# Cameras + YouTube + Google - using the power



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2011)

I'm interested in ideas you might have for multiplying the power of our cameras out there. Here are some I've thought of:

Google alerts on each of the registration plates and companies I've videoed. This should help us to quickly gather together information on multiple repeat offenders to increase the consequences on particularly bad cases and to post video responses on each others' videos about them.

Some sort of standardised YouTube reporting format that would include updates on complaints made, date/time/location, heads up on driver/mates responses in the comments, etc.


----------



## dawesome (29 Dec 2011)

I've wondered about this before. We all know side swiping or stupidly dangerous close passes do not prompt the cops to do anything. Suppose a repeat offender is caught a number of times carrying out silly driving errors. They are reported to Roadsafe, nothing happens, then the driver kills someone. Embarrassing for the cops, at the very least. And the employer, if it's a works vehicle. I hope to God it doesn't happen but it's plausible.


----------



## Riding in Circles (29 Dec 2011)

There has to be a point that organising like this crosses a line that will pique the curiosity of the authorities, probably in a negative way, I would tread very carefully.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (29 Dec 2011)

dawesome said:


> They are reported to Roadsafe...


If only we had Roadsafe up here.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (29 Dec 2011)

I think one problem is that there is not reliable way to separate out the really serious cases from the large number of examples of bad driving that weren't quite so dangerous. I think some standard tags that we all use to indicate the nature/severity of the incident might be useful. For example:
#seriousinjury
#injury
#actualcontact
#extremelydangerous
#dangerous
#aggressive
#rude
#impolite


----------



## gaz (29 Dec 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I think one problem is that there is not reliable way to separate out the really serious cases from the large number of examples of bad driving that weren't quite so dangerous. I think some standard tags that we all use to indicate the nature/severity of the incident might be useful. For example:
> #seriousinjury
> #injury
> #actualcontact
> ...


The only problem is peoples perceptions of danger is different. Especially when it comes to videos. It can be a lot worse in real life but on the video it doesn't look so bad.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (29 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> The only problem is peoples perceptions of danger is different. Especially when it comes to videos. It can be a lot worse in real life but on the video it doesn't look so bad.


True, it's not going to be precise, but it might help to improve the signal-to-noise ratio a bit.


----------



## CopperCyclist (29 Dec 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I think one problem is that there is not reliable way to separate out the really serious cases from the large number of examples of bad driving that weren't quite so dangerous. I think some standard tags that we all use to indicate the nature/severity of the incident might be useful. For example:
> #seriousinjury
> #injury
> #actualcontact
> ...



Not a bad idea, but following on from Gaz's point, I'd simply these so there are a lot less categories. I'd suggest:

Serious injury
Injury
damage only
dangerous (with a suggested guide being some form of evasive action was required by cyclist to avoid contact)
careless (where the danger exists, but no evasive action was required/taken, e.g. close pass)

Please note the above words 'dangerous' and 'careless' and the suggested guides I gave in no way link in to the driving offences of the same name, so it may even be worthwhile calling them something else to avoid confusion.

The point about a bad driver having numerous hits, and then killing someone after no action is a very well made point. If, god forbid, this did happen this could prompt serious change in road policing.

I can't see 'authority's' getting aggravated either - and even if they did, they couldn't take action to stop this without lobbying for a change in the law that would have serious percussions!


----------



## Bigsharn (29 Dec 2011)

Before uploading my video to youtube I search that a video with the numberplate isn't already uploaded by someone else. So far it hasn't happened, but should it happen I'll post a video reply to the original, and urge the first poster to report the bad driver (At least, so the police have two reports and *might* do something).


----------



## beastie (29 Dec 2011)

What's with the hashtags?


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2011)

I'm not sure the hash is necessary, but as tags I think that's a pretty good idea!!

I usually tag my videos with the following:
201112292044 - meaning year/month/day/time
X123TGY
X123-TGY
X123 TGY (three variants of some random sample of numberplate)
A202 Vauxhall Bridge Road


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2011)

Oh, and I'm not keen on opinions such as rude tw@t and that sort of thing going into videos. I think we'll have far more impact if we're calm and matter of fact in descriptions. Same goes for speaking to motons, but then best practice is not to speak to them at all.


----------



## growingvegetables (29 Dec 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Serious injury
> Injury
> damage only
> dangerous (with a suggested guide being some form of evasive action was required by cyclist to avoid contact)
> careless (where the danger exists, but no evasive action was required/taken, e.g. close pass)


 
I like that simpler list.

Only one I'd be tempted to add would be "aggressive", between dangerous and careless, to cover clearly deliberate intimidation - more than careless, but not quite dangerous necessarily? For the guys who eyeball you, and drive straight at you? And the guys who do something stupid, and then draw up beside you, window down, to give you a verbal lesson in limited vocabulary about their expectations of where cyclists should be?


----------



## gaz (29 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Oh, and I'm not keen on opinions such as rude tw@t and that sort of thing going into videos. I think we'll have far more impact if we're calm and matter of fact in descriptions. Same goes for speaking to motons, but then best practice is not to speak to them at all.


I agree. Simple descriptions of the incident type in the title and descriptions of the video should not be opinionated or insulting.


----------



## mr_hippo (30 Dec 2011)

Descriptions:-
Cycling youtube junkie
Two wheels good, four wheels bad
Attention-seeking cyclist
I want my 15 seconds of fame
Colonoscopy perforrmed on cyclist by motorist
Cyclist without spatial awareness blames motorist
Thou shalt not pass because I am a cyclist

It is too late for this year so, next year, can you ask Santa to get you a life?
First man invented the wheel, then he invented traffic and then the close overtake. Why not ask your MP to pass a law about close overtakes? That will solve the problem; after all we have laws against murder and no one gets murdered any more and since stealing was made illegal no one steals.
So, there is someone behind and they want to pass - move over but you will not because that is your bit of road and you are not giving in to motorists. It is called integration and co-operation. Do you employ the same mindset when walking? If not , why not? Please do not try to say that it is not the same; they are both methods of getting from A to B through traffic.


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2011)

Breath in 2.. 3... BREATH OUT 2.. 3.. (REPEAT)

Whilst I would agree that it appears that some people have those opinions mr_hippo. We only see a limited snap shot of how they cycle. For all you know they could be doing exactly what you are suggesting most of the time.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> Breath in 2.. 3... BREATH OUT 2.. 3.. (REPEAT)
> 
> Whilst I would agree that it appears that some people have those opinions mr_hippo. We only see a limited snap shot of how they cycle. For all you know they could be doing exactly what you are suggesting most of the time.


 
.....and some cammers may share your motives gaz. Unfortunately that is not how it appears to us mere mortals, and cripes there s that word " power" again in the OP


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (30 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I'm not sure the hash is necessary, but as tags I think that's a pretty good idea!!


I just put the hashes to distinguish the tags from random occurrences of the same words, but I think you're right, it's probably not necessary. I think CopperCyclist's set is better as it is simpler. I think it is important, though, to avoid second guessing the motives and to focus on what we actually know, so I would prefer "inconsiderate" rather than "careless". Careless implies it was not deliberate, and we don't know whether that is true or not.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (30 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> .....and some cammers may share your motives gaz. Unfortunately that is not how it appears to us mere mortals,


You're right, it can be difficult to avoid making unfounded assumptions about the motives of others (both on YouTube and in here), and some people seem to find it impossible, though I don't think it's anything particularly to do with being mortal.



lukesdad said:


> and cripes there s that word " power" again in the OP


Oh dear. It was obvious to anyone with a brain that the OP was referring to the power of the technology.


