Franglais:
biggriffin:
Get this signed
change.org/p/remove-jeremy- … e_petitionPersonally I don
t listen Vine. I dont see the need to censor him though.What is it about him speaking freely that offends or frightens you?
The issue is whether the driver in question is guilty of an offence or not and the accusation regarding same.Not free speech.
lewn777:
and even on the zig-zags of pedestrian crossings. .
You say that like it’s never allowed?
gov.uk/guidance/the-highway … 159-to-203
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
Rule 165
You MUST NOT overtake
if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)
if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line
the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians cross
if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation
after a ‘No Overtaking’ sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD schedule 1, schedule 9 part 7, schedule 14 part 1
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
where the road narrows
when approaching a school crossing patrol
on the approach to crossing facilities
where a vehicle ahead is slowing to stop for a pedestrian that is crossing from a pedestrian island (see Rule 165)
between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
at a level crossing
when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left. Do not cut across cyclists going ahead, including those using cycle lanes and cycle tracks (see Rule H3)
stay behind if you are following a horse rider or horse drawn vehicle approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left. Do not cut across a horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going ahead
when a tram is standing at a kerbside tram stop and there is no clearly marked passing lane for other traffic
Rule 191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD schedule 14 parts 1 and 5
Highlights are mine.
If you follow links Highway Code they have some further links …(including some links to tourist signs!)
Franglais:
The Highway Code - Using the road (159 to 203) - Guidance - GOV.UKMany of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
Rule 165
You MUST NOT overtakeif you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)
if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line
the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians cross
if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation
after a ‘No Overtaking’ sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD schedule 1, schedule 9 part 7, schedule 14 part 1Rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For exampleapproaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
where the road narrows
when approaching a school crossing patrol
on the approach to crossing facilities
where a vehicle ahead is slowing to stop for a pedestrian that is crossing from a pedestrian island (see Rule 165)
between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
at a level crossing
when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left. Do not cut across cyclists going ahead, including those using cycle lanes and cycle tracks (see Rule H3)
stay behind if you are following a horse rider or horse drawn vehicle approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left. Do not cut across a horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going ahead
when a tram is standing at a kerbside tram stop and there is no clearly marked passing lane for other trafficRule 191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.Laws RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD schedule 14 parts 1 and 5
Highlights are mine.
If you follow links Highway Code they have some further links …(including some links to tourist signs!)
Firstly as it says anything in the Highway code can be used and admitted as evidence to prosecute not just the specific must not items.Which obviously means legally enforced.
What has that got to do with the issue of cyclists deliberately removing clearance distance then blaming the driver for it as in this case.
stu675:
lewn777:
and even on the zig-zags of pedestrian crossings. .You say that like it’s never allowed?
@Franglais Thanks for doing my work for me [emoji23] As you point out, it is only the vehicle nearest the crossing that you can’t overtake (unless they are stopped other than to allow someone to cross) therefore there is much potential for overtaking all the other vehicles within the zig zag lines!
Someone has started a petition to get Jeremy vine sacked from the BBC over this
The petition reads: "In May 2022 his show resulted in a complaint against an HGV driver who has since been suspended from his job, despite the video evidence from Vine’s show clearly showing the driver had not committed the offence he was accused of.
"It is likely the public have a limited amount of leverage when complaining about the content of commercial TV. However, as a publically-funded (sic) service, the BBC must be answerable to the licence-fee payers for the conduct of their employees, whether that be within or outside their own broadcasting purview.
"For a very high-profile BBC employee to act as Vine has done in promoting unfair accusations against a hard-working member of the public, one of the people partly-responsible for paying his BBC-reported salary of £320,000-324,999, is intolerable and an insult to all HGV drivers across the country.
Don’t know where link is to sign it .but sure it can be easily found if anyone’s interested
edd1974:
Someone has started a petition to get Jeremy vine sacked from the BBC over this
Petition aims to see Jeremy Vine sacked for reporting HGV driver | Cycling WeeklyThe petition reads: "In May 2022 his show resulted in a complaint against an HGV driver who has since been suspended from his job, despite the video evidence from Vine’s show clearly showing the driver had not committed the offence he was accused of.
