“As a cyclist…” anti-LTN talkRadio rant; Bus driver pulls in on Jeremy Vine…but apparently it’s the cyclist’s fault; Peloton van blocks bike lane; Dowsett’s Hour Record disappointment; Bike hangars, Valverde’s final season + more on the live blog

170 thoughts on ““As a cyclist…” anti-LTN talkRadio rant; Bus driver pulls in on Jeremy Vine…but apparently it’s the cyclist’s fault; Peloton van blocks bike lane; Dowsett’s Hour Record disappointment; Bike hangars, Valverde’s final season + more on the live blog”

1. Looks almost indentical to an

   Looks almost indentical to an incident JV posted a while ago, after which he blocked me for suggesting it could be 50/50…sorry Jeremy but I think the same applies here, yes the driver can be accused of cutting in too sharply but s/he was past you and indicating, a very slight drop in speed and a headcheck and signal would have allowed you safely to overtake the bus and carry on with virtually no loss of time. Instead you carried on at the same speed even after the bus cut in and you must have been able to see its indicators, ensuring that you came right up to its inside left corner. It’s almost as if you just wanted something to put on Twitter…

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Rendel Harris wrote:

     yes the driver can be accused of cutting in too sharply but s/he was past you and indicating, a very slight drop in speed and a headcheck and signal would have allowed you safely to overtake the bus and carry on with virtually no loss of time.

     — Rendel Harris

     Brake and head check and indicate and miss the bus, all without really slowing down.  You could sell tickets to watch that.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I disagree – it seems very

     I disagree – it seems very clear cut to me that it’s totally the bus driver’s fault.

     Highway code Rule 167:

     DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

     • when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down

     To me it looks like a classic left hook – overtake, then immediately indicate left. In terms of priority, Jeremy was travelling straight on in his lane which normally indicates priority and vehicles wanting to pull in to the side are performing a maneouvre (hence the signalling) and most definitely cede priority.

     That said, Jeremy could have decided to wave the bus in if he felt particularly generous, but then that would mean that he’d have to pull out to overtake the stopping bus which could be dangerous if there was other traffic around (looked pretty clear to me). The most sensible course of action is for the bus driver to wait 2-3 seconds and Jeremy to carry straight on.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I’m with you, Peter.  What’s

       I’m with you, Peter.  What’s more, the bus driver had plenty of time to see where Vine was and could easily have slowed down to pull in behind him.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • how is this a 50/50?

     how is this a 50/50?

     What’s easier/safer

     a) the road user behind intending to stop stays behind and stops without affecting the first road user in any way

     b) the road user behind passes then immediately stops in front of the road user just passed, forcing the cyclist to move out into the other lane, which may have fatser moving traffic.

     Thats without considering the bus never gets fully in front of jeremy before pulling in.

     Highway code 167 – do not overtake if it would cause conflict with another road user.  e.g. overtaking a cyclist just before turning left (or pulling in to a bus stop)

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I expressed myself badly, I

       I expressed myself badly, I thought the previous incident was 50-50, I don’t think this one is; as I said, I do think the driver cut in too quickly and I do think it would’ve been better for them to hang back. However, I still feel that by maintaining his speed even when he’s clearly seen the indicators and is already admonishing the driver in order to come right up to the rear of the bus, rather than slowing and preparing to pull around it, he is deliberately making the incident look worse than it is for Twitter purposes. Clearly I’m going to be in the minority on this one but that’s my opinion!

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rendel Harris wrote:

         I expressed myself badly, I thought the previous incident was 50-50, I don’t think this one is; as I said, I do think the driver cut in too quickly and I do think it would’ve been better for them to hang back. However, I still feel that by maintaining his speed even when he’s clearly seen the indicators and is already admonishing the driver in order to come right up to the rear of the bus, rather than slowing and preparing to pull around it, he is deliberately making the incident look worse than it is for Twitter purposes. Clearly I’m going to be in the minority on this one but that’s my opinion!

         — Rendel Harris

         I’d guess that he was already admonishing the driver due to the overtake/indicate left travesty. I doubt that he was tangling with a bus for Twitter purposes (it’s not like he rarely gets to post poor driving) and he could well have been assuming that the driver was indicating left and would slow down rather than dangerously attempt to squeeze a clearly visible cyclist into the kerb.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rendel Harris wrote:

         I expressed myself badly, I thought the previous incident was 50-50, I don’t think this one is; as I said, I do think the driver cut in too quickly and I do think it would’ve been better for them to hang back. However, I still feel that by maintaining his speed even when he’s clearly seen the indicators and is already admonishing the driver in order to come right up to the rear of the bus, rather than slowing and preparing to pull around it, he is deliberately making the incident look worse than it is for Twitter purposes. Clearly I’m going to be in the minority on this one but that’s my opinion!

         — Rendel Harris

         The only defence of the driver is that it is possible that the signal to stop was made once he was already passing, but we see that the indicator is on as the front of the bus passes Jeremy at 19s. At that point he needs to lift his foot off the go pedal and let Jeremy clear the bus stop. Clearly the cyclist is closer to the front of the bus than the rear and this is the easiest way to avoid conflict.

         Did Jeremy make it look worse? I don’t think so, once he is aware of the bus indicating he applies the brakes but so does the bus, so with both losing speed it doesn’t allow him to let the bus in front in order to move right.

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rendel Harris wrote:

         However, I still feel that by maintaining his speed even when he’s clearly seen the indicators and is already admonishing the driver in order to come right up to the rear of the bus, rather than slowing and preparing to pull around it, he is deliberately making the incident look worse than it is for Twitter purposes. Clearly I’m going to be in the minority on this one but that’s my opinion!

         — Rendel Harris

         Fair enough if that is your opinion.  My opinion is that he hasn’t “deliberately” made it look worse than it is.  The reason, he can probably see the driver indicating, you can’t know that for certain, but let’s assume he does because it is a fair assumption after all.  Now, if that were me, I would see the bus starts indicating as it pulls up alongside, and I would assume that the bus will slow down and pull in behind me because that is what I would do, so I would probably try to actually speed up a little to make the bus driver’s life a little easier so that they can pull in behind me that little bit quicker.  If that is making the situation deliberately worse, then that is still the fault of the bus driver for creating the situation in the first place.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rendel Harris wrote:

          he is deliberately making the incident look worse than it is for Twitter purposes.

         — Rendel Harris

         Who cares? Seriously, it doesn’t matter whether he reacts in a way that makes it look worse, because the driving offence has already happened.

         The driver of the massive great bus has already decided to cut in on a vulnerable cyclist in a way that forces him to relinquish right of way and take avoiding action or get squashed. That’s the be all and end all. No matter how well or how early JV decides to get out of the way, the action of the bus driver is already despicable and unacceptable.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Rendel Harris wrote:

     Looks almost indentical to an incident JV posted a while ago, after which he blocked me for suggesting it could be 50/50…sorry Jeremy but I think the same applies here, yes the driver can be accused of cutting in too sharply but s/he was past you and indicating, a very slight drop in speed and a headcheck and signal would have allowed you safely to overtake the bus and carry on with virtually no loss of time. Instead you carried on at the same speed even after the bus cut in and you must have been able to see its indicators, ensuring that you came right up to its inside left corner. It’s almost as if you just wanted something to put on Twitter…

     — Rendel Harris

     Disagree with you here Rendel. Traffic is merging, the bus is overtaking. The driver was aware of JV long before the obverse, and knew they were going to pull in soon. The driver then cuts across funnelling JV into a narrowing restriction. Of course JV is then forced to slow down due to the actions of the driver.

     This is shit dangerous and inconsiderate driving, JV took the action he was forced into. The no casualty outcome was down to JV, in spite of the driver’s chosen course of action

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Captain Badger wrote:

       Looks almost indentical to an incident JV posted a while ago, after which he blocked me for suggesting it could be 50/50…sorry Jeremy but I think the same applies here, yes the driver can be accused of cutting in too sharply but s/he was past you and indicating, a very slight drop in speed and a headcheck and signal would have allowed you safely to overtake the bus and carry on with virtually no loss of time. Instead you carried on at the same speed even after the bus cut in and you must have been able to see its indicators, ensuring that you came right up to its inside left corner. It’s almost as if you just wanted something to put on Twitter…

       — Captain Badger

       Disagree with you here Rendel. Traffic is merging, the bus is overtaking. The driver was aware of JV long before the obverse, and knew they were going to pull in soon. The driver then cuts across funnelling JV into a narrowing restriction. Of course JV is then forced to slow down due to the actions of the driver.