----------



## Riding in Circles (30 Dec 2011)

Who was that plonker who would ride down the middle of narrow roads to force confrontation with drivers then post the video of the confrontation on here?

Even then only 30% of people pulled him on it.


----------



## CraigTheBiker (30 Dec 2011)

Seriously, if you want to go down the road of organised naming and shaming, then it will have only one outcome - to create even more animosity between motorists and cyclists. It will get to the point that car drivers will insist on bikes having number plates, so that they can conduct their own vigilante naming and shaming campaigns.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2011)

You mean like that dastardly Silly Cyclists series on YouTube?


----------



## lukesdad (30 Dec 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> You're right, it can be difficult to avoid making unfounded assumptions about the motives of others (both on YouTube and in here), and some people seem to find it impossible, though I don't think it's anything particularly to do with being mortal.
> 
> 
> Oh dear. It was obvious to anyone with a brain that the OP was referring to the power of the technology.





MrHappyCyclist said:


> You're right, it can be difficult to avoid making unfounded assumptions about the motives of others (both on YouTube and in here), and some people seem to find it impossible, though I don't think it's anything particularly to do with being mortal.
> 
> 
> Oh dear. It was obvious to anyone with a brain that the OP was referring to the power of the technology.


 
Commutings Spin doctor.


----------



## Riding in Circles (30 Dec 2011)

CraigTheBiker said:


> Seriously, if you want to go down the road of organised naming and shaming, then it will have only one outcome - to create even more animosity between motorists and cyclists. It will get to the point that car drivers will insist on bikes having number plates, so that they can conduct their own vigilante naming and shaming campaigns.


+1


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (30 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Commutings Spin doctor.


Ah yes; I need to be more precise in my writing (to the point of pedantry): "It was obvious to anyone with a brain that the OP was referring to the analytical and communicative power of the particular combination of technologies that were listed: Cameras + YouTube + Google."


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (30 Dec 2011)

CraigTheBiker said:


> Seriously, if you want to go down the road of organised naming and shaming, then it will have only one outcome - to create even more animosity between motorists and cyclists. It will get to the point that car drivers will insist on bikes having number plates, so that they can conduct their own vigilante naming and shaming campaigns.


Well, there is a danger of that, though that implies that the majority of motorists would readily put themselves into the same category as the bad drivers that are named (or whose registration numbers are quoted) and so see it as an implied attack on themselves. That further implies that either the majority of motorists are bad drivers, or the majority of motorists are unable to see the difference between themselves as good drivers and the bad drivers that appear in the videos. Rather a depressing picture.

Following on from Mikey's point, then, do you take offence when you see Gaz attacking all cyclists through the Silly Cyclists series? Do you feel animosity towards him for that?

I do agree, though, that it would be more effective to use these tools to build more compelling evidence to be presented to the authorities in relation to persistent dangerous drivers.


----------



## CraigTheBiker (30 Dec 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Following on from Mikey's point, then, do you take offence when you see Gaz attacking all cyclists through the Silly Cyclists series? Do you feel animosity towards him for that?


 
There's a big difference: the Silly Cyclists series does not name individual offenders. It merely demonstrates examples of bad/dangerous cycling, examples of which I see on an almost daily basis. By contrast, the name and shame videos on Youtube, which are aimed at motorists, generally set out to target a specific individual by way of posting their car registration.

These name and shame videos are, by and large, designed to incriminate rather than educate motorists, whilst the cyclists who filmed them remain untouchable.


----------



## fossyant (30 Dec 2011)

mr_hippo said:


> It is too late for this year so, next year, can you ask Santa to get you a life?


 
LOL


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (30 Dec 2011)

CraigTheBiker said:


> There's a big difference: the Silly Cyclists series does not name individual offenders. It merely demonstrates examples of bad/dangerous cycling, examples of which I see on an almost daily basis. By contrast, the name and shame videos on Youtube, which are aimed at motorists, generally set out to target a specific individual by way of posting their car registration.


OK, point taken, but you agree with my first paragraph then?



CraigTheBiker said:


> These name and shame videos are, by and large, designed to incriminate rather than educate motorists, whilst the cyclists who filmed them remain untouchable.


It's true that these videos are, by and large, designed to incriminate rather than _as well as_ educate _bad_ motorists, along with a number of other purposes. But that is rather the point; some of us are not satisfied with the piss-poor cycling environment in this country, which is mostly down to the poor attitudes of a lot of drivers. It is possible that the videos may eventually contribute to improving that situation. If bad drivers don't like it, then that is a sign that it is having some effect.

I'm not sure what you mean by "untouchable". If you mean anonymous, then quite right; I have a family and there are some nutters out there. If you mean that cyclists are not subject to the same laws, then you are just plain wrong. If you mean that cyclists in general are not as easy to identify from their vehicle as motorists, then quite right again; there is a very good reason why the driver of a dangerous piece of powerful, heavy machinery taken into a public place should be made easily traceable, unlike a pedestrian or a cyclist.


----------



## dawesome (30 Dec 2011)

Plenty of rioters were caught after being filmed on CCTV- they didn't have a registration plate on.

On the road, a public place, I can't see how a driver or registered keeper of the vehicle can complain if their idiotic driving is filmed and posted on You Tube. If they don't want to have their stupid behaviour publicised then they shouldn't drive like idiots, be racist on a tram or sling a cat in a bin.


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2011)

CraigTheBiker said:


> There's a big difference: the Silly Cyclists series does not name individual offenders. It merely demonstrates examples of bad/dangerous cycling, examples of which I see on an almost daily basis. By contrast, the name and shame videos on Youtube, which are aimed at motorists, generally set out to target a specific individual by way of posting their car registration.
> 
> These name and shame videos are, by and large, designed to incriminate rather than educate motorists, whilst the cyclists who filmed them remain untouchable.


Posting number plates is hardly naming and shaming the driver. 
We can't trace who the driver is or who the registered owner is from the numberplate.
Even if we include the drivers face or voice, we can't identify who they are unless we know them.
We only post publicly available information along with video footage which either shows a non-incident or an incident.

In either case, it's better than some of the B/S lies that some motorists post about others.. http://www.myroadrage.co.uk/


----------



## Schneil (30 Dec 2011)

It would be interesting to see if a named numberplate on youtube, with a video of bad driving would affect the resale value of the named car.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2011)

CraigTheBiker said:


> There's a big difference: the Silly Cyclists series does not name individual offenders. It merely demonstrates examples of bad/dangerous cycling, examples of which I see on an almost daily basis. By contrast, the name and shame videos on Youtube, which are aimed at motorists, generally set out to target a specific individual by way of posting their car registration.
> 
> These name and shame videos are, by and large, designed to incriminate rather than educate motorists, whilst the cyclists who filmed them remain untouchable.


 
On the contrary, the motorists incriminate themselves through their own bad driving, and it most definitely does change and improve driver behaviour. It even gets some sent to court.

I'd say Silly Cyclists are just as identifiable - you see far more of the person cycling than you do of most drivers. Just like number plates, they are likely only known to those who encounter them in real life. Otherwise it's just some random person/random number plate on YouTube. The only real difference is that the number plate lets the police or other authorities contact the registered owner directly.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2011)

Schneil said:


> It would be interesting to see if a named numberplate on youtube, with a video of bad driving would affect the resale value of the named car.


