I'm a cyclist, in the first scenario I would have held back, dispite the law being in my favour, for my own safety. I wouldn't risk my life for 10 seconds.
I know I'm male and a heterosexual masculine one at that (old-school type) but............. #MeToo "I would have held back, despite the law being in my favour"
I agree, yeah the highway code says you got right of way so hell let us go for it. But that does NOT help you when you end up in wheelchair or worse. 😲 Also if you study the junction in question had the lorry pull up then Mr Vine would be invisilble to other traffic because of the lorry blocking view so Mr Vine would still need to pull up to protect himself for other situations. Personally I slow down at every junction even if I have legal right of way because the only person who going to protect my safety is me 🙂 The lorry was signaling I would play safe. So in conclusion Mr Vine is a idiot plus it is London LOL
As a fervent cyclist (motorcyclist and car driver) I wish JV would hang up his cycle clips and catch the bus. His exploits and constant griping is doing more damage to our relationship with other road users than anything else.
exactly, if you're on a bike, probably not in a rush in the first place. Bikes are, in a way, one way of saying 'not only do I have the option to ride to work/etc, I have the time allowance to do so'. Lorry drivers however have a LOT of attention on their time and there's only a set amount of it, they can't just willy nilly say 'nah I'll hang back a bit and take a break early also I'd rather arrive an hour after rush than during rush'.
Regarding the Jeremy Vine clip, I would say it's better to be wrong and alive than right and dead. If it were me cycling there I would have held back and not try to pass the lorry. As Ashley would say, it reduces risk. There are some drivers you should just stay away from and that one is a prime example as he just didn't care about anyone else on the road.
As per Ashley's video this morning "Have I been seen?" is better than "Is it my right of way". Worse than that, I have had drivers clearly see me & still drive straight towards where they can see I am heading. I avoided one such incident earlier today.
@@justinclayton3022d as cyclists and pedestrians we have to look after ourselves if a motorist fails in their responsibility. That's why you should never *take* right of way, it needs to be _given,_ regardless of priority.
@@thomasmyers4089 If a public road (& not a motorway) all modes of transport (pedestrian, horse, cyclist or motor vehicle) has right of way. Now if you mean priority, it depends upon the circumstances. But similarly to the JV clip. If cyclist was turning left and pedestrian was walking straight ahead then pedestrian has priority, so cyclist (or motor car) should stop & wait for pedestrian to cross.
I can see the truck is turning, I could easily slow down a bit and let the truck turn left, but as a cyclist I have priority, I could be killed, but I have priority.
@@ditch3827 Perhaps you need a 'refresher' on the Highway Code?! So the last paragraph of rule 67 is ignored “when cycling on the road, only pass to the left of large vehicles when they are stationary or slow moving and you should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be particularly careful on the approach to junctions or where a large vehicle could change lanes to the left.” As Is rule 74 When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. DO NOT!! ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.............and of course Vine heeded all this advice??!!
@@telmas7183 I think you are missing the point. If you are turning then you must not turn into the path of another vehicle. It is never right to knock a cyclist over and it shocks me that you think it is. Just to refresh you on the highway code, Rule 67 The lorry was in fact stationary when JW passed him and only turned into JW when he was level with the cab. He was also careful which was how he managed to avoid being hit by the lorry driver. So JW complied with rule 67. Rule 74 relates to cyclists turning so in not relevant here.
People like Vine go out of their way to cause the incidents they film. If he sees a vehicle signalling to cross his path then he should be weary that the driver may not have seen him yet and he should slow down to avoid an accident. What these cyclists do is ignore self preservation and either keep going or speed up and risk their lives and those of others in order to get clicks on videos.
Just don't watch them, only way to stop it, I stopped watching dash cam vids after I saw a bloke driving up and down the same road breaking on a corner to make a concealed turn.
I was on a roundabout this morning & a car drove straight across me. I was there first, my positioning & indication were both good. There is no way he should not have seen me. It was absolutely my right of way when he entered the roundabout. If I had not taken evasive action, I would not be typing this now. I would be in hospital or worse. A bike bell is also absolutely useless. It will not be loud enough to be heard in a car with closed windows & for pedestrians, a call of 'keep left please' is far more meaningful.
@@willscottytv as a cyclist he is an embarrassment. He always seems to look for problems. Yes people do things wrong, but nobody go out to hit a cyclist. Where Jeremy makes it feel like that
I'm all in favour of Vine taking even greater risks in pursuit of increasing his social media status. Perhaps he could run across Zebra Crossings blindfold in the dark? I'd watch that reality show 'Vine's Life On The Line'! In fact, I can think of a LOT of other 'celebs' I'd vote to see on that show.... perhaps this is the future of Reality TV!
Vine was well back from the truck when it started to indicate and even start the turn which would have put him in the trucks blind spot, so yes Vine should have hung back, he only needed to slow a bit but no he wanted to create an incident. Vine is the sort of person who gets off on stirring trouble up and causes friction between cyclists and drivers. He should be banned from all media and the roads.
Doesnt matter who is in the right and who is in the wrong - cycling in situations like this is about staying alive. It doesnt make much difference whether you were right or wrong when you are dead.
In the jeremy vine clip nobody has mentioned the road markings , jeremey was overtaking within the area of a zebra crossing , but of course the normal rules dont apply to cyclists.
The highway code has taken responsibility away from cyclists. Its a common phenomenon in the UK now, where the powers that be have decided to legislate for the wrong peoples stupidity. Making other people responsible for your stupidity as a cyclist is wrong. I cycle as well as drive and if I see a vehicle is turning left, the sensible and responsible thing to do is wait until they have made their turn. The highway code allows me to continue but just because I can doesn't mean I should.
The Highway Code has not taken responsibility from cyclists. Quotes from HC This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident. None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.
Look, we know Vine appears to spend his spare time riding around aggressively looking for trouble. There is no sense Vine has courtesy or respect for other road users.
@@ditch3827 Defo agree with you, cycle "lane" as in car lane intersects another lane, would you turn left from right lane and argue have priority since you indicated over people in the left?
I agree. And I am pro-cyclists, I don't have any issue with them fundamentally. Of course, in practice many cyclists can be observed breaking and/or ignoring very significant rules of the road. I am speaking generally here of course. But that's another conversation - aside from that practical observation, I am at least in principal pro-cyclist. But you are absolutely right here. Vine carries on at the same speed when he can clearly see a vehicle in front which has given ample signal that it will be turning. At the point that the vehicle in front gives signal, there is plenty of time for the cyclist to see it and to know that the vehicle will turn in. If the cyclist doesn't deliberately press on ahead to create a problem, then there wouldn't have been a problem. The vehicle would have turned, the cyclist would have carried on. Done. Jeremy Vine is looking for problems and in doing so, he creates a bad name for all cyclists.
@@brianhoskins1979 No, the cyclist had priority so the lorry driver should have held back. Even if the cyclist didnt have priority the lorry driver should still have held back. Hitting cyclists is always wrong.
@@ditch3827 I think you are wrong. What you said is not true in any other manner of driving on the roads. When you're out there driving, you have to consider what other users of the road are doing up ahead. And you modify what you are doing accordingly. Of course, if the cyclist had been adjacent to the lorry at the time, then the lorry would have had to hold back. But the lorry was way up ahead, indicated his intensions in plenty of time. The cyclist has to accept that other people are using the road, not just him.
'Undertaking' is the practice of overtaking a slower moving vehicle on its left-hand side (kerb side). While it's not strictly illegal to undertake on a motorway or dual carriageway in the UK, it can be extremely dangerous, and punishable if deemed to be careless driving. so this makes mister vine punishable then for his riding.
He takes his hand off the brake to honk his horn, to me he should have just eased up a little brake then there wouldnt be a problem. the other cyclist was forced to stay out longer because of a car lurching half way across the lane
@@peterwright9546 A bike horn cannot always be heard within a car or lorry with closed windows. Just because it has been sounded, it does not mean it has been heard by the right person.
@@TheRip72 ping ping. hey why isn't this guy paying attention *aggressively....* ping ping. the guy in that convertible behind you: hahaha I can barely it it over the sound of my awesomeness at having a convertible, what makes you think a lorry built with a lot of sound insulation due to the loudness of his engine and radiator fans which get LOUD can hear you?
The number one rule as a 2-wheel rider is never pass on the inside and always hold back if a vehicle is indicating to turn left. The law does not keep you safe you keep yourself safe.
Jeremy Vine is on a crusade. The first casualty in such a situation is common sense. The vehicle had already started turning. Vine just forced his way through because he was recording and was desperate for something to complain about. Thing is, it's not legal to overtake on the inside in the UK so who would expect someone to be coming up like that?
@@ditch3827 would you listen to someone(UK Government/Highway code), and stick your hand in a fire that is burning? no. safety tells you not to, because you will injure yourself by even feeling the heat of the fire (lorry indicating left). that is how stupid your comment is. Just because JV has chosen to ignore health and safety, should be a statement to everyone regardless of what the highway code states, it is up to every road user to keep themselves and others as safe as possible on the road. the lorry was indicating, that is a fairly massive clue that something dangerous (the flame) is about to happen if you ignore my early warning signs. you ride, or drive to the best of your ability to keep yourself, and others around you as safe as possible, that is why we have had driving tests since around the 1960's. cyclists are the exception they are not required by law to have any formal training, and not much of an onus on reading the highway code either. and definately no 2x1p pieces to rub together for brains either if you look at how the majority ride bikes, or your comment.
