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

The advice to ignore drivers who endanger cyclists and pretend these are "non-events" is of couse a very popular one with those very drivers who want to preserve the motor-centric status quo.

And why would he?
Pray, tell?
I imagine in his life he has achieved far, far more than you or I ever will. He's an iconic broadcaster and been that for 60 years or so, still going.
He's not a "hater" as far as I'm aware, unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Why would he what? What are we talking about again?

You said:
"Well. Who would have though veteran DJ and failed pop singer Tony Blackburn would have started such a heated debate".
Seems pointed, no?
Correct me if I am wrong.

I only came on here because I felt left out with you shouting at everyone else. You're not cross with me are you?

Did I say that? I don't remember saying that. Are you sure?

Vo2Maxi wrote:

He's an iconic broadcaster and been that for 60 years or so, still going.

That doesn't stop him being a dickhead or making ill-informed comments.

We've had plenty of idiotic stuff from TV, acting and sporting celebs over the years and that's before we even start on the famous wife-beaters, paedos and so on... Jimmy Saville 'achieved' far more than I ever will* but he's not someone I could ever respect or admire.

* though it also depends on how you measure success

And he was never iconic. Just because you get old it doesn't give you icon status.

So you don't like Jeremy Vine.  Got that.

What do you think of Sadiq Khan and Cycling Mikey?

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.

How do you "take them to task" if not by "lecturing" them?
Keen to know, as I would love a way of remonstrating with dangerous passers that works.

You're another one who can't read.
This is about UNNECESSARILY LECTURING PEOPLE.
Vine is riding down the road, imposing his will on other roadusers. My comment about drivers sitting in the RH lane on a motorway sums it up perfectly.
Yes of course, AS I HAVE SAID, if someone cuts me up or endangers me, I will shout at them. Just as I'll shout at a cyclist who rides across me as I walk across a pedestrian crossing.
The sooner *some of the entitled idiots* (not all) on these boards and elsewhere put their hands up to bad behaviour from *some* cyclists, the quicker they'll be seen as credibly defending their rights.
The fact that some on here are conflating their road experiences with "racism" says it all.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

You're another one who can't read. This is about UNNECESSARILY LECTURING PEOPLE. Vine is riding down the road, imposing his will on other roadusers. My comment about drivers sitting in the RH lane on a motorway sums it up perfectly. Yes of course, AS I HAVE SAID, if someone cuts me up or endangers me, I will shout at them. Just as I'll shout at a cyclist who rides across me as I walk across a pedestrian crossing. The sooner *some of the entitled idiots* (not all) on these boards and elsewhere put their hands up to bad behaviour from *some* cyclists, the quicker they'll be seen as credibly defending their rights. The fact that some on here are conflating their road experiences with "racism" says it all.

Ooooh - breaking out the CAPITALS now. Are you getting shouty?

Incidentally, I believe you brought up the whole racism topic by your use of the word "woke" - I expect you actually meant to use a different expression, but you don't seem to be able to express yourself very well.

Well, because you're a bit thick?

And woke isn't just about racism. Is it? Is it?
It's a delusional mindset which has far outstripped a desire for rights, be that on the road or anywhere else, it's become a constant drone of brattish entitlement .

Vo2Maxi wrote:

And woke isn't just about racism. Is it? Is it? It's a delusional mindset which has far outstripped a desire for rights, be that on the road or anywhere else, it's become a constant drone of brattish entitlement .

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/woke-meaning-origin#:~:tex....

Merriam-Webster wrote:

Woke is now defined in this dictionary as “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice),” and identified as U.S. slang. It originated in African American English and gained more widespread use beginning in 2014 as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. By the end of that same decade it was also being applied by some as a general pejorative for anyone who is or appears to be politically left-leaning.