 
I doubt it'd affect the car, unless YouTubing of road footage becomes really widespread. My guess is that the value of personal plates would be more affected.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Dec 2011)

I don't like this idea. It comes across as a "war on motorists" and that we [cyclists] have an agenda.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> O
> 
> I'd say Silly Cyclists are just as identifiable


 
Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## dawesome (30 Dec 2011)

400bhp said:


> I don't like this idea. It comes across as a "war on motorists" and that we [cyclists] have an agenda.


 
Like CCTV in Top Man comes across as a "War Against Shoplifters". 16 dead cyclists in London this year. Several road rage thugs caught on film and punished in the courts. A few hit-and-run drivers caught and fined. I can see real benefits of cameras, every helmet or new bike should be sold with a camera included, bring it on, and if the only downside to all this is that some drivers think it's unfair, as Mr Flanders of the RHA apparently thinks, then cry me a frigging river.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2011)

YES!!! The agenda is drive and cycle safely and considerately, and share the road. Not exactly rocket science, after all.

It's not an accident.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Dec 2011)

400bhp said:


> I don't like this idea. It comes across as a "war on motorists" and that we [cyclists] have an agenda.


 
Yes I tend to agree, its only going to be regarded as antagonistic IMO if it isnt allready so.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (30 Dec 2011)

400bhp said:


> I don't like this idea. It comes across as a "war on motorists" and that we [cyclists] have an agenda.





lukesdad said:


> Yes I tend to agree, its only going to be regarded as antagonistic IMO if it isnt allready so.


Only if you subscribe to the "war between cyclists amd motorists" crap that the news media use to boost their figures. As Mikey says, it is an agenda to change the behaviour of bad drivers and everyone should subscribe to that irrespective of their mode of transport; unless of couse they are a bad driver themselves.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2011)

The 320 bus drivers don't think there's any war. As a result of my videos of them they almost all wave at me when we pass on the road, their bus route is almost exactly the first half of my commute.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

400bhp said:


> I don't like this idea. It comes across as a "war on motorists" and that we [cyclists] have an agenda.


I'm not sure about you, but, I DO have an agenda. I want to be able to cycle without being squeezed at a pinch point, run onto the rough part of the road or left hooked. My agenda also includes buses not trying to force their way past in bus lanes , only to stop 50 yrds further up the road at the bus stop, and taxis to stop at the first stop line and not fill the ASL box. I want to be able to cycle down the hill from the station without a taxi doing a 3 point turn in the road whilst screaming " I'm farking indicating what more do you want ?" If using a camera cuts down on these then good, bring on the "war"!


----------



## lukesdad (30 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I'm not sure about you, but, I DO have an agenda. I want to be able to cycle without being squeezed at a pinch point, run onto the rough part of the road or left hooked. My agenda also includes buses not trying to force their way past in bus lanes , only to stop 50 yrds further up the road at the bus stop, and taxis to stop at the first stop line and not fill the ASL box. I want to be able to cycle down the hill from the station without a taxi doing a 3 point turn in the road whilst screaming " I'm ****ing indicating what more do you want ?" If using a camera cuts down on these then good, bring on the "war"!


 
There you go !


----------



## 400bhp (30 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> There you go !


 
Yes, I agree.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> The 320 bus drivers don't think there's any war. As a result of my videos of them they almost all wave at me when we pass on the road, their bus route is almost exactly the first half of my commute.


 
I've no idea what you are talking about. Are there only 320 bus drivers in the UK? Your videos have led from what to what?


----------



## 400bhp (30 Dec 2011)

dawesome said:


> Like CCTV in Top Man comes across as a "War Against Shoplifters". 16 dead cyclists in London this year. Several road rage thugs caught on film and punished in the courts. A few hit-and-run drivers caught and fined. I can see real benefits of cameras, every helmet or new bike should be sold with a camera included, bring it on, and if the only downside to all this is that some drivers think it's unfair, as Mr Flanders of the RHA apparently thinks, then cry me a frigging river.


 
Is this a rant? I'm not sure what your point is?


----------



## gaz (30 Dec 2011)

400bhp said:


> I've no idea what you are talking about. Are there only 320 bus drivers in the UK? Your videos have led from what to what?


The route 320. lol


----------



## 400bhp (30 Dec 2011)

Oh, that well known route.

Still only 1% the wiser.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Dec 2011)

400bhp said:


> Is this a rant? I'm not sure what your point is?


 I think he must have shares in House of fraser


----------



## dawesome (30 Dec 2011)

400bhp said:


> Is this a rant? I'm not sure what your point is?


 

Do you think it's a good idea that drivers who smash in to vulnerable road users and drive away in a hit-and-run get caught and punished? Or drivers who get out of their car and assault people for daring use the road? I expect people to do as I do and obey the law and be careful on the roads. If they don't and get caught by a helmet cam and get points and a hefty fine I'll play a lament on the world's smallest violin.


----------



## growingvegetables (30 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> YES!!! The agenda is drive and cycle safely and considerately, and share the road. Not exactly rocket science, after all.


 
+1001

It just isn't "war against motorists". That's plain daft. Yes - a couple of my videos have had bus drivers taken off the road for extra training, but equally, a couple have had bus drivers receive commendations for excellent driving. I love the way the #4 FTR (bendybus) drivers in Leeds really look out for cyclists - aye, many's the time they've covered my arse in dangerous junctions, and I look out for them too. And it's kinda nice the way so many of them give a cheery wave whenever they see me.

And it's no more "name and shame" than a speed camera "names and shames". A video is no more than a simple bit of evidence of bad driving - some of it so seriously dangerous that W Yorks traffic police not only write, but visit the gentleman in question to deliver the letter by hand. My guess is that it's probably the first time the driver realises he's been caught on camera - it's kinda sad it takes a visit from the police for the guy to realise what a tool he's been, so that he apologises, but that's life.

But I'd also guess that's a small group of drivers who will be a *lot* more careful around cyclists - at least for a wee while? Something tells me he won't welcome a repeat of the neighbours' curtain twitching 

And for mrhippo - I have a life, thank you. Rough back of the envelope calculation - between early May and mid November, I cycled just over 2000 miles. 1985 miles without any incidents to cause me serious concern or fear. That's 1985 miles of "integration and co-operation" - your phrase; I say 1985 miles of cycling safely and courteously, and enjoying meeting thousands of drivers driving equally safely and courteously, with *all sorts of* "give and take". Believe me ..... I ain't going to bore myself, you, or anybody else with 1985 miles of cheery waves, smiles - that's a purely private pleasure and I ain't sharing it! :P

But there are a select few dingbats who messed up their driving on *15* of my miles (0.75%) - and 14 drivers did it so badly, they had their employers or the police follow up their incompetent and/or dangerous driving.

Get your cameras, lads and lasses - aye, and use them wisely.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

dawesome said:


> Do you think it's a good idea that drivers who smash in to vulnerable road users and drive away in a hit-and-run get caught and punished? Or drivers who get out of their car and assault people for daring use the road? I expect people to do as I do and obey the law and be careful on the roads. If they don't and get caught by a helmet cam and get points and a hefty fine I'll play a lament on the world's smallest violin.


What 'E Said!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Dec 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> +1001
> 
> 
> 
> Get your cameras, lads and lasses - aye, and use them wisely.