So the last paragraph of rule 67 is ignored “when cycling on the road, only pass to the left of large vehicles when they are stationary or slow moving and you should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be particularly careful on the approach to junctions or where a large vehicle could change lanes to the left.” As Is rule 74 When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. DONOT ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left. This is what I find deeply divisive about Vine he only quoted the Highway Code when it benefits him and ignores the rules for cyclists
that rule doesn't apply when in a cycle lane, its rule 180 that applies here "You should give way to any cyclists in a cycle lane, including when they are approaching from behind you - do not cut across them when you are turning or when you are changing lane (see Rule H3). Be prepared to stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists before crossing the cycle lane."
@@cyclingbirmingham7084 the cycle lane ends though and then recommences the far side of the left turn And vine is way far back and speeds up imho to cause the situation I have seen him do this many times in videos and also in person
@@yeahno.... it doesn't matter if there is a cycle lane or not, you still need to give way to the cyclists filtering on the left. He doesn't speed up, he just continues, as he should be able to. His videos highlight the fact cyclists are often ignored as road users and even when people should give way, they don't. Let's focus on the road user that is failing to comply with the rules and not those who refuse to let them get away with it, there is only one that should be doing anything different
Highway Code is quite interesting when you start digging into it.. Rules for Cyclists (59 to 82): "These rules are in addition to those in the following sections, which apply to all vehicles (except the motorway section)." RULE 133: "If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over."
Might has right, no point saying to yourself "but I'm right" as a lorry wheel is crushing your chest. I am a cyclist motorcyclist and car driver, but as I was told " there are old cyclists and bold cyclists, but no old bold cyclists"
The question is, did the cyclist know the lorry was turning left? There was ample warning. If I was cycling I would have put my own safety first. I know many people think the new highway code rules are useful but someone is going to get killed because of them. I would always think of my own safety first over the priority in the law.
The issue is not what you would have done as a cyclist but what you would have done as the lorry driver. Would you have turned into the path of another vehicle?
@@ditch3827 the issue is very much what I would have done, my safety comes first. And even with the changes to the law I would not undertake a lorry which was clearly indicating left. The law, in my opinion, is causing more danger than it solves.
@@nizviz You are of course free to cycle how you wish as long as it is safe. I am not interested in that as it is not relevant to the discussion. The issue here is the lorry driver turning across the path of another vehicle and putting the cyclist in danger as a result. This was clearly wrong and had there been a collision and injury the consequences for the lorry driver could have been quite serious. The cyclist did not undertake as it was a segregated cycle lane and hence a different carriageway.
Thinking about the second clip the cyclist really should have slowed down and only changed lanes when it was safe to do so, just sticking your arm out or indicating doesn't give you the right to change lanes. You are not supposed to cause another vehicle to brake by changing lanes or pulling out at a junction.
If you were any other road user (none cyclist), I'm sure it's your responsibility to fit into the flow of traffic when changing lanes. A signal does not give you priority over vehicles in the lane you wish to move into. A lot of cyclists seem happy to increase risk to themselves in lots of different situations. Yes, they and pedestrians are the most vulnerable. But if you can't take responsibility for your own safety, by reducing your own risk, why should you expect others to wrap you up in cotton wool? Everyone has responsibility for keeping us all safe, but first, don't increase danger / risk by your own actions!
I am sure Ashley would criticise the first cyclist for going into increasing danger. In the second clip, the cyclist signalling doesn't give him the right to change lanes if other traffic is already there. I believe the cyclist should have slowed and let the car behind pass before changing lanes.
@@TheRip72 that's not how it works. You're not even supposed to signal until you can see that it is safe to manoeuvre. If you force another road user change course or speed when changing lanes then you are in the wrong. Now, pragmatically I have no issue with a "begging" signal, but it must be followed by waiting for either the road to clear or the conflicting traffic to have given you the space to pull out. Consider the same scenario, but the bike is a car. Is the car right to change lanes and force another car to stand on the brakes?
@@TheRip72 He might have looked a long way back due to the camera but the car was very close as the bike moved in front of it causing the car to break.
He wouldn't have seen the first one as Jeremy Vine has blocked Ashley because Jeremy knows everything and nobody can educate him. something about dogs and tricks
2nd video: It looks like that although the cyclist signalled, he moved over when he shouldn't have. Assuming the other vehicle was doing 30ish mph, then pulling in front of it like that was stupid. Just because you signal does NOT give you priority to move over. if the cycle was a car, nobody would be compaining if the guy coming up honked at the POV car.
Second clip - I was ways taught that you shouldn’t pull out if it make the other car brake. Cyclist shouldn’t have pulled out and made that car brake in my view.
"Here lies the body of Thomas Grey, Who died defending his right of way. He was perfectly right as he sped along, But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."
You sound like you were the school bully and still are. Fortunately the law and the highway code say the exact opposite, that 'Tonnage' means you have greater responsibility for avoiding collision and if you do hit anyone then the assumption will be that it is your fault.
I feel a lot of the Jeremy Vine videos suffer from an implicit bias with the statistics. It is hard to judge how many drivers were putting cyclists in danger, or how many saw it was Jeremy and just tried to hit him.
As in a lot of these motoring videos, we see dash cam footage of Drivers who see a problem ahead but do nothing to ease off the gas or brake and then go off on one when they have to brake harshly! Vine did exactly this here but on a cycle! All he had to do was ease of the peddling and there would've been no drama! You do get the feeling he is orchestrating these incidents for the effect!? He should be very careful as he might be the architect of his own demise one day and involve some other poor soul?!
A Met Police spokesperson said: "Police were called by the London Ambulance Service at 7:53am on Wednesday May 24 to reports of a lorry in collision with a cyclist on Fitzroy Street, W1."
I'd wager that Mr Vine would survive on a motorcycle for about 3 mins with that attitude. The first priority of any cyclist, motor or pedal, is to stay alive and uninjured. One day Mr Vine will be right, dead right.
Whatever happened to common sense? I find it obvious that the natural contrarian like Mr Vine would speed up in order to be the victim of another traffic calamity on the roads of the UK. I would not pursue a point like this, cooperation on the highway may not be outlined in law..but I would have paused to let the lorry turn. Anticipation not precipitation.
Vine was a long way back when the lorry signalled a left turn, IMHO Vine should have slowed down and let the lorry turn. Threfore, I think Vine was at fault. The Highway Code section does not make it totally clear.
74 Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before completing the turn. It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road. When turning into or out of a side road, you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross (see Rule H2). 75
Vid 2: The car did very little wrong there. I don’t think that was half a metre gap either. I think it was probably more. If there was an error he got caught out by the fact that the lane he wanted to go in to to overtake the bike got blocked by a speeding motorist who was overtaking him. He didn’t seem to cause the cyclist any issue.
I used to ride motorcycles. My instructor said something that stuck with me and governed my riding all the time. "Its no good being right if you're dead." Bicyclists should have a similar outlook.
The lorry probably should have waited, but just remember, the moral high-ground ain’t much comfort when you’re lying in a hospital bed with 2 broken legs. Make a statement at your own risk.
Have you noticed the pedestrian crossing, with zig zag lines just before the turning? The zig zag lines mean no overtaking, and the cyclist is clearly overtaking the lorry at that point. I don't know that this excuses the lorry driver from using their mirrors, but surely it is a factor that the cyclist should not have been overtaking!
In clip 2 what about rule 133? Just because you indicate does not mean you should just pull into another lane. “If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed.”
Where I live, in the NW of England, my council installed approximately 25 miles of cycle paths in a large industrial area approximately 30 years ago (very forward thinking). Approximately 5 years ago I'd driven into this area (it's got a lot of petrol stations) to fill up and, on my way out, as I approached a large roundabout, a cyclist comes right up next to me on my offside. I wound down my passengerside window and asked him why he wasn't using the cycle path. I can't repeat what he said, but his mother should have washed out his mouth with soap when he was a child. I pointed to the cycle path as I waited to approach the roundabout and he pulled a face. I shouted at him "Cycle path!" He was stunned and said "When did they install that?" I just looked at him and said "Probably when you were learning to crawl." then slowly moved off. He was an absolute idiot.
Vid 2: Do you guys in the UK have a give way rule when changing lanes? The car needed to alter their speed to avoid a collision with the bike, so the bike failed to give way.
Jeremy is looking for these situations, he may have been right but to ignore the reading of the road ahead and continue belting through so he can tell the truck driver off. Next level sanctimony.
Another reading. There was a white van waiting to also go, if the pickup van had let the cyclist go, the van wouldnt have seen the cyclist and gone, and then seen the cyclist across his bonnet. on second thought, the pickup van should have stopped to let the cyclist go. ItS tHe LaW afterall.
