# BBC helmet cam film to explore cyclist-motorist conflict



## Mr Haematocrit (27 Apr 2012)

The BBC are to air a documentary that uses helmet cameras to explore the growing conflict between cyclists and motorists on Britain's roads. 
The broadcaster says the one-off hour long film, The War On Britain’s Roads, will "parachute (viewers) into the middle of a war that is raging between two-wheeled road users and their four-wheeled counterparts".

http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/...m-to-explore-cyclist-motorist-conflict-33840/


----------



## downfader (27 Apr 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> The BBC are to air a documentary that uses helmet cameras to explore the growing conflict between cyclists and motorists on Britain's roads.
> The broadcaster says the one-off hour long film, The War On Britain’s Roads, will "parachute (viewers) into the middle of a war that is raging between two-wheeled road users and their four-wheeled counterparts".
> 
> http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/...m-to-explore-cyclist-motorist-conflict-33840/


 
Jesussss... it aint a war, its a genocide.


----------



## fossyant (27 Apr 2012)




----------



## Mr Haematocrit (27 Apr 2012)

wonder who they the footage from, Boris, Cameron?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Apr 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> The broadcaster says the one-off hour long film, The War On Britain’s Roads, will "parachute (viewers) into the middle of a war that is raging between two-wheeled road users and their four-wheeled counterparts".


 
I dislike this continual characterisation of a 'war' between cyclists and motorists but I suppose a title like "Cyclists' safety on the road" won't attract the same number, or type, of viewers. This sort of us v them rhetoric only serves to further drive any wedge between us and the comments and letters pages will once again be filled with anti-cycling rants. 

All road users need to understand each other's needs and limitations, and use the roads with care and mutual respect.


GC


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (27 Apr 2012)

Have to agree, the "war on the roads" angle is completely wrong. I bet they won't get across the point that 99% of my ride to and from work is conflict free and is actually incredibly fun! 

Will be interesting to see who else on here has contributed and what was used? For me it was 2 clips of RLJing cyclists - one where the guy got pulled over by the police motorbike and another with a rather near miss on a ped. They did say they won't be portrayed in a negative light but then that is putting a lot of trust in the production crew and director!


----------



## Red Light (27 Apr 2012)

The war on roads angle is wrong and so is the cycling is a death wish activity of extreme danger angle. If you want to put ordinary people off taking up cycling and encourage people to pressure their loved ones to stop cycling, this is the way to do it.


----------



## musa (27 Apr 2012)

Best avoid....once you sign the document thats it no copyrights no this and that...now unless you double film and keep the original only way to prove them wrong they will certainly show what THEY want

its a shame


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Apr 2012)

Bassjunkieuk said:


> Will be interesting to see who else on here has contributed and what was used? ... They did say they won't be portrayed in a negative light but then that is putting a lot of trust in the production crew and director!


 
They've got one of mine (a smidsy) where I shouted a warning to the driver (I'd no horn then) who then pulled out in front of me. Had I known the angle of the programme I wouldn't have provided it. In fact I'm just about to write to them to get clarification on how cycling will be portrayed. I'm not optimistic and will probably withdraw it anyway.

For those who are interested, here's how they pitched the video request to camera cyclists via Youtube:

*"URGENT BBC DOCUMENTARY *​ 
​_I am emailing from a television company called Leopard Films in the UK. We produce a range of factual programmes for a number of different broadcasters, in particular the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). We are currently working on a documentary for BBC One about the phenomenon of cyclists wearing cameras on their helmets or bikes, to record their experiences on the road as well as other user generated footage from cyclists and I have been looking at a clip you have posted on youtube with great interest._​​_We are particulary keen to include one of your clips._​​_As we are approaching our deadline would you be happy to give us permission to use your clip in our programme?"_​​​​GC
​​​


----------



## Crankarm (27 Apr 2012)

Copyright remains with the film maker or photographer unless they explicitly surrender it by signing it over to another party. If you don't want your clip used then tell the broadcaster so. If you want a fee if they use it then tell them so and send them an invoice. If they fail to comply with either of these tell them to cease using your footage and if they don't send them a letter from your solicitor.

Of course you have to get al the necessary model and property releases for people and property in your footage or image otherwise they could sue you.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Apr 2012)

Yet more "Reality TV". Oh dear.


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (28 Apr 2012)

All I hope is that they try to educate the viewers on the 'Road Tax' myth, cause i all I ever get is 'You don't pay road tax' blah blah etc


----------



## sheddy (28 Apr 2012)

Leopard Films here - http://www.leopardfilms.com/news/le...rigs-with-self-filmed-docs-broadcast-magazine


----------



## Melonfish (28 Apr 2012)

Wondering how this will go down, will cyclists be portrayed as responsible road users or will they focus on cycle ninja's and RLJ's and make out all cyclists are reckless? i fear this may bite us in the ass. i seriously hope they make the distinction between responsible cyclists and clueless ninja's and show the real need for us to get people educated both cyclist and motorist alike.


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Apr 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Of course you have to get all the necessary model and property releases for people and property in your footage or image otherwise they could sue you.


 
Didn't Magnatom put that to rest years ago?

If it is filmed in a place where there is "no reasonable expectation of privacy" and shows information in the public domain (like registration numbers) then there is no need for any consent


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Apr 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Didn't Magnatom put that to rest years ago?
> 
> If it is filmed in a place where there is "no reasonable expectation of privacy" and shows information in the public domain (like registration numbers) then there is no need for any consent


 

Correct.

The BBC doesn't get model releases from the hundreds of people in shot on Oxford Street while they do a piece about consumer news, or the thousands of fans attending a football match they're covering.

public place = public face


GC


----------



## MontyVeda (28 Apr 2012)

it'll be like Mr T's Craziest Fools...

all the 'gasp' footage regardless of whether it's a bike or a car.

do we get a prize for guessing correctly?


----------



## fossyant (28 Apr 2012)

I can't seeing this programme doing anyone any favours. So all you who volunteered footage remember it can be used as the editors want. It's very likely to show war on the streets. Not going to do anyone any good.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jezston (28 Apr 2012)

I think some little email writing campaign asking them not to present the issue as a 'war' between two sides, the cyclist and the motorist and more about good road users and dangerous ones, and a bit more about facts than drama, might be worthwhile?



MontyVeda said:


> it'll be like Mr T's Craziest Fools...


 
I'm sure it won't have as impeccably produced sound design work on it though


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (28 Apr 2012)

Well, I think it is a war: a war between responsible cyclists and prats. (Other wars are available.)


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (28 Apr 2012)

I suspect that this will be like the film about microlights that was on earlier in the year (The real magnificent men in their flying machines).

Whilst it was entertaining it just reinforced all the worst stereotypical views and was a long way from the reality of what the average microlight pilot really gets up to.


----------



## davefb (28 Apr 2012)

With the "lights camera action" sort of programming, they tv companies did initially have 'difficulty' getting the tone right. Hopefully they get the tone 'sensible' for this, but if they start with "the war between" it's not good is it? I don't set out being confrontational, but I don't hold back if a car shoves towards me, because the stupid bint is texting while q'ing in traffic and not concentrating...
But there's no 'war', theres people who are trying to record what happens to them, if only so that if something bad happens, they have evidence and also 'could I have done better'... this isn't solely cycles, its motorcyclists, car drivers all sorts.. I certainly have more 'moments' due to idiots , driving in the car, its just that due to 50yrs of effort, cars are relatively safe, so in most cases the worst that can happen is some bent metal.. 
Personally, any education would be great, of all peoples mistakes, not just 'a war', perhaps with an explanation of WHY it's so ruddy dangerous to pull out on bikes, of WHY cyclists feel safer running reds ( booo), of WHY cyclists dont use the bit on the left, of WHY cyclists might bip onto the pavement, of WHY cyclists feel intimidated when you leave less room passing them than passing a skip/parkedcar etc..


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 May 2012)

I've written to the production company withdrawing my consent for the use of my video and they have since ackowledged that it will not be used.

I would suggest that anyone else who has submitted footage, and would prefer not to be involved with a programme that may well further damage cycling's standing, do the same.

GC


----------



## Bigsharn (2 May 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Well, I think it is a war: a war between responsible cyclists and prats. (Other wars are available.)




That, or Everyone vs Firstbus/Addison Lee (cross out as appropriate)

*not stirring, just telling it how I sees it*


----------



## Redvee (19 May 2012)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> All I hope is that they try to educate the viewers on the 'Road Tax' myth, cause i all I ever get is 'You don't pay road tax' blah blah etc


 
The clip I uploaded to them was of the road tax debate after a 12" close pass.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YmK6Z52tcY


----------



## sabian92 (19 May 2012)

As wrong as he was I can't take him seriously with that accent 

What I get from being from up 'norf I spose...


----------



## Recycler (19 May 2012)

Redvee said:


> The clip I uploaded to them was of the road tax debate after a 12" close pass.


 
Incredible!!!!!


----------



## ufkacbln (20 May 2012)

1:18

I am very worried about the cyclist in this video, as apparently he was wearing Latex!







Or do you think it was a Freudian slip eby the driver who is into Latex?


----------



## Red Light (20 May 2012)

I find it easier not to argue that its not road tax but say that I pay the full road tax for a low emissions vehicle.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (20 May 2012)

Recycler said:


> Incredible!!!!!


 

I get that at work all the time from one particular colleague,plus the riding up pavements,jumping red lights,blah blah blah...and he also had a go at my video yesterday as he found the misdemeanor of me overtaking on the crossing.When I remarked on him speeding though he didn't deny it.


----------



## downfader (20 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> I get that at work all the time from one particular colleague,plus the riding up pavements,jumping red lights,blah blah blah...and he also had a go at my video yesterday as he found the misdemeanor of me overtaking on the crossing.When I remarked on him speeding though he didn't deny it.


 
IIRC the wording of the law states motor vehicle overtaking another motor vehicle, not drivers overtaking bikes or cyclists overtaking motorists... Gaz did a blog on it a while back.


----------



## Matthew_T (20 May 2012)

I think everyone on here is in an agreement that if cycling is indeed portrayed by this programme as silly and dangerous (those few instances), then we should all email the broadcaster and ask 'why?'. Why hasnt driving been portrayed as dangerous? Or motorcycling? Why do cyclists have to be singled out as the dangerous ones?
Just a few queries to put to them.


----------



## downfader (21 May 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> I think everyone on here is in an agreement that if cycling is indeed portrayed by this programme as silly and dangerous (those few instances), then we should all email the broadcaster and ask 'why?'. Why hasnt driving been portrayed as dangerous? Or motorcycling? Why do cyclists have to be singled out as the dangerous ones?
> Just a few queries to put to them.


 
I think the most important, logical, critique of such opinion is this: if it is so bad and/or wrong - then why do cyclists still exist? The benefits must surely outweigh the negatives to such an extent that people are willing to give it a go.


----------



## Matthew_T (21 May 2012)

downfader said:


> I think the most important, logical, critique of such opinion is this: if it is so bad and/or wrong - then why do cyclists still exist? The benefits must surely outweigh the negatives to such an extent that people are willing to give it a go.


Thats true too.


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (21 May 2012)

Cyclists and Health & Safety are much the same here... Both are maligned by the arrogant or ignorant, both are badly represented by the few who do it badly be it through arrogance, ignorance or just plain stupidity, the majority of both just want to go about their business doing something worthwhile, however, both are commonly misrepresented in the press.

I didn't see the similarities until tonight so now I see why I find it so frustrating.... I am a cycling H&S Manager!!!

Oh woe is me


----------



## downfader (22 May 2012)

TonyEnjoyD said:


> Cyclists and Health & Safety are much the same here... Both are maligned by the arrogant or ignorant, both are badly represented by the few who do it badly be it through arrogance, ignorance or just plain stupidity, the majority of both just want to go about their business doing something worthwhile, however, both are commonly misrepresented in the press.
> 
> I didn't see the similarities until tonight so now I see why I find it so frustrating.... I am a cycling H&S Manager!!!
> 
> Oh woe is me


 
I always see so many parallels with cycling. And the Human Rights Act.... and race/ethnic/religious relations... seeing the parallels allows you to see the inspiring people who radically changed things for the better.


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (22 May 2012)

downfader said:


> I always see so many parallels with cycling. And the Human Rights Act.... and race/ethnic/religious relations... seeing the parallels allows you to see the inspiring people who radically changed things for the better.


Wow...that was way too deep for me!


----------



## downfader (22 May 2012)

TonyEnjoyD said:


> Wow...that was way too deep for me!


..even a pessimist needs a coping strategy


----------



## gaz (19 Nov 2012)

Air date - Wednesday 5th of December 9pm on bbc1


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> Air date - Wednesday 5th of December 9pm on bbc1




Thanks for the update Gaz.

Reading the synopsis I'm glad I removed consent to use one of my videos. I can't see this programme doing anything but further polarise the debate on sharing the roads.

GC


----------



## Matthew_T (19 Nov 2012)

When I heard about this, I was quite insulted that they didnt contact me. I have plenty of videos to rival those of Gaz's and SOTW's.


----------



## gaz (19 Nov 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Thanks for the update Gaz.
> 
> Reading the synopsis I'm glad I removed consent to use one of my videos. I can't see this programme doing anything but further polarise the debate on sharing the roads.
> 
> GC


I hoping it just media hype. They have to spin it to try and gain an audience.


----------



## gaz (19 Nov 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> When I heard about this, I was quite insulted that they didnt contact me. I have plenty of videos to rival those of Gaz's and SOTW's.


I don't think you should see it as rivalling our videos, it kind of suggests that we try to make the best videos / worst incidences. Which for my self is not true and i'm sure can also be said for the others.

The filming and talking about this show has been going on for well over a year and back then you where probably just starting out (if you had even started). As for being insulted... don't take it to heart, they aren't going to look at and include every cyclist in the uk who is filming (+400 people). They will look at those of us who have been around for a few years, had some of the worst incidences and some of the best results.

Just a snippet of what myself, mikey and magnatom have recorded over the years.





*wanted to include one more video from magnatom, but there is a 5 limit media includes per post.


----------



## semislickstick (19 Nov 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Thanks for the update Gaz.
> 
> Reading the synopsis I'm glad I removed consent to use one of my videos. I can't see this programme doing anything but further polarise the debate on sharing the roads.
> 
> GC


 Well it doesn't look too bad, I was expecting worse.
Looks like they have the mother of the young lady killed by the cement truck and who has been campaigning to get those sensors fitted to the sides of Lorries & a taxi driver who's changed his ways!!!!



> *The film presents both sides of the story, retelling dramatic incidents from both the cyclists’ and drivers’ points of view.*


The drivers side of an incident will be what? "Well, I er, didn't see him", "He came from nowhere!" "First thing I knew was this crazy cyclist & his bike banging on my window screen", "He doesn't pay road tax.....and there was a perfectly good cycle path...."

Shall we make it a point scoring drinking game for every cliché? 
Book Thursday off!!


----------



## gaz (19 Nov 2012)

Her story is absolutely amazing.


----------



## Matthew_T (20 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> I don't think you should see it as rivalling our videos, it kind of suggests that we try to make the best videos / worst incidences. Which for my self is not true and i'm sure can also be said for the others.
> 
> The filming and talking about this show has been going on for well over a year and back then you where probably just starting out (if you had even started). As for being insulted... don't take it to heart, they aren't going to look at and include every cyclist in the uk who is filming (+400 people). They will look at those of us who have been around for a few years, had some of the worst incidences and some of the best results.


Fair point. I only started uploading June 2011 and that was with my old camera.

If they did another one (which I highly doubt) then I might be a contender. I am not too bothered anyway. I know that there are other people who have had worse incidents than me (the one with the lorry was terrible).I look forward to watching the program and picking up on the "Road Tax" comments (it would be nice for the program producers to clarify for everyone).


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (20 Nov 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> They've got one of mine (a smidsy) where I shouted a warning to the driver (I'd no horn then) who then pulled out in front of me. Had I known the angle of the programme I wouldn't have provided it. In fact I'm just about to write to them to get clarification on how cycling will be portrayed. I'm not optimistic and will probably withdraw it anyway.
> 
> For those who are interested, here's how they pitched the video request to camera cyclists via Youtube:
> 
> ...


 
What's your Youtube?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Nov 2012)

jazloc said:


> What's your Youtube?


 
It's no longer active.


GC


----------



## riggsbie (20 Nov 2012)

Ooooo..... I'll have to look on the torrents sites do I can watch here in Oz !

The car vs bike thing is pretty bad here, ironically I am a recumbent rider (on one of those low death traps ;-) yet ironically I get a lot space and respect than when I ride my new DF upright road bike where car drivers take great pleasure in giving you next to no respect and cut you off at every opportunity...... Weird init ?)

I look forward to comments after its been aired !


----------



## Archie_tect (20 Nov 2012)

I don't recognise this war of which they speak... I ride my bike on the road sensibly and make allowances for what's ahead and around me, ie I react to other road users in the same way as I would when driving- give a little: be helpful, friendly and courteous and you get the same back. If someone's in a hurry or angry about something just let it go. If you have to slow down or let someone out/ past/ through, so what? You won't lose any more than a few seconds and will be back up to speed straight after, what's the problem? They maybe having a bad day, so don't try and make it worse. Life is as easy or as difficult as you want to make it.


----------



## tadpole (20 Nov 2012)

If you don't think it's a war, I suggest that you have a look on Twitter, I had to unsubscribe from one feed as it was just hundred of retweets a day from people who think that they had the right to run over/kill cyclists, for daring to be in the way when they car owners wanted to be driving on their road. Sickening


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (20 Nov 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It's no longer active.
> 
> 
> GC


Were you 'http://www.youtube.com/user/GlasgowCycle'?


----------



## fossyant (20 Nov 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> When I heard about this, I was quite insulted that they didnt contact me. I have plenty of videos to rival those of Gaz's and SOTW's.


 
Thank god they didn't !


----------



## 400bhp (20 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> Air date - Wednesday 5th of December 9pm on bbc1


 
:sigh:

Awaits the long thread about the film and the silly discussions at work


----------



## Archie_tect (20 Nov 2012)

tadpole said:


> If you don't think it's a war, I suggest that you have a look on Twitter, I had to unsubscribe from one feed as it was just hundred of retweets a day from people who think that they had the right to run over/kill cyclists, for daring to be in the way when they car owners wanted to be driving on their road. Sickening


Twitter? ...give over.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Nov 2012)

@gaz-do you know which vids of yours & others they have picked to show?


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2012)

Should be interesting, does sound one sided on the p-o-v of the cyclists (not that I mind that especially) but I hope it is more balanced than it sounds...


----------



## fossyant (20 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> :sigh:
> 
> Awaits the long thread about the film and the silly discussions at work


 
Oh yes. Work not so bad, but won't be letting the wife watch it !


----------



## gaz (20 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> @gaz-do you know which vids of yours & others they have picked to show?


I know which videos I gave them permission to use, I don't know which ones they will use of those.
I'm also aware of a few of the clips they are using from other cyclists.


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> I know which videos I gave them permission to use, I don't know which ones they will use of those.
> I'm also aware of a few of the clips they are using from other cyclists.


 
Puts paid to all those people who say it's pointless and stupid to film your journey, well done Gaz!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Nov 2012)

jazloc said:


> Were you 'http://www.youtube.com/user/GlasgowCycle'?


No, same username as on here - glasgowcyclist.


GC


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (20 Nov 2012)

No war here,I fall out sometimes but by the next commute it's generally forgotten.


----------



## riggsbie (20 Nov 2012)

The driving standards here in Oz are woefully poor !

I think driver training/education is to blame..... You get a lot of car drivers saying you have right to ride in the road as you are not a registered/insured vehicle etc.....

Then ironically they are happy to throw glass beer bottles out the window on to the shoulder thus forcing you to ride in 'their' road....

Some people here are in such a rush that a delay of maybe 30 seconds is simply too much as well ;-)

And getting as close as possible is seen as a challenge ! I regularly get cut off approaching punch points so I tend to ride in a stronger more dominant position which then upsets them even more !

Ironically the recumbent trike and Velomobile has a very different response from most car and trade drivers !! I guess it's the WTF factor ?


----------



## snorri (20 Nov 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> When I heard about this, I was quite insulted that they didnt contact me. I have plenty of videos to rival those of Gaz's and SOTW's.


A lucky escape Matthew_T, they clearly wanted to save you from embarrassment.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Nov 2012)

riggsbie said:


> I regularly get cut off approaching punch points ...



Sounds like Australians take their driving a bit too seriously!


GC


----------



## SW19cam (20 Nov 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> No war here,I fall out sometimes but by the next commute it's generally forgotten.


 
I agree. The occasional skirmish, but no full out war. In fact 99% of the time we live in peace!


----------



## subaqua (26 Nov 2012)

the ad i just saw on the telly was a not one that makes me confident it is going to be balanced


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (26 Nov 2012)

RichK said:


> Wont bother watching it myself but really not looking forward to the grief the following day at work


 
I'm glad I'm off that week!

Overhearing someone at work getting a lecture about how cycling in the rain is causing a danger on the roads..I was impressed that it took a whole 3 minutes to mention R*** T**


----------



## NormanD (26 Nov 2012)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> All I hope is that they try to educate the viewers on the 'Road Tax' myth, cause i all I ever get is 'You don't pay road tax' blah blah etc


 
I fully agree .. but I doubt it


----------



## gaz (26 Nov 2012)

NormanD said:


> I fully agree .. but I doubt it


 
I recall when I was doing some filming for this and a passer by mentioned roadtax and I eloquently stated the facts about road tax. Hopefully they include that.


----------



## Matthew_T (26 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> I recall when I was doing some filming for this and a passer by mentioned roadtax and I eloquently stated the facts about road tax. Hopefully they include that.


If it is on YT then I cannot find it. Searched both your channels.


----------



## gaz (26 Nov 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> If it is on YT then I cannot find it. Searched both your channels.


I didn't say it was me that was filming


----------



## sheddy (26 Nov 2012)

BTW do we know when is this going to be transmitted ?


----------



## Matthew_T (26 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> I didn't say it was me that was filming


Oh.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Nov 2012)

both sides will be portrayed as offensive. the water cooler chats on thursday will be interesting.


----------



## gaz (26 Nov 2012)

sheddy said:


> BTW do we know when is this going to be transmitted ?


Post number 39


----------



## gaz (26 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> both sides will be portrayed as offensive. the water cooler chats on thursday will be interesting.


I don't know about you, but my thursday water cooler chats are always interesting


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> I don't know about you, but my thursday water cooler chats are always interesting


Don't have any water coolers, I cancelled the contracts and now folk have to make do with tap.


----------



## semislickstick (27 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> Post number 39


There was even a little trailer for it after H.I.G.N.F.Y.
Think I saw Magnotom saying that he feared he would be pulled under a vehicle. A lorry driver complaining,while overtaking a cyclist, he never saw him looking up once. Oh and Gaz's taxi driver who jumped out to get in his face about slapping his cab.


----------



## SW19cam (27 Nov 2012)

My strategy for dealing with the documentary is: 1) Beer 2) Pizza 3) Knocking opinions and emotions in to ‘neutral’. 

At least if Redvee’s submission is included I know there will be at least one good laugh during the hour - that video cracks me up (It’s one of my all time favourites – along with his “Lockbrook Road”).


----------



## Drago (27 Nov 2012)

I'm bor going to watch it. It's nothing I don't see almost daily myself as I ride so it won't have much documentary value for me, and this is going to do nothing to break down barriers between cyclists and the 'I pay my road tax' brigade.

It's just a ploy by the Beeb to grab a few ratings by stirring the pot themselves on an already controversial topic and u fear it will do our cause no favours.


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2012)

This to be aired a couple of days before sports personality....

Wonder if there will be a Lance documentary on saturday night too.


----------



## thefollen (27 Nov 2012)

I'm intrigued to see the spin they put on it. I'd imagine with the government trying to encourage cycling it'll be potentially made with the purpose of encouraging awareness and safety- in all parties. Hopefully it won't come across that cycling in London's a minefield, or label cyclists menaces in a Daily-Mail-esque fashion.

Will be watching.


----------



## mcshroom (27 Nov 2012)

Having seen the trailer I'd guess a frothing at the mouth Daily Fail style piece would be more likely. Hoping to be proven wrong.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (27 Nov 2012)

It's gonna be a bark,cue many comments at work by workmates relating to "road tax".


----------



## mr_cellophane (27 Nov 2012)

semislickstick said:


> There was even a little trailer for it after H.I.G.N.F.Y.


Damm, I turned the TV off then.


----------



## Chichak (27 Nov 2012)

Should make interesting viewing, lets hope Jeremy Vine is presenting that should get the Daily Mail bicycle hate mob well and truly worked up for the following mornings commute.


----------



## Electric_Andy (28 Nov 2012)

The footage I saw on the trailer was taken from such heroes as CycleGaz and the like. I can guarantee that it won't present a balanced view, but I hope I'm proven wrong. In an ideal world they will conclude by showing the dangers of close-passes, and will get the message across that motor vehicles can kill or injure cyclists very easily whereas the vice versa is almost impossible.


----------



## srw (28 Nov 2012)

Postings elsewhere on this forum suggest that the film has been produced by a company headed by a cyclist. That may well mean that it is more balanced than it would otherwise be.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (28 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> Postings elsewhere on this forum suggest that the film has been produced by a company headed by a cyclist. That may well mean that it is more balanced than it would otherwise be.


 
Rubbish,the poor motons will be picked on again by the non road tax paying brigade.


----------



## growingvegetables (28 Nov 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Rubbish,the *poor* motons will be picked on again by the non road tax paying brigade.


But I thought it was the cyclodemons who were too poor to afford "proper" transport?


----------



## gaz (28 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> Postings elsewhere on this forum suggest that the film has been produced by a company headed by a cyclist. That may well mean that it is more balanced than it would otherwise be.


Unfortunately the original plan for the show was changed after the BBC wanted to make it more... edgy.


----------



## Cycling Dan (28 Nov 2012)

was there a tv advert for this. if so link me


----------



## The Brewer (28 Nov 2012)

All I could find was THIS


----------



## Matthew_T (29 Nov 2012)

Cycling Dan said:


> was there a tv advert for this. if so link me


I have tried to find it but I guess noone has bothered to upload it.


----------



## thefollen (29 Nov 2012)

The Brewer said:


> All I could find was THIS


 
Jesus, talk about upping the drama.

'War On Britain's Roads'... seriously?? I understand the Beeb's need to garner interest in the program, but this seems a little silly and alarmist.

Anyway, despite this the program might be decent so I'll withhold judgement. Look forward to it.


----------



## PaulSB (29 Nov 2012)

When I read about and view the material helmet cams produce I'm very pessimistic about the benefit to cycling of this programme.

I worry it will simply reinforce the view some motorists hold of cyclists and even more concerning the general public may develop a false view of us. A shame really because in my experience the large majority of motorists are respectful of a cyclists needs.

In my experience the real issue is the behaviour of elements of commuting cyclists and motorists. On recent trips to London I witnessed very poor cycling standards which detract from those who know how to behave. Sadly the bad cyclists where there in considerable numbers. 

Recently a young cyclist offered to help me get from A to B in Manchester by following him. His lack of thought for other road users was outrageous and he was clearly commuting. Not the first time I've witnessed this in Manchester but certainly the first time I've had to follow one. 

I feel the helmet cam culture has real potential to damage the image of cycling in this country and I wish people would seriously consider the likely consequences of their filming.

Myself I find it simpler to just ride the bike.


----------



## gaz (29 Nov 2012)

PaulSB said:


> I feel the helmet cam culture has real potential to damage the image of cycling in this country and I wish people would seriously consider the likely consequences of their filming.


 
Damage it how?
Now I know how it could damage it but you didn't hint towards that in your post.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Nov 2012)

PaulSB said:


> Recently a young cyclist offered to help me get from A to B in Manchester by following him. His lack of thought for other road users was outrageous and he was clearly commuting. Not the first time I've witnessed this in Manchester but certainly the first time I've had to follow one.


 
Yes, but that's no different to people in cars - we are the same humans after all. The problem is not just this behaviour, but also that people are bigoted towards cyclists, focusing on the tiniest thing a cyclist might have done wrong, or blaming the cyclist for actual good cycling, whilst forgiving motorists the most extreme of transgressions quite easily.

Just look at Gaz's recent RLJ topic with the Keltbray topic. Dear oh dear!!!


----------



## growingvegetables (29 Nov 2012)

PaulSB said:


> When I read about ......of their filming.


BOGOF day for non-sequiturs today, I see.


----------



## compo (29 Nov 2012)

The trailer I saw for the programme showed a clip from the couriers race across London which is hardly representitive of normal cycling (?).


----------



## jarlrmai (29 Nov 2012)

I fear bad things from this programme, if anything the minority people who are anti-cyclist and exhibit this whilst interacting with cyclists will cherry pick any negative portrayal to justify their current attitudes and actions whilst driving.

I'm hopefully coming off a very bad 2 weeks of driving, close passes, phone using drivers, pull outs, being forced off the road, threatened etc. I'm trying very hard not to paint all drivers with the same brush.

I think the main point that needs making is that even if you feel a cyclist is not riding where you think they are riding you CANNOT intimidate them or take less care when passing them. Some people feel that we shouldn't be on the road at all there needs to be harsher consequences for close passes it needs not to be a must not a should in the highway code, there needs to be a national advertising campaign like there is for motorbikes, why can't Think Bike be about us as well?


----------



## 400bhp (29 Nov 2012)

Hopefully it will be airing views from non political corners. Once a particular lobbyist starts prattling on (on either side of the debate) it loses credence.


----------



## Slaav (30 Nov 2012)

I happen to know the commissioning editor for this prog! I would like to think - knowing her - that her genuine talent and judgment will shine through!

That is to say that she will only ever commit to a prog that genuinely shows an in depth view. Not to say it will be balanced but this is a very talented and bright person who would, I imagine, be a very balanced view.

In the past, her typical programmes ask more questions than they answer by looking at it from the 'inside'! And the better 'inside' will be the cyclists' view as it is in the minority and showing perfectly normal people cycling reasonably and STILL being nearly killed, MAY (just may) help the debate and programme more than the typical thing we all fear????

And 'no', I have not spoken to her about this and have no axe to grind


----------



## slowmotion (30 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> Unfortunately the original plan for the show was changed after the BBC wanted to make it more... edgy.


 Blimey! Are they splicing in footage of Jimmy Savile on his bike?


----------



## PaulSB (30 Nov 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> BOGOF day for non-sequiturs today, I see.



Could you explain please. If you disagree with me that's fine but I fail to see the point you're making


----------



## PaulSB (30 Nov 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Yes, but that's no different to people in cars - we are the same humans after all. The problem is not just this behaviour, but also that people are bigoted towards cyclists, focusing on the tiniest thing a cyclist might have done wrong, or blaming the cyclist for actual good cycling, whilst forgiving motorists the most extreme of transgressions quite easily.


I agree entirely and this is why I believe we all have a duty to each other to behave responsibly on the roads. I know sections of drivers, some who like a good rant and others very reasonable people, who are very agitated about cyclists. It usually falls in one of two categories - people on bikes breaking every sensible rule you can think of and a driver being held up by a cyclist or group of cyclists. Two abreast and Sunday morning groups seem a particular problem. I'm sure we both understand this and don't need to justify it!

Whenever I encounter this I explain from the cyclist's perspective why a rider would be taking a particular line etc. I'll also agree with the motorist if the cyclist appears to have been in the wrong. We are all under the spotlight and our behaviour is often misunderstood which is why every cyclist should do his/her level best to ride well and courteously at all times. I do though feel a minority of cyclists over-emphasise the driver issue. In my experience, I don't ride in London but occassionaly in Manchester, the vast majority of drivers treat us with respect. Mind you there are some real dickheads out there as well!!



> Just look at Gaz's recent RLJ topic with the Keltbray topic. Dear oh dear!!!


 
I read the RLJ topic, Keltbray are mentioned there, is this one and the same thread? On the RLJ thread I felt it difficult to form a view of the riding. On the one hand Gaz would be able to see the lights from some distance, certainly enough to react in a controlled way. It looks to me as though there is room however I can see the view that if he's taking the curving right lane he wouldn't have wanted to move over to his left which stopping might have required with a truck on his back. For me it's impossible to tell where the truck is ( I don't want to debate frames per second etc. it's getting far too picky); if the truck is 6 metres away then RLJing was a good move, if not and there was time to stop RLJing was not justified. If I'd been there I could have gone either way depending on the truck's position, I think the rider has to make the call. I don't think it was a very big deal, just an every day riding decision. Overall I think the film suggests he should have stopped, when told the truck was 6 metres away, which we can't see, suggests the opposite.

What I do question is the purpose of the thread and the message in the video. "So why not stop at the red light?" Who is the question aimed at. First time I read this I felt the point was to demonstrate there can be situations where RLJing is justified, no problem. Then the film rolls on to the rear view camera and the emphasis on the question could change. I'm not sure what Gaz is saying here:

This is when to RLJ for safety reasons?
This truck RLDed isn't that appalling
I'm a cyclist and the truck driver's poor driving forced me to RLJ

Now as a cyclist I'm confused by his message, overall I think it comes across as anti-driver, which I doubt was his intention. This is partly why the cam culture bothers me. I'll get back to that later as I have to leave for work.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Nov 2012)

You see, I think you've missed the problem. This whole blame the cyclist thing will never be fixed by improving cyclist behaviour, it'll be fixed by changing the culture prevalent amongst drivers, the very worst parts of car culture. I'm sorry to say this, but you seem to be a part of that. Cyclists in the Netherlands aren't that different to us, and yet drivers don't treat them as badly there.

Secondly, as to the point of Gaz's video, you should know by now that Gaz almost never goes through a red light. In this instance (and I think he'd agree that it's extremely rare), there is a situation justifying running the red light.

Gaz's message isn't anti-driver at all, it's anti-bad-road-user. Again, you should know this if you've seen Silly Cyclists. The reality of the UK's roads, though, mean that bad drivers are the thing most likely to risk the lives of other people and Gaz's in particular.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (30 Nov 2012)

Guardian has a rather concerning write up here highlighting that a few groups don't agree with the alleycat race footage that was included and seemingly portrayed as "normal" riding


----------



## addictfreak (30 Nov 2012)

Looking forward to watching. But it will only prove that there are dickheads on both sides I'm afraid.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Nov 2012)

Bassjunkieuk said:


> Guardian has a rather concerning write up here highlighting that a few groups don't agree with the alleycat race footage that was included and seemingly portrayed as "normal" riding


 
Ah, well, I think that's rather disappointing. If it is that bad, I'll be joining the ranks condemning it on Wednesday night on social media.


----------



## Bill-H (30 Nov 2012)

not even going to bother


----------



## gaz (30 Nov 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Ah, well, I think that's rather disappointing. If it is that bad, I'll be joining the ranks condemning it on Wednesday night on social media.


You won't be the only one.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (30 Nov 2012)

Sounds a lot like my comment from April was justified. I'm quite glad I have other plans for that evening, I reckon watching this would just wind me up.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (30 Nov 2012)

Have now finally seen the ad, not as bad as I was expecting but it's gonna be interesting me thinks!


----------



## sheddy (1 Dec 2012)

In the meantime 'Inside Out' BBC1 Mon 3rd Dec is supposed to be featuring transport 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/


----------



## cloggsy (1 Dec 2012)

Don't judge it 'til you've watched it...


----------



## ManiaMuse (1 Dec 2012)

Apparently this is normal cycling... 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (1 Dec 2012)

Well I saw the preview in the messroom yesterday with the worst set of four wheeler lovers and this went down well.(not)

I was cringing.



ManiaMuse said:


> Apparently this is normal cycling...




You mean it isn't?


----------



## gavintc (1 Dec 2012)

cloggsy said:


> Don't judge it 'til you've watched it...


 
When has that ever stopped someone giving their 'forceful' opinion on something.


----------



## BrianEvesham (1 Dec 2012)

ManiaMuse said:


> Apparently this is normal cycling...
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g






It's just a matter of time.


----------



## veloevol (1 Dec 2012)

cloggsy said:


> Don't judge it 'til you've watched it...


 
Maybe there is a chance that only the films promotional material will use the 'war' angle to pull in punters but then again it's the lifeblood of mainstream media to sensationalise for emotive end.
Either way I feel it's better that these issues get talked about rather than ignored.
Also I supplied no footage and gave no consent for any of my clips to be used.
I'll be watching with my lawyer just in case


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (1 Dec 2012)

The "War on Britains Roads" title really has got my back up.

Not a good start is it?
*DOCUMENTARY: War on Britain's Roads*
*On: BBC 1 London (101) *
*Date: Wednesday 5th December 2012 (starting in 4 days)*
*Time: 21:00 to 22:00 (1 hour long)*

*Documentary using cycle helmet camera footage to give a unique insight into the unfolding tension and conflict on Britain's roads. From everyday incidents that get out of hand between cyclists and motorists, to stories of near-death experiences and fatal collisions, the programme shows that the battle between two wheels and four has never been so intense. It shows both sides of the story, retelling dramatic incidents from both the cyclist's and driver's point of view. It also follows the police on bikes as they chase down errant road users and record more than three thousand offences every year from car and bike users alike. We even see a cyclist who is attempting to police the roads himself, handing out his own 'tickets' for anything from texting behind the wheel, to jumping a red light. A mother who lost her cyclist daughter in a fatal collision with a cement mixer tells the extraordinary story of what she did to change cycle safety on Britain's roads.*
*(Stereo, Widescreen, Subtitles)*
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
*Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.tv/?p=1&r=74348*

*Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.*


----------



## jdtate101 (1 Dec 2012)

Who's betting it won't lay any blame on the motorist?


----------



## veloevol (1 Dec 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> The "War on Britains Roads" title really has got my back up. Not a good start is it?
> *DOCUMENTARY: War on Britain's Roads*


 
The title, the blurb and the promo have a slim chance of not reflecting the content itself.
Channel 5 shock docs 'The Boy with an Arse for a Head' etc.. had titles that were designed to get bums on seats but often had sensitive portrayals of people living with disfigurement.

But it is a very slim chance.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (1 Dec 2012)

veloevol said:


> The title, the blurb and the promo have a slim chance of not reflecting the content itself.
> Channel 5 shock docs 'The Boy with an Arse for a Head' etc.. had titles that were designed to get bums on seats but often had sensitive portrayals of people living with disfigurement.
> 
> But it is a very slim chance.


 
I apologise if I am wrong.x


----------



## veloevol (1 Dec 2012)

Don't bother you're probably right, my optimism is waning.


----------



## Chris Myers (1 Dec 2012)

BBC1 Wednesday 5th December.Looks interesting,documentary using cycle helmet camera footage :-)


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (1 Dec 2012)

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/bbc-helmet-cam-film-to-explore-cyclist-motorist-conflict.100906/


----------



## Chris Myers (1 Dec 2012)

Soz,didn't see this one


----------



## sheddy (1 Dec 2012)

Not looking good - http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/nov/30/cycling-documentary-bbc1-road


----------



## Sore Thumb (1 Dec 2012)

Who have they got to do the voice over? Jeremy Clarkson?


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (1 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> Who have they got to do the voice over? Jeremy Clarkson?


 
I do hope so.



sheddy said:


> Not looking good - http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/nov/30/cycling-documentary-bbc1-road


 
The reaction in my work messroom to the BBC trailer has made me very uneasy.


----------



## Sore Thumb (1 Dec 2012)

If we see a rise of road rage incidents against cyclists after this programme then we know what has caused it.


----------



## Gravity Aided (2 Dec 2012)

You folks should get your Parliament involved or something.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (2 Dec 2012)

addictfreak said:


> Looking forward to watching. But it will only prove that there are dickheads on both sides I'm afraid.


No, I don't think so. I'm sure there are far more dickheads on the bad road users side than there are on the good road users side.


----------



## Devonshiredave (2 Dec 2012)

You don't have to be a cyclist to think that other road users are muppets. Turning right on a mini roundabout this morning, I had to stop in the middle of the road because of an idiot who hadn't seen me and nearly broadsided my car. He proceeded to gesticulate that he was letting me go. Thanks for that mate, but don't get the arse with me because you haven't woken up yet and failed to see a two tonne SUV with his lights on turning in front of you! I'm thankful I wasn't on the bike because I'd probably be in hospital now!


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (2 Dec 2012)

I had a similar muppet experience earlier, whilst out driving to collect the kids from a Xmas production rehearsal I'm heading through a nice busy local highstreet. Progress is a little hindered as it's Sunday so a parking free-for-all only to suddenly need to jump on the brakes as I'm met by a chap driving on the wrong side of the road towards me so he can turn right from about 2-3 cars back from the junction. It seems simple things such as waiting or even indicating where too much trouble for him and I just got a sheepish "sorry" wave as he swings in a bit tighter then expected ;-) Sometimes the high vantage point I get in the mini-bus is a bonus :-)


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (3 Dec 2012)

*the programme shows that the battle between two wheels and four has never been so intense.*

Cringe.


----------



## Ste T. (3 Dec 2012)

So its not just kids the BBC is happy to screw over.

I see Melanie Phillips is getting in on the act as an h'orderve befor the main course on Wednesday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2242003/Arrogant-abusive-oh-smug--cyclists-think-law.html


----------



## srw (3 Dec 2012)

sheddy said:


> Not looking good - http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/nov/30/cycling-documentary-bbc1-road


Whereas the Guardian's TV previewer, who (unlike the MPs) has actually seen the film, says it's much better than the pre-publicity would have you believe.


----------



## albion (3 Dec 2012)

I was quite perplexed by the outrage.

I'm thankful it is the beeb. They do 'Mob' with a lower case 'm'.


----------



## PK99 (3 Dec 2012)

Ste T. said:


> So its not just kids the BBC is happy to screw over.
> 
> I see Melanie Phillips is getting in on the act as an h'orderve befor the main course on Wednesday.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2242003/Arrogant-abusive-oh-smug--cyclists-think-law.html


 
Sad to say, but Melanie Philips is right about a significant proportion of cyclists in London - as a pedestrian I am faced almost every time I walk out by hazards on the pavement or on crossings from law breaking cyclists.I often have to step aside or stop to avoid being hit.

I have just spent a few days in Lille and, a few months ago, a few days in Bruges. In both cities I came across cyclists on pavements and in pedestrian areas and on crossings, but always the cyclist was cycling with care and ceding priority to the pedestrian. I have had similar experiences in other European cities.

Maybe the issue is not cyclists per se but that a significant proportion of we Brits are simply antisocial twots?

I'd also observe that virtually all the bikes i saw were sit up and beg potterers and contrast that with the "broke my PB Waterloo to the city" culture among many London commuting cyclists


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (3 Dec 2012)

I'm sorry but I get rather tired of hearing about the "majority" of cyclists who regularly flout the law. Studies have shown that the riders who do jump red lights are a minority. Even cycling along CS7 this morning as I was a reasonably large group of 10-15 riders and at each lights and it was the same 2-3 riders that would jump. I even put up a video the other day of a pedestrian who yelled at a cyclist who'd jumped a red light and joked to the rider alongside me that the pedestrian will just "forget" about the 5 other riders and myself who did stop.

Unfortunately the only thing that RLJing cyclist serve to do is give lazy journos & Daily Mail some extra page hits as well as seemingly giving everyone a stick to beat all cyclists with. I'd love to see them do an article about drivers breaking speed limits, using their mobiles and also jumping red lights etc.


----------



## Devonshiredave (3 Dec 2012)

Ste T. said:


> So its not just kids the BBC is happy to screw over.
> 
> I see Melanie Phillips is getting in on the act as an h'orderve befor the main course on Wednesday.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2242003/Arrogant-abusive-oh-smug--cyclists-think-law.html


To quote Ms Phillips " In other words, cyclists are no better or worse than the rest of us". Exactly Ms Phillips. *No better or worse*. Your article is a pointless rant given page space and you berate The Times efforts to bring safer cycling to the fore.
No one in the cycling community would say all cyclists are angels, far from it and every group has it's offending minority. Maybe you should in future take a sideways glance to your right before stepping off the pavement like I do when entering a junction on my bike or in my car just incase some moron has neglected to obey the law. This lesson is given to children. Look right, then left, then right again. Had you bothered with this simple task, you would have had no article to write at all!
Lets put this debate to bed, and let's all try to treat each other with a bit of respect. If *everyone *treated each other the way we'd like to be treated ourselves, we'd all get along just fine!
The comments posted after the article gives us some idea of the mountain society has to climb in order to have equal coexistance on our roads. I can't see it happening any time soon and I think the arguements will rage long and hard after the programme is aired on Wednesday.


----------



## Sore Thumb (3 Dec 2012)

I wonder if my hits to my helmet camera site will go up after Wednesday and also a possible increase in nasty comments.


----------



## SW19cam (3 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> I wonder if my hits to my helmet camera site will go up after Wednesday and also a possible increase in nasty comments.


 
I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

I'd be keen to see a few more positive interactions being uploaded over the next week by Helmet Cameras, as anyone viewing youtube at the moment could be forgiven for believing there _is_ a war on the roads...


----------



## Sore Thumb (3 Dec 2012)

Beano1 said:


> She has a point, I routinely see this sort of behaviour most days.



I tend not to see any cyclists on my commute so to generalise out of proportion, I tend to see motorists mainly behaving Badly on most days.


----------



## fimm (3 Dec 2012)

Having now seen the trailer, it did seem to mostly feature angry men shouting at one another...


----------



## gaz (3 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> I wonder if my hits to my helmet camera site will go up after Wednesday and also a possible increase in nasty comments.


I suspect traffic to the smaller channels not featured will probably not see that much of an increase.
Those featured in the show and those who already have big channels will probably notice an increase but even then I doubt it will be that much. Over the past 3 months I have averaged just over 200,000 views in a month.


----------



## Harry_Palmer79 (3 Dec 2012)

Ste T. said:


> I see Melanie Phillips is getting in on the act as an h'orderve befor the main course on Wednesday.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2242003/Arrogant-abusive-oh-smug--cyclists-think-law.html


 
"Arrogant, abusive, smug..." Until I saw the word 'cyclists' in the link I thought perhaps she was writing an article about herself!


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (3 Dec 2012)

Ok Gaz that's enough YouTube dick wagging ;-)


----------



## Jezston (3 Dec 2012)

Is there any way to campaign to prevent this programme from being broadcast?

Having seen the trailer and many non-cyclists reaction to it I am genuinely worried about getting on the road after it's been shown.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> Is there any way to campaign to prevent this programme from being broadcast?
> 
> Having seen the trailer and many non-cyclists reaction to it I am genuinely worried about getting on the road after it's been shown.


George Entwhistle happily accepts £450,000 to not allow programs to air. 

But I'm in for a £

T.M.H.N.E.T
 
Although he was nudged out the door


----------



## ianrauk (3 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> Is there any way to campaign to prevent this programme from being broadcast?
> 
> Having seen the trailer and many non-cyclists reaction to it I am genuinely worried about getting on the road after it's been shown.


 

Give over.
The programme's not going to change peoples (both Cyclists and Car Drivers) attitudes one way or the other.
You're hand wringing over nothing.
Cycling in London is safe and getting safer.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Dec 2012)

Carlton Reid got his hands on it.

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/i-m-a-human-like-anyone-else/014027


----------



## Jezston (3 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> The programme's not going to change peoples (both Cyclists and Car Drivers) attitudes one way or the other.


 
It already has, and it hasn't even been broadcast yet.

I've already heard people who didn't previously have much of an opinion on cyclists getting incensed purely from the content of the trailer.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> It already has, and it hasn't even been broadcast yet.
> 
> I've already heard people who didn't previously have much of an opinion on cyclists getting incensed purely from the content of the trailer.


 
A couple of people you know have commented - wow!
And they have yet to see the programme.

If you really think that you are going to be scared of riding your bike after some TV programme then I suggest you give up on your bike now as you really aren't cut out for cycling in London.

I say this again as a very experienced daily London cycling commuter and leisure cyclist. Cycling in London is safe and getting safer. Let these people get all incensed. It won't changed anyone's attitudes on the road. Next week they'll have forgotten about it and get all huffy puffy about something else in the press or on tv.


----------



## Jezston (3 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> I say this again as a very experienced daily London cycling commuter and leisure cyclist. Cycling in London is safe and getting safer.


 
I'm sure it is - I certainly feel safer riding around here than I did back in the midlands.



> Let these people get all incensed. It won't changed anyone's attitudes on the road. Next week they'll have forgotten about it and get all huffy puffy about something else in the press or on tv.


 
I hope you're right, but the content of the trailer and what I've read from the articles who have seem the show is that it's content is deliberately and outrageously incendiary, which is immensely irresponsible of a broadcaster and I'm concerned what effects this will have on people's attitudes on the road. Not all of us are "very experienced daily London cycling commuter and leisure cyclist" road warriors, not all of us are mucho tough guys who give as good as they get on the road - most people on bikes are nervous gutter huggers who wouldn't even dream of so much as taking primary - do you think they are "not cut out for cycling in London"? 

Whatever, that's my views, you have yours. I'm not interesting in getting into these kind of arguments these days.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> I'm sure it is - I certainly feel safer riding around here than I did back in the midlands.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Road Warrior? Macho Tough Guy? Who is this wonder cyclist you talk about?
Does me being a very experienced London commuting cyclist make me both of those then?

You are talking out of your arse when you say most people on bikes are nervous gutter huggers. That is complete tosh. You cycle in London now and you have for a while to know that this is not the case.

You are winging and hand wringing over a silly programme about cycle/car conflicts, stating that you will be scared to ride your bike afterwards - even before it's been aired.

I repeat. The programme will have no effect to those on the roads, both cyclists and car drivers.
Every one will go on their merry way as before.

I will report back in the days after to see if it has changed. If it's for the worse I will be glad to eat humble pie. If it hasn't changed anything I expect you to too.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> not all of us are mucho tough guys who give as good as they get on the road


 


> most people on bikes are nervous gutter huggers who wouldn't even dream of so much as taking primary - do you think they are "not cut out for cycling in London"?


 


> Whatever, that's my views, you have yours. I'm not interesting in getting into these kind of arguments these days.


Your "views" read as if you are the cycling oracle with some form of factual,statistical knowledge to back them up.


----------



## Jezston (3 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Your "views" read as if you are the cycling oracle with some form of factual,statistical knowledge to back them up.


 
This is what happens when you get yourself into an argument with someone exhibiting a similar attitude, and for that I apologise. I just wanted to share my concerns.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Dec 2012)

So, Ian, do you think it's going to help cycling then?


----------



## ianrauk (3 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> So, Ian, do you think it's going to help cycling then?


 

It's going to help as much as it's not going to help.


----------



## SW19cam (3 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> It's going to help as much as it's not going to help.


 
So you think the net effect will be completely zero? And you can’t accept that it could, over a period of time or via subsequent documentaries of a similar nature, have any influence on people’s opinion to cycle themselves or on their view of cycling?


----------



## benborp (3 Dec 2012)

The last two episodes of national media hoo-haa over cycling Youtube footage resulted in a fair amount of debate - TV, radio, on-line, newspaper and of course the water-cooler stuff. Awareness of the issue of cyclists and road safety was certainly increased by this exposure, mainly by the subsequent discussion rather than the initial TV or press piece. What was encouraging was how the quality of argument improved. Cycling correspondents and representatives were able to quickly dismiss a lot of the drivel and concentrate on the issues at hand. The second wave of media comment even led to many interviews where there was no attempt to engage in arguments over 'road tax' or RLJ. Those that did resulted in articulate cyclists laying open the ramblings of buffoons to ridicule (Adam Rayner v. Zoe Williams anybody?).

I was amazed by the number of people that approached me after all this that told me they now had a better awareness of what cyclists have to deal with. Many had gleaned a fairly accurate perception despite all the opportunities the anti-cyclists had to air their rantings. The tolerance for hate postings against cyclists on social sites seemed to diminish around that time as well.

_The War on Britain's Roads_ is going to spark another round of high profile discussion (more than it already has!). I've heard from some sources that have seen the film that it is quite good but horribly diminished by the alleycat footage. In the current atmosphere I wouldn't be surprised if there was a re-edit. The BBC being particularly uneasy over questions over it's editorial competence at the moment. Either way, I hope there's enough substance to the programme that the cycling community can use to move the debates over education, infrastructure and government policy forwards. Even if the show is awful, while disappointing, it could be of benefit in the long run. There's not a great deal of tolerance for media balls-ups at the moment and there will be quite a few organisations, campaigns and rival media lined up to shoot it down.

Fingers crossed though that they've managed to do something a bit clever. I'll feel severely let down otherwise.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Dec 2012)

This all needs sorted out the Norn Iron way. A good fooking scrap until the plod show up then we all go home.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Dec 2012)

chrisk said:


> So you think the net effect will be completely zero? And you can’t accept that it could, over a period of time or via subsequent documentaries of a similar nature, have any influence on people’s opinion to cycle themselves or on their view of cycling?


 

No not really. It won't have any effect. OK it may have the very tiniest off effect, put a couple of people off cycling - but as we know, cycling & cycle commuting has never been more popular and the trend is continuing upwards. We will certainly not see a down turn due to a sensationalist piece of TV. If there is a downturn and someone can prove it then I will give up cycling myself and give my bikes away. 

And as I said previous. These types of reality programs are made and forgotten. By the end of the week people will find something else to moan about.


----------



## benborp (3 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> This all needs sorted out the Norn Iron way. A good fooking scrap until the plod show up then we all go home.


 
The scene: a semi-derelict street of mill workers' cottages in Belfast. A young man (me) sits fixing a puncture on a salvaged, sit up and beg bicycle.

Passer by: Do you need any help?

Young man: I'm fine thanks!

Passer by: You ungrateful ****!

The passer by pins the young man to the floor by the throat.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (3 Dec 2012)

Ste T. said:


> So its not just kids the BBC is happy to screw over.
> 
> I see Melanie Phillips is getting in on the act as an h'orderve befor the main course on Wednesday.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2242003/Arrogant-abusive-oh-smug--cyclists-think-law.html


 
I find articles like this worrying as the gullible public believe it.


----------



## benborp (3 Dec 2012)

Nobody is going to pay much attention to this now. They'll all go berserk over a baby instead.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> Nobody is going to pay much attention to this now. They'll all go berserk over a baby instead.


