Tony Blackburn responds to latest Jeremy Vine cycling video, says he was "nearly knocked down by a cyclist" while using crossing

Vo2Maxi wrote:

If Vine hadn't been riding unnecessarily alongside the bus

He wasn't, he had pulled into the right-hand lane knowing that the bus was coming up to a bus stop (which you can clearly see on the road on the left before the lights) and slowing down and so overtaking it, a perfectly legitimate manoeuvre. Or are cyclists supposed to follow behind buses without changing lanes and stop and wait for them to embark and disembark passengers? 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Or are cyclists supposed to follow behind buses without changing lanes and stop and wait for them to embark and disembark passengers? 

This is The Way

Vo2Maxi wrote:

If Vine hadn't been riding unnecessarily alongside the bus, making a point, blocking any attempts to pass the bus then he wouldn't have increased his chance of being inappropriately overtaken. Now you will call that victim blaming or gaslighting, I'd call it common bloody sense. The van driver is being a twat making his point, just like Vine. Anyway, have you given your opinion on Blackburn's crossing experience yet?

Ah, so overtaking a bus (even if it's pulling into a bus stop) is unnecesary

Vo2Maxi wrote:

blocking any attempts to pass the bus

Isn't this unnecesarily driving alongside the bus? or is it necesary as soon as someone has a motor? MGIF

Yes. When do you then?

Vo2Maxi wrote:

Yes. When do you then?

When do I lecture dangerous road users? When you think they have endangered you.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

If someone blasts past me unnecessarily while I'm on my bike, I'll smile sweetly and wink at them as we both wait for green. And if they've done it dangerously I'll take them to task over it. But all this lecturing rubbish does no one any good. It just creates tribalism which is corrosive.

Generally I follow this pattern out of desire not to make my day worse.  Turning the other cheek can save you further beating. However if you want people to stop hitting you another part to your strategy is needed.  Or just develop a very tough face and hope not to encounter a Tyson...

Sounds like splitting definitions here.  "take them to task" vs. "lecturing"?

On the other hand you say "creates tribalism"; I say a more realistic explanation for such behaviour is "indifferent, incompetent or irrascible people behind the wheel".  How do you explain how a tiny minority "creates tribalism"?  There is a very common trope (throughout history) where the powerful majority - when challenged - start decrying it as provocation or claim they're being oppressed by the lesser party.  Are you sure you haven't fallen for a version of that narrative?

It's not like "the cycling mafia" control the media now, is it?  Yes - there's the odd (and he is) loud exception (basically Mr. Vine).  But after that we're down to those media titans who no-one's heard of like Carton Reid, Pete Walker, Laura Laker...

(Yes - for comedy value you could invoke Boris Johnson I guess - but I haven't read anything about cycling by him for a looong time.)

As I have explained, I don't turn the other cheek. I stick up for myself. WHEN APPLICABLE. Constantly whining and "making your point" is a pain in the bum. Even reasonable people will end up disliking you for it.
As for the MSM, the BBC give a very fair crack of the whip with guys like Tom Heap and Justin Rowlatt. They are in no way in the pockets of "big oil" or the motoring lobby. Far from it. If you think otherwise, maybe you're the extreme one?

Vo2Maxi wrote:

As I have explained, I don't turn the other cheek. I stick up for myself. WHEN APPLICABLE.  Constantly whining and "making your point" is a pain in the bum. Even reasonable people will end up disliking you for it.

It sounds like Mr. Vine has well and truly got up your bibshorts.  I can see how he can be irritating but don't give him the satisfaction.

It's a tricky one ... particularly because in the motor vehicle vs. cycling case it often really is "your convenience" (or merely "you paying a modicum of attention and obeying the law") vs. my life.  And for most people because they don't cycle they literally don't see any problems.  In fact, they rarely see a cyclist!  So naturally in conversations it can sound like some entitled minority is getting all weirdly shouty and unreasonable - about what exactly?  (I've a strange sense of deja-type at this point...)

EDIT ... which is why I think it's best to concentrate on reducing the physical space "conflict" via proper separate infra.  And focus on "both safety AND convenience" - the latter tends to get lost for non-motoring modes whereas it's even more important).  But then I think that more people cycling would be a good thing - not everyone has that view!

Of course sticking up for yourself with someone who has just demonstrated they don't give a stuff about your safety, and who may now be angry (no-one likes to be challenged) and is armed with a deadly metal exoskeleton and the benefit of the doubt from the law... also not a good place.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

As for the MSM, the BBC give a very fair crack of the whip with guys like Tom Heap and Justin Rowlatt. They are in no way in the pockets of "big oil" or the motoring lobby. Far from it. If you think otherwise, maybe you're the extreme one?

Just waiting for our "BBC cycling coverage fairness" correspondant, eburtthebike, on this one...

