Your bike hates you, Gumtree edition: How not to fit a front mech; DCS Andy Cox questions Mail coverage of Jeremy Vine cycle lane near miss; Monster Raving Loony Party: 15-minute city conspiracy theories "even too loony for us" + more on the live blog

I've not heard the Dagenham variation - which is a strange location to pick as there is no Dagenham stop (and there are two wtih Dagenham in the name...)

Maybe it's me but self regulatory and independent seems to be an oxymoron ?

I had a quick look on WIkipedia and I liked what IPSO appear to say about themselves.

"IPSO exists to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors' Code of Practice[2] has been breached" 

A jellyfish has more teeth.

Also, in the dealings on this, every singe email from the IPSO (and I checked all of them) came from a different person. So there was absolutely no continuity in who complainants are dealing with, the same questions were asked 3 or 4 times, the answers ignored, and asked again. 
All in all, the entire process is designed to discourage people from proceeding with a complaint.
I understand there were at least 10 complaints filed, but the absolute dogs dinner of a process they force complainants to go through (none of which is clear, or well documented) did it's job and put of the others.
The only reason I pushed on (knowing full well they'd throw it out, as apparently "cyclists" are not a "group" (unless one ignores a red light then we are a group with group responsibilities) and can be called whatever they want) was to tie up the time of those invlved in publishing the article.
In the weeks after the article there were a number of incidents of unprovoked attacks on cyclists by drivers, one resulting in the victim passing away as a result of his injuries, but even this is not enough to get the IPSO to see that this constant barrage of derogatory and fact-light articles has an effect.

"I have the option of driving or walking or cycling or taking public transport, being able to decide which is best for any given journey or application??? why are you opressing me and taking away my freedom to only have the option to drive under all circumstances???"

Found this yesterday

"My Dad passed away in 2010 (I still miss him ) . I remember him once saying to me of our family home: "When I bought this house I could walk to a grocers, bakers, butchers and newsagent. Now I have to drive to a supermarket, and they call it progress." 16/22

"This didn't happen overnight, it took place over many years. I'm sure there were lots of different reasons for all the small shops going, but not being able to compete with supermarkets probably played a big role." 17/22

"There are 5 new housing estates in the area where my parents house is, all built in the last 15 years. None of them have any shops. People who live there have no choice but to drive to a supermarket (or have a delivery), it's all they've known and so is 'normal' to them. "19/22

"There was no consultation about any of this, it just happened, and left us with no alternatives to driving to get what we need. I'm not saying people shouldn't still be able to do that if they want, but it would be nice to have a choice." 20/22

"15 minute cities appear to want to try and give us that choice. Walking a few minutes to get stuff when you need it is nothing new, it's how things were until quite recently, I'm only mid 50s and can remember it well." 21/22

https://twitter.com/MartynBrunt/status/1625162141928923136

How long until someone comes along and says, "But it only says 'should', not 'must'"...?

But it does, it also says avoid collisions, allow others to make mistakes, be prepared and slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction...

Maybe they should add a new one don't contrive incidents to boost your social media ratings.

Regardless if you think the driver is totally wrong, and I think there is a debate on at what distance that should rule applies in situations like this, Vine had plenty of time to react and make that a total non event and if that's the worst he puts up with on a ride, that's a win in my book.

My last two rides I've been properly left hooked, twice, had two vehicles turn across my path, one a learner, that I had to stop for, a bus turning into a junction that short cut the corner and still nearly hit me even though i was more than 3 bike lengths away from the junction, more close passes than you can shake a stick at, and a bunch of oncoming drivers on single track roads who refuse to slow down let alone stop in a passing place or give me any room.

Id say to Vine stop making mountains out of molehills when we as cyclists have got far bigger issues on the road than this.

Awavey wrote:

I think there is a debate on at what distance that should rule applies in situations like this

Get outta here with your logic

And the same applies to car vs car interaction. If a car emerges from a junction in front of another car, but enabling plenty of time for the other car to slow down and stop but the other car fails to do so, it is at the very least a partial fault incident.

We expect other cars to percept and respond to hazards, so it hardly seems unreasonable to expect the same from cyclists.

Your riding experiences are becoming increasingly common I think for all of us post Covid, fuelled by some media outlets (I never understand why they're not prosecuted for inciting hatred or some such...oh wait).

Awavey wrote:

... there is a debate on at what distance that should rule applies in situations like this, Vine had plenty of time to react and make that a total non event ...

I was taught - when learning to drive, some years ago now - that a fundamental of being on the roads is to not make it necessary for another road user to have to take avoiding action (including putting them in a position where they have to brake or else run into you).

as was I, but Im realistic that Im unlikely to encounter many drivers who not only remember that but put it in to action, so I ride in a way that causes me the least amount of grief & potential harm in these types of situations and maintains my momentum.

Especially on a commute, riding as Vine did is just wasted energy and unnecessary aggravation, if that doesnt happen to you at least once a ride you're riding in a cycling utopia.

Riding into a situation that you can easily avoid, doesnt help anyone imo, but it sure gets those clicks rolling in.

Do you really think the Daily Fail pays any attention to what the Highway Code says - should, must or otherwise?

Unfortunately, Vine has some pretty poor presentation of incidents. I don't think it helps that his camera makes objects appear further away than they are so it creates the impression that he is riding into danger. Also, he does seem to over-egg some apparently marginal incidents.

So, I'm getting more into the "more harm than good" camp with him.

