Jeremy Vine has sparked a huge debate on Twitter after sharing a video of a car turning in front of him while he was riding his bike down a cycle lane.. The video, which has been viewed 14 million times, has caused many angry responses from followers who say Jeremy was wrong to castigate the driver for pulling across him and saying he should have slowed down.

In footage taken from the TV presenter and radio host's helmet camera, you can see a black car turn left through a cycle lane in front of him. He pulls up next to the car and shouts protestations at the driver, before asking him if he’s going to apologise.

The driver apologises and the two go on with their day. However, Jeremy’s Twitter post has caused a flurry of opinionated road users to rush to the driver's defence after the broadcaster wrote of the footage: “This just happened. He did say ‘sorry I didn't see you.’ An apology is always accepted. But this gent needs a refresher driving course.”

Leaping to back up the driver's actions one person wrote: “So, on seeing the car indicate and turn into the entrance, you take the opportunity to speed up and aggressively hector the driver by riding unnecessarily close to him. You’re a danger.”

Jeremy retorted: “I didn't speed up. You are biased against vulnerable road users, and should retrain.”

Another added: “I agree with most of your stuff, but disagree here. He’s well ahead, and you could easily have slowed to let him clear the turn, without any issue. He’s well ahead of you, even looking over his shoulder or his mirrors, you’d be well further back. You decided to continue on!”

Jeremy again hits back, explaining the way the footage shot made the car look further away: “It's wide angle. I'm far closer than I appear to be. About 2 seconds. Not acceptable.”

Some road users got a bit creative with their defence of the other driver. One person made a bizarre argument about Jeremy’s clothing. “You're a danger to other road users. Wearing all black, not one piece of reflective clothing or even colourful and you had plenty of time to slow down, let the car pass and go behind it. Get off the road,” they said.

“The car was black. Why haven't you mentioned that?” retorted the radio host.

“Sorry Jeremy but you had time to slow down so he could make the left hand turn. You should have slowed down & checked on left hand turners because there was a junction!!!” another person added

Again Jeremy responded, saying: “He can't turn left across me like that. Don't drive on a motorway until you've sorted this out.”

The arguments littered the comments section of the video with a number of vocal Twitter users blaming Jeremy for the altercation. However, it was the broadcaster that appeared to have the last laugh after an unlikely ally came to his aid.

Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox commented his supported for Jeremy saying that he was, in fact, in the right. He wrote: “If @theJeremyVine was a bus in a bus lane would the car have turned and who would be in the right? Do we expect the bus to give way? Well… It's exactly the same principle for a bike in a cycle lane. ‘The turning vehicle gives way’… There really should be no need to debate this.”

So has that ended the debate? This is Twitter, of course, it hasn’t.. Despite what users say cyclists are getting an increasing number of safety protections to help cut down on fatal road traffic accidents.

In 2022, as part of new laws to make cyclists more protected rules were changed. The Highway Code, for instance, no longer asks for cyclists to stay on the left side of the road – or, indeed, to use any provided cycle lanes. Instead, cyclists are told to ride “no less than half a metre” from the kerb or verge. This places a greater responsibility on motorists to overtake cyclists safely.

It also means that cyclists are more protected than motorists as they are more vulnerable. This is called the hierarchy of road users and it means those who pose the greatest risk to others have a higher level of responsibility, so a driver would have greater responsibility to look out for people cycling, walking or riding a horse.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/celebs/jeremy-vine-slammed-angry-drivers-26252390