 


Hooray for a hooray sprog deflecting all this supposed cycle war nonsense.


----------



## Poacher (3 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> Those that did resulted in articulate cyclists laying open the ramblings of buffoons to ridicule (Adam Rayner v. Zoe Williams anybody?).


 
I don't remember seeing Adam Rayner since that little demolition job. Has he finally tripped over his own enormous paunch and injured himself? (For anyone who hasn't ever seen him, I can honestly say that his gut nearly drags on the floor when he sits down - and I've never seen him stand up under his own power). I'm hardly sylph-like myself, but Jeez!!


----------



## HaloJ (3 Dec 2012)

Personally I hope that it portrays some of the real dangers and that the pre airing advertising is just sensationalist pap.

Anyway MP's are getting worried about it before it's aired just as much as we are.

http://iwc2.labouronline.org/168127/bbc-cycling-documentary-condemned-as-dangerous-juvenile-nonsense


----------



## StuartG (3 Dec 2012)

Ste T. said:


> I see Melanie Phillips is getting in on the act as an h'orderve befor the main course on Wednesday.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2242003/Arrogant-abusive-oh-smug--cyclists-think-law.html


Its truly a Melanie Classic. One is never disappointed by her unimpeachable arrogance and factual vaccuum. By chance the first link for a related story was to this. Who said computers don't do irony?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-motorway-junctions.html?ICO=most_read_module


----------



## theclaud (3 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> I'm not interesting in getting into these kind of arguments these days.


 
What kind of arguments _are_ you interested in getting into? I'm versatile.


----------



## theclaud (3 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> mucho tough guys


 
Ian? Big jessie.


----------



## gaz (3 Dec 2012)

Will it have an affect on people?

I doubt it, people that deep down don't want to cycle will use it as an excuse not to cycle.
Those that want to, will still cycle.

In my team at work I have gotten 5 of my colleagues to cycle (not all year but when it's nice), they've seen the worst of my footage and are not put off by it in the slightest.


----------



## Archie_tect (3 Dec 2012)

Gaz, as you are now marketing yourself as a TV cycle cameraman, can you honestly say you have never engineered or exacerbated a conflict... in the same way that the Police clearly do to sell their footage?


----------



## BentMikey (3 Dec 2012)

Archie_tect said:


> Gaz, as you are now marketing yourself as a TV cycle cameraman, can you honestly say you have never engineered or exacerbated a conflict... in the same way that the Police clearly do to sell their footage?


 
When I see this sort of comment, it makes me


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (3 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> When I see this sort of comment, it makes me


Wellbi got accused of pretty much that with the Porsche incident, that I'd intentionally hit them as they have a posh car to prove a point. Clearly these idiots haven't seen my other 3 clips where I manage to avoid being taken out....


----------



## gaz (3 Dec 2012)

Archie_tect said:


> Gaz, as you are now marketing yourself as a TV cycle cameraman, can you honestly say you have never engineered or exacerbated a conflict... in the same way that the Police clearly do to sell their footage?


I'll let you into a little secret.. The whole thing is fake. We put out job roles at the job centre, asking for people who can drive to act for us in our videos. We have a team of writers putting out storyboards like nobodies business.


----------



## Archie_tect (3 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> When I see this sort of comment, it makes me


I am curious to know if Gaz [or any cycle cameraman is paid for either the footage or by the website sponsors- just looking at it as entertainment rather than public service]... sorry if that offends, it's not meant to.


----------



## jarlrmai (3 Dec 2012)

The really nasty stuff (the stuff featured in the BBC doc trailers) often only occurs after a driver is challenged by a cyclist for a dangerous bit of driving, close overtake, on phone etc, especially if you give the car a knock, this sends people crazy.

Is it completely counter-productive to challenge drivers? I've done it and most of the time it results in aggression from the driver (half shouted road tax / get left argument while the lights are changing) or just a complete ignore/shrug shoulders (mainly bus drivers). Only twice have I had an apology and a few times I've had a guy get out of his car and start with the physical threats (I rode off and made a turn that they weren't making)

I believe it's the helplessness + the adrenaline from the dangerous situation that makes us challenge, i've started down the ultra polite, calm down, smile "excuse me, sorry to bother you, would mind awfully just giving me a little more room, thanks" line which is pretty hard when your heart is thumping and it's 2 degree's C and your mouth is frozen.

The 'war' in the BBC documentary is the camera footage of small people reacting to being challenged for there own poor behaviour, people believe they are untouchable in their cars


----------



## SomethingLikeThat (3 Dec 2012)

Archie_tect said:


> I am curious to know if Gaz [or any cycle cameraman is paid for either the footage or by the website sponsors- just looking at it as entertainment rather than public service]... sorry if that offends, it's not meant to.


 
Well some of the more popular uploaders on YouTube do have AdSense enabled...and I don't want to speak for them but there is money made via that but not a lot. You have to have some serious view and like counts to make anything significant.


----------



## jarlrmai (3 Dec 2012)

Gaz and the other popular youtubers may get some money from ads, but I guess this doesn't or only just covers the costs of the cameras etc.


----------



## SomethingLikeThat (3 Dec 2012)

jarlrmai said:


> Gaz and the other popular youtubers may get some money from ads, but I guess this doesn't or only just covers the costs of the cameras etc.


Yes as I said it probably isn't a whole lot. Although I don't have personal experience.


----------



## gaz (3 Dec 2012)

Archie_tect said:


> I am curious to know if Gaz [or any cycle cameraman is paid for either the footage or by the website sponsors- just looking at it as entertainment rather than public service]... sorry if that offends, it's not meant to.


If anyone goes out and puts them selves in situations where they could get seriously hurt for a bit of money, then they need a slap in the face.


----------



## benborp (3 Dec 2012)

It doesn't help that I have actually done some stunt work. Where funnily enough you do tend to get a slap in the face.

By the way, being run over deliberately by a skilled driver on set is a lot more comfortable than being skimmed by some clueless cretin in an Audi that thinks he's a 'skilled' driver while out on the road.


----------



## Devonshiredave (3 Dec 2012)

I'm pleased that the footage is posted. Not because I enjoy this sort of thing, but from an educational viewpoint. I don't have the years of experience some of you guys have to draw on, the last time I regularly used a bike to get around petrol was about £2 a gallon (44p Lt) and the roads seemed less busy.
Cycling is a skill I'm learning again after a long time in a car and seeing what dangers can be present is a sobering aspect to what I find is a pleasurable pursuit. It gives you something to think about and hopefully make you more aware of what to watch out for and help keep you safer.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Dec 2012)

Devonshiredave said:


> I'm pleased that the footage is posted. Not because I enjoy this sort of thing, but from an educational viewpoint. I don't have the years of experience some of you guys have to draw on, the last time I regularly used a bike to get around petrol was about £2 a gallon (44p Lt) and the roads seemed less busy.
> Cycling is a skill I'm learning again after a long time in a car and seeing what dangers can be present is a sobering aspect to what I find is a pleasurable pursuit. It gives you something to think about and hopefully make you more aware of what to watch out for and help keep you safer.


 
It's not just you - I think most of us enjoy the pressure cooker of learning that is the collective YouTube experience. Many situations have particular nuances and don't come up all that often, for example, so seeing someone else's experience helps me to deal with it more quickly and better myself, I'd like to think.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Dec 2012)

Archie_tect said:


> I am curious to know if Gaz [or any cycle cameraman is paid for either the footage or by the website sponsors- just looking at it as entertainment rather than public service]... sorry if that offends, it's not meant to.


 
That's a fair question, quite unlike the "engineered a conflict" type of comment you first made. IME there's very little money to be made, just about breaking even for the cost of the cameras. It's not about that for me anyway, it's about the power of one, and the ability to make things a tiny bit better for everyone.

I'd say it'd be very obvious if any conflict was engineered, and the collective YouTube audience would soon descend on that and apply the clue-bat vigorously.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> Will it have an *E*affect on people?
> 
> I doubt it, people that deep down don't want to cycle will use it as an excuse not to cycle.
> Those that want to, will still cycle.
> ...


 
Yup-it's telly. If you can't vote for someone to leave then no-ones interested

Perhaps if it gets people talking about cyclists on the road thay might go into peoples' subconscious and make the roads safer for one night.

Glass half full.


----------



## RhythMick (3 Dec 2012)

I'm just hoping the missus doesn't watch it. She's paranoid enough about my cycling on the roads anyway.


----------



## Archie_tect (3 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> If anyone goes out and puts them selves in situations where they could get seriously hurt for a bit of money, then they need a slap in the face.


...not the cycling bit [obviously, unless one's an idiot] but definitely the frank and direct exchange of views on the merits of fellow road users....


----------



## Sore Thumb (4 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> If anyone goes out and puts them selves in situations where they could get seriously hurt for a bit of money, then they need a slap in the face.



If cyclists on this forum feel that sometimes you big up an incident or that you are making money from the videos then what sort of response will we get from angry motorist that dislike cyclists anyway, after they see the program.


Oh and I stopped a white van driver yesterday on the way home.

He had sparks coming from underneath his van. He thanked me for that. And I did not make it up and he paid me no money for this friendly advise I gave him.


----------



## gaz (4 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> If cyclists on this forum feel that sometimes you big up an incident or that you are making money from the videos then what sort of response will we get from angry motorist that dislike cyclists anyway, after they see the program.


I suspect the response will be the same. "You don't pay any road tax, so get off the road I pay for!"


----------



## d87francis (4 Dec 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/dec/03/bbc-cycling-documentary-irresponsible-mp

Gaz have you been sent a DVD of the show? And would you able to withdraw consent for your footage in light of it being misrepresented or a different show to the one pitched?


----------



## Herzog (4 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> It's not just you - I think most of us enjoy the pressure cooker of learning that is the collective YouTube experience. Many situations have particular nuances and don't come up all that often, for example, so seeing someone else's experience helps me to deal with it more quickly and better myself, I'd like to think.


 
Couldn't agree more. I've learnt loads from your YouTube videos...and I've been commuting for ages


----------



## BentMikey (4 Dec 2012)

Why thank you very much!


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (4 Dec 2012)

Herzog said:


> Couldn't agree more. I've learnt loads from your YouTube videos...and I've been commuting for ages


Indeed some helpful items we have gleamed from Mikey:
1. Cockney rhyming slang "James Blunt"
2. In the event that you can't reach and/or use your jersey pockets the legs of your cycle shorts can be used to stash lollies (not ice lollies...)
3. Mikey doesn't actually have a godlike sense of balance, he cheats and uses a hand!!


----------



## benborp (4 Dec 2012)

I've seen a cut of one of Gaz's interview segments. Carlton Reid posted it on BikeBiz but it has been taken down - probably due to Carlton breaking the embargo.

There were a couple of phrases used in the narration that didn't chime quite right and might raise some hackles here, but that might not be the case when Gaz is juxtaposed by another interviewee. Gaz came across well and clearly explained several aspects of commuting in London.

I was interviewed and gave consent for footage to be used. I don't know if any of my footage will make it through to the final cut. The makers intentions have changed several times. It's been a long process and cycling's profile is changing massively at the moment. There have been numerous high profile cyclists, incidents and campaigns in the news in the meantime. The mechanics of using a helmetcam have changed since they started filming. At the beginning video footage was a breakthrough for having the Met police pursue motoring offences committed against cyclists. Then, a short time later, the Met effectively cited video evidence as being a reason to dismiss any cyclist's complaint. Now Roadsafe is looking like it's going to be more effective than we could have ever thought. Motorists prosecuted for a close pass? Possibly, they've tried. Gaz's blog has documented these changes. The production team were looking at exploring this strand of the story but it has clearly being moving too fast. Edit: The YouTube environment has changed rapidly in this time as well with many different reasons and approaches to filming developing and networks of users becoming established: shock jocks, reportage, educationalists.

I think there was a request after an early edit to increase the human interest angle. This was to be done by obtaining the views of both sides in any conflict caught on camera. This wasn't to up the them and us ante, in most cases people are far more contrite when presented with their behaviour on screen, but supposedly to give an indication of the attitudes and behaviours that underlie the interactions we all have on the road. My adversary proved difficult to find as he operates under a number of aliases and I was less involved from this point.
Since then I think there have probably been the normal pressures of people trying to maintain their original concept of a project against circumstance, other editorial influences wanting it sexed-up, toned down, more human, more footage based, etc. and time.

There's no question of being able to withdraw our involvement at this stage. We've signed consent forms for a documentary examining conflict on the road caught on helmet cameras. When you agree to take part it's understood that it is on their terms. That's the risk we have to take when engaging with the media. If individuals involved have been misrepresented then it might be worth doing something about it, although despite so many people's misgivings I think misrepresentation is unlikely.

Talk of protests, letter campaigns and efforts to withdraw the programme before it's aired are over-reactions at the moment. Nobody is going to have an accurate view on this until Thursday morning, when their own and other peoples views on it have sunk in.


----------



## d87francis (4 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> There's no question of being able to withdraw our involvement at this stage. We've signed consent forms for a documentary examining conflict on the road caught on helmet cameras. When you agree to take part it's understood that it is on their terms. That's the risk we have to take when engaging with the media. If individuals involved have been misrepresented then it might be worth doing something about it, although despite so many people's misgivings I think misrepresentation is unlikely.
> 
> Talk of protests, letter campaigns and efforts to withdraw the programme before it's aired are over-reactions at the moment. Nobody is going to have an accurate view on this until Thursday morning, when their own and other peoples views on it have sunk in.


I agree with you on the whole here and feel you make a good point, however, if the assertions that the production company have withheld from sending copies of the program to contributors to the show are true. It does beg the questions of, were the participants asked to contribute under false terms/why would the production company feel contributors would be unhappy with the finished product. Misrepresentation doesn't have to be as direct as not stating a segment of footage is from an alleycat race rather than an ordinary commute. It could be not making it clear that incidents caught on helmet cam are a minor percentage of road behaviour that is on the whole very safe.

If this program seeks to alter the perception of safety of cycling in a negative light then we should oppose it ideologically. If this is what it turns out to do, then I would hazard a guess that many of the contributors views have been misrepresented; and BBC apologies are rarely as long as the original program correcting all of the mistakes they perpetuated, they are 20 second statements read at obscurely scheduled times. Hence the need to make sure a wildly sensationalist piece of programming that would damage the uptake of cycling isn't broadcast or is re-edited.

Let me state, I am a big fan of youtube helmet cam footage and have learn't a great deal from it. I also believe there is much needed to improve cycling through infrastructure and education, and find the level of accidents/deaths abhorrent. But on the whole it is still a safe means of transport, and we do not need a prime time program widening a myth that it isn't.


----------



## jarlrmai (4 Dec 2012)

The statistics say it's safe but doesn't "feel" safe sometimes...


----------



## gaz (4 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> I've seen a cut of one of Gaz's interview segments. Carlton Reid posted it on BikeBiz but it has been taken down - probably due to Carlton breaking the embargo.
> 
> There were a couple of phrases used in the narration that didn't chime quite right and might raise some hackles here, but that might not be the case when Gaz is juxtaposed by another interviewee. Gaz came across well and clearly explained several aspects of commuting in London.
> 
> ...


A really good post. that covers so key points about how various things have moved on from when this first started. Some of which is only going to be known by those who where actually involved in it.

Magnatom and I both plan to release blog posts about the process and how things developed.


----------



## d87francis (4 Dec 2012)

Thanks Gaz, I look forward to reading yours and magnatom's responses to the program, having already seen magnatom's precursory post stating that "there is no war on Britain's roads". 

Sorry to push a question again, but Gaz have you seen or been sent a copy of the show?

I hope this doesn't come across as rude, as a big admirer of your fantastic videos I'm skeptical it would be an issue, but I do worry as to whether the exuberance of being featured on a prime time documentary has temporarily blinded you to at least the message the sensationalist trailers have put across so far, if the show is to bear any resemblance to the trailers?


----------



## gaz (4 Dec 2012)

d87francis said:


> Thanks Gaz, I look forward to reading yours and magnatom's responses to the program, having already seen magnatom's precursory post stating that "there is no war on Britain's roads".
> 
> Sorry to push a question again, but Gaz have you seen or been sent a copy of the show?
> 
> I hope this doesn't come across as rude, as a big admirer of your fantastic videos I'm skeptical it would be an issue, but I do worry as to whether the exuberance of being featured on a prime time documentary has temporarily blinded you to at least the message the sensationalist trailers have put across so far, if the show is to bear any resemblance to the trailers?


I have similarly done a pre-post about it on my blog, that was written before some people got hold of a copy of the video.

I have not seen a it yet.

I'm not blinded, I'm aware of various things in the media and i've been speaking to the producers about it (who assure me it's not like it's reported). I can only judge when I see it. Unfortunately the way I'm portrayed is out of my hands, they can easily misquote me or take things out of context and people watching will be none the wiser.


----------



## Matthew_T (4 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> I'm not blinded, I'm aware of various things in the media and i've been speaking to the producers about it (who assure me it's not like it's reported). I can only judge when I see it. Unfortunately the way I'm portrayed is out of my hands, *they can easily misquote me or take things out of context* and people watching will be none the wiser.


For an interview, do you write yourself a script and try to stick to it? Or do you just try to answer questions they ask as sensibly as possible?


----------



## gaz (4 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> For an interview, do you write yourself a script and try to stick to it? Or do you just try to answer questions they ask as sensibly as possible?


You won't know what is coming, so no chance to write a script. My technique is to listen clearly to the question, take a few seconds to think about my rough answer, and then fill in the middle sections.
I'm pretty articulate and certain things just roll off my tongue.

The thing with interviews, is they really don't care how long you take. As in general you repeat the answer in the question ( in a sensible way). e.g. "what is your favourite fruit?" "my favourite fruit is the kiwi"


----------



## benborp (5 Dec 2012)

If anyone sees Gaz cycling in on Thursday morning would you please shout:

"Look at you, you Lycra clad, kiwi loving weirdo!"

If we are to get anything out of all this I want it to be that.


----------



## PaulSB (5 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> You see, I think you've missed the problem. This whole blame the cyclist thing will never be fixed by improving cyclist behaviour, it'll be fixed by changing the culture prevalent amongst drivers, the very worst parts of car culture. I'm sorry to say this, but you seem to be a part of that. Cyclists in the Netherlands aren't that different to us, and yet drivers don't treat them as badly there.



I agree with the need to change driving culture. All I've tried to say, and it's a view I've long held and practised, is as cyclists we should try to always be on our best behaviour as this presents cyclists in a positive manner to other road users. 

I'm not defending bad drivers at all and must say I object to the assertion I'm part of the problem, which you've made before. I simply try to cycle well and treat other road users with respect. How is that a problem? I do the same when driving my car. 



> Secondly, as to the point of Gaz's video, you should know by now that Gaz almost never goes through a red light. In this instance (and I think he'd agree that it's extremely rare), there is a situation justifying running the red light.



I haven't criticised his RLJing mainly I pointed out it was an on the day decision and I might or might not have done the same. I think there are aspects of the video which suggest Gaz could have ridden differently but on the basic facts, lights changing, truck on backside I'd probably have done the same.



> message isn't anti-driver at all, it's anti-bad-road-user. Again, you should know this if you've seen Silly Cyclists. The reality of the UK's roads, though, mean that bad drivers are the thing most likely to risk the lives of other people and Gaz's in particular.



I don't know what Silly Cyclists is but will find out. The point I try to make is I think aspects of that video give out a very mixed message. If camera users want to publish these videos the message must be clear - in this one it is open to interpretation. Unfortunately this applies to some footage posted by Gaz AND other camera users - the driver in some examples is not initially to blame but by the end is being held responsible. 

This is not to defend the bad driving, the real problem is established opinion on either side only see what supports their own arguement. 

I'm looking forward to tonight's programme but I suspect it will be the usual junk. Road rage between driver and rider which could easily be replaced by driver to driver road rage. I won't be surprised if it turns out to be similar to Police Camera Action and other such nonsense.

I also wonder if the programme will prove London centric? I expect this primarily because I, and many cyclists I know, simply don't experience much of the poor road use expressed on here by commuters.


----------



## PaulSB (5 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> Sad to say, but Melanie Philips is right about a significant proportion of cyclists in London - as a pedestrian I am faced almost every time I walk out by hazards on the pavement or on crossings from law breaking cyclists.I often have to step aside or stop to avoid being hit.
> 
> I have just spent a few days in Lille and, a few months ago, a few days in Bruges. In both cities I came across cyclists on pavements and in pedestrian areas and on crossings, but always the cyclist was cycling with care and ceding priority to the pedestrian. I have had similar experiences in other European cities.
> 
> ...



On my last two visits to London I've also been struck by the amount of poor cycle behaviour I observed. This was by a whole range of cyclists from the potterers to the the guy going hell for leather up The Mall. 

I agree though it may be more to do with general attitude rather than being specific to cycling.


----------



## PaulSB (5 Dec 2012)

PaulSB said:


> On my last two visits to London I've also been struck by the amount of poor cycle behaviour I observed. This was by a whole range of cyclists from the potterers to the the guy going hell for leather up The Mall.
> 
> I agree though it may be more to do with general attitude rather than being specific to cycling.


----------



## BentMikey (5 Dec 2012)

I feel that you're part of the problem because you continue to TRL549, to focus on cyclists, instead of rejecting that bigotry, accepting that we're all the same humans and that car drivers are just as bad, but thousands of times more dangerous. Stop the rubbishing of cyclists, and instead look at the real causes of death and injury on our roads and try to change that.


----------



## PK99 (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> You won't know what is coming,* so no chance to write a script*. My technique is to listen clearly to the question, take a few seconds to think about my rough answer, and then fill in the middle sections.
> I'm pretty articulate and certain things just roll off my tongue.
> 
> The thing with interviews, is they really don't care how long you take. As in general you repeat the answer in the question ( in a sensible way). e.g. "what is your favourite fruit?" "my favourite fruit is the kiwi"


 
Media training: Decide in advance what 3 points you want to make and make them irrespective of the questions asked


----------



## PaulSB (5 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I feel that you're part of the problem because you continue to TRL549, to focus on cyclists, instead of rejecting that bigotry, accepting that we're all the same humans and that car drivers are just as bad, but thousands of times more dangerous. Stop the rubbishing of cyclists, and instead look at the real causes of death and injury on our roads and try to change that.


 
Hang on a minute. I have said I think we all have a responsibility to behave, i.e. cycle, to the best of our ability, follow the rules of the road, and demonstrate to other road users, i.e. motorists, cyclists can and do behave well on the public highway. I feel this sends a positive message to drivers. In a similar vein for example if I know a driver has sat patiently behind me waiting for a safe opportunity to pass he / she gets a friendly wave or thumbs up as I'm passed. I view this as positive interaction with other road users and shows I appreciate the respect shown to me. Hopefully it encourages the driver to develop and continue the understanding of our needs.

November last year I spent a weekend in London. On a beautiful Sunday morning I stood outside the Holiday Inn, watching the world go by while I waited for my wife and family. You can see a blue bridge and the road on the right before it is Hopton Street. I was there for perhaps 15 minutes and there was steady flow of cyclists down Hopton Street towards Southwark Road wanting to turn right. The majority actually mounted the pavement before reaching the T junction, cycled on the pavement to a point under the bridge beyond the Boris bikes, before cycling off the pavement and turning right to reach the desired lane. The riders were on a range of bikes and dressed in many styles, some were clearly pretty serious cyclists.

This in my view is poor cycling. If you can defend it please do but I feel it is the type of behaviour which gives drivers reason to criticise us all. I am not rubbishing cyclists and never will, that doesn't mean one should ignore poor riding habits and styles. It seems to me from the reaction you give your view is rather one sided, myself I can see the majority of drivers treat us with respect, the majority of cyclists behave well and there are those on both sides who do a diservice to everyone. Both sides need educating in an effort to eliminate poor road useage.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&sugexp=les;&gs_rn=0&gs_ri=serp&pq=holiday inn&cp=24&gs_id=1g&xhr=t&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB474GB484&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bpcl=39468505&biw=1337&bih=931&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=holiday inn southwark street&fb=1&gl=uk&hq=holiday inn southwark street&cid=0,0,17322539451692271907&sa=X&ei=1xW_UKbkMNCXhQfuqYHYDg&sqi=2&ved=0CLUBEPwSMAM

I tried to post it in street view for you but failed. Sorry I'm rubbish with that sort of thing


----------



## mcshroom (5 Dec 2012)

BikeBiz believe that if the program is as previewed then it breaks the BBC's own guidelines: -

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/bb...-cycling-footage-as-standard-behaviour/014036

Also Gaz and Magnatom are now getting referenced in the (cycling) press


----------



## BentMikey (5 Dec 2012)

...and you're still TRL549, Paul. 

Improving cyclist behaviour will make not one jot of difference to the way motorists act towards cyclists. We are an out-tribe, a minority that gets bigoted abuse and is blamed collectively for the sins of a few. Bad cyclist - all cyclists are bad. Bad motorist - only that driver is bad. Worse still, cyclists aren't the ones causing the slaughter on the UK's roads. Until you start looking at the real problem, the slaughter caused by drivers and the bigotry some express towards cyclists, you are part of the problem.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2012)

mcshroom said:


> BikeBiz believe that if the program is as previewed then it breaks the BBC's own guidelines: -
> 
> http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/bb...-cycling-footage-as-standard-behaviour/014036
> 
> Also Gaz and Magnatom are now getting referenced in the (cycling) press


 


> Magnatom and* CycleGaz* have not seen the programme yet but have been *shocked at the trailers*, and said the angle of the documentary has changed radically from when they were first approached.


 
Has Gaz been misquoted?

Bunch of cnuts in that "stunt" film nevertheless.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2012)

Beano1 said:


> I think it would have, but it would appear the BBC have cocked it right up regarding what they are showing and trying to potray cyclists to be. Why they are showing the 2006 Alleycat FFS? The general concensus is that cyclists are not like that at all. It's like showing footage of the two BMW's racing each other down the M1 Monday night and trying to potray that this is what car drivers are like. RIP the two people killed.


 
Let's wait to see it. It may have been edited by tonight/over egged anyway.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2012)

You haven't seen it yet!!!


----------



## gaz (5 Dec 2012)

400bhp said:


> Has Gaz been misquoted?
> 
> Bunch of cnuts in that "stunt" film nevertheless.


No, i've been talking to Carlton about it.


----------



## PaulSB (5 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> ...and you're still TRL549, Paul.
> 
> Improving cyclist behaviour will make not one jot of difference to the way motorists act towards cyclists. We are an out-tribe, a minority that gets bigoted abuse and is blamed collectively for the sins of a few. Bad cyclist - all cyclists are bad. Bad motorist - only that driver is bad. Worse still, cyclists aren't the ones causing the slaughter on the UK's roads. Until you start looking at the real problem, the slaughter caused by drivers and the bigotry some express towards cyclists, you are part of the problem.


 
Well I can't agree with you that I am part of the problem. You seem to take pleasure in misinterpreting my words to allow you to reach this conclusion. To suggest a fellow cyclist who takes great pleasure in riding and attempts to behave in a proper manner is part of the overall issue makes it difficult to give your views much credence. To be taken seriously one needs to be able to view the whole issue and not just the part which fits one's own agenda.


----------



## davefb (5 Dec 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleycat_races

the preview copy supposedly makes no distinction between that footage and something gaz or mikey record as part of their normal riding..

but the bbc/production company says "We showed the contributors the footage in the context of it being footage of a bicycle courier road race that took place, which was shot by Lucas Brunelle, and uploaded to YouTube. The footage has since been released commercially, but the fact remains that it depicts real behaviour which actually took place on London’s busy streets.""


disingenuous as best.. maybe the footage from people like gaz wasn't exiting enough?


----------



## Arjimlad (5 Dec 2012)

CTC's take on it is here, and interesting.. look forward to seeing it later ! http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/war-on-britain’s-roads-myth-or-reality


----------



## PaulSB (5 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> ...and you're still TRL549, Paul.
> 
> Improving cyclist behaviour will make not one jot of difference to the way motorists act towards cyclists. We are an out-tribe, a minority that gets bigoted abuse and is blamed collectively for the sins of a few. Bad cyclist - all cyclists are bad. Bad motorist - only that driver is bad. Worse still, cyclists aren't the ones causing the slaughter on the UK's roads. Until you start looking at the real problem, the slaughter caused by drivers and the bigotry some express towards cyclists, you are part of the problem.



Presumably the CTC are TRL549 as well?

From Roger Geffen's blog re tonight's programme:

"We are invariably at one with the motoring groups in saying that all road users – drivers and cyclists alike – should respect the rules of the road and the safety of other road users. We also agree that the emphasis must be on promoting responsible behaviour, rather than hyping up conflict. Although some cyclists do vent road-rage at drivers, and some drivers do express some deeply irrational cyclist hatred, the idea that this is normal is also a pure media myth. In a recent public opinion survey, just 10% of respondents agreed with the statement that 'cyclists are a nuisance'. Levels of cyclist hatred are greatly exaggerated by the media, as are the ideas that drivers all hate 20 mph speed limits and speed cameras (in fact, support for these measures is 72% and 75% respectively)."

Paul


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Dec 2012)

Just to remind cyclists that before the BBC's hour of war tonight, ITV4 are showing an hour of revolution. Track cycling from Manchester at 8pm.

So if anyone asks you at the coffee machine at work whether you watched that programme on cycling you can launch into a discussion of the merits of Armitstead versus Vos.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (5 Dec 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p7q2l


----------



## potsy (5 Dec 2012)




----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (5 Dec 2012)

Don't give the secret away


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

Errrrr, hang on. Is it on BBC 1 or 2? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0122n1g


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (5 Dec 2012)

It's on BBC1, already got it setup to record. Interesting to see the brief comments from the "touchy" taxi driver ;-)


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

Bassjunkieuk said:


> It's on BBC1, already got it setup to record. Interesting to see the brief comments from the "touchy" taxi driver ;-)


"All I heard was 'bang, bang, bang'" No, Gaz banged once, you then said 'hey, hey, hey'.

"If I wanted to hit him, I would have turned into him" You already did that mate.

"I may have overreacted a little" You dont say?


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (5 Dec 2012)

Indeed I can't believe how faced with the footage he thinks his driving was in any way acceptable. He has a clear lane (admittedly blocked ahead but that's normal there) however trying to force your way into the bus lane whilst a cyclist is there isn't on.

He says he didn't turn his wheels but he certainly does swap/drift lanes, either that or he might want to check the tracking....and as Gaz says if he's close enough to knock on the vehicle then he is TOO CLOSE. End of discussion.


----------



## Sittingduck (5 Dec 2012)

Normally I would avoid this kind of thing like the plague, as I suspect it will wind me up but I am going to watch it and see. Somehow I think cyclists will come out of it looking bad


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

The clip with the taxi driver didnt put cyclists in a good light.

"I asked him if he was trying to kill himself"
"He then came up to my window and spat in my face"
"I thought 'charming'".


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (5 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> The clip with the taxi driver didnt put cyclists in a good light.
> 
> "I asked him if he was trying to kill himself"
> "He then came up to my window and spat in my face"
> "I thought 'charming'".


I'd never spit on a taxi driver. Even if he was on fire


----------



## arghill (5 Dec 2012)

Having seen the trailer and read the article on the BikeBiz site I no longer want to watch it


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

I am going to watch it just for amusement more than anything. From reading articles and watching clips, I doubt it will be educational. I am also going to watch for bits brought up which are incorrect or put cyclists in a bad light (specifically the 'road tax' sh1te).


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> The unfortunate truth is that so-called cyclists pay no Road Tax. Which they seem somehow to believe means that they are not required to stop at red signals.
> 
> This is not so.
> 
> ...


Have you considered gibbet lights?


----------



## BentMikey (5 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> The clip with the taxi driver didnt put cyclists in a good light.
> 
> "I asked him if he was trying to kill himself"
> "He then came up to my window and spat in my face"
> "I thought 'charming'".


 
What, like WR52BMZ? Vehicle registered to an abandoned pub in Peckham, driver/owner never able to be traced. Pondscum.


----------



## Broughtonblue (5 Dec 2012)

Not sure if this has been mentioned but bbc1 tonight at 9pm. Programme about the increasing hostilities between cyclists and drivers


----------



## ianrauk (5 Dec 2012)

Broughtonblue said:


> Not sure if this has been mentioned but bbc1 tonight at 9pm. Programme about the increasing hostilities between cyclists and drivers


 

Yes... so have merged.


----------



## stowie (5 Dec 2012)

I have a bad feeling about tonight's program.

I cycled 20 miles today into, around and out of Central London without one incident worthy of _any_ mention. Most of my commutes are similar. Sure, there a lots that could make our roads better and some drivers (and cyclists, and pedestrians, but drivers pose a much bigger risk) have a level of ability that is laughable, but describing it as a war is a bad start before I even get to see it.

And the cabbie - horrible to have anyone spit at you. But he had been driving for 50 years as a cabbie. How many cyclists had he interacted with, and how many had spat at him? In 50 years you are probably going to meet one complete loon.

I just hope that the victim family segments don't get lost in what looks like will be over-hyped roadrage sequences.


----------



## gaz (5 Dec 2012)

My sources tell me the show has changed since the leak to the media.


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> My sources tell me the show has changed since the leak to the media.


They probably realised that certain things might make peoples teeth grind and put the BBC in a bad light. Hopefully the changes are for the better.


----------



## semislickstick (5 Dec 2012)

If they are showing Alleycat, in the interests of fairness, they should show the car version of big kids doing doughnuts and drag racers on our streets.

They aren't really showing Taypets "Big Mamma" video are they? Oh good God.


----------



## ianrauk (5 Dec 2012)

semislickstick said:


> really *hope they aren't* showing *any of* Taypets "Big Mamma" video*s* are they? Oh good God.


 
FTFY


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

semislickstick said:


> They aren't really showing Taypets "Big Mamma" video are they? Oh good God.


For those who dont know:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGO3bt6YPKo


----------



## stowie (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> My sources tell me the show has changed since the leak to the media.


 
I hope so. The problem is that these programmes are cheap. The videos and interviews must cost virtually nothing to use and then it is adding in the normal voiceover and cutaways of generic traffic scenes in standard "Motorway cops" / "scariest car chases" / "pets do the funniest things" style.

This lends itself to a disjointed sequence of the increasingly sensational clips to simply keep bums on seats for the duration as opposed to a considered debate on transport and cities.

Still it is on shortly. I am not sure I will watch it live - I may wait to see the reactions on here before deciding - I really don't want to end up going to bed angry and grumpy.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (5 Dec 2012)

Popcorn at the ready


----------



## Drago (5 Dec 2012)

Got 2 minutes in, switched it off. Watching a 24 year old web developer use the actions of others to justify his foul language and confrontational behaviour turned me straight off. He carries on like that and soneobe'll stab him before he's 30.


----------



## akb (5 Dec 2012)

I dislike the taxi driver!


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (5 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> The clip with the taxi driver didnt put cyclists in a good light.
> 
> "I asked him if he was trying to kill himself"
> "He then came up to my window and spat in my face"
> "I thought 'charming'".


 
Doesn't surprise me,I quite liked "Alf" the first cab driver.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (5 Dec 2012)

That copper was determined. Result!


----------



## mickle (5 Dec 2012)

It's good so far.


----------



## baldycyclist (5 Dec 2012)

not sure if this has been said but...
...have we not all had those juggernaut/taxi driver/careless prat/ times that give you the "loud voice" of you pratttttt.
What if we had all been done?
As well as the girl on the film?
Drivers in the UK are rubbish. Simple.
Same happens when it snows. Rubbish happens

I used to drive 250 commute a day for 2 years......If I went mad i saved 3 minutes - whooppeee doooo


Idiots

Simple


----------



## fossyant (5 Dec 2012)

Already had a poke from my BIL on facebook about insurance and licensing.


----------



## Tunster (5 Dec 2012)

At least there's a balanced perspective here. To be honest, both cyclists and drivers need more common sense. I personally would never cycle between HGVs/Buses and especially this week to stay behind even vans rather than move to the cycling bay at the front. That same junction where the cabbie confronted the web dev (CycleGaz), that three-lane junction that splits for left to brixton and straight ahead to clapham. I got to the front, almost centre of middle lane and then the van behind me tried to overtake and then cut across to Brixton. I had to slam the side of the van as he came within 20cm of pushing me over.

Traffic-droid! Even with all the confidence, he's as human as anyone.

I do feel some cyclists lack basic road awareness having not driven before from some of the examples being shown. Same with cars/vans/cycles, jumping red lights, making an awful overtake is not going to gain anything.


----------



## squiddley (5 Dec 2012)

Just been watching a programme on BBC tv tonight.

Featuring the war between 2 wheels and 4 on british roads.

Catch it on i player,makes sober viewing...


----------



## AnythingButVanilla (5 Dec 2012)

What's with the twatbag couriers that are on the screen just now? They're not doing anyone any favours.

Really glad the Scottish man wasn't squished by that tanker on the roundabout. I squealed just watching it, he must have been traumatised


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (5 Dec 2012)

Thought it was very fair.Well done BBC.IMHO


----------



## musa (5 Dec 2012)

show wasnt too bad not too negative nor positive balance was ok for a bbc production
that scottish man is magnatom campaigning in scotland iirc for cycling good on ya mate


----------



## ianrauk (5 Dec 2012)

[QUOTE 2189590, member: 45"]That's Magnatom. We were often traumatised by his girlie squeal.[/quote]


I do miss it


----------



## Stonepark (5 Dec 2012)

Not as bad as I thought it would be, more could have been directed about road design and government designing for cars only and not all road users


----------



## Sittingduck (5 Dec 2012)

Gaz - that same cabbie did a close pass on me about 100 yards up the road from where you had the altercation with him! About a year ago, maybe 18 months. I remember his face and the voice... tried to tell me to eff off, when I remonstrated. Reckless moron who's going to end up taking somebody out, one day.


----------



## AnythingButVanilla (5 Dec 2012)

Ah, I never realised even though I've been skimming through the thread. Glad to see that he's still with us.


----------



## musa (5 Dec 2012)

yeah i agree with stonepark the cabby mentioned the govt and i thought he would mention road layout and design etc but doesnt look like that happened


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (5 Dec 2012)

Must admit I miss Mags.


----------



## compo (5 Dec 2012)

I agree with Mr Paul, the couriers race did no-one any favours and they should have got 3 years each, but by heck, I wish I could handle a bike like those twatbags


----------



## Pat "5mph" (5 Dec 2012)

AnythingButVanilla said:


> What's with the twatbag couriers that are on the screen just now? They're not doing anyone any favours.
> 
> Really glad the Scottish man wasn't squished by that tanker on the roundabout. I squealed just watching it, he must have been traumatised


That was the mighty Magnatom, he's invincible


----------



## davefb (5 Dec 2012)

AnythingButVanilla said:


> What's with the twatbag couriers that are on the screen just now? They're not doing anyone any favours.
> 
> Really glad the Scottish man wasn't squished by that tanker on the roundabout. I squealed just watching it, he must have been traumatised


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleycat_races

essentially, the same as the cannoball run or maybe illegal street racing..
[edit] assuming its the same as the preview that was reported on,,, i didn't watch the show coz i'd be shouting at the tv and apparently i shouldnt do that


----------



## musa (5 Dec 2012)

PS has everybody come to this thread?


----------



## mcshroom (5 Dec 2012)

The couriers were from an 'alley cat race' in 2006. For balance there should have been video of corsas using main roads as drag strips.


----------



## Lyrical (5 Dec 2012)

So much hate on twitter it's unreal.


----------



## mcshroom (5 Dec 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> That was the mighty Magnatom, he's invincible



No he's not - I've seen him bleed 




(he, Seamab and HLaB tried to share the exact same piece of road at the same time when we were riding to Edinburgh)


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (5 Dec 2012)

What about bottles, eggs, beers cans, honking horns to shoot you up.....etc etc.


----------



## addictfreak (5 Dec 2012)

Missed it, as I was at our club meeting.

Trying to get it on iplayer, but no joy. Anyone have a link?


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (5 Dec 2012)

Soooooooo glad I don't commute in London......CHAOS!!!


----------



## akb (5 Dec 2012)

Dislike Traffic Droid. He is far too aggressive. 

Liked the message at the end, very fair conclusion. 

Pants are in the wash after the tanker smidsy!


----------



## Mista Preston (5 Dec 2012)

Courier race......wow what I way to make us all look bad in one fail swoop !


----------



## ianrauk (5 Dec 2012)

bromptonfb said:


> Soooooooo glad I don't commute in London......CHAOS!!!


 

But it's not.


----------



## musa (5 Dec 2012)

bromptonfb said:


> Soooooooo glad I don't commute in London......CHAOS!!!


 go too bbc player site go on channel and put the cursor back on the live tv


----------



## Jezston (5 Dec 2012)

Well that wasn't as bad as I heard - good to hear some last minute changes were made since the early reports.

Still, it was kind of a weird show. Felt like they were coming close to having a point to make on various occasions then suddenly switch to something else.

Funny to hear the touchy cab driver trying to justify his actions with the footage totally contradicting him. "I was past him!" - you might have been, but the rest of your cab wasn't.

Bit disappointed by the cycle policeman telling the cyclist off for slapping the guy's cab, telling him to get a whistle instead. WTF?

Can't help feeling this show will put a lot of people off cycling.


----------



## mcshroom (5 Dec 2012)

I saw that vid when Magnatom first posted it, but even knowing what happes I found myself pulling my head away as I watched that


----------



## Pat "5mph" (5 Dec 2012)

Well, if I get smidsy by a taxi tomorrow I'll blame the BBC 
The programme was focused less on the sensational than one would suspect by reading the title.
I just wanna ride about my business in peace. Glad here it's not London, though.


----------



## davefb (5 Dec 2012)

lcc has posted that the courier stuff was cut down...

still shown though... suppose it makes a nice and exciting tv show..


----------



## RAYMOND (5 Dec 2012)

Very interesting documentary.Enjoyed it alot,laughed alot aswell as squirmed.
Just goes to show you its the person behind the wheel/bike.
The individual.Blame on both parties.I guess its down to what we all do
as individuals that counts.
I know i for 1 will take better care when cycling even though i already do.
Glad i don't live in london though.


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

Well it wasnt as bad as I thought it would be. Still, managed to make my mother hold my hand and say "Be safe on the roads".


----------



## jdtate101 (5 Dec 2012)

I thought it was fairly balanced actually, and the final message of trying to get along together was the correct one.


----------



## Sittingduck (5 Dec 2012)

Had seen much of the footage before but shocking stuff, nonetheless. Worst part was the CCTV footage from the cement mixer fatality. One frame she is there, then gone. Terrible.


----------



## ianrauk (5 Dec 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Well, if I get smidsy by a taxi tomorrow I'll blame the BBC
> The programme was focused less on the sensational than one would suspect by reading the title.
> I just wanna ride about my business in peace. Glad here it's not London, though.


 

You can cycle in London in peace.
I do and thousands of other cyclists in London do.
London is far safer for cycling then a lot of other cities in the UK.


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

davefb said:


> lcc has posted that the courier stuff was cut down...
> 
> still shown though... suppose it makes a nice and exciting tv show..


I think that the last minute changes were to state that it was an organised race at the end.


----------



## ianrauk (5 Dec 2012)

RAYMOND said:


> Very interesting documentary.Enjoyed it alot,laughed alot aswell as squirmed.
> Just goes to show you its the person behind the wheel/bike.
> The individual.Blame on both parties.I guess its down to what we all do
> as individuals that counts.
> ...


 
Mags vid was in Glasgow, Twatpets vid was in Bristol.
Are you glad you don't cycle in those cities also?


----------



## davefb (5 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> Bit disappointed by the cycle policeman telling the cyclist off for slapping the guy's cab, telling him to get a whistle instead. WTF?


 
whistle?

cycle with something in your mouth?

is he mad ?


----------



## musa (5 Dec 2012)

credit to the mother who didnt give up
buying shares in the company to attend the agm 

london isnt half bad to be honest...unless you come and cycle then you wont know really


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2012)

I understand why Trafficdroid is the way that he is now.

Him grabbing the cyclist - awesome!

Copper telling the cyclist to get a whilstle


Magnaton - very contrite.

The lady whose daughter was killed - humbling.

Pretty disjointed show though.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (5 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> But it's not.


Compared to my rural roads it is....bury and Manchester can be busy at times. All the footage of London showed so much traffic.


I bet colinj is palpitating just watching it..


----------



## addictfreak (5 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> But it's not.



To us guys outside the smoke, it certainly looks chaotic. Up here I never see anywhere near that number of cyclists or volume of traffic. Everyone always seems to be in so much of a hurry!


----------



## ianrauk (5 Dec 2012)

bromptonfb said:


> Compared to my rural roads it is....bury and Manchester can be busy at times. All the footage of *London showed so much traffic.*


 
Same as any big city.


----------



## musa (5 Dec 2012)

albeit the cycle layout and facilities are sh*t in london what do the other cities provide?

now i aint crediting tfl but there is a system if you want to call it that in place


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2012)

stowie said:


> I hope so. The problem is that these programmes are cheap. The videos and interviews must cost virtually nothing to use and then it is adding in the normal voiceover and cutaways of generic traffic scenes in standard "Motorway cops" / "scariest car chases" / "pets do the funniest things" style.
> 
> This lends itself to a disjointed sequence of the increasingly sensational clips to simply keep bums on seats for the duration as opposed to a considered debate on transport and cities.
> 
> Still it is on shortly. I am not sure I will watch it live - I may wait to see the reactions on here before deciding - I really don't want to end up going to bed angry and grumpy.


 
Spot on there fella.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (5 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Same as any big city.


Manchester isn't that manic...which is why I said I'm, sooooooo glad I don't commute in London.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2012)

bromptonfb said:


> Compared to my rural roads it is....bury and Manchester can be busy at times. All the footage of London showed so much traffic.


 
And less nob jockeys up here who believe they are more important than everyone else.


----------



## tug benson (5 Dec 2012)

them road were very busy with bike, cars, vans and trucks....far to much on the road down there


I thought the first guy with the glasses was just brewing for a fight

the scottish guy and the lorry tanker was just to close, i would be cleaning the skid marks of my pants the now


----------



## musa (5 Dec 2012)

tbh 400bhp you wont feel anything the production is loosely put i think


----------



## AnythingButVanilla (5 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> You can cycle in London in peace.
> I do and thousands of other cyclists in London do.
> London is far safer for cycling then a lot of other cities in the UK.


 
I hate riding in Glasgow and feel much safer in London due to the sheer number of cyclists around. I do make the effort to take my bike home and then take the bus or taxis everywhere


----------



## gaz (5 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> Got 2 minutes in, switched it off. Watching a 24 year old web developer use the actions of others to justify his foul language and confrontational behaviour turned me straight off. He carries on like that and soneobe'll stab him before he's 30.


Haha you're a bloody joke. Where am I using the actions of others to justify swearing?


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (5 Dec 2012)

Tbf tho, they did show the dodgy cycle lane outside cooksons cycles, that is pretty dodgy as bendy buses and wagons ignore the lane completely.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2012)

musa said:


> tbh 400bhp you wont feel anything the production is loosely put i think


 
sorry?


----------



## stowie (5 Dec 2012)

I really didn't like it, but it kind of was what I expected.

They talked about cyclists resorting to controlling the roads without mentioning that it is part of the highway code, recommended by cycling training courses and official cycling advice. If they had just explained why cyclists might be out further from the kerb (doors opening etc.) it might have been worthwhile. But to include the footage of that idiotic courier race was the final straw for me - it is akin to having a documentary about motorists by showing joy-riding.


----------



## Fab Foodie (5 Dec 2012)

davefb said:


> whistle?
> 
> cycle with something in your mouth?
> 
> is he mad ?


 It used to be common practice among commuters in the '80s


----------



## gaz (5 Dec 2012)

Sittingduck said:


> Gaz - that same cabbie did a close pass on me about 100 yards up the road from where you had the altercation with him! About a year ago, maybe 18 months. I remember his face and the voice... tried to tell me to eff off, when I remonstrated. Reckless moron who's going to end up taking somebody out, one day.


If I remember correctly it was 28th june 2011, so pretty much 18 months ago, could have well been on the same day.


----------



## Cycling Dan (5 Dec 2012)

Sittingduck said:


> Had seen much of the footage before but shocking stuff, nonetheless. Worst part was the CCTV footage from the cement mixer fatality. One frame she is there, then gone. Terrible.


i felt horrible, just the fact she was gone... that's it, game over. 18 ton dumper truck on your head


----------



## SportMonkey (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> Haha you're a bloody joke. Where am I using the actions of others to justify swearing?


You did it right before you licked your lips, although you did seem to be licking them a lot.



I'm not sure that was the most flattering cut...


----------



## ManiaMuse (5 Dec 2012)

bromptonfb said:


> Compared to my rural roads it is....bury and Manchester can be busy at times. All the footage of London showed so much traffic.
> 
> 
> I bet colinj is palpitating just watching it..


In many ways more traffic is a good thing. More traffic = slower average speeds = accidents less serious when they do occur (ignoring of course getting squashed by a left turning lorry type of accidents).

Plus, as stated above, safety in numbers. London drivers in my experience are very aware of cyclists, even if they still act like idiots occasionally. I feel much safer cycling in London than in Nottingham where there are far fewer cyclists.


----------



## CopperCyclist (5 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> Got 2 minutes in, switched it off. Watching a 24 year old web developer use the actions of others to justify his foul language and confrontational behaviour turned me straight off. He carries on like that and soneobe'll stab him before he's 30.



That's Gaz, from this forum.

I didn't feel they showed enough of you in some ways Gaz - mainly in the way (and you've mentioned it yourself both on here and you tube) that you've evolved in how you handle things. Gone are the shouting, sarcastic hand clapping days, and a lot more of Gaz's videos now show a measured, calculated approach that should be emulated. His SillyCyclists channel is the most educational thing for cyclists on YouTube!

It could have done with a touch of even handedness too. Perhaps it's only London (I've never cycled there) but had someone followed me around for the last two years, they'd have a load of boring footage, with only one single close pass to talk about!

We aren't going to get it on this forum, but I'd love to know what a truly independent viewer made of it all - as non of the interviewees from both 'camps' were willing to have their views swayed at all, clearly!


----------



## musa (5 Dec 2012)

400bhp said:


> sorry?


imo the production of it was loosley put together ie missed bits out that could have been important 

thats my two pence on it


----------



## summerdays (5 Dec 2012)

It made interesting viewing with my daughter, especially as I kept on talking to the telly or wincing at times (even though I'd seen a number of the clips before).

I'm hoping that drivers might learn a little from the program about giving cyclists a little more space, and cyclists might learn particularly from the lorry parts, about how care is needed around lorries.


----------



## mickle (5 Dec 2012)

I thought Gaz did brilliantly. Well done lad!


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2012)

stowie said:


> I really didn't like it, but it kind of was what I expected.
> 
> *They talked about cyclists resorting to controlling the roads without mentioning that it is part of the highway code, recommended by cycling training courses and official cycling advice. If they had just explained why cyclists might be out further from the kerb (doors opening etc.) it might have been worthwhile*. But to include the footage of that idiotic courier race was the final straw for me - it is akin to having a documentary about motorists by showing joy-riding.


 
I was willing Gaz to say that - whether he had been paraprased I don't know.

The courier clip - I wonder if a previous version of the "documentary" had the clips runiing throughout, then at the last minute they canned it, slapped it at the end and then made some half assed comment about some organised courier race. It almost felt they were trying too hard to make it a 50/50 cyclist/car crap road user piece.


----------



## slowmotion (5 Dec 2012)

As musa said, I thought that the mother who went to the RMC AGM was just wonderful. The taxi driver with 50 years' experience rather grew on me too. I don't think any viewer would have had their opinions/preconceptions changed though.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (5 Dec 2012)

Tbf the road users in Manchester and bury are pretty considerate. I've had a few run ins when I first started commuting there, but now I know the hotspots and ride differently in them I no longer feel the urge to rip drivers heads off. 

The video clip where the fat bird and chav got out of the car was in bury....not too far from Cooksons.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (5 Dec 2012)

musa said:


> albeit the cycle layout and facilities are sh*t in london what do the other cities provide?
> 
> now i aint crediting tfl but there is a system if you want to call it that in place


Yes, judging by footage you have much a better cycling system than here in Glasgow.
Only thing is, if the going gets tough we can escape in a quiet side street, or along the river Clyde cyclepath, or use a park as a shortcut. There is ways to avoid heavy traffic.
London for us in the sticks seems quite hectic in comparison 
No doubt cycling there takes more skills than the ones I currently have.


----------



## trampyjoe (5 Dec 2012)

It was different wasn't it.

Might bring my bike down to the big smoke for some cabbie baiting soon...


----------



## steve broughton (5 Dec 2012)

i used to bike to work when I lived in London in the late 80's, daily ride from Walthamstow to the British Museum, and it doesn't seem all
that different now than it was then, had a few altercations and a few near misses, the young lad, cyclegaz?, did seem to me a bit of a pompous little shoot who went out looking for trouble and the most reasonable one was the old duffer cab driver.


----------



## Cycling Dan (5 Dec 2012)

steve broughton said:


> i used to bike to work when I lived in London in the late 80's, daily ride from Walthamstow to the British Museum, and it doesn't seem all
> that different now than it was then, had a few altercations and a few near misses, the young lad, cyclegaz?, did seem to me a bit of a pompous little s*** who went out looking for trouble and the most reasonable one was the old duffer cab driver.


Inception!


----------



## ianrauk (5 Dec 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Yes, judging by footage you have much a better cycling system than here in Glasgow.
> Only thing is, if the going gets tough we can escape in a quiet side street, or along the river Clyde cyclepath, or use a park as a shortcut. There is ways to avoid heavy traffic. Same as in London. *Thousands of quiet backstreets and parks.*
> London for us in the sticks seems quite hectic in comparison * It is hectic, but it's not just London, other cities are the same.*
> No doubt cycling there takes more skills than the ones I currently have. *I doubt it*


----------



## CopperCyclist (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> Haha you're a bloody joke. Where am I using the actions of others to justify swearing?