With regard to Jeremy Vine, I agree to a point that the larger vehicle has a duty of care BUT…surely Jeremy also has a duty to be considerate to other road users. The situation would not have occurred had he he simply slowed slightly….the van would have passed quite safely in front….no pressure on anybody. But no he continued with complete disregard for the situation that could occur just to put the blame on the van driver. 50/50 blame.
For me in both cases there are similar issues Indicating does NOT give one the right of way. There was not enough space so both the cyclist and lorry driver should not have changed lanes or turned. This does not make the "revenge" close overtake of the driver right, quite the opposite. Also in both cases lifting the foot of the gas or stop pedalling would have resolved the situation. Vine in particular is a *insert favourite derogative term for a person here* who provokes these situations, often puts himself in danger and way too often distorts the case in favour of the cyclist (himself). As a "celebrity" he should be a role model for good cycling and not for "insisting on their right" cyclists, of which we have more than enough (also of the same type car drivers). Cyclists should remember they are more vulnerable and act accordingly, they also should consider that they very well may cause a 3rd party accident by their actions without being harmed themselves. It is overdue that the authorities need to think about license plates for cycles and e-scooters imho.
I think on the subject of being courteous - it would have been courteous of the cyclist in the second clip not to pull out in front of a car that was clearly going to have to brake to avoid him.
With regards to the second video, my question would be, although the cyclist indicated their intention to change lanes, did they actually look and check it was safe to do so? If I remember correctly (motor vehicle or bicycle), I believe you indicate and then wait until there is a safe space to change lanes. So many drivers seem to think indiating is a right of way, could this have happened here, they indicated and moved without checking if safe to do so?
Absolutely ridiculous! Jeremy vile should of held back - he does not have right to ignore other vehicles and intentionally cause accident! Absolutely Reckless riding on his behalf!
On the second clip, the rear facing camera has a wide angle lens, which makes objects appear further away than they actually are. Therefore the cyclist pulled out much less than 6 car lengths in front of the car. It was a dangerous move on the cyclists part. You should only change lane if there is plenty of time for drivers coming up behind you to react. As for Vine, all the other commenters have it covered. I think he undertook the vehicle which puts him firmly in the wrong.
76 Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road. Take great care when deciding whether it is safe to pass stationary or slow-moving lorries and other long vehicles, especially at the approach to junctions, as their drivers may not be able to see you. Remember that they may have to move over to the right before turning left, and that their rear wheels may then come very close to the kerb while turning (see Rule 67).
Just Don,t put yourself in danger, no point being "in the right" if you are dead. As a Hgv 1 driver I try my very best every day not to hit anything, but listen very carefully, I can't read minds or can I look in every mirror and out the windows at the same time. 2 or 3 seconds checking the right hand mirror means a lot can change to my front or on my left, just be safe guys like I say, none of us are perfect.
In the 2nd video, the HWC states quite clearly that you should in increase your speed accordingly before you change lane, and that you should not change lane if it causes any vehicle in that lane to brake or swerve. The bus was the cyclists issue/hazzard and He wilfully made himself/herself/gender-un-nominated an additional hazzard. The cyclist should have, IMO, waited behind the bus until it was clear and safe to change lane. Rule 163 clearly makes this point, regardless of any other rule.
I drive but I also walk. I still see and have many drivers at crossings or roundabouts ignoring me whilst waiting to cross. Most look ahead and not at me, even though I know I am in their side vision. It's the nice drivers who take the extra few seconds to acknowledge me and let me cross. Seconds out of their life. I know the others see me as they make damn sure they don't look my way.
In terms of the Jeremy Vine clip even if he is technically in the right is it worth potentially getting yourself killed for it. Jeremy saw the left indicator of the van from far enough back to slow down and let it complete the turn
For the 2nd clip in what other scenario can a vehicle change lanes without giving due regard to vehicles already in that lane. If the cycle was a car his signal doesn't gives him the right to change lanes regardless
@@justinclayton3022 Almost all bus lanes with that type of scenario have traffic lights set up to separate the cars and buses from moving at the same time.
JV should publish his itineraries so we can stay away from the route the idiot wants to take! It’s not his responsibility to instigate dangerous road situations to make a point. It wouldn’t surprise me if he speeded up to catch the van driver at the pinch point😡😡 On clip 2 the cyclist would have been better and safer had he held the centre of the lane as he overtook the bus, imho of course!
JV could have made the same point about left-turning vehicles, and set a better example for other cyclists, without continuing regardless and putting himself at risk.
As a cyclist and a motorist, I see both sides here. In the first instance I would not risk my life, I would have slowed and gone around the right side of the truck. In the second instance, this would have been the same if you were in a car trying to move over to over take a bus or parked car. Other road users largely don't let you in. When cycling, I will also indicate to move out but will wait for a gap or someone to let you in. Normally though, traffic slows and you get a gap that way. Very rarely do people willing let you in to pass stationary vehicles when you are on a bike. Its the whole got to get in front mentality so many people seem to have these days.
2nd video, cyclist executed an unsafe overtake of the bus (you've previously stated that passing parked cars is still overtaking). It was unsafe as there was already traffic in the 2nd lane but he appears to have just signalled then forced himself into that lane of faster moving vehicles, the Merc wanting to reduce speed more gradually then just braking hard which can cause an accident in itself. At the point the Merc overtook the cyclist in your freeze frame, the cyclist was on the lane divider line, the Merc's nearside wheels were at the centre of the lane, the road lane looks to be the standard 3m(+) width so I'd say he had sufficient space.
I've been cycling for many years. Road safety and courtesy is helped if we can all exercise a bit of give and take. Being overly assertive creates bad feelings and situations. If I was cycling behind in this situation, and saw the driver indicating I would hang back and wait for the driver to complete the turn - regardless of whether or not I had a legal right to proceed. Drivers who don't indicate are a nuisance, and so when they do indicate I appreciate it. I do not think a cyclist should have complained in this case. Of course, it would be different if the driver had not indicated. It would also be different if the driver was driving behind or alongside the bicycle.
I agree with all you say. Problem being that drivers rarely take note of any cyclists. Including a second of indicating before a left turn = hard on the brakes and nearly over the handlebars. If JV hadn't been recording, would the car have hung back???
Personally, I'd question why it has become OK to undertake, even if you are a soft, squelchy cyclist. The lorry gave ample warning, and the cyclists self preservation should have been key. Using ones eyes to directly see what's going on is far better than looking in a mirror. As the law stands, had there been an accident, the lorry driver would have been at fault. I wonder if cycle lanes like this, ought to have road markings across them, compelling the cyclist to take extra care before proceeding? On the second clip, I think the car had straddled the next lane to his right, so might not have been as close as it looked. I'd still say, however, that it wouldn't have put more than a few Nano-seconds on his/her journey time to have held back. For clarification, I drive a van, a car, and also ride cycles and motorcycles on a regular basis.
The small lorry gave clear indication of his intentions. So vine was in the wrong. Does the highway code says you shouldnt undertake which vine clearly did . Vine international put himself in dangerthe lorry started his maneuver before vine got there. Or did you not notice cycle lane end at that zig zag zone
An incident only today when I was crossing as a pedestrian on a pelican crossing a police car stopped as I was crossing 6 cyclists all in matching outfits just ploughed straight across the crossing I asked the police officer if they are going to do anything about this his reply was priceless "like what's the point its pointless"
What I saw in this video was a cyclist ignoring the road markings as he seemed to cross a stop or give way marking in the road, the truck had already crossed that marking in the road before the cyclist reached it so the truck had right of way. Secondly is that clip being recorded by a drone? Who is operating the drone? If the cyclist is operating the drone who is in control of the cycle? Third it's my understanding that if you are overtaking a vehicle that the onus is on the overtaking vehicle to do so safely, is it not the same for undertaking? Lastly I think Mr Vine will be visiting the undertakers very soon lol.
It looks that everyone has forgotten the ziti seems that you overlooked the zigzag stripes which I believe mean no overtaking ( or undertaking) as the cyclist did trying to caps a problem
First clip. The van with the cage was clearly indicating a left turn in plenty of time, so the cyclist could just have slowed down a bit - no problem. No other vehicles involved. Remember that the cyclist is using a 360 camera, which significantly distorts distances, so the van was initially further away than it appears to be. Second clip, the car overtaking after the bus should have waited a second or two longer.
The issue with Jeremy is that I sees a situation unfolding and then continues to escalate it and also in some cases riding defensively. So whilst in many cases the car or lorry is at fault Jeremy is equally responsible due to his inaction of a very obvious hazard.
In the second clip, I do have some sypathy for the car driver. He had decided to hang back while the cyclist overtook the bus but then probably had the expectation that the cyclist would return to at least the centre of the inside carriagway, however you can see that as the cyclist completed the overtake of the bus a car was pulling forwared into the carriagway making the cyclist keep to the right hand side of the carriageway. Unfortunately the car driver seems to have made the assumption that he would be clear to pass the cyclist keeping the right distance away from the cyclist once the cyclist was clear of the bus and once the car driver had started his manoever it was probably too late to stop. We all know what assumptions do but we all amke them.