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeremy Vine has sparked a huge debate on Twitter after sharing a video of
> a car turning in front of him while he was riding his bike down a cycle
> lane. The video, which has been viewed 14 million times, has caused many
> angry responses from followers who say Jeremy was wrong to castigate the
> driver for pulling across him and saying he should have slowed down.
>
> In footage taken from the TV presenter and radio host's helmet camera,
> you can see a black car turn left through a cycle lane in front of him.
> He pulls up next to the car and shouts protestations at the driver,
> before asking him if he’s going to apologise.
>
> The driver apologises and the two go on with their day. However, Jeremy’s
> Twitter post has caused a flurry of opinionated road users to rush to the
> driver's defence after the broadcaster wrote of the footage: “This just
> happened. He did say ‘sorry I didn't see you.’ An apology is always
> accepted. But this gent needs a refresher driving course.”
>
> Leaping to back up the driver's actions one person wrote: “So, on seeing
> the car indicate and turn into the entrance, you take the opportunity to
> speed up and aggressively hector the driver by riding unnecessarily close
> to him. You’re a danger.”
>
> Jeremy retorted: “I didn't speed up. You are biased against vulnerable
> road users, and should retrain.”
>
> Another added: “I agree with most of your stuff, but disagree here. He’s
> well ahead, and you could easily have slowed to let him clear the turn,
> without any issue. He’s well ahead of you, even looking over his shoulder
> or his mirrors, you’d be well further back. You decided to continue on!”
>
> Jeremy again hits back, explaining the way the footage shot made the car
> look further away: “It's wide angle. I'm far closer than I appear to be.
> About 2 seconds. Not acceptable.”
>
> Some road users got a bit creative with their defence of the other
> driver. One person made a bizarre argument about Jeremy’s clothing.
> “You're a danger to other road users. Wearing all black, not one piece of
> reflective clothing or even colourful and you had plenty of time to slow
> down, let the car pass and go behind it. Get off the road,” they said.
>
> “The car was black. Why haven't you mentioned that?” retorted the radio host.
>
> “Sorry Jeremy but you had time to slow down so he could make the left
> hand turn. You should have slowed down & checked on left hand turners
> because there was a junction!!!” another person added
>
> Again Jeremy responded, saying: “He can't turn left across me like that.
> Don't drive on a motorway until you've sorted this out.”
>
> The arguments littered the comments section of the video with a number of
> vocal Twitter users blaming Jeremy for the altercation. However, it was
> the broadcaster that appeared to have the last laugh after an unlikely
> ally came to his aid.
>
> Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox commented his supported for
> Jeremy saying that he was, in fact, in the right. He wrote: “If
> @theJeremyVine was a bus in a bus lane would the car have turned and who
> would be in the right? Do we expect the bus to give way? Well… It's
> exactly the same principle for a bike in a cycle lane. ‘The turning
> vehicle gives way’… There really should be no need to debate this.”
>
> So has that ended the debate? This is Twitter, of course, it hasn’t.
> Despite what users say cyclists are getting an increasing number of
> safety protections to help cut down on fatal road traffic accidents.
>
> In 2022, as part of new laws to make cyclists more protected rules were
> changed. The Highway Code, for instance, no longer asks for cyclists to
> stay on the left side of the road – or, indeed, to use any provided cycle
> lanes. Instead, cyclists are told to ride “no less than half a metre”
> from the kerb or verge. This places a greater responsibility on motorists
> to overtake cyclists safely.
>
> It also means that cyclists are more protected than motorists as they are
> more vulnerable. This is called the hierarchy of road users and it means
> those who pose the greatest risk to others have a higher level of
> responsibility, so a driver would have greater responsibility to look out
> for people cycling, walking or riding a horse.
>
> https://www.mylondon.news/news/celebs/jeremy-vine-slammed-angry-drivers-26252390
>

Why is Vine so prone to such incidents?

Insurance companies ‘load’ the insurance premiums to cover drivers they
consider a higher risk and give discounts to those considered a lower risk.

Factors such as previous accidents/ claims, driving offences, etc are taken
into account.

While cyclists rarely, if ever, have insurance, it seems logical to assume
those who have frequent incidents / close shaves, are a high risk for some
reason - aggressive nature, lack of skill, substance abuse, ….

Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jeremy Vine has sparked a huge debate on Twitter after sharing a video of
>> a car turning in front of him while he was riding his bike down a cycle
>> lane. The video, which has been viewed 14 million times, has caused many
>> angry responses from followers who say Jeremy was wrong to castigate the
>> driver for pulling across him and saying he should have slowed down.
>>
>> In footage taken from the TV presenter and radio host's helmet camera,
>> you can see a black car turn left through a cycle lane in front of him.
>> He pulls up next to the car and shouts protestations at the driver,
>> before asking him if he’s going to apologise.
>>
>> The driver apologises and the two go on with their day. However, Jeremy’s
>> Twitter post has caused a flurry of opinionated road users to rush to the
>> driver's defence after the broadcaster wrote of the footage: “This just
>> happened. He did say ‘sorry I didn't see you.’ An apology is always
>> accepted. But this gent needs a refresher driving course.”
>>
>> Leaping to back up the driver's actions one person wrote: “So, on seeing
>> the car indicate and turn into the entrance, you take the opportunity to
>> speed up and aggressively hector the driver by riding unnecessarily close
>> to him. You’re a danger.”
>>
>> Jeremy retorted: “I didn't speed up. You are biased against vulnerable
>> road users, and should retrain.”
>>
>> Another added: “I agree with most of your stuff, but disagree here. He’s
>> well ahead, and you could easily have slowed to let him clear the turn,
>> without any issue. He’s well ahead of you, even looking over his shoulder
>> or his mirrors, you’d be well further back. You decided to continue on!”
>>
>> Jeremy again hits back, explaining the way the footage shot made the car
>> look further away: “It's wide angle. I'm far closer than I appear to be.
>> About 2 seconds. Not acceptable.”
>>
>> Some road users got a bit creative with their defence of the other
>> driver. One person made a bizarre argument about Jeremy’s clothing.
>> “You're a danger to other road users. Wearing all black, not one piece of
>> reflective clothing or even colourful and you had plenty of time to slow
>> down, let the car pass and go behind it. Get off the road,” they said.
>>
>> “The car was black. Why haven't you mentioned that?” retorted the radio host.
>>
>> “Sorry Jeremy but you had time to slow down so he could make the left
>> hand turn. You should have slowed down & checked on left hand turners
>> because there was a junction!!!” another person added
>>
>> Again Jeremy responded, saying: “He can't turn left across me like that.
>> Don't drive on a motorway until you've sorted this out.”
>>
>> The arguments littered the comments section of the video with a number of
>> vocal Twitter users blaming Jeremy for the altercation. However, it was
>> the broadcaster that appeared to have the last laugh after an unlikely
>> ally came to his aid.
>>
>> Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox commented his supported for
>> Jeremy saying that he was, in fact, in the right. He wrote: “If
>> @theJeremyVine was a bus in a bus lane would the car have turned and who
>> would be in the right? Do we expect the bus to give way? Well… It's
>> exactly the same principle for a bike in a cycle lane. ‘The turning
>> vehicle gives way’… There really should be no need to debate this.”
>>
>> So has that ended the debate? This is Twitter, of course, it hasn’t.
>> Despite what users say cyclists are getting an increasing number of
>> safety protections to help cut down on fatal road traffic accidents.
>>
>> In 2022, as part of new laws to make cyclists more protected rules were
>> changed. The Highway Code, for instance, no longer asks for cyclists to
>> stay on the left side of the road – or, indeed, to use any provided cycle
>> lanes. Instead, cyclists are told to ride “no less than half a metre”
>> from the kerb or verge. This places a greater responsibility on motorists
>> to overtake cyclists safely.
>>
>> It also means that cyclists are more protected than motorists as they are
>> more vulnerable. This is called the hierarchy of road users and it means
>> those who pose the greatest risk to others have a higher level of
>> responsibility, so a driver would have greater responsibility to look out
>> for people cycling, walking or riding a horse.
>>
>> https://www.mylondon.news/news/celebs/jeremy-vine-slammed-angry-drivers-26252390
>>
>
> Why is Vine so prone to such incidents?

They provide an income stream?