 

Again ,

WOT 'E SAID!!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (31 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1660824, member: 3143"]Then learn how to ride a bike. I'm rather sick of helmet cam folk relying on a camera as insurance for shoot/non assertive/non checked/piss poor/amateur/dickhead/moronic/dense riding. A camera is not going to help you when you are down the local morgue.

If you wish to be spared the humilation LYB of me taking apart your riding on here then please let me know via PM and you can send me your vids to me privately. I'll then give expert analysis in the way that you ride aiming to help you in the future. All free of course - anything for a fellow cyclist brethen.[/quote]
This should be good...

Why don't you give me and the rest of the world your expert opinion on just how you can teach me to "learn how to ride a bike" that will enable us all to stop a taxi driver deciding not to stop at a stop line and instead fille the ASL box? How does being assertive or more observant cure this problem?
Or maybe you would like to tell all us lesser beings how exactly curing my "piss poor" riding style will cure a taxi driver of screaming?
If those are too hard, possibly you might want to start with lecturing me on how to cycle at a speed that is exaclty the right one not to hold up or catch a bus , taking into accounts stops and traffic lights? 

It will be interesting, if nothing else.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (31 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1660861, member: 3143"]Oh dear, reading the above, I fear for you in the fact that you will probbly become part of the KSI stats in the not so distant future.[/quote]
I have the feeling that this thread will end up like the last one, where you make lots of noise, don't come up with anything positive and then flounce out when your bluff is called, again.

So , what in your "expert " opinion are the answers to taxi drivers filling ASLs, Bus drivers acting agressively, and taxi drivers swearing and screaming? Which part of the road should we be using, what type of tyres do we need, maybe we should be using more assertive aftershave? I'm waiting , with bated breath for your "expert" opinion!

I have a suspicion, I will be waiting a long time...


----------



## dawesome (31 Dec 2011)

Oh dear.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (31 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1660871, member: 3143"]You did not know what you was going on about in the last thread wrt blindspots on trucks, you actually needed me to tell you and then you tried palming this off as your own info, so quit with the bullshit.

As for the above, give me your opinion and I'll tell you if you are right or wrong.[/quote]

Was that the thread where you claimed that you could see the cyclist all the time and he was never in the "blind spot"? Did you dip out of the thread before or after the person who made the video said that the cyclist went up the side of the cab, across the front and exited on the right hand side...? I can't remember you mentioning seeing that! 


But back to this thread...

"As for the above, give me your opinion and I'll tell you if you are right or wrong"

This makes no sense as the question (s) wasn't about my opinion but your "expert analysis". I will ask again "what in your "expert " opinion are the answers to taxi drivers filling ASLs, Bus drivers acting agressively, and taxi drivers swearing and screaming? Which part of the road should we be using, what type of tyres do we need, maybe we should be using more assertive aftershave?"

Whilst we are waiting for your answers, ( which I have a sinking feeling will not be readily forthcoming) maybe you would like to provide the basis upon which your "expert analysis " is based, you have qualifications in how to displace taxi drivers perhaps, or maybe you have been trained in matching bus timetables and can tell us where we can also learn these skills?

Or maybe, just maybe you are one of the drivers who are running scared of cameras ?

Your answers, or lack of them will be interesting, but I have a inkling, not very enlightening. Now , you have one chance, I'm not going to drag this out , back and forth, you can either answer the questions or you can evade/bluster, your choice, but don't forget, I'm not the only one who gets to read your response or lack of one.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (31 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1660904, member: 3143"]Because it was never raised. <Lee does not why he bothers to explain as he would get more sense out of a metal spoon>

As for the rest of your post, Lee will have to back to you. He is currently writing an answer and is looking to get it copyrighted. This way any attempt by you to take this information and palm it off as your own will be copyright infringement, I'll leave this to your imagination where this can lead...[/quote]
We can add Copyright to DefCon as some of the things you have heard about but don't understand ( Copyright is automatic , you don't need to "get it coprighted"), I can see that, rather than show any expertise you are going for the evade/bluster mode. Have fun.


----------



## BentMikey (31 Dec 2011)

I'd prefer to keep this on topic on how to maximise the effectiveness of cameras in bringing consequences and changing behaviour. Not interested in the morality of filming drivers, or in p1$$ing contests.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (31 Dec 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I'd prefer to keep this on topic on how to maximise the effectiveness of cameras in bringing consequences and changing behaviour. Not interested in the morality of filming drivers, or in p1$$ing contests.


 
Oh I've finished with that, Lee had his chance(s) to show his expertise, and then dipped out.


----------



## Jezston (31 Dec 2011)

Let me get this straight. Correct me if I've gone wrong anywhere.

1. Bentmikey complains that the police and roadsafe often don't take action against drivers who perform aggressive, careless and dangerous actions, which don't result in an injury. He suggests a method by which footage could be collated so that if a driver does injure someone, it could be shown they have been responsible for similar incidents before, and also that the police didn't do anything about it. Similar affect to "fillthathole" on potholes.

2. Conversation goes well, constructive ideas shared and developed.

3. Someone posts a pointless little "lol helmet cameras get a life!!111", thread turns into a mess.

Yeah, well done guys. Methinks those who have such a weird issue with helmet camera users, making outrageous and unevidenced claims about helmet camera users behaviour, should be the ones getting a life.


----------



## BentMikey (31 Dec 2011)

That's pretty much spot on Jezston!

Well, apart from the police/roadsafe not taking action, but that's somewhat minor to the main point of the topic. Roadsafe are excellent, IMO, and the police generally a little more variable with some good and some bad experiences from what we've all read on here.


----------



## Archie_tect (31 Dec 2011)

Perhaps it has come to the point, as it does in the broadening availability of any technological advancement, that every new vehicle should be fitted with inexpensive forward side and rearward facing cameras linked to a small 'black box' so that there is irrefutable evidence for an dispute. Much as many cars [Nissan and Honda] already have reversing cameras fitted now. It would possibly raise some concerns about personal privacy but seems to make sense to me. Some of the videos on The Tube where accusations of dangerous driving have been made that I've seen don't look dangerous so care would have to be taken about the accusations made in public, but some close calls [especially those caused by careless lorry and bus drivers] are definitely worth recording.... and as for a small but dangerous number of the taxi drivers, words fail me!


----------



## BentMikey (31 Dec 2011)

Yes, that's a good point. It's why I think it's important for us to remain factual and unemotional, and let the drivers' actions in the videos speak for themselves.


----------



## semislickstick (31 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1661077, member: 3143"]Why are you not interested in the morality of filming drivers? LOL this is paramount to what you are proposing, if you start putting up vids for thee most basic errors which people make out on the road, then you and every other helmet cam wearer that partakes in this dumb scheme will only further alienate drivers.

And ME and all the other NON helmet camera wearers should not have to suffer the changing attitude that some helmet camera wearing doris will bring by posting some bullshit driving offence and linking it to some #tag.[/quote]

Lee, it's not just some cyclists filming on the roads, Cars, motorcycles and Lorries do too, you only have to look on youtube. Why is it just cyclists that have to worry about alienating drivers?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (31 Dec 2011)

Jezston said:


> Yeah, well done guys. Methinks those who have such a weird issue with helmet camera users, making outrageous and unevidenced claims about helmet camera users behaviour, should be the ones getting a life.


 

I think they might well have a life, but one that they don't want to see publicised . The RHA article showed me that.


----------



## Archie_tect (31 Dec 2011)

... helmet cam users have to wear a helmet...


