Forum menu
That's an interesting shift from "the cyclists brought it on themselves".
Contrast the attitude in this country to Canada .Working there ( Whistler ) 2010 we helped a dig day with WORCA local off road cycling group .Kids needing to cycle to school had to navigate Highway 1 , we helped build a trail through the local woods to avoid this , when it was finished it would have been the envy of any trail centre in this country .We couldn't wait for it to bed in to ride it !
That’s an interesting shift from “the cyclists brought it on themselves”
Well he is highlighted in the video as a mad campaigner, so yes I think he is likely to be angry whatever the circumstances, the others more by the particular situation.
... he is likely to be angry whatever the circumstances, the others more by the particular situation.
The particular situation being families riding bicycles.
The particular situation being families riding bicycles.
In a dumb place.
A cycle path?
A cycle path?
Yes a cycle path down the main commercial road in the area - either they were trying to assert their rights or they chose a dumb place to have a nice organised group ride - either why I have no sympathy for them.
Well the campaigner / mentalist is known to be against the cycle path in general for reasons that are never made very clear but will be to do with road tax and car supremacy and little man syndrome so the ride of families having a nice day out is the equivalent of rubbing it in his gammony face.
Very common when (eg) a new skate park is built and residents (who have previously complained about kids having nothing to do) suddenly get upset that kids will have something to do.
He's one of those angry little men who would complain about cyclists if they were using the road, complain about facilities built for cyclists (waste of taxpayer money...) and the video should quite rightly call him out for his appalling behaviour.
As a way of introducing families and kids to the new path and showing the route, an organised ride is an excellent way of doing it and for reasons of event management, you want to keep it together, not spread it over 3 miles of road so marshalling a couple of crossings and getting everyone through is far more efficient and safe for everyone.
A cycle path?
anywhere that mefty and his friends are inconvenienced presumably
anywhere that mefty and his friends are inconvenienced presumably
Nowt to do with me, my experience with this stuff is that it is counterproductive, I have no time for zealots on either side.
As a way of introducing families and kids to the new path and showing the route, an organised ride
There was a big one organized in association with the Council on December 20, lots of positive comment on social media - emphasize the positve.
I have no time for zealots on either side
... but you think it's ok to describe kids on a bike ride as a 'human shield'.
If it angers gammons in cars I'm generally all for it. 😀
People wouldn’t have the same reaction to the lollipop lady stopping traffic for children on their way to school, upsetting the normal order of priorities.
You need to talk to the lollipop ladies and men, you'd be surprised and very sad what some of them go through.
Again there seems to be an assumption that the event was planned to fuel outrage for his show – is there any evidence that that’s the case?
Well 1 It had Jeremy Vines name attached, and 2 shortly afterwards his production team seem to have rustled up a rage-bait Twitter video. Obviously there's no overt statement of intent to go along with it, but the outcome seems to tick a few of those assumption boxes. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc...
I find the notion that he genuinely cares about cycling (especially in Chiswick) a questionable one. I doubt we'll ever agree on the motives each of us ascribe to the shameless exploiter of conflict.
But if this really was him "helping" to promote cycling, perhaps it's better if he simply doesn't?
Well 1 It had Jeremy Vines name attached, and 2 shortly afterwards his production team seem to have rustled up a rage-bait Twitter video.
1 - Did it? Beforehand?
2 - About ten days afterwards
Obviously there’s no overt statement of intent to go along with it, but the outcome seems to tick a few of those assumption boxes. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc…
What do you think this quack is meant to mean?
But if this really was him “helping” to promote cycling, perhaps it’s better if he simply doesn’t?
Where is that said? And what end would be better served by not highlighting anti-cycling behaviour?
I find the notion that he genuinely cares about cycling (especially in Chiswick) a questionable one.
You're aware that his twitter feed is essentially videos of his daily cycle commute and interactions with cars and other people on bikes?
You’re aware that his twitter feed is essentially videos of his daily cycle commute and interactions with cars and other people on bikes?
Don't come bringing facts into this to try and overturn people's preconceptions!
(I think he and his show are a total waste of my license fee, btw)
You’re aware that his twitter feed is essentially videos of his daily cycle commute and interactions with cars and other people on bikes?
Wouldn't that involve following Jeremy Vine on twitter? Sounds like the opposite of something I would actually want to do...
But from what you're saying he's made a habit of rolling round London looking for conflict, so he can tell his audience/twitter followers about it? Isn't that the very definition of feeding the narrative?
It's generous of you to make such a very specific assumption about the contents of a particular Twitter feed that you decline to view yourself.
Cheers! I shall proudly wear my general ignorance of Jeremy Vine's work like a badge of honour.
In much the same way I don't often read the Daily Mail or the Sun, all media consumption is optional.
I have had the minor misfortune to catch some of his R2 show in the past, it didn't really endear him or the listeners to me, quite why I'd sign up for more of his output via twitter is beyond me.
But I did watch the linked video from the start of this thread (Posted to Twitter by JV) and it looked like a clunky propaganda piece to me, apparently their was some sort of family cycling event in a wealthier suburb of London, but the main highlights shown were those that involved some flavour of abuse/conflict apparently directed at people on bikes. That is hardly going to encourage people to want to cycle, and I also don't believe it's actually a realistic reflection of most people's daily experiences of cycling in an urban setting, so selective presentation from an atypical event (you might call it 'misrepresentation' even). It seemed poorly planned unless the real intention was to illicit some negative interactions along the way to help drive the "War on Britain's Roads" narrative, in which case they did a great job.
It's not new or clever, this was put out almost a decade ago (By the Beeb):
And as ever the Trick is always in the editing suite: A bit more narrative sculpting.
So you have to consider the source and his MO; find something vaguely contentious, lob some rhetorical questions about, open the lines and see what you get... He's not a cycling advocate, he's a talk show host that need ratings and exposure for his job, it's counterproductive for the rest of us though, so like I said I'd rather he didn't "help".
Anyway I'm becoming repetitious now and I've had my say on the topic, feel free to unpick my opinions...
"There's this chap on the radio I don't like - I don't listen to his show or read his tweets, but that means I'm going to see anything that comes from him in a negative light". Not tricky to unpick. 🙂
Again the assumption without any evidence that I can see that this was in some way arranged by him, or that it was intended to cause aggravation.
Re -
selective presentation from an atypical event (you might call it ‘misrepresentation’ even)
Misrepresentation, you say? A reminder of the text on the actual tweet -
When I went out on a wonderful family cycle in wintry West London, it was overwhelmingly positive and well-received by those who saw us.
I think the message is plain and clear, it was a good ride that lots of people had a great time at, but there were a handful of idiots being idiots. I have no problem with idiots being called out, I still can't get my head around people on a cycling forum justifying anti-cycling idiocy.
But from what you’re saying he’s made a habit of rolling round London looking for conflict,
In so much that he's got a camera fitted as he, like others, finds cycling on roads a constant gamble.
He’s not a cycling advocate, he’s a talk show host that need ratings and exposure for his job
Perhaps have a look at his twitter? I'd say a good 80% of his content is cycling advocacy related either by his own posts or re-tweeting other cycling advocacy stuff, especially in London .
it’s counterproductive for the rest of us though, so like I said I’d rather he didn’t “help”.
There's always room for different opinions on how to make roads safer for cyclists, but like it as not Vine reaches a massive audience, and I'd rather he be on the side of cycling than not.
He's regularly seen in the Chiswick area cycling. He lives there. And he's often riding his ordinary. I suspect he was riding it on this ride based on the height of the viewpoint.