> Insurance companies ‘load’ the insurance premiums to cover drivers they
> consider a higher risk and give discounts to those considered a lower risk.
>
> Factors such as previous accidents/ claims, driving offences, etc are taken
> into account.
>
> While cyclists rarely, if ever, have insurance, it seems logical to assume
> those who have frequent incidents / close shaves, are a high risk for some
> reason - aggressive nature, lack of skill, substance abuse, ….

Quite so.

--
Spike

QUOTE: In 2022, as part of new laws to make cyclists more protected rules were changed. The Highway Code, for instance, no longer asks for cyclists to stay on the left side of the road – or, indeed, to use any provided cycle lanes. Instead, cyclists are told to ride “no less than half a metre” from the kerb or verge. This places a greater responsibility on motorists to overtake cyclists safely. ENDS

Hardly any drivers have read the HC since they took their test.

On 17/02/2023 05:38 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Jeremy Vine has sparked a huge debate on Twitter after sharing a video of a car turning in front of him while he was riding his fairy-bike down a cycle lane.

Did they mean "along" a fairy-cycle lane?

> The video, which has been viewed 14 million times, has caused many angry responses from followers who say Jeremy was wrong to castigate the driver for pulling across him and saying he should have slowed down.

Vine's a bullying turd, always looking out for a fight, and in the same
class as James O'Brien.

Everyone knows that.
>
> In footage taken from the TV presenter and radio host's helmet camera, you can see a black car turn left through [they mean "across" - Ed.] a fairy-cycle lane in front of him. He pulls up next to the car and shouts protestations at the driver, before asking him if he’s going to apologise.
> The driver apologises and the two go on with their day. However, Jeremy’s Twitter post has caused a flurry of opinionated road users to rush to the driver's defence after the broadcaster wrote of the footage: “This just happened. He did say ‘sorry I didn't see you.’ An apology is always accepted. But this gent needs a refresher driving course.”
> Leaping to back up the driver's actions one person wrote: “So, on seeing the car indicate and turn into the entrance, you take the opportunity to speed up and aggressively hector the driver by riding unnecessarily close to him. You’re a danger.”

Absolutely correct. Overtaking on the nearside is a no-no.
>
> Jeremy retorted: “I didn't speed up. You are biased against vulnerable road users, and should retrain.”

What a turd, eh?
>
> Another added: “I agree with most of your stuff, but disagree here. He’s well ahead, and you could easily have slowed to let him clear the turn, without any issue. He’s well ahead of you, even looking over his shoulder or his mirrors, you’d be well further back. You decided to continue on!”
> Jeremy again hits back, explaining the way the footage shot made the car look further away: “It's wide angle. I'm far closer than I appear to be. About 2 seconds. Not acceptable.”

Well, not to a bullying turd at least.
>
> Some road users got a bit creative with their defence of the other driver. One person made a bizarre argument about Jeremy’s clothing. “You're a danger to other road users. Wearing all black, not one piece of reflective clothing or even colourful and you had plenty of time to slow down, let the car pass and go behind it. Get off the road,” they said.
> “The car was black. Why haven't you mentioned that?” retorted the radio host.
> “Sorry Jeremy but you had time to slow down so he could make the left hand turn. You should have slowed down & checked on left hand turners because there was a junction!!!” another person added

Exactly. The bullying turd was attempting to overtake / undertake at a
*junction*.

What does the Highway Code say about that?
>
> Again Jeremy responded, saying: “He can't turn left across me like that. Don't drive on a motorway until you've sorted this out.”

Not only a bullying turd but an idiot as well.
>
> The arguments littered the comments section of the video with a number of vocal Twitter users blaming Jeremy for the altercation. However, it was the broadcaster that appeared to have the last laugh after an unlikely ally came to his aid.
> Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox commented his supported for Jeremy saying that he was, in fact, in the right. He wrote: “If @theJeremyVine was a bus in a bus lane would the car have turned and who would be in the right? Do we expect the bus to give way? Well… It's exactly the same principle for a bike in a cycle lane. ‘The turning vehicle gives way’… There really should be no need to debate this.”

Bus lanes do not continue across open junctions.