       This is shit dangerous and inconsiderate driving, JV took the action he was forced into. The no casualty outcome was down to JV, in spite of the driver’s chosen course of action

       — Rendel Harris

       Totally agree.  I’m sure there is something in the Highway Code along the lines of “Using the indicator does not mean you have the right to change direction.  It just means you are telling other road users you would like to change direction, if it is safe and clear for you to do so.”  Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

       I’d have been slapping the side of that bus before going round to the driver and telling him exactly how big a twunt he is.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Daveyraveygravey wrote:

         I’d have been slapping the side of that bus before going round to the driver and telling him exactly how big a twunt he is.

         — Daveyraveygravey

         No need the manufacturers have installed a device for use in this situation. The engine stop button.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Rendel Harris wrote:

      …the driver can be accused of cutting in too sharply but s/he was past you and indicating, a very slight drop in speed and a headcheck and signal would have allowed you safely to overtake the bus and carry on with virtually no loss of time.

     — Rendel Harris

     Could he have slowed to flow behind the bus?
     The bus is halfway past JV before the indicator is visible to him. That limits the time he has to respond before the bus pulls in.  He couldn’t have flowed behind, because he wouldn’t know precisely how quickly the bus was stopping. If he braked and moved around without coming to a stop, the bus might have stopped more suddenly and he would go into the back fo the bus.

     Should he have slowed to flow behind the bus?
     The bus is, initially wide and slowing. It is possible the driver knows he has overcooked it and is slowing to allow JV to pass before pulling in. If JV also slows, they reach a stalemate and confusion.  Moreover, the bus driver is the one about to pull into the path of other traffic he is overtaking.  The duty to give way remains with him.

     There is an inherent duty on all of us to avoid collisions, but that does not mean the duty between two vehicle operators is equal.

     Did he slow to flow behind the bus?
     Yes, he did.  That’s what he did. He slowed, but the bus did, too, and Vine had to stop for safety.  If there was a delay in him braking, but that’s because he had to process what is happening (whereas we know in advance it’s a ‘thing’); plus he slows at the same time as the bus, so the conflict appears prolonged. Do you slow every time a vehicle passes you?

     So it’s not 50:50. He does avoid a collision. The bus driver was thoughtless and selfish.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • GMBasix wrote:

        …the driver can be accused of cutting in too sharply but s/he was past you and indicating, a very slight drop in speed and a headcheck and signal would have allowed you safely to overtake the bus and carry on with virtually no loss of time.

       — GMBasix

       Could he have slowed to flow behind the bus?
       The bus is halfway past JV before the indicator is visible to him. That limits the time he has to respond before the bus pulls in.  He couldn’t have flowed behind, because he wouldn’t know precisely how quickly the bus was stopping. If he braked and moved around without coming to a stop, the bus might have stopped more suddenly and he would go into the back fo the bus.

       Should he have slowed to flow behind the bus?
       The bus is, initially wide and slowing. It is possible the driver knows he has overcooked it and is slowing to allow JV to pass before pulling in. If JV also slows, they reach a stalemate and confusion.  Moreover, the bus driver is the one about to pull into the path of other traffic he is overtaking.  The duty to give way remains with him.

       There is an inherent duty on all of us to avoid collisions, but that does not mean the duty between two vehicle operators is equal.

       Did he slow to flow behind the bus?
       Yes, he did.  That’s what he did. He slowed, but the bus did, too, and Vine had to stop for safety.  If there was a delay in him braking, but that’s because he had to process what is happening (whereas we know in advance it’s a ‘thing’); plus he slows at the same time as the bus, so the conflict appears prolonged. Do you slow every time a vehicle passes you?

       So it’s not 50:50. He does avoid a collision. The bus driver was thoughtless and selfish.— Rendel Harris

       agree there is no way he can slow to flow behind the bus, considering both bus and cycle are braking at the same time. He would have to be watching over his right shoulder to be sure there is a gap to move in to, while also watching the bus to ensure he doesn’t slam into the back of it.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I note that, in the time it

         I note that, in the time it took me to compile my thesis, Rendel has meanwhile unequivocally withdrawn his Nigelism and prostrated himself before the board.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • I have nuanced and further

           I have nuanced and further explained my position, not withdrawn it. Maybe I’m wrong – certainly the majority here think I am – but it’s an honest opinion, not one posted simply to provoke a reaction, so I think comparing me to notorious trolls is hardly fair.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           I have nuanced and further explained my position, not withdrawn it. Maybe I’m wrong – certainly the majority here think I am – but it’s an honest opinion, not one posted simply to provoke a reaction, so I think comparing me to notorious trolls is hardly fair.

           — Rendel Harris

           RENDELL IS A TROLL!! 

         • Steve K wrote:

           RENDELL IS A TROLL!! 

           — Steve K

            Is he by golly? Let’s get him! Hope Rendel is OK though?

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           RENDELL IS A TROLL!! 

           — Rendel Harris

            Is he by golly? Let’s get him! Hope Rendel is OK though?

           — Steve K

           Bugger! 🙂

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           RENDELL IS A TROLL!! 

           — Rendel Harris

            Is he by golly? Let’s get him! Hope Rendel is OK though?

           — Steve K

           TWO trolls??? 

         • .

           .

         • They’re coming out of the

           They’re coming out of the goddam walls…

         • When two trolls go to war…

           When two trolls go to war…

         • Steve K wrote:

           I have nuanced and further explained my position, not withdrawn it. Maybe I’m wrong – certainly the majority here think I am – but it’s an honest opinion, not one posted simply to provoke a reaction, so I think comparing me to notorious trolls is hardly fair.

           — Steve K

           RENDELL IS A TROLL!! 

           — Rendel Harris

           Let’s BURN him

         • Boot. On other foot.

           Boot. On other foot.

           Howdya like it?

           Will it change your behaviour?

           Suspect not.

         • Flintshire Boy wrote:

           Boot. On other foot.

           Howdya like it?

           Will it change your behaviour?

           Suspect not.

           — Flintshire Boy

           I’m perfectly happy with it, I have stated my sincerely-held (i.e. not childishly being contrary to provoke a reaction) opinion and others, who know I’m not trolling, have courteously disagreed with me. Why would I have a problem with that?

           If you mean will it stop me calling out obvious trolls like yourself and chums, of course it won’t.

         • I thought (bar my silly post)
           I thought (bar my silly post) that the exchanges put a lie to the accusation from certain trolls that everyone always agrees/can’t disagree politely.

         • doesnt always feel that way

           doesnt always feel that way from where Im sitting,but then maybe Im classed as one of these trolls, so just considered fair game.

         • Flintshire Boy wrote:

           Boot. On other foot.

           Howdya like it?

           Will it change your behaviour?

           Suspect not.

           — Flintshire Boy

           Why, it’s almost like you can’t read a room…..

         • Will you

           Will you

           Ever make comments 

           About articles or reply

           When asked about your comments

           Suspect not

         • AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

           Will you

           Ever make comments 

           About articles or reply

           When asked about your comments

           Suspect not

           — AlsoSomniloquism

           Dude, that’s almost Haiku. Beautiful

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           I have nuanced and further explained my position, not withdrawn it. Maybe I’m wrong – certainly the majority here think I am – but it’s an honest opinion, not one posted simply to provoke a reaction, so I think comparing me to notorious trolls is hardly fair.

           — Rendel Harris

           You’re right. I was teasing.  I certainly don’t think you compare that way, even if I have a different take on the video.

           I certainly distance myself from the memes of the merciless character assassins which must by now be causing untold misery.

         • welcome to the club I dont

           welcome to the club 🙂 I dont think you are wrong on this, people seem to lose the fact that you can express an honest opinion and its just your opinion that people are free to disagree with, as long as they debate respectfully with you, but there seems a competition to want to browbeat people into agreement all the time and unfortunately nuance and the subtlety of these things is lost as you get cast as either in the for or against camp, whereas most things are way more complex than that.

         • I don’t recall people being

           I don’t recall people being anything other than polite to you.

           The browbeating is normally with those with a clear history and MO or a recently joined poster who is being ‘ a bit controversial’ .