"It is likely the public have a limited amount of leverage when complaining about the content of commercial TV. However, as a publically-funded (sic) service, the BBC must be answerable to the licence-fee payers for the conduct of their employees, whether that be within or outside their own broadcasting purview.
"For a very high-profile BBC employee to act as Vine has done in promoting unfair accusations against a hard-working member of the public, one of the people partly-responsible for paying his BBC-reported salary of £320,000-324,999, is intolerable and an insult to all HGV drivers across the country.
Don’t know where link is to sign it .but sure it can be easily found if anyone’s interested
“This petition isn’t available. Either the URL is incorrect, it violated our Community Guidelines, or the starter removed it.”
More importantly Waitrose now supports the driver.
stu675:
More importantly Waitrose now supports the driver.
trans.info/en/watrose-hgv-driver-290541
More importantly there is no suggestion that Waitrose ever intended to sack the driver.
Now time to go on the offensive against all concerned regarding false accusation made against the driver including a claim for compensation as to his reputation.
He was clearly a victim of a dangerous fit up attempt.By a militant cyclist group having clearly and deliberately removed his clearance distance to them by them needlessly moving to the right.
And on the Brexit News Channel:
Waitrose backs HGV driver criticised by Jeremy Vine
A spokeswomen for Waitrose has confirmed to GB News: “the driver continues to work for us as a valued member of our team” and “rumours that the drive has been sacked” were “grossly incorrect”.
She added: “All our drivers are trained to the highest safety standards. We have investigated and closely examined the footage, including cameras fitted to our vehicle, and we are confident that our driver used the correct positioning while driving on a narrow lane. The driver continues to work for us as a valued member of our team”."
whisperingsmith:
And on the Brexit News Channel:Waitrose backs HGV driver criticised by Jeremy Vine
A spokeswomen for Waitrose has confirmed to GB News: “the driver continues to work for us as a valued member of our team” and “rumours that the drive has been sacked” were “grossly incorrect”.
She added: “All our drivers are trained to the highest safety standards. We have investigated and closely examined the footage, including cameras fitted to our vehicle, and we are confident that our driver used the correct positioning while driving on a narrow lane. The driver continues to work for us as a valued member of our team”."
Waitrose 'back lorry driver' after Jeremy Vine shamed them on social media for overtaking his bike
Good to see a company backing it’s driver.
rambo19:
Good to see a company backing it’s driver.
Obviously no statement by the transport unions, that victimisation of innocent drivers, by the militant cycling tendency, won’t be tolerated.
rambo19:
whisperingsmith:
And on the Brexit News Channel:Waitrose backs HGV driver criticised by Jeremy Vine
A spokeswomen for Waitrose has confirmed to GB News: “the driver continues to work for us as a valued member of our team” and “rumours that the drive has been sacked” were “grossly incorrect”.
She added: “All our drivers are trained to the highest safety standards. We have investigated and closely examined the footage, including cameras fitted to our vehicle, and we are confident that our driver used the correct positioning while driving on a narrow lane. The driver continues to work for us as a valued member of our team”."
Waitrose 'back lorry driver' after Jeremy Vine shamed them on social media for overtaking his bike
Good to see a company backing it’s driver.
It is but it would be more relevant to see the BBC woke middle class Vine apologise, but that won’t happen.
stu675:
“This petition isn’t available. Either the URL is incorrect, it violated our Community Guidelines, or the starter removed it.”
It’s still online and growing, despite the false claim by cycling weekly that it had been deleted:
A (since deleted - Ed, May 31) petition(opens in new tab) called ‘Remove Jeremy Vine from the BBC’ has been created
I was sent this link
chng.it/rbHYsJpv
This also appears to lead to the same place
change.org/p/remove-jeremy- … 1fa31154d4
I’m surprised more people on here aren’t more opposed to JV, he’s demonstrated an anti-HGV bias previously, now here he is colluding with police (not new for the BBC), actively egging them on to find something wrong with the driving standards of the Waitrose driver (which there isn’t).
One police dutifully complies with Jezza, with an inappropriate claim “he’ll get due care and attention for that”, which any decent solicitor could easily have challenged in court surely.
Police should be independent of the media, not sucking up to “celebrity” cyclists.
As far as I can tell, Waitrose were silent about the video and unfair accusation, until the petition started getting shared, but well done them for supporting the driver publicly once it did start circulating