You missed it. The correct reply would have been along the lines of "Using other peoples action to justify my swearing? If you're going to ****ing post **** like that you can **** off you ****er"


----------



## Gasman (5 Dec 2012)

And not a single mention of R04d T*x. Remarkable.


----------



## musa (5 Dec 2012)

but credit where due Gaz did mention that looking back now his reaction wasnt exactly the best and he did over cook it...
for those that say someone goes out looking for trouble i cant understand 
you mean you purposely confront people for what?


----------



## Fab Foodie (5 Dec 2012)

addictfreak said:


> To us guys outside the smoke, it certainly looks chaotic. Up here I never see anywhere near that number of cyclists or volume of traffic. Everyone always seems to be in so much of a hurry!


 I'm with ianrauk, London's a great place to cycle and nowhere near as bad a people might imagine. It's my fave cycle place!


----------



## addictfreak (5 Dec 2012)

bromptonfb said:


> Manchester isn't that manic...which is why I said I'm, sooooooo glad I don't commute in London.



Newcastle is certainly nowhere near as manic.


----------



## ianrauk (5 Dec 2012)

Anyone who knows Gaz knows he doesn't go out looking for trouble or to intentionally antagonise other road users. Trafficdroid though..hmmmmmm


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (5 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> I'm with ianrauk, London's a great place to cycle and nowhere near as bad a people might imagine. It's my fave cycle place!


Too flat for starters.... I like my hills and greenery and open landscape. I'd feel trapped in. But I'm a country bumpkin.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Dec 2012)

Gasman said:


> And not a single mention of R04d T*x. Remarkable.


Oh, I thought one of the cabbies did have a go at that one.


----------



## musa (5 Dec 2012)

I agree with Ianrauk....for every phone user a calling card and thats how far as it goes....if he wanted to make a change then I suggest he quit his job and as telecomms eng and become a cop on bikes

the pompous little shoots are those go on the inside of lorries or feel the need to jump on the pavement to get to the front plus more 

now thats a pompous little shoot looking for trouble when shoot goes belly up 
but hey thats only my view


----------



## locker (5 Dec 2012)

Well done Gaz but shame they didn`t show my interview saying how regretful I was knocking down the pedestrians, but at least the didn`t dwell on my clips which really did no good at all as the couiers racing clip did no good either, the producer rang me a hour before to let me know that my clip of me getting knocked off by the woman driver couldn`t be used for legal reasons.


----------



## addictfreak (5 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> I'm with ianrauk, London's a great place to cycle and nowhere near as bad a people might imagine. It's my fave cycle place!



I don't disagree with either of you, and that volume of traffic certainly doesn't worry me in any way. But my daily experiences are nowhere near as 'chaotic', and I know I prefer the less hurried pace of life up north.


----------



## gaz (5 Dec 2012)

I'm disappointed, I don't think the edit on my self was a fair reflection on the person I am or the work that I do.
Unfortunately I'm the only one that knows exactly what I said on interviews and I know exactly how they cut things to take them out of context.


----------



## PaulSB (5 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Anyone who knows Gaz knows he doesn't go out looking for trouble or to intentionally antagonise other road users. Trafficdroid though..hmmmmmm



I'm quite happy to believe that. Unfortunately that won't be the impression gained by several million people. His contribution often came over as self-satisfied and close to smirking in places.

He said on reflection he could have reacted better - I'm sure the majority will remember what they saw not what he said. 

The only women in the programme was magnificent. Dave from Glasgow really good as was Simon the lawyer and his friend.


----------



## CopperCyclist (5 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Well done Gaz but shame they didn`t show my interview saying how regretful I was knocking down the pedestrians, but at least the didn`t dwell on my clips which really did no good at all as the couiers racing clip did no good either, the producer rang me a hour before to let me know that my clip of me getting knocked off by the woman driver couldn`t be used for legal reasons.



Shame really. I think a couple of the 'bad cyclists' clip, yours included (sorry!) could have shown that afterwards, the cyclists learnt something from it... whereas cold the same be said for any of the drivers? The only one we saw was the taxi driver, and the answer to that is a clear 'No'.


----------



## gaz (5 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> You did it right before you licked your lips, although you did seem to be licking them a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that was the most flattering cut...


Unfortunately I was doing a lot of talking in that interview (around 3 hours worth) and my mouth got rather dry.


----------



## mr_cellophane (5 Dec 2012)

Droid saying that he got the camera to "trap" bad drivers was very ill judged. But then his road positioning at times is not the best, especially when that van and trailer squeezed him.


----------



## SportMonkey (5 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Well done Gaz but shame they didn`t show my interview saying how regretful I was knocking down the pedestrians, but at least the didn`t dwell on my clips which really did no good at all as the couiers racing clip did no good either, the producer rang me a hour before to let me know that my clip of me getting knocked off by the woman driver couldn`t be used for legal reasons.


 
Shafted, get permission for the bad by promising to show something else.


----------



## semislickstick (5 Dec 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Oh, I thought one of the cabbies did have a go at that one.


Yeah the blurry faced long haired cabbie mentioned it I think.


----------



## mcshroom (5 Dec 2012)

London is fine for cycling in. I found the bus lanes a nice touch - full width bike lanes effectively.

I do prefer riding around the rural back roads of Cumbria though. There's less traffic around so I can concentrate on cycling or enjoying the scenery.


----------



## addictfreak (5 Dec 2012)

Still can't get this on iplayer!


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (5 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> Bit disappointed by the cycle policeman telling the cyclist off for slapping the guy's cab, telling him to get a whistle instead. WTF?


 
Wont work,nearest I came was fitting a car horn till they called the bomb squad. Quite effective.

(it's a long story)



mcshroom said:


> London is fine for cycling in. I found the bus lanes a nice touch - full width bike lanes effectively.
> 
> I do prefer riding around the rural back roads of Cumbria though. There's less traffic around so I can concentrate on cycling or enjoying the scenery.


 
Must admit I prefer my 330am commutes,much quieter.


----------



## semislickstick (5 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Well done Gaz but shame they didn`t show my interview saying how regretful I was knocking down the pedestrians, but at least the didn`t dwell on my clips which really did no good at all as the couiers racing clip did no good either, the producer rang me a hour before to let me know that my clip of me getting knocked off by the woman driver couldn`t be used for legal reasons.


How many pedestrians have you ran down?


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> Haha you're a bloody joke. Where am I using the actions of others to justify swearing?


 
Gaz, I do not support Drago's view, but I do not think you were shown in a totally positive light in the selected edit of the selected clip.

I am absolutely clear that in my opinion your Youtube stuff occupies the higher end of the spectrum and is very helpful and positive.

But I think the image portrayed in the first few minutes was unhelpfully edited at best.

I type this in the secure knowledge that I'm 100+ miles from you as I do so and whilst accepting that at your age I was an occasional irate toucher of other people's paintwork in traffic...


----------



## mcshroom (5 Dec 2012)

If you are after iplayer rather than the view live bit of iplayer then you could be waiting a couple hours yet.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Dec 2012)

addictfreak said:


> Still can't get this on iplayer!


It'll be up soon - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01p7q2l/War_on_Britains_Roads/


----------



## locker (5 Dec 2012)

I


gaz said:


> I'm disappointed, I don't think the edit on my self was a fair reflection on the person I am or the work that I do.
> Unfortunately I'm the only one that knows exactly what I said on interviews and I know exactly how they cut things to take them out of context.


I know what you mean


----------



## addictfreak (5 Dec 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It'll be up soon - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01p7q2l/War_on_Britains_Roads/



Thanks, just me being impatient!


----------



## trampyjoe (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> I'm disappointed, I don't think the edit on my self was a fair reflection on the person I am or the work that I do.
> Unfortunately I'm the only one that knows exactly what I said on interviews and I know exactly how they cut things to take them out of context.


But you went into this project knowing that this is exactly what would happen right?


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

trampyjoe said:


> But you went into this project knowing that this is exactly what would happen right?


We all get our dreams smashed sometimes.

I have been contacted by a Crime programme producer on Sky channel about my video of the guy cutting the corner. Unless I make my opinions clear, they might misquote me as well.


----------



## locker (5 Dec 2012)

semislickstick said:


> How many pedestrians have you ran down?


Only the two that were shown


----------



## Devonshiredave (5 Dec 2012)

I thought the montage of the participants watching some of the footage used was interesting. It didn't matter whether they were cyclists or motorists, the reactions were the same. Sharp intakes of breath, shakes of the head. I'd say we've got more in common than not? The comment about needing cooperation not confrontation was a good point. Not great in advancing road/cycling safety, but not the car crash I was expecting either.


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Only the two that were shown


I think you will find that you hit one (granted she was the size of two).


----------



## jdtate101 (5 Dec 2012)

Birmingham seem very chilled by comparison, although I'm sure most London cyclists have no incidents most days. I've never had anyone threaten to get out and punch me. London drivers do seem to be a lot more angry, probably due to the high levels of traffic jams.


----------



## EltonFrog (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> I'm disappointed, I don't think the edit on my self was a fair reflection on the person I am or the work that I do.
> Unfortunately I'm the only one that knows exactly what I said on interviews and I know exactly how they cut things to take them out of context.



I didn't watch the show, mainly 'cos I ain't interested in all that them and us crap, but I have read this thread with interest. I have had some experience with tv producers, and they do that to people to make what they think will make the programme more interesting. They are not necessarily interested in reporting the facts, or showing poeple in the best light. Thats what tv producers learn to do in media studies at college.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (5 Dec 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> Birmingham seem very chilled by comparison, although I'm sure most London cyclists have no incidents most days. I've never had anyone threaten to get out and punch me. London drivers do seem to be a lot more angry, probably due to the high levels of traffic jams.


 

Today it was close passes and tailgating.


----------



## steve broughton (5 Dec 2012)

PaulSB said:


> I'm quite happy to believe that. Unfortunately that won't be the impression gained by several million people. His contribution often came over as self-satisfied and close to smirking in places.
> 
> He said on reflection he could have reacted better - I'm sure the majority will remember what they saw not what he said.


 
Thats exactly how he came across to me, although I was about the same age as he when I lived in London, 24 is he? are you Gaz? as I said I had the odd altercation when I cycled to work though my reaction was a lot different to his in similar situations, at one point I dragged a bus driver out of his cab who had tried to kill me.


----------



## PaulSB (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> I'm disappointed, I don't think the edit on my self was a fair reflection on the person I am or the work that I do.
> Unfortunately I'm the only one that knows exactly what I said on interviews and I know exactly how they cut things to take them out of context.



You didn't know that would happen?

TBH you have given a very poor image of helmet cam users and cyclists in general. If you hit someone's cab what do you expect to happen? Sarcastic hand clapping? Assault? 

People speak highly off you and I'll accept that but your contribution tonight has been far from positive for cycling. If you're going on national TV you have to be very careful with your words, facial expression and general demeanour. 

Still what would I know? I'm just a TRL549.


----------



## locker (5 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> I think you will find that you hit one (granted she was the size of two).


Plus the one that nearly went under the bus, like I have said before if I met them now I would apologise


----------



## trampyjoe (5 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> We all get our dreams smashed sometimes.
> 
> I have been contacted by a Crime programme producer on Sky channel about my video of the guy cutting the corner. Unless I make my opinions clear, they might misquote me as well.


IMO if you are going to get involved with the media on this kind of level you are setting yourself up to have your dreams smashed and your views and opinions twisted.
Like I said though, if you go into it knowing this will happen then you shouldn't get any nasty surprises.


----------



## redcard (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> I'm disappointed, I don't think the edit on my self was a fair reflection on the person I am or the work that I do.
> Unfortunately I'm the only one that knows exactly what I said on interviews and I know exactly how they cut things to take them out of context.



Don't let it get you down. You've contributed more than your fair share to the cause, and certainly don't deserve the couple of negative comments that have been posted here.


----------



## gaz (5 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Gaz, I do not support Drago's view, but I do not think you were shown in a totally positive light in the selected edit of the selected clip.
> 
> I am absolutely clear that in my opinion your Youtube stuff occupies the higher end of the spectrum and is very helpful and positive.
> 
> ...


I am disappointed in the edit.


----------



## mickle (5 Dec 2012)

PaulSB said:


> You didn't know that would happen?
> 
> TBH you have given a very poor image of helmet cam users and cyclists in general. If you hit someone's cab what do you expect to happen? Sarcastic hand clapping? Assault?
> 
> ...


Bollocks.


----------



## gaz (5 Dec 2012)

trampyjoe said:


> But you went into this project knowing that this is exactly what would happen right?


No, the project started off as something different. The direction it was taking changed a few months back, unfortunately I was already tied in.


----------



## albion (5 Dec 2012)

It was what I half expected from my limited knowledge of gaz.
But what I did notice is that it was only near then end that the beeb chose to make gaz more human.

As to the show, overall it was well done. Sometimes you have to entertain to get a message across, and just maybe they did that.

BTW that junction stat is accurate.
I tackle every one assuming the driver has not seen me, knowing that I can never 100% quite know if they have.


----------



## trampyjoe (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> No, the project started off as something different. The direction it was taking changed a few months back, unfortunately I was already tied in.


I can well believe that.

Keep up the good work though (and I mean all the cyclecam guys) regardless of how you came across on telly you all do a good thing in educating even if it is sometimes at your own expense.


----------



## Poacher (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> I am disappointed in the edit.


Quite rightly so. However, I think you acquitted yourself well. I had no idea you were so young - your contributions to this forum and on YouTube (is that how you youngsters spell it?) bely your lack of years. I'm off to bed now, as it's well past my bedtime - I may well not wake next morn. I always expected to die by the roadside, but .........................


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Only the two that were shown


 
_Only_ two!

Well I know I'm biased on account of it being Agent Hilda productions, and because I don't usually watch any telly it seemed a bit of a treat, but I thought it was rather good. Filming people as they watched things was really interesting, and despite the tone of sensationalism in some of the voiceover and the silly rhetoric about war I thought it said something worthwhile about power and responsibility. The stories of the mother and the old cabbie were moving, and I even warmed a bit to the nobber vigilante bloke. The truck driver was a good example of someone rather human whose day-to-day experience gave rise to him seeing things a particular way. Magnatom's truck of death moment was proper scary. The cabbie who had a go at Gaz strikes me as a dangerous thug - I think Gaz has done some of his potential victims a favour by reminding him he might get caught on camera...


----------



## HLaB (5 Dec 2012)

Gasman said:


> And not a single mention of R04d T*x. Remarkable.


I wasn't really paying attention to the program I was watching the greatest team on earth winning  but didn't the cyclists who were complaining to the bike cop about a taxi say that the driver had said that.


----------



## semislickstick (5 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Plus the one that nearly went under the bus, like I have said before if I met them now I would apologise


Oh right...Taypet. I noticed your occasional videos of woman being bad drivers or you hitting them with your bike, you draw attention to that in the video title usually with something derogatory, but don't when its a guy. Why is that?


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Plus the one that nearly went under the bus, like I have said before if I met them now I would apologise


Oh right yes, I forgot that was you.

I think hitting pedestrains is the worst thing the a cyclist can do. They have no protective equipment on and often arent concentrating (like the guy with the bus).

I think in both of the cases, you were fortunate that the peds were in the wrong (yes even the woman). I dont understand how anyone could say that the woman was your fault. You may have been going a little fast, and possibly could have given a worning of your approach, but what did the woman expect? There were loads of cyclists and (from videos of that path before) it was definately a cycle path.

Just be safe and respectful out there (something I should take on myself sometimes).


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

semislickstick said:


> Oh right...Taypet. I noticed your occasional videos of woman being bad drivers or you hitting them with your bike, you draw attention to that in the video title usually with something derogatory, but don't when its a guy. Why is that?


I think that is unfair, my videos have mixed titles but they dont say anything about the actual person in them and what sex they are. Locker has given the video the title because of the quality of the driving, not the driver.


----------



## mcshroom (5 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Oh right yes, I forgot that was you.
> 
> I think hitting pedestrains is the worst thing the a cyclist can do. They have no protective equipment on and often arent concentrating (like the guy with the bus).
> 
> ...



I would say that he was in the wrong. Moving too quickly and not communicating with them earlier. It is the responsibility for the overtaking person to make sure that what they are doing is safe. Then again I subscribe to the idea of strict liability, with the most vulnerable road users being better protected. In this case that would be the pedestrians.


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

User13710 said:


> I thought it wasn't as contentious as people were predicting, although it looked as though some last-minute rearranging had been done. The programme was made by an independent company, not the BBC. All programmes, and articles in print media, are closely edited to make a point and conform to an agenda though, as anyone who gets involved in any of them should be aware from the outset.


I agree, I think that it would have been very unhealthy for the BBC or any TV channel to agree with one side of the arguement. For that reason I think that the programme did well. And for that reason, I also think thats why they didnt mention RT, because they knew that would spark up arguements (even though we all know it doesnt exist).


----------



## stowie (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> I am disappointed in the edit.


 

This is what happens on TV I am afraid. 9pm on a weekday on BBC1 and it is all about some sensational guff that doesn't tax the brain too much. Anything more considered would be shoved on BBC4 and seen by 6 people. You can't win.


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Oh right yes, I forgot that was you.
> 
> I think hitting pedestrains is the worst thing the a cyclist can do. They have no protective equipment on and often arent concentrating (like the guy with the bus).
> 
> ...


 
She probably expected not to be twatted from behind by some idiot hurtling along like a complete tit, when she's ambling along a path. It's to his credit that he says he's learnt from it, but it's absolutely disgraceful cycling.


----------



## semislickstick (5 Dec 2012)

trampyjoe said:


> I can well believe that.
> 
> Keep up the good work though (and I mean all the cyclecam guys) regardless of how you came across on telly you all do a good thing in educating even if it is sometimes at your own expense.


 
Yes, the cycle footage on youtube has actually stopped me going up the inside of the bus that just cut me up to get to the T-junction first...I'm sure I'm not he only one. The good and the bad footage is useful.


----------



## locker (5 Dec 2012)

semislickstick said:


> Oh right...Taypet. I noticed your occasional videos of woman being bad drivers or you hitting them with your bike, you draw attention to that in the video title usually with something derogatory, but don't when its a guy. Why is that?


Because women drivers are crap drivers, I have loads of video evidence of this, some male motorists are twats but woman motorists go in for the kill.


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

2189817 said:


> What doesn't?


ROAD TAX


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

theclaud said:


> She probably expected not to be twatted from behind by some idiot hurtling along like a complete tit, when she's ambling along a path. *It's to his credit that he says he's learnt from it,* but it's absolutely disgraceful cycling.


I am glad to hear that pretty much everyone in the programme learnt something.


----------



## vernon (5 Dec 2012)

Well I watched it and was seriously underwhelmed. Isn't it amazing how a Youtube videos can be padded out to fill an hour.

It did nothing to alter my take on things.


----------



## theclaud (5 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Because women drivers are crap drivers, I have loads of video evidence of this, some male motorists are twats but woman motorists go in for the kill.


 
You might want to button it, since the currently available evidence makes it look like you're not safe to be in charge of a bicycle...


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Because women drivers are crap drivers, I have loads of video evidence of this, some male motorists are twats but woman motorists go in for the kill.


It must just be women in Bristol that are like that then. I find that women drivers are the most courteous around me.


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> ROAD TAX


 
What would you know about Road Tax?

You don't even pay it!


----------



## slowmotion (5 Dec 2012)

theclaud said:


> Filming people as they watched things was really interesting, and despite the tone of sensationalism in some of the voiceover and the silly rhetoric about war I thought it said something worthwhile about power and responsibility.


 
Good point. I thought that seeing different peoples' reactions to film footage was a great touch. It was good to see people having faint doubts about their own opinions being expressed on camera. Quite rare on TV.


----------



## hatless (5 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> I am disappointed in the edit.


I'm really sorry to hear that, gaz. You take a risk if you put videos on YouTube. You take a risk if you sign up for a TV programme. I think everyone understands that. You will be scrutinised, and it will be there, fixed and undeniable, your mistakes as well as your good stuff. Painful if you get it wrong. (I think you mainly get it right, though.)

What I saw in the programme, though, is someone who is self-critical and who learns. Someone who is reflecting on himself as well as what he sees on the streets. A work in progress. Someone acquiring a bit of wisdom and sharing it with others.

Like lots of others I'm grateful to you. I've learnt a huge amount from your videos and I really appreciated seeing you on TV tonight and getting a much better feel for you as a person. I was surprised at how young you are. I was pleased to see that you seem to be a genuinely thoughtful person. And I'm glad that you take risks in the media in order to reduce the risks we all take on the roads.

Cheers, mate.


----------



## CopperCyclist (5 Dec 2012)

hatless said:


> I'm really sorry to hear that, gaz. You take a risk if you put videos on YouTube. You take a risk if you sign up for a TV programme. I think everyone understands that. You will be scrutinised, and it will be there, fixed and undeniable, your mistakes as well as your good stuff. Painful if you get it wrong. (I think you mainly get it right, though.)
> 
> What I saw in the programme, though, is someone who is self-critical and who learns. Someone who is reflecting on himself as well as what he sees on the streets. A work in progress. Someone acquiring a bit of wisdom and sharing it with others.
> 
> ...



I think thats probably Gaz's problem with the edit though, because your second paragraph is NOT what you see in that TV program - however it is exactly how we know Gaz to be, from here and YouTube.

+1 to your third paragraph though!


----------



## locker (5 Dec 2012)

theclaud said:


> You might want to button it, since the currently available evidence makes it look like you're not safe to be in charge of a bicycle...


The currently available evidence is over 18 months old but still it was not really needed in this tv program more suited for "You`ve been framed"


----------



## akb (5 Dec 2012)

Safe to say Gaz didn't look anything like I thought he would. Nice work Gaz. I enjoyed it. Even had the missus fixed to the tv; she now knows why I get irate on some of my commutes!


----------



## TVC (5 Dec 2012)

Conclusion: Nobbers drive cars and nobbers ride bikes. That really moved the debate on.


----------



## semislickstick (5 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Because women drivers are crap drivers, I have loads of video evidence of this, some male motorists are twats but woman motorists go in for the kill.


...Killing someone on the road would push up the premiums surely...so that wasn't supported in the insurance risk. Personally I find male drivers are the more aggressive, but maybe cos there is more of them on the road, I dunno.
You might be an outstanding bloke Locker/Taypet but your youtube account and videos come across as a bit of a sexist pig. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I can only go on what you put on youtube.


----------



## slowmotion (5 Dec 2012)

I did wonder if the "War" will be any worse on Thursday as a result of that prime time programme. I can't see it happening really. Nearly all London drivers are pretty good people.
Not sure about you lot....


----------



## locker (5 Dec 2012)

semislickstick said:


> ...Killing someone on the road would push up the premiums surely...so that wasn't supported in the insurance risk. Personally I find male drivers are the more aggressive, but maybe cos there is more of them on the road, I dunno.
> You might be an outstanding bloke Locker/Taypet but your youtube account and videos come across as a bit of a sexist pig. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I can only go on what you put on youtube.


I can`t be a sexist pig I have a lot of women friends & I wouldn`t say any thing about my wifes driving (whilst standing in front of her car)


----------



## bjellys (5 Dec 2012)

PaulSB said:


> You didn't know that would happen?
> 
> TBH you have given a very poor image of helmet cam users and cyclists in general. If you hit someone's cab what do you expect to happen? Sarcastic hand clapping? Assault?
> 
> ...


 

I'll second that He came over as having an underlying attitude problem


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

bjellys said:


> I'll second that He came over as having an underlying attitude problem


Gaz may have come over as having an attitude but certainly not an underlying problem, his attitude, I believe, has helped a lot of cyclists & hopefully a few more, after watching this program they may read his blogs.


----------



## Jezston (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> I can`t be a sexist pig I have a lot of women friends


----------



## defy-one (6 Dec 2012)

All i got was what i already knew about the streets of London ......
They are busy, 
Every road user should think about every other road user (walking,cycling ,riding or driving)
Don't antagonise each other
If you get out of your car and threaten me, be ready to run back into it quickly!!!!


----------



## d87francis (6 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> I am disappointed in the edit.


Like many others on here I'm sorry to hear this Gaz, as the edit was uncharacteristic of how we know you from here and youtube. Your contribution to cycling safety is far more balanced and beneficial than this program and I would hope that it does not deter you from continuing your fantastic work.

I found the cars vs cyclists debate more equitable than I was expecting, however, the complete lack of putting the number of incidents into proportion and the continual theme that it was a 'war' may have put people off wanting to take up cycling. Even the woman's plea towards the end that we need cooperation not confrontation, whilst a sensible message, hints that a problem is more severe than it actually is.

The program is still not up on iplayer 3 hours after it finished, is this just coincidental to the controversy surrounding it? I'm looking forward to reading your blog post about it Gaz.


----------



## RWright (6 Dec 2012)

d87francis said:


> The program is still not up on iplayer 3 hours after it finished, is this just coincidental to the controversy surrounding it? I'm looking forward to reading your blog post about it Gaz.


 
I hope the iplayer will let me watch it over here. I tried a couple of other shows on BBC UK and it would not. Sounds very interesting.


----------



## RhythMick (6 Dec 2012)

It was more balanced than I expected. As many have said, humbling to watch the mother striving hard to see improvements made. Good on her.

The film showed the problem, but came up very short on solutions in my view.

There were many shocking moments. But for me the most shocking aspect is that even when provided with the evidence on a plate the police STILL won't pursue justice. The idiot who got out and lamped Simon the lawyer would have been untouched had it to been for YouTube. Disgraceful.


----------



## veloevol (6 Dec 2012)

About a year ago I spoke to a producer (unlisted on the credits) who was filming on the Kings Cross junction protests for Leopard. At the time the film seemed to be more about cycling activism but a year later it had morphed into road wars with heart strings. Apart from the inclusion of alleycats it could have gone to the other extreme, perhaps hosted by Jeremy Clarkson.

Edit: Spelling


----------



## BentMikey (6 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Anyone who knows Gaz knows he doesn't go out looking for trouble or to intentionally antagonise other road users.


 
Seconded. I've found him to be restrained in real life, riding with consummate skill. I and my wife were also impressed with his maturity and common sense at such a young age.


----------



## Monsieur (6 Dec 2012)

The Velvet Curtain said:


> Conclusion: Nobbers drive cars and nobbers ride bikes. That really moved the debate on.


That summed it up well.
Couldn't really see what point the programme was making?


----------



## Globalti (6 Dec 2012)

If the programme makers (who probably ride bikes) were trying to show drivers in a poor light and cyclists as the victims, they failed spectacularly. In the same way as when you read the Commuting section on this forum, the cyclists came across as stressed and paranoid as the drivers. It's an inescapable fact of city life that everybody is competing for scarce territory and very often people's territories collide; add a bit of testosterone to the mix and you're guaranteed fireworks, They looked to me like naughty school kids walking down the school corridor... "Sir! He hit me!" "Sir! I didn't, he hit me first!"

What both sides have failed to appreciate is that in an imperfect system (British streets) with vehicles of different sizes moving at different speeds on the same route there are bound to be times when it doesn't go smoothly and both parties need to recognise that they are equally the victims and cooperate with appropriate patience and restraint for the sake of their own survival. I commuted from Leytonstone to Blackhorse Road in London for five years by bike and I really don't remember it being particularly stressful; maybe there were the occasional close shaves but I certainly didn't have any confrontations and I certainly never yelled at drivers. After that I graduated to 12 years of motorcycling in London and the Midlands and again, I don't remember any bad incidents or arguments.


----------



## Electric_Andy (6 Dec 2012)

addictfreak said:


> To us guys outside the smoke, it certainly looks chaotic. Up here I never see anywhere near that number of cyclists or volume of traffic. Everyone always seems to be in so much of a hurry!



I'm not in London either but the problem in cities such as Plymouth is that there are so few cyclists that people are not used to them being on the road and don't know how to share the road with them


----------



## subaqua (6 Dec 2012)

400bhp said:


> And less nob jockeys up here who believe they are more important than everyone else.


 are you sure about that?


----------



## clockhammer (6 Dec 2012)

I enjoyed the programme, was a balanced view in my opinion. Perhaps there was a bit of sensationalism but what would we expect? I do though think that a chance was lost to really educate both cyclists and motorists. They should have perhaps showed examples of the right way to do things, how to overtake safely, how to negotiate junctions etc. 

By spelling it out with examples i think that the audience would have learned more. A lot of it is common sense, like why on earth would you creep up on the inside of a bus? Examples though would just make things a bit more black and white for those with any doubt.

I started of not liking Gaz but his later comments won me over, sorry if you feel you have been mis-represented by the edit, i do think though on the scales you habe dine more good than bad so well done for stepping up.

I would have also like to have seen a bit more on the positive side of cycling, the enjoyment, the community etc but i guess this just isnt sexy tv. Surprised my mother hasnt phoned to convince me to stop cycling after the programme.

O well, its done, lets see if it makes any difference, ride safely and have fun all


----------



## subaqua (6 Dec 2012)

Wifey watched it, she said she didn't really want to but did anyway.

Her words " That Traffic droid fellow is a complete cockwomble" , " the taxi driver isn't bloody past him" , " oh my god that tanker driver should be taken off the road" , " that Gaz bloke is a bit of an arse "

wasn't as bad as i expected, 1st comment so far in work has been. " did you see that program with the cyclists in London last night, showing all the riding like loonies" . I asked why no comment was made about the bad drivers , and got a "hmm yes i suppose "

My ride in was no worse or better than yesterday , so I think jezston was wide of the mark with the "its going to cause us lots of problems"


----------



## subaqua (6 Dec 2012)

Globalti said:


> If the programme makers (who probably ride bikes) were trying to show drivers in a poor light and cyclists as the victims, they failed spectacularly. In the same way as when you read the Commuting section on this forum, the cyclists came across as stressed and paranoid as the drivers. It's an inescapable fact of city life that everybody is competing for scarce territory and very often people's territories collide; add a bit of testosterone to the mix and you're guaranteed fireworks, They looked to me like naughty school kids walking down the school corridor... "Sir! He hit me!" "Sir! I didn't, he hit me first!"
> 
> What both sides have failed to appreciate is that in an imperfect system (British streets) with vehicles of different sizes moving at different speeds on the same route there are bound to be times when it doesn't go smoothly and both parties need to recognise that they are equally the victims and cooperate with appropriate patience and restraint for the sake of their own survival. *I commuted from Leytonstone to Blackhorse Road* in London for five years by bike and I really don't remember it being particularly stressful; maybe there were the occasional close shaves but I certainly didn't have any confrontations and I certainly never yelled at drivers. After that I graduated to 12 years of motorcycling in London and the Midlands and again, I don't remember any bad incidents or arguments.


 
not exactly a big commute in a really busy part of London is it. I ride across to walthamstow regularly with no problems.

as well as riding into the city everyday , where i get maybe one issue a month. if that.


----------



## srw (6 Dec 2012)

theclaud said:


> You might want to button it, since the currently available evidence makes it look like you're not safe to be in charge of a bicycle...


Or a keyboard?


----------



## lukesdad (6 Dec 2012)

Blimey gaz are you famous ? I do hope you looked your best, sorry I missed it, perhaps one day .....when I'm allowed to watch grown up telly !


----------



## Leodis (6 Dec 2012)

I *heart* gareth


----------



## Drago (6 Dec 2012)

I don't think the nob jockeys did our cause any good. It was to be expected it'd be a bit sensationalised, but it was clear from the start this was a bit of voyeuristic entertainment and not a serious show highlighting dangers.

It was like and episode of Jeremy Kyle with cyclists and motorists as guests.


----------



## Silver Fox (6 Dec 2012)

An interesting programme and reasonably balanced I thought although I have to agree with the manner in which Gaz and Traffic Droid were portrayed. Neither came across very well and for those who don't have the benefit of knowing them in real life, first impressions were not favourable.

However, that issue aside, if the programme raises awareness and leads to just one cyclist being saved from death or injury then it will have been a success.


----------



## Alan Frame (6 Dec 2012)

My wife is a non cyclist and watched this to see what i get up to on a daily basis. In her view, some of the cyclists came across as vigilante aggressors which made the motorists' behaviour more understandable, though not excusable.

Overall she felt cyclists' in general came out of it very poorly, a miltant gobby lot demanding more than they gave. The programme also did nothing to dispel the fears the missus has for me on my daily commute.

In some ways I wish the thing hadn't been made/aired as it doesn't take cyclists's interests any further forward and may well have swayed some hitherto "neutral" drivers that we are all a bunch of to$$ers.


----------



## Leodis (6 Dec 2012)

It wasnt too bad a program. Gaz at the start did come across like a nob after the driver walked away, that aside over the past year I have learnt a lot from Gaz's vids and hope he keeps up the good work on them. Watching Gaz's video you can see the progression he has made, from the taxi driver to a more mature approach.

Traffic Droid was funny, was it him who got knocked off by the women driver who didnt see him under her wheels and just kept driving? The video at the start of the program?

It is shocking that it takes a cyclist to be assualted and then have to post it on YT for the police to do anything.

I think it was locker who had the funniest video with the women on the mobile who pulls out on him "daft tart" lmao...


----------



## asterix (6 Dec 2012)

Haven't watched it yet, maybe I won't! I think it probably presented most road users as toss3ers.

But I rather enjoyed my last ride in London - Kings X to Croydon and back on a Brompton. In Brixton some yoofs tried to intimidate me by jumping out but soon jumped back in. On the return trip an accident bought all the cars to a grinding halt for a few miles which didn't stop me and when I reached Trafalgar square I found it very hard to get through all the stationary buses but managed it eventually. Plenty of scope for conflict, I thought.


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Dec 2012)

I think Gaz came out ok, could have been worse, I am sure it could have been a lot better. I felt some empathy with Gaz and his actions leading up to the confrontation with the Silver Cab, he had witnessed the close passes and I felt his cycling post viewing the Cab nearly clip the two cyclists in the cycle lane showed he was a bit angry even before the Cab did the same to him. Part of his reaction after he was close passed was due to the overall shoot driving by the Cab prior to his own (predictable?) close pass. 

Bit out of his depth when the Cabby leapt out though and felt the hand clapping was a sign of relief! My advice remains, either leap on the pavement and cycle the opposite direction or leap off your bike to stand your ground. Straddled over your top tube in the kerb is not where you want to be with a fast approaching angry face!

The main danger on the streets of London for me would be the ability to constantly catch up with the close passers and cut up merchants.

I felt quite sorry for TrafficDroid in the end clearly the accident 3 years ago is constantly in his mind when he is on his bike, explains quite a bit about his strange wanna be Policeman behaviour, almost wears it like invisable armour.

Did no one else find it ironic the copper on a bike with no blue lights no siren leaping across oncoming traffic in "pursuit" of a motorbike? What would have happend to the poor sod in the white car if he had wiped him out? What was the motorbike doing, I am no criminal in waiting but pretty sure I could have out run a Hybrid.

Thought it was brillant that that mother that has saved lives, hope her onward campaign is just as successful.

One final point, much the same as the Croydon Tram lady shown on phone cam made people think twice about public outbursts, I rather hope the cycle cammers are in motorists minds before they cut a cyclist up or leap out of their car in the future.


----------



## vernon (6 Dec 2012)

Michael Hutchinson on Radio Four just now giving his opinion on last night's programme.

'This is not a war between cyclists and motorists
This is a war between idiots.'


----------



## CopperCyclist (6 Dec 2012)

Leodis said:


> It is shocking that it takes a cyclist to be assualted and then have to post it on YT for the police to do anything.



Do people only hear what their preconceptions are?

In this case, the police visited the owner of the car - it wasn't the assaulted male and they wouldn't name him. That much was said on the program. Pretty hard to trace him at that point. 

When they uploaded the video and it went 'viral' the driver, fearing being recognised, handed himself in and the police reopened the case and charged him. 

How is this doing nothing? I know there are cases where we are crap, but this isn't one of them - we can't magic up offenders details from thin air.


----------



## CopperCyclist (6 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> Did no one else find it ironic the copper on a bike with no blue lights no siren leaping across oncoming traffic in "pursuit" of a motorbike? What would have happend to the poor sod in the white car if he had wiped him out? What was the motorbike doing, I am no criminal in waiting but pretty sure I could have out run a Hybrid.



Yes, you weren't the only one who thought that!

The officer didn't come across well tbh. Especially not from a cyclist side, with the incident with the taxi. Why he openly took the taxis side and worse, stereotyped "yeah I know what they are like" I don't know.


----------



## Leodis (6 Dec 2012)

> In this case, the police visited the owner of the car - it wasn't the assaulted male and they wouldn't name him. That much was said on the program. Pretty hard to trace him at that point.


 
As a non-driver is seems odd that someone can own a vehicle and let anyone drive it (dangerously in this case) and not be responsible.

Since I am from Yorkshire its not shocking with have preconceptions of the police after recent events and highlights.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Dec 2012)

theclaud said:


> She probably expected not to be twatted from behind by some idiot hurtling along like a complete tit, when she's ambling along a path. It's to his credit that he says he's learnt from it, but it's absolutely disgraceful cycling.


 

Indeed, and let's not forget the original name of Taypet's vid was the charming 'Fat Black Mamma'.


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (6 Dec 2012)

Leodis said:


> It wasnt too bad a program. Gaz at the start did come across like a nob after the driver walked away, that aside over the past year I have learnt a lot from Gaz's vids and hope he keeps up the good work on them. Watching Gaz's video you can see the progression he has made, from the taxi driver to a more mature approach.
> 
> Traffic Droid was funny, *was it him who got knocked off by the women driver who didnt see him under her wheels and just kept driving? The video at the start of the program?*
> 
> ...


 
No. It wasn't him.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2012)

well, skimming through this all I can say is..........it pays the mortgage. And well done, Gaz! And Locker is an idiot.

There's a half-sensible discussion on the CTC forum http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=70365


----------



## BigonaBianchi (6 Dec 2012)

I missed it....no big deal then


----------



## vernon (6 Dec 2012)

BigonaBianchi said:


> I missed it....no big deal then


 
I wouldn't go out of your way to watch a repeat.


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (6 Dec 2012)

Full things up on Youtube for anyone who's interested in seeing it - 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gb5FV0PSzM


----------



## tadpole (6 Dec 2012)

slowmotion said:


> I did wonder if the "War" will be any worse on Thursday as a result of that prime time programme. I can't see it happening really. Nearly all London drivers are pretty good people.
> Not sure about you lot....


On my cycle into work I was passed by at least three cars, where the drivers must have watched the programme, one waited behind me as I cycle past two pinch points, without revving his engine once, one allowed me to pull out of a junction before overtaking me safely, and the third man gave me so much room on an overtake he was fully on the other side of the road.
 Not sure I can get used to this.


----------



## apb (6 Dec 2012)

I got a couple of unusual looks this morning. Even up here in Scotland where things are far more civilised. 

Me, i was watching "The Hour".


----------



## BigonaBianchi (6 Dec 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Do people only hear what their preconceptions are?
> 
> In this case, the police visited the owner of the car - it wasn't the assaulted male and they wouldn't name him. That much was said on the program. Pretty hard to trace him at that point.
> 
> ...


 
I didnt see the programme but i do agree with this statement. The cops are tied down by the law and i guess th elaw says they need solid evidence...which is where it all gets silly because cyclists are being assaulted daily by drivers and th ecops cant do anything because its almost impossible for a cyclist to provide evidence because in th eheat of the moment they ar ethinking about surviving not prosecuting.

One thing I will say though, where i ride there are almost no cop cars ...where are they...its a busy coastal road...we need more traffic cops out there and they need to be looking out for the safty of cyclists first and not motorists. They need to to be visable as a deterant so thes emorons behave.

I bet to plod cyclists in uniform get zero harrassment from the coward drivers ...maybe I'll dress up like a cop cyclist ...joking...but something has got to be done to stop this madness and aggression displaid by drivers.

Fundamentaly that needs to be a change in attitude to one that puts the cyclist views first instead of assuming the driver is right which it seems to me most non cyclists assume.

This isnt about being a 'vigilante' etc...its about protecting my own life in the face of threats. I have a right to protect myself on the road as much as i have ab obligation to not harm others., Drivers forget the latter part of that statement.


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Indeed, and let's not forget the original name of Taypet's vid was the charming 'Fat Black Mamma'.


 Lets not forget what an idiot & complete T0$$er you are, I did not mention any racial remarks at all, it refered to Martin Lawrence`s film Big Momma, get a life & write something constructive for a change


----------



## ianrauk (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Lets not forget what an idiot & complete T0$$er you are, I did not mention any racial remarks at all, it refered to Martin Lawrence`s film Big Momma, get a life & write something constructive for a change


 

Rubbish. You know what you put on the vid and you changed it after you got pulled up about it.


----------



## davefb (6 Dec 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Do people only hear what their preconceptions are?
> 
> In this case, the police visited the owner of the car - it wasn't the assaulted male and they wouldn't name him. That much was said on the program. Pretty hard to trace him at that point.
> 
> ...


 
I've always wondered why that isn't an offence , when to tick "i dont know" on a speeding camera is an offence?

(unless you're a footballer and can sign affadavits saying you don't know who had the car)..


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2012)

Haven't watched the programme, but Locker, are you the guy on the electric assist bike that ran into that lady on the shared use path ?

I'm going to have to watch the programme on Friday night with a few glasses of wine !  As I mentioned earlier, my BIL thinks all cyclists are now a menace having watched the programme (he knows I have 4 bikes and live and breath cycling).


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (6 Dec 2012)

my biggest problem with the whole program is they had nothing, nothing at all positive to say about cycling.

In addition they alluded to the fact they "taking the lane" is only done to annoy other road users. The police comment on using a whistle is just odd (and dangerous maybe?). The comment by the police officer about "cyclists not being where they should be" gave an incorrect impression that bikes on the road don't have the same right as drivers do with regards to where they can position themselves in the lane.

and finally Gaz..... in both occasions he was cut up by the taxi and badly overtaken on the bridge did no one of authority point out explicitly that he was in the right and the drivers where both in the wrong, and seeing as most drivers expect you to be in the gutter this only this only reinforces those ideas. And as such I feel this documentary has done nothing to help cyclists and will only be used to enforce ignorance.

What was good - Gaz generally (though I feel the editing was a very nasty touch by the program makers) , and the Scottish guy/lawyers/the lady at the end where awesome.


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2012)

Locker, you are that Taypet21 person ? Nuf said !


----------



## davefb (6 Dec 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> my biggest problem with the whole program is they had nothing, nothing at all positive to say about cycling.
> 
> In addition they alluded to the fact they "taking the lane" is only done to annoy other road users. The police comment on using a whistle is just odd (and dangerous maybe?). The comment by the police officer about "cyclists not being where they should be" gave an incorrect impression that bikes on the road don't have the same right as drivers do with regards to where they can position themselves in the lane.
> 
> ...


 
complaint to bbc ?


----------



## benborp (6 Dec 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Do people only hear what their preconceptions are?
> 
> In this case, the police visited the owner of the car - it wasn't the assaulted male and they wouldn't name him. That much was said on the program. Pretty hard to trace him at that point.
> 
> ...


 
My memories of that incident were that it took a considerable amount of effort from those involved to get the Met police to respond appropriately at several stages. Those that followed the incident at the time will have a different perception to those that got the brief run down of events from the programme last night. In a similar situation, Greater Manchester Police used the supplied footage to launch an appeal to identify the assailant of a cyclist.
I use a helmet camera because of my experiences of the Met's response to violent crime against cyclists. On two occasions, despite numerous witnesses, despite having the attackers in custody, despite the commitment of the officers on the ground my allegations were treated with contempt and I was treated like shoot. Unfortunately, many others in London have had similar experiences, frequently being threatened with prosecution for spurious offences. Criminal damage after going through a windscreen anyone? Assault for strangling yourself with your own scarf to the distress of the cabbie holding the two ends? My worst experiences with the Met were quite some time ago and I've had excellent results since, most recently without even having the back-up of camera footage (although the offender did manage to drop in to hate crime territory which made everything a bit simpler) . It's still possible to come up against a wall of instinctive hostility from time to time, but I get the impression that many in the service are working to change this, probably because such experiences colour people's perceptions so.


----------



## Sore Thumb (6 Dec 2012)

Outside the cycling community, does anyone know if this program has had any effect. Good or bad. 

Such as other forums not to do with cycling. 

Is it enforcing people's negative views of cycling or has it improved our image???


----------



## BentMikey (6 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Indeed, and let's not forget the original name of Taypet's vid was the charming 'Fat Black Mamma'.


 
*Ahem* it wasn't that, please could you edit to reflect the real original title? I'm not defending taypet here, but your post is verging onto libel here.


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> *Ahem* it wasn't that, please could you edit to reflect the real original title? I'm not defending taypet here, but your post is verging onto libel here.


 
If the TV programme featured his videos and Trafficdroid's, god help Gaz's "balanced" videos then.


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Rubbish. You know what you put on the vid and you changed it after you got pulled up about it.


 I did not mention "Black" or "Fat", stop being a twat, I changed it because some people seen something that wasn`t there as you did


----------



## SomethingLikeThat (6 Dec 2012)

I'm not sure how much of an effect this programme will have long-term, I think people will eventually just forget about it.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> *Ahem* it wasn't that, please could you edit to reflect the real original title? I'm not defending taypet here, but your post is verging onto libel here.


 


locker said:


> I did not mention "Black" or "Fat", stop being a twat, I changed it because some people seen something that wasn`t there as you did


 

OK Apologies if I quoted wrong.

However the context of the way it was used for the vid was racist.


----------



## campbellab (6 Dec 2012)

Seemed quite balanced so far (30 mins in). Gaz and the Taxi driver segment wasn't bad, Gaz admits mistakes, Taxi driver admits nothing but they play the video as he's saying it which contradicts what he says.

Worst bit so far probably been the bike police segments. Almost getting knocked off themselves chasing red light jumpers through red lights, and telling the guy to get a whistle after knocking on the cab that was too close and agreeing with the taxi driver.


----------



## middleagecyclist (6 Dec 2012)

bromptonfb said:


> Tbf the road users in Manchester and bury are pretty considerate. I've had a few run ins when I first started commuting there, but now I know the hotspots and ride differently in them I no longer feel the urge to rip drivers heads off.
> 
> The video clip where the fat bird and chav got out of the car was in bury....not too far from Cooksons.


I think i've come across them before round Prestwich as well


----------



## Leodis (6 Dec 2012)

I don't know what to think about Locker, the fact that he knocked someone down and blamed her or the fact he uses an electric bike


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

fossyant said:


> Locker, you are that Taypet21 person ? Nuf said !


 never denied being taypet21 I thought it was common knowledge


----------



## Mo1959 (6 Dec 2012)

Maybe because it was at the end of the programme, but the bit with the courier cyclists racing like idiots through traffic nearly causing accidents all over the place is the bit that sticks in my mind. Really made me feel embarrassed to call myself a cyclist if people watching think many of us are like that


----------



## ianrauk (6 Dec 2012)

Mo1959 said:


> Maybe because it was at the end of the programme, but the bit with the courier cyclists racing like idiots through traffic nearly causing accidents all over the place is the bit that sticks in my mind. Really made me feel embarrassed to call myself a cyclist if people watching think many of us are like that


 

There was no need to have the piece in the programme. But can see why the producers used it for sensational purposes.


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> OK Apologies if I quoted wrong.
> 
> However the context of the way it was used for the vid was racist.


Apology accepted, in my mind I knew what I meant when I wrote the title of the video but it was taken the wrong way & I changed it, I learnt that not everyone can read my mind & the last I wanted was for people to think I was racist when I am not, it happened, I regret it, I have learnt from it & I hope other people will


----------



## tongskie01 (6 Dec 2012)

lets not forget, this isnt about cycle campaign but the realities on the roads. this is for the general public not just for motorist or cyclist. when i watched it, i distanced myself from being a cyclist and i thought it was ok and balanced.


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2012)

SomethingLikeThat said:


> I'm not sure how much of an effect this programme will have long-term, I think people will eventually just forget about it.


 
It will be a topic of conversation for a week or two, then gone !


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

Leodis said:


> I don't know what to think about Locker, the fact that he knocked someone down and blamed her or the fact he uses an electric bike


"the fact i use an electric bike" what is it now a war "cyclists against electric cyclists" stop trying to join in on the abusive comments it won`t work, it happened, i regret it, Gaz is my saviour I am a changed cyclist


----------



## vernon (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> I did not mention "Black" or "Fat", stop being a twat, I changed it because some people seen something that wasn`t there as you did


 
It's what I didn't see that coloured (sic) my opinion of you.


----------



## BentMikey (6 Dec 2012)

Well, I didn't see the racist aspect, but then I have quite a different cultural background. I'll just withhold any judgement since I don't feel qualified to know whether it was or not.

Hopefully taypet has learned from the video and from our condemnation of his riding there.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Apology accepted, in my mind I knew what I meant when I wrote the title of the video but it was taken the wrong way & I changed it, I learnt that not everyone can read my mind & the last I wanted was for people to think I was racist when I am not, it happened, I regret it, I have learnt from it & I hope other people will


 

I am glad you can see why people would be/were upset about it.


----------



## Sore Thumb (6 Dec 2012)

*BBC1's War on Britain's Roads doc may breach BBC editorial guidelines*

Bike Biz

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/bb...-cycling-footage-as-standard-behaviour/014036


----------



## davefb (6 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> There was no need to have the piece in the programme. But can see why the producers used it for sensational purposes.


why not show this then ?

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_dK5PDEEqc

or these tools ?

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQJwN46wNQ4

or these..

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYSt5T0NRcM

grumble.....


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Dec 2012)

One thing, quite glad Strava didn't get a mention...


----------



## ianrauk (6 Dec 2012)

davefb said:


> why not show this then ?
> 
> 
> grumble.....


 
Indeed...
The producers wanted maximum impact of 'naughty cyclists'... AlleyCat was perfect for it.


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

I think that I will have second thoughts if I was asked to participate in something like this again, at the time (nearly a year ago) it seemed fun & I would be on tv, (what a twat I was), my video`s were only worth showing on You`re been framed & I now regret providing them.
Gaz, I believe, really thought he could do some good & the editing only proved that you can never trust a tv producer, but it did have its good points.


----------



## HaloJ (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> I think that I will have second thoughts if I was asked to participate in something like this again, at the time (nearly a year ago) it seemed fun & I would be on tv, (what a twat I was), my video`s were only worth showing on You`re been framed & I now regret providing them.
> Gaz, I believe, really thought he could do some good & the editing only proved that you can never trust a tv producer, but it did have its good points.


 
Yes, I was somewhat relieved that the piece I gave permission for wasn't used.


----------



## theclaud (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Apology accepted, in my mind I knew what I meant when I wrote the title of the video but it was taken the wrong way & I changed it, I learnt that not everyone can read my mind & *the last I wanted was for people to think I was racist when I am not*, it happened, I regret it, I have learnt from it & I hope other people will


 
Just sexist then. Assuming that you don't mind people thinking that?


----------



## Beebo (6 Dec 2012)

Regardless of any BBC programme another cyclist was killed in London this morning, details are sketchy, but it looks as if a lorry was involved!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20624639


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Dec 2012)

2190351 said:


> I'm just glad I wasn't approached so my vanity never had a chance to kick in.


 Yeah me too - although my YT channel looks like this, so there was never any chance.


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

theclaud said:


> Just sexist then. Assuming that you don't mind people thinking that?


----------



## DiddlyDodds (6 Dec 2012)

Thank god i dont live in London , give me the nice peacfull lanes and roads up t north .

I like the first part with Gaz and the Taxi driver , to start with at each others throats , then as each one looked back at in on camera, both came across as decent people who where just trying to get along, i wonder how they felt watching the other on TV and seeing their side.


----------



## Sore Thumb (6 Dec 2012)

Oh dear, Oh dear

Comments from another forum below

"Watched thsi last night and wondered if the self-opinionated trouble-seeking cyclist-t



t has died in the meantime! A lot of very bad cyclists, completely ignoring the Highway Code, being dangerous to one and all, and being aggressive. Also some poor driving by some car drivers. Put these 2 things in the mix and you're going to get hurt, one way or another! 

Also glad to see that the police DO do something sometimes against the Lycra Terrorists!

As for the young lady who got killed by a truck turning left, a tragedy no doubt, but she really should have known better than to try to go down the inside of a truck or bus. But also glad that her mums work has led to better safety features in the cabs of trucks for town traffic."


It looks like the program has reinforced peoples negative views of cyclists.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/...nmt=War+on+Britain's+Roads+-+9PM+BBC1+Tonight


----------



## DCLane (6 Dec 2012)

I watched it this morning and it wasn't _that _bad. @Gaz - you did OK, honest.

I've been asked about it at work today, so people were watching. However, the view I've had is that it showed the good and bad of both sides.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2012)

DiddlyDodds said:


> Thank god i dont live in London , give me the nice peacfull lanes and roads up t north ..


well, the odd thing is that this view from the suburbs somehow forgot to mention that cycling is booming in London and is way safer than other parts of the country.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> I think that I will have second thoughts if I was asked to participate in something like this again, at the time (nearly a year ago) it seemed fun & I would be on tv, (what a twat I was), my video`s were only worth showing on You`re been framed & I now regret providing them.
> .


we really regret that your video was used. Next time you crash in to a pedestrian, switch the camera off first.


----------



## Grendel (6 Dec 2012)

PaulSB said:


> I'm quite happy to believe that. Unfortunately that won't be the impression gained by several million people. *His contribution often came over as self-satisfied and close to smirking in places.*
> 
> He said on reflection he could have reacted better - I'm sure the majority will remember what they saw not what he said.
> 
> The only women in the programme was magnificent. Dave from Glasgow really good as was Simon the lawyer and his friend.


 
That was my thoughts as well. Some people do get nervous and appear to be inappropriately smirking when they don't mean to be though.


----------



## Grendel (6 Dec 2012)

mr_cellophane said:


> Droid saying that he got the camera to "trap" bad drivers was very ill judged. But then his road positioning at times is not the best, *especially when that van and trailer squeezed him*.


If I recall correctly the footage showed the road lanes split just ahead for left turn and straight ahead. I assumed that he was in the left side of the right lane to go straight on?