I remember seeing a Jeremy Vile vid of him riding his bike in a cycle lane but a bus was turning across the lane approaching him from the opposite direction. Vile deliberately accelerated in an attempt to beat the bus but all he nearly got was a face full of London Transport's finest. I believe that the rule of the road used to be 'let the bus go first' but that may have changed in the latest looney tunes version of the Highway Code!
fantastic video thank you very much for the feedback. I am keen to learn more about what both myself and others need to be doing to make the roads safer. It can be a minefield with the highway code, with what applies to whom and in what situation, so having a legal perspective is so helpful. thanks again for this and all the insights from your other videos
In regards to the bus overtake i always thought when you need to change lanes ( in a car ) you don't have the right of way to barge into another lane unless its clear or at least not impede traffic. i guess the new rules give cyclists the ability to wave a hand and impede other road users.
I am 100% on the side of the van driver - any action that could lead to JV getting squashed should be commended. The guy is an arse who is encouraging division and making a complicated situation worse, just to further his own ego.
The real issue here with the JV clip is that there isn't a safe way for the lorry to move across the cycle lane for both road users. If that was a bus lane, then I usually see a short distance before the junction where the bus lane 'stops' so that regular traffic can pull in before the junction, to stop them having to cross a 'live' lane of traffic. There is no "danger-free" way of doing this - the road looks like it's been set up to force this kind of confrontation. To me, rule 182 looks to apply when you are sharing a lane with the cyclist - i.e. don't overtake them just to pull across them. I'm not sure how far back along JV's recording you need to go to find if the lorry overtook him. I suppose that my main takeaway is that the highway code has a lot of edge case issues that it doesn't cover adequately, and leaves up to lawyer interpretation as to who is correct. Regarding the second clip, the issue I have is that the cyclist changed lanes to pass the bus without giving way to traffic already in that lane. Isn't that behaviour a 'significant fault' (impeding other road users / causing other road users to change their speed) if it occurs during a driving test?
The Vine situation - I think you may have missed Rules 67 and 76, which caution Cyclists who intend to pass on the left hand side of a vehicle turning left. Rule 76 talks about the cyclist having priority (a phrase I hate because if it is not "right of way" it still requires others to give way, and if it is "right of way" you might as well just say that and be done with it), but also notes that the cyclist has a responsibility to check if it is safe to proceed, I would argue that it is never safe to proceed if the vehicle in front is indicating to turn left as you cannot see what is beyond that vehicle (and likewise, whatever is there cannot see you). I am reasonably sure that in previous iterations of the Highway Code it has been specific that a cyclist should not pass a vehicle on the left if that vehicle is turning, or indicating to turn, left. Also note that the Hierarchy rules do not remove the cyclists responsibility to their own, and other road users, safety (Rule H1). Rule 163 also applies to cyclists (as noted in the "rules for cyclists"), specifically, "you should only overtake on the left if the vehicle infront is signalling to turn right". Birmingham cyclist - As the rules of the road also apply to cyclists, not taking away your views on the car driver, the cyclist must also obey the rules, for example rule 133 which talks about changing lanes on multi-lane carriageways. In my opinion these new Hierarchy rules do nothing to improve safety and only serve to cause problems, most notably as other rules get re-written to accommodate the newer Hierarchy rules, without any real warning.
To me, this hierarchy applies equally in its need for comprehension: if a cyclist is considered vulnerable then they need to acknowledge their own vulnerability, that means, if you recognise that there is a potentially dangerous situation that you can clearly see ahead, then do not place yourself in it. If that had been me on the bike, I would have recognised that the driver of the van had limited visibility compared to my own, yes, the driver is meant to use his mirrors but we are always being told how motorbikes and bicycles are harder to see due to their smaller size. To me, that means if I can clearly see a problem I have much more responsibility not to place myself in a position of danger, not to rely on other roadusers to observe me in middle of trying to check all of the angles of approach that they are having to consider. Until such time as humans evolve more than one pair of eyes, I will assume that a driver is not looking in his nearside wrong mirror for the entire time that he is making a maneuver when he has several other directions to assess, too; meanwhile, when I can see clearly in front of me, I need to assess what is likely to impinge on me and take appropriate action. The one reliable rule of being a roaduser: assume everyone else is an idiot and protect yourself accordingly.
I think the highway code is implying the situation where a vehicle driver overtakes and then cuts across a cyclist. Where the cyclist , even in a designated lane , is behind and undertaking ,the cyclist should allow a leading vehicle to turn without aggresively ( and speeding above 20mph? ) to get through
When you are always involved in incidents no matter in what walks of live you need to reassess what you could have been done different to help future situations, especially on bike and motorbikes because yo can always be Dead right.
The 1st video the lorry wasn't over taking JV . JV was actually under taking the lorry knowing well in advance with the lorry's indicator that its turning left. Hanging back would have been the safest option making it a non event but the JV wouldn't have content. The 2nd video I agree the car put the cyclist in danger.
Fundamentally disagree with BBB on the 2nd clip. IF the cyclist was a motorised vehicle, it wouldn't be acceptable to suggest that because the bus is like to impede the progress of the cyclist AND the cyclist has indicated to suggest a move into the right hand lane, the cyclist in correct to do so. If it was a car/van/truck etc, BBB would be saying that the driver is legalyl responsible for entering the right hand lane safely i.e. WITHOUT causing traffic that is already in the lane to ahve to slow down/brake but somehow it's 'different' because it's a cyclist? 🤦♂
I find in a lot of Vines videos, he cycles aggressively and fails to anticipate other users bad driving. You brought up the point about cyclists having to brake being dangerous, why arent there speed limitations on cyclists based on braking performance as there are on motor vehicles? I am a cyclist myself and agree closing passing is a too frequent occurrence but in a lot of these videos you see the cyclist failing to anticipate other peoples ignorance or lack of courtesy and almost deliberately cycle into danger.
I'm a cyclist, in the first scenario I would have held back, dispite the law being in my favour, for my own safety. I wouldn't risk my life for 10 seconds.
@Trisha Lilly I did exactly the same when I cycled in the city. Safer is best.
@@elizabethgrogan8553 good grief, two cyclists with common sense? I wish there were more if you around where I live
@@mayfieldca he's the only one they don't exist in the real world
I know I'm male and a heterosexual masculine one at that (old-school type) but............. #MeToo
"I would have held back, despite the law being in my favour"
I agree, yeah the highway code says you got right of way so hell let us go for it. But that does NOT help you when you end up in wheelchair or worse. 😲 Also if you study the junction in question had the lorry pull up then Mr Vine would be invisilble to other traffic because of the lorry blocking view so Mr Vine would still need to pull up to protect himself for other situations. Personally I slow down at every junction even if I have legal right of way because the only person who going to protect my safety is me 🙂 The lorry was signaling I would play safe. So in conclusion Mr Vine is a idiot plus it is London LOL
As with the last time Jeremy had plenty of time brake and avoid grief but he does a cyclegaz and makes an issue out of it for nothing.
As a fervent cyclist (motorcyclist and car driver) I wish JV would hang up his cycle clips and catch the bus. His exploits and constant griping is doing more damage to our relationship with other road users than anything else.
Let the wagon go thru, i ride bikes , hang back, what's the rush, that cyclist has a bad attitude and a death wish.
exactly, if you're on a bike, probably not in a rush in the first place. Bikes are, in a way, one way of saying 'not only do I have the option to ride to work/etc, I have the time allowance to do so'. Lorry drivers however have a LOT of attention on their time and there's only a set amount of it, they can't just willy nilly say 'nah I'll hang back a bit and take a break early also I'd rather arrive an hour after rush than during rush'.
Would you go up the inside of a vehicle indicating left on the motorway? No . Yet this is what Jersey does
@@wrightwoodwork Jersey = Jeremy...
One day Jeremy will be laying in the road, In a puddle of his own fluids and His last words will be, "it was my right of way"
If you think that those drivers drove in a way which could’ve caused him to be killed then isn’t that a big problem?
Regarding the Jeremy Vine clip, I would say it's better to be wrong and alive than right and dead. If it were me cycling there I would have held back and not try to pass the lorry. As Ashley would say, it reduces risk. There are some drivers you should just stay away from and that one is a prime example as he just didn't care about anyone else on the road.
As per Ashley's video this morning "Have I been seen?" is better than "Is it my right of way". Worse than that, I have had drivers clearly see me & still drive straight towards where they can see I am heading. I avoided one such incident earlier today.
They could write on his headstone I was in the right.But I was dickhead .
We are all responsible for our own safety, just because we are in the right does not help if you are dead.
We are also responsible for the safety of other road users, especially those more vulnerable such as cyclists or pedestrians.
@@justinclayton3022d as cyclists and pedestrians we have to look after ourselves if a motorist fails in their responsibility. That's why you should never *take* right of way, it needs to be _given,_ regardless of priority.
Who has the right of way on the road, cyclist, or pedestrian?
@@thomasmyers4089 If a public road (& not a motorway) all modes of transport (pedestrian, horse, cyclist or motor vehicle) has right of way.