----------



## Bigsharn (31 Dec 2011)

Archie_tect said:


> ... helmet cam users have to wear a helmet...


 
Not always...


----------



## semislickstick (31 Dec 2011)

Archie_tect said:


> ... helmet cam users have to wear a helmet...


Good point. Lee is not against cycle mounted cameras, wa-hey!!!  Well, I feel better.


----------



## Nantmor (31 Dec 2011)

A Police study commissioned by the Dept. of Transport found that in accidents between cars and bikes found that the cyclist was at fault in 17% to 25% of cases, and the driver at fault in 60% to 75%.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Not a surprise, really.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (31 Dec 2011)

semislickstick said:


> Good point. Lee is not against cycle mounted cameras, wa-hey!!!  Well, I feel better.


 I wonder what he's going to think about policewitness.com? It seems the "war" on motorists is actually a civil war.


----------



## lukesdad (1 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1661077, member: 3143"]Why are you not interested in the morality of filming drivers? LOL this is paramount to what you are proposing, if you start putting up vids for thee most basic errors which people make out on the road, then you and every other helmet cam wearer that partakes in this dumb scheme will only further alienate drivers.

And ME and all the other NON helmet camera wearers should not have to suffer the changing attitude that some helmet camera wearing doris will bring by posting some bullshit driving offence and linking it to some #tag.[/quote]
Spot on ! These cameras have replaced your brains. This sort of behavior is a negative not a positive.


----------



## dawesome (1 Jan 2012)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I wonder what he's going to think about policewitness.com? It seems the "war" on motorists is actually a civil war.


 



Little yellow Brompton said:


> I wonder what he's going to think about policewitness.com? It seems the "war" on motorists is actually a civil war.


 
Most of the large courier firms also have GPS to track drivers. Condition of employment. Is there any actual evidence that drivers resent cameras? Anything? At all?

When I read in the paper that a road rage thug has been caught on film, traced and arrested, I don't think any sensible person's reaction is "Bloody helmet cams!" because that would be siding with the road rage thug. When even Daily Mail readers are sympathetic I think it's safe to say this "Rage against helmet cammers" is pure invention. It doesn't exist. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hed-ground-irate-driver-furious-overtake.html


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (1 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Most of the large courier firms also have GPS to track drivers. Condition of employment. Is there any actual evidence that drivers resent cameras? Anything? At all?
> 
> When I read in the paper that a road rage thug has been caught on film, traced and arrested, I don't think any sensible person's reaction is "Bloody helmet cams!" because that would be siding with the road rage thug. When even Daily Mail readers are sympathetic I think it's safe to say this "Rage against helmet cammers" is pure invention. It doesn't exist.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hed-ground-irate-driver-furious-overtake.html


 

Ahh I think you have been caught out by a quirk of English . I think, when those who are forecasting a backlash against cameras use the word "drivers" they are using it in the form that means " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " and I must admit I agree with them, I'm sure that " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " will feel "Rage against helmet cammers" . Much in the same way that muggers feel rage against the police and try not to commit crimes when the police are around . Muggers are pedestrians , but not all pedestrians are muggers, " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " are drivers, but not all drivers are " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes "


----------



## Jezston (1 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1661077, member: 3143"]
And ME and all the other NON helmet camera wearers should not have to suffer the changing attitude that some helmet camera wearing doris will bring by posting some bullshit driving offence and linking it to some #tag.[/quote]

You are a hypocrite, Lee.

You've repeatedly stated in the past that red light jumping cyclists aren't a problem for the rest of cyclists because people who hate cyclists hate us regardless of our behaviour. Which is it?

Oh and going on about how dreadful people's road use is whilst previously going on about how great cyclists in alleycat videos are, and anyone who doesn't like it is just 'jealous', makes you even more of a hypocrite.

It continues to surprise me that anyone takes anything you have to say seriously.


----------



## Bigsharn (1 Jan 2012)

Being someone who rarely posts/comments on others personality, you really do come across as an arrogant prick Mr. Lee.


----------



## dawesome (1 Jan 2012)

_"of which you are not a member of"_








reminds me of Austin Powers:

_"Allow myself to introduce....myself!"_


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (1 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> _"of which you are not a member of"_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like shooting fish in a barrel .


----------



## Jezston (1 Jan 2012)

You're still a hypocrite, Lee. And a deeply nasty and unpleasant one at that.


----------



## classic33 (1 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> You're still a hypocrite, Lee. And a deeply nasty and unpleasant one at that.


 
+1

*User3143*
You come across as a sanctimonious pilioch. And, god forbid if anyone should disagree with you, on anything, your only response is to tear into that person. 

The question now is, why? You claim to ride a bike like everyone else, yet when personal safety is brought into the issue you rear up against what people are doing. Again, why? You can also it appears do no wrong, if we believe you. My only lowering of my standard on here will be this bit, to your level. Stop talking bullshit. 

I’ve used a VHS camcorder mounted on the rear of the bike. Big, bright! Yellow, with diagonal markings in black waterproof case. It was used at a time of lengthy roadwork’s, on a section of road that was used daily by me. Removed for me, by a lorry driver that ran a red light (I was going right, onto the road he came from, with the lights in my favour. He was going left onto the road I was on.) in the belief that he had right of way & safe in the knowledge that anyone he came into contact with would come of worst. Video tape recovered & handed over so that the matter could be dealt with.

I’ve advocated carrying a small single use camera. APS as the film is rewound into the can as you progress though the roll. I now use a helmet camera that is a bit smaller than the first camera used.

I’ve had photographs used in a hit & run case, mentioned elsewhere on here. In which the driver failed to stop & later went on to say he wasn’t the driver. I’d approached the scene of the woman lying in the centre of the road, on the crossing. Camera in hand, to be met with a similar response to what you are now spouting. This changed when it was made clear that there was evidence of the driver & vehicle details available.

You are saying that people such as myself are making the us & them culture worse. Please explain your argument(s) in this case with a bit more clarity & less abusive language. If those who do use helmet cameras are making the situation worse, explain how. Whilst at it, answer this. If someone had helmet camera footage of an incident in which you came of worst, would you use it?


----------



## lukesdad (1 Jan 2012)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Ahh I think you have been caught out by a quirk of English . I think, when those who are forecasting a backlash against cameras use the word "drivers" they are using it in the form that means " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " and I must admit I agree with them, I'm sure that " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " will feel "Rage against helmet cammers" . Much in the same way that muggers feel rage against the police and try not to commit crimes when the police are around . Muggers are pedestrians , but not all pedestrians are muggers, " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " are drivers, but not all drivers are " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes "


 and where do you propose to draw the line ? Seems to me any motorist who commits a minor offence in the vicinity of one of your cameras, is to be labeled a criminal ? Policeman Judge and Jury in the process of trial by camera ? You dont even get the backing of the majority of cyclists but, that doesn t matter you have the tube to give you your moment of fame. The thing is, if this campaign goes the way lee has indicated it might, and cyclists are targeted the forms it could take would make a camera pretty obselete don t you think ?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (1 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> and where do you propose to draw the line ? Seems to me any motorist who commits a minor offence in the vicinity of one of your cameras, is to be labeled a criminal ? Policeman Judge and Jury in the process of trial by camera ? You dont even get the backing of the majority of cyclists but, that doesn t matter you have the tube to give you your moment of fame. The thing is, if this campaign goes the way lee has indicated it might, and cyclists are targeted the forms it could take would make a camera pretty obselete don t you think ?