Overtaking at junctions is strictly against everything in the Highway Code.

Obviously, the DCS (what has fairy-cycling got to do with detectives,
BTW?) is biased and unqualified in this area. He cannot pre-authorise
road users to ignore the Highway Code rule "Don't overtake at junctions".
>
> So has that ended the debate? This is Twitter, of course, it hasn’t. Despite what users say fairy-cyclists are getting an increasing number of safety protections to help cut down on fatal road traffic accidents.
> In 2022, as part of new laws to make cyclists more protected rules were changed.

No. There were NO "new laws".

If there were, people like Mason would be able to quote the Act and/or
regulatory changes.

But he can't.

> The Highway Code, for instance, no longer asks for fairy-cyclists to stay on the left side of the road – or, indeed, to use any provided fairy-cycle lanes. Instead, fairy-cyclists are told to ride “no less than half a metre” from the kerb or verge. This places a greater responsibility on motorists to overtake fairy-cyclists safely.

This was a situation where a fairy-cyclist was undertaking a car, at a
junction, unsafely.
>
> It also means that fairy-cyclists are more protected than motorists as they are more vulnerable. This is called the hierarchy of road users and it means those who pose the greatest risk to others have a higher level of responsibility, so a driver would have greater responsibility to look out for people fairy-cycling, walking or riding a horse.
>
> https://www.mylondon.news/news/celebs/jeremy-vine-slammed-angry-drivers-26252390

How on Earth can The Highway Code say *anything* about Jeremy Vine's
appalling behaviour?

Is he actually mentioned by name in the latest edition of the Code?

Jeremy Vine is no stranger to sparking discussions about cycle safety, and this weekend suggested drivers should not be allowed to overtake cyclists in cities, because "it's pointless".

Vine shared a video of a taxi driver overtaking him five times, only to drop back behind at the next set of traffic lights.

"If you watch this clip from my commute, you'll see there is no point whatsoever in any of this driver's five overtakes — even with the roads clear," Vine tweeted.

"No complaints about the cab driver: he never passed too close. But why can't he see: even without traffic, it's pointless to overtake a bicycle in a city? The argument is that a bicycle is faster, so every single overtake he does will have to be repeated. And as you see from the film, even though he is quite a good driver, all overtaking involves a slight increase in risk..

"I think my point is that any overtake bears risk, and they should be avoided if possible, and the clip clearly establishes that motor vehicles are slower than bicycles, so it's best for him not to overtake me at all."

The idea unsurpisingly caused a fair amount of discussion and debate, with some rubishing the broadcaster's idea, and others suggesting there could be something in it.

So what do road.cc readers think?

JustTryingToGet reckons: "It's a sensible discussion to have, because the location-specific case for it can be data driven. Unfortunately there won't be a sensible discussion."

While Lukas agreed that: "Every urban cyclist knows this. And the worst is the close pass or hoot or shout and then stuck in traffic whilst we just sail past."

ShaneDG said they "would go further". "Overtaking of any kind in an urban area should be made illegal. All it does is move the driver to the next queue quicker. Also banning through-traffic from certain zones and having a very punitive congestion charge zone located at/near schools would help reduce traffic."

Paul Nevill commented: "I don't waste my time overtaking other road users if I know I'm going to have to slow down immediately afterwards if i'm in a car or on a bike."

Francis Jackson reckons a law is not required, just education. "I don't think that such a law is needed, most of the time they are just unable to overtake anyway due to amount of traffic... however, perhaps some education as to how much fuel they burn sprinting to the next set of lights..."

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 11:36:07 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/02/2023 05:38 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Jeremy Vine has sparked a huge debate on Twitter after sharing a video of a car turning in front of him while he was riding his fairy-bike down a cycle lane.

No he did not, you edited the post. Probably because
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

> > The video, which has been viewed 14 million times, has caused many angry responses from followers who say Jeremy was wrong to castigate the driver for pulling across him and saying he should have slowed down.
> Vine's a bullying turd, always looking out for a fight, and in the same
> class as James O'Brien.
>
> Everyone knows that.