Now if you mean priority, it depends upon the circumstances. But similarly to the JV clip. If cyclist was turning left and pedestrian was walking straight ahead then pedestrian has priority, so cyclist (or motor car) should stop & wait for pedestrian to cross.
@@StefanVeenstra JV did look out for himself, by using his very loud horn that made the lorry driver stop.
Yeah... let's try and AVOID accidents rather than PURSUING them in a desperate thirst for even more social media attention eh?
I can see the truck is turning, I could easily slow down a bit and let the truck turn left, but as a cyclist I have priority, I could be killed, but I have priority.
Indeed, and the way to avoid accidents is to obey the highway code and not turn into the path of other vehicles.
@@ceismulcastle Neither cyclist was riding inconsiderately as BBB explained so I'm not sure what your point is. Perhaps there wasn't one.
@@ditch3827 Perhaps you need a 'refresher' on the Highway Code?! So the last paragraph of rule 67 is ignored
“when cycling on the road, only pass to the left of large vehicles when they are stationary or slow moving and you should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be particularly careful on the approach to junctions or where a large vehicle could change lanes to the left.”
As Is rule 74
When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. DO NOT!! ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.............and of course Vine heeded all this advice??!!
@@telmas7183 I think you are missing the point. If you are turning then you must not turn into the path of another vehicle. It is never right to knock a cyclist over and it shocks me that you think it is.
Just to refresh you on the highway code, Rule 67 The lorry was in fact stationary when JW passed him and only turned into JW when he was level with the cab. He was also careful which was how he managed to avoid being hit by the lorry driver. So JW complied with rule 67.
Rule 74 relates to cyclists turning so in not relevant here.
Inconvenience over injury anytime. No code or law is going to resurrect a cyclist who could’ve made it a non-event.
People like Vine go out of their way to cause the incidents they film. If he sees a vehicle signalling to cross his path then he should be weary that the driver may not have seen him yet and he should slow down to avoid an accident. What these cyclists do is ignore self preservation and either keep going or speed up and risk their lives and those of others in order to get clicks on videos.
Just don't watch them, only way to stop it, I stopped watching dash cam vids after I saw a bloke driving up and down the same road breaking on a corner to make a concealed turn.
JV's stubborness is putting him at unnecessary risk. Doesnt matter if he is right of wrong, he can discuss that with the reaper.
I was on a roundabout this morning & a car drove straight across me. I was there first, my positioning & indication were both good. There is no way he should not have seen me. It was absolutely my right of way when he entered the roundabout. If I had not taken evasive action, I would not be typing this now. I would be in hospital or worse.
A bike bell is also absolutely useless. It will not be loud enough to be heard in a car with closed windows & for pedestrians, a call of 'keep left please' is far more meaningful.
Reminds me of the police 'auditors'.
@@TheRip72 you should get an airhorn for your bike, you are right, drivers will never hear a bell.
Vine of the biggest throbber out there.
@@willscottytv as a cyclist he is an embarrassment. He always seems to look for problems. Yes people do things wrong, but nobody go out to hit a cyclist. Where Jeremy makes it feel like that
I'm all in favour of Vine taking even greater risks in pursuit of increasing his social media status. Perhaps he could run across Zebra Crossings blindfold in the dark? I'd watch that reality show 'Vine's Life On The Line'! In fact, I can think of a LOT of other 'celebs' I'd vote to see on that show.... perhaps this is the future of Reality TV!
Have him followed around by some models in bikinis, speed up the footage and play "Yakety Sax" over the top. 21st century Benny Hill.
😂😂😂😂😂❤
@@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t can't have the bikini models any more, F1 got rid of them too :(
Vine was well back from the truck when it started to indicate and even start the turn which would have put him in the trucks blind spot, so yes Vine should have hung back, he only needed to slow a bit but no he wanted to create an incident. Vine is the sort of person who gets off on stirring trouble up and causes friction between cyclists and drivers. He should be banned from all media and the roads.
Doesnt matter who is in the right and who is in the wrong - cycling in situations like this is about staying alive. It doesnt make much difference whether you were right or wrong when you are dead.
The van driver would continue to drive dangerously and put others' lives at risk if such situations weren't reported to the police.
@@glenn1534 The only person who put his life at risk was Jeremy Vine who cycled into a collision.
In the jeremy vine clip nobody has mentioned the road markings , jeremey was overtaking within the area of a zebra crossing , but of course the normal rules dont apply to cyclists.
Just commented asking if anyone had mentioned undertaking on a crossing. No longer a cycle lane.
Why would Jeremy Vine put his life at risk? It is not as though he didn't know the lorry was going to be turning.
Because he is a publicity-seeking, self-righteous windbag.
Because he's an attention whore.
For views
The highway code has taken responsibility away from cyclists. Its a common phenomenon in the UK now, where the powers that be have decided to legislate for the wrong peoples stupidity. Making other people responsible for your stupidity as a cyclist is wrong. I cycle as well as drive and if I see a vehicle is turning left, the sensible and responsible thing to do is wait until they have made their turn. The highway code allows me to continue but just because I can doesn't mean I should.
The Highway Code has not taken responsibility from cyclists. Quotes from HC
This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.
None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.
Look, we know Vine appears to spend his spare time riding around aggressively looking for trouble. There is no sense Vine has courtesy or respect for other road users.
He should have hung back, he made that situation deliberately
Totally agree, the lorry driver should have hung back but deliberately made the situation worse.
@@ditch3827 Defo agree with you, cycle "lane" as in car lane intersects another lane, would you turn left from right lane and argue have priority since you indicated over people in the left?
I agree. And I am pro-cyclists, I don't have any issue with them fundamentally. Of course, in practice many cyclists can be observed breaking and/or ignoring very significant rules of the road. I am speaking generally here of course. But that's another conversation - aside from that practical observation, I am at least in principal pro-cyclist. But you are absolutely right here. Vine carries on at the same speed when he can clearly see a vehicle in front which has given ample signal that it will be turning. At the point that the vehicle in front gives signal, there is plenty of time for the cyclist to see it and to know that the vehicle will turn in. If the cyclist doesn't deliberately press on ahead to create a problem, then there wouldn't have been a problem. The vehicle would have turned, the cyclist would have carried on. Done. Jeremy Vine is looking for problems and in doing so, he creates a bad name for all cyclists.
@@brianhoskins1979 No, the cyclist had priority so the lorry driver should have held back. Even if the cyclist didnt have priority the lorry driver should still have held back. Hitting cyclists is always wrong.
@@ditch3827 I think you are wrong. What you said is not true in any other manner of driving on the roads. When you're out there driving, you have to consider what other users of the road are doing up ahead. And you modify what you are doing accordingly.
Of course, if the cyclist had been adjacent to the lorry at the time, then the lorry would have had to hold back.
But the lorry was way up ahead, indicated his intensions in plenty of time. The cyclist has to accept that other people are using the road, not just him.
'Undertaking' is the practice of overtaking a slower moving vehicle on its left-hand side (kerb side). While it's not strictly illegal to undertake on a motorway or dual carriageway in the UK, it can be extremely dangerous, and punishable if deemed to be careless driving.
so this makes mister vine punishable then for his riding.
He takes his hand off the brake to honk his horn, to me he should have just eased up a little brake then there wouldnt be a problem. the other cyclist was forced to stay out longer because of a car lurching half way across the lane
I think you misunderstand the term.
@@peterwright9546 A bike horn cannot always be heard within a car or lorry with closed windows. Just because it has been sounded, it does not mean it has been heard by the right person.
@@TheRip72 ping ping. hey why isn't this guy paying attention *aggressively....* ping ping.
the guy in that convertible behind you: hahaha I can barely it it over the sound of my awesomeness at having a convertible, what makes you think a lorry built with a lot of sound insulation due to the loudness of his engine and radiator fans which get LOUD can hear you?
You can undertake in slow moving traffic ie in a queue
The number one rule as a 2-wheel rider is never pass on the inside and always hold back if a vehicle is indicating to turn left. The law does not keep you safe you keep yourself safe.
Jeremy Vine is on a crusade. The first casualty in such a situation is common sense. The vehicle had already started turning. Vine just forced his way through because he was recording and was desperate for something to complain about. Thing is, it's not legal to overtake on the inside in the UK so who would expect someone to be coming up like that?
A crusade for road safety. The lorry driver should follow the highway code.
@@ditch3827 And if the lorry driver had continued to turn and knock JV off his bike, would that be a win for road safety?
@@ditch3827 would you listen to someone(UK Government/Highway code), and stick your hand in a fire that is burning? no. safety tells you not to, because you will injure yourself by even feeling the heat of the fire (lorry indicating left). that is how stupid your comment is. Just because JV has chosen to ignore health and safety, should be a statement to everyone regardless of what the highway code states, it is up to every road user to keep themselves and others as safe as possible on the road. the lorry was indicating, that is a fairly massive clue that something dangerous (the flame) is about to happen if you ignore my early warning signs. you ride, or drive to the best of your ability to keep yourself, and others around you as safe as possible, that is why we have had driving tests since around the 1960's. cyclists are the exception they are not required by law to have any formal training, and not much of an onus on reading the highway code either. and definately no 2x1p pieces to rub together for brains either if you look at how the majority ride bikes, or your comment.