 

Errrr forgive me if I'm wrong, and please feel free to correct me, but somone "who commits a minor offence" is a criminal, albeit a minor criminal.

The problem is that for far too long in the UK we have been using another version of English where a criminal who breaks the law by exceeding the speed limit, or parking on zig zags, or driving without care , or assault with the machine they are using is described as a "driver" and is deemed "unlucky" if they are caught.
The same problem was seen 40-50 years ago when drivers were seen to be" unlucky" if caught having a "bit too much drink", eventually it soaked in that, being pissed and driving wasn't acceptable. Slowly the same is being seen with speed limits, 20yrs ago, your were "unlucky" to be caught, now you are" stupid", eventually it will also become unacceptable. Hopefully the same can be done with other driving offences and a good place to start would be to use the correct langauge to describe someone involved in illegal activity , start calling them criminals.

WAR ON CRIMINALS doesn't have quite the same negative connotations as WAR ON DRIVERS but safe drivers have nothing to worry from cameras operated by private individuals , criminals do.


----------



## lukesdad (1 Jan 2012)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Errrr forgive me if I'm wrong, and please feel free to correct me, but somone "who commits a minor offence" is a criminal, albeit a minor criminal.
> 
> The problem is that for far too long in the UK we have been using another version of English where a criminal who breaks the law by exceeding the speed limit, or parking on zig zags, or driving without care , or assault with the machine they are using is described as a "driver" and is deemed "unlucky" if they are caught.
> The same problem was seen 40-50 years ago when drivers were seen to be" unlucky" if caught having a "bit too much drink", eventually it soaked in that, being pissed and driving wasn't acceptable. Slowly the same is being seen with speed limits, 20yrs ago, your were "unlucky" to be caught, now you are" stupid", eventually it will also become unacceptable. Hopefully the same can be done with other driving offences and a good place to start would be to use the correct langauge to describe someone involved in illegal activity , start calling them criminals.
> ...


Well Im glad we ve got that clear! Half the adult population of this country have been minor criminals at some stage of their life. Now what about the rest of the post, as you ve chosen to quote it ?


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> OK, point taken, but you agree with my first paragraph then?
> 
> 
> It's true that these videos are, by and large, designed to incriminate rather than _as well as_ educate _bad_ motorists, along with a number of other purposes. But that is rather the point; some of us are not satisfied with the piss-poor cycling environment in this country, which is mostly down to the poor attitudes of a lot of drivers. It is possible that the videos may eventually contribute to improving that situation. If bad drivers don't like it, then that is a sign that it is having some effect.
> ...


So you think its fine to provoke one of these so called nutters, then let him take it out on some innocent cyclist because he can t find you !


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Well Im glad we ve got that clear! Half the adult population of this country have been minor criminals at some stage of their life. Now what about the rest of the post, as you ve chosen to quote it ?


 
In fact the vast majority of the UK population have been criminals , but I don't see how you think that excuses people commiting crimes whilst driving, "Everyone else is doing it!" was an excuse most people stopped using when they were nine!

The rest of your post? I finished replying when your post stopping making sense, there were so many if's , mights and coulds that it was impossible to pin down any real course without you claiming "that's not what I meant". Of course there was also the factual problems that I don't own a camera ,that there is no campaign , and that you have no idea what the majority of cyclists think. To your credit , you haven't started calling people idiots , ignorant or moron, but your argument is as thin as anyone who starts lashing out in that way.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

Is it not dawning on any of you yet that, all this footage maybe fuelling further incidents ?


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> In fact the vast majority of the UK population have been criminals , but I don't see how you think that excuses people commiting crimes whilst driving, "Everyone else is doing it!" was an excuse most people stopped using when they were nine!
> 
> The rest of your post? I finished replying when your post stopping making sense, there were so many if's , mights and coulds that it was impossible to pin down any real course without you claiming "that's not what I meant". Of course there was also the factual problems that I don't own a camera ,that there is no campaign , and that you have no idea what the majority of cyclists think. To your credit , you haven't started calling people idiots , ignorant or moron, but your argument is as thin as anyone who starts lashing out in that way.


It doesn t make sense because you are not prepared to consider the implications, all you see is a crusade against motorists, which has been fairly evident throughout this thread.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Is it not dawning on any of you yet that, all this footage maybe fuelling further incidents ?


 

Has it not dawned on you yet, that when it got easier to catch criminals doing bank jobs, that it fuelled incidents on Post Offices?

Your agenda seems to be"let the criminal get away with it ( on someone else) and I might be OK". It didn't work for Chamberlain.


----------



## col (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Is it not dawning on any of you yet that, all this footage maybe fuelling further incidents ?


 some time ago, there was a cam user who got that well known for doing it, it was enraging drivers to the point that they were posting angry messages on the youtube vids.. so it did seem that it was causing a lot of animosity to cyclists trying to capture mistakes or impatient drivers , and to identify them on the film to the public. So yes I agree, it does feul more incidents I feel.


----------



## mickle (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Is it not dawning on any of you yet that, all this footage maybe fuelling further incidents ?


Genius.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

Oh and I have a pretty good idea of what the majority of cyclists think, for a start they don t use cameras, they dont look at the tube and they dont contribute to these debates.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Has it not dawned on you yet, that when it got easier to catch criminals doing bank jobs, that it fuelled incidents on Post Offices?
> 
> Your agenda seems to be"let the criminal get away with it ( on someone else) and I might be OK". It didn't work for Chamberlain.


 Unlike you I do not have an agenda.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> It doesn t make sense because you are not prepared to consider the implications, all you see is a crusade against motorists, which has been fairly evident throughout this thread.


 It doesn't make sense for this reason "there were so many if's , mights and coulds that it was impossible to pin down any real course without you claiming "that's not what I meant".
As for the implications, I would suggest that if you took the time to create influence diagram of the problem , and then put values to those points you would find that the retribution would be a minor factor compared with the deterence.
One final point, if you see it as a" crusade" ( and I can't stop you doing that) then try replacing "motorists" with "criminals" and see if you still think it's a problem?


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> It doesn't make sense for this reason "there were so many if's , mights and coulds that it was impossible to pin down any real course without you claiming "that's not what I meant".
> As for the implications, I would suggest that if you took the time to create influence diagram of the problem , and then put values to those points you would find that the retribution would be a minor factor compared with the deterence.
> One final point, if you see it as a" crusade" ( and I can't stop you doing that) then try replacing "motorists" with "criminals" and see if you still think it's a problem?


Ok try this then, what happens when the retribution against cyclists doesn t take the form of a motor vehicle or its cyclists without cameras that are target because of your activity ?


----------



## gaz (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Oh and I have a pretty good idea of what the majority of cyclists think, for a start they don t use cameras, they dont look at the tube and they dont contribute to these debates.


Notice how most cyclists using cameras are also not contributing to this 'debate'


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Has it not dawned on you yet, that when it got easier to catch criminals doing bank jobs, that it fuelled incidents on Post Offices?
> 
> Your agenda seems to be"let the criminal get away with it ( on someone else) and I might be OK". It didn't work for Chamberlain.


 Don t dodge the question


----------



## classic33 (2 Jan 2012)

*User3143*
Quite what you're trying to explain has been lost.

We as cyclists are not the only camera users on the roads these days. Does your argument then follow the obvious route of all who have such cameras fitted and use them are all guilty of making the "them & us" situation worse.