         • I was certainly subjected to
           I was certainly subjected to some direct & personal abuse earlier in the year by some individuals, which amounted to telling me to just leave,go away and take my opinions elsewhere,but not in so many words if you follow.

           I dont know if those individuals accounts were then banned as they obviously broke the rules on swearing, but they were mostly infrequent contributors anyway so it’s harder to tell. But I was more disappointed those posts then received several likes,so others certainly agreed with the sentiments even if they didnt post the words themselves.

           And sometimes it feels like theres a mass pile on to be more argumentative than to debate, and some of it feels personal directed really at the person and not what the individual actually had said.

         • Sorry to read that. I usually

           Sorry to read that. I usually remember stuff like that.

           Pile ons occur for the 2 main reason given previously.

           There is very little moderation, so it is a form of ‘self moderation’. As I have said before other places have a flag button and you can give reasons why the post has broken rules. If we had that here, posters would get 2 or 3 warnings then a perma or they would decide to tone down their posts before getting a ban.

           2 or 3 posters in here would not survive a week on somewhere like AVforums.

   • Let’s put you in a different

     Let’s put you in a different scenario then.  You’re doing 65 in your car on the motorway, another car comes alongside you going 68, then indicates and moves in just in front of you to pull over at the junction, slowing down enough that you are forced to slow down and go around, but it’s OK because the other driver has indicated.  That’s OK then is it?  Or would it be better for the other car to slow down, pull in behind you and pull off without  any interaction with you?  And before you say “but that’s different…”, it really isn’t.  The only difference is the road and the speeds, the interaction is identical.  

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • sapperadam wrote:

       Let’s put you in a different scenario then.  You’re doing 65 in your car on the motorway, another car comes alongside you going 68, then indicates and moves in just in front of you to pull over at the junction, slowing down enough that you are forced to slow down and go around, but it’s OK because the other driver has indicated.  That’s OK then is it?  Or would it be better for the other car to slow down, pull in behind you and pull off without  any interaction with you?  And before you say “but that’s different…”, it really isn’t.  The only difference is the road and the speeds, the interaction is identical.  

       — sapperadam

       it is different because in this case the bus was NOT in front of Jeremy when it started moving in. So the analgy you make is more favourable to the overtaking driver, and still everyone would agree it isn’t right.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • I think your analysis of the

     I think your analysis of the facts is simply wrong.

     The indicator is already on by 19secs on the clip, at the very latest, at which point the bus is still alongside and overtaking, not clear ahead.

     So the bus is indicating to cut in in front of the cycle while in the act of overtaking.

     that can’t be allowed, surely?

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. In fairness, many of the

   In fairness, many of the comments have JV’s back

   By the way, did I mention my 3000th post yesterday?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Captain Badger wrote:

     In fairness, many of the comments have JVs back

     By the way, did I mention my 3000th post yesterday?

     — Captain Badger

     Did you have a little party?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • hawkinspeter wrote:

       ….

       Did you have a little party?

       — hawkinspeter

       A quiet private affair.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Captain Badger wrote:

         A quiet private affair.

         — Captain Badger

         As the bishop said to the actress

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           A quiet private affair.

           — hawkinspeter

           As the bishop said to the actress

           — Captain Badger

           That’s my story and I’m sticking to it….

   • If you replace the bike with
     If you replace the bike with a car and imagine a similar situation of a vehicle overtaking just to immediately pull in and stop in front , would that be acceptable? I think most would say it is not.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • squidgy wrote:

       If you replace the bike with a car and imagine a similar situation of a vehicle overtaking just to immediately pull in and stop in front , would that be acceptable? I think most would say it is not.

       — squidgy

       The acid test is ‘Would you have done that to a police motorbike?’

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • squidgy wrote:

       If you replace the bike with a car and imagine a similar situation of a vehicle overtaking just to immediately pull in and stop in front , would that be acceptable? I think most would say it is not.

       — squidgy

       Indeed

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • squidgy wrote:

       If you replace the bike with a car and imagine a similar situation of a vehicle overtaking just to immediately pull in and stop in front , would that be acceptable? I think most would say it is not.

       — squidgy

       But it wasn’t a car it was bike, so it’s alright. Why can’t you see that? (tongue firmly in cheek).

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • iandusud wrote:

         But it wasn’t a car it was bike, so it’s alright. Why can’t you see that? (tongue firmly in cheek).

         — iandusud

         That is, essentially, what some of the commenters on the Twitter thread are saying, but without their tongue being in their cheek. They do genuinely seem to believe that because the cycle lane has ended (or at least is not marked at that point) and there is a bus stop, that the bicycle is required to give way to the bus in those circumstances. 

         Thus ignoring the whole Highway Code inconvenience of not coming into conflict with other road users and not cutting in on vehicles on your left. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Jetmans Dad wrote:

           But it wasn’t a car it was bike, so it’s alright. Why can’t you see that? (tongue firmly in cheek).

           — Jetmans Dad

           That is, essentially, what some of the commenters on the Twitter thread are saying, but without their tongue being in their cheek. They do genuinely seem to believe that because the cycle lane has ended (or at least is not marked at that point) and there is a bus stop, that the bicycle is required to give way to the bus in those circumstances. 

           Thus ignoring the whole Highway Code inconvenience of not coming into conflict with other road users and not cutting in on vehicles on your left. 

           — iandusud

           I’m not sure of the exact law on this but suspect you’re right – that we have some magic where the cycle lane winks out of existence for the length of the bus stop. In my opinion the root causes of the problem here are:

           • Poor infrastructure – this is a “protected” lane of the “do it at minimum extra cost and certainly without actually doing any digging” kind. Essentially self-contradictory (e.g. if needed it shouldn’t be intermittent).
             TBH I consider ways of “fixing” these a waste of cash over just doing these properly.
           • The “wavy markings” rule before pedestrian crossings just adds to the issues here. (Aside – the rules around those are peculiar and could do with a review).
           • Lack of understanding by drivers of the “cycle lane is another lane”.  This one is marked as a “mandatory cycle lane” so it definitely is. Maybe some refresher courses for drivers to keep them up-to-date would be a good idea…?

3. My no doubt unpopular take on
   My no doubt unpopular take on the Vine video was he made his position far worse than it needed to be, by riding into that vanishing gap like he did. Which I’ve said before theres a part of me that thinks he does so deliberately to create this kind of content he can share on his social media channels and create more of a fuss about.

   Basically if I’m riding that lane, and you can debate for sure whether the bus driver is being considerate of Vine for overtaking & stopping, but we dont know if the bus was already planning to stop or someone pressed the stop button part way through as they passed each other,the bus cant slam on the brakes.

   All you can then do as a cyclist in that situation is deal with the hand you are being dealt, and as soon as that indicator is on, I know what the bus is going to do, cheers bus driver thanks a bundle not going on my Christmas card list, but I dont carry on riding as if the bus is going to bail out of what its doing at the last second, I dont want to be trapped on the inside of a bus, I’m going to quick shoulder check behind the bus, maybe apply a bit of brake though I think just easing off pedalling would create enough speed difference to drop in behind the bus and shift around it’s right hand side and it’s all done in seconds with no aggro at all and we carry on our merry ways.

   The road directly ahead in any case has parked cars and the cycle lane shifts over in the road, so regardless of the bus in this case Vine should have been planning ahead to move over pretty much where the bus starts indicating anyway, which is again shoulder check oh theres something in the way I need to account for,ok they want to stop & I dont I’ll just feed in behind them to make that move.

   I’d certainly not be riding through the bus stop because the road surface is invariably uneven due to bus wear & tear and inevitably covered in diesel/oil deposits with lots of painted slippy lines to fall off on.

   So it’s a subtlety no doubt lost on the twitter mob, that the bus driver wasn’t being that considerate, but that Vine then handled that situation in the wrong way. YMMV on to who you apportion the most blame too as a result.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Awavey wrote:

     . but we dont know if the bus was already planning to stop or someone pressed the stop button part way through as they passed each other,

     — Awavey

     Indicator is on at 18s as the front door is just past Jeremy (check glow in bottom right corner of image). If the bus driver releases the loud pedal when he turns on the indicator, the bus slows and drops in behind Jeremy easily. Instead the bus driver keeps going at the same speed rushing to the bus stop and making a more severe stop, which also makes it look like Jeremy is not slowing, because both road users are on their brakes they stay side by side, while the bus is moving left.