Anyone who has read the Highway Code would know the motorist was at fault.

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 4:26:15 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> Anyone who has read the Highway Code would know the motorist was at fault.

QUOTE: Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox commented his supported for Jeremy saying that he was, in fact, in the right. ENDS QED.

On 17/02/2023 04:26 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 11:36:07 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 17/02/2023 05:38 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Jeremy Vine has sparked a huge debate on Twitter after sharing a video of a car turning in front of him while he was riding his fairy-bike down a cycle lane.
>
> No he did not, you edited the post. Probably because
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

>>> The video, which has been viewed 14 million times, has caused many angry responses from followers who say Jeremy was wrong to castigate the driver for pulling across him and saying he should have slowed down.

>> Vine's a bullying turd, always looking out for a fight, and in the same
>> class as James O'Brien.
>> Everyone knows that.

> Anyone who has read the Highway Code would know the motorist was at fault.

QUOTE:
Rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
users. For example:

- approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
ENDQUOTE

The fairy-cyclist was trying to overtake, on the left, at a junction.

The fairy-cyclist was therefore well over "into the wrong".

Go on... try and wriggle out of it.

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 4:35:15 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 4:26:15 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > Anyone who has read the Highway Code would know the motorist was at fault.
> QUOTE: Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox commented his supported for Jeremy saying that he was, in fact, in the right. ENDS QED.

What would a DCS know about road law?

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 16:42:03 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/02/2023 04:26 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 11:36:07 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 17/02/2023 05:38 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>> Jeremy Vine has sparked a huge debate on Twitter after sharing a video of a car turning in front of him while he was riding his fairy-bike down a cycle lane.
> >
> > No he did not, you edited the post. Probably because
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
>
> >>> The video, which has been viewed 14 million times, has caused many angry responses from followers who say Jeremy was wrong to castigate the driver for pulling across him and saying he should have slowed down.
>
> >> Vine's a bullying turd, always looking out for a fight, and in the same
> >> class as James O'Brien.
> >> Everyone knows that.
>
> > Anyone who has read the Highway Code would know the motorist was at fault.
> QUOTE:
> Rule 167
> DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
> users. For example:
>
> - approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
> ENDQUOTE
>
> The fairy-cyclist was trying to overtake, on the left, at a junction.
>
> The fairy-cyclist was therefore well over "into the wrong".
>
> Go on... try and wriggle out of it.

No fairy-cyclists were involved but the Highway Code does say you have to give way to cyclists when crossing a cycle lane just like you have to give way to buses when crossing a bus lane.

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 18:47:09 UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> No cyclists were involved but the Highway Code does say you have to give way to cyclists when crossing a cycle lane just like you have to give way to buses when crossing a bus lane.

What idiot is saying otherwise after what the DCS has stated?

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 19:09:28 UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 18:47:09 UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > No cyclists were involved but the Highway Code does say you have to give way to cyclists when crossing a cycle lane just like you have to give way to buses when crossing a bus lane.
>
> What idiot is saying otherwise after what the DCS has stated?

I am not sure which of the SpikeNugentPounderLittledog multipolar personalities are dominant at the moment but they posted as JNugent.

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 19:35:13 UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 19:09:28 UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 18:47:09 UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> >
> > > No cyclists were involved but the Highway Code does say you have to give way to cyclists when crossing a cycle lane just like you have to give way to buses when crossing a bus lane.
> >
> > What idiot is saying otherwise after what the DCS has stated?
> I am not sure which of the SpikeNugentPounderLittledog multipolar personalities are dominant at the moment but they posted as JNugent.

That would explain why nothing came up.

On 17/02/2023 04:44 pm, swldx...@gmail.com...

....pretending to answer himself, said:

> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 4:35:15 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 4:26:15 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>
>>> Anyone who has read the Highway Code would know the motorist was at fault.

>> QUOTE: Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox commented his supported for Jeremy saying that he was, in fact, in the right. ENDS QED.