So the last paragraph of rule 67 is ignored
“when cycling on the road, only pass to the left of large vehicles when they are stationary or slow moving and you should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be particularly careful on the approach to junctions or where a large vehicle could change lanes to the left.”
As Is rule 74
When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. DONOT ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
This is what I find deeply divisive about Vine he only quoted the Highway Code when it benefits him and ignores the rules for cyclists
that rule doesn't apply when in a cycle lane, its rule 180 that applies here
"You should give way to any cyclists in a cycle lane, including when they are approaching from behind you - do not cut across them when you are turning or when you are changing lane (see Rule H3). Be prepared to stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists before crossing the cycle lane."
Thats all completely wrong lol. Did you not even notice its a cycle lane. I bet you felt really smug after writing all that too
@@paulbateman no the cycle lane ends about 10m before the junction and is zig zags for the crossing
So normal road rules apply
@@cyclingbirmingham7084 the cycle lane ends though and then recommences the far side of the left turn
And vine is way far back and speeds up imho to cause the situation
I have seen him do this many times in videos and also in person
@@yeahno.... it doesn't matter if there is a cycle lane or not, you still need to give way to the cyclists filtering on the left. He doesn't speed up, he just continues, as he should be able to. His videos highlight the fact cyclists are often ignored as road users and even when people should give way, they don't. Let's focus on the road user that is failing to comply with the rules and not those who refuse to let them get away with it, there is only one that should be doing anything different
Highway Code is quite interesting when you start digging into it.. Rules for Cyclists (59 to 82): "These rules are in addition to those in the following sections, which apply to all vehicles (except the motorway section)." RULE 133: "If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over."
He was was well back behind the truck indercating leeft, and was attempting to over take on the inside, I would consider this dangerous riding
Personally I would have held back and let the wagon turn.
Why put yourself into danger.
Might has right, no point saying to yourself "but I'm right" as a lorry wheel is crushing your chest. I am a cyclist motorcyclist and car driver, but as I was told " there are old cyclists and bold cyclists, but no old bold cyclists"
The question is, did the cyclist know the lorry was turning left?
There was ample warning. If I was cycling I would have put my own safety first.
I know many people think the new highway code rules are useful but someone is going to get killed because of them. I would always think of my own safety first over the priority in the law.
The issue is not what you would have done as a cyclist but what you would have done as the lorry driver. Would you have turned into the path of another vehicle?
@@ditch3827 the issue is very much what I would have done, my safety comes first. And even with the changes to the law I would not undertake a lorry which was clearly indicating left.
The law, in my opinion, is causing more danger than it solves.
@@nizviz You are of course free to cycle how you wish as long as it is safe. I am not interested in that as it is not relevant to the discussion.
The issue here is the lorry driver turning across the path of another vehicle and putting the cyclist in danger as a result. This was clearly wrong and had there been a collision and injury the consequences for the lorry driver could have been quite serious.
The cyclist did not undertake as it was a segregated cycle lane and hence a different carriageway.
@@ditch3827 there are too many blind spots on a lorry when UNDERTAKING, especially when the cyclist was far enough back to see it indicating left.
@@nizviz He didnt undertake as it was a segregated cycle lane and so a separate carriageway.
Thinking about the second clip the cyclist really should have slowed down and only changed lanes when it was safe to do so, just sticking your arm out or indicating doesn't give you the right to change lanes. You are not supposed to cause another vehicle to brake by changing lanes or pulling out at a junction.
If you were any other road user (none cyclist), I'm sure it's your responsibility to fit into the flow of traffic when changing lanes. A signal does not give you priority over vehicles in the lane you wish to move into. A lot of cyclists seem happy to increase risk to themselves in lots of different situations. Yes, they and pedestrians are the most vulnerable. But if you can't take responsibility for your own safety, by reducing your own risk, why should you expect others to wrap you up in cotton wool? Everyone has responsibility for keeping us all safe, but first, don't increase danger / risk by your own actions!
I like how he zooms in and accelerates to cause tbe situation. So brave
I am sure Ashley would criticise the first cyclist for going into increasing danger. In the second clip, the cyclist signalling doesn't give him the right to change lanes if other traffic is already there. I believe the cyclist should have slowed and let the car behind pass before changing lanes.
The cyclist in the second video let the first car past, but the second was quite a long way back. He had plenty of time to react.
@@TheRip72 that's not how it works. You're not even supposed to signal until you can see that it is safe to manoeuvre. If you force another road user change course or speed when changing lanes then you are in the wrong.
Now, pragmatically I have no issue with a "begging" signal, but it must be followed by waiting for either the road to clear or the conflicting traffic to have given you the space to pull out.
Consider the same scenario, but the bike is a car. Is the car right to change lanes and force another car to stand on the brakes?
@@TheRip72 He might have looked a long way back due to the camera but the car was very close as the bike moved in front of it causing the car to break.
He wouldn't have seen the first one as Jeremy Vine has blocked Ashley because Jeremy knows everything and nobody can educate him. something about dogs and tricks
2nd video: It looks like that although the cyclist signalled, he moved over when he shouldn't have. Assuming the other vehicle was doing 30ish mph, then pulling in front of it like that was stupid. Just because you signal does NOT give you priority to move over. if the cycle was a car, nobody would be compaining if the guy coming up honked at the POV car.
Second clip - I was ways taught that you shouldn’t pull out if it make the other car brake. Cyclist shouldn’t have pulled out and made that car brake in my view.
Working in heavy Civil Engineering, I simply use the rule of Tonnage has right of way
"Here lies the body of Thomas Grey,
Who died defending his right of way.
He was perfectly right as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."
You sound like you were the school bully and still are. Fortunately the law and the highway code say the exact opposite, that 'Tonnage' means you have greater responsibility for avoiding collision and if you do hit anyone then the assumption will be that it is your fault.
Useing your Weight to get right of way. This is a FAIL on any LGV or PSV test. So do not do it. ( I am a C+E profesional driver).
@@chrisdarwood625 I mean I give heavier vehicles right of way on site, not that I bully my way through traffic
If you ever get a video of Jeremy Vine getting knocked off his bike, don't forget to upload that.
I feel a lot of the Jeremy Vine videos suffer from an implicit bias with the statistics. It is hard to judge how many drivers were putting cyclists in danger, or how many saw it was Jeremy and just tried to hit him.
As in a lot of these motoring videos, we see dash cam footage of Drivers who see a problem ahead but do nothing to ease off the gas or brake and then go off on one when they have to brake harshly! Vine did exactly this here but on a cycle! All he had to do was ease of the peddling and there would've been no drama! You do get the feeling he is orchestrating these incidents for the effect!? He should be very careful as he might be the architect of his own demise one day and involve some other poor soul?!
A Met Police spokesperson said: "Police were called by the London Ambulance Service at 7:53am on Wednesday May 24 to reports of a lorry in collision with a cyclist on Fitzroy Street, W1."
I'd wager that Mr Vine would survive on a motorcycle for about 3 mins with that attitude. The first priority of any cyclist, motor or pedal, is to stay alive and uninjured. One day Mr Vine will be right, dead right.
Whatever happened to common sense? I find it obvious that the natural contrarian like Mr Vine would speed up in order to be the victim of another traffic calamity on the roads of the UK.
I would not pursue a point like this, cooperation on the highway may not be outlined in law..but I would have paused to let the lorry turn. Anticipation not precipitation.
Common sense and the highway code say "do not turn into the path of another vehicle"
Vine was a long way back when the lorry signalled a left turn, IMHO Vine should have slowed down and let the lorry turn. Threfore, I think Vine was at fault. The Highway Code section does not make it totally clear.
From what I've heard about this vine person, he probably speeded up to make it more of an issue than it would have been.
74
Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before completing the turn. It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road.
When turning into or out of a side road, you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross (see Rule H2).
75
Vid 2: The car did very little wrong there. I don’t think that was half a metre gap either. I think it was probably more. If there was an error he got caught out by the fact that the lane he wanted to go in to to overtake the bike got blocked by a speeding motorist who was overtaking him. He didn’t seem to cause the cyclist any issue.
Jeremy “whiney viney” is a proper drama queen.
In my experience its the cyclists that are completely unaware of anyone else on the road.
I used to ride motorcycles. My instructor said something that stuck with me and governed my riding all the time.
"Its no good being right if you're dead."
Bicyclists should have a similar outlook.
The lorry probably should have waited, but just remember, the moral high-ground ain’t much comfort when you’re lying in a hospital bed with 2 broken legs. Make a statement at your own risk.
if VINE wants to stay alive he should have hung back ! the highway code is not going save him if he has a serious collision !
Have you noticed the pedestrian crossing, with zig zag lines just before the turning? The zig zag lines mean no overtaking, and the cyclist is clearly overtaking the lorry at that point. I don't know that this excuses the lorry driver from using their mirrors, but surely it is a factor that the cyclist should not have been overtaking!
