you actually did cycle. Other cyclists are not the greatest dangers to me, 2 fucking tons of metal travelling at over 40mph is significantly more of a danger to me you idiot troll.
Having just got back on my
Having just got back on my Brompton to cycle pretty much the same route Vine does, I can’t say I’m upset he won’t be posting videos any more. Of course much of the comments towards him were way past the mark of decency, but he was doing no favours with many of his videos from his commute that were cringe worthy. I have more problems with bad cyclist on that route than drivers, and only yesterday had to shout to warn pedestrians as one barreled through a zebra crossing, later to be seen flat on his arse in the road having gone through a junction on red.
Going through a red wouldn’t
Going through a red wouldn’t be a reason on its own to end up on your arse.
What actually happened?
(Not condoning RLJing. Just asking.)
Honestly, no idea. All I know
Honestly, no idea. All I know is after shouting to warn pedestians of him, I caught up with him at the next lights, where a guy on a scooter was waiting and said eejit was in the road, picked himself up and carried on cycling like a bellend.
The route itself is pretty good, especially now a cycle lane has been put in along the top of the Hammersmith roundabout/flyover which was horrible to navigate. The worst bit by far is Kensington, but it is by no means as bad as you would think watching Vines videos of it, where he would deliberately avoid lane one when it was clear to put himself in conflict with traffic.
Given the example of the
Given the example of the people who’ve come out from under their bridges even here on road.cc, maybe JV has made the right decision…
(I won’t miss those OTT animations he put on his videos, mind)
I blame tiktok. It seems to
I blame tiktok. It seems to have triggered a trend of flashing text up and shitty stuff like that. I swear most of it would get rejected if subjected to ofcom standards on flashing images and epilepsy risk.
“I’m an active cyclist,
“I’m an active cyclist, people pass me far too close all the time. But the perspective on a camera lens does distort things, they do make things look very differently than they do in real life.”
Yes, Mark. Due to the fact that most cameras use wide-angle lenses, that close pass was a lot fucking CLOSER than it looks in the footage. Seriously, have a word with yourself.
Is public support for car
Is public support for car drivers wearing thin?
Mark Beaumont really should
Mark Beaumont really should know better .