I'm aware of coaches, HGV's buses and private vehicles that have them fitted. The major difference for us as cyclists is that the camera can be easily seen, when compared to a private car. Some buses & fleet operators have got round the law by calling them collision cameras & not CCTV cameras. In order to do this, the warning sign(s) of "collision cameras in use" has to be fitted in a place that is easily seen. Next time you see one, watch the actions of those around them. There is footage from these cameras on the the television and the internet.

DHL & the Royal Mail have fitted them to some of their vehicles that enter city centres on a daily basis. Does that create a "them and us" feeling amongst other road users? Where will your argument go when more drivers opt to have such cameras fitted to record their journeys? We are at the start, what comes after we may have no say in.

There is potential everywhere for something to happen and not just on the roads. There have been videos by drivers of commercial vehicles, made using hand held video recorders to record the actions of others on the roads posted on youtube. How does that square up with your own arguments of the "them and us" and the potential for things to go wrong.

Comforting to know though that if you were involved in an incident and a witness came forward with video evidence of who was to blame, you'd give up cycling. Turning away a witness, who may have spoken in your favour will look good and also has the potential for that person to say "why did I bother trying". To walk towards the body of a person lying in the road, with a crowd around them after being hit by a car, camera in hand isn't easy. Carried as I approached because I didn't want to be seen as simply wanting to take a picture upon getting there.


----------



## col (2 Jan 2012)

I do think there is a place for cams, for real evidence for example But posting every close pass and showing number plates just gets a bad reaction, and is detrimental to cyclists.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Notice how most cyclists using cameras are also not contributing to this 'debate'


 Quite right gaz I suspect one of 3 reasons, To busy on the tube, ITS CHRISTMAS,or they are starting to see some sense and have nothing to add.


----------



## col (2 Jan 2012)

classic33 said:


> *User3143*
> Quite what you're trying to explain has been lost.
> 
> We as cyclists are not the only camera users on the roads these days. Does your argument then follow the obvious route of all who have such cameras fitted and use them are all guilty of making the "them & us" situation worse.
> ...


 The difference is the cams on vehicles are there to show what actually happened, when another vehicle is to blame for any contact. Because they mostly try to deny responibility. While some cyclists use it to find any incident they can , just to be able to post a vid and try to claim they would have lost their life if this had been a foot closer. Take a look on youtube and see.


----------



## classic33 (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Quite right gaz I suspect one of 3 reasons, To busy on the tube, ITS CHRISTMAS,or they are starting to see some sense and have nothing to add.


 
Not on the tube, it is Christmas, what that has to do with it I'd like to know. And I have been adding.
BTW We don't have a tube service near me.


----------



## classic33 (2 Jan 2012)

col said:


> The difference is the cams on vehicles are there to show what actually happened, when another vehicle is to blame for any contact. Because they mostly try to deny responibility. While some cyclists use it to find any incident they can , just to be able to post a vid and try to claim they would have lost their life if this had been a foot closer. Take a look on youtube and see.


 
The wide angle lenses in use on vehicle cameras would only distort the picture even more. Thereby making the pass seem closer still.
I'm aware of "smart cameras", but not one that can put the blame on any one party on its own. They are there to back up/deny any claims made.
How that covers handheld cameras isn't made clear. Videos on youtube, one such user was on here a while back.


----------



## col (2 Jan 2012)

classic33 said:


> The wide angle lenses in use on vehicle cameras would only distort the picture even more. Thereby making the pass seem closer still.
> I'm aware of "smart cameras", but not one that can put the blame on any one party on its own. They are there to back up/deny any claims made.
> How that covers handheld cameras isn't made clear. Videos on youtube, one such user was on here a while back.


 The cams on vehicles are very good , we used to view them on the pc from the hard drive, and the quality so good it was crystal clear and no distortion what so ever. It left no doubt as to what actually happened, proved the driver denying was lieing on a number of occasions. It worked both ways though, it also showed the driver of the cam vehicle was in the wrong too. in fact I never saw any incidents where the cam didnt solve the issue of who was to blame.


----------



## classic33 (2 Jan 2012)

col said:


> The cams on vehicles are very good , we used to view them on the pc from the hard drive, and the quality so good it was crystal clear and no distortion what so ever. It left no doubt as to what actually happened, proved the driver denying was lieing on a number of occasions. It worked both ways though, it also showed the driver of the cam vehicle was in the wrong too. in fact I never saw any incidents where the cam didnt solve the issue of who was to blame.


 
Crystal clear the picture may be, but by its very construction a wide angle lens distorts the picture. The standard 50mm is seen as the closest matching lens to the human eye. And as you say it only served as back up to what drivers said. Are we as cyclists any different in wanting to protect ourselves by having a back up to a "he did this/I did this" dispute?

There must have been a problem there for companies to start installing such cameras in the first place. We as cyclists are no different in that sense. The difference being that there are a load of drivers out there who feel that cyclists do no not belong on the roads. We are the easy targets, in some cases litrally.


----------



## col (2 Jan 2012)

I never said it was just back up? It solved all disputes. Like I said before, they are good as evidence if used for what they should be used for. But not for finding any and all passes, cut ups ect and trying to identify people on youtube, it just doesnt seem right. And I believe causes more bad feeling to cyclists in general.

The feeling on here is there are a lot of anti car/bus/wagon cyclists, and I think it gives a false impression on the number of drivers who may be anti cyclist. I dont believe there are as many as some would have us believe.


----------



## mr_hippo (2 Jan 2012)

I am not going to re-read the 6 pages. can someone please define dangerous. I was riding on the Korat bypass today and was passed by a convoy of draw-bar trailers, I was travelling at about 30kph and i estimate they were doing about 100kph. They passed within an arm's length of me - is that dangerous?
How many forum members have incidents that are far worse than those you cyclons post on youtube but do not whinge about them? We cyclists far out weigh you cyclons but have to suffer at your hands.
I think I know what cyclons mean when they say 'a punishment pass' but just think about it for a moment. A cyclist is riding happily along when an 'incident' happens, he has done nothing wrong so why the incident? It is you and the other cyclons who have annoyed the driver so much that he takes his frustration out on the innocent and do not tell me that it does not happen because it does. You have had a bad day at work, your boss has spent the day picking on you and you are getting frustrated. you cannot say anything to him so what happens? You get home, kids toys all over the place and your wife has made you bangers and mash yet again; so you kick off at innocent parties.
Forget for the moment 'educating' drivers but concentrate on your skills and educating other cyclists
Please continue to post examples of your poor cycling on youtube but try to review them from a third pary point of view and learn from your mistakes.
'


----------



## Norm (2 Jan 2012)

classic33 said:


> *User3143 *Quite what you're trying to explain has been lost.


I think he is saying that, for every cam-wearer who posts stuff which shows something which is actually dangerous, there seems to be a dozen who bleat about any vehicle that passes within 6 feet and who chase them down to shout at them. And that posting videos of cyclists who lose it at car drivers for little or no reason just detracts from the videos where something dangerous does happen.


classic33 said:


> BTW We don't have a tube service near me.


YouTube, not London Underground Tube.


col said:


> I do think there is a place for cams, for real evidence for example But posting every close pass and showing number plates just gets a bad reaction, and is detrimental to cyclists.


This.



classic33 said:


> And as you say it only served as back up to what drivers said.


