"Stop this": Jeremy Vine appeals to motorists over manoeuvre "making it dangerous to use a bicycle"; Cross your fingers for no stomach issue DNFs — Tour of Britain pros cool off in the sea; How many watts to keep up with Van Aert? + more on the live blog

Nice moment there where the presenter tries to say Mikey is engaged in vigilantism and has to have four goes at it, demonstrating that he has as much idea about the word's pronunciation as he does about its meaning.

The bit where Freeman basically says, "Yes I know mobile phone use is against the law" but then seems to just wave it away as "but everyone does it"... 

brooksby wrote:

The bit where Freeman basically says, "Yes I know mobile phone use is against the law" but then seems to just wave it away as "but everyone does it"... 

I'm just about old enough to remember when evidential breath testing became law in the UK and exactly the same attitudes/arguments were used, "Who doesn't have a few pints and drive occasionally, for goodness sake, where's the harm?"

You're in the right part of the world ish - South of Birmingham!

Know anyone in the 1967 "is it OK to drink and drive" video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tqQYmgMQg

(I followed up recently on the 'lost SUV after it careered off the road, and it took the police 2 days to find it' Cardiff collision that killed 3, and all 5 in the car were tanked up on drink and drugs.)

Absolutely pathetic.
It's basically "I refuse to accept the extensive research on phone use."

Rendel Harris wrote:

Nice moment there where the presenter tries to say Mikey is engaged in vigilantism and has to have four goes at it, demonstrating that he has as much idea about the word's pronunciation as he does about its meaning.

GMB presenters are not noted for their education, intelligence or objectivity.

"is there an element where you are victimising them ?"

< Redacted comment due to excessive swearing >

Oldfatgit wrote:

Amazing, init? "You should have slowed down to let him turn in front" ... advice that only seems to exist where the traffic being impeded is a bike. If Jeremy had been driving, would the comments have been the same? Absolutely not.

Totally agree.

They'd never (rarely) come out and say it explicitly, but it's the usual "You should stop and doff your cap to your Betters wot pay Road Tax" guff, isn't it?

The onus is on the lorry driver to gauge how fast the oncoming traffic is approaching - motorised or not - and then to decide how best to make their manoeuvre in a way that doesn't cause oncoming traffic to have to brake or take avoiding action.

(That said - I wish JV would calm his videos down a bit: I find the amount of "wacky" additional animation &c becoming increasingly annoying... YMMV)

The driver was definitely in the wrong and should not have attempted that move, so I am in no way defending his actions.

Was anyone else surprised JV went round the front of the vehicle when it stopped where it did? Given that the driver saw him, waved and carried on - I would have been extremely wary of moving in front of them (never mind not being able to see what was behind it)

Also, nobody would say that a driver was going too fast when travelling at what I suspect is no more than 15mph.

AidanR wrote:

Also, nobody would say that a driver was going too fast when travelling at what I suspect is no more than 15mph.

Yeah, but "cyclist", innit?

Until a driver is *behind* a cyclist, and then of course they're going too slowly and holding them up, creating pollution etc etc

Unfortunately the wide-angle lens makes it look much faster!

Let's suppose the van was maybe 20m away but looked like it was 40m away, his 15mph therefore appears to be 30mph as he covers the real 20m in the same time that he appears to cover 40m.

All of the comments that he get's about speed or distance obviously are fooled by this as I don't believe for a minute that he's either going too quickly or accelerates into situations.

Maybe it's time for JV to get a camera as well with a "normal" lens (sorry, don't know the correct optical description!) so he can also show selected incidents in the same way our eyes see them

mikewood wrote:

Maybe it's time for JV to get a camera as well with a "normal" lens (sorry, don't know the correct optical description!) so he can also show selected incidents in the same way our eyes see them

He's got an Insta360. The software can easily produce a more "normal" lens crop when editing.

andystow]</p>

<p>[quote=mikewood wrote:

Maybe it's time for JV to get a camera as well with a "normal" lens (sorry, don't know the correct optical description!) so he can also show selected incidents in the same way our eyes see them

He's got an Insta360. The software can easily produce a more "normal" lens crop when editing.

That would be perfect for the car overlay someone mentioned earlier