----------



## RWright (6 Dec 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> lets not forget, this isnt about cycle campaign but the realities on the roads. this is for the general public not just for motorist or cyclist. when i watched it, i distanced myself from being a cyclist and i thought it was ok and balanced.


 
I felt the same way. I just finished watching it. I thought it made the cyclist and the drivers seem like good people, except for the really stupid one throwing punches and his posse. The part with the racing in the streets was over the top but I think most people watching would realize that those guys won't last very long riding like that.

I think that show had several touching parts that may put a little more humanity in the viewers and hopefully make both drivers and riders more aware of the others situations. I though Gaz and the others from here did a fine job.


----------



## theclaud (6 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> Oh dear, Oh dear
> 
> Comments from another forum below
> 
> ...


 
It's Pistonheads, FFS - cyclists _existing_ reinforces their negative view of cyclists.


----------



## PK99 (6 Dec 2012)

BigonaBianchi said:


> I bet to plod cyclists in uniform get zero harrassment from the coward drivers ..*.maybe I'll dress up like a cop cyclist* ...joking...but something has got to be done to stop this madness and aggression displaid by drivers.
> 
> .


 
i see a lot of horse riders out in surrey with yellow high viz, with a blue and white strip at the top and Polite notice

http://www.hyperdrug.co.uk/Equisafe...stcoat-Please-Slow-Down/productinfo/POLITEWC/

They seem to get alot more respect from other road users


----------



## jonny jeez (6 Dec 2012)

bromptonfb said:


> Soooooooo glad I don't commute in London......CHAOS!!!


and that is the lasting message I think it left.

a real shame.

I thought Gaz was edited in a poor light.
Cab driver who could not accept his own failure worried me.
Mags came across well
Cab driver who ended by commenting on his grandsons death was touching and surprising.
The Bexley incident with the lawyer and surveyor was shown in a good light (they were edited very positively)

But the whole programme lost its end (and eventual) message of cooperation in the midst of a bunch of irrelevant videos that simply helped to enrage and entrench each side of the viewing public.

A truly astonishing film would have "exposed" the reality that there is no such war, that cycling in cities is a joy, that thousands upon thousands of riders enjoy the experience every minute of the day without a single issue. Sometimes people loose it and when they do they are often contrite literally moments later, its fear, its adrenalin, its an unnatural state that no-one can spend their entire day living within.

shame


----------



## PK99 (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> I did not mention "Black" or "Fat", stop being a twat, I changed it because some people seen something that wasn`t there as you did


 
For the sake of clarity, would you care to post here the title you did originally use?

IIRC it included the phrase "Big Mamma" : Many folks seemed to infer a racist and sexist undertone, maybe you would care to set the record straight?


----------



## Grendel (6 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Oh right yes, I forgot that was you.
> 
> I think hitting pedestrains is the worst thing the a cyclist can do. They have no protective equipment on and often arent concentrating (like the guy with the bus).
> 
> ...


 
Aren't cyclepaths "shared use" unless they are marked with seperate pedestrian/cycle lanes?


----------



## RWright (6 Dec 2012)

The lady getting knocked down by the bike did look bad. Bike was going too fast for the congestion there.


----------



## grumpyoldgit (6 Dec 2012)

How do you edit 'I will command the road'?(arrogant terwatt),or'There is no space to overtake,so I am not going to give you the space'?There is either space or there is not.


----------



## Oldspice (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> Lets not forget what an idiot & complete T0$$er you are, I did not mention any racial remarks at all, it refered to Martin Lawrence`s film Big Momma, get a life & write something constructive for a change


 
What happend to the person you knocked down. Did she sue you or have any medical problems brought on by you hitting her.


----------



## benborp (6 Dec 2012)

Part of this clip was used in the programme last night. What makes it special though is what happens after the near miss.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekSMrAL-N9E


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> For the sake of clarity, would you care to post here the title you did originally use?
> 
> IIRC it included the phrase "Big Mamma" : Many folks seemed to infer a racist and sexist undertone, maybe you would care to set the record straight?


 
People with small minds lack storage space


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> Part of this clip was used in the programme last night. What makes it special though is what happens after the near miss.
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekSMrAL-N9E



I'd forgotten that, Ben. And, yes, as you say, the interesting bit is afterwards. If it had been me I'd have got him to sit down - he looked as if he might keel over


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> People with small minds lack storage space


so what was the original title?


----------



## grumpyoldgit (6 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> Part of this clip was used in the programme last night. What makes it special though is what happens after the near miss.
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekSMrAL-N9E



Genuine guy,nice response.


----------



## HaloJ (6 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> Part of this clip was used in the programme last night. What makes it special though is what happens after the near miss.


 
That's superb, thanks for linking.


----------



## benborp (6 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> How do you edit 'I will command the road'?(arrogant terwatt),or'There is no space to overtake,so I am not going to give you the space'?There is either space or there is not.


 
Interviewer: What will you do in a situation where maybe it's not clear that you need more space to make a manoeuvre? Is this one of those times that you will 'command the road'.

Gaz: I will command the road. There are times when it's necessary to take a strong position so that other road users can clearly see my intentions and have time to respond to my manoeuvres. This helps towards smoother negotiation over road space.


'There is no space to overtake, so I am not going to give you the space.'

Meaning there is either space to overtake safely or there is not. In such a situation many passing take the option to pass dangerously.

Good cycling, to Bikeability standards is often perceived as arrogant for some reason.


----------



## Bollo (6 Dec 2012)

I didn't want to watch the programme, but was overruled by the Doris. It was an odd old mix that reminded me of the post-footy talk-shows on 5 Live ( "Tonight on Tony Livsey we're asking you about penis enlargement, tomorrow we'll be tackling climate change"). The cycle cop and mother were both worthy of documentaries in their own right but much of the rest was just bear-baiting. A day of rage on the forums, but it'll move the safety/behaviour of cyclists on not one bit.

Wow - back in commuting after all these years!


----------



## grumpyoldgit (6 Dec 2012)

Silly me,I thought I had said this already ' Meaning there is either space to overtake safely or there is not. In such a situation many passing take the option to pass dangerously. '
Oh yes,so I had,you must have missed this in your haste to defend your hero.


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> so what was the original title?


If you want to open another thead about this you are quite welcome to, the last one was 42 pages I believe, it was 18 months ago, give it a rest this thead is about the film last night not about me or your cravings to establish that I was in the wrong, which I was, or that there was racist tones to the title which I changed asap & stated on the video that no racist tones were intended & any racist comments would be deleted


----------



## benborp (6 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> Silly me,I thought I had said this already ' Meaning there is either space to overtake safely or there is not. In such a situation many passing take the option to pass dangerously. '
> Oh yes,so I had,you must have missed this in your haste to defend your hero.


 
Sorry, you quoted Gaz as saying 'There is no space to overtake,so I am not going to give you the space' and then said 'There is either space or there is not'

You did not say 'Meaning there is either space to overtake safely or there is not. In such a situation many passing take the option to pass dangerously.' I did in an attempt to refine your statement.

I'm not looking to defend Gaz. He's not my hero. You asked how Gaz's statements could be edited. I gave examples of how in conversation or an interview they could have been presented, qualified or clarified to appear less abrasive.


----------



## Grendel (6 Dec 2012)

Beebo said:


> Regardless of any BBC programme another cyclist was killed in London this morning, details are sketchy, but it looks as if a lorry was involved!
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20624639


 And it's not just cyclists...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-20622921


----------



## Rochenko (6 Dec 2012)

Overall, the BBC's permanent and frustrating quest for 'balance' was at fault here, resulting in a prog that was nothing but counterposed tit-for-tat anecdotes without any context.



Adequate context might have included:


the Highway Code and the duty of care it imposes on drivers for more vulnerable road users,
the TRL stats which show the vast majority of RTCs involving cars and bikes are the driver's fault, and 

the fact that 'taking the lane' (which the prog suggested was just vigilantism) is recommended best practice from TfL/DfT/IAM/AA/Bikeability. 
Without this kind of context, all you get is a lot of angry people in a room shouting at each other, and someone just telling them all to 'be nice', like a nursery school teacher.

When you are a motorist, you have extra responsibility because you have extra power - power to harm and to kill. Without recognition of that basic point, and the basic *imbalance* of the situation that follows from it, all 'balance' is just bollox.


----------



## Scruffmonster (6 Dec 2012)

People complaining that this programme didn't portray cycling in a good light kind of miss the point. It didn't try to.

It sought to portray the two warring factions. Cyclists and other road users. Gaz used the term 'War'. He can complain about it being an unfair edit - and plenty of people here seem to tesify to that - but a lot of silly things were said.

Helmet Camera cyclists are generally bad for cycling. Their intentions are good, but they feed the Us Vs Them mentality and make things worse. They add fuel to the fire and never try to put it out. They're more interested in 'Likes' and 'Views' over any tangible positive effect.

If these cyclists truly wanted to effect change with a camera there are so many things that they could do. Pick a terrible road junction on your commute, used by lots of commuters. Document it daily, produce a combination of videos, send it to the relevant agencies. Suggest changes for that section of road. Maybe it's the removal of a railing, or that a certain kerb is too high/long. Maybe an ASL needs repainting, or you've noticed that a cycle path could benefit from being a bit wider near a junction. Maybe a sign obscures a view at a certain key point.It may take 2 years to change one thing, but you could truly save a life. You could cycle through there and think 'I did this. I made this better'. That's simply one idea.

There are so many things that you guys could do. You just can't be bothered to do real things, as you really don't care enough. I'm sure that a tiny minority do actually go further, and I salute you. It's a job that I'm not taking on. I too am too busy and too lazy. I admit it.

Yet I don't post confrontational videos on the internet. I don't seek to highlight the bad in a tiny insignificant minority of drivers to kid myself that I'm saving people. You're not. You may educate a certain number of cyclists, you may help the odd few in other ways, but the time you put in, charging batteries, downloading, uploading, editing, commenting... It's a waste of good intentions, a waste of a life.

I genuinely do applaud your starting point. The pocket full of good intentions and a desire to change things.... I just really wish you'd all take a moment to think how much more you could achieve if you used that energy in a more productive way.


----------



## CopperCyclist (6 Dec 2012)

davefb said:


> I've always wondered why that isn't an offence , when to tick "i dont know" on a speeding camera is an offence?
> 
> (unless you're a footballer and can sign affadavits saying you don't know who had the car)..



It is an offence, and I think from other previous stories the owner was charged with it - but that still doesn't get us the name we really want.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (6 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> Genuine guy,nice response.


 
Didn't show that apology bit,nice guy.Made a mistake,we've all done it.


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> People complaining that this programme didn't portray cycling in a good light kind of miss the point. It didn't try to.
> 
> It sought to portray the two warring factions. Cyclists and other road users. Gaz used the term 'War'. He can complain about it being an unfair edit - and plenty of people here seem to tesify to that - but a lot of silly things were said.
> 
> ...


----------



## apb (6 Dec 2012)

Just watched about 10 mins, I think some of the bad cycling behavior expressed in this show was taken out of context.

For example there is a scene where a cyclist is behind a cement trunk stop in traffic about 3 or 4 cars deep. The cyclist has a look up the road then mounts the footpath and that was all we saw.

I believe, assume, He was looking to see if there was a bike box at the read light. Since there was no space to filter through the traffic he mounted a clear footpath to then access the cycle box at the red light. Is this bad behavior? I would say he was doing his lungs a favour.

The the old Taxi guy came across to me as a really nice guy, from what i saw. Though he was pointing out the cyclist in a suit RLJing. I thought the cyclist was aware of the light changing patterns, as he probably cycling part of his day to day route, and was just jumping the red light before turning green, giving him a more commanding / safer position on the road. Again, no problem with that.

These are things you get to know as a cyclist.

The guy who got sandwiched between two overtaking white vans was in a terrible road position, not that that is an excuse.

Am i wrong?


----------



## grumpyoldgit (6 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> Sorry, you quoted Gaz as saying 'There is no space to overtake,so I am not going to give you the space' and then said 'There is either space or there is not'
> 
> You did not say 'Meaning there is either space to overtake safely or there is not. In such a situation many passing take the option to pass dangerously.' I did in an attempt to refine your statement.
> 
> I'm not looking to defend Gaz. He's not my hero. You asked how Gaz's statements could be edited. I gave examples of how in conversation or an interview they could have been presented, qualified or clarified to appear less abrasive.


Sorry,misunderstood you.
This Gaz fella,strange name for parents to give an offspring,sets out looking for trouble,& is shocked when he finds it,absolutely crapping himself when he gets the reaction that he pushes so hard for,'I have got a helmet cam',right ,so this makes him superman.He is no better,or worse,than the jerk in the silver car.


----------



## Beebo (6 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Helmet Camera cyclists are generally bad for cycling. ......
> If these cyclists truly wanted to effect change with a camera there are so many things that they could do.


I defence of Gaz, he does far more than 99% of helmet camera users for cyclist awareness and education with his silly cyclist videos. 
The other Droid fella is just a bit of a knob.


----------



## Leodis (6 Dec 2012)

Learnt a fair bit from Gaz, mainly how to back down when approached by an angry taxi driver. 

On a serious note before I started cycling a year ago I was scared stiff, hadnt been on a bike for 20 years. After wachting silly cyclist and reading best practice books I can say I have not yet been killed or knocked off, though been daft at time yes but I feel a pretty aware cyclist. (touch wood)


----------



## grumpyoldgit (6 Dec 2012)

I followed the link to pistonheads,apart from a few juvenile idiots,I was surprised at a reasonably balanced (I did say reasonably) veiwpoint is being taken on there.


----------



## cd365 (6 Dec 2012)

I watched it last night with my wife, son and his girlfriend, all drivers. They were a bit shocked when they saw some of the near misses and the actual collisions. Especially when I would make comments like "that has happened to me", they could see how some of the overtakes were really close, I don't think they realised how it looks/feels to the cyclists. SO I am hoping it will make them a bit more considerate if they weren't already!

At the start I had hoped that the cyclist who come across as a bit smug wasn't Gaz, but it was. As has been said he wasn't edited in a very good light and I agree with the others who said that the program should have explained why he took some of his correct road positioning.

The copper on the bike came across badly, especially when he sided with the cab driver. He should have been told that if they cyclist can touch your cab then you are WAY TOO CLOSE.

Overall I didn't think the program was too bad.


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Dec 2012)

Where is @Gaz, Cabby abducted him?


----------



## gaz (6 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> How do you edit 'I will command the road'?(arrogant terwatt),or'There is no space to overtake,so I am not going to give you the space'?There is either space or there is not.


Don't take everything at face value, it's easy to cut around what I said, there would have been sentences before and after those statements which puts them into context.


----------



## gaz (6 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> Sorry,misunderstood you.
> This Gaz fella,strange name for parents to give an offspring,sets out looking for trouble,& is shocked when he finds it,absolutely crapping himself when he gets the reaction that he pushes so hard for,'I have got a helmet cam',right ,so this makes him superman.He is no better,or worse,than the jerk in the silver car.


stop being such a grump old git.


----------



## CopperCyclist (6 Dec 2012)

The program now needs two follow ups. One completely from the side of the driver. They can highlight how 'our' red light jumping etc affects them, how we filter up the side of trucks, what they want from us (eg pay road tax) etc and how they think it'll all help. 

We can then have a 'cyclists' side, where we can get across what we want I.e. the pointlessness of 'road tax' for us, the importance and reasons behind our positioning etc. 

It may then all iron out!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> Don't take everything at face value, it's easy to cut around what I said, there would have been sentences before and after those statements which puts them into context.


If drivers think I'm deliberately blocking their way when I ride assertively then, so be it, I will command the road.


----------



## grumpyoldgit (6 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> Don't take everything at face value, it's easy to cut around what I said, there would have been sentences before and after those statements which puts them into context.


Were the bits with you chasing cars & antagonising drivers clever editing as well?
As I stated,you are no better,or worse,than the jerk in the silver car. You provoke violence,& get shocked & upset when someone delivers.That doesnt make the aggressor right,just human.


----------



## veloevol (6 Dec 2012)

"I will be honest with you I tend not to command the road" this statement could be edited to say the opposite.


----------



## Dan B (6 Dec 2012)

2189815 said:


> I had forgotten how awful the alley cat racing was.


Yes, bunch of pansies


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Dec 2012)

Quite surprised Gaz is getting the stick and not the Droid fella? (on other forums).


----------



## veloevol (6 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> .
> 
> If these cyclists truly wanted to effect change with a camera there are so many things that they could do. Pick a terrible road junction on your commute, used by lots of commuters. Document it daily, produce a combination of videos, send it to the relevant agencies. Suggest changes for that section of road. Maybe it's the removal of a railing, or that a certain kerb is too high/long. Maybe an ASL needs repainting, or you've noticed that a cycle path could benefit from being a bit wider near a junction. Maybe a sign obscures a view at a certain key point.It may take 2 years to change one thing, but you could truly save a life. You could cycle through there and think 'I did this. I made this better'. That's simply one idea.
> 
> There are so many things that you guys could do.



Some of us do both and Magnatom campaigns effectively.


----------



## Leodis (6 Dec 2012)

Yeah that Driod has issues


----------



## grumpyoldgit (6 Dec 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> If drivers think I'm deliberately blocking their way when I ride assertively then, so be it, I will command the road.


Or he might have said _Cry God for Harry, England, and Saint George ,but I dont think so.He was conned into thinking he was making constructive TV,his quote cant be justified,so why try?_


----------



## jonny jeez (6 Dec 2012)

User said:


> What a pity the rest of his contributions to the programme were a mix of ignorant ranting and anti-cyclist generalisations...


Quite, hence my surprise


----------



## Scruffmonster (6 Dec 2012)

veloevol said:


> Some of us do both and Magnatom campaigns effectively.


 
I know. I did acknowledge this quite strongly.

I have no issue with cyclists that are genuinely doing positive, proactive things that result in real world results.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2012)

Well I thought that Gaz did brilliantly. I know the junction well, and you either streak away when the lights change and get in front of the cabs, or resign yourself to being passed by one of the buggers and probably cut up. The cab driver in the video put Gaz at some risk (although not much because he's a bit spry on the bike) and launched in to one without any justification whatsoever - he was at fault, not Gaz.

What did surprise me was that no other cyclists stopped. I've seen cabs seriously mobbed around Stockwell. If I see a driver threatening a cyclist (and it's usually women who are being threatened) I'll always stop and help out.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (6 Dec 2012)

Gaz's "I command the road" comment wasn't the only one that was edited to look good, IMO. Probably the "Yeah I know what they're like" comment from the PC was too. The overall position of the programme is clear.


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Well I thought that Gaz did brilliantly. I know the junction well, and you either streak away when the lights change and get in front of the cabs, or resign yourself to being passed by one of the buggers and probably cut up. The cab driver in the video put Gaz at some risk (although not much because he's a bit spry on the bike) and launched in to one without any justification whatsoever - he was at fault, not Gaz.
> 
> What did surprise me was that no other cyclists stopped. I've seen cabs seriously mobbed around Stockwell. If I see a driver threatening a cyclist (and it's usually women who are being threatened) I'll always stop and help out.


 I was amazed at the crowd outside the cafe watching as the guy on the bike got thumped in Bexley, not really surprised I supoose just dissapointed.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Dec 2012)

to be fair that happened very quickly. And the assailant, John Nicholls of Dartford was restrained by somebody.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> Or he might have said _Cry God for Harry, England, and Saint George ,but I dont think so.He was conned into thinking he was making constructive TV,his quote cant be justified,so why try?_


I was simply giving an example how the actual words used can be de- or re-contextualised by editing.


----------



## grumpyoldgit (6 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> I was amazed at the crowd outside the cafe watching as the guy on the bike got thumped in Bexley, not really surprised I supoose just dissapointed.


One guy did step in,iirc.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> to be fair that happened very quickly. And the assailant, John Nicholls was restrained by somebody.


Yes, his passenger, who knew JN had completely lost it.


----------



## grumpyoldgit (6 Dec 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I was simply giving an example how the actual words used can be de- or re-contextualised by editing.


I know,but if anything,it made it worse.When at the bottom of a hole,throw the shovel away.


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> to be fair that happened very quickly. And the assailant, John Nicholls of Dartford was restrained by somebody.





grumpyoldgit said:


> One guy did step in,iirc.



Didn't know that just saw the person standing there arms folded.


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2012)

Car crash TV - watched half of it - think the rest needs a bottle of wine before hand. Not seen trafficdroid's contribution yet


----------



## PK99 (6 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> Don't take everything at face value, it's easy to cut around what I said, there would have been sentences before and after those statements which puts them into context.


 
I like most of the stuff you post, both here and on youtube and think overall your contribution is positive.

But mebbe you should ask yourself if the edit was deliberate distortion to push the producers agenda or whether it was a fair reflection of the overall attitude you presented in the interview and elswhere.

Just picking on your Croydon Cyclist post 21 October. I understand the adrenaline driven expletive outburst, but 10 seconds later you pull up alongside and verbally tear the driver a new one before he has a chance to speak. Mebbe, the driver, like the motorcyclist in the full clip from the programme last night, would have been equally contrite had you first of all pointed out to him just how close and dangerous his pass had been. You seemed to assume his pass had been deliberate. If he had given you a mouthful then the moral high ground would have bee retained (along with further evidence) by simply telling him we was on video and *would* be reported to the police

I don't ride with a camera but have done as i suggest following close passes, often with positive results. One occasion a while a go in Teddington, I asked the guy to wind down his window (by gesture not rapping on it) and said I felt he had been too close, his response was that I had been a long way out from the parked cars, I told him that was to keep safe by avoiding the door zone the same way he drives some way out. His response was to apologise "I hadn't though of it that way"

In my experience, most conflict on the road arises from ignorance, misunderstanding and simple error. To think or speak in terms of "War" and "Us and Them" is counter productive to the objective of making the roads safer.


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Dec 2012)

To be fair as I said in my earlier post the biggest risk for me riding in London traffic would the ability to catch up with the drivers before the adrenaline subsides and my normal easy going personality returns. 

I am sure I would adjust to it in a c'est la vie kind of way, but it would take a few run ins before that would kick in.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (6 Dec 2012)

I have zero rspect for bad drivers and nothing will ever change that opinion. They are are nothing to me except a threat to my life and I will treat them with contempt if they treat me as such.


----------



## BSRU (6 Dec 2012)

fossyant said:


> Car crash TV - watched half of it - think the rest needs a bottle of wine before hand. Not seen trafficdroid's contribution yet


I think you'll need more than a bottle to watch trafficdroids main contribution, unfortunately it was an incident where many other YouTubers condemned him for piss poor road positioning, he was lane splitting and then after the incident he had a massive road rage fit. Note the overtake by the van with trailer was outrageously dangerous but if trafficdroid had been in a lane it would not have occurred.


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2012)

BSRU said:


> I think you'll need more than a bottle to watch trafficdroids main contribution.


 
Orders a crate !


----------



## mickle (6 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> Sorry,misunderstood you.
> This Gaz fella,strange name for parents to give an offspring,sets out looking for trouble,& is shocked when he finds it,absolutely crapping himself when he gets the reaction that he pushes so hard for,'I have got a helmet cam',right ,so this makes him superman.He is no better,or worse,than the jerk in the silver car.


You're rude, and you're wrong.


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/embed/W9fwA-ntF4Y
just seen this


----------



## grumpyoldgit (6 Dec 2012)

mickle said:


> You're rude, and you're wrong.


Rude?Probably.Wrong?No,he sets out looking for trouble.


----------



## veloevol (6 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> Rude?Probably.Wrong?No,he sets out looking for trouble.



I detect envy


----------



## Jimmy Doug (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> http://www.youtube.com/embed/W9fwA-ntF4Y
> just seen this


 
It's shoot!


----------



## Davidsw8 (6 Dec 2012)

So, I missed this last night and will see if I can catch it on iPlayer later. I'm gathering from the chat here that I may not like the portrayal of cyclists shown though?


----------



## Davidsw8 (6 Dec 2012)

[QUOTE 2190915, member: 1314"]By nature of the videos themselves and the “type” of person who uses them – mainly men – they’re not really representative of the London cycling community. I don’t mean the cycling cam-corder men are bad because they are cam-corder men – I love Gaz, BentMikey and Origamist and consider them great cycling role models who care about, and work for, London cycling – just that they are not really representative of the wider London cycling community. In fairness, if I think about my route, SW London ‘burbs/CS7 which I know very well, blokes are probably representative of about 2/3s of the commuting cyclists. 

And the videos are edited for the dramatic bits – the incidents etc, so given with the kind of rider who uses them they do give a skewed picture of what the London roads are actually like. I assert confidently that London roads are safer then those in the countryside or in the ‘burbs, and on days off, I actually choose to cycle in London to relax, rather than head for the Surrey Hills or whatever.

I get the programme was as much about the novelty of cycling cam-corders as anything – that novelty bundled into a war/road-space package to theme it and sell it. I think it’s time, with the London cycling boom, that there was a thoughtful, insightful documentary about London cycling aimed at all ages – get the kids cycling to schools, Sunday pashley occasional, the Velodromists etc – showing how SAFE, liberating , efficient and fun cycling in London actually is. Perhaps that’s something LCC or CTC should put their weight behind.[/quote]

There are definitely some cycle camera guys around that are very militant and I guess it's good to have an extreme counterbalance to every kind of behaviour, i.e. the motorists who are militantly anti-cyclist, so I get your point that a lot of the footage won't depict your average cyclist.

However, it's surprising just how many cyclists are using cameras these days who are just your standard commuter pootling along to work and back. Both me and my partner have cameras, I upload the bad incidents to Youtube when I've either made a complaint or to highlight something particularly stupid or unusual.

He never uploads his to the web but will send copies to the companies of people who have done something stupid, i.e. one guy in a van who sped past him to run a red light and swerving violently in the road ahead to miss another vehicle coming from the side on green.

We won't get the notoriety of other camera cyclists as our footage isn't quite so dramatic (even though the above example looked a bit hairy)... and long may it remain that way!


----------



## jarlrmai (6 Dec 2012)

So it did what I thought it would do, it essentially managed to create the dichotomy that if someone comes across as "smug" or and "arse" however they edit them, it suddenly makes the act of endangering them equal to the crime of their perceived attitude. This was the only way it could portray some sort of "war" between cyclists riding correctly to the law and the people that endanger was by making this comparison.


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> It's s***!


Well he won`t win X Factor this Saturday that`s for sure


----------



## Phaeton (6 Dec 2012)

What's a good helmet cam to buy?

Alan...


----------



## Davidsw8 (6 Dec 2012)

Phaeton said:


> What's a good helmet cam to buy?
> 
> Alan...


 
I use a Contour Roam HD, about £120 from Amazon, it's been reliable for me, fisheye lens so captures a lot of scope and it's waterproof.


----------



## Oldspice (6 Dec 2012)

locker said:


> ..


 
What happend to the lady you ran over, did she need medical treatment and did she sue you?


----------



## BigonaBianchi (6 Dec 2012)

Helmet cam...x2 front and rear...top of my santa list.


----------



## locker (6 Dec 2012)

Oldspice said:


> What happend to the lady you ran over, did she need medical treatment and did she sue you?


No & No to both questions


----------



## gaz (6 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> Were the bits with you chasing cars & antagonising drivers clever editing as well?
> As I stated,you are no better,or worse,than the jerk in the silver car. You provoke violence,& get shocked & upset when someone delivers.That doesnt make the aggressor right,just human.


I think you are confusing my footage with footage taken by someone else. I did not chase anyone down.


----------



## Leodis (6 Dec 2012)

that footage of the chase... Only to end up begging for forgiveness  still makes me laugh - Which forum member was it?


----------



## ianjmcd (6 Dec 2012)

HLaB said:


> I wasn't really paying attention to the program I was watching the greatest team on earth winning  but didn't the cyclists who were complaining to the bike cop about a taxi say that the driver had said that.


 
Me too i was in the pub watching the game


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2012)

BigonaBianchi said:


> Helmet cam...x2 front and rear...top of my santa list.


 
You are getting coal this year  Santa emailed me the CC christmas list, and you are on the bad boys one !


----------



## Grendel (6 Dec 2012)

I watched this with my wife last night. I cycle and drive, she drives but doesn't cycle. She really didn't get some points about the use of cycle lanes, and why in some of the footage some cyclists used them while others didn't. She did get the bit about commanding the road and thought it reasonable, despite the commentary.
The alley cat footage was gob smacking, but in light of it being revealed as non UGF, probably unnecessary. There are probably more clips out there which would have illustrated their point.

Was I alone in quite liking traffic droid?

If anyone open minded watched it I'm sure they may have learned something, if you went in with an "all drivers/cabbies/cyclists" are tossers attitude, I'm sure you could pick some of the footage apart to suit.
The old cabbie was the biggest revelation, when you heard the "I've been driving for fifty years" line he seemed to fit a preconceived stereotype cab driver profile, which made his revelation at the end all the more shocking.


----------



## ianjmcd (6 Dec 2012)

i dont know about it being a war between cyclists and drivers all it proved was human nature and that there are idiots on both sides


----------



## gaz (6 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> Rude?Probably.Wrong?No,he sets out looking for trouble.


And that is a fact is it?
I'm on target to hit 7,000 miles this year, most of that being done in central london rush traffic. I estimate that in the past year I have overtaken and been passed by over 250,000 vehicles. How many of those have I had an issue with? less than 20.

If I wanted to look for trouble, I should obviously be able to find a lot more... Unfortunately the facts don't agree with you.


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2012)

From the first half of what I've seen, we're a sweary lot when we get hit ?  ******************************


----------



## MrJamie (6 Dec 2012)

I quite enjoyed it, perhaps mostly because of the backstory on familiar videos and cam cyclists. It's interesting how they portrayed them, i thought they tried to make Gaz out as a bit of a stereotypical holier-than-thou cyclist with some of the editing of smirks, Magnatom came accross a lot calmer than I expected and I was expecting them to make TrafficDroid look like a tit, but I thought they really humanised him. It was strange seeing Gaz's Taxi buddy when he wasnt full of rage. Both the trucker and the old cabbie came accross really well i thought.

They did make cycling look dangerous, but I don't think there's a different way to show how vulnerable some road users are. Like most of these programmes and radio shows, theyre too concise and about entertainment to actually get any point accross.


----------



## Doug. (6 Dec 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I've written to the production company withdrawing my consent for the use of my video and they have since ackowledged that it will not be used.
> 
> I would suggest that anyone else who has submitted footage, and would prefer not to be involved with a programme that may well further damage cycling's standing, do the same.
> 
> GC





glasgowcyclist said:


> Thanks for the update Gaz.
> 
> Reading the synopsis I'm glad I removed consent to use one of my videos. I can't see this programme doing anything but further polarise the debate on sharing the roads.
> 
> GC


----------



## davefb (6 Dec 2012)

fossyant said:


> From the first half of what I've seen, we're a sweary lot when we get hit ?  ******************************


 
i swear like a trooper in the car for idiots cutting in or messing about,, but of course nobody hears me ..
what are you going to do when someone tries to kill you , go "crikey" ?


----------



## smokeysmoo (6 Dec 2012)

I thought the lady who lost her Daughter was/is a legend.

The rest of it I can take or leave TBH. 

I don't use a helmet cam, I never have, and I can't imagine I ever will.


----------



## Doug. (6 Dec 2012)

Hello Glasgowcyclist.
I watched your video last night,completely horrifying !!!!!
So pleased your well and sincerely hope no further incidents of this type occur.
Incidentally if I may say I thought you presented your self and fellow cyclists very well.
Warm regards.
Doug. F.


----------



## tincaman (6 Dec 2012)

Its a shame they didn't mention that the lady who lost her daughter is chairperson of Roadpeace.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (6 Dec 2012)

Grendel said:


> Was I alone in quite liking traffic droid?


 
No, I liked him. Clearly a well-meaning guy, but he really needs to learn when to shut up. The part where he broke into tears recollecting his 'encounter' showed that he's probably quite fragile. I mean, apart from the confrontation part, how many of us have had close shaves like his? I had something very similar happen to me recently, with a tractor pulling a massive piece of machinery: he passed me too close and then cut me up, nearly hitting me with the blade of his plough thingy. I don't cry about it, though.


----------



## musa (6 Dec 2012)

i didnt notice the lady was un moved when viewing some clips


15 pages later and finger bashing hey ho


----------



## Jimmy Doug (6 Dec 2012)

Doug. said:


> Hello Glasgowcyclist.
> I watched your video last night,completely horrifying !!!!!
> So pleased your well and sincerely hope no further incidents of this type occur.
> Incidentally if I may say I thought you presented your self and fellow cyclists very well.
> ...


 
Agreed. I was quite admirative. Well done you!


----------



## jonny jeez (6 Dec 2012)

fossyant said:


> From the first half of what I've seen, we're a sweary lot when we get hit ?  ******************************


yep, us humans are a sweary lot when we get hit.


----------



## DiddlyDodds (6 Dec 2012)

On the programme it said the average speed in London is 11mph, I live in a large village close to a large town, I use lanes , minor and trunk roads as well as the Motorway on a weekly basis and over a couple of months my car computer is telling me my average CAR speed is 27mph, and i cycle at an avarage 15mph on the bike.

So does it make it safer to be able to travel at the same speed as cars, being in amongst them, or is safer to be going slower, so once a car has passed its gone on its merry way.


I prefer the latter, but not sure if it’s the safer option as I have only cycled in the City once and after ten minutes thought “sod this”.


----------



## davefb (6 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> No, I liked him. Clearly a well-meaning guy, but he really needs to learn when to shut up. The part where he broke into tears recollecting his 'encounter' showed that he's probably quite fragile. I mean, apart from the confrontation part, how many of us have had close shaves like his? I had something very similar happen to me recently, with a tractor pulling a massive piece of machinery: he passed me too close and then cut me up, nearly hitting me with the blade of his plough thingy. I don't cry about it, though.


wasnt there an interview with a "head doctor" ( not sure what sort  ) who basically said "well yeah, this is basic, these cyclists are showing classic signs of how humans cope ( or not ) when just nearly killed, they'll act agressively , but it's all emotions"...

[edit] i mean, he was interviewed, but it wasn't used 

but obviously 'some nutter cyclists racing thru streets" is better tv


----------



## Scruffmonster (6 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> No, I liked him.


 
I liked him too. He didn't wear a look that said he had all the answers, he didn't seem like he had an ego, he genuinely believed that he was now a force for good.

Bit of an oddball but he was a nice guy.


----------



## jonny jeez (6 Dec 2012)

Doug. said:


> Hello Glasgowcyclist.
> I watched your video last night,completely horrifying !!!!!
> So pleased your well and sincerely hope no further incidents of this type occur.
> Incidentally if I may say I thought you presented your self and fellow cyclists very well.
> ...


Was Glasgow on the show last night then?

I missed that. you're not mistaking him for Dave "scientist" are you? (aka Magnatom of this parish)


----------



## redcard (6 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> Rude?Probably.Wrong?No,he sets out looking for trouble.


 
Do you stalk Gaz, or are you just making an incorrect assumption based on 30 seconds of video?

We all know it's the latter.


----------



## Boris Bajic (6 Dec 2012)

tincaman said:


> Its a shame they didn't mention that the lady who lost her daughter is chairperson of *Roadpeace*.


 
The chap whose death caused his mother to form *Roadpeace* was a pal of mine. He was a motorcyclist rather than a cyclist, but it was grim whatever he was on. 

He rode an XT550, which I collected from a Police pound in my van after the incident. After hitting an RLJ Escort van in the B-Pillar at speed it fitted into the back of my small van without removing any wheels. Seeing it and the van next to each other in the pound was profoundly disturbing. 

I'm glad Roadpeace are still around and the woman in the film is a perfect Chair for them. The bit with her in it was very moving. She came across very well and was very measured and practical in her approach.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (6 Dec 2012)

davefb said:


> wasnt there an interview with a "head doctor" ( not sure what sort  ) who basically said "well yeah, this is basic, these cyclists are showing classic signs of how humans cope ( or not ) when just nearly killed, they'll act agressively , but it's all emotions"...
> 
> [edit] i mean, he was interviewed, but it wasn't used
> 
> but obviously 'some nutter cyclists racing thru streets" is better tv


 
Yeah, I think any of us might have reacted emotionally at the time - for some that emotion could be aggression, others might break into tears; but he was recollecting something that happened several months ago, and it's still affecting him such that he breaks down when talking about it.


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> If I wanted to look for trouble, I should obviously be able to find a lot more... Unfortunately the facts don't agree with you.


Well if you come to where I live then I can garuntee you that you would at least triple those figures.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (6 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Well if you come to where I live then I can garuntee you that you would at least triple those figures.


 
I wonder why they didn't look you up, then.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Well if you come to where I live then I can garuntee you that you would at least triple those figures.


Best leave that to you, eh?


----------



## redcard (6 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Well if you come to where I live then I can garuntee you that you would at least triple those figures.


 
If you went to where Gaz lives I'm sure you would also be able to triple his figures. Easy!


----------



## Jon2 (6 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> No, I liked him. Clearly a well-meaning guy, but he really needs to learn when to shut up. The part where he broke into tears recollecting his 'encounter' showed that he's probably quite fragile. I mean, apart from the confrontation part, how many of us have had close shaves like his? I had something very similar happen to me recently, with a tractor pulling a massive piece of machinery: he passed me too close and then cut me up, nearly hitting me with the blade of his plough thingy. I don't cry about it, though.


 
I got the impression that the incident he was upset about was not recorded on camera, he said something along the lines that the incident was what made him create traffic droid.

Also, his clip that was shown where he was nearly taken out by a van and trailor, yes his road position could have been better, but that doesn't change the fact he passed by two vans, one on each side at the same time. Both were far too close to him, and very scary would be an understatement. I don't know if it's what people here intended, but saying his road position was wrong seems to be trying to justify the actions of the two drivers.

Edit: Someone may have to correct me, but didn't traffic droid say something about being knocked off in the incident he was upset about? I'm sure that would upset me more than the close passes.


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Dec 2012)

Jon2 said:


> Edit: Someone may have to correct me, but didn't traffic droid say something about being knocked off in the incident he was upset about? I'm sure that would upset me more than the close passes.


I have been aware of him from YT before this programme and frankly thought he was a bit of a nutter, but as with most things in life there is a story behind how he behaves. Unless his reaction to an accident "that could have killed me" 3 years ago was made up the fella is only managing to carry on cycling (clearly something he loves) through the superhero persona of TrafficDroid, a cloak for his ongoing fear of getting wiped out again.

Thats how I thought it came across.

I also totally agree with the road postion thing, it should not matter where you are in road no other humans should take such risks with others more fragile than their mode of transport with such a small margin of error.

Same goes for gutter riders or soft secondary riders the FACT is cars lorries etc should nver pass at under a metre. Sad fact is that primary even has to exist in cycling on shared road networks


----------



## benborp (6 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> Yeah, I think any of us might have reacted emotionally at the time - for some that emotion could be aggression, others might break into tears; but he was recollecting something that happened several months ago, and it's still affecting him such that he breaks down when talking about it.


The process of recounting a traumatic experience in these kind of interview situations can have quite a profound effect. Especially with the footage in front of you.
I was interviewed over an incident that was shown last night. Those few seconds of aggression had had little effect over my day to day life in the months that followed. Recounting them as a witness in court wasn't particularly nerve-wracking. But being questioned about my_ feelings _over the incident rather my actions was more challenging. I was also taken back to the place where it happened. I had only passed through the area once before, for about a minute on the day of the attack and yet it felt as if I was returning to somewhere from my childhood. It was a very strange, emotional, experience.

Anyhow, Cynthia Barlow, through RoadPeace, has issued a press release:
http://www.roadpeace.org/resources/PR_061212_War_on_Britains_Roads.pdf


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Dec 2012)

smokeysmoo said:


> I don't use a helmet cam, I never have, and I can't imagine I ever will.


 Nor me, but my views on those that do has softened in as much as I am quite glad they do, hopefully in the future it might make a few people think twice before doing something silly or even worse like the Bexley incident.


----------



## veloevol (6 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> No, I liked him. Clearly a well-meaning guy, but he really needs to learn when to shut up. The part where he broke into tears recollecting his 'encounter' showed that he's probably quite fragile. I mean, apart from the confrontation part, how many of us have had close shaves like his? I had something very similar happen to me recently, with a tractor pulling a massive piece of machinery: he passed me too close and then cut me up, nearly hitting me with the blade of his plough thingy. I don't cry about it, though.


real men cry


----------



## BentMikey (6 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> No, I liked him. Clearly a well-meaning guy, but he really needs to learn when to shut up. The part where he broke into tears recollecting his 'encounter' showed that he's probably quite fragile. I mean, apart from the confrontation part, how many of us have had close shaves like his? I had something very similar happen to me recently, with a tractor pulling a massive piece of machinery: he passed me too close and then cut me up, nearly hitting me with the blade of his plough thingy. I don't cry about it, though.


 
Oh no mate, I think you misunderstood. He was recalling his (I think fairly serious) crash caused by another driver entirely some time ago, and that particular video brought it all back to him. It's since that crash that he got the cameras and became the droid.


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> I wonder why they didn't look you up, then.


They were searching early this year. I got my cam in March and hadnt uploaded anything worth watching really. Things have changed now.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (6 Dec 2012)

DiddlyDodds said:


> On the programme it said the average speed in London is 11mph, I live in a large village close to a large town, I use lanes , minor and trunk roads as well as the Motorway on a weekly basis and over a couple of months my car computer is telling me my average CAR speed is 27mph, and i cycle at an avarage 15mph on the bike.
> 
> So does it make it safer to be able to travel at the same speed as cars, being in amongst them, or is safer to be going slower, so once a car has passed its gone on its merry way.
> 
> ...


 
You get used to it,it's no big deal.


----------



## Sandra6 (6 Dec 2012)

Well, I enjoyed it for what it was, a random compilation show. It didn't really make any points and will no doubt fuel the anti-cyclist mob and amuse or irk the actual cyclists depending on their mindset.
I loved the guy with his cards "you'll be on you tube in 48hours" Classic. The way he caught the RLJer was brilliant - then left him hanging when he offered a fist bump!!! 
I was quite surprised with what Gaz actually looks like, I never imagined him like that - not that I spend many an hour imagining you or anything Gaz 
Apart from the courier's racing, I'd seen all the clips before, but it was good to hear the story behind them in more detail.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (6 Dec 2012)

Jon2 said:


> I got the impression that the incident he was upset about was not recorded on camera, he said something along the lines that the incident was what made him create traffic droid.
> 
> Also, his clip that was shown where he was nearly taken out by a van and trailor, yes his road position could have been better, but that doesn't change the fact he passed by two vans, one on each side at the same time. Both were far too close to him, and very scary would be an understatement. I don't know if it's what people here intended, but saying his road position was wrong seems to be trying to justify the actions of the two drivers.
> 
> Edit: Someone may have to correct me, but didn't traffic droid say something about being knocked off in the incident he was upset about? I'm sure that would upset me more than the close passes.


 

I think you're right on all points


----------



## PK99 (6 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> They were searching early this year. I got my cam in March and *hadnt uploaded anything worth watching really. Things have changed now.*


 
some might disagree with your view on that


----------



## Jimmy Doug (6 Dec 2012)

veloevol said:


> real men cry


 
Don't get me wrong on this - I'm not saying he's a wimp. I'm the first man to cry. I was saying that the fact that he _still_ cries shows that his experience has traumatised him more profoundly than I think the incident shown on film should. But, I think Jon2 raised some important points about this.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (6 Dec 2012)

@Gaz. I'd really like to know how you feel about that taxi driver now. Have you seen him since the 'event'? I know my attitude towards him softened as the show progressed. At first I thought he was an agressive thug.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (6 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> some might disagree with your view on that


 
Heh,I was going to reply to this but im too polite.


----------



## akb (6 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> I like most of the stuff you post, both here and on youtube and think overall your contribution is positive.
> 
> But mebbe you should ask yourself if the edit was deliberate distortion to push the producers agenda or whether it was a fair reflection of the overall attitude you presented in the interview and elswhere.
> 
> ...


Mebbe?! Wtf


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Dec 2012)

Doug. said:


> Hello Glasgowcyclist.
> I watched your video last night,completely horrifying !!!!!
> So pleased your well and sincerely hope no further incidents of this type occur.
> Incidentally if I may say I thought you presented your self and fellow cyclists very well.
> ...


Hi,

thanks but I think you've mistaken me for someone else.

I withdrew my video and took no part in the documentary. Going by what I've read on here I'm glad I didn't.

GC


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (6 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> @Gaz. I'd really like to know how you feel about that taxi driver now. Have you seen him since the 'event'? I know my attitude towards him softened as the show progressed. At first I thought he was an agressive thug.


I didn't soften to him, despite the pretty clear evidence he still couldn't see how his driver wasn't acceptable. Yes both parties admitted they over reacted but I don't think the driver showed any signs of remorse, as far as he appeared to be concerned he hadn't hit Gaz so it was an OK pass. 

Overall the show wasn't as bad as I'd expected. Watched it with the wife (who point blank refuses to watch my footage), I'd already seen most of the headline incidents but she was squirming a few times. 

Was really sad seeing the lorry kill that young girl and the taxi driver was a heartening twist. 

Was interesting getting some of the Droids back story, agree with others who said he appears to be using TrafficDroid as an alter ego coping mechanism. Had quite a few hits on one of my first Droid encounter video, mostly comments supporting him but a few nasty ones that soon got "dealt" with.


----------



## akb (6 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Things have changed now.



Your cycling and road attitude has got worse?! Surely being a helmet can cyclist, it should be the other way round by means of learning from your videos and not putting your self in dangerous positions or confrontations?


----------



## CopperCyclist (6 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> Don't get me wrong on this - I'm not saying he's a wimp. I'm the first man to cry. I was saying that the fact that he _still_ cries shows that his experience has traumatised him more profoundly than I think the incident shown on film should. But, I think Jon2 raised some important points about this.



As BentMikey pointed out, the incident he cried about was not shown on film. There was no film of that - it was what prompted him to get a cam, so we can all only guess at how bad it was or wasn't. As you said, it clearly still affect him.


----------



## mr_cellophane (6 Dec 2012)

The cyclist who came out best last night was mikey, followed closely by Maggers


----------



## Leodis (6 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> They were searching early this year. I got my cam in March and hadnt uploaded anything worth watching really. Things have changed now.


 
Just looked up your video of being told off by the blue van driver... lol how I chuckled.


----------



## akb (6 Dec 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> The program now needs two follow ups. One completely from the side of the driver. They can highlight how 'our' red light jumping etc affects them, how we filter up the side of trucks, what they want from us (eg pay road tax) etc and how they think it'll all help.
> 
> We can then have a 'cyclists' side, where we can get across what we want I.e. the pointlessness of 'road tax' for us, the importance and reasons behind our positioning etc.
> 
> It may then all iron out!



And a half hour episode of Gaz's Silly Cyclist exactly as they are on YouTube.


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (6 Dec 2012)

Well I really enjoyed it, frightened my wife a LOT,....
But I really thought the cyclist police guy was brilliant and more of these are needed in cities.
He could nail hundreds of RLJ's in Cambridge, as they all need to be nicked along with all the unlawful motorists.

Zero tolerance for all roads users is the only way forward I think.


----------



## benborp (6 Dec 2012)

Here's Edmund King's follow up to last night:

Evening Standard Article


----------



## redcard (6 Dec 2012)

Bassjunkieuk said:


> I didn't soften to him, despite the pretty clear evidence he still couldn't see how his driver wasn't acceptable...


 

Same here. I kept expecting him to have a revelation and admit he was more at fault that he would have liked to admit.


----------



## BentMikey (6 Dec 2012)

mr_cellophane said:


> The cyclist who came out best last night was mikey, followed closely by Maggers


 
Not me mate. Did you mean the lawyer chaps on their training ride through Bexley? I thought they came across very well too.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Not me mate. Did you mean the lawyer chaps on their training ride through Bexley? I thought they came across very well too.


 

I really wish they showed your Vauxhall truck/cyclist vid to show that sometimes some cyclists really don't have a clue how to behave around large vehicles. It would have fitted well with the Truck driver they were following.


----------



## mr_cellophane (6 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Not me mate. Did you mean the lawyer chaps on their training ride through Bexley? I thought they came across very well too.


No I meant you for having the sense to not appear.


----------



## potsy (6 Dec 2012)

Just watched the show, nothing we haven't seen before but interesting nonetheless.
Thought Magnatom came across really well, as did th lorry driver guy, Gaz less so but it's all in the edit as they say 
Enjoyed the cycling copper too, great to see him chase down the motorcyclist


----------



## HLaB (6 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> I really wish they showed your Vauxhall truck/cyclist vid to show that sometimes some cyclists really don't have a clue how to behave around large vehicles. It would have fitted well with the Truck driver they were following.


So I never missed it, IMO that is one of the most educational videos and should have been sown, rather than alley cat/ ped crashing!


----------



## xpc316e (6 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> @Gaz. I'd really like to know how you feel about that taxi driver now. Have you seen him since the 'event'? I know my attitude towards him softened as the show progressed. At first I thought he was an agressive thug.


 
He was an aggressive thug with knobs on. He managed to convince you otherwise because of his smooth justification for his dreadful driving behaviour.


----------



## markharry66 (6 Dec 2012)

I dont think think Gaz did okay,if you could do a better job then go for it. The incident with the taxi driver he even stated he regreted doing some of the stuff he did. So all in I personally thought the program was well balanced.


----------



## cyberknight (6 Dec 2012)

Set it to record...
Came to watch it today and someone cancelled it 30 secs in to record another program 
flipping gutted i watch maybe 3 tv shows a week, and i was really looking forward to this and i cant see where i can watch it ?


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Dec 2012)

akb said:


> Your cycling and road attitude has got worse?!


It hasnt. If you look at my first videos, I have improved dramatically over them.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (6 Dec 2012)

cyberknight said:


> Set it to record...
> Came to watch it today and someone cancelled it 30 secs in to record another program
> flipping gutted i watch maybe 3 tv shows a week, and i was really looking forward to this and i cant see where i can watch it ?


 
It's on the iplayer. Even I managed to watch it and I don't live in the UK - so should be simples for you!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01p7q2l/War_on_Britains_Roads/


----------



## Ern1e (6 Dec 2012)

IMO thought it put all sides quite well although they could do to come up here and spend a day at the mini roundabout just down the road from me ! once I have got past this mind boggaling devise the rest of my rides are usualy event free ( don't think I should have typed that )


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Dec 2012)

I just watched it and though it was ok. Well done to all from on here who contributed. I particularly enjoyed the old taxi driver and the irishman who filmed the assault in Bexleyheath - he had a very dry sense of humour!


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Dec 2012)

cyberknight said:


> Set it to record...
> Came to watch it today and someone cancelled it 30 secs in to record another program
> flipping gutted i watch maybe 3 tv shows a week, and i was really looking forward to this and i cant see where i can watch it ?


 
Here you go pal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01p7q2l/War_on_Britains_Roads/


----------



## buggi (6 Dec 2012)

Just saw it on iplayer ... well done Mags. you were awesome!!!


----------



## Scruffmonster (6 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> It hasnt. If you look at my first videos, I have improved dramatically over them.


 
I think your penchant for the dramatic has stayed constant tbh


----------



## SportMonkey (6 Dec 2012)

fossyant said:


> From the first half of what I've seen, we're a sweary lot when we get hit ?  ******************************


 
I don't swear in bad situations on my commute, which you'd find quite shocking if you've ever had a normal conversation with me...


----------



## SportMonkey (6 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Well if you come to where I live then I can garuntee you that you would at least triple those figures.


 
No, he'd probably have even less. Stop making mountains out of mole hills. You're a kid, enjoy being one. If you want I'll come over to where you live and go cycling with you to prove the point.


----------



## Scruffmonster (6 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> Part of this clip was used in the programme last night. What makes it special though is what happens after the near miss.
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekSMrAL-N9E




They should just put that on tv every night for a year.

Way better than the show. (Terrible editing for TV though)

- Mistake happens.
- Cyclist goes mental as a Bike almost hit him.
- 'Bike' gets humanised as the cyclist realises it was a mistake by a PERSON and not a vehicle.

Everyone learns a lesson.


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I think your penchant for the dramatic has stayed constant tbh


Actually it is hard to judge with what I have uploaded. The amount doesnt represent the actual amount of incidents I have. My uploads have been constant but I have actually seen a large decrease of incidents in the latest months.
I think it is mainly due to me not responding to things much anymore.


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2012)

It's not too bad after a bottle of wine. The missus even watched it.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (7 Dec 2012)

Oh great....the circle of hate 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...=rss&ns_campaign=socialnet-twitter-mailonline


----------



## growingvegetables (7 Dec 2012)

By one Steve Nolan, perhaps?


> Online reporter at MailOnline
> Luton, United Kingdom | Newspapers
> Current:
> Online reporter at MailOnline
> ...


I kid you not - that's cut-and-paste from the guy's Linkedin profile - with a few bolds from me.
Hmmm - Nosweat Journalism Training "ordered to compensate a former student after admitting four offences of unfair trading."
Methinks a "reporter" with "a conscientious approach, and high standard of integrity" might just have sussed his own idiocy.


----------



## Lyrical (7 Dec 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> Oh great....the circle of hate
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...=rss&ns_campaign=socialnet-twitter-mailonline


 
Oh my.

Well, it just kinda feels the documentary has added a bit more fuel to the ever growing fire.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (7 Dec 2012)

Lyrical said:


> Oh my.
> 
> Well, it just kinda feels the documentary has added a bit more fuel to the ever growing fire.


Really should know better then to follow links to the Daily Wail. Disgusting attitudes but then it's become the norm to hate cycists and it wasn't help by the way the programme completely failed to explain why cyclists adopt primary and Gazs comments I feel where edited in a poor light in regards to it. I really doubt many of those people would carry out their threats but the very fact some might is precisely why we feel the need to ride like that, it's not antagonistic - it's for our own safety!


----------



## snapper_37 (7 Dec 2012)

Watched it last night with MOH. Thought it was well balanced, generally a good doc and Gaz, Mags and Simon came across well. Didn't take to the 'droid' to be fair. People critisizing should have a go themselves. Editing to suit a cause by the media is well known. A friend of mine was in a documentary and also had a piece in one of the 'I Married my Husband but Now She is My Wife!!!' mags (Take a Break or something equally dire) a few years ago. She's gay but they made out she was pink and girly and couldn't wait to meet the right man.