     , I’m going to quick shoulder check behind the bus, maybe apply a bit of brake though I think just easing off pedalling would create enough speed difference to drop in behind the bus and shift around it’s right hand side an.

     — Awavey

     This is clearly nonsense because Jeremy is using his brakes, but as the bus is now braking hard for the bus stop it’s not possible to slide in behind by merely stopping pedaling. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • the bus driver could have

       the bus driver could have chosen to do alot of things differently, but we are not in control of the bus or the driver, we as cyclists in this situation can only react to the circumstances we find ourselves in.And Im saying dont react by riding up the inside of that bus, because thats the wrong choice to make, even if it makes good angry cyclist video content for your social media channel.

       the point about slotting in behind the bus, theres a decision point, quite early in that video, where the bus is going clearly more than a few mph faster than Vine is pedalling at and not braking, to be able to overtake like that, and if you as a rider accept at that point the bus is going to do its thing regardless of you and you release your loud pedal, you will drop enough speed and initially its not that much speed at all to just drop back far enough behind the bus and swing around it before anyone needs to be on the brakes to stop.

       The longer you leave that decision point, and it might only be a matter of seconds, the more likely you need to use the brakes to do the same thing. But for an urban commuter, this stuff should be second nature. Drivers are always putting you in positions like this, in fact lots of Londons roads seem positively tailored to create these kinds of conflicts, where youll need to loop around something thats trying to occupy space in front of you and most London cyclists Ive witnessed become quite adept at handling it.

       Vine had to use the brakes and stop, because at no point does it look like he is even considering he wants to move around the bus, he wants to carry on riding where he is, and let the bus sort itself out, even though as I say the road directly ahead of him doesnt lend itself to maintaining that positioning and he was going to have to move over right and account for vehicles coming up from behind him anyway to ensure he had the space, in which case why be making such a big deal about this.

       and that comes back to this point that alot of his videos he shares and gets alot of social media impressions on, have this style where he rides into situations that he could easily have avoided, that I think most experienced cyclists would have avoided in the same circumstances, theres rarely one Ive seen where Ive thought nope didnt see that coming from a mile out.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Fantastic post Awavey, even I

         Fantastic post Awavey, I couldn’t have put it better myself.

         As the world-famous psychologist Jordan B Peterson writes in his book 12 Rules for life, “Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world” and “Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t.”

         I’d suggest many on this forum would benefit more than most on leafing through its contents, especially the chapters quoted above.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           “Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t.”

           — Nigel Garage

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           Fantastic post Awavey, I couldn’t have put it better myself.

           As the world-famous psychologist Jordan B Peterson writes in his book 12 Rules for life, “Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world” and “Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t.”

           I’d suggest many on this forum would benefit more than most on leafing through its contents, especially the chapters quoted above.

           — Nigel Garage

         • As far as I can tell,

           As far as I can tell, MrForage, your 3 posts have all been excellent.

           Please keep it up.

         • Why are all the people you

           Why are all the people you quote “world Famous” or “top lawyers” Nigel Gar(r)age?  Is that you like to appeal to authority?

         • TBH, he has point about

           TBH, he has point about assuming someone might have more knowledge. However we have had enough input from Boo in his many guises to now know we don’t need to worry. 

         • Seventyone wrote:

           Why are all the people you quote “world Famous” or “top lawyers” Nigel Gar(r)age?  Is that you like to appeal to authority?

           — Seventyone

           This is of course the “world famous” drug addict Jordan Peterson who almost died after going to Russia to be put in a coma in an attempt to come off benzodiazepines…

         • AKA the stupid man’s smart

           AKA the stupid man’s smart person.

         • What a cryptic way to tell us
           Is that a cryptic way of telling us you’re a fan?

         • Admirable empathy.
           Bravo sir.
           Admirable empathy.

           Bravo sir.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Admirable empathy. Bravo sir.

           — Rich_cb

           Which part of my comment demonstrates a lack of empathy?

           I do feel sorry that his judgement and critical thinking were so impaired that he felt that rather than having gold standard medical treatment for drug addiction in Canada he decided to go to Russia and pay for a something no respectable medical professional in the UK or Canada would recommend. 
            

           As someone who promoted himself as a paragon of logical thinking this demonstrated he was a hypocrite or a fool who lacked the intellectual rigour he claimed. 

         • The palpable glee when
           The palpable glee when posting about someone else’s misfortune is demonstration enough.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           The palpable glee when posting about someone else’s misfortune is demonstration enough.

           — Rich_cb

           I am surprised because your comments are usually more informed. 

           You must have one of those internet connections that allows you to detect emotion. 

         • If you intended your post(s)
           If you intended your post(s) to convey empathy for another human being going through a difficult time you may want to work on your choice of language.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           If you intended your post(s) to convey empathy for another human being going through a difficult time you may want to work on your choice of language.

           — Rich_cb

           I didn’t intend my posts to convey empathy; I intended them to point out the error in Nigel’s promotion of Peterson as a great thinker whose rules for life are an exemplar of human behaviour, when evidently they are not as he himself is incapable of living by them.

           You are the one who decided, bizarrely, to decide what degree of empathy I felt towards him based on this.  

           I expected better. 

         • If you want to criticise
           If you want to criticise Peterson’s work then go ahead but you didn’t do that in your first post you just criticised him personally based on, what I imagine, was a pretty miserable episode in his life.

           I criticised the lack of empathy in that approach. Let’s all try and be nicer.

           I’m not a huge fan of Peterson, he debates well and is able to cut through the noise around some subjects quite effectively but I often find his tone quite moralising and I’m dubious of any advice system that has religious belief at its core.

           I haven’t actually read ’12 Rules for Life’ though so can’t comment on that specifically.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           If you want to criticise Peterson’s work then go ahead but you didn’t do that in your first post you just criticised him personally based on, what I imagine, was a pretty miserable episode in his life. I criticised the lack of empathy in that approach. Let’s all try and be nicer. I’m not a huge fan of Peterson, he debates well and is able to cut through the noise around some subjects quite effectively but I often find his tone quite moralising and I’m dubious of any advice system that has religious belief at its core. I haven’t actually read ’12 Rules for Life’ though so can’t comment on that specifically.

           — Rich_cb

           Completely agree Rich, it was a completely uncalled for adhominem attack. People would do well to follow your lead in exemplifying grace, good manners and empathy, as you’re a role model for others to follow.

           Peterson’s book isn’t really aimed at you, but is a kind of advice manual for people who need to grow up and adopt responsibilities. Think – for example – about the conversations about obesity and how some people refuse to admit the onus is on individual responsibility for self-improvement.

           I think he (inadvertently) came into the public eye in the UK when he interviewed with Cathy Newman a few years back now when discussing the book – she was unnecessarily hostile and it completely backfired in her face. Definitely worth a watch if you haven’t seen it before.

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           Peterson’s book isn’t really aimed at you, but is a kind of advice manual for people who need to grow up and adopt responsibilities.

           — Nigel Garage

           Given that a person is setting himself up as an expert on how to live one’s life and telling people to accept responsibility, the fact that said person was so out of control of his own life that he became addicted to prescription drugs and sought a dangerous and foolish solution to giving them up seems entirely relevant. Now, I personally have much sympathy with those facing the scourge of addiction, be it to drugs, alcohol, food, gambling or whatever, and particularly so in Mr Peterson’s case where a number of tragic circumstances certainly contributed to his downward spiral. However, as you, Nigel, insist that basically everything’s down to personal responsibility and you have no patience with people who can’t buck up and pull themselves together, Mr Peterson must surely come into that category. You wouldn’t exclude him from your scorn for those who don’t adhere to your lofty standards just because he happens to be in accordance with your political views, would you? That would be rank hypocrisy.

         • So will you also make the

           So will you also make the same lack of empathy approach to people who have bodyshamed on this board? Just asking as you picked on stomec but not on others. 

         • I think we should treat all
           I think we should treat all people with empathy.

           There but for the grace of god.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           I’m not a huge fan of Peterson, he debates well and is able to cut through the noise around some subjects quite effectively but I often find his tone quite moralising and I’m dubious of any advice system that has religious belief at its core. I haven’t actually read ’12 Rules for Life’ though so can’t comment on that specifically.

