"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

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.  There was a room change.

hirsute wrote:

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

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

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.

You say that now, but by tomorrow?

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.

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

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.

...

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

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 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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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(!)

No we shouldn't.

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?

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.

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

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

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

nicmason wrote:

Jeremy Vine at fault.....

nicmason wrote:

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

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.

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 ?

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. 

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

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.

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 

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.

GMBasix wrote:

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 

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.

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.