MOH had to cover her face at Mag's very close call and said she now felt even more nervous about me commuting 

There was NO way I was getting away with cycling in today, especially given the black ice. Since I nearly skidded into someones BMW X1 on the carpark, I'm glad I didn't.


----------



## grumpyoldgit (7 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> I think you are confusing my footage with footage taken by someone else. I did not chase anyone down.


So it wasnt you who chased after the black guy ?
IMHO you did more harm to cycling & cyclists than you can possibly imagine.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (7 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> So it wasnt you who chased after the black guy ?
> IMHO you did more harm to cycling & cyclists than you can possibly imagine.


 
I'm guessing you actually watched it and listened to the comments from Gaz? Firstly I can understand why Gaz reacted as he did, the taxi driver DID put Gaz in danger. I'd also hardly say he chased after the guy as after the incident the light was red so everyone had to wait and he just carried on with the argument. If your referring to before the main argument where it first shows the passes from the driver (on I believe Vauxhall Bridge road, approx 2 or so from the main altercation) then you clearly don't ride in London during the rush hour that much as it's quite easy to maintain or even pass drivers, especially given his speed.

At the end though Gaz did admit he over-reacted and played up to the crowd with the clapping and yelling of "mug". Unfortunately the non-cycling public won't/will most likely never understand how it feels as a vulnerable road users to have large metal objects pass you at speed and appear to be trying to run you over. As a previous commenter said anger when ones safety is threatened is a natural "fight or flight" style response.


----------



## youngoldbloke (7 Dec 2012)

Sorry, but Gaz did NOT come across well. The camera angle for a start!
edit - and was the taxi driver incident the best example to start a proramme like this with?


----------



## defy-one (7 Dec 2012)

just for your info... this topic is being hotly debated on the BMW forum i frequent. most of the drivers are in agreement with most of the cyclist here. 
my faith has been restored in humanity


----------



## grumpyoldgit (7 Dec 2012)

Funny how I respond to Gaz,& one of his sycophants always chimes in.


----------



## Sandra6 (7 Dec 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> Oh great....the circle of hate
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...=rss&ns_campaign=socialnet-twitter-mailonline


 What a pointless article. Highlighting the ignorance of twitter users without saying "look at these numpties" Why give them a broader audience for their mindless hatred?! 
Gaz, I hope you're ok.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (7 Dec 2012)

Think some people are missing a major point here, no matter what your view is on the program it seems to have become a topic of discussion and debate between cyclists and motorists alike. This increases awareness and understanding.
I'm not so sure this program would be the subject of such passionate debate if it presented a truely balanced documentary.
If you hoped for balanced reporting, you have a right to be disappointed. If you hoped the show changed things, it has as the subject is in the front of peoples minds at the moment and motorists and similar are debating cycling.

I fail to see why Gaz and others are being given a hard time, they are all simply trying to help change things, as the old saying goes.... try to do the right thing, if this is not possible do the wrong thing as its always better than doing nothing.
Video footage is helping change attitudes and I thank all who post it in the attempts to question what is happening on our roads.


----------



## Leodis (7 Dec 2012)

The media in this country, Meh.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

I feel like the elephant in the room here that nobody is acknowledging is that for the section used, Gaz was WRONG.

For that whole interaction he's looking so bad. He could have yielded some space for the cab, left room, nothing happens. He could have just not hit the cab, crisis averted. He could have apologised with his first words, didn't happen. He could have declined to clap and 'play up for the crowd' (what crowd? he wasn't on stage). Calling someone a mug after you've established that somebody isn't the type to smack you in the face isn't big or clever.

It's these kind of interactions that make cyclists look bad. I've watched the show again online and it's just not cool. Putting these kind of things on YouTube and trying to claim the moral high ground is insane.

I hope that Gaz takes a few lessons from this. It must truly be horrible to see yourself on national tv and have a populace comment negatively about you. (Though annoying Daily Mail readers is everyones idea of fun) We can claim that it all came down to an edit, but there should be enough in there for him to think 'I need to change a few things'.

I've made enough comments showing how I feel about 99% of 'Camera Cyclists' but to have any degree of success, they've got to realise their mistakes. In every way Gaz may claim it was a poor edit, they made that program to entertain a set demographic. Just as Gaz and his cohorts upload videos to entertain a very narrow demographic on YouTube. It's the same game so stop complaining.


----------



## mickle (7 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> IMHO you did more harm to cycling & cyclists than you can possibly imagine.


Tripe. Utter utter tripe.


----------



## BSRU (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I feel like the elephant in the room here that nobody is acknowledging is that for the section used, Gaz was WRONG.


Are you sure it is an elephant?
The cab driving was wrong and dangerous, what happened after can be said to wrong for both parties or one party depending on your point of view.


----------



## fossyant (7 Dec 2012)

Don't forget, this was one incident from Gaz's many videos. Certainly not the best, but it shows how folk can over react to a situation, and the taxi driver was bang out of order for forcing Gaz to stop like that. Yes the incident could be avoided by a quick tap of the brakes, and no slap, but that happened, a mistake. You do have to check out the other stuff Gaz posts on-line to show this was just one bad incident, warts and all.

The editing made Gaz not appear in a good light, but that is unfortunately what you sign up for in a TV programme. Everyday non-incidents don't make a TV programme.

Brave of you to do it Gaz. 

I can see this debate running in our family with my BIL, he's never ridden a bike properly (Golfer ) - i.e on the road !


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I feel like the elephant in the room here that nobody is acknowledging is that for the section used, Gaz was WRONG.
> 
> For that whole interaction he's looking so bad. He could have yielded some space for the cab, left room, nothing happens. He could have just not hit the cab, crisis averted. He could have apologised with his first words, didn't happen. He could have declined to clap and 'play up for the crowd' (what crowd? he wasn't on stage). Calling someone a mug after you've established that somebody isn't the type to smack you in the face isn't big or clever.
> 
> ...


 Strange how you can have so many people with varying degrees of view, and different recollections of events of exactly the same programme! Did you not take in the part where Gaz did acknowledge that his own behaviour was far from perfect in that incident? I didn't see the same from the Cabbie, in fact I felt had he not been in his work vehicle, or had a cabbie licence to protect he would have decked Gaz. The Cab driver knew full well he had the measure of Gaz, and continued the bullying he did inside the cab on the outside of it.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (7 Dec 2012)

The Cycling Lawyer does a good write up here, as he points out it's a shame that having tracked down Gaz's taxi driver they didn't ask him why he thinks it's acceptable to pass cyclists in the manner in which he deems OK. The excuse that Gaz could have moved sideways isn't really valid as HE is the one overtaking and wanting to change lanes, he shouldn't then use his vehicle to bully other road users. What was stopping him completing the move properly and waiting for Gaz to carry on ahead and follow behind him? It's the same MGIF mentality that results in so many close call left hooks, injuries and even deaths.


----------



## mickle (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I feel like the elephant in the room here that nobody is acknowledging is that for the section used, Gaz was WRONG.
> 
> For that whole interaction he's looking so bad. He could have yielded some space for the cab, left room, nothing happens. He could have just not hit the cab, crisis averted. He could have apologised with his first words, didn't happen. He could have declined to clap and 'play up for the crowd' (what crowd? he wasn't on stage). Calling someone a mug after you've established that somebody isn't the type to smack you in the face isn't big or clever.
> 
> ...


 
Yeilding space to a bullying driver - we might as well curl up and die. This post highlights the very thing that's wrong with our roads - that those with the largest lump of metal rule the roads whilst every body else cowers into the gutter for fear of mortal injury. Might is not right. The taxi driver didn't leave enough space for any of the cyclists we saw him pass, he starts to drift into the LH lane before he's cleared Gaz's front wheel - with the expectation that Gaz will simply back off. It's bullying, aggressive and intimidating behaviour. And that's before he tries to slam Gaz to the kerb so that he can jump out and get up in his face. And then you slate the cyclist for daring to complain.

Let's get real. Hitting a lump of steel with a lump of flesh rarely hurts the lump of steel - and when someone is encroaching on your space it's sometimes the only option. And a perfectly valid protest. Quite happy to use it as a battering ram to barge their way through traffic, protected from criticism in their own little minds by the invisiblity cloak of 'I've been driving a cab for twenty years and not killed a cyclist yet - so...' but then react like someone's just punched your granny when someone 'dares to' touch your car.

Make cyclists look bad? My arse. No-one ever says that about drivers do they? Which suggests to me that, bizarely - even though you are a cyclist - you're looking at cyclists as an out group, accepted driving as the norm. And apply standards of behaviour from cyclsts which you don't seem to expect from drivers.

You're on the wrong bus Scruffmonster.


----------



## 4F (7 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> So it wasnt you who chased after the black guy ?
> IMHO you did more harm to cycling & cyclists than you can possibly imagine.


 
I can only assume we watched a different programme. When I watched it I noted that the taxi tried to pull in before he had fully overtaken hence the slap on the taxi.

Not once did the taxi driver understand that if the cyclist was able to slap the taxi then the taxi was clearly too close.

The rest of the conversation was a bit handbags by both parties


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> So it wasnt you who chased after the black guy ?
> IMHO you did more harm to cycling & cyclists than you can possibly imagine.


 
I'm a bit confused actually. I don't recall Gaz, nor anyone else on that programme chasing down a black guy? The only think I can think of was Traffic Droid chasing the (white) red light jumper and grabbing his backpack.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2012)

mickle said:


> Yeilding space to a bullying driver - we might as well curl up and die. This post highlights the very thing that's wrong with our roads - that those with the largest lump of metal rule the roads whilst every body else cowers into the gutter for fear of mortal injury. Might is not right. The taxi driver didn't leave enough space for any of the cyclists we saw him pass, he starts to drift into the LH lane before he's cleared Gaz's front wheel - with the expectation that Gaz will simply back off. It's bullying, aggressive and intimidating behaviour. And that's before he tries to slam Gaz to the kerb so that he can jump out and get up in his face. And then you slate the cyclist for daring to complain.
> 
> Let's get real. Hitting a lump of steel with a lump of flesh rarely hurts the lump of steel - and when someone is encroaching on your space it's sometimes the only option. And a perfectly valid protest. Quite happy to use it as a battering ram to barge their way through traffic, protected from criticism in their own little minds by the invisiblity cloak of 'I've been driving a cab for twenty years and not killed a cyclist yet - so...' but then react like someone's just punched your granny when someone 'dares to' touch your car.
> 
> ...


 
Well said, Mickle. It's Scruffmonster that's wrong, and the cabbie. Sure, Gaz could have done better, but HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (7 Dec 2012)

I'm kinda disappointed that people seem to think that slapping a vhicle is only done to wind up the driver. On the two occations iv had to hit a car in that way it's done because I though If I didn't I might end up under under his wheels if I had not warned him.

Most of us don't have horns, and we can't shout louder than a car engine, it's seems a very good defensive measure if you ask me.


----------



## HaloJ (7 Dec 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> I'm kinda disappointed that people seem to think that slapping a vhicle is only done to wind up the driver. On the two occations iv had to hit a car in that way it's done because I though If I didn't I might end up under under his wheels if I had not warned him.
> 
> Most of us don't have horns, and we can't shout louder than a car engine, it's seems a very good defensive measure if you ask me.


 
We should have whistles apparently. 

I'm not afraid to knock on a window but wow does it send drivers off into an absolute tizz when I've been forced to do it (twice now, same reaction.) Not sure how a whistle is going to be heard over the engine, blaring radio, screaming child or the person on the other end of a mobile phone.


----------



## Dusty66 (7 Dec 2012)

I'm not a regular commuter, but I do ride my bike a couple of times a week in a large city, so I'm very aware of what cyclists have to face.

My overall feeling about the programme was that the cyclists came across as bad as the drivers. I think the way you drive a car is the same way that you will ride a bike, in that if you tend to be an aggressive driver or take risks, you will be the same when cycling. Personally speaking, when I drive, I tend to be the one that lets impatient drivers change lanes, over-take etc. I would even go as far as to say, that I watch for these types of drivers and give them room. I don't want to be in their way when they push it too far one day and end up in an accident.

We all know that as a cyclist you have to be even more aware, because we are difficult to see - even motorcyclists are harder to see than other traffic. With this in mind, I would never speed over a round-a-bout for example expecting to be seen. I expect NOT to be seen. In fact, this is how I tend to ride all the time - expecting not to be seen. When riding up the left side in traffic, I always stay back from larger vehicles as the dangers are well known. I'm no saint, but I do think that having your vunerability uppermost in your mind at all times is the way to go.

Even though it would be nice to have the same respect as other road users, the fact is that cyclists don't. You are a slow moving obstacle and an annoyance. If you were driving a tractor down a country lane and were a conscientious driver, you would pull in to let traffic pass. So as a conscientious cyclist, you shouldn't expect to ride in the centre of the road if you are considerably slower, and expect not to annoy other drivers.

The way I ride, is being aware that I am at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to other traffic. It's not particularly ego boosting but at least it seems to keep me out of trouble.

Another point on being conscientious, is that I would never dream of bombing along a path that is shared with pedestrains - that's just immature. Again - I'm no saint, but there is such a thing as common sense. I think age has something to do with it also - hence car insurance being so high for young drivers - taking too many risks and feeling invincible is not a good recipe for safe driving or safe cycling. I'm not saying everyone over 25 is better on the road, far from it. Some people never grow up.


----------



## veloevol (7 Dec 2012)

[QUOTE 2192122, member: 1314"]Saw the programmes last night and am afraid I agree with Ian Austin, Joint Chair of the Parliametary Cycling Group who described it as"stupid, sensationalist, simplistic, irresponsible nonsense" in that Daily Mail link. That's not down to the drivers or cyclists but the producers and editors. Real debates about road safety in the programme were a merefig leag and. the tales from the Roadpeace person and the cab driverwas, I'm afraid, cliched soap opera. Droid, I'm afraid, needs counselling or a good mate to talk to. I felt sorry for him.

The programme should never have been made.[/quote]

As I pointed out to someone previously expecting BBC1 to commission a serious program is like letting Robin Williams do your dental work.

Had it been on BBC4 we could have expected more. At least about our pitiful infrastructure.


----------



## davefb (7 Dec 2012)

HaloJ said:


> We should have whistles apparently.
> 
> I'm not afraid to knock on a window but wow does it send drivers off into an absolute tizz when I've been forced to do it (twice now, same reaction.) Not sure how a whistle is going to be heard over the engine, blaring radio, screaming child or the person on the other end of a mobile phone.


maybe they'll hear the chokeing sound as you swallow the whistle and come to help , thus defusing the situation ?

seriously, whistles, thats mental.


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Well said, Mickle. It's Scruffmonster that's wrong, and the cabbie. Sure, Gaz could have done better, but HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG.


 
Quite. Not what I would have done and perhaps a little too antagonistic, but not wrong _per se_. I imagine this clip is from Gaz's earlier days with a helmet cam. The 'playing to the virtual audience' bit suggests it was. I too found him a little too pleased with himself in the TV show, but that is not representative. 

I thought the Gaz clip chosen for the show was the worst they could have selected, which by the editors' parameters might mean it was the best...

But whilst I disagree with Scruffmonster on this, his point is not invalid. Many will agree wholeheartedly with him and some will see a kernel of truth in his view.

When a cyclist finds that the footage is detrimental to the lot of cyclists in the UK, that view is part of the data. We can all say that scruffmonster is wrong, but that doesn't invalidate his view or make it any less common.

Having come from the (cyclist and motorcycle courier) wing-slapping, shouty, squeaky-Scottish-yellathon side of cycling, I find that I've calmed down in the past 25 years. 

I can well understand how very many cyclists might cringe at gaz's performance during his televised incident. I do not cringe, but those who do are not wrong and their view is not invalid just because we disagree with them.

I hate to say it, but we might be in the minority.


----------



## Glow worm (7 Dec 2012)

Bassjunkieuk said:


> Really should know better then to follow links to the Daily Wail. Disgusting attitudes but then it's become the norm to hate cycists and it wasn't help by the way the programme completely failed to explain why cyclists adopt primary


 
I doubt you'll never get your average Daily Hate Mail readers to get the concept of safe cycling and why we need to take primary. You'd have more luck teaching monkeys to play scrabble. The DM's readers world seems a curious place where mind numbing stupidity and outrage rules, combined with a complete inability to understand basic logic.

Well done Gaz for doing the programme, don't let the bar stewards get you down.


----------



## fossyant (7 Dec 2012)

Mickle made a very good point about us being an 'out group'.

We have *one* TV programme and everyone and his dog are calling cyclists 'bad'. OK, just how many 'Road Wars' episodes are there then - hundreds, nearly all vehicle drivers, the odd cyclist, but no-one is calling all drivers maniacs - you'd think so watching it.

Can't-win.com !


----------



## davefb (7 Dec 2012)

fossyant said:


> Mickle made a very good point about us being an 'out group'.
> 
> We have *one* TV programme and everyone and his dog are calling cyclists 'bad'. OK, just how many 'Road Wars' episodes are there then - hundreds, nearly all vehicle drivers, the odd cyclist, but no-one is calling all drivers maniacs - you'd think so watching it.
> 
> Can't-win.com !


on those road wars, for balance they should spend ages with the chavs on why they steal cars innit.. I'm assuming they decided that "one sided" video wasn't "fair"..
i'm also looking forward to the bbc1 documentary on wife-beating which has the bloke explaining how "she was ASKING for it"...

Mind you, hopefully the reaction of people like the head of AA to the program (and the many others) might help things..


----------



## albion (7 Dec 2012)

No we don't.

You always get the mob kicking into action but they are certainly still a minority.
And yep, some of the same lot would say the above.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Quite. Not what I would have done and perhaps a little too antagonistic, but not wrong _per se_. I imagine this clip is from Gaz's earlier days with a helmet cam. The 'playing to the virtual audience' bit suggests it was. I too found him a little too pleased with himself in the TV show,.


Sorry, Boris, you thought that Gaz was a little too pleased with himself? Really? You of all people?


----------



## Crackle (7 Dec 2012)

[QUOTE 2192122, member: 1314"]Saw the programmes last night and am afraid I agree with Ian Austin, Joint Chair of the Parliametary Cycling Group who described it as"stupid, sensationalist, simplistic, irresponsible nonsense" in that Daily Mail link. That's not down to the drivers or cyclists but the producers and editors. Real debates about road safety in the programme were a merefig leag and. the tales from the Roadpeace person and the cab driverwas, I'm afraid, cliched soap opera. Droid, I'm afraid, needs counselling or a good mate to talk to. I felt sorry for him.

The programme should never have been made.[/quote]

I largely agree but Maggers posted something on his blog which is surprising and uplifting.

http://www.magnatom.net/


----------



## Glow worm (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> Even though it would be nice to have the same respect as other road users, the fact is that cyclists don't. You are a slow moving obstacle and an annoyance. If you were driving a tractor down a country lane and were a conscientious driver, you would pull in to let traffic pass. So as a conscientious cyclist, you shouldn't expect to ride in the centre of the road if you are considerably slower, and expect not to annoy other drivers.


 
Presumably we should all be riding in the gutter then ?! I'm not being funny but if we were all to follow your advice we'd be getting off every few hundred yards. Sounds like you'd be better off on the bus. Why feel the need to 'get out of the way' of cars anyway? In most towns at rush hour, they're only crawling along from one jam to the next. Frankly, it's the cars that get in my way on my commute, doing 5 mph max, blocking all the roads.


----------



## User482 (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> Even though it would be nice to have the same respect as other road users, the fact is that cyclists don't. You are a slow moving obstacle and an annoyance. If you were driving a tractor down a country lane and were a conscientious driver, you would pull in to let traffic pass. So as a conscientious cyclist, you shouldn't expect to ride in the centre of the road if you are considerably slower, and expect not to annoy other drivers.


Every day, I'm held up on my commute by cars. Motorists are slow moving obstacles and an annoyance. Not once has a car driver pulled in to let me past.

Conscientious motorists shouldn't expect to drive in the middle of the road and expect not to annoy cyclists.


----------



## PK99 (7 Dec 2012)

Bassjunkieuk said:


> . What was stopping him completing the move properly and waiting for Gaz to carry on ahead and follow behind him? It's the same MGIF mentality that results in so many close call left hooks, injuries and even deaths.


 
It's not only the Cab driver who shows that mentality in the video. Partway through, when Gaz's attention is already on alert to the potential for conflict with the cab, the cab stops at the lights at the head of a central bus lane with a clear road ahead. A little bit of forward thinking says the cab is going to pull away and travel faster than the cyclist (Gaz comments on having anticipating a close pass, so what I'm about to say is not my hindsight). Best move would have been to stop behind the cab and the conflict situation goes away. Instead. Gaz applies MGIF thinking and overtakes into the ASL cyclists' box. ASL boxes are not compulsory and in this case would have been best avoided.


----------



## summerdays (7 Dec 2012)

User482 said:


> Motorists are slow moving obstacles and an annoyance. Not once has a car driver pulled in to let me past.


Though to be fair, quite a number have let me out of a side road when they didn't need to. Actually thinking about it, some even have moved to increase the gap to allow me to filter past (equally some have moved to close any gap!!!)


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Sorry, Boris, you thought that Gaz was a little too pleased with himself? Really? You of all people?


 
I think I'm just pleased enough with myself. Like Goldilocks and the chosen porridge.... Just right. Any more pleased might be a little too pleased.

It's everyone else who is wrong. Everyone.

I was hoping my posts to date had made that abundantly clear.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (7 Dec 2012)

summerdays said:


> Though to be fair, quite a number have let me out of a side road when they didn't need to. Actually thinking about it, some even have moved to increase the gap to allow me to filter past (equally some have moved to close any gap!!!)


I've had that happen a few times, and other very often but it is pleasing to know they are paying attention even when moving slowly or sat still. I he driver will typically get a thumbs up or acknowledging wave.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Dec 2012)

I thought the lawyer who got thumped was self-righteous and smug in the interview.


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Dec 2012)

User482 said:


> Every day, I'm held up on my commute by cars. Motorists are slow moving obstacles and an annoyance. Not once has a car driver pulled in to let me past.
> 
> Conscientious motorists shouldn't expect to drive in the middle of the road and expect not to annoy cyclists.


 
I agree completely with your point about conscientious motorists. It can be irksome when they have the opportunity to do so and choose not to.

However, my experience with drivers differs significantly from yours. Motorists frequently pull in or move to one side to let me through on my bike.

Usually they are oncoming drivers, but sometimes even those going in my direction. I feel that more would, but we cyclists can be hard to spot in a mirror. I have a habit (from my motorcycling days) of 'getting in the mirror' of drivers who are impeding me. I have no idea whether it makes a difference.


----------



## Sore Thumb (7 Dec 2012)

Sandra6 said:


> What a pointless article. Highlighting the ignorance of twitter users without saying "look at these numpties" Why give them a broader audience for their mindless hatred?!
> Gaz, I hope you're ok.




Oh my god......

I've read some hatred against cyclists, but this is just getting worse its truly scary. I just could not read some of the comments they are just unbelievable. 

Can you make death threats on twitter and get away with it. Is this not against the law or is it only against the law if you are not a cyclist?

This hatred is getting out of control. I've read that in some states in America they have laws that protect cyclists against harassment, maybe something in this country.

I know is the daily hate paper but come on this is too much. 

Gaz I hope you go to the police regarding these twitter posts. People should not be able to hide behind twitter and think they can make death threats.

Some like Gaz and some don't, we can all have an opinion but this over steps the line.


----------



## Buddfox (7 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> IMHO you did more harm to cycling & cyclists than you can possibly imagine.


 
Rarely has so much nonsense been condensed into such a small amount of text.


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> It's not only the Cab driver who shows that mentality in the video. Partway through, when Gaz's attention is already on alert to the potential for conflict with the cab, the cab stops at the lights at the head of a central bus lane with a clear road ahead. A little bit of forward thinking says the cab is going to pull away and travel faster than the cyclist (Gaz comments on having anticipating a close pass, so what I'm about to say is not my hindsight). Best move would have been to stop behind the cab and the conflict situation goes away. Instead. Gaz applies MGIF thinking and overtakes into the ASL cyclists' box. ASL boxes are not compulsory and in this case would have been best avoided.


 I said much ealrier that I had some empathy with Gaz and felt some of his decisions were based on an anger generated from witnessing the Cab nearly clip two cyclists in the Cycle lane prior to the traffic lights..


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (7 Dec 2012)

I had this on again while peeling potatoes in the kitchen and for a minute I thought it had switched over to an episode of the professionals with the screeching of tyres and swearing.

Christ,that first cab driver was awful.Over-react,no 5h1t mate.


----------



## Buddfox (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> Even though it would be nice to have the same respect as other road users, the fact is that cyclists don't. You are a slow moving obstacle and an annoyance. If you were driving a tractor down a country lane and were a conscientious driver, you would pull in to let traffic pass. So as a conscientious cyclist, you shouldn't expect to ride in the centre of the road if you are considerably slower, and expect not to annoy other drivers.


 
I don't know where you ride, but in central London, where Gaz rides (and I expect this is true for him as well), in my experience it is never the case that a car is faster than me on my bike. Cars are always in the way, they are always slower. This is true as much on Euston Road as it is on Victoria Embankment as it is on the Strand. Gaz is perfectly correct to take the lane, it is defensive cycling and recommended (as it is for PTWs in the CBT) and he would not cost the cab any time at all. The only annoyance is a cab driver who thinks it's acceptable to use his cab as an aggressive weapon to force people out of his way, and to hold himself (apparently) to the standard that since he's never knocked anyone off, he's a good driver. I beg to differ.


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Dec 2012)

Hmmm "over 25 years of building peace"


----------



## PK99 (7 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> I said much ealrier that I had some empathy with Gaz and felt some of his decisions were based on an anger generated from witnessing the Cab nearly clip two cyclists in the Cycle lane prior to the traffic lights..


 
Decisions based on anger are rarely the best when viewed in cold blood : Testosterone and adrenaline tend to lead to fuddled thinking


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (7 Dec 2012)

Never believed in banging peoples cars though.Always going to get a 5h1t reaction.

Ironically I have only ever done it once to an Adddiscum Lee cab.


----------



## PK99 (7 Dec 2012)

Buddfox said:


> in central London, where Gaz rides (and I expect this is true for him as well), in my experience* it is never the case that a car is faster than me on my bike*. Cars are always in the way, they are always slower. .


 

Never?

I don't ride in Central London in the rush hour but i do at other times of the day, and my experience differs


----------



## grumpyoldgit (7 Dec 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Rarely has so much nonsense been condensed into such a small amount of text.


So you think he came across as a well balanced individual?Looking around non cycling web forums seems to disagree with that theory.The other guy seems to have come across as a loveable loony,not so with Gaz.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (7 Dec 2012)

I like the cabbie "I've never seen a cyclist get nicked,ditto I've never seen a cabbie get nicked,and they should be.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> Never?
> 
> I don't ride in Central London in the rush hour but i do at other times of the day, and my experience differs


 
Ride faster.



grumpyoldgit said:


> So you think he came across as a well balanced individual?Looking around non cycling web forums seems to disagree with that theory.The other guy seems to have come across as a loveable loony,not so with Gaz.


 
I suggest you'd feel more at home there then, with your little grumpy friends.


----------



## Dusty66 (7 Dec 2012)

Glow worm said:


> Presumably we should all be riding in the gutter then ?! I'm not being funny but if we were all to follow your advice we'd be getting off every few hundred yards. Sounds like you'd be better off on the bus. Why feel the need to 'get out of the way' of cars anyway? In most towns at rush hour, they're only crawling along from one jam to the next. Frankly, it's the cars that get in my way on my commute, doing 5 mph max, blocking all the roads.


 
Obviously in bunched up traffic or a complete jam, you are going to be moving faster. I was referring to situations when you are aware that a vehicle is behind you (or a line of vehicles) and you are holding them up. I know about the advice of taking centre positon to be seen, or to prevent overtaking, but if that is going to put you in the position of causing the rest of the traffic to slow down for longer than a short distance, then unfortunately it's going to make you annoying!



User482 said:


> Every day, I'm held up on my commute by cars. Motorists are slow moving obstacles and an annoyance. Not once has a car driver pulled in to let me past.


 
If you think about it, a car driver is unlikely to pull in for anything because there's hardly any room to maneuver. Unless it's for an emergency vehicle, they're just going to sit there hoping they will be moving again shortly anyway.


----------



## Leodis (7 Dec 2012)

> You are a slow moving obstacle and an annoyance


 
Then why when I speed past cars who are stuck in traffic do they not move over and give me space? They either don't check their mirrors or are jealous I am passing them and refuse to move pushing me into the curb. I once had to take a primary role a a mini RAB and the driver behind tried to force me into the curb using his car as a weapon, it didnt work but he tried to aggressively over take me at the nip point.

The majority of drivers ignore cyclists and we are left with a minority who give way and a smaller minority who make a point of poor driving and aggressive actions


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (7 Dec 2012)

the production company did two particular things to Gaz that I think where underhand:

1 - the licking of the lips - it did and offered nothing.

2 - did anyone notice the camera was lower, looking up towards Gaz (may not have been intentional though) while every other camera was level with the interviewees head/eye?

*edit - spelling


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> Obviously in bunched up traffic or a complete jam, you are going to be moving faster. I was referring to situations when you are aware that a vehicle is behind you (or a line of vehicles) and you are holding them up. I know about the advice of taking centre positon to be seen, or to prevent overtaking, but if that is going to put you in the position of causing the rest of the traffic to slow down for longer than a short distance, then unfortunately it's going to make you annoying!


 
So a person should put themselves at risk? Cycling in primary isn't done all the time, and the choice of when to do it is a weighted decision, the length of the queue of cars isn't generally one of them; although I can't think of any time that there has been a long queue behind me whilst taking a whole lane.



Dusty66 said:


> If you think about it, a car driver is unlikely to pull in for anything because there's hardly any room to maneuver. Unless it's for an emergency vehicle, they're just going to sit there hoping they will be moving again shortly anyway.


 
Why should a cyclist move over for a car then, if there's no room to manoeuvre then there is no room to overtake safely, so cyclists always have to cycle in primary and annoy cars...


----------



## Poacher (7 Dec 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> I'm kinda disappointed that people seem to think that slapping a vhicle is only done to wind up the driver. On the two occations iv had to hit a car in that way it's done because I though If I didn't I might end up under under his wheels if I had not warned him.
> 
> Most of us don't have horns, and we can't shout louder than a car engine, it's seems a very good defensive measure if you ask me.


 
I agree entirely that slapping a vehicle is a valid defensive measure, but it _does_ tend to provoke a disproportionate response at times. After being on the receiving end of plausible death threats for slapping a car when the driver was paying more attention to his mobile phone than his driving, and was drifting left, leaving me with little option but to bale out onto the footpath, I decided to fit an Airzound to my commuter. It's rarely used, but when it has been necessary, it seems to shock the errant drivers into driving responsibly, rather than the "You touched my car - I'm going to kill you!" reaction.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Dec 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> the production company did two particular things to Gaz that I think where underhand:
> 
> 1 - the licking of the lips - it did and offered nothing.
> 
> 2 - did anyone notice the camera was lower, looking up towards Gaz (may not have been inferential though) while every other camera was level with the interviewees head/eye?


 
1, the way they did it, the amount they did it, the focussing of it, was totally uncalled for, they wanted to make Gaz look weird.

2, the camera angle did seem not suited to Gaz coming across well.


----------



## User482 (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> Obviously in bunched up traffic or a complete jam, you are going to be moving faster. I was referring to situations when you are aware that a vehicle is behind you (or a line of vehicles) and you are holding them up. I know about the advice of taking centre positon to be seen, or to prevent overtaking, but if that is going to put you in the position of causing the rest of the traffic to slow down for longer than a short distance, then unfortunately it's going to make you annoying!


Motorists often hold me up for "longer than a short distance". They also seem curiously determined to overtake so they can join the back of the next queue. They're annoying.



> If you think about it, a car driver is unlikely to pull in for anything because there's hardly any room to maneuver. Unless it's for an emergency vehicle, they're just going to sit there hoping they will be moving again shortly anyway.


They could easily pull in to the kerb so I can overtake safely on the right. They don't, because they can't wait to join the back of the next queue. They're annoying.


----------



## grumpyoldgit (7 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> Ride faster.
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you'd feel more at home there then, with your little grumpy friends.


I was referring to how cyclists are perceived to be by others,&,as a cyclist,I was interested.


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Dec 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> I like the cabbie "I've never seen a cyclist get nicked,ditto I've never seen a cabbie get nicked,and they should be.


 
Cabbies do get nicked.

I was tipped off (at speed) by an FX4 making an illegal U-Turn on Oxford Street back in the 80s.

I got two witnesses, reported him and it went to Magistrate's Court. I showed up and found my two witnesses, which I though was touching as they'd taken time off work.

Annoyingly, the cabbie didn't show. He made a plea of Not Guilty through his brief once (I assume) it was clear the witnesses were there and he was cooked.

The usher found me in the waiting area and told me he'd got 6 points, but not what he'd got them for. There was a three-figure fine, too.

Cabbies do get nicked. And I imagine it cost this chap a lot more than his fine and the cost of his brief.

I even felt a little bit sorry for him, as I told him at the scene I was going to report him, then he offered me a lift home (Shepherds Bush). I accepted the lift, took my mangled bike out of the cab and he said "There's no need to report anyone for this is there..."

I'm afraid I swallowed awkwardly and said "Thanks for the lift and yes there is". I even made sure he dropped me one street away from home... I ought to have screwed him for the cost of new forks, but I was younger then....

Cabbies do get nicked.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> I was referring to how cyclists are perceived to be by others,&,as a cyclist,I was interested.


 
So you have enough time in your day to pick a fair selection of forums and find the "Gaz is a knob" thread? I suggest you get out on your bike more.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Cabbies do get nicked.
> 
> I was tipped off (at speed) by an FX4 making an illegal U-Turn on Oxford Street back in the 80s.
> 
> ...


 
That's the same punishment as being caught speeding on the motorway. I'm not sure that it is a fair and equitable system.


----------



## grumpyoldgit (7 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> So you have enough time in your day to pick a fair selection of forums and find the "Gaz is a knob" thread? I suggest you get out on your bike more.


I would love to,but I am tied to an office,work is such a curse at times.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Dec 2012)

grumpyoldgit said:


> I would love to,but I am tied to an office,work is such a curse at times.


 
No wonder you're grumpy. I can also see why you're jealous of Gaz, whilst I'm in a slightly different role in development (c.f. my work profile pic), software development generally allows us to do the hours we wish; which means just going off cycling whenever we like. Maybe you should give up your job and get some pointers from Gaz how to be like him.


----------



## Dusty66 (7 Dec 2012)

Buddfox said:


> I don't know where you ride, but in central London, where Gaz rides (and I expect this is true for him as well), in my experience it is never the case that a car is faster than me on my bike. Cars are always in the way, they are always slower. This is true as much on Euston Road as it is on Victoria Embankment as it is on the Strand. Gaz is perfectly correct to take the lane, it is defensive cycling and recommended (as it is for PTWs in the CBT) and he would not cost the cab any time at all. The only annoyance is a cab driver who thinks it's acceptable to use his cab as an aggressive weapon to force people out of his way, and to hold himself (apparently) to the standard that since he's never knocked anyone off, he's a good driver. I beg to differ.


 
Nope I don't ride in central London - I wish I did because it looks lovely and flat! I agree it looks like a nightmare, but all cities are pretty bad at rush hour and I live in a city. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I ride my bike in the same way that I drive my car. I'm not agressive, I don't take risks and I think I'm quite conscientious. On a bike I also have the advantage of knowing what it's like to be driving a car. I know that I am difficult to see and I know that I can appear to be in the way - even if I am not! It's a psychological thing. I don't expect preferential treatment, just fair treatment and I think on the whole I get that.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (7 Dec 2012)

Gaz isn't the problem,the problem is cyclists general poor behaviour out there.Same mentality as motorists,can't wait two seconds.


----------



## grumpyoldgit (7 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> No wonder you're grumpy. I can also see why you're jealous of Gaz, whilst I'm in a slightly different role in development (c.f. my work profile pic), software development generally allows us to do the hours we wish; which means just going off cycling whenever we like. Maybe you should give up your job and get some pointers from Gaz how to be like him.


Sadly I am not as clever as you & Gaz,otherwise I would.


----------



## Trevrev (7 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> No wonder you're grumpy. I can also see why you're jealous of Gaz, whilst I'm in a slightly different role in development (c.f. my work profile pic), software development generally allows us to do the hours we wish; which means just going off cycling whenever we like. Maybe you should give up your job and get some pointers from Gaz how to be like him.


 
Were you in the playground when you typed this? Very school boy!
Made me laugh though!


----------



## PK99 (7 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> *Cycling in primary isn't done all the time,* and the choice of when to do it is a weighted decision,


 
I do think that the choice of terms "Primary" and "Secondary" by Frankilin was a poor one.

I know we cyclists like the perversity of clipping into our clipless pedals, but that is just an in-joke. However to call the normal or default riding position "Secondary" and the exceptional or occasional position "Primary" seems designed to confuse. In any safety programme with multiple users of different backgrounds the use of exclusive jargon words is not recommended. 

Better would have been:

Primary Position = normal road position 1-1.5m from kerb.

Safety Position = central in the lane.

Run the conversation:

Irate driver: "Why the fizz were you in the middle of the lane"
Cyclist: "Because that is the recommended Primary Position"
Even more irate driver "Primary! You think you own the fecking road?!"

(We've seen that run numerous times on cycle cam up loads)

or

Irate driver: "Why the fizz were you in the middle of the lane"
Cyclist :" Because that is the Safety position the highway code recommends on narrow roads"
Puzzled driver "Eh?"
Cyclist: ... explains the logic

The second conversation is one i have had (obviously using different words) on a number of occasions.


----------



## Dusty66 (7 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> So a person should put themselves at risk? Cycling in primary isn't done all the time, and the choice of when to do it is a weighted decision, the length of the queue of cars isn't generally one of them; although I can't think of any time that there has been a long queue behind me whilst taking a whole lane.
> 
> Why should a cyclist move over for a car then, if there's no room to manoeuvre then there is no room to overtake safely, so cyclists always have to cycle in primary and annoy cars...


 
There was a scene on the programme (sorry forgot who it was) but he was getting tooted from behind. He was taking centre position and you could see that the traffic infront of him was pulling away into the distance - ie., travelling a lot faster than he was at that point. The guy tooting basically couldn't get past and was getting aggrivated. In that instance, I think the cyclist was in the wrong.

The only time a cyclist should pull over for a car is when the cyclist is holding things up. Same as the driver of a slow vehicle would (if he was a good driver).


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> It's not only the Cab driver who shows that mentality in the video. Partway through, when Gaz's attention is already on alert to the potential for conflict with the cab, the cab stops at the lights at the head of a central bus lane with a clear road ahead. A little bit of forward thinking says the cab is going to pull away and travel faster than the cyclist (Gaz comments on having anticipating a close pass, so what I'm about to say is not my hindsight). Best move would have been to stop behind the cab and the conflict situation goes away. Instead. Gaz applies MGIF thinking and overtakes into the ASL cyclists' box. ASL boxes are not compulsory and in this case would have been best avoided.


 that's not how it works at this junction. There are more bikes than cabs by a factor of ten - or more. Bikes gather at the front. Cabs race around the right and cut in to the bus lane about 400 metres up. Gaz was waiting for that to happen because he's seen it before, but if the cab driver hadn't cut Gaz up he would have cut somebody else up. So.....are all the cyclists (and there are often thirty waiting at this particular light) supposed to pull to one side and let the cab by?


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Dec 2012)

davefb said:


> ...
> 
> seriously, whistles, thats mental.


 
whistles aren't exactly quiet though... quite a loud piercing sound in fact... maybe that's why the police use them?


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Dec 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Never believed in banging peoples cars though.Always going to get a 5h1t reaction.
> 
> Ironically I have only ever done it once to an Adddiscum Lee cab.


see my previous post. I've done it hundreds of times and only once got a hostile reaction


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> There was a scene on the programme (sorry forgot who it was) but he was getting tooted from behind. He was taking centre position and you could see that the traffic infront of him was pulling away into the distance - ie., travelling a lot faster than he was at that point. The guy tooting basically couldn't get past and was getting aggrivated. In that instance, I think the cyclist was in the wrong.
> 
> The only time a cyclist should pull over for a car is when the cyclist is holding things up. Same as the driver of a slow vehicle would (if he was a good driver).


this is bonkers. The only way he could have got out of the way to allow a safe pass would have been to bunnyhop on to the footpath.


----------



## albion (7 Dec 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> the production company did two particular things to Gaz that I think where underhand


I am assuming that it was Gaz who inspired the whole money making show in the first place.
It was obviously all centred around him.

I still allude that the overall message was educational, though I doubt laws will get changed or any mandatory sentences introduced for such as 'causing death by failing to indicate' etc..


----------



## Devonshiredave (7 Dec 2012)

The programme has been and gone, and yet, sadly, the reality of cycling on Britains roads continues:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3623013.ece
My condolences go out to the families of those involved. Not least of all the guy killed in Bicester, less than a mile from where I work.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

mickle said:


> Yeilding space to a bullying driver - we might as well curl up and die. This post highlights the very thing that's wrong with our roads - that those with the largest lump of metal rule the roads whilst every body else cowers into the gutter for fear of mortal injury. Might is not right. The taxi driver didn't leave enough space for any of the cyclists we saw him pass, he starts to drift into the LH lane before he's cleared Gaz's front wheel - with the expectation that Gaz will simply back off. It's bullying, aggressive and intimidating behaviour. And that's before he tries to slam Gaz to the kerb so that he can jump out and get up in his face. And then you slate the cyclist for daring to complain.
> 
> Let's get real. Hitting a lump of steel with a lump of flesh rarely hurts the lump of steel - and when someone is encroaching on your space it's sometimes the only option. And a perfectly valid protest. Quite happy to use it as a battering ram to barge their way through traffic, protected from criticism in their own little minds by the invisiblity cloak of 'I've been driving a cab for twenty years and not killed a cyclist yet - so...' but then react like someone's just punched your granny when someone 'dares to' touch your car.
> 
> ...


 
If I've got that much space to my left, and a vehicle that's travelling faster than me wants to come across, I'll happily give up some room. It doesn't affect me at all. I'll probably overtake him soon anyway.

If I ever have a problem with a driver, I knock on their window when they're stationary and say something like 'Try to give a bit more room mate, you may have thought you did, but a little more is needed'.

Banging on a car is dumb. You can say 'He shouldn't be close enough to get a tap' but you can also see that wasn't a lifesaving hit. Slow pedalling for 5-10 seconds was way safer than taking his hand off of the handlebars to hit a car. It wasn't a case of 'Look I'm here', it was 'Look, I'm angry'.

I certainly don't think that cyclists should be a vehicular underclass but they can learn that they are PART of traffic, not superior to it. Work together.


----------



## 4F (7 Dec 2012)

albion said:


> I am assuming that it was Gaz who inspired the whole money making show in the first place.
> It was obviously all centred around him.
> .


 
I think to be fair the only reason that this appeared to centred around gaz is that for the footage in question they had both parties on giving their respective viewpoints.

All other video's / coverage was either just from the cyclist or the motorist's viewpoint.


----------



## cd365 (7 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> They were searching early this year. I got my cam in March and hadnt uploaded anything worth watching really. Things have changed now.


 
Matthew it's not a competition to see who can get the scariest video, with your attitude you will end up dead try to outdo people, be careful out there, apparently it's a war!


----------



## mickle (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> There was a scene on the programme (sorry forgot who it was) but he was getting tooted from behind. He was taking centre position and you could see that the traffic infront of him was pulling away into the distance - ie., travelling a lot faster than he was at that point. The guy tooting basically couldn't get past and was getting aggrivated. In that instance, I think the cyclist was in the wrong.
> 
> The only time a cyclist should pull over for a car is when the cyclist is holding things up. Same as the driver of a slow vehicle would (if he was a good driver).


 

Annoyance? You're as ignorant as those idiot drivers if you can't understand that a cyclist pedalling along a road is perfectly entitled to do so at a speed of their choosing. They are_ traffic_, their journey every bit valid as any drivers.

The guy tooting didn't have enough space to safely pass the cyclist. Did you see the oncoming traffic? The double white lines?

Does it not register with you that the people holding up most drivers are _other drivers_? They'll apparently sit quite happily in lines of traffic but they find _us_ annoying?!


----------



## goo_mason (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> There was a scene on the programme (sorry forgot who it was) but he was getting tooted from behind. He was taking centre position and you could see that the traffic infront of him was pulling away into the distance - ie., travelling a lot faster than he was at that point. The guy tooting basically couldn't get past and was getting aggrivated. In that instance, I think the cyclist was in the wrong.
> 
> The only time a cyclist should pull over for a car is when the cyclist is holding things up. Same as the driver of a slow vehicle would (if he was a good driver).


 
There were double white lines on that stretch, so even if the cyclist had tried to move over there was still no way for the car to pass safely without crossing the lines. The cyslist took primary to prevent the exceedingly close pass and sideswipe that would have been inevitable given the attitude of the driver behind and his need to get in front.

And it was hardly a long stretch of road either - the motorist simply had to wait a minute before the doubles ended and he could safely pass. I've no doubt the cyclist would have moved over at that point too. But there I'm astonished that they have so little patience.

Also looked like a humped bridge with a blind bend, so again NOT a place to overtake no matter HOW impatient you are.


----------



## shunter (7 Dec 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> the production company did two particular things to Gaz that I think where underhand:
> 
> 1 - the licking of the lips - it did and offered nothing.
> 
> ...


 
Agree totally - the camera angle was totally different and distorted the view of Gaz to his detriment. It actually makes him look much taller in comparison to the cab driver. He took on an early Harry Potter geekish look which had you forming an opinion on him based on how he looked straight away. Strangely enough my first opinion was that Gaz's age was between 18 and 22. So now I wonder what height Gaz actually is and what age he actually is. You could easily say to yourself - based on positioning of camera etc - that this is some young well educated kid - because he speaks very well - on some sort of obsessive teenage campaign to right the world and he will eventually grow out of it !!!

I still can't believe that a taxi driver would consider that he has actually passed a cyclist when he has past the bike and not the rest of his cab. He was well out of order.


----------



## mickle (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Work together.


 
Ha ha ha.


----------



## davefb (7 Dec 2012)

MontyVeda said:


> whistles aren't exactly quiet though... quite a loud piercing sound in fact... maybe that's why the police use them?


i'd have one while hiking, but as a kid we would be warned repeatedly not to cycle with anything in your mouth... 
apparently there were millions of children killed by whistles and lollypop related incidents..

and if you have to grab it, then you're losing control at what must be a dangerous time and you have a delay ?


(and half the time personally I wouldnt have any breath left anyway  )


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Dec 2012)

I have theory that I apply when I am driving, anyone who is using their own power to travel deserves the right to be given way too, it costs me zero energy to appy a brake and the move on, pity every motorist does not apply the same.

The bridge in that clip is a nightmare, and as proven by Gaz's cam, it doesn't matter how strong your primary is you will still get some twunt try and push by. Not only is it a short sharp up hill it is double white lines and thin, no way could you safely get a car in each direction + bike, it is used by several bus routes and a blind brow of the hill, only and I mean only a plonker would try and overtake a bike there.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> I have theory that I apply when I am driving, anyone who is using their own power to travel deserves the right to be given way too, it costs me zero energy to appy a brake and the move on, pity every motorist does not apply the same.
> 
> The bridge in that clip is a nightmare, and as proven by Gaz's cam, it doesn't matter how strong your primary is you will still get some twunt try and push by. Not only is it a short sharp up hill it is double white lines and thin, no way could you safely get a car in each direction + bike, it is used by several bus routes and a blind brow of the hill, only and I mean only a plonker would try and overtake a bike there.


where is that bridge, Loco? It looks familiar, but I can't place it.


----------



## Schneil (7 Dec 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sages-death-threats.html?ICO=most_read_module

Poor Gaz! The comments from the Daily Fail readers aren't too nice!


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> where is that bridge, Loco? It looks familiar, but I can't place it.


 Runs off from the huge roundabout near Clockhouse Road Beckenham and up towards Spring Park Golf range Addsicombe


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Dec 2012)

Or maybe easier ref runs up directly from Tesco's Beckenham


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> that's not how it works at this junction. There are more bikes than cabs by a factor of ten - or more. Bikes gather at the front. Cabs race around the right and cut in to the bus lane about 400 metres up. Gaz was waiting for that to happen because he's seen it before, but if the cab driver hadn't cut Gaz up he would have cut somebody else up. So.....are all the cyclists (and there are often thirty waiting at this particular light) supposed to pull to one side and let the cab by?


sorry, and I should have said - the problem arises because of the bus lane. I'm a big fan of bus lanes, but in this instance it would be sensible to do the thing they've done in Upper Street and ban taxis from the red tarmac to the northeast of the junction. What happens is the cyclists gather at the front, the cabs go in to the centre lane (which is the bus lane) and when the light goes green they try and pass the cyclists without moving in to the right hand lane any more than they have to, and then, once the stationary buses just to the west of the junction have been passed, they turn in to the left to miss the right turn lane at Union Street and to take advantage of the bus lane toward Clapham North. It's not the world's biggest problem because we are many and they are few, but it is routine. So, we, all of us, watch out for the horrors, and, happily, you can mostly hear them coming.

When I'm on my own I travel pretty much at the speed limit, and there is no way the suckers are going to cut me up. When I'm with Agent Hilda I ride ahead and outside of her (usually on the Brompton) and, if a cab comes up behind me, give the driver the eyebrow of disapproval until such time it's safe to pass - taking account not only of my position, but those cyclists who are ahead of me.


----------



## Glow worm (7 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> give the driver the eyebrow of disapproval


 
Love it!  I'm going to have to stop clipping my eyebrows!


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

mickle said:


> Ha ha ha.


 
Therein lies the problem.


----------



## summerdays (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> There was a scene on the programme (sorry forgot who it was) but he was getting tooted from behind. He was taking centre position and you could see that the traffic infront of him was pulling away into the distance - ie., travelling a lot faster than he was at that point. The guy tooting basically couldn't get past and was getting aggrivated. In that instance, I think the cyclist was in the wrong.


At a junction whether I'm slower or faster I am usually in the middle of the lane for my safety - if it holds up a motorist for a few seconds, for my own safety so be it. We wouldn't actually need to use this position if motorists were far more considerate and aware of cyclists - and didn't try left hooking us etc.


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Dec 2012)

summerdays said:


> At a junction whether I'm slower or faster I am usually in the middle of the lane for my safety - if it holds up a motorist for a few seconds, for my own safety so be it. We wouldn't actually need to use this position if motorists were far more considerate and aware of cyclists - and didn't try left hooking us etc.


 I the more I think about primary the more it irritates me that it is needed in the first place.

Why on earth the BBC didn't keep on repeating this god only knows, oh wait...


----------



## gaz (7 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> that's not how it works at this junction. There are more bikes than cabs by a factor of ten - or more. Bikes gather at the front. Cabs race around the right and cut in to the bus lane about 400 metres up. Gaz was waiting for that to happen because he's seen it before, but if the cab driver hadn't cut Gaz up he would have cut somebody else up. So.....are all the cyclists (and there are often thirty waiting at this particular light) supposed to pull to one side and let the cab by?


As you have said, many cyclists would have come behind me and in front of the taxi, that is the way this junction works.
I would have gone on the same green that he did, and look how long it took for him to catch me up, I think that backs up the notion of more cyclists being behind me.
Sittingduck has already said he recongises this taxi from around the same time as it was filmed as it cut him up as well.



albion said:


> I am assuming that it was Gaz who inspired the whole money making show in the first place.
> It was obviously all centred around him.
> 
> I still allude that the overall message was educational, though I doubt laws will get changed or any mandatory sentences introduced for such as 'causing death by failing to indicate' etc..


No, I was not the first cyclist to be contacted, in fact they were only aware of me after magnatom pointed them in my direction.



dellzeqq said:


> where is that bridge, Loco? It looks familiar, but I can't place it.


It's Croydon Road A222 going out of elmers end. a hump back bridge.
I sounded a bit out of breath when the driver got out as I was giving it my all over there, I don't want to hold people up.


Schneil said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sages-death-threats.html?ICO=most_read_module
> 
> Poor Gaz! The comments from the Daily Fail readers aren't too nice!


It's been a tough day, i'm more annoyed because the mail is reporting that I'm getting death threats. Which is not true. A few people have said some crap on twitter, not directly too me and that is no worse that what I get on youtube daily.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (7 Dec 2012)

I've just been reading the Daily Mail comments, Gaz. Keep your chin up, son! You're doing a great job! Don't let the buggers get you down!


----------



## PK99 (7 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> that's not how it works at this junction. There are more bikes than cabs by a factor of ten - or more. Bikes gather at the front. Cabs race around the right and cut in to the bus lane about 400 metres up. Gaz was waiting for that to happen because he's seen it before, but if the cab driver hadn't cut Gaz up he would have cut somebody else up. So.....are all the cyclists (and there are often thirty waiting at this particular light) supposed to pull to one side and let the cab by?


 
I'm not talking about the general operation of the junction, i'm talking of the specific circumstances of the video where Gaz has already identified a dodgy driver yet Gaz MGIF


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> I the more I think about primary the more it irritates me that it is needed in the first place.
> 
> Why on earth the BBC didn't keep on repeating this god only knows, oh wait...
> 
> View attachment 16062


 
I want this. Everyone wants it. But in a city, this is mostly not practicable.

I know it should be, but it never will be.This comes down to planning and traffic management and a whole world of things that are decades away.


----------



## Beebo (7 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> It's been a tough day, i'm more annoyed because the mail is reporting that I'm getting death threats. Which is not true. A few people have said some crap on twitter, not directly too me and that is no worse that what I get on youtube daily.