           — Rich_cb

           I suspect that saying he’s moralising in some of those works is like complaining the Pope goes on about Catholicism a bit – that’s the point. As with all academics if he hadn’t courted some controversy he’d still be marking term papers somewhere and the world would be none the wiser.

         • This article is a good

           This article is a good summary of why mentioning Peterson’s addiction is legitimate when discussing his work. 

           I agree we should all be nicer however; seeing fewer insults based on people’s height and body size on this website would be good, wouldn’t it?
            

           https://readpassage.com/jordan-petersons-handling-of-addiction-is-fair-game-for-critique/

            

         • I agree.
           I agree.

           I would also add fewer insults based on political affiliation.

           I agree that sometimes an author’s personal circumstances are valid when discussing their work but it should be in exceptional circumstances only IMHO.

           Play the ball and not the man (equally applicable to other genders).

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           I agree. I would also add fewer insults based on political affiliation. I agree that sometimes an author’s personal circumstances are valid when discussing their work but it should be in exceptional circumstances only IMHO. Play the ball and not the man (equally applicable to other genders).

           — Rich_cb

           Yes, thank you and I hope you had some good cycling this weekend!

         • Think you have overreached on
           Think you have overreached on this one.

         • I think you forgot who you

           I think you forgot who you were logged on as Rich 🙂

         • I’m always intrigued by which
           I’m always intrigued by which posters make sock puppet accusations.

           Thou dost protest too much methinks.

         • Excellent. Much more in

           Excellent. Much more in keeping with this account’s persona.

       • I agree that Jeremy could

         I agree that Jeremy could have anticipated and allowed the bus to pull in, but I don’t think that excuses the poor anticipation and driving of the bus driver.

         The advantage to the bus and passengers of overtaking and pulling in front of Jeremy to reach the bus stop would only grant them a second or two at most whilst it would cause Jeremy a similar slight delay, but more importantly forces him to perform an overtake maneouvre which is not entirely without risk.

         If the bus driver slows and slots in behind Jeremy, then Jeremy is not delayed at all and similarly does not have to perform any corrective action. The bus driver would still be indicating and slowing, so there is hardly any detriment to their driving.

         Whether or not Jeremy is playing up these incidents is another question which I don’t have a strong opinion on but his riding doesn’t immediately suggest that to me.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Awavey wrote:

         the point about slotting in behind the bus, theres a decision point, quite early in that video, where the bus is going clearly more than a few mph faster than Vine is pedalling at and not braking, to be able to overtake like that, and if you as a rider accept at that point the bus is going to do its thing regardless of you and you release your loud pedal, you will drop enough speed and initially its not that much speed at all to just drop back far enough behind the bus and swing around it before anyone needs to be on the brakes to stop.

         — Awavey

         anyone who moves out behind the bus, just before it brakes hard with a need to chack over their shoulder is likely to get an extreme close up of the back of the bus.

         Jeremy would have seen the bus indicate at 19s, and was on his brakes by 22s, so there is not a lot of time where he could have been on the brakes when he wasn’t.

         I would suggest being behind a bus by only 1 or 2 metres when we know it is definately going to stop may be no safer than being where he was. I don’t think Jeremy was particularly close to being in collision. Your argument is essentially that your response to the bad driving in order to avoid impact, would have been much better than jeremy’s response (which also avoided collision) So much better that the course of action should be taken instinctively without consideration.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Awavey wrote:

     we dont know if the bus was already planning to stop or someone pressed the stop button part way through as they passed each other

     — Awavey

     I don’t see that this is really relevant. If someone pressed the button too late for the bus to stop safely, then tough – it shouldn’t stop, and you’ll have to wait until the next stop. Press the damn button earlier.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • the point that makes it

       the point that makes it relevant is that we dont know what the bus driver was thinking as to the decisions & choices they made, they are essentially an NPC in gaming terms following a set scenario but we dont know what external or internal factors were making them do certain things, so we cant say with certainty what they should have done differently, other than to say they should have been more considerate to other road users.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • But then you might equally

         But then you might equally well have said ‘but we don’t know whether the bus driver was distracted by thinking about what they were going to have for dinner, and only realised the stop was there too late’. It’s not an excuse for pulling in in that situation.

         At the end of the day, if it’s not safe to pull in, they shouldn’t be stopping.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Well argued. Thank you.

     Well argued. Thank you.

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. Bus at fault.  Could see JV

   Bus at fault.  Could see JV ahead, all the driver had to do was ease off on the accelerator (not even apply the brake, probably) and let JV past then pull in.

   I don’t entirely understand the comments along the lines of “Maybe someone pressed the button too late so he just had to pull in immediately”.  In that case, then – well – he couldn’t because there was a bike in the way and even the bus timetable isn’t a licence to squash people.

   And I don’t know if things are different in That There London, but if you press the button too late for a stop, here in Bristol, well then hard luck and most of the time you’ll just be getting off at the next stop.

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. Jeremy Vine at fault. Bus

   Jeremy Vine at fault. Bus goes past him then starts to indicate. He should have braked had a look and gone round. 

   IMO a bus full of people has priority over individual travellers. it makes public transport work better

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • But, the bus had not gone
     But, the bus had not gone past him, it was alongside him. The driver should have checked his blind spots before moving across.

     Also where does a vehicles capacity come in to this?

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Incorrect. Any vehicle
     Incorrect. Any vehicle cannot change lane into the path of another vehicle.

     If your manoveur causes another vehicle to have to brake then that is a bad manoveur.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • He has been quiet recently.

       He has been quiet recently. Maybe the police finally caught Nic going around the wrong way on a mini roundabout.

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • nicmason wrote:

     Jeremy Vine at fault. Bus goes past him then starts to indicate. He should have braked had a look and gone round. 

     IMO a bus full of people has priority over individual travellers. it makes public transport work better

     — nicmason

     bus is beside him and starts to indicate, not in front by any stretch of the imagination. Considering the bus driver wishes to stop and the cyclist wishes to continue it makes most sense for the one who intendeds to stop anyway to slow down and pull in behind. It may even save fuel which is clearly a good thing.

     Unfortunately for you, priority on the roads is notdetermined by who is more important as assessed by multiple different road users on the scene, but but some clear easy to understand rules of the road. It has a snappy name – the highway code (not because most drivers find it undecipherable, the other meaning of code – a systematic collection of laws or statutes)

     In this code there are explicit instructions not to overtake other roads users where it would lead to conflict such as turning left across their path or pulling in. Rule 167

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • nicmason wrote:

     IMO a bus full of people has priority over individual travellers. it makes public transport work better

     — nicmason

     It doesn’t have priority. This particular opinion of yours doesn’t count because it conflicts with the Highway Code. Overtaking vehicles should make sure their overtake is safe and appropriate. it saves lives.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • That’s your mistake there. We

       That’s your mistake there. We can’t adduce the highway code as none of us are lawyers.

       Although we are supposed to know and apply the highway code to pass our test and to use the roads subsequently.And avoid prosecution.

        Perhaps ‘I’m not a lawyer’ is a defence though ?

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • IMO one person getting off at

     IMO one person getting off at a stop has meant the rest of the passengers are now delayed neccesarily. He should have done the corrent thing and waiting until the end of the route. Afterall according to you,  one persons right to get to their destination should not be priority ahead of 10 others, even if any delay is only seconds. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • nicmason wrote:

     Jeremy Vine at fault…..

     — nicmason

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • nicmason wrote:

     Jeremy Vine at fault. Bus goes past him then starts to indicate. He should have braked had a look and gone round. 

     — nicmason

     This is a blatant and deliberate lie. The bus was not past him when it started to indicate and pull in. The fact that you have to lie in order to claim the JV was at fault makes it obvious that you know he wasn’t.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • if I’m cycling and a bus

       if I’m cycling and a bus appears beside me and starts indicating as it passes I have two choices.

       Choice 1 get my copy of the highway code  out and double check I have right of way  and then carry on cycling into a closing gap and be suprised at the outcome.

       Choice 2. Bit of brake check behind me move out go past the bus.

       its called traffic. You should try it.

        

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • nicmason wrote:

         if I’m cycling and a bus appears beside me and starts indicating as it passes I have two choices.

         Choice 1 get my copy of the highway code  out and double check I have right of way  and then carry on cycling into a closing gap and be suprised at the outcome.