Bikes/cars are allowed to over/undertake on zigzags, not car/car though. Look it up.
In clip 2 what about rule 133? Just because you indicate does not mean you should just pull into another lane. “If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed.”
Where I live, in the NW of England, my council installed approximately 25 miles of cycle paths in a large industrial area approximately 30 years ago (very forward thinking).
Approximately 5 years ago I'd driven into this area (it's got a lot of petrol stations) to fill up and, on my way out, as I approached a large roundabout, a cyclist comes right up next to me on my offside.
I wound down my passengerside window and asked him why he wasn't using the cycle path. I can't repeat what he said, but his mother should have washed out his mouth with soap when he was a child.
I pointed to the cycle path as I waited to approach the roundabout and he pulled a face. I shouted at him "Cycle path!"
He was stunned and said "When did they install that?" I just looked at him and said
"Probably when you were learning to crawl." then slowly moved off. He was an absolute idiot.
There is no requirement for cyclists to use a cycle lane. I would be careful about calling anyone an idiot.
Jeremy the whine
He's a typical bbc prick.
Cyclist should have braked .Ride defensively.otherwise it's like going to a gunfight with a toffee apple
They certainly don't when on a narrow foot path.
The onus is on the vehicle turning to give way.
Vid 2: Do you guys in the UK have a give way rule when changing lanes? The car needed to alter their speed to avoid a collision with the bike, so the bike failed to give way.
True cyclists should just hog the middle lane to stop this happening.
Jeremy is looking for these situations, he may have been right but to ignore the reading of the road ahead and continue belting through so he can tell the truck driver off. Next level sanctimony.
Another reading.
There was a white van waiting to also go, if the pickup van had let the cyclist go, the van wouldnt have seen the cyclist and gone, and then seen the cyclist across his bonnet.
on second thought, the pickup van should have stopped to let the cyclist go. ItS tHe LaW afterall.
With regard to Jeremy Vine, I agree to a point that the larger vehicle has a duty of care BUT…surely Jeremy also has a duty to be considerate to other road users. The situation would not have occurred had he he simply slowed slightly….the van would have passed quite safely in front….no pressure on anybody. But no he continued with complete disregard for the situation that could occur just to put the blame on the van driver. 50/50 blame.
For me in both cases there are similar issues
Indicating does NOT give one the right of way. There was not enough space so both the cyclist and lorry driver should not have changed lanes or turned. This does not make the "revenge" close overtake of the driver right, quite the opposite.
Also in both cases lifting the foot of the gas or stop pedalling would have resolved the situation.
Vine in particular is a *insert favourite derogative term for a person here* who provokes these situations, often puts himself in danger and way too often distorts the case in favour of the cyclist (himself). As a "celebrity" he should be a role model for good cycling and not for "insisting on their right" cyclists, of which we have more than enough (also of the same type car drivers).
Cyclists should remember they are more vulnerable and act accordingly, they also should consider that they very well may cause a 3rd party accident by their actions without being harmed themselves. It is overdue that the authorities need to think about license plates for cycles and e-scooters imho.
I think on the subject of being courteous - it would have been courteous of the cyclist in the second clip not to pull out in front of a car that was clearly going to have to brake to avoid him.
Consider if it was a car coming up behind the bus and was there enough room to pull out as is it a merge in turn.
With regards to the second video, my question would be, although the cyclist indicated their intention to change lanes, did they actually look and check it was safe to do so? If I remember correctly (motor vehicle or bicycle), I believe you indicate and then wait until there is a safe space to change lanes. So many drivers seem to think indiating is a right of way, could this have happened here, they indicated and moved without checking if safe to do so?
Absolutely ridiculous! Jeremy vile should of held back - he does not have right to ignore other vehicles and intentionally cause accident! Absolutely Reckless riding on his behalf!
Don't be silly. He was going straight on so had priority over the turning vehicle. If you are turning then you have to give way.
@@ditch3827 OK, Jeremy.
On the second clip, the rear facing camera has a wide angle lens, which makes objects appear further away than they actually are. Therefore the cyclist pulled out much less than 6 car lengths in front of the car. It was a dangerous move on the cyclists part. You should only change lane if there is plenty of time for drivers coming up behind you to react. As for Vine, all the other commenters have it covered. I think he undertook the vehicle which puts him firmly in the wrong.
The cycle lane ended just before the junction, from what I can see....and yet he ploughs on.
76
Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.
Take great care when deciding whether it is safe to pass stationary or slow-moving lorries and other long vehicles, especially at the approach to junctions, as their drivers may not be able to see you. Remember that they may have to move over to the right before turning left, and that their rear wheels may then come very close to the kerb while turning (see Rule 67).
Just Don,t put yourself in danger, no point being "in the right" if you are dead. As a Hgv 1 driver I try my very best every day not to hit anything, but listen very carefully, I can't read minds or can I look in every mirror and out the windows at the same time. 2 or 3 seconds checking the right hand mirror means a lot can change to my front or on my left, just be safe guys like I say, none of us are perfect.
In the 2nd video, the HWC states quite clearly that you should in increase your speed accordingly before you change lane, and that you should not change lane if it causes any vehicle in that lane to brake or swerve. The bus was the cyclists issue/hazzard and He wilfully made himself/herself/gender-un-nominated an additional hazzard. The cyclist should have, IMO, waited behind the bus until it was clear and safe to change lane. Rule 163 clearly makes this point, regardless of any other rule.
I drive but I also walk. I still see and have many drivers at crossings or roundabouts ignoring me whilst waiting to cross. Most look ahead and not at me, even though I know I am in their side vision. It's the nice drivers who take the extra few seconds to acknowledge me and let me cross. Seconds out of their life. I know the others see me as they make damn sure they don't look my way.
In terms of the Jeremy Vine clip even if he is technically in the right is it worth potentially getting yourself killed for it. Jeremy saw the left indicator of the van from far enough back to slow down and let it complete the turn
Exactly he would only have a point if the lorry wasn't indicating and did it at the last second
For the 2nd clip in what other scenario can a vehicle change lanes without giving due regard to vehicles already in that lane. If the cycle was a car his signal doesn't gives him the right to change lanes regardless
If one sets up ambiguity... one sets up the potential for accidents.
In many situations the cycle-lane would have a give way.
A bus has priority to go straight on in a bus lane over a vehicle turning left. Why should it be different for bicycles?
@@justinclayton3022 Almost all bus lanes with that type of scenario have traffic lights set up to separate the cars and buses from moving at the same time.
@@thedirectorschair1054 No bus lanes do not necessarily have traffic lights. eg Kings Rd Reading.
@@tony_w839 that's why i said almost all.
JV should publish his itineraries so we can stay away from the route the idiot wants to take! It’s not his responsibility to instigate dangerous road situations to make a point. It wouldn’t surprise me if he speeded up to catch the van driver at the pinch point😡😡 On clip 2 the cyclist would have been better and safer had he held the centre of the lane as he overtook the bus, imho of course!
JV could have made the same point about left-turning vehicles, and set a better example for other cyclists, without continuing regardless and putting himself at risk.
Surely the person changing direction or lane needs to make sure it’s safe to do so
As a cyclist and a motorist, I see both sides here. In the first instance I would not risk my life, I would have slowed and gone around the right side of the truck. In the second instance, this would have been the same if you were in a car trying to move over to over take a bus or parked car. Other road users largely don't let you in. When cycling, I will also indicate to move out but will wait for a gap or someone to let you in. Normally though, traffic slows and you get a gap that way. Very rarely do people willing let you in to pass stationary vehicles when you are on a bike. Its the whole got to get in front mentality so many people seem to have these days.
2nd video, cyclist executed an unsafe overtake of the bus (you've previously stated that passing parked cars is still overtaking). It was unsafe as there was already traffic in the 2nd lane but he appears to have just signalled then forced himself into that lane of faster moving vehicles, the Merc wanting to reduce speed more gradually then just braking hard which can cause an accident in itself.
At the point the Merc overtook the cyclist in your freeze frame, the cyclist was on the lane divider line, the Merc's nearside wheels were at the centre of the lane, the road lane looks to be the standard 3m(+) width so I'd say he had sufficient space.
I've been cycling for many years. Road safety and courtesy is helped if we can all exercise a bit of give and take. Being overly assertive creates bad feelings and situations. If I was cycling behind in this situation, and saw the driver indicating I would hang back and wait for the driver to complete the turn - regardless of whether or not I had a legal right to proceed. Drivers who don't indicate are a nuisance, and so when they do indicate I appreciate it. I do not think a cyclist should have complained in this case. Of course, it would be different if the driver had not indicated. It would also be different if the driver was driving behind or alongside the bicycle.
I agree with all you say.
Problem being that drivers rarely take note of any cyclists. Including a second of indicating before a left turn = hard on the brakes and nearly over the handlebars.
If JV hadn't been recording, would the car have hung back???