 Hi Gaz,
Just seen this in the Standard, you seem to be setting the record straight.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...reth-williams-gets-death-threats-8393175.html

Keep up the good work, we all still love you! It will all die down in a few days.


----------



## MrJamie (7 Dec 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> the production company did two particular things to Gaz that I think where underhand:
> 
> 1 - the licking of the lips - it did and offered nothing.
> 
> ...


Strangely enough I thought the same about the camera angles, but skipping through on iPlayer it seemed they did it to everyone including the angry cabbie. I think Gaz was just tilting his head back that exaggerated it, which i think is a glasses wearer centering the lenses on what youre looking at thing, but they got him doing it a lot, like the lip licking and smirking. I guess they thought they needed to make the stereotype so that the majority would relate.

The one thing that does get me is that people don't seem to realise that more people cycling especially in heavy traffic areas frees up space on the road and that if they did successfully scare all the nuscience cyclists off the road there would be a huge amount more traffic.


----------



## jonny jeez (7 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> It's been a tough day, i'm more annoyed because the mail is reporting that I'm getting death threats. Which is not true. A few people have said some crap on twitter, not directly too me and that is no worse that what I get on youtube daily.


 
Glad to hear that you are rising above the comments. 

I was shocked (having met you and understanding your nature and personality) at how the final edit made you appear to relish in the cabbie incident.

Chin up Gaz. trust bloddy Maggers to grab the limelight....flippin Scots wailer!!

PS, Luv u really Maggs


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (7 Dec 2012)

We are with you Gaz,you have friends here.


----------



## Matthew_T (7 Dec 2012)

Do we really have to continue this thread anymore?

I think that we are all in agreement that:
1. The BBC covered both sides fairly well.
2. Gaz's actual personality was poorly portrayed in the programme.
3. The video of Gaz and the taxi driver wasnt the best example to use.
4. There isnt a 'War on Britain's roads', it is just people not liking other people.


----------



## Dusty66 (7 Dec 2012)

mickle said:


> Annoyance? You're as ignorant as those idiot drivers if you can't understand that a cyclist pedalling along a road is perfectly entitled to do so at a speed of their choosing. They are_ traffic_, their journey every bit valid as any drivers.
> 
> The guy tooting didn't have enough space to safely pass the cyclist. Did you see the oncoming traffic? The double white lines?
> 
> Does it not register with you that the people holding up most drivers are _other drivers_? They'll apparently sit quite happily in lines of traffic but they find _us_ annoying?!


 
I don't know that bit of road personally, I'm just describing how it looked on TV. Now I've read that there can be 30 cyclists (WOW) at the junction just before it, and that it's a narrow stretch of road etc., etc., I can now say that the taxi driver was at fault! I was just describing how I saw it (prior to more info) and how most other TV viewers would have seen it.

I have read all the comments on the Daily Mail site and have seen many comments from cyclists who are able to see it from both sides. It seems on this forum (not surprising) that the majority just can't accept any argument at all. I am a cyclist myself! And a car driver. I can see both sides. When on my bike I know how drivers are thinking and it's not going to change, infact the more congested the roads get, the worse it's going to become. 30 cyclists at one junction, plus backed up traffic is unimaginable. No wonder everyone is at eachothers throats. Human nature is to think of number one, and on congested roads it leads to mayhem. But you can make a decision not to be a part of it. You can have a relaxing ride if you let all the speed freaks and impatient road users pass on by. There's no real need to weave in and out to save a few minutes, in fact doing that makes you just as bad as the drivers you are complaining about.


----------



## Theseus (7 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Do we really have to continue this thread anymore?


 
Yes, I havn't seen it yet, and won't be able to until Sat PM.

After watching it I will need to spleen my vent.


----------



## Leodis (7 Dec 2012)

> There's no real need to weave in and out to save a few minutes, in fact doing that makes you just as bad as the drivers you are complaining about.


 
You really have no idea.


----------



## thefollen (7 Dec 2012)

[QUOTE 2192739, member: 1314"]Look. I think Gaz is a hero for putting himself out there. He's also not stubborn and is a reflective person. So, me - I'll be buying him a pint at

*LONDON CC XMAS DRINKS at:*
*THE STAGE DOOR PUB, off THE CUT, WATERLOO on*
*FRIDAY 14 DECEMBER, 6.30pm!!!!!!!*[/quote]

Cool, if possible I'll pop over and say hello.


----------



## User482 (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I want this. Everyone wants it. But in a city, this is mostly not practicable.
> 
> I know it should be, but it never will be.This comes down to planning and traffic management and a whole world of things that are decades away.


 
In cities, cyclists are often quicker than motorists, so there's no need for them to overtake.


----------



## Dusty66 (7 Dec 2012)

Leodis said:


> You really have no idea.


I must have some idea my friend. I've been driving 25 years without an accident and cycling for pretty much the same time on and off without accident either.


----------



## PK99 (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> You can have a relaxing ride if you let all the speed freaks and impatient road users pass on by. There's no real need to weave in and out to save a few minutes, in fact doing that makes you just as bad as the drivers you are complaining about.


 

wot he said!


----------



## Leodis (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> I must have some idea my friend. I've been driving 25 years without an accident and cycling for pretty much the same time on and off without accident either.


 
So after 25 years of cycling you think cyclists who filter are as bad as aggressive poor drivers.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Dec 2012)

Trevrev said:


> Were you in the playground when you typed this? Very school boy!
> Made me laugh though!



Have you read my signature?


----------



## Glow worm (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> I must have some idea my friend. I've been driving 25 years without an accident and cycling for pretty much the same time *on and off* without accident either.


 
I suspect probably more off than on!


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I want this. Everyone wants it. But in a city, this is mostly not practicable.
> 
> I know it should be, but it never will be.This comes down to planning and traffic management and a whole world of things that are decades away.


My point was I am pretty sure non cycling drivers do not have a clue that it should be that sort of distance for a safe overtake, I am also sure none of them know the feeling a close pass gives. Even some of the cam shots <apart from Mags> do not truly give the sensation you feel in real life. At no point did the programme try and explain why cyclists should not be passed with inches to spare, nor why primary postion is taken.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Dec 2012)

MontyVeda said:


> whistles aren't exactly quiet though... quite a loud piercing sound in fact... maybe that's why the police use them?



Whilst it might be heavy, 250g, for £20 and a little skill you could mount car horns on your bike.


----------



## Dusty66 (7 Dec 2012)

Leodis said:


> So after 25 years of cycling you think cyclists who filter are as bad as aggressive poor drivers.


 
Not done 25 years on a bike, probably more like 10 when added up! And no I don't mean ALL cyclists who filter shouldn't filter I'm talking about those who do it thinking they are as visible as a car and take risks squeezing through tiny spaces.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> My point was I am pretty sure non cycling drivers do not have a clue that it should be that sort of distance for a safe overtake, I am also sure none of them know the feeling a close pass gives. Even some of the cam shots <apart from Mags> truly give the sensation you feel in real life. At no point did the programme try and explain why cyclists should not be passed with inches to spare, nor why primary postion is taken.


 
That's not what the programme intended to do.

It achieved what it intended to do, that much is clear.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

User482 said:


> In cities, cyclists are often quicker than motorists, so there's no need for them to overtake.


 
That's a myth. Average speed, absolutely, but traffic surges. 0-30mph routinely. Bikes cruise at 10-20mph on the whole.

Cyclists need to be overtaken.


----------



## mickle (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> I don't know that bit of road personally, I'm just describing how it looked on TV. Now I've read that there can be 30 cyclists (WOW) at the junction just before it, and that it's a narrow stretch of road etc., etc., I can now say that the taxi driver was at fault! I was just describing how I saw it (prior to more info) and how most other TV viewers would have seen it.
> 
> I have read all the comments on the Daily Mail site and have seen many comments from cyclists who are able to see it from both sides. It seems on this forum (not surprising) that the majority just can't accept any argument at all. I am a cyclist myself! And a car driver. I can see both sides. When on my bike I know how drivers are thinking and it's not going to change, infact the more congested the roads get, the worse it's going to become. 30 cyclists at one junction, plus backed up traffic is unimaginable. No wonder everyone is at eachothers throats. Human nature is to think of number one, and on congested roads it leads to mayhem. But you can make a decision not to be a part of it. You can have a relaxing ride if you let all the speed freaks and impatient road users pass on by. There's no real need to weave in and out to save a few minutes, in fact doing that makes you just as bad as the drivers you are complaining about.


You know I'm not a driver how?


----------



## Leodis (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> Not done 25 years on a bike, probably more like 10 when added up! And no I don't mean ALL cyclists who filter shouldn't filter I'm talking about those who do it thinking they are as visible as a car and take risks squeezing through tiny spaces.


 
I agree, don't see it in Leeds mainly RLJ


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> But you can make a decision not to be a part of it. You can have a relaxing ride if you let all the speed freaks and impatient road users pass on by. There's no real need to weave in and out to save a few minutes, in fact doing that makes you just as bad as the drivers you are complaining about.


I commute in the SE from a Greater London Borough out to Surrey, most of my roads are busy with fast moving commuting traffic, I seldom even get the chance to weave in and out. I have low speed compared to my motorist travelling buddies, so primary would be pretty difficult and yet I still get close passes, bullied etc. I really cannot see what I could do to avoid it, other than to stop cycling during peak traffic.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> That's a myth. Average speed, absolutely, but traffic surges. 0-30mph routinely. Bikes cruise at 10-20mph on the whole.
> 
> Cyclists need to be overtaken.


They do not need to be overtaken. When I drive in to Manchester I'll sit behind cyclists, I get better fuel efficiency and brake wear as a benefit, I lose no time. If you feel you need to overtake I suggest that you're a dangerous driver.


----------



## PK99 (7 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> They do not need to be overtaken. When I drive in to Manchester I'll sit behind cyclists, I get better fuel efficiency and brake wear as a benefit, I lose no time. If you feel you need to overtake I suggest that you're a dangerous driver.


 
so the speed of the motor traffic is to be determined by the speed of choice of the slowest cyclist? - or so would appear to be the logic of your post


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> so the speed of the motor traffic is to be determined by the speed of choice of the slowest cyclist? - or so would appear to be the logic of your post


 Surely you would expect a driver to wait for safe overtake?


----------



## User482 (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> That's a myth. Average speed, absolutely, but traffic surges. 0-30mph routinely. Bikes cruise at 10-20mph on the whole.
> 
> Cyclists need to be overtaken.


 
Traffic surges and joins the back of the next queue, rendering the overtake completely pointless. Faster traffic also reduces the carrying capacity of the road, making congestion worse.

It would all work far better if cars cruised in cities at 20mph max.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

User482 said:


> Traffic surges and joins the back of the next queue, rendering the overtake completely pointless. Faster traffic also reduces the carrying capacity of the road, making congestion worse.
> 
> It would all work far better if cars cruised in cities at 20mph max.


 
Absolutely true.

Yet moot.


----------



## User482 (7 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> so the speed of the motor traffic is to be determined by the speed of choice of the slowest cyclist? - or so would appear to be the logic of your post


 
Try reading it again. The point is that going at the speed of cyclists does not increase the journey time of motor traffic.


----------



## User482 (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Absolutely true.
> 
> Yet moot.


 
If my post is absolutely true, then cyclists do not need to be overtaken.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

User482 said:


> If my post is absolutely true, then cyclists do not need to be overtaken.


 
This is also true. If every single car complied, we'd have an efficient, calmer, saner, transport system.

It's just that it's as likely as the suggestion that we should simply make all cars fly to free up the roads for cycles.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> That's a myth. Average speed, absolutely, but traffic surges. 0-30mph routinely. Bikes cruise at 10-20mph on the whole.
> 
> Cyclists need to be overtaken.


sorry, but that's a stone cold certain fact. I can get from my place to Islington (7 miles) in 35 minutes in rush hour by Brompton and 30 minutes on the C50. It could easily take a car over an hour. Traffic speed in London has stayed at or around 9mph for decades - less when crossing the City. And that, my scruffy friend, is one of the big reasons why we are so resented by some (not all) drivers. We swan down bus lanes, heads in the air, flies in our teeth, looking like gods while they swelter in stationary tin cans. If I were them I'd be saying 'that man's half my age, yet his buttocks are made of welded steel and the smile on the face suggest that somebody loves him with a passion that is undiluted. I should give that a try', but, instead of that they say 'hhhmmmppphhhh, I know I'm inadequate and this upholstery is giving me piles, but this car is the sum total of my identity and I'm not about to give it up'.


----------



## User482 (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> This is also true. If every single car complied, we'd have an efficient, calmer, saner, transport system.
> 
> It's just that it's as likely as the suggestion that we should simply make all cars fly to free up the roads for cycles.


 
So when you said "cyclists need to be overtaken" what you meant was "cyclists don't need to be overtaken"?


----------



## Doug. (7 Dec 2012)

jonny jeez said:


> Was Glasgow on the show last night then?
> 
> I missed that. you're not mistaking him for Dave "scientist" are you? (aka Magnatom of this parish)


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> sorry, but that's a stone cold certain fact. I can get from my place to Islington (7 miles) in 35 minutes in rush hour by Brompton and 30 minutes on the C50. It could easily take a car over an hour. Traffic speed in London has stayed at or around 9mph for decades - less when crossing the City.


 
As I said, average speed, yes. Which is why I agree that a blanket 20mph speed limit would no doubt improve traffic flow.

But all cycles are not faster than all cars, all of the time. Thus they need to be overtaken within the existing transport network.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

User482 said:


> So when you said "cyclists need to be overtaken" what you meant was "cyclists don't need to be overtaken"?


 
Do you honestly believe what you're saying? Do you consider every overtake to be unneccesary?


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Do you honestly believe what you're saying? Do you consider every overtake to be unneccesary?


in towns almost all.


----------



## User482 (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Do you honestly believe what you're saying? Do you consider every overtake to be unneccesary?


 
Wot Dell said. I don't have a great problem with pointless overtakes provided it's done in accordance with the Highway Code. But if there isn't room, the motorist isn't placed at any disadvantage by following the cyclist.


----------



## Doug. (7 Dec 2012)

jonny jeez said:


> Was Glasgow on the show last night then?
> 
> I missed that. you're not mistaking him for Dave "scientist" are you? (aka Magnatom of this parish)


 
Yes,it appears I am mistaken.
However "good luck" to all cyclists,after the "close encounter" with the lorry, I fear for us all.
Dave the "scientist",very decent of you to allow the transmition of the video,I am still shocked by it.

Yours
Doug. F.


----------



## Dan B (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> As I said, average speed, yes. Which is why I agree that a blanket 20mph speed limit would no doubt improve traffic flow.
> 
> But all cycles are not faster than all cars, all of the time. Thus they need to be overtaken within the existing transport network.


I am not aware of any "need" for vehicles capable of travelling at the speed limit to do so at all times or even at most times. I have read the Highway Code cover to cover and have a passing familiarity with much of the legislation on which it's based. Can you point me at your source for this?


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

User482 said:


> Wot Dell said. I don't have a great problem with pointless overtakes provided it's done in accordance with the Highway Code. But if there isn't room, the motorist isn't placed at any disadvantage by following the cyclist.


 
We can continue to live in some made up fantasy, or we can deal with the real world.

I'd love a world in which cars moved at a maximum speed of 20mph in major metropolitajn areas but until that ever happens, we have to talk within the confines of the world we currently inhabit.

Most cars on open sections of road travel at 30mph. Most cyclists move at 15mph. That's double the speed.

Lots of overtakes could be better but they are necessary.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

Dan B said:


> I am not aware of any "need" for vehicles capable of travelling at the speed limit to do so at all times or even at most times. I have read the Highway Code cover to cover and have a passing familiarity with much of the legislation on which it's based. Can you point me at your source for this?


 
I don't believe that I suggested there was such legislation?


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> We can continue to live in some made up fantasy, or we can deal with the real world.
> 
> I'd love a world in which cars moved at a maximum speed of 20mph in major metropolitajn areas but until that ever happens, we have to talk within the confines of the world we currently inhabit.
> 
> ...


most of the time they're travelling at under ten miles an hour.

By the way, Crock, nobody's interested in your undoubted athleticism. The big news is that Agent Hilda, riding her Brompton, is faster than a car in rush hour.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> most of the time they're travelling at under ten miles an hour.


 
Maybe I have a skewed perception of London to most. My commute is 22 Miles from Kent to West Ken. 80-90% of that is on faster moving roads where overtakes are constant.

Perhaps if I commuted from She Bu to the City every day I'd have a more condensed opinion.


----------



## Dan B (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I don't believe that I suggested there was such legislation?


On what basis then are these overtakes necessary? They're not necessary to getting anywhere faster, they're not required by law, I'm struggling to think of any other grounds. Are you saying that car drivers are unable to exercise proper control of their vehicles at 12mph?


----------



## Grendel (7 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> As you have said, many cyclists would have come behind me and in front of the taxi, that is the way this junction works.
> I would have gone on the same green that he did, and look how long it took for him to catch me up, I think that backs up the notion of more cyclists being behind me.
> Sittingduck has already said he recongises this taxi from around the same time as it was filmed as it cut him up as well.
> 
> ...


 Having only read a fraction of the Daily Mail comments I've had to give up. I feel dirty and need a bath.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> where is that bridge, Loco? It looks familiar, but I can't place it.


 
I think it's this one near Beckenham, might be facing the wrong direction in Streetview:

http://goo.gl/maps/umHEd


----------



## Jon2 (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> I must have some idea my friend. I've been driving 25 years without an accident and cycling for pretty much the same time on and off without accident either.



I haven't contributed much to this thread, but I want to point out that you're sounding a lot like one of the people in the film. The taxi driver who got upset when Gaz touched his car. He said something very similar, and yet it's quite clear from the film that he is a dangerous driver. I'm sure you've heard people talking about the stereotypical older driver who hasn't hit anyone, but leaves a wake of destruction behind them.


----------



## User482 (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> We can continue to live in some made up fantasy, or we can deal with the real world.
> 
> I'd love a world in which cars moved at a maximum speed of 20mph in major metropolitajn areas but until that ever happens, we have to talk within the confines of the world we currently inhabit.
> 
> ...


 
Overtakes are mostly unnecessary. I understand that motorists wish to overtake, but that is a very different thing.

Could you explain what is unreasonable in my earlier statement: "I don't have a great problem with pointless overtakes provided it's done in accordance with the Highway Code. But if there isn't room, the motorist isn't placed at any disadvantage by following the cyclist."


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> As I said, average speed, yes. Which is why I agree that a blanket 20mph speed limit would no doubt improve traffic flow.
> 
> But all cycles are not faster than all cars, all of the time. Thus they need to be overtaken within the existing transport network.


 
No cyclists need to be overtaken at less than highway code standard. Just wait behind until a highway code overtake is possible. Saying that's impractical is silly and wrong.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

Dan B said:


> On what basis then are these overtakes necessary? They're not necessary to getting anywhere faster, they're not required by law, I'm struggling to think of any other grounds. Are you saying that car drivers are unable to exercise proper control of their vehicles at 12mph?


 
You're being facetious.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> No cyclists need to be overtaken at less than highway code standard. Just wait behind until a highway code overtake is possible. Saying that's impractical is silly and wrong.


 
I'd be lucky if I saw 20% of the overtakes I see on my commute fit that criteria. Our roads are too busy, it's unworkable.

We can't retreat and hide behind an outdated leaflet. I know it's purpose, but it needs a heavy edit.

Highway Code standard gives no mention to a speed differential between the vehicles, and, I dont believe any guidance on cycles passing each other.

We have to work with reality. I don't expect highway code passes, I really don't. I expect considered, sensible passes. I think all of us would take that.


----------



## Jon2 (7 Dec 2012)

I don't think I've ever had someone pass me considerately and sensibly and not at the same time be a Highway Code pass. If that makes sense.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> We have to work with reality. I don't expect highway code passes, I really don't. I expect considered, sensible passes. I think all of us would take that.



That's pretty much my experience, the super poor passes are balanced by the textbook passes. The rest are scattered somewhere in between where I basically class them as "acceptable" in that they didn't hit/scare the bejesus out of me.


----------



## albion (7 Dec 2012)

On the whole I have always avoided Daily Mail comments.

It somehow makes me feel as bad as them by partaking in reading them.


----------



## deanE (7 Dec 2012)

Just caught up with watching the “movie”, BBC prog, and reading the “book”, this thread. Can’t say that the TV prog gave a very good account of humanity today. Several posts here about the “need" for motor vehicles to overtake, yet none that suggested that there was equally no “need" for the cyclist to over/undertake. Also Gaz’s comment about assertive cycling. The one thing about being assertive, as with any other of life’s skills, is knowing when to use it and when not. It doesn’t hurt to give way, even when you are in the right. It certainly hurts less than being hit by a car or the driver. Lots of cyclists talk about their right to be on the highway but not so many mention their responsibility, to themselves and others, and even less mention reciprocity, treating others as you would wish to be treated. I also think that there is a growing number of adult cyclists who don’t drive and haven’t learnt basic road sense and should not be allowed out on their own.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2012)

No, proper overtakes are not impractical, and the highway code isn't an outdated document. For the most part it is an exceptionally good piece of writing.

I should point out that that highway code picture is for a narrow lane. Where the lane is wider, and even in London there are plenty of these, a highway code pass is quite possible in the same lane.

IME most passes are highway code standard, and only a few are poor but acceptable. These get the toot and pushing out to the right motion to ask for more room, but no YouTubing or reporting. Perhaps one overtake might be YouTubeable in a 45 mile ride in London traffic, I don't know exactly.


----------



## albion (7 Dec 2012)

Many know that and ride on the pavement.

That I always agree with when suitable. Apart from busy city areas, most pavements are near deserted. 
Few seem to walk.


----------



## mickle (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Therein lies the problem.


 
Wherein lies the problem? I've spent the best part of forty years obeying the rules of the road and riding with care and consideration for the safety of others. Have I seen any improvement in the standard of driving around me? Have I buggery.

It's not cyclists posing the danger on our roads so I don't see why cyclists should 'work together' with anyone.


----------



## PK99 (7 Dec 2012)

[QUOTE 2192986, member: 1314"]This morning I was overtaken by one of those small Audi sporty jobs (considerately I may add) as I approached Raynes Park Train Station. Traffic not too busy and moving freely. 6 miles later I’d left it behind, stuck at reds at Clapham Common tube. This was 6 miles later. Now, I was averaging 12mph this morning. Audi could quite reasonably have stayed behind me. Average speed of a car in London is only 11mph. [/quote]

and other traffic should stay behind the old biddy ex teacher I know who cycles along that road a little more then walking pace as she finds cycling easier than walking?


----------



## Dan B (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> You're being facetious.


No, I'm being serious. What disadvantage is a driver placed under if forced to follow a cyclist at 12mph instead of being able to accelerate very briefly to 30mph and then stop 15 seconds later at the back of the next traffic queue?


----------



## User482 (7 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> and other traffic should stay behind the old biddy ex teacher I know who cycles along that road a little more then walking pace as she finds cycling easier than walking?


 
And if the ex teacher were in a car driving slowly, what then?


----------



## PK99 (7 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> most of the time they're travelling at under ten miles an hour.
> 
> By the way, Crock, nobody's interested in your undoubted athleticism. The big news is that Agent Hilda, riding her Brompton, is *faster than a car in rush hour*.


 
that is redefining the argument - the point as put originally refereed to overtaking cyclists in towns not to rush hour average speeds


----------



## Dan B (7 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> and other traffic should stay behind the old biddy ex teacher I know who cycles along that road a little more then walking pace as she finds cycling easier than walking?


If it can't overtake safely and considerately, yes. Road sweepers move at about that speed and everyone seems to manage around them


----------



## PK99 (7 Dec 2012)

User482 said:


> And if the ex teacher were in a car driving slowly, what then?


 
complete straw man


----------



## mickle (7 Dec 2012)

And equestrians.


----------



## PK99 (7 Dec 2012)

Dan B said:


> If it can't overtake safely and considerately, yes. Road sweepers move at about that speed and everyone seems to manage around them


 
again a straw man. the point as originally put related to overtaking per se not un-safe overtake:


----------



## Dan B (7 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> again a straw man. the point as originally put related to overtaking per se not un-safe overtake:


_Your_ point may have related to overtaking per se, but the context in which you made it was clearly about situations in which a safe overtake is not possible. If you can overtake safely, go ahead and do so, if you want to.



Earlier said:


> Wot Dell said. I don't have a great problem with pointless overtakes provided it's done in accordance with the Highway Code. But if there isn't room, the motorist isn't placed at any disadvantage by following the cyclist.


What he said


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> again a straw man. the point as originally put related to overtaking per se not un-safe overtake:


 
My main objection is the word _need_



Scruffmonster said:


> That's a myth. Average speed, absolutely, but traffic surges. 0-30mph routinely. Bikes cruise at 10-20mph on the whole.
> 
> 
> Cyclists *need* to be overtaken.


 
When is an overtake of any other vehicle a need, not a want.



> *need*
> 
> Pronunciation: /niːd/
> Definition of *need*
> ...


----------



## Jimmy Doug (7 Dec 2012)

deanE said:


> I also think that there is a growing number of adult _*cyclists*_ who don’t drive and haven’t learnt basic road sense and should not be allowed out on their own.


 
I also think there is a growing number of adult _*drivers*_ who haven't learnt basic road sense and should not be allowed out on their own


----------



## Dusty66 (7 Dec 2012)

Jon2 said:


> I haven't contributed much to this thread, but I want to point out that you're sounding a lot like one of the people in the film. The taxi driver who got upset when Gaz touched his car. He said something very similar, and yet it's quite clear from the film that he is a dangerous driver. I'm sure you've heard people talking about the stereotypical older driver who hasn't hit anyone, but leaves a wake of destruction behind them.


 
Your comment made me laugh. At which point did I become the "stereotypical older driver" leaving a "wake of destruction"? Was it at 20, 30 or 40? How old are you?!


----------



## Twilkes (7 Dec 2012)

Will probably watch it tomorrow, but was surprised that it is number 3 in iPlayer's most popular programme list. Tracy Beaker is nowhere to be seen.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> again a straw man. the point as originally put related to overtaking per se not un-safe overtake:


 


PK99 said:


> and other traffic should stay behind the old biddy ex teacher I know who cycles along that road a little more then walking pace as she finds cycling easier than walking?


 
It's very easy indeed. DON'T PUT OTHER PEOPLE IN DANGER. Or stop driving and get off the road.

If it's a poorer-than-highway code standard overtake, the risk is increased. That risk might be acceptable to you, but it wouldn't be in a driving test, and that's the standard of measure used in the UK.


----------



## veloevol (7 Dec 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> the production company did two particular things to Gaz that I think where underhand:
> 
> 1 - the licking of the lips - it did and offered nothing.
> 
> ...




Indeed the camera angle was to infer he was looking down his nose at the average viewer which IMO was and is not the case with Gaz. I suspect he wants the same as most of us, that drivers calm the feck down around cyclists.


----------



## Jon2 (7 Dec 2012)

Dusty66 said:


> Your comment made me laugh. At which point did I become the "stereotypical older driver" leaving a "wake of destruction"? Was it at 20, 30 or 40? How old are you?!



I didn't mean you are an older driver, I was just making a comparison to a well known idea to show that it is very easy not to hit anyone and still be dangerous and cause other road users to collide. 

If it makes a difference I'm 20, with no more driving experience that the 20 hours it took to pass my test. Also, if I had started driving at that time then I would have probably been one of the drivers who leaves a wake of destruction. The many miles cycling I've done since then has improved my road sense hugely.


----------



## summerdays (7 Dec 2012)

Dan B said:


> If it can't overtake safely and considerately, yes. Road sweepers move at about that speed and everyone seems to manage around them


Yesterday I sat behind a road sweeper doing between 3 and 4 mph ... yes I was behind long enough to watch his speed fluctuate, and I stayed there until it was safe to pass when he pulled in. It was a very narrow road (private road used by large numbers of cyclists), I could have squeezed past in the same way that drivers pass me - but I knew it wouldn't be forever.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2012)

If you leave 5 or 10 minutes early, that'll take away much of the pressure to rush and drive badly, IMO. Impatience, and trying to do too much in too little time, is perhaps the biggest overall failing on our roads. I'm guilty of it too, sometimes, but I try to compensate and avoid the problem by allowing plenty of time to get to places.


----------



## Linford (7 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> As you have said, many cyclists would have come behind me and in front of the taxi, that is the way this junction works.
> I would have gone on the same green that he did, and look how long it took for him to catch me up, I think that backs up the notion of more cyclists being behind me.
> Sittingduck has already said he recongises this taxi from around the same time as it was filmed as it cut him up as well.
> 
> ...


 
On reflection, would you have done anything differently either in the interview, or on the roads ?


----------



## cloggsy (7 Dec 2012)

As a result of this programme I understand Gaz has received death threats? Well I for one hope the Police take this as seriously as threats made over twitter/facebook and alike and take action against the perpetrators?

This is just not on!


----------



## Arfcollins (7 Dec 2012)

Could someone please summarise pages 22 to 43 of the thread in 25 words or less? SWMBO has a busy weekend planned for me.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Dec 2012)

mickle said:


> Hitting a lump of steel with a lump of flesh rarely hurts the lump of steel.



I think your point has more explicit meaning that you realise.

A lump of steel can't have feelings. Start with that premise and much of the “debate“ falls away.


----------



## gambatte (7 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I'd be lucky if I saw 20% of the overtakes I see on my commute fit that criteria. Our roads are too busy, it's unworkable.
> We can't retreat and hide behind an outdated leaflet. I know it's purpose, but it needs a heavy edit.
> Highway Code standard gives no mention to a speed differential between the vehicles, and, I dont believe any guidance on cycles passing each other.
> We have to work with reality. I don't expect highway code passes, I really don't. I expect considered, sensible passes. I think all of us would take that.


 
Outdated and needs a heavy edit.......
It got an edit and was renewed after lengthy consultation 5 years ago.
I know, I got it then and when my lads started cycling I got them a copy too.
Lets not forget that we're drivers by LICENCE. To get that we've had to prove we can drive to the standard required by the highway code, which is based on law. If you can't keep yourself in the frame of mind that that standard continues afterwards then you don't deserve a licence.
If I can't safely pass a cyclist.... I don't.


----------



## subaqua (7 Dec 2012)

400bhp said:


> I think your point has more explicit meaning that you realise.
> 
> A lump of steel can't have feelings. Start with that premise and much of the “debate“ falls away.


 
does hitting the steel with flesh damnage the steel structurally, at a molecular level ?


----------



## rliu (7 Dec 2012)

All this vitriol just boils down to the simple fact that some drivers and pedestrians alike are bitter towards cyclists for being able to weave in and out of traffic, while at the same time having no insurance or 'road tax'. They somehow view cyclists as 'getting away with it', without any contemplation for the fact that anyone can become a cyclist and in the process save themselves money and reduce their carbon footprint and also exercise and get healthy. All of this was completely glossed over in this BBC programme, it seems to subconsciously reinforce that all cyclists are weird/confrontational outcasts interested in only antagonising cabbies and van drivers, and who always consistently jump red lights or organise semi-illegal alleycat races.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2012)

"First they ignore _*you*_, then they laugh at _*you*_, then they _*fight you*_, then _*you*_ win."


----------



## 400bhp (7 Dec 2012)

subaqua said:


> does hitting the steel with flesh damnage the steel structurally, at a molecular level ?



Are oranges the only fruit?


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (7 Dec 2012)

rliu said:


> All this vitriol just boils down to the simple fact that some drivers and pedestrians alike are bitter towards cyclists for being able to weave in and out of traffic, while at the same time having no insurance or 'road tax'. They somehow view cyclists as 'getting away with it', without any contemplation for the fact that anyone can become a cyclist and in the process save themselves money and reduce their carbon footprint and also exercise and get healthy. All of this was completely glossed over in this BBC programme, it seems to subconsciously reinforce that all cyclists are weird/confrontational outcasts interested in only antagonising cabbies and van drivers, and who always consistently jump red lights or organise semi-illegal alleycat races.




That sums it up perfectly.


----------



## Scruffmonster (7 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> My main objection is the word _need_
> 
> 
> 
> When is an overtake of any other vehicle a need, not a want.


 
You'd prefer me to say 'Cyclists _want_ to be overtaken'?


----------



## tonyhalsall (7 Dec 2012)

I have watched the programme twice now and my point of view - as an occasional cyclist, motorcyclist and car driver - is that the programme simply went for "best for TV" content. There was nothing at all to offer hope or support for the regular cyclist who just cycles for fun. The two camera armed, "uber cyclists," would not have endeared the general public to cyclists as they came across even to me as being smug and arrogant types who were on a mission to "shame" motorists. Quoting the Highway Code across the divide is pretty pointless really when we all regularly break the law - be it speeding in a car or pavement riding / light dodging on a bicycle. Since I was 11 years old (40 years ago) i have ridden at a reasonable pace, under control and defensively - always expecting the worst and I do the same on my motorcycle

I would have hoped that the programme might have focused a little on the very many benefits that can be achieved from getting on two wheels but it seemed to focus on extremist cyclists who "appear" to be, at best, confrontational. Sorry Gaz - I have seen your posts on here and seen your You Tube vids but i think you were set up by the Beeb and it has not done cycling any real favours - at least not for the ad hoc cyclists amongst us.


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Dec 2012)

When I was a motorcycle courier I was filtering eastward on the Cromwell Road on a very wet, cold, dark winter afternoon when I felt the need to chill....

I found a gap and pulled into the traffic lane on my left. Traffic was hardly moving, so I could put a foot down and take my hands off the bars for a moment and warm them on the barrels. Nothing finer on a cold day. Sizzle, sizzle wet leather gloves.

Suddenly there was a MASSIVE blaring of a horn. The driver behind (Cavalier, Sierra or similar) was honking , waving and shouting at me through closed windows. There'd been a big gap in barely-moving A4 traffic, so I was a little befuddled.

I paddled to the side and did the windey-downey-window sign. He just went mental: "YOU CAN GO ROUND US WHENEVER YOU WANT!!! WHY ARE YOU TAKING MY PLACE IN THE LANE? WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DO THAT? YOU CAN'T JUST CHOOSE!!"

It was very weird and a little disturbing. He looked (and sounded) educated. I mumbled through my chin bar that I'd just come in from down the M4, was tired and needed a quck rest.

Almost at once, his face went a little funny and he hung his head. "I'm sorry. I've had a really bad day. I'm really sorry. Do forgive me..." Etc. He'd blown a fuse in his head for a few seconds and then fixed it. He hadn't opened his door or threatened me or anything, but he was truly barmy-looking.

We shared a little smile after his apology and I paddled back to my space in front of him, then rested a while and tonked back into the traffic.

So... Some drivers (very few) have this sort of fantastical resentment of bicycles and motorcycles being able to move through traffic with gay abandon. Most of the disgruntled honkers, I imagine, are like the chap in my tale. Pissed off about something entirely different, but stuck in a car with a loud horn.

We are all human. I really don't buy the 'hateful, resentful moton' thing. People just have bad days and they sometimes take it out on other people.


----------



## Herzog (7 Dec 2012)

2193511 said:


> There is an apparent dehumanising effect of being in a sealed metal box though.


 
Also apparent when using the internet (not directed as you by the way), allowing people to make all sorts of threats they wouldn't in normal life (unless they were in the aforementioned metal box of course).


----------



## Herzog (7 Dec 2012)

On a related note, it seems the people over at BikeRadar have interesting opinions regarding cyclechat users:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12893662&start=60
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12893662&start=80

Cyclist-cyclist conflict, that's a good idea for a BBC doc...


----------



## jarlrmai (7 Dec 2012)

Poor Gaz, I think youtube vids often understate how scary something felt at the time, wide angle lenses make it look less close and sitting infront of a computer screen without actually being on the bike reduces the apparent speed. People's reactions can often look OTT, but it's what could have happened that is scary (hit a bump and fall into the side of the close passing car)

Thinking of rigging up some sort of the laser ruler thing to find out actually how close a close pass is.


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (7 Dec 2012)

The show was a load of crock lol I was looking forward to it, too.


----------



## daSmirnov (8 Dec 2012)

Rolling into work today I had someone come up to me and start talking about my helmet cam, and how they're not surprised I have one, asking me If I had see the program on telly the other night - I said no, just to try and get their general opinion of things.

They did mention the "messenger race" ... sigh, but from how she was talking seemed to appricate the fact it was a "race" rather than normal riding. Also brought up Magnatom almost being taken out by a lorry, and how she hoped something had happened to the driver.

Saw her again in the afternoon funnily enough with her kid - without my cycle gear on, still recognised me and brought it up again, must have made some sort of impact, not sure if she is a cyclist or not - but she called me the cycle man to her kid.


----------



## AnythingButVanilla (8 Dec 2012)

I've skipped the last twenty pages of this thread so it's probably been posted already but Gaz has made it into the Daily Mail Sidebar of Shame. Fame at last! 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dated-death-threats.html?ICO=most_read_module


----------



## PK99 (8 Dec 2012)

Went out for a pint or too many with a cycling mate tonight. He is mainly a towpath and easy off road rider who does some limited on road riding on his MTB (his only bike)

He asked if I'd seen the programme. I did not answer but asked what he thought of it. Immediate response: "Well balanced. putting both sides of the argument and showing poor behaviour by cyclists and motorists"

I asked: "What did you think of the young guy at the start who had the run in with the taxi driver"
Response "Unhelpfully arrogant"


----------



## redcard (8 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> Went out for a pint or too many with a cycling mate tonight. He is mainly a towpath and easy off road rider who does some limited on road riding on his MTB (his only bike)
> 
> He asked if I'd seen the programme. I did not answer but asked what he thought of it. Immediate response: "Well balanced. putting both sides of the argument and showing poor behaviour by cyclists and motorists"
> 
> ...



It was hardly well balanced when there's no mention at all of the most common type of vehicle / cycle accident, which is the cyclist being hit from behind. 

What did your friend think of the taxi driver?


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Dec 2012)

Jimmy Doug said:


> I also think there is a growing number of adult _*drivers*_ who haven't learnt basic road sense and should not be allowed out on their own


my experience is the reverse. Then again my daytime riding is in London where driving standards are higher than in the rest of the country, and getting better still.

The BikeRadar thread really points to the merits or demerits of the programme. The BR 'voice-from-the-burbs' is that London is a sink of iniquity where cyclists and motorists wage war on each other. The truth is that cycling in London is far more popular than in the rest of the country and the vast majority of cycling journeys are pleasurable. The programme achieved it's undoubted purpose by relying on the testimony of cab drivers, who are the standout hooligans on our streets, highly selective reporting (the cutting of Ben's tape was outstanding), and the use of Lucas Brunelle footage which has as much to do with London as (say) the 7/7 bombers.


----------



## mcshroom (8 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> my experience is the reverse. Then again my daytime riding is in London where driving standards are higher than in the rest of the country, and getting better still.


If you believe that you really need to try cycling in other places more often. My experience of living and commuting in London was that drivers were more agressive, jumped more red lights and generally of poorer qualilty than in most areas outside of the capital. My insurance premiums for those years showed the insurers agreed with me.

There were some things that London drivers were better at, such as merging in turn (when almost stationary), but in general there seemed to be a 'me first' mindset that caused no end of needless hassle, especially if the driver was driving a taxi/private hire vehicle.

It may be that as the number of cyclists increase, they are getting more aware of driving round cyclists, but IMHO the main benefit I have found cycling round London is the extensive implementation of bus lanes.


----------



## defy-one (8 Dec 2012)

Totally disagree with you. I have worked in central london for over 20 years and the driving standards are better than other parts of the country. The higher premiums relate to more bumper bumps due to the quantity of vehicles within a few square miles. 
I drive most days, in and out, at all times of the day/night ..... 99% of the time it all works very well.
Cycling into London is a pleasure .... Cars are moving relatively slowly and drivers are very aware of us and motorbikes. The only ones that get into trouble are those that weave in and out of traffic, giving the car drivers little chance to spot them or react to their erratic riding, lane changing etc


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Dec 2012)

My review


----------



## Boris Bajic (8 Dec 2012)

defy-one said:


> Totally disagree with you. I have worked in central london for over 20 years and the driving standards are better than other parts of the country. The higher premiums relate to more bumper bumps due to the quantity of vehicles within a few square miles.
> I drive most days, in and out, at all times of the day/night ..... 99% of the time it all works very well.
> Cycling into London is a pleasure .... Cars are moving relatively slowly and drivers are very aware of us and motorbikes. The only ones that get into trouble are those that weave in and out of traffic, giving the car drivers little chance to spot them or react to their erratic riding, lane changing etc


 
This, in spades.

Nowhere is perfect, but London is good. It is as defy-one and dellzegg (or similar) have it.

Both on a motorcycle and on a bicycle, I always felt there was more awareness of my presence in London than elsewhere.

Motorists expect there to be a bicycle or a motorcycle going for the gap. Often, there is one - or more than one.

Many years on a motorcycle and bicycle in and away from London suggest that this was more than just a feeling.


----------



## Lpoolck (8 Dec 2012)

Cycling Dan said:


> My review



What tyres do you have on?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (8 Dec 2012)

Vaguely on the subject of London driving, I've been struck by what seems to be a change in driver behaviour coming back into London from east Kent. Out in Kent the driving seems patient but coming past the Medway towns traffic behaviour deteriorates, hitting an absolute low around Dartford. However, closer into town, driving seems to improve again. Possibly because the drivers are more used to car congestion and cyclists on the road.

Is this something anybody else has noticed?


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Dec 2012)

Lpoolck said:


> What tyres do you have on?


the standard tyres that come with the Speiclized allez Specialized Espoir Sport, 60TPI, wire bead, double BlackBelt protection, 700x25c


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Dec 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Vaguely on the subject of London driving, I've been struck by what seems to be a change in driver behaviour coming back into London from east Kent. Out in Kent the driving seems patient but coming past the Medway towns traffic behaviour deteriorates, hitting an absolute low around Dartford. However, closer into town, driving seems to improve again. Possibly because the drivers are more used to car congestion and cyclists on the road.
> 
> Is this something anybody else has noticed?


exactly that. Absolutely bang on the money. And I think your reasoning is sound.


----------



## Lpoolck (8 Dec 2012)

Cycling Dan said:


> the standard tyres that come with the Speiclized allez Specialized Espoir Sport, 60TPI, wire bead, double BlackBelt protection, 700x25c



Thought they were just standard, you not vulnerable to slip in the ice? I've took my bike out once and I went over on some black ice so until get some stud winter tyres I don't feel safe.


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (8 Dec 2012)

There is a HUGE conversation going on about this show, wow. This is what I feel should be said. 

We have to blame the people, not the cars, motorbikes or bicycles, it's just the smugness of the person, that is all. I'm pretty laid back on the road and couldn't give a monkeys what cars do 90% of the time. It amazed me that one individual has an infinite amount of "close passes" and what not. It makes you think that the driver and the cyclist have had an argument 2 minutes up the road, then the video cut to where the action happens and blames the other with the "footage". We just all have to get along and not use the camera to make videos just to get a response from other road users. Wear the camera to catch your exciting moments on the road and the speed you reach, the climbs you attack. Don't just think you're wearing cameras on your bike just to catch an argument. Enjoy cycling


----------



## Andrew_P (8 Dec 2012)

Quite glad someone else thinks Greater London is full of pap drivers. I was getting a bit worried it was just me, what with Bentmikey, Gaz and Dell all saying Central London is fine. I would say my strike rate is one in every commute, if not more at the moment. Only seems to have got like this since late September.


----------



## defy-one (8 Dec 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Vaguely on the subject of London driving, I've been struck by what seems to be a change in driver behaviour coming back into London from east Kent. Out in Kent the driving seems patient but coming past the Medway towns traffic behaviour deteriorates, hitting an absolute low around Dartford. However, closer into town, driving seems to improve again. Possibly because the drivers are more used to car congestion and cyclists on the road.
> 
> Is this something anybody else has noticed?



this is a well known fact. drivers get into greater london where traffic is still moving pretty quickly, so they start changing lanes and use rat runs to gain an advantage on the morning commute. once into London, that advantage is taken away and they settle down to queuing and waiting


----------



## RedRider (8 Dec 2012)

Yep, when i think about it I'm still surprised how well everyone rubs along on inner london roads. I feel there's at least as much community out on the roads compared with a rammed tube platform at rush hour, for example.
I guess there's not a lot more to be said about the tv programme. The non-cyclists I've spoken to had their sense of cycling as dangerous confirmed which is a shame.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (8 Dec 2012)

RedRider said:


> The non-cyclists I've spoken to had their sense of cycling as dangerous confirmed which is a shame.


 
I fear this may be the programme's real legacy.


----------



## BSRU (8 Dec 2012)

RedRider said:


> The non-cyclists I've spoken to had their sense of cycling as dangerous confirmed which is a shame.


Just another false excuse.
My better half thought nothing of the programme, she has heard my stories of the stupidly insane stuff I used to do on two wheels with a 955cc engine, shows the danger is in all in the mind.


----------



## Sore Thumb (8 Dec 2012)

Having spoken to a few people now about this program, the majority feeling is how the cyclists were in the wrong and antagonistic.

Also they say cycling like that (referring to the alley cat race) they are asking for it. When I explained this was a commercial stunt video they are surprised and thought that they were real cycle commuters.

So the damage has been done by this program. How many years has this now taken us back.??


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Dec 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> There is a HUGE conversation going on about this show, wow. This is what I feel should be said.
> 
> We have to blame the people, not the cars, motorbikes or bicycles, it's just the smugness of the person, that is all. I'm pretty laid back on the road and couldn't give a monkeys what cars do 90% of the time. It amazed me that one individual has an infinite amount of "close passes" and what not. It makes you think that the driver and the cyclist have had an argument 2 minutes up the road, then the video cut to where the action happens and blames the other with the "footage". We just all have to get along and not use the camera to make videos just to get a response from other road users. Wear the camera to catch your exciting moments on the road and the speed you reach, the climbs you attack. Don't just think you're wearing cameras on your bike just to catch an argument. Enjoy cycling


switched off at fifteen seconds. Absurd stuff. My suggestion is to take it down.


----------



## redcard (8 Dec 2012)

Cringe.


----------



## gavintc (8 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> Having spoken to a few people now about this program, the majority feeling is how the cyclists were in the wrong and antagonistic.
> 
> Also they say cycling like that (referring to the alley cat race) they are asking for it. When I explained this was a commercial stunt video they are surprised and thought that they were real cycle commuters.
> 
> So the damage has been done by this program. How many years has this now taken us back.??


 
Yes, this is the view I am picking up as well . I am on another non-cycling forum and the general opinion is that cyclists are arrogant and a problem on the roads. Putting forward pro-cyclist comment and trying to explain the events does not go down well. Not a good outcome.


----------



## Glow worm (8 Dec 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> There is a HUGE conversation going on about this show, wow. This is what I feel should be said.




Why is he in a toilet and what on earth is that accent?! I think I'd need an interpreter if I could be arsed to watch more than a few seconds!


----------



## Trevrev (8 Dec 2012)

gavintc said:


> Yes, this is the view I am picking up as well . I am on another non-cycling forum and the general opinion is that cyclists are arrogant and a problem on the roads. Putting forward pro-cyclist comment and trying to explain the events does not go down well. Not a good outcome.


This is the opinion i've been getting too.
I haven't heard a good word towards cyclist from the people i know that have seen this programme.
I got my wife to watch it with me last night, we got to the point of that Gareth bloke clapping and shouting at the taxi driver, and she was cringing so much she didn't want to watch it no further.
She asked if i behave like that too......................................PMSL!


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (8 Dec 2012)

Glow worm said:


> Why is he in a toilet and what on earth is that accent?! I think I'd need an interpreter if I could be arsed to watch more than a few seconds!


I'm in a BATHROOM because it has good acoustics. My accent is North West London. I have friends from other countries, so my accent changes and I sometimes sound different every now and then. I don't know why you felt the need to insult me with that "interpreter" rubbish, but hey, whatever gets you by.


----------



## veloevol (8 Dec 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Vaguely on the subject of London driving, I've been struck by what seems to be a change in driver behaviour coming back into London from east Kent. Out in Kent the driving seems patient but coming past the Medway towns traffic behaviour deteriorates, hitting an absolute low around Dartford. However, closer into town, driving seems to improve again. Possibly because the drivers are more used to car congestion and cyclists on the road.
> 
> Is this something anybody else has noticed?



Yes noticed that drop in driving standards too.


----------



## potsy (8 Dec 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> switched off at fifteen seconds. Absurd stuff. My suggestion is to take it down.


I made it to 25 seconds, do I get a prize?


----------



## redcard (8 Dec 2012)

potsy said:


> I made it to 25 seconds, do I get a prize?



Just sit down and relax for a bit, no sudden movements. There could be some lasting damage.


----------



## rliu (8 Dec 2012)

Had this Twitter exchange with a top lad

*vinny* ‏@*vinEIE* 
Any how a cyclist tries filming me on camera I'm ripping that camera off his head and nutting the daffodil
 * Expand * 

22h 

*Raymond Liu* ‏@*ruil1990* 
@*vinEIE* Who's that gut lord marching... you should cut down on your porklife mate... get some exercise
 * Expand * 

1h 

*vinny* ‏@*vinEIE* 
@*ruil1990* are you bored or something you ugly chink mug. About exercise haha you self-gratification artist. You looked in the mirror? how about a face lift


----------



## veloevol (8 Dec 2012)

rliu said:


> Had this Twitter exchange with a top lad
> 
> *vinny* ‏@*vinEIE*
> Any how a cyclist tries filming me on camera I'm ripping that camera off his head and nutting the ****
> ...




Ohhh bottom of the barrel


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (8 Dec 2012)

rliu said:


> Had this Twitter exchange with a top lad
> 
> *vinny* ‏@*vinEIE*
> Any how a cyclist tries filming me on camera I'm ripping that camera off his head and nutting the ****
> ...


Arguing with numbskulls on Twitter with its limited characters is never very successful....


----------



## SportMonkey (8 Dec 2012)

rliu said:


> Had this Twitter exchange with a top lad
> 
> *vinny* ‏@*vinEIE*
> Any how a cyclist tries filming me on camera I'm ripping that camera off his head and nutting the ****
> ...


 
Annoyingly Twitter won't let you do anonymous reports, racism really isn't right though. I'd have left him be, the initial message is one that suggests you won't get a sensible reply.


----------



## rliu (8 Dec 2012)

Irony is he tries the racism line but he doesn't know Parklife by Blur, which would make him a pretty poor nationalist


----------



## Bman (8 Dec 2012)

Finally read the whole thread...

Firstly, I thought the programme was ok. It has got people talking about it, which is good. Ive had at least three people at work ask me about it and my views on the behaviour. Where I don’t think they would otherwise have got involved. 
However, the programme did put Gaz in a bit of a bad light. The arguing cab driver being in the wrong (imo) and almost talking himself into believing his driving was acceptable was disappointing. I think that will probably go some way to convincing other motorists, who have perhaps been criticised by cyclists before, that their driving standards are perfectly fine, That is slightly worrying.

The inclusion of TheTrafficDriod was a poor choice too IMO, I think the producers just wanted to show that some camera cyclists (which I am one of) are trying a futile vigilante approach to their filming.

I also agree with other reviews that the Messenger Racing clips were also shown, out of context, giving the impression of that style of riding being the norm. I think this was just a short-cut by the film makers to including some evidence of bad cycling that was being referred to throughout the programme.

The programme also missed a trick or two. They could have used the opportunity to show why cyclists ride the way they do, showing the reasons why we do. 

Did anyone notice the inclusion of the video showing the large woman being knocked down by the electric bike? I remember when that video was originally posted and it was ripped apart. The rider also registered on here only to be vilified by almost everyone. Proving my point that most cyclists look down on poor cycling just as much as anyone else (if not, more).


----------



## Grendel (8 Dec 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> There is a HUGE conversation going on about this show, wow. This is what I feel should be said.
> 
> We have to blame the people, not the cars, motorbikes or bicycles, it's just the smugness of the person, that is all. I'm pretty laid back on the road and couldn't give a monkeys what cars do 90% of the time. It amazed me that one individual has an infinite amount of "close passes" and what not. It makes you think that the driver and the cyclist have had an argument 2 minutes up the road, then the video cut to where the action happens and blames the other with the "footage". We just all have to get along and not use the camera to make videos just to get a response from other road users. Wear the camera to catch your exciting moments on the road and the speed you reach, the climbs you attack. Don't just think you're wearing cameras on your bike just to catch an argument. Enjoy cycling



I tried watching it. What is the bandana all about?
And I do hope you washed your hands afterwards...


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (8 Dec 2012)

Grendel said:


> I tried watching it. What is the bandana all about?
> And I do hope you washed your hands afterwards...


I'm secretly a gangster and it's not a bandanna.


----------



## Boris Bajic (8 Dec 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> There is a HUGE conversation going on about this show, wow. This is what I feel should be said.
> 
> We have to blame the people, not the cars, motorbikes or bicycles, it's just the smugness of the person, that is all. I'm pretty laid back on the road and couldn't give a monkeys what cars do 90% of the time. It amazed me that one individual has an infinite amount of "close passes" and what not. It makes you think that the driver and the cyclist have had an argument 2 minutes up the road, then the video cut to where the action happens and blames the other with the "footage". We just all have to get along and not use the camera to make videos just to get a response from other road users. Wear the camera to catch your exciting moments on the road and the speed you reach, the climbs you attack. Don't just think you're wearing cameras on your bike just to catch an argument. Enjoy cycling





Mr London Cyclist, your posted Youtube clip asked for our views.

I found it hard to watch your monologue with a straight face. That might sound harsh from a friendly and welcoming cyclists' forum, but it is so.

I watched it and thought about it. And thought about it some more. It's a spoof, isn't it?

If it is a spoof, it might be excellent. If it is serious, it might be unexcellent. I really hope it's a spoof.

I cannot watch it without thinking of the West Staines Massif. Sacha Baron Cohen got there first, but you are not without ability.


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (8 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Mr London Cyclist, your posted Youtube clip asked for our views.
> 
> I found it hard to watch your monologue with a straight face. That might sound harsh from a friendly and welcoming cyclists' forum, but it is so.
> 
> ...


