Jeremy Vine's lucky escape as bike run over by reversing driver who turned onto cycle lane

IanMK wrote:

I think most of the police forces I submit to ask you not to put footage on social media. I assume that JV does not report incidents? It's a shame in this case, that's surely worth some points.

It varies between forces. A&S didn't have any problem with me uploading videos onto here when I asked them.

He does report incidents.  There's no law about not putting footage on social media.  The request is ostensibly on the basis that a defendent's lawyer might possibly argue that they couldn't get a fair trial if the footage were widely viewed before the matter went to court.

In this case it's hard to see the scenario in which, if it went to court, the defendent's lawyer would not advise them to just plead guilty.  

the little onion wrote:

Vine's law: in any video of an incident between a cyclist and driver which has been posted on the internet, there will always been a large fraction of commentators who will blame the cyclist, no matter what the actual video shows

Any other cyclist id have great sympathy with them.why does Vine make me support the vehicle driver regardless?

That's a question you should ask yourself really.  Given that by definition the driver is not going to be innocent "regardless" of the facts of the situation, you are clearly allowing some sort of prejudice to cloud your judgement.  Perhaps you're happy with that - but there's no point pretending once you've accepted that you're making prejudicial judgements, that your view is of any consequence in determining the actual rights and wrongs of a situation.

Paul J wrote:

CyclingMikey's favourite corner there, isn't it?

No, this is in Tavistock Square: the infamous Gandalf Corner is further west, in Regent's Park.

Velophaart_95 wrote:

But once again, JV had got invoved when didn't need to......His roadcraft is appalling.

That's staggeringly absurd, did you actually look at what happened? The driver made an illegal turn into the cycle lane, forcing Vine to slow almost to a standstill. With the van at a standstill, Vine went to pull round it when the driver went into reverse and drove into him. In which way is this Vine "getting involved when he didn't need to"?

Velophaart_95 wrote:

Driver has made an major error, which can happen from time to time.

But once again, JV had got invoved when didn't need to......His roadcraft is appalling.

You mean - he was riding a bike?  Yeah - totally unnecessary.  He could buy a car, hire a taxi or simply take the bus / tube like a normal person...

Personally I think I might have just jumped off the bike and then not stood behind the van afterwards (they might just keep trying to reverse)... but in the moment, who knows?

chrisonatrike wrote:

You mean - he was riding a bike?  Yeah - totally unnecessary.  He could buy a car, hire a taxi or simply take the bus / tube like a normal person...

Personally I think I might have just jumped off the bike and then not stood behind the van afterwards (they might just keep trying to reverse)... but in the moment, who knows?

I guess he was hoping that he would be able to stop the driver wrecking his bike, probably not the safest decision in retrospect but as you say, understandable in the heat of the moment.

Regarding your first comment, I saw this a little while ago on his Twitter feed, word for word: "You earn plenty of money and could easily afford a car, so it's obvious that you only drive [sic] a bike so that you can annoy other people so you deserve everything you get."

The key difference is that the driver's error put other people in danger, whereas Vine's error (stopping in the truck's blind spot) only endangered himself. He learnt his lesson, with the damage to his bike, but the driver probably won't unless banned from the road, at least temporarily.

ubercurmudgeon wrote:

Vine's error (stopping in the truck's blind spot)

As I noted above, I don't think that's quite what happened: Vine was pulling round the back of the stopped truck when it started reversing, he only stopped moving and jumped off the bike when the truck hit him.

Velophaart_95 wrote:

Driver has made an major error, which can happen from time to time.

 

But once again, JV had got invoved when didn't need to......His roadcraft is appalling. 

 

Correct both poor , Vine awful

Vine might be awful (I'm not a fan) ... but what does that have to do with a) a driver failing to observe the road properly and driving somewhere they shouldn't and b) making a manoeuver which has known hazards (reversing in an area with people on foot / bike - where they've already realised they're not supposed to be) without checking properly?

Still, on the bright side - it's allowed some people to get "bloody cyclists!" off their chests.  Oh - and no-one got injured and someone took some responsibility for their actions after a crash.

I do sometimes wonder about JV and his urge to keep going in the face of drivers that he has already deemed to be incompetent. I would be giving them a lot more space! 

However, in this case he is not the one that has driven into a cycle lane, ignored a keep left sign, ignored a give way to on coming cycles sign and then reversed without satisfactorily assessing his surroundings striking a vulnerable road user and damaging their cycle in the process.

I think you may have defined false equivalence for us.

I understand JV (more than the talk on the phone guy), but in his (and phone guy) quest to get a good camera shot he compromises his own safety. Had he not slowed down this wouldn't have happened. In his defense though, I don't have a camera, but it is hard not to slow down give some weird looks at extreme violations like this.

I understand that he wants to show that we live in a jungle, but in order to give us many jungle stories, he must first survive to film them.

cyclisto wrote:

Had he not slowed down this wouldn't have happened.

If he hadn't slowed down he would have ridden straight into the truck that had just turned across him illegally. He then attempted to ride round/past it and it reversed into him.

Anyone who doesn't slow down to go round the back of a truck, in a situation where there might be cyclists coming the other way that you can't see, is a grade A idiot.

Slowing down to go round an obstruction is not a contributory factor to what happened here.  Imagine if Vine were driving and the lorry was obstructing a motor traffic lane.  If he had slowed down to go around safely, and the lorry had reversed into his car, would have been saying that his slowing down instead of cannoning round into the oncoming lane of traffic was a contributory factor to the collision?

Of course not.  

Another factor is that the halfwit driving isn't just reversing across a cycle lane, but also a pedestrian crossing. It's seriously lucky he's hasn't killed someone today, and the Met should throw the book at him.

Can add in ignoring the keep left sign, and even if it wasn't a bike lane, entering what would be the wrong side of a street. Not fit to be on the roads.

He has a 360 camera so there is no need to get a good shot.

Had he not slowed down, he would have hit the van.

Did you understand the video ?

As I see the video, there was enough space to go on, at the same speed. You and others may have differerent perception but that is how I understand it, we cannot all aggree.

That means your first instinct when confronted with a hazard turning across you is not to brake.
That there was enough room is an after the fact statement.

Best thing X did was stop non-users from being able to read its Xcretions.

A horrible corner of the internet.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Started to count the reply ratio on Twitter, gave up after the first 50 comments had roughly 80% blaming Vine. The joint favourites are that he ran a red light and that he deliberately waited in the lorry's blindspot to make sure that the poor innocent driver would hit him.

The mental gymnastics that some many loons will go to so that they can always blame the cyclist.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Started to count the reply ratio on Twitter, gave up after the first 50 comments had roughly 80% blaming Vine. The joint favourites are that he ran a red light and that he deliberately waited in the lorry's blindspot to make sure that the poor innocent driver would hit him.

The mental gymnastics that some many loons will go to so that they can always blame the cyclist.

I genuinely believe most cyclists would have been given alot of sympathy.
I genuinely believe its because its Vine he's very marmite.

I am pretty sure JV does not taste good on toast. He's just another seeker after 15 minutes of fame.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Started to count the reply ratio on Twitter, gave up after the first 50 comments had roughly 80% blaming Vine. The joint favourites are that he ran a red light and that he deliberately waited in the lorry's blindspot to make sure that the poor innocent driver would hit him.

ENTER MR REENNNNNDDDEEEELLL HARRRIIIIIIIISSS 

JEREMY VINES NO 1 FAN AND GENERAL RUBBISH SPLUTTERER

JV is indefensible. Just an action man seeking controversy. 

I remember general rubbish splutterer. They were quite a good band but never really capitalised on their early success.