> What would a DCS know about road law?

Good question.

On 17/02/2023 06:47 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 16:42:03 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 17/02/2023 04:26 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 11:36:07 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/2023 05:38 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Jeremy Vine has sparked a huge debate on Twitter after sharing a video of a car turning in front of him while he was riding his fairy-bike down a cycle lane.
>>>
>>> No he did not, you edited the post. Probably because
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
>>
>>>>> The video, which has been viewed 14 million times, has caused many angry responses from followers who say Jeremy was wrong to castigate the driver for pulling across him and saying he should have slowed down.
>>
>>>> Vine's a bullying turd, always looking out for a fight, and in the same
>>>> class as James O'Brien.
>>>> Everyone knows that.
>>
>>> Anyone who has read the Highway Code would know the motorist was at fault.
>> QUOTE:
>> Rule 167
>> DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
>> users. For example:
>>
>> - approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
>> ENDQUOTE
>>
>> The fairy-cyclist was trying to overtake, on the left, at a junction.
>>
>> The fairy-cyclist was therefore well over "into the wrong".
>>
>> Go on... try and wriggle out of it.
>
> No fairy-cyclists were involved but the Highway Code does say you have to give way to cyclists when crossing a cycle lane just like you have to give way to buses when crossing a bus lane.

The Highway Code says "do not overtake when approaching or at a junction".

Please explain how fairy-cyclists are allowed to ignore that.

On 17/02/2023 07:53 pm, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 19:35:13 UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 19:09:28 UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
>>> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 18:47:09 UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>
>>>> No cyclists were involved but the Highway Code does say you have to give way to cyclists when crossing a cycle lane just like you have to give way to buses when crossing a bus lane.
>>>
>>> What idiot is saying otherwise after what the DCS has stated?
>> I am not sure which of the SpikeNugentPounderLittledog multipolar personalities are dominant at the moment but they posted as JNugent.
>
> That would explain why nothing came up.

Mason has replied to my posts in dormant threads (though trying in vain
to disguise the fact) several times in recent weeks.

Traps were laid for him.

There is NO "Google Groups Killfile".

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 19:09:28 UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
>> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 18:47:09 UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>>> No cyclists were involved but the Highway Code does say you have to
>>> give way to cyclists when crossing a cycle lane just like you have to
>>> give way to buses when crossing a bus lane.
>>
>> What idiot is saying otherwise after what the DCS has stated?

> I am not sure which of the SpikeNugentPounderLittledog multipolar
> personalities are dominant at the moment but they posted as JNugent.

Take more water with it.

--
Spike

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 7:35:13 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 19:09:28 UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 18:47:09 UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> >
> > > No cyclists were involved but the Highway Code does say you have to give way to cyclists when crossing a cycle lane just like you have to give way to buses when crossing a bus lane.
> >
> > What idiot is saying otherwise after what the DCS has stated?
> I am not sure which of the SpikeNugentPounderLittledog multipolar personalities are dominant at the moment but they posted as JNugent.

Pounder is dead so it can't be him.

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 19:55:46 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/02/2023 06:47 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 16:42:03 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 17/02/2023 04:26 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 11:36:07 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 17/02/2023 05:38 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Jeremy Vine has sparked a huge debate on Twitter after sharing a video of a car turning in front of him while he was riding his fairy-bike down a cycle lane.
> >>>
> >>> No he did not, you edited the post. Probably because
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
> >>
> >>>>> The video, which has been viewed 14 million times, has caused many angry responses from followers who say Jeremy was wrong to castigate the driver for pulling across him and saying he should have slowed down.
> >>
> >>>> Vine's a bullying turd, always looking out for a fight, and in the same
> >>>> class as James O'Brien.
> >>>> Everyone knows that.
> >>
> >>> Anyone who has read the Highway Code would know the motorist was at fault.
> >> QUOTE:
> >> Rule 167
> >> DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
> >> users. For example:
> >>
> >> - approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
> >> ENDQUOTE
> >>
> >> The fairy-cyclist was trying to overtake, on the left, at a junction.
> >>
> >> The fairy-cyclist was therefore well over "into the wrong".
> >>
> >> Go on... try and wriggle out of it.
> >
> > No fairy-cyclists were involved but the Highway Code does say you have to give way to cyclists when crossing a cycle lane just like you have to give way to buses when crossing a bus lane.
> The Highway Code says "do not overtake when approaching or at a junction".
>
> Please explain how fairy-cyclists are allowed to ignore that.