         Choice 2. Bit of brake check behind me move out go past the bus.

         its called traffic. You should try it.

         — nicmason

         Reductive sarcasm usually misses the nuance that precedes it.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • if you where a stick of rock

           if you where a stick of rock it would say pedant all the way through.

         • nicmason wrote:

           if you where a stick of rock it would say pedant all the way through.

           — nicmason

           Feel better for getting that off your chest?

         • thesaurus out of reach behind

           thesaurus out of reach behind the toilet ?

       • nicmason wrote:

         if I’m cycling and a bus appears beside me and starts indicating as it passes I have two choices.

         Choice 1 get my copy of the highway code  out and double check I have right of way  and then carry on cycling into a closing gap and be suprised at the outcome.

         Choice 2. Bit of brake check behind me move out go past the bus.

         its called traffic. You should try it.

         — nicmason

         If I’m driving a bus and I see a cyclist ahead as I’m approaching a bus stop, I have at least two choices:

         1. remember my driving training and slow down so that I can slip behind the cyclist to pull in at the bus stop
         2. get my copy of the Daily Fail, read about how LTNs are destroying lives and decide to punish the red light jumping cyclist by pulling alongside and trying to crush him against the kerb like the insect that he is

         That’s called a stupid argument – you should recognise it

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • nicmason wrote:

         Choice 1 get my copy of the highway code  out and double check I have right of way  and then carry on cycling into a closing gap and be suprised at the outcome.

         — nicmason

         Surprised and angry are two different things. I don’t think anyone here is surprised that the bus driver is arrogant and dangerous enough to simply bully the cyclist out of his way, but so what? He is still absolutely in the wrong and he absolutely should be castigated for it. 
         It has also been spotted that you’re moving the goal posts. You lied and said the bus was past him not just to defend the driver but to say JV was at fault. JV was not at fault for anything. He avoided the collision that the bus driver tried to have.

         its called traffic. You should try it.

         “It’s traffic” is not and cannot be an excuse for dangerous driving that puts vulnerable road users at risk. That’s an insane point of view. If you were mugged at knife point then “It’s called London, mate” would not be an acceptable defence of the muggers, would it?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Wingguy wrote:

           . If you were mugged at knife point then “It’s called London, mate” would not be an acceptable defence of the muggers, would it?

           — Wingguy

           For this pearl I’m prepared to overlook that you should obv be called Doorguy. Swlxder will be along in a minute.

   • nicmason wrote:

     Jeremy Vine at fault. Bus goes past him then starts to indicate. He should have braked had a look and gone round. 

     IMO a bus full of people has priority over individual travellers. it makes public transport work better

     — nicmason

     Generally, I’d agree that a bus full of people should be given more consideration, but there was no need for the bus driver to overtake Jeremy. Your comment about how he should have braked proves the point that the bus driver was forcing another road user to brake – that’s just poor driving.

     If you look at optimising traffic flow, then you’d want the vast majority of vehicles to be able to move smoothly in a straight line, but if instead there was priority given to vehicles pulling-in/turning left, then you end up with a choppy flow of traffic whereby some vehicles (or Jeremy in this case) are slowing down, pulling out, then resuming travelling. That results in two vehicles performing maneouvres rather than just one if the bus driver had simply slowed as they saw Jeremy and hadn’t overtaken.

     I think you’re wrong about Jeremy being at fault – he was continuing straight in his lane. He could possibly have anticipated the bus driver’s mistake earlier, but as it was, Jeremy avoided any collision. The bus driver meanwhile overtook when they presumably knew they were about to be pulling in and to compound the error, they did pull in when they could clearly see a cyclist would be squeezed against the kerb.

     Currently, road laws do not prioritise busses and there’s a reasonable argument that they should be (similar to how emergency vehicles are prioritised) but that doesn’t excuse endangering other road users.

     When cycling, I quite often wave out busses so they can pull out from bus stops (as opposed to just overtaking them) as that’s going to be a bigger delay to them in heavy traffic. There’s little advantage to be had by the passengers when the bus is coming to a stop.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • hawkinspeter wrote:

       Generally, I’d agree that a bus full of people should be given more consideration…

       When cycling, I quite often wave out busses so they can pull out from bus stops 

       — hawkinspeter

       And this links to the heart of the problem at times. The Highway Code recommends giving consideration to others in various circumstances; that does not equate to those others taking that consideration for granted.

       Rule 223 says, “Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops.”
       It does not tell bus drivers they may set off presuming upon others in the traffic to give priority.

       In some circumstances, JV might have considered [and dismissed] allowing the bus driver to move ahead and stop; but there are several reasons why that might not be appropriate or possible.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • GMBasix wrote:

         Generally, I’d agree that a bus full of people should be given more consideration…

         When cycling, I quite often wave out busses so they can pull out from bus stops 

         — GMBasix

         And this links to the heart of the problem at times. The Highway Code recommends giving consideration to others in various circumstances; that does not equate to those others taking that consideration for granted.

         Rule 223 says, “Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops.”
         It does not tell bus drivers they may set off presuming upon others in the traffic to give priority.

         In some circumstances, JV might have considered [and dismissed] allowing the bus driver to move ahead and stop; but there are several reasons why that might not be appropriate or possible.

         — hawkinspeter

         Actually I’d have a lot more sympathy for the bus pulling out in front of Jeremy because

         a) efficiency – bus and all passengers are more likely to save time

         b) safety -fewer overtakes Jeremy does not have to go out round the bus and then be subsequently passed by the bus

         c) ease – simply stopping pedalling is likely to be sufficient to let an accelerating bus in front, rather than letting a decelerating bus get in front, which requires heavy braking.

         All this supposes the bus pulling out at the distance which would be considered inconsderate rather than dangerous.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • But it remains the moving

           But it remains the moving traffic’s gift to give, not the emerging vehicle’s right to take.

         • Other traffic permitting, I

           Other traffic permitting, I normally pull out to overtake buses at stops with plenty of space and time. However if they then indicate to pull out before I get there, I will actually slot back in behind them. I will provisio that I’m normally in “shared use” bus lanes at the time so the next bus stop I will more then likely complete the overtake but would prefer the bus to be in front then feet behind me usually. 

     • hawkinspeter wrote:

       Currently, road laws do not prioritise busses

       — hawkinspeter

       Bus lanes prioritise busses when there is reason and space to do so.

       Otherwise they have no special priority in general except considerate road users such as you..

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • lonpfrb wrote:

         Currently, road laws do not prioritise busses

         — lonpfrb Bus lanes prioritise busses when there is reason and space to do so.

         Otherwise they have no special priority in general except considerate road users such as you..— hawkinspeter

         Another one of my annoyances with almost all “infrastructure” in the UK is that it specifically makes use of bus lanes (same tarmac, two modes!). Round Edinburgh at least there are almost no “permanent” e.g. 24 hour bus lanes. So hey presto – another cycling “facility” which doesn’t just disappear in space (at junctions) but also winks out of existence outside of rush hour and at weekends!

         Plus almost all allow parking in them outside of operation and indeed some have specifically marked parking places.

         I know plenty here are happy with bus lanes as cycle lanes in general but do these “features” not make this look like another “extra lane for the same paint” exercise?

         https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/31/bus-lanes-provide-good-conditions-for-cycling

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           Another one of my annoyances with almost all “infrastructure” in the UK is that it specifically makes use of bus lanes (same tarmac, two modes!). Round Edinburgh at least there are almost no “permanent” e.g. 24 hour bus lanes. So hey presto – another cycling “facility” which doesn’t just disappear in space (at junctions) but also winks out of existence outside of rush hour and at weekends!

           — chrisonatrike

           At rush hour we get to share a moonscape with buses but I’d rather have that than nothing – at least the lane is wide and whilst outside city centres, even at peak times they’re not as busy as the gridlocked rest of the road, and your average LRT driver is better than the average phone operator at the wheel of each car.

           Mind you. 6.27 pm is probably the most dangerous time to be on the road as all the arseholes who are unwilling to share public transport with their inferiors dive into the bus lane.

         • In Reading taxis are allowed

           In Reading taxis are allowed in bus lanes, definitely most of them.  The drivers of taxis are much more impatient than those of buses, some of whom, even though they seem to still drive like they are in their small family runabout not an 8 1/2 tonne behemoth, do occasionally realise that they are going to have to stop in a bit anyway.

