"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

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?

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 person.

Is that a cryptic way of telling us you're a fan?

Admirable empathy.

Bravo sir.

Rich_cb wrote:

Admirable empathy. Bravo sir.

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 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.

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) 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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 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.

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 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-g...

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).

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

Think you have overreached on this one.

I think you forgot who you were logged on as Rich

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

Thou dost protest too much methinks.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Well argued. Thank you.

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.

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

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.