Especially. Not exclusively. And this has now been "rolled out" to cover other so called causes. You even see it in this thread, with the cyclist's plight being directly compared with racism. QED I believe?
The problem is, when you politicise issues unnecessarily, you immediately turn off a lot of potential sympathisers. Road safety isn't politics. And it goes both ways, you want people to respect YOU on the road, therefore you must extend the same courtesy.
Perfect case in point here, a cyclist has illegally and potentially dangerously crossed in front of Blackburn's path on a crossing, yet I don't think there's even one person empathising with him?
When you do that you've instantly lost the argument.
A lot of people need to grow up I think.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

Perfect case in point here, a cyclist has illegally and potentially dangerously crossed in front of Blackburn's path on a crossing

To be fair, what we have is "Blackburn says that a cyclist has illegally and potentially dangerously crossed in front of his path on a crossing".

Apologies - I clearly can't read. I thought you were saying that lecturing does no one any good. I took that to mean you had devised some other means of conveying your message to people.

You'll note I didn't say "dangerous drivers" as just yesterday road.cc had a story of a dangerous pass by a group of cyclists.

You shout at someone who cuts you up or endangers you, but you know if won't do any good. Is it a cathartic exercise for you?

Depends on your definition of lecturing. I've clearly specified my definition, which is unnecessarily enforcing your will on other roadusers for no other reason than to "teach them a lesson". That's what Vine does. Maybe you too?
I've also said I stick up for myself when I've actually been endangered, or I see dangerous driving. People who aren't naturally inclined to sympathise with cyclists, or simply "don't understand" because they don't ride a bike, are far more likely to sympathise with that, than being stick behind someone riding down the middle of the road for apparently no good reason.

ahhh I think I get it now.

You can lecture another road user if its necessary. If you think a driver has endangered you, for instance.

But what if you ride primary at a pinch point to try and stop a dangerous overtake but they think you are riding in the middle of the road for no reason?
I'm sure the conversation will go well as we have seen so many times before.
Reminds of the Merc driver at the beginning of the month who told me the close pass was ok because she didn't hit me.

I am rewatching the video, attempting to put myself into the same position.
Cycling alongside a bus. Van close passes me (I would have submitted that to OpSnap as none of the van wheels appear to cross out of the lane, despite the outer lane being clear) then the van pulls in in front of me and crosses into the lane I might have tried to use to avoid him - although I would have been very aware of the massive bus that was in that lane just seconds before.

Yeah - I wouldn't have felt safe in that situation, but I have said before I am not a confident cyclist.

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?

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?

Ahhh - okay. I'm slowly getting there. Cyclists aren't allowed to overtake a bus. They are also not allowed to attempt to keep themselves safe by discouraging someone from attempting to squeeze past them, while overtaking a bus. Wait - is that all cyclists or just in London?

No - I wouldn't call that victim blaming or gaslighting. I'm not entirely sure what gaslighting is. I feel I spend a lot of time on here looking up phrases and abbreviations to gain some understanding. I struggle with the nuances of internet commenting. For instance - Mr Blackburn has previously made a comment that he then said was a joke, so I am unsure when he is being serious or not. I didn't get the punchline the first time round, so I am waiting to see if there is a punchline with this comment.
Happy to make comment on road users illegally crossing zebra crossings and putting pedestrians at risk, if that is okay? It is illegal as soon as a pedestrian foot touches the crossing. It is rude to continue when a pedestrian indicates their intention to use the crossing, but, as when in a car, there is not always sufficient stopping distance when a pedestrian first moves towards a crossing.

Vehicle operators have to give way to a pedestrian using a pedestrian crossing, but it's not illegal to go across a crossing as soon as a pedestrian foot touches a crossing.

grOg wrote:

Vehicle operators have to give way to a pedestrian using a pedestrian crossing, but it's not illegal to go across a crossing as soon as a pedestrian foot touches a crossing.

One of those nuances of internet commenting I am still getting to grips with. I meant in the UK it is illegal as soon as a pedestrian foot touches the crossing, which is my interpretation of Highway Code Rule 195:

Quote:

Rule 195

Zebra and parallel crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

• look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
• you should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross
• you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
• allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads

(I have put the relevant line in bold)