           Though of course as JV showed, and I have suffered a few of those myself, some just cannot stop it with the impatience or sense of entitlement.

         • I believe its a hackney/black

           I believe its a hackney/black cab exemption thing again that allows them to use bus lanes in general, of course its down to enforcement to prevent minicabs doing the same thing.

   • nicmason wrote:

     Jeremy Vine at fault. Bus goes past him then starts to indicate. He should have braked had a look and gone round. 

     IMO a bus full of people has priority over individual travellers. it makes public transport work better

     — nicmason

     IMO a board full of commenters has priority over individual contrarians. You should have paused, re-read your comment, and not posted it. It makes the internet work better.

     [I assume that’s how this works…]

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I thefre had been another

     If there had been another cyclist behind JV, and he had braked, so that the second cyclist hit JV, who would have been at fault nicmason?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • 1.  he only needs to brake

       1.  he only needs to brake gently  

       2 if you cycle or drive  into the back of someone its almost always going to be your fault. bikes are no different to cars . if you’re too close to stop you’re too close. 

       I have been crashed into by someone who was much more concerned with their own journey than what was happening around them and they snapped off my derailleur. I was none to pleased. maybe I should have demanded their insurnace details.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • nicmason wrote:

         1.  he only needs to brake gently  

         2 if you cycle or drive  into the back of someone its almost always going to be your fault. bikes are no different to cars . if you’re too close to stop you’re too close. 

         I have been crashed into by someone who was much more concerned with their own journey than what was happening around them and they snapped off my derailleur. I was none to pleased. maybe I should have demanded their insurnace details.

         — nicmason

         1. or harder. or really hard. or maybe he did brake but so did the bus, so they stayed level.

         2. … as the bus pulls into the side of him and he brakes enough to miss it and keep behind.

         You’re saying all the things that JV could have done, and it turns out, did; while holding back on the fundamental criticism that the bus driver went to pass another vehicle, knowing (or liable to know) that he was closely approaching a bus stop.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • I always try to show

     I always try to show consideration to buses but I won’t be bullied into doing so.

     Log In or Register to post comments

6. Well with no thanks to the

   Well with no thanks to the blood bags, but at last we’ll be seeing the back of Valverde at some point this century.. mercifully he doesn’t speak English which means there’s less chance of him popping up on any channels I watch at least. He  can EPO off as far as I’m concerned. 

    

    

   And I’d usually not say anything at all if not nice.. but this fella is a throwback to darker Dr Fuentes days and should have been banned a long time ago.

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. I am not sure you can count

   I am not sure you can count the time Valverde was banned for cheating as time spent in the pro peloton. 

   Even when caught bang to rights he was shameless in his attempts to overturn the ban.

   Should we celebrate a man like that?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • No we shouldn’t.

     No we shouldn’t.

     Log In or Register to post comments

8. Good to see the usual

   Good to see the usual groupthink roadcc suspects getting their typing fingers out as they wonder why there are other people using their roads. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • nicmason wrote:

     Good to see the usual groupthink roadcc suspects getting their typing fingers out as they wonder why there are other people using their roads. 

     — nicmason

     You keep using the word “groupthink”, but it does not mean the same as a consensus of opinion.

     I replied to your previous comment with my thoughts and if you think that I am incorrect, then I would welcome any corrections.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Yes, I really don’t get this

       Yes, I really don’t get this whole ‘group think’.  Who’d have thought that on a website aimed at cyclists, you have a lot of people with a similar view of cycling.  It’s a bit like going on a Crystal Palace website and being suprised everyone seems to support Crystal Palace…

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • if you think your views

         if you think your views represent all cyclists I’m amazed more arent having avoidable accidents.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • nicmason wrote:

           if you think your views represent all cyclists I’m amazed more arent having avoidable accidents.

           — nicmason

           Would you like to point to one of my stated views would lead to avoidable accidents?  

         • Steve K wrote:

           if you think your views represent all cyclists I’m amazed more arent having avoidable accidents.

           — Steve K

           Would you like to point to one of my stated views would lead to avoidable accidents?  

           — nicmason

           That people are allowed to ride bikes?

       • Steve K wrote:

         Yes, I really don’t get this whole ‘group think’.  Who’d have thought that on a website aimed at cyclists, you have a lot of people with a similar view of cycling.  It’s a bit like going on a Crystal Palace website and being suprised everyone seems to support Crystal Palace…

         — Steve K

         It’s not just that though. The whole issue with ‘groupthink’ is that people are afraid to put across differing viewpoints and to put forward novel ideas. Meanwhile, on road.cc, there’s a whole bunch of differing viewpoints and there’s quite often novel ideas being floated.

         Playing the ‘groupthink’ card just sounds like dog whistles to me.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Is Rendel still in the

         Is Rendel still in the groupthink club ? Or is he out ? Well, we can discuss tomorrow.

         We meet the first Friday of every month in the parish hall to discuss our groupthink approach on road.cc. Please bring cake.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • hirsute wrote:

           Is Rendel still in the groupthink club ? Or is he out ? Well, we can discuss tomorrow.

           We meet the first Friday of every month in the parish hall to discuss our groupthink approach on road.cc. Please bring cake.

           — hirsute

           Should we all bring the same cake?

         • We need a nut free cake and a

           We need a nut free cake and a gluten free cake plus a normal one as a minimum.

         • hirsute wrote:

           We need a nut free cake and a gluten free cake plus a normal one as a minimum.

           — hirsute

           Can we have a gluten-free acorn one as well please?

         • I *think* acorns are seeds

           I *think* acorns are seeds not nuts so that would be a good one to have.

         • hirsute wrote:

           I *think* acorns are seeds not nuts so that would be a good one to have.

           — hirsute

           From https://www.anaphylaxis.org.uk/knowledgebase/tree-nut-allergy-acorns/

           Acorns

           Parents of children with allergy to tree nuts (such as walnuts, almonds, Brazils or cashew) have occasionally asked if their child would be likely to have an allergic reaction while playing with acorns.

           The worldwide medical literature contains a few reports of people suffering severe allergic reactions after eating acorns. We are not aware of any research studies or case reports of allergic reactions associated with skin exposure to acorns in people with nut allergy.

           Acorns belong to the plant family called Fagaceae. This family is different to those of tree nuts. The proteins that cause allergy in acorns are different to those that produce allergy to tree nuts or peanuts.

           Our expert medical reviewer tells us: “I have seen vast numbers of children with nut and peanut allergies but none has ever reported reactions to playing with acorns.”

           To confuse matters, botanically acorns are oak tree nuts.

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           To confuse matters, botanically acorns are oak tree nuts.

           — hawkinspeter

           Botanically, aren’t most of the things we think of as nuts, not actually nuts – eg Brazil nuts and peanuts.

         • hirsute wrote:

           We need a nut free cake and a gluten free cake plus a normal one as a minimum.

           — hirsute

           Don’t!! You Know Who will feel like it’s a dig at him.

         • GMBasix wrote:

           Is Rendel still in the groupthink club ? Or is he out ? Well, we can discuss tomorrow.

           We meet the first Friday of every month in the parish hall to discuss our groupthink approach on road.cc. Please bring cake.

           — GMBasix

           Should we all bring the same cake?

           — hirsute

           You should know – we shouldn’t have to tell you 😉

         • GMBasix wrote:

           Should we all bring the same cake?

           — GMBasix

           Hmm, you mean Quantum Cake that we may all have, so long as nobody opens the tin to look at it, or do you mean the same kind of group-cake?

         • Sorry, we finished early.
           Sorry, we finished early.
           See you next month.
           Mince pies or stollen maybe acceptable for December.

         • The cake is a lie.

           The cake is a lie.

         • Hang on, i thought that

           Hang on, i thought that meeting was only for paid up members of the evil cycling lobbying/mafia group.  How dare you go around advertising it?  We might get all sorts of people coming and spying on our evil plans for world domination….

         • World domination is next door

           World domination is next door.  There was a room change.

         • hirsute wrote:

           Is Rendel still in the groupthink club ? Or is he out ? Well, we can discuss tomorrow.

           — hirsute

           He’s been given a suspension. If enough people sign a petition he’ll face a recall.

         • I demand that the discplinary

           I demand that the disciplinary system be suspended and replaced by an enquiry into its operations headed by myself.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           I demand that the discplinary system be suspended and replaced by an enquiry into its operations headed by myself.