On this episode though, the SMIDSY should be the talking point. If the van driver was not aware of the potential conflict, I think it is worse than a "I can get across because the cyclist will lift off, he's got plenty of time to react" type of incident. It is the legitimisation of poor observation excusing poor driving. Not knowing there was a conflict says it could have been a worse incident and implies they didn't consider and check for the possibility - habitually ignoring bike lanes.

Vine did nothing wrong.

The driver indicated to turn left without bothering to look which is a basic driving error and would fail a driving test.

Vine regularly highlights that the main issue for road safety for vulnerable users is poor driving behaviour.

I think I'd already covered your point.

What I can't tell from his presentation is whether he did anything wrong or not. It creates the impression that he ignored the emerging conflict - he seemed to be cycling slowly yet did not apparently react until the last minute, so that arguably is wrong - one wrong doesn't make another mistake right. But I qualify this because that superwide angle destroys perspective and that van might have been right on his nose and his speed may be higher than it appears.

If a bus driver saw a van turning across a bus lane, would you expect the bus to react immediately to avoid a collision drive right up to the van to make a point? The van is always in the wrong, but the bus shouldn't drive to increase risk.

Difficult thing with busses is, unlike cars, people aren't belted in and there is a high chance they are stood up.
I've seen reports of busses breaking to avoid a collision only to injure those on board with heavy breaking. There may be no collision but the effect of poor driving has an impact.

IanMSpencer wrote:

Also, he does seem to over-egg some apparently marginal incidents.

So, I'm getting more into the "more harm than good" camp with him.

I agree. It's all very well and good quoting Rule 140 while you're cycling ignorantly into a emerging hazard, but a tiny bit of care (and therefore observation of rule 76) would have prevented that unnecessary altercation.

Cycling "ignorantly"?? Whatever that is.

The hierarchy of road users puts a greater duty of care on motor vehicles so the driver in this case should take a "tiny bit of care".

The driver would fail their test for this.  Rule 76 is about general road use (not cycling lanes) so would not be relevant in this situation.

I guess some people are not Vine fans but like Cycling Mickey with his camera footage Vine is helping to show where the real danger on the roads comes from.

sean1 wrote:

Cycling "ignorantly"?? Whatever that is.

The hierarchy of road users puts a greater duty of care on motor vehicles so the driver in this case should take a "tiny bit of care".

The driver would fail their test for this.  Rule 76 is about general road use (not cycling lanes) so would not be relevant in this situation.

I guess some people are not Vine fans but like Cycling Mickey with his camera footage Vine is helping to show where the real danger on the roads comes from.

It's a bit like typing ignorantly. It's cycling, while not thinking about what you are doing. In this case cycling into a car that has indicated to turn well in advance of a turn and turned fairly slowly across your path.

You don't think rule 76 is relevant? JV is literally cycling straight on past a junction. Exactly what rule 76 covers. Perhaps you should read it? It starts with "If you are going straight ahead at a junction...". I.e. exactly what JV was doing. It even says "watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path".

Amazing.  A cycling forum where the cyclists victim blame other cyclists. The mind boggles.

If you check the highway code you will find that switching on your indicator does not give you right of way.  Also "turning slowly" does not give you right of way.

Again Hierarchy of Road Users and Rule 140 make it very clear that in this situation the onus is on the car driver, to look and wait if cyclists are proceeding ahead in the cycle lane.

The driver was in the wrong in this situation.  (except for Daily Mail readers when obviously it is always the cyclists fault).

sean1 wrote:

Amazing.  A cycling forum where the cyclists victim blame other cyclists. The mind boggles.

If you check the highway code you will find that switching on your indicator does not give you right of way.  Also "turning slowly" does not give you right of way.

Again Hierarchy of Road Users and Rule 140 make it very clear that in this situation the onus is on the car driver, to look and wait if cyclists are proceeding ahead in the cycle lane.

The driver was in the wrong in this situation.  (except for Daily Mail readers when obviously it is always the cyclists fault).

News just in! Suggesting that road users (yes, including cyclists) open their eyes and respond to hazards is 'victim blaming'.

Get a life.

Yes, the driver was wrong to turn across a cycle path with a cyclist coming up from behind (And in contravention of rule 140 of the highway code). But JV was also wrong to continue cycling and to fail to prevent such an unnecessary altercation (and in contravention of rule 76 of the highway code).

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Vine didn't do anything wrong.

He did in fact stop without colliding with the car which was at that point completely blocking the path.  So he did follow Rule 76.

Yes Vine did make a point of ensuring the driver knew he had cut him up.  That is perfectly reasonable.  He could of just hung back and doffed his cap to the more important motor vehicle.

Through his videos Vine is highlighting common dangers encountered by cyclists and hence bringing it into discussion.

Ian Walker just completed a study on car bias and how danger from motor vehicles is normalised in society.

An interesting study and some of the responses here and elsewhere just confirm the inbuilt bias that exists towards cars.

https://road.cc/content/news/britons-normalise-dangers-driving-study-sug...

sean1 wrote:

Through his videos Vine is highlighting common dangers encountered by cyclists and hence bringing it into discussion demonstrating that it's not just Audi Drivers and White Van Men that have a moral duty to act like d*cks to other road users.

FTFY.

Look, in all seriousness, Jeremy Vine could have prevented that altercation very easily, and if he had done what he was supposed to do (iaw highway code) there would not have been an altercation. Yes, it's true that if the car driver had done what they were supposed to do, there also would have been no altercation, but that means that they are both at fault.

Only the driver is at fault.

Vine did make a point of highlighting the drivers error but he didn't threaten or abuse the driver.  So there was no "altercation".  Both moved on after a couple of seconds.

Hopefully now the driver will be a bit more aware when left turning across cycle lanes.  If that is the result then well done Vine.