Doesn't bother me. lol You're one of the first people to realize I was taking the p*ss as they labelled it "war" so I covered up my face...


----------



## redcard (8 Dec 2012)

I thought you were a member of N-Dubz and were about to announce your Christmas single


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (8 Dec 2012)

redcard said:


> I thought you were a member of N-Dubz and were about to announce your Christmas single


LOL it's a shame that group split up ages ago or it would have been a good one.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (8 Dec 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> Doesn't bother me. lol You're one of the first people to realize I was taking the p*ss as they labelled it "war" so I covered up my face...


 
You (probably) needed a fake machine gun,would probably made people realise easier and take the p155 out of the stupidly titled tv program.


----------



## Matthew_T (9 Dec 2012)

@ the convo between TLC and SM. Calm down guys.


----------



## SportMonkey (9 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> @ the convo between TLC and SM. Calm down guys.


 
Yes dad


----------



## Shaun (9 Dec 2012)

TLC and SM - please get back on-topic and cut out the personal stuff. 

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (9 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> Annoyingly Twitter won't let you do anonymous reports, racism really isn't right though. I'd have left him be, the initial message is one that suggests you won't get a sensible reply.


 

Twitter sounds like a waste of time,I was on ar53book once and I lasted a month.


----------



## garrilla (9 Dec 2012)

Cynthia Barlow at the close of the programme makes the point that roads are currently competitive spaces where the need to be cooperative places.

You only have to read this thread to realise how far we are from that necessity.

The truth is there are a lot of people on the road (and pavements) who have self-centred view of their own travels needs - this extends from the SMIDSY-driver who isn't concentrating to the pavement-hopping cyclist. This is microcosm of our self-centred society.

Its a Mexican stand-off in which no one dare give in contributing to nuclear-arms race of the road. 

How can we move away from road wars and towards road peace?


----------



## mickle (9 Dec 2012)

garrilla said:


> Cynthia Barlow at the close of the programme makes the point that roads are currently competitive spaces where the need to be cooperative places.
> 
> You only have to read this thread to realise how far we are from that necessity.
> 
> ...


As far as any situation can be thought of as a Mexican stand-off where only one side is armed.


----------



## Boris Bajic (9 Dec 2012)

garrilla said:


> Cynthia Barlow at the close of the programme makes the point that roads are currently competitive spaces where the need to be cooperative places.
> 
> You only have to read this thread to realise how far we are from that necessity.
> 
> ...


 
I agree almost completely with your post.

And I fear the cooperation sought will never be achieved.

We are born believing we are right.

On this matter as on others, I am of course quite right.


----------



## albion (9 Dec 2012)

"We are born believing we are right."

And the sad fact is that we view balanced intelligent news as too high brow.


----------



## SportMonkey (9 Dec 2012)

albion said:


> "We are born believing we are right."
> 
> And the sad fact is that we view *balanced intelligent* news as too high brow.


It would be pleasant to see balanced news in our media, but alas it went the way of the dodo.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Dec 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> There is a HUGE conversation going on about this show, wow. This is what I feel should be said.




How on earth are you not embarrased?


----------



## SportMonkey (9 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Balanced news went to Mauritius?
> 
> What sorcery is this?
> 
> Sir, are you on drugs?


 
Yes, would you like to share my supply?


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (9 Dec 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> How on earth are you not embarrased?


The whole face covering thing was a joke. Try it sometime


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Dec 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> They do not need to be overtaken. When I drive in to Manchester I'll sit behind cyclists, I get better fuel efficiency and brake wear as a benefit, I lose no time.


It's you hanging off my rear wheel then?!!


----------



## albion (10 Dec 2012)

The most perplexing thing to me was the suggestion that when in danger the cyclist should scream and shout.

Unfortunately the sane cyclist will be hanging onto the handlebars trying to action a few extra millimetres that may in fact save his life.
I'd say that banging on someone's car in many cases is in itself a high risk manoeuvre.


----------



## summerdays (10 Dec 2012)

albion said:


> The most perplexing thing to me was the suggestion that when in danger the cyclist should scream and shout.


I always shout if I feel the need! (Sometimes it's even polite!!!)


----------



## RhythMick (11 Dec 2012)

After thinking about this for a week, the biggest disappointment I'm left with is is the missed opportunity. 

It wouldn't have taken much time out of the program to clarify the Highway Code relating to cycling. I think drivers generally don't understand, for example, that when passing a cyclist the code requires them to leave "as much room as if passing a car". They see cyclists who "take the lane" as being confrontational and arrogant. A clear statement of why cyclists do this and what their obligations as a driver would have helped stop at least some drivers from getting wound up.

Missed opportunity.


----------



## RhythMick (11 Dec 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> How on earth are you not embarrased?



Wow


----------



## Boris Bajic (11 Dec 2012)

RhythMick said:


> After thinking about this for a week, the biggest disappointment I'm left with is is the missed opportunity.
> 
> It wouldn't have taken much time out of the program to clarify the Highway Code relating to cycling. I think drivers generally don't understand, for example, that when passing a cyclist the code requires them to leave "as much room as if passing a car". They see cyclists who "take the lane" as being confrontational and arrogant. A clear statement of why cyclists do this and what their obligations as a driver would have helped stop at least some drivers from getting wound up.
> 
> Missed opportunity.


 
Indeed. But who (outside the cycling community) would have watched a RoSPA training film?

You're quite right, but there is a need to attract viewers.

And (more around London than the Sticks) I do still see cyclists who take the centre of a lane when to do so serves no purpose, irritates other road users and just looks pointlessly selfish and antagonistic.

I'm sure many of us have seen this. Not a great deal of it, but enough to be commentworthy.

There is a case to be made for advising motorists on how to pass safely and when to hold back - I quite agree. But I do not relish the thought of ten thousand new cyclists with little experience of traffic thinjking they can swan along in the middle of a lane because the man on the telly said so.

This is not an anti-cyclist rant...


----------



## RhythMick (11 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> If it is a spoof, it might be excellent. If it is serious, it might be unexcellent. I really hope it's a spoof.
> 
> I cannot watch it without thinking of the West Staines Massif. Sacha Baron Cohen got there first, but you are not without ability.



Excellent.


----------



## RhythMick (11 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Indeed. But who (outside the cycling community) would have watched a RoSPA training film?
> 
> There is a case to be made for advising motorists on how to pass safely and when to hold back - I quite agree. But I do not relish the thought of ten thousand new cyclists with little experience of traffic thinjking they can swan along in the middle of a lane because the man on the telly said so.
> 
> This is not an anti-cyclist rant...



Fair point, but since this program attracted lots of viewers a 2-minute slot in there would have been highly productive. I can also imagine ways it could be made more interesting. Show a clip, get views from drivers and cyclists, then tell them the right answer.

And your final point hits the nub of the problem I think. I also don't fancy all those shiny new cyclists (I'm one) trying to own the lane, but equally if they hug the kerb they are inviting dangerous passes. 

Just saying a little education on both sides would go a long way. It has to attract viewers agreed, but surely there are ways of doing that.

Perhaps the only answer is total separation.


----------



## theclaud (12 Dec 2012)

RhythMick said:


> . I also don't fancy all those shiny new cyclists (I'm one) trying to own the lane.


 
I do!


----------



## 400bhp (12 Dec 2012)

Just had a chat in the shared kitchen at work with someone who watched the programme.

Nothing particularly negative or positive, although he did say gaz came across as a d1ck. At the very least said that it has probably meant that those motorists that watched it would pay a little more attention to cyclists.


----------



## mr_cellophane (12 Dec 2012)

So Gaz, how many people have asked for your autograph ?


----------



## gaz (12 Dec 2012)

mr_cellophane said:


> So Gaz, how many people have asked for your autograph ?



A handful. Had several people approaching me in a pub the other evening. I'm used to getting it when on the bike but not so much when in a pub with my friends.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Dec 2012)

AWESOME!!

UNREAL

People talking to strangers in London.


----------



## davefb (13 Dec 2012)

thats gunna mess up the commuting times though..............


( have to say, nice to see, isn't it ? hopefully these aren't the same people who get onto youtube and post the nasty stuff  )


----------



## Scruffmonster (13 Dec 2012)

mr_cellophane said:


>




Ahhhhh....

Traffic Droid seems to be a thoroughly good bloke. I think I've said above somewhere that he was one of the good things to come out of the show. I know he's a little self righteous but if you've got the personality to go with it, it feels natural and doesn't grate on you.

Great song choice as well. I can't stand it in isolation but it goes with that clip rather well.


----------



## Linford (13 Dec 2012)

My first thoughts of traffic droid were that he was a fairly sanctimonious so and so, but then a bitfurther in, he grabbed the RLJing rider, and demonstrated an even hand for all traffic in his viewfinder ...which made his efforts seem a bit more worthy


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (13 Dec 2012)

Linford said:


> My first thoughts of traffic droid were that he was a fairly sanctimonious so and so, but then a bitfurther in, he grabbed the RLJing rider, and demonstrated an even hand for all traffic in his viewfinder ...which made his efforts seem a bit more worthy


He has to be careful, though. He can't just go around grabbing random people as he might grab the wrong person and I wouldn't want to see another cyclist hurt because he was trying to help the person out. A good shout is all that is needed.


----------



## ianrauk (13 Dec 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> He has to be careful, though. He can't just go around grabbing random people as he might grab the wrong person and I wouldn't want to see another cyclist hurt because he was trying to help the person out. A good shout is all that is needed.


 

Indeed.
One day he's going to grab someone who won't appreciate it and that someone may flip.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Indeed.
> One day he's going to grab someone who won't appreciate it and that someone may flip.


 
Or more likely have him charged with assault.


----------



## Jezston (13 Dec 2012)

I just remembered my anecdote which I realised I hadn't shared before. Mostly because it wasn't desperately exciting, but nonetheless.

I was walking up to Euston station, and just about to turn left of Euston road by the Tap and a severely handicapped guy fell over in front of me into the railings and was struggling to get up. I started walking over to help him up but before I could a bike suddenly pulled up and off hopped Mr T. Droid himself and helped the guy up.

I think he's a terrific bloke and while I appreciate he's far from perfect his heart is clearly in the right place and I don't understand why so many people within the cycling community have _such _a problem with him.


----------



## Hip Priest (13 Dec 2012)

I don't always approve of the Droid's behaviour, but it's clear to me that he means well and is a decent soul.


----------



## HLaB (13 Dec 2012)

A colleague sent on a link today about the Alley Cat race; I never realised that Lucas Brunelle paid them to get even more extreme cycling


----------



## 400bhp (14 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> I just remembered my anecdote which I realised I hadn't shared before. Mostly because it wasn't desperately exciting, but nonetheless.
> 
> I was walking up to Euston station, and just about to turn left of Euston road by the Tap and a severely handicapped guy fell over in front of me into the railings and was struggling to get up. I started walking over to help him up but before I could a bike suddenly pulled up and off hopped Mr T. Droid himself and helped the guy up.
> 
> *I think he's a terrific bloke and while I appreciate he's far from perfect his heart is clearly in the right place and I don't understand why so many people within the cycling community have such a problem with him*.


 
Agree, he definitely has the heart in the right place, I'm just not sure his head is. He clearly has some psychological scarring from his off and could do with seeing a shrink. This is not me necessarily slating the guy, but it's clear his emotions often supersede common sense.


----------



## Herzog (14 Dec 2012)

HLaB said:


> A colleague sent on a link today about the Alley Cat race; I never realised that Lucas Brunelle paid them to get even more extreme cycling


 
Yes, and the BBC were aware that financial incentives were offered to the riders in the Alley Cat to ride as fast (substitute with as risky) as possible... This was not pointed out in the doc.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Dec 2012)

And another thing - why show a clip of that looney knocking over the woman on a *CYCLE PATH AWAY FROM THE ROAD*


----------



## Herzog (14 Dec 2012)

400bhp said:


> And another thing - why show a clip of that looney knocking over the woman on a *CYCLE PATH AWAY FROM THE ROAD*


 
To show that we're all ars*holes of course, on and off the main roads.


----------



## davefb (14 Dec 2012)

Herzog said:


> Yes, and the BBC were aware that financial incentives were offered to the riders in the Alley Cat to ride as fast (substitute with as risky) as possible... This was not pointed out in the doc.


it got mentioned in the bike blog yesturday..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/dec/13/war-britains-roads-fake

I thought it was moderatly public knowledge about the incentives... I think the guardian guys right, this is clearly misleading the viewer.. it reflects very badly on the bbc , obviously not as important as other things like newsnight etc.. but if they can't get simple stuff like this sorted (or rather production companies because it's all outsourced nowadays), then they start to lose that 'trust' we apply to the bbc..


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (14 Dec 2012)

400bhp said:


> Just had a chat in the shared kitchen at work with someone who watched the programme.
> 
> Nothing particularly negative or positive, although he did say gaz came across as a d1ck. *At the very least said that it has probably meant that those motorists that watched it would pay a little more attention to cyclists.*


 
That lasted for a week.


----------



## mr_cellophane (14 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> I just remembered my anecdote which I realised I hadn't shared before. Mostly because it wasn't desperately exciting, but nonetheless.
> 
> I was walking up to Euston station, and just about to turn left of Euston road by the Tap and a severely handicapped guy fell over in front of me into the railings and was struggling to get up. I started walking over to help him up but before I could a bike suddenly pulled up and off hopped Mr T. Droid himself and helped the guy up.
> 
> I think he's a terrific bloke and while I appreciate he's far from perfect his heart is clearly in the right place and I don't understand why so many people within the cycling community have _such _a problem with him.


 He has posted that one a while ago. I'll look it up when I get home.


----------



## albion (14 Dec 2012)

Not sure if posted already but it almost seems like £2700 is the going rate per fatality due to careless driving!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...ally-injured-cyclist-mary-bowers-8417866.html

I fail to see how this helps make drivers take better care.


----------



## mickle (14 Dec 2012)

albion said:


> Not sure if posted already but it almost seems like £2700 is the going rate per fatality due to careless driving!
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...ally-injured-cyclist-mary-bowers-8417866.html
> 
> I fail to see how this helps make drivers take better care.


 
_Beiu's barrister Rowan Matthew Jenkins told the court that Ms Bowers, who was wearing a helmet and dark clothing, had been "easy to miss, even for a careful person looking out"._

''.... even for a careful person looking out"? _Really? _


----------



## BentMikey (14 Dec 2012)

Apparently he drives an R8, and so can afford top quality lawyering. 'King scumbag, is what I think.


----------



## ComedyPilot (14 Dec 2012)

albion said:


> Not sure if posted already but it almost seems like £2700 is the going rate per fatality due to careless driving!
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...ally-injured-cyclist-mary-bowers-8417866.html
> 
> *I fail to see how this helps make drivers take better care*.


 
It doesn't.

It just shows the 'them' and 'us' status quo goes on unimpeded.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (14 Dec 2012)

albion said:


> Not sure if posted already but it almost seems like £2700 is the going rate per fatality due to careless driving!
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...ally-injured-cyclist-mary-bowers-8417866.html
> 
> I fail to see how this helps make drivers take better care.


Sorry to nitpick but Mary isn't actually dead although it could be argued that coma she's in is worse. I think the better example might be that scumbag who knocked Sam Harding off his bike into the path of a bus. Sam subsequently died and the scumbag, who had illegal windows tints, didn't get charged with manslaughter.... It's a sad day for our "justice" system.


----------



## PK99 (14 Dec 2012)

Bassjunkieuk said:


> Sorry to nitpick but Mary isn't actually dead although it could be argued that coma she's in is worse. I think the better example might be that scumbag who knocked Sam Harding off his bike into the path of a bus. Sam subsequently died and the scumbag, who had illegal windows tints, *didn't get charged with manslaughter*.... It's a sad day for our "justice" system.


 
just a factual correction: he was charged, the jury found him not guilty


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (14 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> just a factual correction: he was charged, the jury found him not guilty


Thank you  think Danny did a post on both of these cases over on Cyclists in the City. Seems anyone wishing to harm or kill someone here should just do so in a car to get away with it...


----------



## mickle (14 Dec 2012)

Bassjunkieuk said:


> Thank you  think Danny did a post on both of these cases over on Cyclists in the City. Seems anyone wishing to harm or kill someone here should just do so in a car to get away with it...


A fact which has been widely known in the crinimal fraternity for decades.


----------



## Andrew_P (14 Dec 2012)

mickle said:


> A fact which has been widely known in the crinimal fraternity for decades.


Not sure if you are being serious but I have said on other non cycling forums and to friends that if you wanted to bump someone off Car vs Bike would be the least risky.

I ma never quite sure why the full events are never properly reported, when the boxer Gary Mason was killed it never really came to light the full circumstances.


----------



## benborp (14 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> Not sure if you are being serious but I have said on other non cycling forums and to friends that if you wanted to bump someone off Car vs Bike would be the least risky.
> 
> I ma never quite sure why the full events are never properly reported, when the boxer Gary Mason was killed it never really came to light the full circumstances.


 
It emerged that the driver habitually cut the corner where Mason was killed. He couldn't remember if he did so on the occasion he killed Gary. The driver was also driving with defective vision. No charges were brought. I believe the inquest verdict was accidental death.


----------



## benborp (14 Dec 2012)

Times article.

Yep. More or less as I remembered, although you can also add evidence of speeding. The driver couldn't read his speedo due to a blown bulb. It made me extremely angry.


----------



## mickle (14 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> Not sure if you are being serious but...


I am being serious.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 Dec 2012)

Bassjunkieuk said:


> Thank you  think Danny did a post on both of these cases over on Cyclists in the City. Seems anyone wishing to harm or kill someone here should just do so in a car to get away with it...


 
This is an interesting point. I just watched the last few minutes of a documentary about the Police in a village called Sandford. 

It was one of those cop shows that are all over our screens at the moment - they follow a team around with a camera.

In the documentary there was some sort of civil disobedience going on and one of the officers swung his car door open to upend a cyclist who appeared (it might have been the edit) to be up to no good. She appeared to be armed, so that might justify it.

Whether the action was justified I cannot say, as I didn't see the whole show. But it did seem an ill-advised action on the part of the uniformed officer as it might encourage copycat acts.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Dec 2012)

Considering that dooring is one of the largest causes of KSI in cyclists in London, that might well be a negligent/dangerous bit of policing. Ill advised at best, IMO.


----------



## Jezston (15 Dec 2012)

mr_cellophane said:


> He has posted that one a while ago. I'll look it up when I get home.


 
Oh! Can't believe I didn't think to look it up!


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwwcUcYV2Ig


I'm the bloke looking sheepishly at the camera when he starts talking to the guy. I thought "should I help? Ah he's got this" then wandered off.

Also I look like some kind of weird ghoul.


----------



## mr_cellophane (15 Dec 2012)

Jezston said:


> Also I look like some kind of weird ghoul.


You look just like your avatar 
He has seen him again over in Whitehall


----------



## Herzog (16 Dec 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ina...ce=cyclingnews&amp;ns_linkname=0&amp;ns_fee=0

Another tragic accident...


----------



## fimm (18 Dec 2012)

My Mum saw the programme. She did say she closed her eyes at a couple of things. Most of her comments, however, were on the beauty and small size of the helmet cameras!


----------



## cloggsy (18 Dec 2012)

fimm said:


> My Mum saw the programme. She did say she closed her eyes at a couple of things. Most of her comments, however, were on the beauty and small size of the helmet cameras!


Guess what you're getting for Christmas


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (18 Dec 2012)

cloggsy said:


> Guess what you're getting for Christmas


A season ticket for the train?


----------



## fimm (18 Dec 2012)

cloggsy said:


> Guess what you're getting for Christmas


I wish..  my boyfriend would disown me, though  he thinks cyclecammers go about causing incidents so they have something to put on YouTube (I don't agree with him, but I'm not going to change his mind).


----------



## gaz (18 Dec 2012)

fimm said:


> I wish..  my boyfriend would disown me, though  he thinks cyclecammers go about causing incidents so they have something to put on YouTube (I don't agree with him, but I'm not going to change his mind).


Nooooooo! We pay people to write scripts and draw story boards. We then hire drivers to drive dangerously and we upload the footage online. It's all just an act.


----------



## Matthew_T (18 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> Nooooooo! We pay people to write scripts and draw story boards. We then hire drivers to drive dangerously and we upload the footage online. It's all just an act.


Maybe for you, but for me it is reality.


----------



## gaz (18 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Maybe for you, but for me it is reality.


 
 Don't play along with the joke then.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (18 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> Nooooooo! We pay people to write scripts and draw story boards. We then hire drivers to drive dangerously and we upload the footage online. It's all just an act.


Me and Gaz did a great 2-up this morning, had him follow me down cs7 as I went past smashing every wing mirror and scraping paint off cars. I even kicked over an oap as she crossed on a red light....


----------



## subaqua (18 Dec 2012)

Bassjunkieuk said:


> Me and Gaz did a great 2-up this morning, had him follow me down cs7 as I went past smashing every wing mirror and scraping paint off cars. I even kicked over an oap as she crossed on a red light....


 
as long as you had a helmet on thats fine.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (18 Dec 2012)

subaqua said:


> as long as you had a helmet on thats fine.


Helmet. Check. Hi-viz. Check.


----------



## sheddy (18 Dec 2012)

sorry if a repost but see open letter to the Judiciary http://singletrackworld.com/2012/12/an-open-letter-to-the-british-judicial-system-by-stewart-pratt/


----------



## cloggsy (19 Dec 2012)

sheddy said:


> sorry if a repost but see open letter to the Judiciary http://singletrackworld.com/2012/12/an-open-letter-to-the-british-judicial-system-by-stewart-pratt/


Excellent letter IMHO!

Nothing will happen 

I might just forward this to my MP; the Rt Hon. William Hague. He has my best interests at heart


----------



## subaqua (19 Dec 2012)

cloggsy said:


> Excellent letter IMHO!
> 
> Nothing will happen
> 
> I might just forward this to my MP; the Rt Hon. William Hague. He has my Like any politician he only has his best interests at heart


 FTFY.

I might just send it to my MP too. I have already tweeted it


----------



## cd365 (19 Dec 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Maybe for you, but for me it is reality.


 
Woooosh


----------



## Matthew_T (19 Dec 2012)

cd365 said:


> Woooosh


I was being sarcastic.


----------



## Bigsharn (20 Dec 2012)

Sarcasm doesn't come across well on internet forums young Matthew 

Personally I had fun on Tuesday night going to the pub and riding home drunk with no lights on... It's fine though because I was on the pavement so there was no danger.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (20 Dec 2012)

Bigsharn said:


> Sarcasm doesn't come across well on internet forums young Matthew
> 
> Personally I had fun on Tuesday night going to the pub and riding home drunk with no lights on... It's fine though because I was on the pavement so there was no danger.



You see that's clearly a lie.... 


You went to the pub on Monday


----------



## Gooner Mad Dog (26 Dec 2012)

Watched the programme rights and wrongs on both sides, but as daily commuter Walthamstow to Whitehall ( almost 11 miles ) there are lots of occasions when motorists could just be more patient. In France if car and bike collide , Car is it at fault, lots more pateience shown there, separation Dutch style only real solution though.


----------



## Boris Bajic (26 Dec 2012)

Gooner Mad Dog said:


> Watched the programme rights and wrongs on both sides, but as daily commuter Walthamstow to Whitehall ( almost 11 miles ) there are lots of occasions when motorists could just be more patient. In France if car and bike collide , Car is it at fault, lots more pateience shown there, separation Dutch style only real solution though.


 
This argument is clearly a veiled attack on Arsene Wenger and his reluctance to spend real money. I can read between the lines.

I take your point, but I think the real issue is his autocratic style and his inability to give SB full control over the way he coaches the defence.

Despite your lack of faith in the man, I think they should stick with Wenger.

I agree with you about the Dutch solution. A couple of young creative players from Ajax would do the trick.


----------



## Gooner Mad Dog (26 Dec 2012)

Whole load of continental talent would be ideal as UK a talent free zone, a footballing desert due to way kids coaches schools and grass roots soccer run in UK. 66 never again.


----------



## fudgepanda (27 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Indeed. But who (outside the cycling community) would have watched a RoSPA training film?
> 
> There is a case to be made for advising motorists on how to pass safely and when to hold back - I quite agree. But I do not relish the thought of ten thousand new cyclists with little experience of traffic thinjking they can swan along in the middle of a lane because the man on the telly said so.
> 
> This is not an anti-cyclist rant...


Although I don't do it now, I have held an ADI badge (Approved Driving Instructor) since 1987, and still hold it so keep up on the subject casually just to keep my hand in. Well before I got back into cycling I used to tell my pupils that they should give a cyclist as much room as they would a stationary car - as a bare minimum. I used to tell them that a cyclist's head was probably going to be in the region of 6' from the ground and if he/she hit a pot hole the rider could be thrown sideways into the road with the head being 6'-ish into the road. So, if possible give them a couple of metres.

My employer for the last 8 years is part of the "public" sector and a couple of years ago decided to introduce bikes for us to get round a large site. They sent someone on a training course to train us and one of the things that came over quite strongly was called (I think) the Primary Position, several feet from the kerb. I understand the rationale behind this but personally it makes me feel very vulnerable. When I'm riding I tend to ride in what I consider to be an appropriate position for the situation, mostly just outside the grids on the left but rarely much wider unless the road conditions are really bad.

This is partly because I feel comfortable there and partly because I'm aware of not wanting to antagonise drivers. I don't think that makes me a wimp, but I'd rather rant on here about how close a driver got to me than have my obituary written.


----------



## gaz (27 Dec 2012)

fudgepanda said:


> Although I don't do it now, I have held an ADI badge (Approved Driving Instructor) since 1987, and still hold it so keep up on the subject casually just to keep my hand in. Well before I got back into cycling I used to tell my pupils that they should give a cyclist as much room as they would a stationary car - as a bare minimum. I used to tell them that a cyclist's head was probably going to be in the region of 6' from the ground and if he/she hit a pot hole the rider could be thrown sideways into the road with the head being 6'-ish into the road. So, if possible give them a couple of metres.
> 
> My employer for the last 8 years is part of the "public" sector and a couple of years ago decided to introduce bikes for us to get round a large site. They sent someone on a training course to train us and one of the things that came over quite strongly was called (I think) the Primary Position, several feet from the kerb. I understand the rationale behind this but personally it makes me feel very vulnerable. When I'm riding I tend to ride in what I consider to be an appropriate position for the situation, mostly just outside the grids on the left but rarely much wider unless the road conditions are really bad.
> 
> This is partly because I feel comfortable there and partly because I'm aware of not wanting to antagonise drivers. I don't think that makes me a wimp, but I'd rather rant on here about how close a driver got to me than have my obituary written.


You aren't meant to ride in primary all of the time. It's a position you take when people shouldn't be overtaking you or if you want to make your self more visible.
Most riding is done in a position labeled as Secondary. Which is nearer to the side of the road.


----------



## fudgepanda (27 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> You aren't meant to ride in primary all of the time. It's a position you take when people shouldn't be overtaking you or if you want to make your self more visible.
> Most riding is done in a position labeled as Secondary. Which is nearer to the side of the road.


Thanks for that Gaz, that's what happens when you have a lousy instructor


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (27 Dec 2012)

fudgepanda said:


> Thanks for that Gaz, that's what happens when you have a lousy instructor


It's common sense. The instructor should be fired.


----------



## summerdays (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> Wrong.
> 
> You are supposed to ride in primary most of the time. The clue's in the name - "primary". It's the primary position to ride in.
> 
> ...


Now I interpret that differently to you ... there are 3 when's in that sentence, which change the balance of the sentence (for me).


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Dec 2012)

summerdays said:


> Now I interpret that differently to you ... there are 3 when's in that sentence, which change the balance of the sentence (for me).


Users bolding seems to stop short of the first "when" cutting half of the sentence out.

I read it as. 

When your speed matches that of traffic around you
When approaching things like junctions/lights
When approaching pinchpoints like islands/speed ramps blah blah

I do not ride "primary" all of the time


----------



## summerdays (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> All three of those will apply in the sort of urban cycling that many of us do.


I agree but not all the time even in urban traffic which I do cycle in - in Bristol. I use both secondary and primary position and happily move between the two as the situation changes.


----------



## PK99 (27 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> You aren't meant to ride in primary all of the time. It's a position you take when people shouldn't be overtaking you or if you want to make your self more visible.
> Most riding is done in a position labeled as Secondary. Which is nearer to the side of the road.



As I've said before, the terminology is not the best.

"You aren't meant to ride in primary all of the time.......most riding is done in a position called secondary" is as logical to the non cyclist as clipping into clipless pedals.


----------



## gaz (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> Wrong.
> 
> You are supposed to ride in primary most of the time. The clue's in the name - "primary". It's the primary position to ride in.
> 
> Primary makes it clear that you are part of the traffic. As Franklin says:


Did I say you where not meant to ride in it most of the time? I think I said something different.

Does Franklin ever say that it's called the Primary position because that is the one you must ride in most of the time?

Hmm, all I can see is the following on page 86, last paragraph


> Motorists *primarily* give attention to that part of the highway where there is risk to themselves: they are not nearly so good at noticing anything outside their path. This zone of maximum surveillance is often very narrow, especially at higher speeds - it does not extend to much more than the moving traffic lane that the driver is following, plus the moving traffic lanes that are most likely to conflict with the driver's own movement. For you to be safest as a cyclist, you must normally ride within this zone of maximum surveillance, not outside it.


Is it called primary because that is primarily where drivers are looking?
The last sentence is an interesting one, as he states this is a position you must normally ride in. Which may suggest that it is called primary because of that.


----------



## gaz (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> Try reading Cyclecraft. Frankling is quite clear why is is called primary.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try - but no prize. Read the chapter without your bias goggles on...


So I have to read the whole book to find out? Can't you just say which page so everyone can look it up and bow down to your almighty understanding of cyclecraft.?


----------



## gaz (27 Dec 2012)

Beano1 said:


> Why don't you make a positive contribution and find out for yourself and post it to your blog? You'll then have a proper reason then to direct people to it.


Haha.




not


----------



## gaz (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> Try reading Cyclecraft. Frankling is quite clear why is is called primary.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try - but no prize. Read the chapter without your bias goggles on...


To add, Franklin says that where you position yourself is dependent to situations you are in and as such there is no right or wrong answer as to which you cycle in the most. You can cycle for miles with absolutely no need to cycle in a primary position.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (27 Dec 2012)

Beano1 said:


> You should always cycle in primary position unless external forces dictate otherwise - simples really.


From the snippets I've seen here he seems to contradict himself somewhat as he first gives reasons to use primary, which outside of the obvious to stop a safe overtake, states you are able to keep up with traffic. Now I doubt many of us can maintain 30+mph. He also states it shouldn't be used when you are possibly impeding cars behind (I. E when it's safe for them to pass) 

He then says to always use it to improve visibility. At the end of the day cycle craft is just a book full of coping mechanisms for our crap roads and assumes most riders can sprint to 20mph, something the vast majority of cyclists (or potential ones) couldn't do and why should they?


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Dec 2012)

This spat about the definition and use of Primary is something like a microcosm of one element of UK cyclists.

There is in some cyclists what might be termed the righteous arrogance of the self-appointed expert. I do not say that anyone involved in the above spat comes across that way, but one does see it. 

Old codgers like me, who have ridden and driven for decades, often see the highway as a place for give and take, a place for courteous and pragmatic positioning and a place for adapting as conditions suggest.

Arguing about the correct definition of Primary Position smacks a little to some lifelong cyclists of bickering about the plumage on angels' wings.

Even clever books like Cyclecraft are not some sort of Holy Text or Universal Declaration. Be happy that you agree with yourself and accept that others (rightly or wrongly) might either disagree with you or think you a fool.

Any of us who take the time to contribute to an online debate about road poisition have virtually (by definition) excluded our own views from serious consideration. It's the Internet, after all.


----------



## summerdays (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> That's the problem. People rely on snippets rather than reading the book. And they comment on the basis of snippets, rather than understanding the context,
> 
> Franklin doesn't contradict himself. He's talking about vehicular cycling and being part of the traffic flow, particularly in crowded urban areas. And, given that the average speed of a vehicle on London's roads (and it's similar in many other cities and towns) is about 9 mph, in those circumstances cyclists can easily ride at the speed of motor vehicles.


But it isn't 9 mph all the time. I tend to commute at rush hour times in the morning so it can be very slow moving traffic I can keep up on the flat or downhill (I'm not the fastest rider especially up hill). The rest of my cycling is normally outside of rush hour so cars are often faster than me (though I can catch up due to traffic lights).

I find that the slower your normal speed as a cyclist the harder (not quite the word I'm looking for), it is to cycle in primary - I notice the effect when I'm under the weather, that I become less confident about using primary in *some* situations.


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Old codgers like me, who have ridden and driven for decades, often see the highway as a place for give and take, a place for courteous and pragmatic positioning and a place for adapting as conditions suggest.


 
This should be applied. By old and young codgers alike.

I had a barmy incident a week ago. Coming up to a wide(ish) pinch point that had a 1/4 mile stretch of single file uphill beyond it (busy in the opposite direction) I heard and saw a Car behind me, so with my left hand I eased the brakes from 20mph down to 15mph, and with my right hand, waved the car through.

The car passed, but due to my slowing, a cyclist also caught me and gave me the wise words of; "You should have taken Primary there and made him wait".

I'm of the opinion that we're all trying to get somewhere and that we should all get along. Percentage wise, there are just as many cyclists contributing to problems on the roads as there are vehicle drivers.

(Sorry Boris, I know I've quoted you there and only half of my post relates to the quotation)


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> This should be applied. By old and young codgers alike.
> 
> I had a barmy incident a week ago. Coming up to a wide(ish) pinch point that had a 1/4 mile stretch of single file uphill beyond it (busy in the opposite direction) I heard and saw a Car behind me, so with my left hand I eased the brakes from 20mph down to 15mph, and with my right hand, waved the car through.
> 
> ...


 
This is just the sort of behaviour I had in mind and is what I wish I was thoughtful enough to do more often. In truth there are five times I fail to do it for every time I do.

Usually when I don't it's because I'm climbing or cross or 'in a hurry' or 'doing a time'.


----------



## PK99 (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> And, given that the average speed of a vehicle on London's roads (and it's similar in many other cities and towns) is about 9 mph, in those circumstances cyclists can easily ride at the speed of motor vehicles.



Eh? You are applying city averages to specific circumstances.

I can point to goodly number of local traffic calmed roads where I ride in primary through the pinch points but move back to secondary in between. I am way below the average car speeds on those roads.


----------



## PK99 (27 Dec 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> This should be applied. By old and young codgers alike.
> 
> I had a barmy incident a week ago. Coming up to a wide(ish) pinch point that had a 1/4 mile stretch of single file uphill beyond it (busy in the opposite direction) I heard and saw a Car behind me, so with my left hand I eased the brakes from 20mph down to 15mph, and with my right hand, waved the car through.
> 
> ...



A question for the panel:

A: You are riding two abreast up hill on a narrow lane, a car comes up behind. Do you single out to let the car pass?

B: You are riding two abreast up hill on a narrow lane, a club run double pace line comes up behind. Do you single out to let them pass?

If the answer is different, why?


----------



## PK99 (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> Read the book...



I have


----------



## Scruffmonster (27 Dec 2012)

PK99 said:


> A question for the panel:
> 
> A: You are riding two abreast up hill on a narrow lane, a car comes up behind. Do you single out to let the car pass?
> 
> ...


 
As a general answer, I'll look after my own safety, then if it's convenient, let anything come past me that's capable of travelling faster.

What I will add, is that I've got quite ridiculous downhill passes from Pacelines that I've never had from cars.


----------



## summerdays (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> Read the book...
> 
> 
> PK99 said:
> ...


Me too - I own two versions of it even. It was one of the best bits of advice I picked up from the old C+ website!

Though I admit it is good to reread sections every now and again.


----------



## gaz (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> I don't disagree.
> 
> What I was simply pointing out was that gaz's assertion that the majority of cycling should be in secondary was not correct. Secondary is the position of second choice (again, the name's a bit of a give away). Secondary is also dangerous in high traffic volume areas in cities, as recent cases have shown, as it puts you in the danger zone.


My apologies, that was based on my perception of how I use the road, where the majority of my riding is in secondary due to the nature of the roads I cycle on.
As I said later on, primary to secondary usage is all dependent on the conditions of the roads you cycle on and can vary much between different individuals. I cycled to Brighton recently and took a primary position for less than 5% of the journey.


----------



## PK99 (27 Dec 2012)

summerdays said:


> Me too - I own two versions of it even. It was one of the best bits of advice I picked up from the old C+ website!
> 
> Though I admit it is good to reread sections every now and again.



I reread sections regularly ESP when pointing out on here that following it's advice would have avoided an accident or confrontation.


----------



## PK99 (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> I don't disagree.
> 
> What I was simply pointing out was that gaz's assertion that the majority of cycling should be in secondary was not correct. Secondary is the position of second choice (again, the name's a bit of a give away). Secondary is also dangerous in high traffic volume areas in cities, as recent cases have shown, as it puts you in the danger zone.



The case you reference did not arise though use of secondary, it arose from cycling in the door zone.

I don't have cyclecraft to hand, but am pretty sure the advice in that circumstance would have been to ride outside the door zone ie in primary not secondary.


----------



## HLaB (27 Dec 2012)

My interpretation is the Primary is the first position you think about taking subject to vehicle flow etc and the secondary is naturally enough the Secondary is second position you think about when conditions don't allow you to adopt the primary. Therefore apart from junctions etc most of my urban riding is done in the secondary but when I'm able to, I prefer to be in the primary.


----------



## summerdays (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> Exactly. It arose because the cyclist was cycling where he really shouldn't have been cycling (that is not to blame him for the incident however which is firmly the fault of the car driver), probably through some misguided belief that is where he should have been.
> 
> It doesn't help when we have people on this forum suggesting that
> 
> ...


I didn't necessarily read that as gaz saying that he was riding in the correct position. What gaz said was:


gaz said:


> You aren't meant to ride in primary all of the time. It's a position you take when people shouldn't be overtaking you or if you want to make your self more visible.
> Most riding is done in a position labelled as Secondary. Which is nearer to the side of the road.


But I think what gaz was saying that that fudgepanda was wrong to think that he should only ride in primary. (Ignore whether it is the majority or minority of the time that should be spent in that position). 

I would say that I don't consider secondary position to be in relation to the kerb, rather that it relates to where the left hand wheel of a car might be on the road.


----------



## PK99 (27 Dec 2012)

summerdays said:


> I would say that I don't consider secondary position to be in relation to the kerb, rather that it relates to where the left hand wheel of a car might be on the road.



My approach also.


----------



## lukesdad (27 Dec 2012)

User said:


> Read the book...


I read the road you lot can do what yers f***ing like


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Dec 2012)

lukesdad said:


> *I read the road* you lot can do what yers f***ing like


 
I've tried doing that, but it just seems to be the occasional, solitary word. Not what I consider proper reading material.

I did once read what looked like a sentence on a road in Wales. It appeared to say _'Slow Arab'_, which is an odd thing to write - and without any clear context it baffled me.

They put arrows on the road in places, but I've followed them in the past and there's nothing much there when you get there. I think they might be ironic or something.

It's books and newspapers every time for me!


----------



## campbellab (28 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I did once read what looked like a sentence on a road in Wales. It appeared to say _'Slow Arab'_, which is an odd thing to write - and without any clear context it baffled me.


 

I dislike the welsh road signs that start with the Welsh followed by English. Cognitive load and all that whilst you have to skip over the Welsh stuff.


----------



## subaqua (28 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I've tried doing that, but it just seems to be the occasional, solitary word. Not what I consider proper reading material.
> 
> I did once read what looked like a sentence on a road in Wales. It appeared to say _'Slow Arab'_, which is an odd thing to write - and without any clear context it baffled me.
> 
> ...


 
ARAF ! if it looked like ARAB i suggest you popalong to specsavers


----------



## snorri (28 Dec 2012)

campbellab said:


> I dislike the welsh road signs that start with the Welsh followed by English. Cognitive load and all that whilst you have to skip over the Welsh stuff.


Agreed. We have similar in the Highlands with English and Gaelic signage, the duplication is confusing. I don't know why we have to have the message in two languages, let's have one or the other.
We seem to manage abroad with the wording just in German, Danish, Polish or whatever.
Well off topic, sorrry.


----------



## campbellab (28 Dec 2012)

2223282 said:


> Imagine how Welsh speakers feel having to skip over the English then.


 
I can imagine its exactly the same, but the number of Welsh only speakers is much less than English only speakers and thats just for the Welsh. 

I dont mind duplicated language signs just think they should always start in the prevelant language.


----------



## theclaud (28 Dec 2012)

campbellab said:


> I can imagine its exactly the same, but the number of Welsh only speakers is much less than English only speakers and thats just for the Welsh.
> 
> I dont mind duplicated language signs just think they should always start in the prevelant language.


 
You get used to it, and not only do they become perfectly easy to read once you have grasped the convention, but they have the added bonus of bringing the Welsh place-names to your attention. The principle is that Welsh has equal political status with English, so should not be relegated to second-place.


----------



## campbellab (28 Dec 2012)

theclaud said:


> You get used to it, and not only do they become perfectly easy to read once you have grasped the convention, but they have the added bonus of bringing the Welsh place-names to your attention. The principle is that Welsh has equal political status with English, so should not be relegated to second-place.


 
Well you get use to it if its not occasional visits to Wales. Something has to be placed second unless they do half one way and half the other... I think I've seen both ways? I think I was mostly annoyed at motorway warning signs flashing up in Welsh first - road signs less of a worry.


----------



## theclaud (28 Dec 2012)

campbellab said:


> Well you get use to it if its not occasional visits to Wales. *Something has to be placed second* unless they do half one way and half the other... I think I've seen both ways? I think I was mostly annoyed at motorway warning signs flashing up in Welsh first - road signs less of a worry.


 
Well, there's a history behind it, and it can be summed up by saying that Welsh-language speakers have had enough of being placed second. I used to get mildly irritated by train announcements being in Welsh first, because they are quite ponderous and sometimes you are in a hurry for the information so that you can head to the right platform. I got over it, though, by simply paying enough attention to figure out the salient details in Welsh. There is some variation in the signage by local authority, but generally speaking I am quite happy to see the Welsh names prioritized. It's a bit odd in Swansea's case, because "Abertawe" is the modern imposition and the less attractive name, but I'm not going to get in too much of a tizz about it.


----------



## Glow worm (28 Dec 2012)

I often wonder why all the English who moan about the Welsh language don't ever seem to try to actually learn some of it instead.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Dec 2012)

theclaud said:


> You get used to it, and not only do they become perfectly easy to read once you have grasped the convention, but they have the added bonus of bringing the Welsh place-names to your attention. The principle is that Welsh has equal political status with English, so should not be relegated to second-place.


 
I spent years thinking that Brecon and Aberhonddu were separate places that always seemed to be the same distance from wherever I was.

The whole Welsh-language thing seems to depend in part on where you are. Where my in-laws live (Carmarthenshire) the generations born in the 20s and 30s speak Welsh as a first language... some of those from the 40s too.

The 50s, 60s and 70s births tend to have about three words of Welsh unless they enjoyed very 'sheltered' young lives, and now (full circle) the school-age kids can rattle it off as if they were born there - which of course they were.

But... It is not the Welsh of their grandparents and great-grandparents. It is as the English speak French... Competent but lacking in spark. More like a recited list of vocab than a poem.

In the brave, new and ethnically sensitive Croatia (still Nazi after the bunker fell in Berlin and with an excellent recent record of murder by surname) there are towns with populations based on imposed migrations from the Hapsburg days where shop and street names are written in Croatian and Czech or Croatian and Italian.

Those Croats do love a bit of ethnic diversity. They're just particular about which sort of ethnic diversity it is. I wonder whether Farrage is a Croatian name.

Carry on.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2012)

The User is exactly correct here. Primary is your default riding position. You'd drop to secondary whenever it's safe for you to compromise your position to make it easier for someone behind you to overtake. It might seem a bit counter-intuitive, but it's very logical once you read and understand Franklin's view.

Might be more helpful being a tad less confrontational, though, User.

More importantly though, let's remember that vehicular cycling, aka cycle craft, is a compensatory method for dealing with riding in amongst cars when we have no choice, rather than anything like near perfect Dutch conditions. It's not the best way towards getting large numbers of people cycling and in significantly better safety than we have in the UK. For that, we need to look to the Netherlands.


----------



## subaqua (28 Dec 2012)

User said:


> I think they're waiting for the Welsh to discover vowels...


 
There are seven vowels in Welsh, which have both short and long forms:


a
like "a" in "and"
e
like "eh"
i
like "ee" in "see"
o
like "oh"
u
like a very tight, frontal "oo" sound (purse your lips as if to say "oo" as in "soon" but try and say "ee")
w
like "oo" as in "moon"
y
either "uh", or like "ee" in "see"


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (28 Dec 2012)

Glow worm said:


> I often wonder why all the English who moan about the Welsh language don't ever seem to try to actually learn some of it instead.


 
Because we don't need to. Every Englishman knows that foreigners don't speak English because they are, in fact, partially deaf and stupid, and thus speaking English very slowly and loudly at them will bring results.

The most suitable riding position for any given situation remains the same however, despite the road signage and prevalent language
Mae sefyllfa beicio addas ar gyfer unrhyw sefyllfa benodol yn aros yr un fath, er gwaethaf yr arwyddion ffordd a'r iaith fwyaf cyffredin
_^ probably wrong_


----------



## subaqua (28 Dec 2012)

User said:


> Then they should start fecking using them!


we do
Sheff- Bydd y sefyllfa beicio addas ar gyfer unrhyw sefyllfa benodol yn aros yr un fath, er gwaethaf yr arwyddion ffordd a'r iaith a ddefnyddir amlaf
and yes i had to ring back home to be sure

The cycling position suitable for any particular situation will remain the same, despite the road signs and the language most commonly used


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Dec 2012)

As a (very) former interpreter and trainer of interpreters, I am saddened by the attitude to languages and diversity that has been evident throughout the latter parts of this thread. There seems to be a brooad lack of understanding.

Using classifications long held in high regard by many who work with language, we can demostrate that world languages divide into the groups shown below:

1. English.

2. Foreign.

If an Englishman understands a language, it is likely to be English. It may be slightly foreign (Geordie, Scouse, Mancunian and similar) or it might be very foreign (Albanian, Basque, Welsh and so on). But Foreign is Foreign and the chief identifing characteristic is that we do not understand them and they do not understand us. That might be two characteristics, but it is one for the sake of my (winning) argument.

I didn't get where I am today.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> As a (very) former interpreter and trainer of interpreters, I am saddened by the attitude to languages and diversity that has been evident throughout the latter parts of this thread. There seems to be a brooad lack of understanding.
> 
> Using classifications long held in high regard by many who work with language, we can demostrate that world languages divide into the groups shown below:
> 
> ...


Ah ! but can you interpret this F*** *** ?


----------



## Andrew_P (28 Dec 2012)

There are parts of my commute where the only sane place is secondary, would take a brave man to join the M23/A23 slip in primary..

I am with Gaz, I think the primary arguement works mostly with City commuter riding. Take it out to the A roads in the 40mph commuting burbs at your own risk. I played around with my postion for a while as I got the impression from forums that I should be in primary all the time, all I got was more aggro and more close passes. I still take primary at pinch points where I can


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> There are parts of my commute where the only sane place is secondary, would take a brave man to join the M23/A23 slip in primary..
> 
> I am with Gaz, I think the primary arguement works mostly with City commuter riding. Take it out to the A roads in the 40mph commuting burbs at your own risk. I played around with my postion for a while as I got the impression from forums that I should be in primary all the time, all I got was more aggro and more close passes. I still take primary at pinch points where I can


 
Perhaps you can give specific google maps streetview examples? A slip road seems to be a perfect case to drop to secondary, since it's wide and there's almost certainly traffic wanting to pass.

It's all a fine balance, choosing which risks are more significant, and doing your best to minimise them.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 Dec 2012)

User said:


> “*The primary riding position should be your normal riding position* _when you can keep up with traffic_, when you need to emphasize your presence to traffic ahead, _or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely._”


Did you selectively not bold the entire sentence?


----------



## lukesdad (28 Dec 2012)

10 years reading books or 10 years riding roads ...hmm tough one


----------



## lukesdad (28 Dec 2012)

User said:


> If you've only been riding for 10 years then you've got quite a few to catch up on me...


----------



## gaz (28 Dec 2012)

User said:


> Err... you shouldn't be on an motorway slip road...


The slip road LOCO refers to is here and is at the end of the M23, 1 junction after the M25 and as such cars are often still traveling at +70mph when you join.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> The User is exactly correct here. *Primary is your default riding position. You'd drop to secondary whenever it's safe for you to compromise your position to make it easier for someone behind you to overtake*. It might seem a bit counter-intuitive, but it's very logical once you read and understand Franklin's view.
> 
> Might be more helpful being a tad less confrontational, though, User.
> 
> More importantly though, let's remember that vehicular cycling, aka cycle craft, is a compensatory method for dealing with riding in amongst cars when we have no choice, rather than anything like near perfect Dutch conditions. It's not the best way towards getting large numbers of people cycling and in significantly better safety than we have in the UK. For that, we need to look to the Netherlands.


 
I can see why people would do this (the part in bold) and I understand the argument in its favour.

But... I do not agree with the default setting of Primary. I do not do it and never have. I have not taught my children to do it.

I teach them to ride assertively and to take what some might call Primary in certain situations, but by no means do I see it as a default position on rural or on inner-urban roads.

Only one is a driver and she is still not experienced behind the wheel (they are all teenagers) but they all have a fair amount of road experience for their few years on the planet.

I do not say that the default use of Primary is wrong, but it is not something I would consider and I find as both a cyclist and motorist of several decades' experience that Secondary as a default does not place me at extra risk, does not make me a gutter-hugging victim and seems to offer a good compromise between the speed I like to ride at and the wishes of other road users who may want to pass me.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2012)

Well, initially I thought the same way as you do, but now I realise just why it's such good advice. Narrow country lanes or smaller city roads with parked cars either side, for example - ride at the side, and an oncoming or passing driver will sometimes pass you at speed, forcing you into the hedge or parked cars. Ride in the middle, and you can bring them to a near stop, before passing each other carefully and safely. If the driver plays chicken, you can still dodge left at the right moment and you'll have slowed them to a somewhat safer speed, moved them over, and got reduced risk to yourself as a result. Most drivers would of course pass nicely regardless, and would slow anyway regardless of your position.

OTOH there are plenty of situations where I'd ride in secondary for extended distances. That doesn't change the fact that the default position is primary.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Dec 2012)

The only fact is BM, primary is the default position for you.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (28 Dec 2012)

lukesdad said:


> The only fact is BM, primary is the default position for you.




I suspect it's also slightly easier to maintain a decent pace on a 'bent


----------



## gaz (28 Dec 2012)

lukesdad said:


> The only fact is BM, primary is the default position for you.


As I mentioned in a previous post, I cycle to brighton a few weeks back and less than 5% of my journey was spent in a primary position. Most of the roads where +40mph and I was pootling along. Where as in a city inviroment that would be different, slow traffic speeds, lots of traffic lights, more pinch points etc..
It all depends on where you ride.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Dec 2012)

User said:


> Read the book and then you'll understand why I highlighted the first part of the sentence...


You could always just tell me why you left out most of the sentence. What you did changed how it read entirely. I'd assume with your knowledge it would be no problem for you to explain,without anyone else wondering the same having to spend £15.99


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

lukesdad said:


> The only fact is BM, primary is the default position for you.


 
Is there any need to make it personal? I'm referring specifically to Cyclecraft here, OK?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Dec 2012)

User said:


> As I said, read the book so that you understand the concept of vehicular cycling and Franklin's definition of 'primary' and 'secondary' - I'm certainly not going to precis the whole book for you.
> 
> It'll probably be the best £15.99 you've spent...


I generally do understand the concept. I'm just highly curious as to why you edited a sentence, to say what you wanted it to,when it clearly stated something entirely different.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

My recollection is that User did put across the intended and actual meaning in the book.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> My recollection is that User did put across the intended and actual meaning in the book.


This is the quote



> “*The primary riding position should be your normal riding position* when you can keep up with traffic, when you need to emphasize your presence to traffic ahead, or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely.”


 
This is the quote broken down



> “The primary riding position should be your normal riding position,
> 
> when you can keep up with traffic,
> when you need to emphasize your presence to traffic ahead,
> or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely.”


 
See the difference?


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> I generally do understand the concept. I'm just highly curious as to why you edited a sentence, to say what you wanted it to,when it clearly stated something entirely different.


 
I think User put across the meaning correctly. I've just gone and looked in the book. His choice of bolding is not something you need to pick on here.

Just go and read the book before you choose to argue the point further, please?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I think User put across the meaning correctly. I've just gone and looked in the book. His choice of bolding is not something you need to pick on here.
> 
> Just go and read the book before you choose to argue the point further, please?


He simply did not.

I can freely comment on this thread Mikey and I will do so, without reading books if I so desire.


What do you suggest should be done when you can't keep up with traffic? Don't need to emphasize your position or have no need to prevent drivers passing? 

What do you suggest people who can't keep up with traffic do? If we go by cyclecraft then their standard road position changes, does it not?


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

You can have your opinion, but so can I. I'm telling you that your criticism of User's post is simply wrong. His post efficiently got across the meaning that is easily apparent when you read that section of the book.

You've admitted you haven't read it, and quite a few of the rest of us have. My recollection matches Users, and yet I still gave you the respect to take 5 minutes and go and check the actual book to confirm. That is why I feel qualified to tell you you're on a hiding to nothing, just as User already did.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Dec 2012)

You've read a book which makes you a qualified expert. I get that entirely 

Would you like to attempt to answer the questions?

Is Gaz wrong?


gaz said:


> You aren't meant to ride in primary all of the time. It's a position you take when people shouldn't be overtaking you or if you want to make your self more visible.
> 
> Most riding is done in a position labeled as Secondary. Which is nearer to the side of the road.


----------



## 400bhp (29 Dec 2012)

:SHOCK:

Cyclechatters arguing about what a book says.

