"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

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.

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)

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 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!

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

Rendel Harris wrote:

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

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.

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...

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

Captain Badger wrote:

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...

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

GMBasix wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RENDELL IS A TROLL!! 

Steve K wrote:

RENDELL IS A TROLL!! 

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

Rendel Harris wrote:

Steve K wrote:

RENDELL IS A TROLL!! 

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

Bugger!

Rendel Harris wrote:

Steve K wrote:

RENDELL IS A TROLL!! 

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

TWO trolls??? 

.

They're coming out of the goddam walls...

When two trolls go to war...

Steve K wrote:

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.

RENDELL IS A TROLL!! 

Let's BURN him

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.

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) 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 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.

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

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

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.

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.