Jeremy Vine.

[newts]

If they were riding around London village for a couple of hours I'm sure they actually filmed many incidents that would have got their point across better & gained good PR if they'd bothered to check all the footage. Twas an own goal by the sensation seeker JV on this occasion.

 

[BoldonLad]

Vine will be delighted his ”slebrity” status has sparked such energetic discourse. Worra d**kwad, filming metweebles barking at delivery trucks to promote peace on the streets. Got that wrong Jezza.

I actually think road peace should have distanced themselves from this shambles, as in my opinion all it’s done is fuel the them and us mentality and made things worse, it basically sums up his radio show that’s broadcasting inflammatory nonsense, whilst talking over and cutting off different points of view, I don’t want, him or those amateurish plod representing me

Exactly, what was a golden opportunity to do some good has been ruined by this chump and two useless coppers, but hey ho it’s got JV’s name to the forefront and promoted him instead

There’s no arguing about the last point. Even Jezza wakes up and his first thought is “Twat again today? Yes.”
Road Peace must be fuming with their PR person…

We agree on that lot, at least, I did say in post 98 (I think it was), the video should not have been posted to Twitter, or, another Social Media.

 

[C R]

... the video should not have been posted to Twitter, or, another Social Media.

Indeed, this video has done no good at all.

 

[Alex321]

To me, an "entitled driver" is one who, (among other things), being in charge of a vehicle relies on the "I have right or way" as a defence, in relation to vulnerable road users.

So, you have a different opinion to me, such is life.

I haven't seen anybody posting here suggesting that. Could you point to any such posts?

 

[simongt]

the video should not have been posted to Twitter, or, another Social Media.

Maybe that's the issue with 'modern' communications systems. Pretty much anyone with a decent amount of IT knowledge can access the various 'streams' and leak them to the world for their own amusment or potential social damage depending on their attitude to the subject matter.

 

[BoldonLad]

I haven't seen anybody posting here suggesting that. Could you point to any such posts?

Well, for a start, every post which says because the HGV driver was "in his own lane" he/she was good to go. Even a green light at traffic signals does not mean "go", it means "proceed with caution", or, words to that effect.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Well, for a start, every post which says because the HGV driver was "in his own lane" he/she was good to go. Even a green light at traffic signals does not mean "go", it means "proceed with caution", or, words to that effect.

How could you tell from the camera view that was not exactly what the driver was doing?

 

[classic33]

Well, for a start, every post which says because the HGV driver was "in his own lane" he/she was good to go. Even a green light at traffic signals does not mean "go", it means "proceed with caution", or, words to that effect.

You may go, but only if it is safe to do so, from memory.
Traffic lights are not "Stop, On Your Marks, Go. And should not be treated as such.

Anyone know what was on the far side(drivers) side of the lorry at that point?

 

[BoldonLad]

How could you tell from the camera view that was not exactly what the driver was doing?

Unless you, or anyone else posting on here, including me, was there, then, none of us know anymore than we have seen in the video. Personally, I would have not been happy with that HGV being that close to me (either cycling or walking). The driver may have THOUGHT he/she was showing caution, IMHO, he/she was not. That does not men I wish to see him/her sacked, hung-drawn-and-quartered, or, whatever, but, to me, it is unacceptable behaviour when in charge of a motor vehicle, particularly an HGV. I agree the behaviour of the cyclists is questionable, but, that is not the point.

 

[Alex321]

Well, for a start, every post which says because the HGV driver was "in his own lane" he/she was good to go. Even a green light at traffic signals does not mean "go", it means "proceed with caution", or, words to that effect.

I'm not sure quite what you are saying here. In general, with urban roads with multiple lanes, traffic on one lane does have the right to progress, subject to things like traffic lights and other traffic in their lane. They don't have any right to switch lanes without making sure they have a safe gap in the other lane to move into.

It isn't a case of them having "right of way" over traffic in other lanes, they are considered to be in a separate place, and not actually interacting with each other for "right of way" to be a factor.

 

[Alex321]

You may go, but only if it is safe to do so, from memory.
Traffic lights are not "Stop, On Your Marks, Go. And should not be treated as such.

Anyone know what was on the far side(drivers) side of the lorry at that point?

Another two lanes of traffic going the other way. And he was just as tight to the "outside" lane markings as he was to the nearside ones.

 

[BoldonLad]

I'm not sure quite what you are saying here. In general, with urban roads with multiple lanes, traffic on one lane does have the right to progress, subject to things like traffic lights and other traffic in their lane. They don't have any right to switch lanes without making sure they have a safe gap in the other lane to move into.

It isn't a case of them having "right of way" over traffic in other lanes, they are considered to be in a separate place, and not actually interacting with each other for "right of way" to be a factor.

I am saying, he/she does not have "right of way", or, indeed' any "right" to risk a close pass or potentially worse with a cyclist, even if that cyclist is in the other lane, and, is behaving less than perfectly. I agree they do not have the "right" to switch lanes unless it is safe to do so, but, they do have the right to slow down or even stop!

I have had enough of this now. Off for a cycle ride, and, to worry that some of the drivers who I may encounter believe they have "right of way", regardless.

 

[Alex321]

I am saying, he/she does not have "right of way", or, indeed' any "right" to risk a close pass or potentially worse with a cyclist, even if that cyclist is in the other lane, and, is behaving less than perfectly. I agree they do not have the "right" to switch lanes unless it is safe to do so, but, they do have the right to slow down or even stop!

I have had enough of this now. Off for a cycle ride, and, to worry that some of the drivers who I may encounter believe they have "right of way".

Ok. You are using "right of way" to mean something a bit different to what I understand by the term. I have always understood it to be about when two people want to occupy the same space, who has the right to do so.

Personally, with separate lanes and at those speeds (remember it is a 20 limit, and traffic didn't look to be going even that fast), as a reasonably competent cyclist, I wouldn't be to worried by an HGV passing that close (I wouldn't have been as wide in the lane as that policeman was anyhow, but that isn't the point).

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Given the oncoming and park vehicles outside of the LGV, it's an interesting contrast to the other video of the cyclists on the country road, where people were criticising the driver of a car that clipped a white line, potentially to avoid a pot hole and now people are saying the LGV should have done precisely that.

 

[DaveReading]

Well, for a start, every post which says because the HGV driver was "in his own lane" he/she was good to go. Even a green light at traffic signals does not mean "go", it means "proceed with caution", or, words to that effect.

I don't recall any posts, prior to yours, about confusion over the meaning of a green light. What is the relevance ?