I totally agree on the infrastructure thing. But it's tricky, and expensive, and money is tight. And difficult in cities which are cramped, with narrow roads which go back 100s years. I wish we could be like the Netherlands. We'll get there, bit by bit.
I have skin in the game, I lost three good cycling mates to bad and dangerous driving over the years: Simon Hook, Chris Negus, Zak Carr. I think of them most days I ride a bike. All had young families, there were no prosecutions in any of those cases despite perpetrators being identified.
As an aside, regarding the cycling infrastructure thing, responsibility also comes with rights? I was riding in Flanders a couple of years ago, out watching the E3 Harelbeke and Gent-Wevelgem. I was happily riding along one not very busy B road in between vantage points, and I received a torrent of abuse from two passing drivers. I hadn't held them up at all. I spoke to a local over a beer later, and he said because there was a separate cycle track next to the road, I'm expected to use it. I saw the road as making faster progress, plus my right to be there. It hadn't occurred to me that I "must" use the available track. It cuts both ways.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

I totally agree on the infrastructure thing. But it's tricky, and expensive, and money is tight. And difficult in cities which are cramped, with narrow roads which go back 100s years.

Our streets are too narrow, we have historic towns, cycling is not a good fit for cities, infra is expensive.

It took a few decades (many years ago) to completely overcome all those limitations for motor traffic.  But see how well it's been done!  So yes, it takes time and money but it clearly can be done.  It's not at all easy but it is just about choices and priorities.  This change didn't happen "by itself".  Politicians very heavily backed the motoring horse (as it were) over the years - to the detriment of all other modes.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

I lost three good cycling mates to bad and dangerous driving over the years: Simon Hook, Chris Negus, Zak Carr. I think of them most days I ride a bike. All had young families, there were no prosecutions in any of those cases despite perpetrators being identified.

Sorry to hear that.  Mostly we get home safe.  But when we don't that can have consequences beyond ourselves.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

As an aside, regarding the cycling infrastructure thing, responsibility also comes with rights? ... It cuts both ways.

Yes.  However I'm not worried that I can't cycle on motorways.  I'll effectively not cycle on some sections of A-road (only use if it would otherwise mean x mile detour where x is large).  Nor do I habitually cycle on footways.

So I'm already not entirely "free".  Feels fine - other anarchists may vary of course.

Perhaps David Hembrow's articles on "speed" may be of interest here.  On "but we'll be confined to rubbish cycle paths".  Well... aside from the fact that most in the UK don't cycle at all for many who do now cycle they are *already* confined to crap cycle infra.  Because they simply don't feel safe cycling with the motor vehicles.

"Critical mass" for meaningful change in the UK road infrastructure probably isn't too far off? With more and more on bikes, change must come. I wince every time I read about another cyclist death in London, and it's frequently young women being cut across by huge lorries turning left on them.
I'm confident on the road, many aren't, it's not their "fault", it's reality. So yes, we need change.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

"Critical mass" for meaningful change in the UK road infrastructure probably isn't too far off?

I envy your confidence.  I'd say "maybe a couple of generations?"  If other countries are a guide I suspect that "crossing the tipping point and gaining momentum" also looks like "slightly less glacial change, sometimes with reverses".

I just happen to think mass cycling could bring access to a number of virtuous circles.  Even so it's clearly not hugely stable against people wanting to go down other paths.  Wild speculation now but I suspect that's because of some of the things I like about it e.g. bicycles and related infra are simple, very well understood and mature technologies.  Cycling is - comparatively - not resource intensive and less centralising than e.g. motor vehicles.  Lots of the "benefits" of cycling are distributed e.g. people who didn't pay for a bike / cycle infra and/or don't cycle also get some benefits.  Some benefits come in terms of "savings" (health, less noise, public space usage or pollution than alternatives) or are hard to monetise (well-being, independent mobility).

Putting some of those qualities together may be a turn-off for business, politicians and legislators I suspect - because you / your allies / your party / your company needs to have control of distribution of the benefits.  Getting big sums of cash, "disruption" e.g. rapid growth, cornering the market, finding USPs, rapid turnover of products etc. seem more difficult.  Of course - combine a bike with a motor / computer / electronics and you can make some of those work.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

... and it's frequently young women being cut across by huge lorries turning left on them. I'm confident on the road, many aren't, it's not their "fault", it's reality.

Confidence is good, competence is good.  Neither kept Michael Mason alive (insert other fatal crash victims here).  Have enough drivers interacting with people not in cars (or large / well-signed buildings [1] [2]...) and some will just hit them, because humans.

The main issue is that most people do not cycle and most trips are not cycled.  Lots of reasons, but "doesn't feel safe" (despite it being objectively safe) is definitely one.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

He's the cycling version of the guy who sits in the RH lane of a motorway at exactly 70mph, not overtaking and not letting anyone pass.