Once again no fairy-cyclists were involved.

On 17/02/2023 08:43 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 19:55:46 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 17/02/2023 06:47 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 16:42:03 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/2023 04:26 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 11:36:07 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/2023 05:38 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeremy Vine has sparked a huge debate on Twitter after sharing a video of a car turning in front of him while he was riding his fairy-bike down a cycle lane.
>>>>>
>>>>> No he did not, you edited the post. Probably because
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
>>>>
>>>>>>> The video, which has been viewed 14 million times, has caused many angry responses from followers who say Jeremy was wrong to castigate the driver for pulling across him and saying he should have slowed down.
>>>>
>>>>>> Vine's a bullying turd, always looking out for a fight, and in the same
>>>>>> class as James O'Brien.
>>>>>> Everyone knows that.
>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who has read the Highway Code would know the motorist was at fault.
>>>> QUOTE:
>>>> Rule 167
>>>> DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
>>>> users. For example:
>>>>
>>>> - approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
>>>> ENDQUOTE
>>>>
>>>> The fairy-cyclist was trying to overtake, on the left, at a junction.
>>>>
>>>> The fairy-cyclist was therefore well over "into the wrong".
>>>>
>>>> Go on... try and wriggle out of it.
>>>
>>> No fairy-cyclists were involved but the Highway Code does say you have to give way to cyclists when crossing a cycle lane just like you have to give way to buses when crossing a bus lane.
>> The Highway Code says "do not overtake when approaching or at a junction".
>>
>> Please explain how fairy-cyclists are allowed to ignore that.
>
> Once again no fairy-cyclists were involved.

Don't be so childish.

Or so churlish.

On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 01:10:10 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/02/2023 08:43 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 19:55:46 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 17/02/2023 06:47 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 16:42:03 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 17/02/2023 04:26 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 11:36:07 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>> On 17/02/2023 05:38 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jeremy Vine has sparked a huge debate on Twitter after sharing a video of a car turning in front of him while he was riding his fairy-bike down a cycle lane.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No he did not, you edited the post. Probably because
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> The video, which has been viewed 14 million times, has caused many angry responses from followers who say Jeremy was wrong to castigate the driver for pulling across him and saying he should have slowed down.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Vine's a bullying turd, always looking out for a fight, and in the same
> >>>>>> class as James O'Brien.
> >>>>>> Everyone knows that.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Anyone who has read the Highway Code would know the motorist was at fault.
> >>>> QUOTE:
> >>>> Rule 167
> >>>> DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
> >>>> users. For example:
> >>>>
> >>>> - approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
> >>>> ENDQUOTE
> >>>>
> >>>> The fairy-cyclist was trying to overtake, on the left, at a junction.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fairy-cyclist was therefore well over "into the wrong".
> >>>>
> >>>> Go on... try and wriggle out of it.
> >>>
> >>> No fairy-cyclists were involved but the Highway Code does say you have to give way to cyclists when crossing a cycle lane just like you have to give way to buses when crossing a bus lane.
> >> The Highway Code says "do not overtake when approaching or at a junction".
> >>
> >> Please explain how fairy-cyclists are allowed to ignore that.
> >
> > Once again no fairy-cyclists were involved.
> Don't be so childish.

Oh the irony.

QUOTE: Paul Nevill commented: "I don't waste my time overtaking other road users if I know I'm going to have to slow down immediately afterwards if i'm in a car or on a bike." ENDS

What a very sensible chap - all it does is waste fuel and is totally pointless.