           — Rendel Harris

           You say that now, but by tomorrow?

         • Anyhow, you have done the
           Anyhow, you have done the honourable thing and resigned !

         • hirsute wrote:

           Is Rendel still in the groupthink club ? Or is he out ? Well, we can discuss tomorrow.

           We meet the first Friday of every month in the parish hall to discuss our groupthink approach on road.cc. Please bring cake.

           — hirsute

           Rendel’s ok.  But that Rendell bloke is definitely out.

         • Good, Rendells are splitters,

           Good, Rendells are splitters, well known for it.

         • hirsute wrote:

           Is Rendel still in the groupthink club ? Or is he out ? Well, we can discuss tomorrow.

           …

           — hirsute

           No need to discuss it. We already know what we think. Don’t we….

     • I disagree with your opinion

       I disagree with your opinion about optimising traffic flow. For me the bus has priority and I will always go round it. Theres a chorus of highway code and rule waving going on here  (as usual). Vine cycled himself into a problem by not paying attention to what was developing around him. that may not be in the rule book but it does feature in life skills under common sense.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • nicmason wrote:

         I disagree with your opinion about optimising traffic flow. For me the bus has priority and I will always go round it. Theres a chorus of highway code and rule waving going on here  (as usual). Vine cycled himself into a problem by not paying attention to what was developing around him. that may not be in the rule book but it does feature in life skills under common sense.

         — nicmason

         Wait – so you’re saying that sometimes it might be safer / expedient to ignore the “must” parts of the Highway Code? Are you one of those cyclists who sometimes goes through red lights for safety reasons or because they don’t recognise bicycles? Or are those not the “life skills under common sense” you are looking for? Move along…

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Well mini-roundabouts can be

           Well mini-roundabouts can be ignored.

       • nicmason wrote:

         I disagree with your opinion about optimising traffic flow. For me the bus has priority and I will always go round it. Theres a chorus of highway code and rule waving going on here  (as usual). Vine cycled himself into a problem by not paying attention to what was developing around him. that may not be in the rule book but it does feature in life skills under common sense.

         — nicmason

         In my view, if we do not call out driving such as that by the bus driver, we will encourage an attitude from drivers that cyclists will always give way to them (which, from your posts, seems to be your view) and that will lead to dangerous driving and cause avoidable accidents.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • nicmason wrote:

         I disagree with your opinion about optimising traffic flow. For me the bus has priority and I will always go round it. Theres a chorus of highway code and rule waving going on here  (as usual). Vine cycled himself into a problem by not paying attention to what was developing around him. that may not be in the rule book but it does feature in life skills under common sense.

         — nicmason

         I generally agree with giving busses extra consideration, but that shouldn’t excuse ill-thought overtakes. The situation was created by that poor overtake and was unnecessary whether or not you consider Highway Code rules. How Vine responded is debatable, but if the bus driver had taken more care, then Vine would have been denied a tweeting opportunity.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • nicmason wrote:

         I disagree with your opinion about optimising traffic flow. For me the bus has priority and I will always go round it. Theres a chorus of highway code and rule waving going on here  (as usual). Vine cycled himself into a problem by not paying attention to what was developing around him. that may not be in the rule book but it does feature in life skills under common sense.

         — nicmason

         “How could Vine have avoided this conflict?” and “Who was in the wrong?” are different questions.

         Regardless of your repeated statements that the bus driver had priority, he didn’t. He was the overtaking vehicle and had the duty to give consideration to the other vehicle, regardless of what either’s purpose is. That doesn’t prevent Vine from braking to avoid a colission, which he did, and nobody is asserting that he should plough on regardless.

         The bus driver was in the wrong. Vine avoided a collision. It’s debateable whether he could realsitically have done so earlier.

         It’s a deliciously self-justifying position to be in to describe those referring to the rules on the matter as “highway code and rule waving”.  If the rules disagree with your argument, just discredit them or those reminding you of them(!)

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

9. Re JV – I see this as an
   Re JV – I see this as an issue of courtesy amongst road users. The highway code may well say the bus driver has priority, and he has a timetable to keep to, but honestly…
   The driver knew he was about to pull in, and out of courtesy to a vulnerable road user, as well as safety, he should have held back and slipped in behind. It wouldn’t have taken much effort, but a bit of forward planning which many drivers seem incapable of.
   Imo, the manoeuvre carried out by the bus driver is exactly the same as the left-turning HGVs which have killed a number of London cyclists. Also the same as those times when you’re driving on the inside lane of a motorway and as you approach a slip road, some cuts across you at speed from the outside lane onto the slip road. It’s poor and dangerous driving, lack of forward planning, and the need for speed. Driver education course required.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • alchemilla wrote:

     The highway code may well say the bus driver has priority, and he has a timetable to keep to

     — alchemilla

     That’s precisely the point:  it doesn’t say that; the bus driver doesn’t have priority. The timetable is a matter between him and his management, nobody else on the road.  Fully agree with your other points.

     Log In or Register to post comments

10. Quote:

    Cardiff cyclists left waiting more than a year for bike hangars

    Don’t know what the fuss is about. Get a car, you can park it on the pavement today…..

    Log In or Register to post comments

11. “Yesterday, I jokingly

    “Yesterday, I jokingly threatened to make this a regular feature. If pics like this keep rolling in, I’ll have no choice.”

    Dan – have you seen this forum thread: https://road.cc/content/forum/car-crashes-building-please-post-your-local-news-stories-276441

    (Inspired by the wonderfully named Audis in Houses)

    Log In or Register to post comments

12. To be fair to Peloton, they

    To be fair to Peloton, they probably don’t expect bikes to actually move.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • mdavidford wrote:

      To be fair to Peloton, they probably don’t expect bikes to actually move.

      — mdavidford

      to many people cycling in real lfie and not on their machines, make real cycling less attractive

      Log In or Register to post comments

13. How about journalists educate

    How about journalists educate themselves (or better yet, are compulsorily -wow, apparently that’s really a word – educated by their bosses, editors, unions or supervising bodies) on the topics they treat? Someone who talks about traffic on the media should have heard about induced and evaporating traffic….

    Log In or Register to post comments

14. “…the offence of failing to
    “…the offence of failing to stop should not be used to punish an offender for a serious, but not proven, offence.””

    Ummmm……. Huh???

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • “…the offence of failing to

      “…the offence of failing to stop should not be used to punish an offender for a serious, but not proven, offence.””

      Ummmm……. Huh???

      I think waht they are getting at is that if a driver fails to stop after hitting a cyclist and killing them then they should only be sentenced for causing death by dangerous driving if it can be proved that the driver caused the death not sentenced “merely” because they didn’t stop. It could have been entirely the cyclist fault for example.

      This partly misses the point however as failing to stop to render assistance and call 999 may have contributed to the death and therefore should be punished in it’s own right. As the driver can’t possibly know the extent of the injuries the argument could be made that they should be sentenced as if the victim did need assistance to prevent death.

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • espressodan wrote:

      “…the offence of failing to stop should not be used to punish an offender for a serious, but not proven, offence.”” Ummmm……. Huh???

      — espressodan

      I think 

      If a driver is found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, and guilty of failing to stop, then the defendant should not be sentanced as if they were guilty of DbDD.

      However, this misses the point of the petition. Failing to stop is likely significant, we know that for serious injuries they talk about the golden hour. i.e. medical treatment needs to commence as soon as possoible after the injury. A driver who chooses to go on their merry way in the hope it will never be discovered that it was their fault, significantly reduces the chance of treatment within the crucial time.

      Therefore by concisous choice, rather than error (if we consider bad driving to be an error) they have potentially caused the death of the injured party. It should not be necesary to prove it was crucial in this specific case, because failing to stop and render aid needs to be stopped at a population level.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • A driver who chooses to go on

        A driver who chooses to go on their merry way in the hope it will never be discovered that it was their fault, significantly reduces the chance of treatment within the crucial time.[/quote]

        And that is the crucial connection:  while the dangerous driving itself should be proved, the act of driving off is axiomatically suspicious enough to consider dangerous driving more likely and is also an aggravating factor.  Why else would you drive off? If you didn’t cause it, stay around, get help, maintain the evidence that helps to prove that it wasn’t your fault in the first place.

        Log In or Register to post comments