Whatever next...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (29 Dec 2012)

I read the sentence as ''normal'' when, when or when, i.e. normal for these conditions, much as T.M.H.N.E.T. does. It's normal that people flap their arms in the air when they fall off the top of skyscrapers. 

Which puts me in the awkward position of agreeing with User on his general representation of riding à la Cyclecraft but completely disagreeing with his reading of the sentence in the example that was meant to be proof.

Personally, I find it's completely ''normal'' to be regularly changing position as conditions change, so perhaps I have a problem with the normative power of normal.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You've read a book which makes you a qualified expert. I get that entirely
> 
> Would you like to attempt to answer the questions?
> 
> Is Gaz wrong?


 
Your whole post above would seem like your capitulation on the point that you were wrong to criticise User's post about what is written in Cyclecraft. That is the only thing I'm debating on with you. I'm glad you accept you were mistaken.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Your whole post above would seem like your capitulation on the point that you were wrong to criticise User's post about what is written in Cyclecraft. That is the only thing I'm debating on with you. I'm glad you accept you were mistaken.


Eh no.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I read the sentence as ''normal'' when, when or when, i.e. normal for these conditions, much as T.M.H.N.E.T. does. It's normal that people flap their arms in the air when they fall off the top of skyscrapers.
> 
> Which puts me in the awkward position of agreeing with User on his general representation of riding à la Cyclecraft but completely disagreeing with his reading of the sentence in the example that was meant to be proof.
> 
> Personally, I find it's completely ''normal'' to be regularly changing position as conditions change, so perhaps I have a problem with the normative power of normal.


 
Well, both Gaz and User are right in that the default riding position is primary, but also that life on UK roads results in us spending most of our riding time in secondary. Secondary isn't the default, it's the position we'll use to be nice to other road users, when we're happy to make a compromise towards others' convenience. Franklin isn't saying anything different to your final sentence.

User's other post is appropriate here:
1 My safety
2 Your safety
3 My convenience
4 Your convenience

(it's an Andy Gates quote IIRC).

For example:
On a wider road, when my safety isn't a particular issue, I'll ride secondary as your convenience has the most importance.
Passing parked cars or going through a junction, and my safety takes priority, so I take primary there.
Narrow country lane, single lane traffic, and I'll take the lane the whole way along. If a car turns up behind, I'll most likely pull over at a passing place to let them past.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Eh no.


 
So let me get this straight:

You're arguing with User, and accusing him of a dishonest quote from Cyclecraft, when you haven't even read the relevant section or the book?

I have, and both of us are telling you that User's post is an efficient and accurate synopsis of the advice in that part of the book. Your position is unsupportable.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

[QUOTE 2224897, member: 45"]There isn't a default riding position.[/quote]

Sure, I can accept that's your opinion. I'm not discussing your opinion in my posts above, mind.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> So let me get this straight:
> 
> You're arguing with User, and accusing him of a dishonest quote from Cyclecraft, when you haven't even read the relevant section or the book?
> 
> I have, and both of us are telling you that User's post is an efficient and accurate synopsis of the advice in that part of the book. Your position is unsupportable.


Once again..



> “*The primary riding position should be your normal riding position* when you can keep up with traffic, when you need to emphasize your presence to traffic ahead, or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely.”


 


> The primary riding position is in the centre of the lane (the most left-hand lane on multi-lane roads)


 
This is the quote broken down as it was intended to be read.



> “The primary riding position should be your normal riding position,
> 
> _*when*_ you can keep up with traffic,
> _*when*_ you need to emphasize your presence to traffic ahead,
> _*or when*_ you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely.”


 
Therefore "*The primary riding position should be your normal riding position"*_* if*_ you meet some listed criteria.

Therefore a "Primary" position - is not/can not be your position all of the time and in cases (newbies/disabled/children/pensioners) for example who can't match speed with traffic around them) simply can't ride according to the book(if the book truly is the correct way to cycle) and shouldn't be in the middle of the road.


This book you love so much really does have an elitist tone about it.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

The book I love so much? Should you really be jumping to yet another wrong assumption? Cyclecraft is a very good book, but I don't agree with everything it and John Franklin stand for. It's also definitely not elitist at all, it's aimed squarely at normal cyclists in normal clothes.

Again, you need to read the book before you can leap to the wrong assumption you did when quoting User's post. Taking a step back, it seems very silly to be arguing about something that you've already admitted you haven't read and don't know about.

Here's a further incorrect assumption:


T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Once again..
> (newbies/disabled/children/pensioners) for example who can't match speed with traffic around them) *simply can't ride according to the book(if the book truly is the correct way to cycle) and shouldn't be in the middle of the road*.


 
I suggest you read the book and do a little thinking before putting your foot in your mouth on your keyboard again.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> The book I love so much? Should you really be jumping to yet another wrong assumption? Cyclecraft is a very good book, but I don't agree with everything it and John Franklin stand for. It's also definitely not elitist at all, it's aimed squarely at normal cyclists in normal clothes.
> 
> Again, you need to read the book before you can leap to the wrong assumption you did when quoting User's post. Taking a step back, it seems very silly to be arguing about something that you've already admitted you haven't read and don't know about.
> 
> ...


Mikey. The quote is there for all to read. My dissection of the quote is there for all to read,some people have agreed,some people have questioned it directly themselves. I do not need to read the whole book,in order to question the use or logic of a quote from within it. You could tell me to read the book until you are blue in the face, quite frankly I have read enough of it to gauge that I have zero desire to waste £15.99 on it.

I find it strange that you are so keen to address my reading of the book, but not as keen to address the dissection of the quote. Dissection which gives it a totally different meaning than that implied by Users bolding.


----------



## gambatte (29 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Therefore a "Primary" position - is not/can not be your position all of the time and in cases (....children....) for example who can't match speed with traffic around them) simply can't ride according to the book (if the book truly is the correct way to cycle) and shouldn't be in the middle of the road.


 
Quick - get onto the Department for Education. Bikeability's been taught incorrectly to our kids!! 

Personally I'd prefer my kids in the middle of the lane, pissing off a motorist. Than gutter hugging and pavement hopping, or in secondary all the time encouraging dodgy passes.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Dec 2012)

gambatte said:


> Quick - get onto the Department for Education. Bikeability's been taught incorrectly to our kids!!
> 
> Personally I'd prefer my kids in the middle of the lane, ****ing off a motorist. Than gutter hugging and pavement hopping, or in secondary all the time encouraging dodgy passes.


May well be anecdotal but I know many kids, none of them can match the speed of traffic around them.

Should they still be in the middle of the road in "primary"?


----------



## Boris Bajic (29 Dec 2012)

gambatte said:


> Quick - get onto the Department for Education. Bikeability's been taught incorrectly to our kids!!
> 
> Personally I'd prefer my kids in the middle of the lane, ****ing off a motorist. Than gutter hugging and pavement hopping, or in secondary all the time encouraging dodgy passes.


 
Two of my three children did Bikeability training and I was glad they did. I saw nothing wrong with it and much that was helpful.

The third would have done it, but the regime at their school changed and the training went.

All three (now 13 to 19 years old) ride with enthussiasm and have ridden on the road from a young age.

I would much rather they took secondary position in most circumstances (even now when the older two cruise happily at 20mph+) than took primary. 

I'm surprised you'd like your kids to ride in the middle of the lane. I admire your bottle but am surprised nonetheless. Where do they ride and what ages are they? There may be places where it makes sense, but as a general rule I can't think of one. All of mine have been happy riding alone to friends' houses up to 10 miles away from the age of 12 - and rather farther now they are older. They are not kept on a short leash, but I would not like them to ride along in primary. 

Mine ride fast A-Roads and narrow lanes in the Marches and in Central London. In both locations it would worry me if kids took the centre of the lane, even if they had been riding from a young age.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

Boris, it's true that the faster you ride, the easier/safer/better it is to take the lane. Some slightly grey area situations would see most of us ride more secondary at lower speeds, and more primary at higher speeds, for example. OTOH, some situations pretty much require primary no matter what your speed, that or get off and walk the pavement. Fair enough?


----------



## gaz (29 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Boris, it's true that the faster you ride, the easier/safer/better it is to take the lane. Some slightly grey area situations would see most of us ride more secondary at lower speeds, and more primary at higher speeds, for example. OTOH, some situations pretty much require primary no matter what your speed, that or get off and walk the pavement. Fair enough?


Indeed, when I'm moving slower than the rest of the traffic I use the cycle lane here. But when traveling faster or at the same speed as them I control the lane.


----------



## benborp (29 Dec 2012)

This probably won't help.

The sentence and numbered points being argued over include the word 'or'. This makes them a number of individual conditions under which adopting a primary position would be considered normal. If the sentence used the word 'and' then it could be argued that they constituted a set of criteria that should be met before it would be considered 'normal' to adopt a primary position. But it doesn't, so they don't, and it also doesn't need to be argued that the sentence precludes the adoption of primary position in all other circumstances.

The section quoted is a summary of the points made over three or so pages of the main text. As with the Roadcraft handbook, bullet points and highlighted principles are used to make the substance of Cyclecraft digestible. This allows 'normal' riders to develop their skills on the road with reference to the principles outlined without a word for word, photographic memory of the text being necessary. Franklin stresses that cyclists need to be flexible in order to deal with the current road environment and that the structured advice included in Cyclecraft doesn't amount to a set of rules to be followed. Cyclecraft presents a set of skills that can be utilised by the rider as best suits them and for this reason Frnklin often presents compromises and alternatives that different riders can use in the same circumstances. Driving manuals, with their prescriptive rules and systems can appear remarkably slim compared to Cyclecraft.

I think Franklin's use of the terms primary and secondary is an attempt to overcome many people's perception and experiences that riders should stay as far left as possible at all times. I also think his choice of terms is a cognitive 'leg-up' to help riders utilise their ability to vary road position effectively. Establishing that cyclists can legitimately choose to cycle in the traffic flow and move left as need be may be more effective as a training principle than the alternative. Moving right into a primary position can be a daunting manoeuvre and a difficult skill to introduce that many might shy away from. Franklin's terminology goes some way to alleviating that fear.
Practically, riding by default in primary and moving into secondary as appropriate may be no different to riding by default in secondary and moving right when necessary, equally the transposition of the terms would make no difference; however the phrasing and outline of road position as in Cyclecraft may be the most effective way of introducing the concept to cyclists such that the greatest number are able to carry that information through into appropriate practice.


----------



## Andrew_P (29 Dec 2012)

Without a doubt I wouldn't want my Daughter trying to ride in primary all the time. 

Riding in primary being a default constant position is pretty dangerous, not only winding people up for no reason but also encouraging close passes due to frustrating a motons progress. I am all for protecting yourself using primary on country lanes, pinch points and two in to one lane traffic lights but really those advocating primary as default would you really stick your back side in primary on a dual carriageway or a busy A Road?


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> Without a doubt I wouldn't want my Daughter trying to ride in primary all the time.
> 
> Riding in primary being a default constant position is pretty dangerous, not only winding people up for no reason but also encouraging close passes due to frustrating a motons progress. I am all for protecting yourself using primary on country lanes, pinch points and two in to one lane traffic lights but really those advocating primary as default would you really stick your back side in primary on a dual carriageway or a busy A Road?


 
I'm slightly confused by that - I'm not sure anyone is suggesting riding in primary all the time?


----------



## Andrew_P (29 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I'm slightly confused by that - I'm not sure anyone is suggesting riding in primary all the time?


Well I thought you, Reg, Gambette and Franklin were?


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

Ah, not at all. I would have thought the myriad of related posts from today would have made that completely obvious. For example: 



BentMikey said:


> Well, both Gaz and User are right in that the default riding position is primary, but* also that life on UK roads results in us spending most of our riding time in secondary.* Secondary isn't the default, it's the position we'll use to be nice to other road users, when we're happy to make a compromise towards others' convenience. Franklin isn't saying anything different to your final sentence.
> 
> User's other post is appropriate here:
> 1 My safety
> ...


 
Fair enough?


----------



## benborp (29 Dec 2012)

People that call primary their 'default' position are not advocating riding in primary at all times. I frequently ride in primary on busy A roads. I don't ride on many dual carriageways but I will often ride in primary when I do. This does not mean that on these roads I will always ride in primary at all times. I can change my position at will and I do so as the situation demands. Treating primary as a default position allows a cyclist to recognise when their safety and convenience is best served by riding there. I don't feel that reserving primary position as a manoeuvre for special occasions is the most effective way of using the position's advantages.
Many aspects of cycling on today's infrastructure are counter-intuitive. We must learn from experience, continually develop the strategies that we use to deal with specific situations and also recognise that those situations and the skills we use will not necessarily develop linearly. It's also important to recognise that what works for one of us may not work for another and the environments in which we cycle are all different.


----------



## gambatte (29 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I'm surprised you'd like your kids to ride in the middle of the lane. I admire your bottle but am surprised nonetheless. Where do they ride and what ages are they? There may be places where it makes sense, but as a general rule I can't think of one. All of mine have been happy riding alone to friends' houses up to 10 miles away from the age of 12 - and rather farther now they are older. They are not kept on a short leash, but I would not like them to ride along in primary.
> Mine ride fast A-Roads and narrow lanes in the Marches and in Central London. In both locations it would worry me if kids took the centre of the lane, even if they had been riding from a young age.


 
11 and 9 the 2 that are out. Just on local estate roads. I went and go out with them and got them the highway code. They've both done bikeability.



gambatte said:


> Quick - get onto the Department for Education. Bikeability's been taught incorrectly to our kids!!
> 
> Personally I'd prefer my kids in the middle of the lane, ****ing off a motorist. Than gutter hugging and pavement hopping, or in secondary all the time encouraging dodgy passes.


 
I wouldn't want them in primary or secondary all the time. But on local estate roads I'd much rather they were in primary the majority of the time. Middle of the lane makes them more visible to side roads, drivers coming out of their driveways and with the number of parked cars and speed calming measures it makes sense to me that they default to primary rather than constantly moving back into secondary after every restriction.

(BTW loco Gambatte, not Gambette)


----------



## Boris Bajic (29 Dec 2012)

gambatte said:


> 11 and 9 the 2 that are out. Just on local estate roads. I went and go out with them and got them the highway code. They've both done bikeability.... (edited)


 
That response makes sense. You and I differ in that I'd have had my littluns in a more secondary position even on residential streets, but I am not necessarily right on this. I just disagree.

I was imagining children riding primary as a default on the hilly, twisty NSL single-carriageway A-Roads where my children did a lot of their learning. 

Even though I disagree about the tendency towards primary as default, I'm deeply pleased that kids are being taken out and taught to ride on the road by their parents. I see very few children out riding on the roads, which is odd in these 'cycling boom' days.

I believe your love of primary as a default may soften when your kids start to hit the fast, twisty stuff where artics bomb past and cars pass them while being overtaken.

But I take my hat off to you for teaching them to ride and I only disagree a tiny bit with default primary when it's on a housing estate.


----------



## bicyclos (29 Dec 2012)

Each road is so individual of what position you use. The route I take to work and back, my position changes with the weather and traffic tolerance day in day out. Guideance from books are ok and a guideline but you need to fine tune and adjust with traffic and conditions and not stangnate in one position. When I venture out on the road I tend to read the road and junctions I approach and weigh up if the traffic is aggressive or passive plus weight up what to do on the size of the vehicle which I am being approched on. You have to have eyes everywhere and be alert all the time.......primary, secondary use your own judgement.


----------



## 400bhp (29 Dec 2012)

Is there a tertiary...


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

bicyclos said:


> Each road is so individual of what position you use. The route I take to work and back, my position changes with the weather and traffic tolerance day in day out. Guideance from books are ok and a guideline but you need to fine tune and adjust with traffic and conditions and *not stangnate in one position*. When I venture out on the road I tend to read the road and junctions I approach and weigh up if the traffic is aggressive or passive plus weight up what to do on the size of the vehicle which I am being approched on. You have to have eyes everywhere and be alert all the time.......primary, secondary use your own judgement.


 
The bolded bit is definitely not cyclecraft, rather the opposite. Cyclecraft is closer to the rest of your paragraph.


----------



## fudgepanda (29 Dec 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> It's common sense. The instructor should be fired.


I'm afraid that my employer is the sort who gives a lot of tasks to people who are ill-qualified to do them but just happen to be present when the task is given out. He was also sent on a cycle maintenance course - the locker his stand and tools are in has a sheet of A4 paper stuck to it, on which is printed: "Cycle maintenance kit. (Never used)" He's since been moved sideways to another location. They could of course have given the "job" to another of our group who's competed in Triathlons for over 25 years and knows bikes inside out. But that would have been too simple.....giving the task to someone who already knows something about the subject and really wants to do it.


----------



## fudgepanda (29 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Users bolding seems to stop short of the first "when" cutting half of the sentence out.
> 
> I read it as.
> 
> ...


Although I'm a very recent returnee to the world of cycling I'm actually bringing influences from driving and motorcycling and adapting them to my new world. I'm quite sensitive to the level of inconvenience caused being directly related to the amount of aggression received from drivers. At the same time trying to balance this with riding in a position whereby I don't end up hitting every rut and pothole on the road, I seem to be pretty much doing what T.M.H.N.E.T., User and summerdays have put above.

With regard to the BBC programme, I found it to be a mix of innocent victims of drivers poor and inconsiderate conduct on the road, an unrealistic expectation that drivers would automatically see a cyclist and a small amount of reckless cycling.

Unfortunately, when drivers talk about cyclists, it can be a little like the TV programme "Mock The Week " in as much as "things you never hear car drivers say". 

I was really impressed today when two cyclists stopped at some lights next to me this afternoon.

You know, I'm beginning to think that cycling is such a healthy, sustainable and time saving mode of transport I might just park up the Range Rover and get myself a hybrid.....yeah right!


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (29 Dec 2012)

Since I started using a camera I've noticed:

Drivers are less 'pushy', they're more happy to wait behind. 
My riding style has changed, I feel more confident in taking primary.
Everyone stares at you. _Everyone._


----------



## subaqua (29 Dec 2012)

[QUOTE 2224897, member: 45"]There isn't a default riding position.[/quote]

there is, there is the wheels upright ish in contact with the ground and turning position which works very well indeed as a default for cyclists . 

I haven't read the book fully but intend to . then i can comment on regulators comments and if they are correct. until i read the book i would be pi55ing in the wind, not that that stops people.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (29 Dec 2012)

subaqua said:


> there is, there is the wheels upright ish in contact with the ground and turning position which works very well indeed as a default for cyclists .
> 
> I haven't read the book fully but intend to . then i can comment on regulators comments and if they are correct. until i read the book i would be pi55ing in the wind, not that that stops people.


Till you get the book, this might be a useful summary: http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/technique-road-positioning-197/


----------



## subaqua (29 Dec 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Till you get the book, this might be a useful summary: http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/technique-road-positioning-197/


 
ta for the link. I have read that bikeradar guide before so know what the positions are. i need to read the whole book so i can read things in the context they were written. am wondering if its available as an ebook


----------



## subaqua (29 Dec 2012)

subaqua said:


> ta for the link. I have read that bikeradar guide before so know what the positions are. i need to read the whole book so i can read things in the context they were written. am wondering if its available as an ebook


 
dunno what the etiquette is for replying to your own posts.

ordered from amazon ( on Prime) £10.23 will be here on Monday !!


----------



## gaz (29 Dec 2012)

400bhp said:


> Is there a tertiary...


The pavement. Not advocated by cyclists.


----------



## fudgepanda (29 Dec 2012)

Someone once said that the perception is more important than the actualite. Of the few times I've ridden in busy, but not rushour, conditions I've taken this primary position where there are width restrictions caused by traffic calming but despite the fact that traffic lights were coming up shortly which would stop the cars I still moved back to the left letting them past which allowed the traffic to flow and gave drivers the illusion they were actually making progress when in actual fact I simply caught up with them and passed them all at the lights.

It seemed to make them happy


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (30 Dec 2012)

jazloc said:


> Since I started using a camera I've noticed:
> 
> Drivers are less 'pushy', they're more happy to wait behind.
> My riding style has changed, I feel more confident in taking primary.
> Everyone stares at you. _Everyone._


Yes, cars will notice the camera on your helmet and be angels. People will also look at your, especially if you have a GoPro stuck on top of your head. Lol


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2012)

fudgepanda said:


> Someone once said that the perception is more important than the actualite. Of the few times I've ridden in busy, but not rushour, conditions I've taken this primary position where there are width restrictions caused by traffic calming but despite the fact that traffic lights were coming up shortly which would stop the cars I still moved back to the left letting them past which allowed the traffic to flow and gave drivers the illusion they were actually making progress when in actual fact I simply caught up with them and passed them all at the lights.
> 
> It seemed to make them happy


 
Too right!


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (30 Dec 2012)

A flash from a taxi driver has got to be worth 1000 points.


----------



## bicyclos (30 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> The bolded bit is definitely not cyclecraft, rather the opposite. Cyclecraft is closer to the rest of your paragraph.


 
Strangly enough I have never read Cyclecraft or intend to. I think 30yrs on the motorcycle has given me good road sense adjusted for the bicycle, or I hope so. Nothing is guaranteed though......


----------



## subaqua (30 Dec 2012)

bicyclos said:


> Strangly enough I have never read Cyclecraft or intend to. I think 30yrs on the motorcycle has given me good road sense adjusted for the bicycle, or I hope so. Nothing is guaranteed though......


 except death and taxes, or if you are on a bike- death by taxis


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2012)

bicyclos said:


> Strangly enough I have never read Cyclecraft or intend to. I think 30yrs on the motorcycle has given me good road sense adjusted for the bicycle, or I hope so. Nothing is guaranteed though......


 
I also have quite a lot of motorcycle and car mileage, and it certainly helps loads. Cyclecraft and bikeability instructor training expanded on that to some degree, mind.


----------



## campbellab (30 Dec 2012)

bicyclos said:


> Strangly enough I have never read Cyclecraft or intend to. I think 30yrs on the motorcycle has given me good road sense adjusted for the bicycle, or I hope so. Nothing is guaranteed though......


 
“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2012)

campbellab said:


> “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”


"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, but what we know for sure that just ain't so."


----------



## cd365 (31 Dec 2012)

I cannot work out the obsession some people have on this forum with Cyclecraft. Most people will not have heard of it at all and as far as I'm aware it has no standing in the law at all but is recommended reading for Bikability training. So IMHO quoting primary/secondary at a motorist is pointless. It should be in the Highway Code and I'm surprised it isn't, does anyone know if the government are being pressurised into including it and possibly including questions on a cyclists road positioning in the Theory Test all new drivers have to take?


----------



## BentMikey (31 Dec 2012)

cd365 said:


> I cannot work out the obsession some people have on this forum with Cyclecraft. Most people will not have heard of it at all and as far as I'm aware it has no standing in the law at all but is recommended reading for Bikability training. So IMHO quoting primary/secondary at a motorist is pointless. It should be in the Highway Code and I'm surprised it isn't, does anyone know if the government are being pressurised into including it and possibly including questions on a cyclists road positioning in the Theory Test all new drivers have to take?


 
Once you know the smallest amount about good cycling, you'll realise this is a totally specious argument.

Nothing in cyclecraft relies on any motorist knowing anything about it at all. Why would you even think that? Cyclecraft is all about altering your own riding to compensate for what motorists do, be it the instinctive stuff, the good practice based on the highway code, or even their mistakes.


----------



## gaz (31 Dec 2012)

2227934 said:


> This part is quite correct though, as a subset of the general rule that discussing anything with any motorist is sadly more likely to be pointless than useful.


In some cases the same thing can be said about discussing things with cyclists.


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (1 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> Too right!



The cyclist is illegally undertaking. You're supposed to go around them.


----------



## benborp (1 Jan 2013)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> The cyclist is illegally undertaking. You're supposed to go around them.


It's not illegal. It's perfectly acceptable for a cyclist to filter to the left of stationary traffic.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Jan 2013)

If undertaking were illegal, what would the point of bus lanes be?


----------



## Jezston (1 Jan 2013)

Top Tip: when coming home drunk from a NYE party, best avoid posting on the internet.


----------



## Matthew_T (1 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> If undertaking were illegal, what would the point of bus lanes be?


The areguement there would be that the buses can stop in it without blocking the flow of traffic. However, if there was a traffic jam, it would be illegal for the bus to drive down the lane passing the stuck cars, so the bus would end up blocking the bus lane.
This is the reason it is not illegal to undertake (and I think that because a bus lane has a solid line, buses are allowed to undertake cars).


----------



## gaz (1 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> The areguement there would be that the buses can stop in it without blocking the flow of traffic. However, if there was a traffic jam, it would be illegal for the bus to drive down the lane passing the stuck cars, so the bus would end up blocking the bus lane.
> This is the reason it is not illegal to undertake (and I think that because a bus lane has a solid line, buses are allowed to undertake cars).


I would say it's more to do with the rules which are applied to the motorways and when you are allowed to pass other vehicles on the left in those situations rather than about it being a solid line, as all that indicates is that it is a bus lane.


----------



## SomethingLikeThat (2 Jan 2013)

Even the no undertake rule on the motorway doesn't really work when you have idiots sitting in the middle lane. Unless you want to move across two lanes (undesirable if the inside lane is busy) you have no choice but to undertake if you want to go faster.


----------



## summerdays (2 Jan 2013)

SomethingLikeThat said:


> Even the no undertake rule on the motorway doesn't really work when you have idiots sitting in the middle lane. Unless you want to move across two lanes (undesirable if the inside lane is busy) you have no choice but to undertake if you want to go faster.


Saw someone who thought the rules didn't apply to him undertake on a 40 mph dual carriageway. He undertook and then slammed the brakes on in front of the other car (which was doing 40 mph), and then accelerated into the distance. It was one of those moments when you wished that it had been witnessed by the police so he could get his come-uppence.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jan 2013)

SomethingLikeThat said:


> Even the no undertake rule on the motorway doesn't really work when you have idiots sitting in the middle lane. Unless you want to move across two lanes (undesirable if the inside lane is busy) you have no choice but to undertake if you want to go faster.


 
That doesn't sound like good driving to me. Why not just wait behind until you can overtake?


----------



## gaz (2 Jan 2013)

summerdays said:


> Saw someone who thought the rules didn't apply to him undertake on a 40 mph dual carriageway. He undertook and then slammed the brakes on in front of the other car (which was doing 40 mph), and then accelerated into the distance. It was one of those moments when you wished that it had been witnessed by the police so he could get his come-uppence.


Should the car he undertook have been in that lane? I say this as the other car was able to undertake him.
I think some people think they don't have to use lane 1 if they are going the speed limit and as such sit on the right lane or in the middle lane when they shouldn't. This can cause issues with traffic levels backing up if it's a day where traffic is traveling particularly fast and could cause an 'accident' if one of these hot heads drivers like a plum and starts brake testing people.


----------



## cd365 (2 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> Once you know the smallest amount about good cycling, you'll realise this is a totally specious argument.
> 
> Nothing in cyclecraft relies on any motorist knowing anything about it at all. Why would you even think that? Cyclecraft is all about altering your own riding to compensate for what motorists do, be it the instinctive stuff, the good practice based on the highway code, or even their mistakes.


 
My point is that Cyclecraft is often mentioned on here in relation to primary/secondary etc.and at the end of the day it is just a book with no legal significance. It's great if someone reads it and believes it makes them a better cyclist but it also seems to make them more militant in that if it is in Cyclecraft then it has to be right and seems to change their attitude to other road users. We all have to share the same road space and I believe that means we should all be thoughtful and considerate to other road users.
Motorists are not aware of the primary/secondary terminology, all they know from the highway code is that cyclists should keep to the left, there should be pressure on the government to get the Highway Code and the Theory test changed so that it reflects why a cyclist will take a certain road position.


----------



## summerdays (2 Jan 2013)

gaz said:


> Should the car he undertook have been in that lane? I say this as the other car was able to undertake him.
> I think some people think they don't have to use lane 1 if they are going the speed limit and as such sit on the right lane or in the middle lane when they shouldn't. This can cause issues with traffic levels backing up if it's a day where traffic is traveling particularly fast and could cause an 'accident' if one of these hot heads drivers like a plum and starts brake testing people.


Well eventually they went right at a roundabout about a mile or more further on - we stayed behind them, as they were going at the speed limit anyway. There were other cars near by that the first car pulled in front of to pull into the first lane though all the rest were going about 40 mph. I would say that they probably had to brake when he pulled his manoeuvre. But just because one vehicle is being not being driven well, it isn't an excuse for everyone to break the rules.


----------



## gaz (2 Jan 2013)

summerdays said:


> Well eventually they went right at a roundabout about a mile or more further on - we stayed behind them, as they were going at the speed limit anyway. There were other cars near by that the first car pulled in front of to pull into the first lane though all the rest were going about 40 mph. I would say that they probably had to brake when he pulled his manoeuvre. But just because one vehicle is being not being driven well, it isn't an excuse for everyone to break the rules.


If they were not passing traffic in lane 1 for the next mile, then I would say that is poor lane management.
But as you say, that is no excuse for others driving like a fool.


----------



## gaz (2 Jan 2013)

cd365 said:


> My point is that Cyclecraft is often mentioned on here in relation to primary/secondary etc.and at the end of the day it is just a book with no legal significance. It's great if someone reads it and believes it makes them a better cyclist but *it also seems to make them more militant in that if it is in Cyclecraft then it has to be right and seems to change their attitude to other road users.* *We all have to share the same road space and I believe that means we should all be thoughtful and considerate to other road users.*
> Motorists are not aware of the primary/secondary terminology, all they know from the highway code is that cyclists should keep to the left, there should be pressure on the government to get the Highway Code and the Theory test changed so that it reflects why a cyclist will take a certain road position.


I guess you haven't read cyclecraft.

___

All motorists know is that cyclists should keep left from the highway code? Where does it say anything along those lines in the highway code?


----------



## cd365 (2 Jan 2013)

Nope I haven't and doubt I ever will.


----------



## gaz (2 Jan 2013)

cd365 said:


> Nope I haven't and doubt I ever will.


Aaaah ok, perhaps it would be an idea to read it, so you have a good understanding of what is actually said in it.

I quickly edited my previous post, so I presume you missed my second point. I will put it below 
All motorists know is that cyclists should keep left from the highway code? Where does it say anything along those lines in the highway code?


----------



## summerdays (2 Jan 2013)

gaz said:


> If they were not passing traffic in lane 1 for the next mile, then I would say that is poor lane management.
> But as you say, that is no excuse for others driving like a fool.


I would agree on the lane management, I was expecting to see an elderly person in the car when we entered the roundabout side by side when they turned off the dual carriageway. Whereas it was a 30 something male.


----------



## cd365 (2 Jan 2013)

gaz said:


> Aaaah ok, perhaps it would be an idea to read it, so you have a good understanding of what is actually said in it.
> 
> I quickly edited my previous post, so I presume you missed my second point. I will put it below
> All motorists know is that cyclists should keep left from the highway code? Where does it say anything along those lines in the highway code?


 
I don't think it says it in the latest HC, but I think it used to.


----------



## theclaud (2 Jan 2013)

cd365 said:


> I don't think it says it in the latest HC, but I think it used to.


 
Convincing stuff!


----------



## cd365 (2 Jan 2013)

I also remember doing my cycle proficiency test many years ago and was taught to ride on the left, anyone of my generation will have been taught that and it will not have been corrected at any point (unless they are still a cyclist and read forums or Cyclecraft!). So there is now a whole generation of car drivers who wrongly believe that a cyclist should ride in the gutter!!

I had never heard of primary/secondary/taking the lane etc. until I joined CycleChat. I did some of it already due to being a motorcyclist as well. But I still tend to do most of my riding in secondary and only take primary when I feel the road conditions warrant it, e.g. pinch points, turning right


----------



## cd365 (2 Jan 2013)

I can only talk about my generation (i.e. when I did my cycling proficiency), I don't know when they stopped telling cyclists to do that.
Someone more knowledgeable on the subject will no doubt know.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jan 2013)

cd365 said:


> My point is that Cyclecraft is often mentioned on here in relation to primary/secondary etc.and at the end of the day it is just a book with no legal significance. It's great if someone reads it and believes it makes them a better cyclist but it also seems to make them more militant in that if it is in Cyclecraft then it has to be right and seems to change their attitude to other road users. We all have to share the same road space and I believe that means we should all be thoughtful and considerate to other road users.
> Motorists are not aware of the primary/secondary terminology, all they know from the highway code is that cyclists should keep to the left, there should be pressure on the government to get the Highway Code and the Theory test changed so that it reflects why a cyclist will take a certain road position.


Why are you assuming Cyclecraft teaches inconsideration, militancy and lack of thoughtfulness towards others? Seriously, I just can't understand your bad attitude towards a very good book, full of wisdom. You're really only telling us about your own attitude towards other road users via a bit of projection, and your comments don't reflect much about Cyclecraft at all.
I see you've just slid past and avoided the point made earlier that it doesn't matter at all that a particular motorist has or hasn't read cyclecraft.


cd365 said:


> Nope I haven't and doubt I ever will.


 
Haven't read the highway code? Cyclecraft, which you haven't read either it seems, doesn't conflict with the highway code at all. On the contrary, they re-inforce each other.


----------



## cd365 (2 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> Why are you assuming Cyclecraft teaches inconsideration, militancy and lack of thoughtfulness towards others? Seriously, I just can't understand your bad attitude towards a very good book, full of wisdom. You're really only telling us about your own attitude towards other road users via a bit of projection, and your comments don't reflect much about Cyclecraft at all.
> I see you've just slid past and avoided the point made earlier that it doesn't matter at all that a particular motorist has or hasn't read cyclecraft.
> 
> 
> Haven't read the highway code? Cyclecraft, which you haven't read either it seems, doesn't conflict with the highway code at all. On the contrary, they re-inforce each other.


I did not say Cyclecraft teaches them things, I said it seem to make some cyclists more militant. That is my opinion gained from the impression that I have gleaned off some people on this forum.
I did not say that it makes them inconsiderate or thoughtless, that was my own personal opinion of how we should be on the roads, do not try and twist what I have said.

I didn't slide past the motorist reading cyclecraft comment, my point is that motorists do not know the terminology used like primary/secondary in cyclecraft and since it is not required driving reading then they never will unless they take up cycling and try to get involved in it more than just riding a bike so until it is put in the Highway Code then we as cyclists should not really expect a motorist to understand why a cyclist has taken what they will perceive to be an aggressive or inconsiderate riding line, like I said a lot of motorists believe that a cyclist should ride to the left and some believe we should actually be in the gutter. If that was what they were told then why should they now know different? Because we want them to? This is the real world, unless they are shown or told differently then they won’t know and as far as I am aware there is no national campaign explaining this. The BBC program would have been a great place to highlight this but it failed to do so.

It is quite a few years since I read the Highway Code. Cyclecraft, nope not read it. Where did I say it conflicts with the highway code? I said the Highway Code needs to be updated to contain information that is in cyclecraft, e.g terminology like primary/secondary


----------



## cd365 (2 Jan 2013)

2231422 said:


> You are Pete Townsend AICMFP


 
huh?


----------



## cd365 (2 Jan 2013)

Ahh, my apologies,I was a bit slow on the uptake there.
Though in my defence I wasn't even born when My generation was released.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jan 2013)

I'll say it again - whatever a motorist knows or doesn't know about Cyclecraft is irrelevant. All a motorist needs to do is follow the highway code, and he/she will never need to come into conflict with a cyclist following cycle craft. To be absolutely frank, a good motorist won't even come into conflict with a poorly behaved cyclist either.

It's easier than an easy thing:


Your assuming that a cyclist not sticking to the side of the road in the gutter is "taking an aggressive/inconsiderate line" is indicative of your own attitude towards the road. Perhaps you might benefit from more reading of the HC and Cyclecraft, and less Olympics level leaping to conclusions?


----------



## benb (2 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> I'll say it again - whatever a motorist knows or doesn't know about Cyclecraft is irrelevant. All a motorist needs to do is follow the highway code, and he/she will never need to come into conflict with a cyclist following cycle craft. To be absolutely frank, a good motorist won't even come into conflict with a poorly behaved cyclist either.
> 
> It's easier than an easy thing:


 
Love the comments in that video!


----------



## cd365 (2 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> I'll say it again - whatever a motorist knows or doesn't know about Cyclecraft is irrelevant. All a motorist needs to do is follow the highway code, and he/she will never need to come into conflict with a cyclist following cycle craft. To be absolutely frank, a good motorist won't even come into conflict with a poorly behaved cyclist either.
> 
> Your assuming that a cyclist not sticking to the side of the road in the gutter is "taking an aggressive/inconsiderate line" is indicative of your own attitude towards the road. Perhaps you might benefit from more reading of the HC and Cyclecraft, and less Olympics level leaping to conclusions?


 
And I will say it again my point is IMHO that there are cyclists who believe that because they have read cyclecraft that motorists should also understand terminology used in the book, they don't and won't until things change in the HC. There are many instances posted on here of a cyclist taking primary position and coming into conflict with a motorist who took that position correctly but the motorist does not understand why because it has not been explained to them why.

Again you are trying to twist my words, you seem to do that a lot. I said "we as cyclists should not really expect a motorist to understand why a cyclist has taken what they will perceive to be an aggressive or inconsiderate riding line", this is how a lot of non-cycling motorists perceive the primary riding position. Where did I mention that I believed that primary was aggressive/inconsiderate? Maybe you should learn to read what people write rather than twisting things around. I do not feel the need to read cyclecraft because I already know how to ride on a shared use road having 25 years car and motorbike experience and 35 years cycling experience (with a lot of time off admittedly). To use a company car I also have to do an annual online driving competency test similar to the Theory Test which I pass easily each year so believe my knowledge of the Highway Code is good enough.


----------



## Jezston (2 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> Love the comments in that video!


 

Quite! "You'll never win an argument against a cyclist, They're a bunch of narrow minded twats,* typical minority group*."

I think that sentence alone says an awful lot about the commenter


----------



## sheddy (2 Jan 2013)

I've only just seen this re the skewed courier race. Apologies for being late to the table 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/dec/13/war-britains-roads-fake


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jan 2013)

cd365, I think you ought to read cyclecraft, and or take some cycling lessons. Despite your experience, it seems very likely to me that you'll learn a thing or two, especially since you keep leaping to unwarranted and incorrect conclusions about Cyclecraft. 

I also like to think I have loads of experience, but I'm not too arrogant to spend time learning, nor to spend time regularly reconsidering my point of view. It's one of the main uses of cameras, for me at least. I go back and look at every point of conflict, and consider what I could have done better, no matter what the motorist did wrong, if anything.

Let me say once again - nobody cares if motorists know nothing about cyclecraft. Most drive very well according to the highway code, and it's only a tiny minority that behave inappropriately. Even these would be fine if they just followed the highway code. It's not rocket science, it's what you agreed to when you applied for your driving licence.


----------



## snorri (2 Jan 2013)

cd365 said:


> I also remember doing my cycle proficiency test many years ago and was taught to ride on the left,


That is how young people were taught to cycle, most of us modify our behaviour as we mature, cycling behaviour should be no different..
Cyclecraft was at one time subtitled 'Skilled cycling techniques for adults'. I believe this was because the techniques described were considered unsuitable for young people who might well lack the self confidence and assertiveness necessary to carry them through safely.


----------



## Andrew_P (2 Jan 2013)

I completely see where cd365 is coming from and I am not sure whyhe needs or anyone else for that matter to read Cyclecraft. It seems to me that saying on a forum that "primary is the default position" is pretty meaning less at best and outright dangerous if some newbie reads it and takes it at literal value.

I also think the cd365 has a point about primary when used "as a default position" all the time will only end up with a wound up motorist in <lack> of control of a 1.5 ton of metal sitting behind tailgating or trying to push pass.

By all means suggest a newbie to read the book when they are looking for advice but posting and bolding as reg did regarding primary being the default (and the bolding leads to it reading as all the time) could lead to someone cycling all the time in the nearside trye track mark, regardless of traffic conditions which imo is pretty hazardous "default postion"


----------



## cd365 (2 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> cd365, I think you ought to read cyclecraft, and or take some cycling lessons. Despite your experience, it seems very likely to me that you'll learn a thing or two, especially since you keep leaping to unwarranted and incorrect conclusions about Cyclecraft.
> 
> I also like to think I have loads of experience, but I'm not too arrogant to spend time learning, nor to spend time regularly reconsidering my point of view. It's one of the main uses of cameras, for me at least. I go back and look at every point of conflict, and consider what I could have done better, no matter what the motorist did wrong, if anything.
> 
> Let me say once again - nobody cares if motorists know nothing about cyclecraft. Most drive very well according to the highway code, and it's only a tiny minority that behave inappropriately. Even these would be fine if they just followed the highway code. It's not rocket science, it's what you agreed to when you applied for your driving licence.


 
I am not making any conclusions about Cyclecraft, my comments were about some cyclists who have read it and the way they can come across on forums. Most of the things I have read on this forum which mentions advice given in Cyclecraft I do anyway, there are probably some things it mentions that I don't do but I possibly wouldn't anyway. I ride in a way that keeps me safe and so far has served me well, if it ain't broke why fix it? This is nothing to do with arrogance but I know my own skills and abilities and try to ride accordingly.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jan 2013)

LOCO said:


> I completely see where cd365 is coming from and I am not sure whyhe needs or anyone else for that matter to read Cyclecraft. It seems to me that saying on a forum that "primary is the default position" is pretty meaning less at best and outright dangerous if some newbie reads it and takes it at literal value.
> 
> I also think the cd365 has a point about primary when used "as a default position" all the time will only end up with a wound up motorist in <lack> of control of a 1.5 ton of metal sitting behind tailgating or trying to push pass.
> 
> By all means suggest a newbie to read the book when they are looking for advice but posting and bolding as reg did regarding primary being the default (and the bolding leads to it reading as all the time) could lead to someone cycling all the time in the nearside trye track mark, regardless of traffic conditions which imo is pretty hazardous "default postion"


 
Hmm, should you really be willfully misinterpreting the "primary as default comment" like that? It was made pretty clear several times and many posts ago that it doesn't mean taking the lane unreasonably as you're describing.

Your final paragraph reads as though you think the nearside tyre track is primary. It's probably closest to secondary, actually, although that will depend on road width and traffic flow. Primary is the centre of the flow of traffic, which usually corresponds to the middle of the nearside lane, not the left hand tyre track.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jan 2013)

cd365 said:


> I am not making any conclusions about Cyclecraft, my comments were about some cyclists who have read it and the way they can come across on forums. Most of the things I have read on this forum which mentions advice given in Cyclecraft I do anyway, there are probably some things it mentions that I don't do but I possibly wouldn't anyway. I ride in a way that keeps me safe and so far has served me well, if it ain't broke why fix it? This is nothing to do with arrogance but I know my own skills and abilities and try to ride accordingly.


 
Unwillingness to learn and improve is not something to be proud of, IMO. Having not read cyclecraft, and making such unwarranted conclusions about its contents leaves you on very shaky grounds when it comes to debating. Your credibility here is not strong, IMO.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (2 Jan 2013)

I actually had a chance to explain to a driver about the primary position today :-)
It was during a driver training CBT I was completing at work and one of the practice questions was asking you to place in the missing road sign on a given piece of road.
Now to help visualize this I can only really describe it as a "Darwins Corner" (tm BentMikey IIRC) - It was a sharp right hand turn, single chevron marking on outer edge, with the "Keep in lane/left" arrow followed by a solid white line/dashed line down the centre of the road. There is a barn style building on the turn and you can't see out the other side.

After first trying the "concealed entrance/sharp turn" sign I found I'd be a little over cautious and it was just the "sharp turn" sign however when I mentioned about this being a great example of where some idiots do overtake cyclists he asked "So what are cyclists meant to do?" which I thought was a really good question. It gave me a chance to explain that the best course of action would be to take the primary position, explaining what that entails and why cyclists use it. In this case it was to discourage or block an unsafe overtake. I pointed out that any driver who attempts to overtake here can't reasonably ensure the second lane is clear enough (hence the solid white line, not that it stops the determined idiot....) to complete the pass. He seemed happy with my explanation and carried on working, I can only hope that next time he is behind a cyclists who takes primary he might be a little more aware of just why the rider feels the need to ride there and it most likely isn't to impede his progress or slow him down but rather for their own safety and possibly even for the drivers safety :-)


----------



## cd365 (2 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> Unwillingness to learn and improve is not something to be proud of, IMO. Having not read cyclecraft, and making such unwarranted conclusions about its contents leaves you on very shaky grounds when it comes to debating. Your credibility here is not strong, IMO.


You talk about credibility yet all you do is try to twist what I say to suit you and then you try to criticise my cycling/driving skills without even knowing me. What do you think that makes you look like?
Which part of my statement "I am not making any conclusions about Cyclecraft" have you not understood?


----------



## campbellab (3 Jan 2013)

I agree with a lot that cd365 says with some caveats:



cd365 said:


> My point is that Cyclecraft is often mentioned on here in relation to primary/secondary etc.and at the end of the day it is just a book with no legal significance.


 
I thought that often literature on best practice could be used as a legal defence even if not enshrined in law?



> It's great if someone reads it and believes it makes them a better cyclist but it also seems to make them more militant in that if it is in Cyclecraft then it has to be right and seems to change their attitude to other road users. We all have to share the same road space and I believe that means we should all be thoughtful and considerate to other road users.


 
Yes it might change some attitudes towards other traffic, but generally for the better. When I cycled as a kid I saw myself as subservient to motor traffic - thats not a safe way to navigate the roads. Some people might become too militant, but generally they are safer (which is the main point) even if they peeve people off. At the end of the day if someone is being a numpty its going to cost me at most 60s (and that long happens rarely) no matter what vehicle I am in or on, unless they act dangerously and cause an accident...



> Motorists are not aware of the primary/secondary terminology, all they know from the highway code is that cyclists should keep to the left, there should be pressure on the government to get the Highway Code and the Theory test changed so that it reflects why a cyclist will take a certain road position.


 
A lot more needs to be done on driver education, the highway code still mentions about cyclists navigating roundabouts in the left hand lane for example. Its not an excuse for a driver not to follow the highway code and pass safely, but it is very understandable why motorists are confused about cyclist positioning. This leads to frustration, agression and lack of sympathy when the issue is raised to the general populace.


----------



## Matthew_T (3 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> A lot more needs to be done on driver education, the highway code still mentions about cyclists navigating roundabouts in the left hand lane for example. Its not an excuse for a driver not to follow the highway code and pass safely, but it is very understandable why motorists are confused about cyclist positioning. This leads to frustration, agression and lack of sympathy when the issue is raised to the general populace.


How can we chance the Highway Code then? Who governs it? And would it ever be changed?


----------



## campbellab (3 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> How can we chance the Highway Code then? Who governs it? And would it ever be changed?


 
I think it falls under the Department for Transport.

http://cars.uk.msn.com/news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=147862169

Best bet for getting changes to the highway code would be to support a cycling group who lobby the govnmnt - by signing up a subscription. Unless you want to start your own campaign. Oh and vote for pro cycling parties during the elections.


----------



## summerdays (3 Jan 2013)

Militant isn't the word I like use with regard to my cycling and Cyclecraft, instead I aim for assertive (rather than aggressive).


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (3 Jan 2013)

summerdays said:


> Militant isn't the word I like use with regard to my cycling and Cyclecraft, instead I aim for assertive (rather than aggressive).


I think that's an excellent way of putting it however I think how it's perceived by drivers (or even other riders) can be misunderstood as they see they see assertive actions as a type of aggression.

Over the past few weeks I've had a few instances where I've been approaching traffic islands or keeping pace with traffic ahead with someone up my chuff trying to get passed. In these cases my position has helped to some degree but I have also found a shoulder check, possibly with a bit of a stern look, has had them remain behind me.

As others have said Cyclecraft is a set of guidelines and advice on riding techniques for coping in a motor-dominated road environment. At the end of the day we are all road users, regardless of our chosen mode of transport, and I believe we all have the same reasonable expectations of safety whilst travelling. As cyclists however we don't have the luxury of an extra pair of wheels to help with stability and nor to we always carry around a metal box containing 4 (often empty) seats that can shield us from relatively minor knocks. As such at certain times when our safety is potentially going to be compromised we have to alter our position and if that holds up a driver for a few seconds then frankly I don't care. I have 6 kids and a wonderful wife at home and I'd quite like to get home in one piece and not via A&E.


----------



## cd365 (5 Jan 2013)

2232520 said:


> So the statement " it also seems to make them more militant in that if it is in Cyclecraft then it has to be right and seems to change their attitude to other road users." in this post
> 
> 
> 
> Is not a conclusion?



No, it is my opinion about some cyclists views after they have read cyclecraft not about cyclecraft itself.


----------



## subaqua (5 Jan 2013)

cd365 said:


> No, it is my opinion about some cyclists views after they have read cyclecraft not about cyclecraft itself.


 i was miulitrant looooong before i read cyclecraft and loooong before i had even heard of it


----------



## subaqua (5 Jan 2013)

subaqua said:


> i was miulitrant looooong before i read cyclecraft and loooong before i had even heard of it


 thats a combination of mutant and militant BTW .


----------



## BSRU (7 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Nowhere does the Highway Code recommend to cyclists that they use the left hand land when turning right at a roundabout - in fact, in Rule 76 it makes it clear the should follow the same procedures as other road users (see Rules 184-190) and in Rule 77 it points out that hazards of staying in the left hand land and not following the correct procedure.


I am sure it does somewhere but I could be wrong.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Nowhere does the Highway Code recommend to cyclists that they use the left hand land when turning right at a roundabout - in fact, in Rule 76 it makes it clear the should follow the same procedures as other road users (see Rules 184-190) and in Rule 77 it points out that hazards of staying in the left hand land and not following the correct procedure.


 
Sorry my wording is poor its not specifically advising cyclists but definitely gives the wrong impression to drivers (and maybe give some cyclists the wrong idea):

'187 *In all cases watch out for* and give plenty of room to

pedestrians who may be crossing the approach and exit roads
traffic crossing in front of you on the roundabout, especially vehicles intending to leave by the next exit
traffic which may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly
motorcyclists
*cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout. Allow them to do so'*


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Nowhere does the Highway Code recommend to cyclists that they use the left hand land when turning right at a roundabout - in fact, in Rule 76 it makes it clear the should follow the same procedures as other road users (see Rules 184-190) and in Rule 77 it points out that hazards of staying in the left hand land and not following the correct procedure.


 
You're right, but as you well know, the previous version used to suggest keeping left, and the quote from 77 is a nod to that.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Not if you read the other parts of the Highway Code and don't just cherry-pick bits...


 
I didn't cherry pick anything in my original post:

'A lot more needs to be done on driver education, the highway code still *mentions* about cyclists navigating roundabouts in the left hand lane for example.'

The highway code does mention cycling in the left hand lane. Whats the argument?


----------



## BSRU (7 Jan 2013)

User said:


> You're wrong...
> 
> Rule 76 is very clear:
> 
> ...


Yes you are correct, but how many people reading rule 77 would know it is not recommended.


----------



## davefb (7 Jan 2013)

wierd.. i read that as being this

"IF you don't want to go round like you would in the car and stick to the left hand lane, then watch out for this" 

it isn't just cyclists who might be effectively turning right at a roundabout from the left hand lane, i've seen other 'slower traffic' do this...

personally.. i don't like the stay to the left.. i'll either cycle like a car or avoid... frankly i might even do a bit of pavement hopping or walk where appropriate.. or use a subway...


----------



## fudgepanda (8 Jan 2013)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> Yes, cars will notice the camera on your helmet and be angels. People will also look at your, especially if you have a GoPro stuck on top of your head. Lol


They'll look at you a lot more with a Panaflex 35mm on your head. I believe there is a perfectly working model available on fleabay somewhere but it's about £15,000.


----------



## fudgepanda (8 Jan 2013)

Just had to read quite a few pages in one fell swoop so I'm going to comment on a few of the threads. Lane discipline first. The Highway Code, indeed traffic law itself, states that you should only overtake on the right, except in a one way street; when the vehicle in the right hand lane is, or is shortly about to turn right; or (perhaps more pertinent here) in slow moving queues of traffic where traffic in the right hand lane is moving more slowly than that in the right. If filtering up the inside, outside or between traffic flows the rider should be observant and be ready to expect that something unexpected, such as a door opening to allow a passenger out of a vehicle, a pedestrian crossing or a vehicle turning into or out of a side road may happen. Motorcyclists know all too well that when something like that happens usually the best they can hope for is a 50/50 decision from a court based on the assumption that you should expect something like that to happen.

As for the video, it was a little difficult to get a real idea of distance because of the extreme wide angle lens of the dashcam, but the driver seemed to display an extraordinary degree of patience. I can't help thinking that he was either a cyclist himself or a driving instructor or road safety officer.

Finally, roundabouts. I'm pretty certain the Highway Code did (at some point at least) suggest that slow moving road users could use the left hand lane to negotiate roundabouts, regardless of the final destination. I suppose it depends on the size of the roundabout, the prevailing speed limit. The advice to horse riders was certainly to use the left hand lane.


----------



## fudgepanda (9 Jan 2013)

It's worth bearing in mind that most of the Highway Code rules are advice rather than law. I would also suggest that, with the exception of laws, road users interpret the Code to the best of their ability and with regard to the particular situation they find themselves in. Recently I was using a shared bus/cycle lane at some traffic lights. They were on red so I sat there and waited.....and waited.....and waited. Until it finally dawned on me that it would probably require the weight of several tons of bus before they changed to green, so I made a judgement that it was safe to carry on and went across the line on red. In retrospect I should (legally) have changed to the right hand lane where the lights actually were on green. I contravened the law so would have been liable to prosecution, or at the very least a bloody good telling off if seen.

When it comes to overtaking on the left, there shouldn't be any issues, apart from keeping your wits about you, but from a driver's point of view, the interpretation could come when speed (as in slow moving traffic) is taken into account. 

The rules can be used in support of a prosecution, for instance, where rules say that drivers should look for cyclists or pedestrians in certain situations but a driver goes headlong into a situation, for instance an overtake or lane change and takes out the said cyclist or pedestrian.


----------