So in other words you don't like people who abide by the law of the land, and believe that they should get out of the way of people who don't want to do so?

That's not what I said, it's not what I meant, and that's not the way it is.
Vine persistently blocks people from even passing legally, and then shows off about it on social media.
Moreover, although I'd never stand up for a driver who DID break the law, Vine's entitled attitude encourages them to.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

That's not what I said, it's not what I meant, and that's not the way it is. Vine persistently blocks people from even passing legally, and then shows off about it on social media. Moreover, although I'd never stand up for a driver who DID break the law, Vine's entitled attitude encourages them to.

You said you find Vine infuriating as he's exactly like the people who drive at 70mph and won't let anyone pass. Ergo you think people who stick to the law and prevent other people from breaking it are infuriating. It's exactly what you said.

The law says you keep to the left unless overtaking.
There are occasions when "taking primary" is appropriate, and that normally happens naturally when you're on a bike and you keep the kerb and any obstructions, a safe distance from you on your left.
If you need to move out then a clear signal well in advance does the trick, look over shoulder and merge into traffic on your right.
NOT habitually riding down the middle of the road to make a point and pee people off unnecessarily.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

If you need to move out then a clear signal well in advance does the trick, look over shoulder and merge into traffic on your left.

Ummm...shome mishtake?

Vo2Maxi wrote:

Vine just comes across as a woke smartarse, intent on lecturing people and actually, forcing other roadusers around him to bend to his will. He's the cycling version of the guy who sits in the RH lane of a motorway at exactly 70mph, not overtaking and not letting anyone pass. I find him infuriating and I'm a cyclist of over 40yrs (BCF life member, racing high level, commuting etc), as well as a driver all that time. 90% of what Vine does just winds people up. Yes you fool, everyone knows there's a red light ahead and he'll just get stuck there same as you, but "taking the lane"unnecessarily (he takes it to the extreme) just blocks other roadusers and causes anger, a large contributor to accidents. Plus al the bile I get on account of him.

Woke? Today I learned that taking primary (which pisses off drivers who desperately need to reach the red light queue) is recognising the racism inherent in our system.

Pretty sure you're the guy who called me a racist recently. Grow up. Calling people names instead of engaging their argument makes you look foolish.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

Pretty sure you're the guy who called me a racist recently. Grow up. Calling people names instead of engaging their argument makes you look foolish.

You don't have a coherent argument, you're just ranting.

Can you remind me of why I apparently called you a racist? Was it because you were being racist?

I have plenty of arguments, none of which you've actually addressed, because you seem to be an entitled brat. Didn't your mum ever say "no" to you at the checkout when you were screaming for chocolate?
Re: the racism thing, from memory you were the guy who compared cyclists' issues with racism, which is frankly gormless.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

I have plenty of arguments, none of which you've actually addressed, because you seem to be an entitled brat. Didn't your mum ever say "no" to you at the checkout when you were screaming for chocolate? Re: the racism thing, from memory you were the guy who compared cyclists' issues with racism, which is frankly gormless.

I think you're just getting confused as that doesn't ring any bells with me.

So, as you have lots of well reasoned arguments, I'm sure you were able to discuss why your comments weren't racist and that lots of people agreed with your logic.

I assume that you're projecting (a common right-wing failing) about being a brat - certainly your comments here don't speak of a mature and deep understanding of the issues.

Again, you are deflecting. You still haven't addressed ANY of my points. That's frankly pathetic.
Now I'm right wing apparently 😂. You total fool. By sticking people in little boxes it makes it simple to hate them, rather than actually have a debate. You are everything that's going wrong with this country. You will realise when it's all a bit too late, but you'll still blame others because you and your echo chamber mates will be crying in your designer beer together.
This is about commonsense, something which you seem to have none of. "Young idealist" is great, but ADD to the debate, don't sit in your little corner whining and annoying everyone.

Oh don't get me started with these lefties and their designer beer. They put nutmeg in it you know, apparently it makes them "high" (or is it coriander? not sure). And they all wear flip flops all the time. I blame the laybah council. Not one in particular, they are all pretty much the same.

I didn't say that, YOU did. By the way, I like real ale. So there. IPA in particular, and I was drinking it long before it got trendy.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

You total fool. By sticking people in little boxes it makes it simple to hate them, rather than actually have a debate.

I guess you'd know... 

Nah, look at your echo chamber mates' replies, and see who immediately took that stance.

...when you say "taking primary", in your case does that mean you're at primary school?

Vo2Maxi wrote:

...when you say "taking primary", in your case does that mean you're at primary school?

If I were a primary school kid, then shouldn't you be feeling embarrassed that a kid can make fun of you for not understanding the meaning of the word "woke"?