Personally, I'd question why it has become OK to undertake, even if you are a soft, squelchy cyclist. The lorry gave ample warning, and the cyclists self preservation should have been key. Using ones eyes to directly see what's going on is far better than looking in a mirror. As the law stands, had there been an accident, the lorry driver would have been at fault. I wonder if cycle lanes like this, ought to have road markings across them, compelling the cyclist to take extra care before proceeding? On the second clip, I think the car had straddled the next lane to his right, so might not have been as close as it looked. I'd still say, however, that it wouldn't have put more than a few Nano-seconds on his/her journey time to have held back. For clarification, I drive a van, a car, and also ride cycles and motorcycles on a regular basis.
The small lorry gave clear indication of his intentions. So vine was in the wrong. Does the highway code says you shouldnt undertake which vine clearly did . Vine international put himself in dangerthe lorry started his maneuver before vine got there. Or did you not notice cycle lane end at that zig zag zone
Indicating does not give you priority. You still have to give way when indicating.
Vine international 😂 he must be branching out
An incident only today when I was crossing as a pedestrian on a pelican crossing a police car stopped as I was crossing 6 cyclists all in matching outfits just ploughed straight across the crossing I asked the police officer if they are going to do anything about this his reply was priceless "like what's the point its pointless"
What I saw in this video was a cyclist ignoring the road markings as he seemed to cross a stop or give way marking in the road, the truck had already crossed that marking in the road before the cyclist reached it so the truck had right of way.
Secondly is that clip being recorded by a drone?
Who is operating the drone?
If the cyclist is operating the drone who is in control of the cycle?
Third it's my understanding that if you are overtaking a vehicle that the onus is on the overtaking vehicle to do so safely, is it not the same for undertaking?
Lastly I think Mr Vine will be visiting the undertakers very soon lol.
It looks that everyone has forgotten the ziti seems that you overlooked the zigzag stripes which I believe mean no overtaking ( or undertaking) as the cyclist did trying to caps a problem
First clip. The van with the cage was clearly indicating a left turn in plenty of time, so the cyclist could just have slowed down a bit - no problem. No other vehicles involved. Remember that the cyclist is using a 360 camera, which significantly distorts distances, so the van was initially further away than it appears to be. Second clip, the car overtaking after the bus should have waited a second or two longer.
The issue with Jeremy is that I sees a situation unfolding and then continues to escalate it and also in some cases riding defensively. So whilst in many cases the car or lorry is at fault Jeremy is equally responsible due to his inaction of a very obvious hazard.
In the second clip, I do have some sypathy for the car driver. He had decided to hang back while the cyclist overtook the bus but then probably had the expectation that the cyclist would return to at least the centre of the inside carriagway, however you can see that as the cyclist completed the overtake of the bus a car was pulling forwared into the carriagway making the cyclist keep to the right hand side of the carriageway. Unfortunately the car driver seems to have made the assumption that he would be clear to pass the cyclist keeping the right distance away from the cyclist once the cyclist was clear of the bus and once the car driver had started his manoever it was probably too late to stop. We all know what assumptions do but we all amke them.
Common sense and preservation of ones own life would tell you not to attempt passing any vehicle in this situation.
I agree with you but a BBB video is about interpreting the law, not self preservation.
I remember seeing a Jeremy Vile vid of him riding his bike in a cycle lane but a bus was turning across the lane approaching him from the opposite direction. Vile deliberately accelerated in an attempt to beat the bus but all he nearly got was a face full of London Transport's finest. I believe that the rule of the road used to be 'let the bus go first' but that may have changed in the latest looney tunes version of the Highway Code!
fantastic video thank you very much for the feedback. I am keen to learn more about what both myself and others need to be doing to make the roads safer. It can be a minefield with the highway code, with what applies to whom and in what situation, so having a legal perspective is so helpful. thanks again for this and all the insights from your other videos
In regards to the bus overtake i always thought when you need to change lanes ( in a car ) you don't have the right of way to barge into another lane unless its clear or at least not impede traffic. i guess the new rules give cyclists the ability to wave a hand and impede other road users.
I am 100% on the side of the van driver - any action that could lead to JV getting squashed should be commended. The guy is an arse who is encouraging division and making a complicated situation worse, just to further his own ego.
The real issue here with the JV clip is that there isn't a safe way for the lorry to move across the cycle lane for both road users. If that was a bus lane, then I usually see a short distance before the junction where the bus lane 'stops' so that regular traffic can pull in before the junction, to stop them having to cross a 'live' lane of traffic. There is no "danger-free" way of doing this - the road looks like it's been set up to force this kind of confrontation.
To me, rule 182 looks to apply when you are sharing a lane with the cyclist - i.e. don't overtake them just to pull across them. I'm not sure how far back along JV's recording you need to go to find if the lorry overtook him.
I suppose that my main takeaway is that the highway code has a lot of edge case issues that it doesn't cover adequately, and leaves up to lawyer interpretation as to who is correct.
Regarding the second clip, the issue I have is that the cyclist changed lanes to pass the bus without giving way to traffic already in that lane. Isn't that behaviour a 'significant fault' (impeding other road users / causing other road users to change their speed) if it occurs during a driving test?
"Jeremy Vine does this to raise awareness..." Oh thanks for the correction, as I had thought he does it to get TH-cam clicks$$$$.
If it can crush me it has right of way, i cant argue otherwise as i would be flat.
The Vine situation - I think you may have missed Rules 67 and 76, which caution Cyclists who intend to pass on the left hand side of a vehicle turning left. Rule 76 talks about the cyclist having priority (a phrase I hate because if it is not "right of way" it still requires others to give way, and if it is "right of way" you might as well just say that and be done with it), but also notes that the cyclist has a responsibility to check if it is safe to proceed, I would argue that it is never safe to proceed if the vehicle in front is indicating to turn left as you cannot see what is beyond that vehicle (and likewise, whatever is there cannot see you). I am reasonably sure that in previous iterations of the Highway Code it has been specific that a cyclist should not pass a vehicle on the left if that vehicle is turning, or indicating to turn, left. Also note that the Hierarchy rules do not remove the cyclists responsibility to their own, and other road users, safety (Rule H1). Rule 163 also applies to cyclists (as noted in the "rules for cyclists"), specifically, "you should only overtake on the left if the vehicle infront is signalling to turn right".
Birmingham cyclist - As the rules of the road also apply to cyclists, not taking away your views on the car driver, the cyclist must also obey the rules, for example rule 133 which talks about changing lanes on multi-lane carriageways.
In my opinion these new Hierarchy rules do nothing to improve safety and only serve to cause problems, most notably as other rules get re-written to accommodate the newer Hierarchy rules, without any real warning.
To me, this hierarchy applies equally in its need for comprehension: if a cyclist is considered vulnerable then they need to acknowledge their own vulnerability, that means, if you recognise that there is a potentially dangerous situation that you can clearly see ahead, then do not place yourself in it.
If that had been me on the bike, I would have recognised that the driver of the van had limited visibility compared to my own, yes, the driver is meant to use his mirrors but we are always being told how motorbikes and bicycles are harder to see due to their smaller size. To me, that means if I can clearly see a problem I have much more responsibility not to place myself in a position of danger, not to rely on other roadusers to observe me in middle of trying to check all of the angles of approach that they are having to consider. Until such time as humans evolve more than one pair of eyes, I will assume that a driver is not looking in his nearside wrong mirror for the entire time that he is making a maneuver when he has several other directions to assess, too; meanwhile, when I can see clearly in front of me, I need to assess what is likely to impinge on me and take appropriate action.
The one reliable rule of being a roaduser: assume everyone else is an idiot and protect yourself accordingly.
I think the highway code is implying the situation where a vehicle driver overtakes and then cuts across a cyclist. Where the cyclist , even in a designated lane , is behind and undertaking ,the cyclist should allow a leading vehicle to turn without aggresively ( and speeding above 20mph? ) to get through
When you are always involved in incidents no matter in what walks of live you need to reassess what you could have been done different to help future situations, especially on bike and motorbikes because yo can always be Dead right.
The 1st video the lorry wasn't over taking JV . JV was actually under taking the lorry knowing well in advance with the lorry's indicator that its turning left. Hanging back would have been the safest option making it a non event but the JV wouldn't have content. The 2nd video I agree the car put the cyclist in danger.
Fundamentally disagree with BBB on the 2nd clip. IF the cyclist was a motorised vehicle, it wouldn't be acceptable to suggest that because the bus is like to impede the progress of the cyclist AND the cyclist has indicated to suggest a move into the right hand lane, the cyclist in correct to do so. If it was a car/van/truck etc, BBB would be saying that the driver is legalyl responsible for entering the right hand lane safely i.e. WITHOUT causing traffic that is already in the lane to ahve to slow down/brake but somehow it's 'different' because it's a cyclist? 🤦♂
The problem now is your other video. The dismissal will set precedents for other near misses.
I find in a lot of Vines videos, he cycles aggressively and fails to anticipate other users bad driving.
You brought up the point about cyclists having to brake being dangerous, why arent there speed limitations on cyclists based on braking performance as there are on motor vehicles?
I am a cyclist myself and agree closing passing is a too frequent occurrence but in a lot of these videos you see the cyclist failing to anticipate other peoples ignorance or lack of courtesy and almost deliberately cycle into danger.