No he didn't. He said that camera footage resolved every dispute, and he explicitly posts the opposite of what your interpretation, saying that "_It worked both ways though, it also showed the driver of the cam vehicle was in the wrong too_".



mr_hippo said:


> can someone please define dangerous. '


Here is the crux. I'm not sure whether it's something inherent in us or whether years of riding a motorbike have made me more immune than some of the helmet cammers but I look at some of the videos posted and have no idea what the dangerous moment was until I read the text.

As I said above, I think that posting innocuous videos with number plates and text bleating and whining about motons detracts from the message that there are some inattentive, unobservant or genuinely dangerous drivers out there.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

classic 33, I have no problem with cams for personal use. What is being planned in the OP is not personal use, its an organised campaign. What it boils down to at the end of the day is, the responsible or irresponsible use of cameras.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> So you think its fine to provoke one of these so called nutters, then let him take it out on some innocent cyclist because he can t find you !


I doubt it. If someone wants revenge because they have been disciplined at work for their disgraceful driving, then they are not going to target some random cyclist. The people who target random cyclists just hate cyclists and the only way to address that is to show them that there will be consequences for their behaviour.


----------



## col (2 Jan 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I doubt it. If someone wants revenge because they have been disciplined at work for their disgraceful driving, then they are not going to target some random cyclist. The people who target random cyclists just hate cyclists and the only way to address that is to show them that there will be consequences for their behaviour.


 I agree, but cyclists who go about threatening people with youtube, for what is normal everyday occurances on the road , just succeed in annoying those they threaten, and making yet another driver think cyclists are just out to annoy. Great yet another driver who dislikes cyclists now.


----------



## Archie_tect (2 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1663964, member: 3143"]
_I could go on posting other vids, hopefully I've made my point clear in that cyclists need to look at thier own behaviour on video before they start posting vids. More importantly, awarenesss, position, and letting things go._

_Above all, apply a bit of common sense._[/quote]

Totally agree with lee here, the over zealous aggression and the reaction to other road users is appalling. I really don't see what the point of posting these confrontational videos on line achieves. I can see the point of sending them to the Police as examples or as a personal record to use as evidence, but the confrontation is unnecessary- it is not then acceptable to continue to aggressively harrass people by chasing down other vehicles on a public highway to the point of provocation by claiming justification that the passes were dangerous and life-threatening [the first video close pass was totally unacceptable].


----------



## growingvegetables (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Is it not dawning on any of you yet that, all this footage maybe fuelling further incidents ?


 
Something tells me that abstinence from camera use isn't going to reduce the number of incidents. 

I can't speak for anybody else - but I started filming as a response to incidents becoming more common, and more commonly seriously concerning.


----------



## stowie (2 Jan 2012)

I think there little point doing what Traffic Droid does and try to point out erroneous driving after the event. Little will be achieved. But I think the first video Lee posts indicates the reason why cameras are used. So, traffic droid isn't as assertive with his positioning as he should be. I know loads of cyclists who aren't. But this isn't the reason why the cockwomble of a van driver close passes. It is because the van driver is an idiot. Any normal driver in that situation would pull back to see what the cyclist is up to (its what I would do) and then keep a distance until safe to overtake. The agressive driving shown in this video is the reason we should video and report to the police - the only thing that will change this driver's attitude in the long-term is penalties for behaviour. As much as the road-positioning can be counted as poor, it isn't much of a reason for being treated in this appalling way by a driver.

I occasionally use a camera when cycling reasonable distances, very rarely have much to report, and have reported only a few drivers to road-safe. Most drivers are too busy being twats to each other to worry too much about a cyclist - especially in London - I get the impression the majority of motorists are pretty neutral to cyclists.

I do think the "but a cyclist being nasty to a motorist means they are nasty to me" is utter bollocks of the highest order. It reminds me of the victim of the school bully thinking that being nice to their tormentor is going to help matters. It is trying to rationalise someone's behaviour towards other people and thinking "if only I do x,y,z" then it won't happen to me.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jan 2012)

Camera consequences will make drivers behave worse towards all cyclists? That's quite possibly the most unlikely and un-evidenced viewpoint I've seen all year.

Go on, let's do nothing about bad road users. That's *really* going to help us all.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Camera consequences will make drivers behave worse towards all cyclists? That's quite possibly the most unlikely and un-evidenced viewpoint I've seen all year.
> 
> Go on, let's do nothing about bad road users. That's *really* going to help us all.


 
The year has only just begun, give it a while .


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jan 2012)

LOL, you got me there. I meant 2011, of course.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (2 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1663964, member: 3143"]_the vast majority of cycling vids that I have looked at, the standard of cycling in them is poor._[/quote]
People cannot argue against an assertion that is not falsifiable and therefore has no merit. It is quite possible that you you have only looked at videos where the standard of riding is poor, but we have no idea which videos you have looked at. Your strategy for "proving" the veracity of your assertion is to cherry-pick one or two examples and then imply the fallacious argument that these specific cases prove the general case.

[QUOTE 1663964, member: 3143"]*Some Examples*
__
_View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwpgrbyQRbs_
_In the above the cyclist split a lane and tried to hold a position that was suicidal. If he had posted the above wrt the OP's scheme. Then no doubt people would have had a go at his dumb position and the fact tha he should not have been there in the first place. Not very constructive, I'm sure you'll agree - as I've said people need to look at thier own riding before posting vids which may do more harm then good._[/quote]
You are correct that SonOfTheWinds would have been better to take the centre of the lane rather than riding on the inside of the lane. However, that does not give the driver any excuse at all for driving is such a dangerous manner. Just because the rider didn't take action to prevent idiots doing stupid things does not make the driver any less of an idiot.

[QUOTE 1663964, member: 3143"]__
_View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUp2skyQmNg&feature=plcp&context=C37973aeUDOEgsToPDskLSL6ReOZ8KPRV7j0qkYu8tA_
_Rather over zealous approach to a man on a mobile, granted he was breaking the law but the actions of the cyclist at the end really is quite sad, you'd have to be pretty thick to get in front of a car whom you've just had a go at. Why the cyclist did not let the guy go I don't know. Again if this was posted wrt to the OP scheme then no doubt people would say 'Well why the **** did you not get out the way?'' Potential to change attitudes here of other road users is fairly high given the over zealous approach by the cyclist in question towards the end of the vid._[/quote]
This example is nothing to do with "the standard of cycling". There is an issue with the way that SOTW persists in haranguing the driver, but that is a totally different matter altogether and is nothing to do with cycling at all. In any case, you have cherry-picked an extreme example of persistent haranguing from an individual who is himself pretty extreme in this respect, so it is a very bad example to illustrate any assertion about "the vast majority of cycling vids".

[QUOTE 1663964, member: 3143"]_I could go on posting other vids, hopefully I've made my point clear in that cyclists need to look at thier own behaviour on video before they start posting vids. More importantly, awarenesss, position, and letting things go. Above all, apply a bit of common sense._[/quote]
If you've taken the trouble to watch these "other vids", then I trust you have given polite, constructive criticism to the posters of those particular "vids" to help them improve their cycling. I don't know what your YouTube username is, so I can't tell. If you haven't, then that would raise some questions over the vague comments that you are posting here; perhaps these videos don't really exist.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (2 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> I am not going to re-read the 6 pages. can someone please define dangerous. I was riding on the Korat bypass today and was passed by a convoy of draw-bar trailers, I was travelling at about 30kph and i estimate they were doing about 100kph. They passed within an arm's length of me - is that dangerous?


Probably.



mr_hippo said:


> Please continue to post examples of your poor cycling on youtube but try to review them from a third pary point of view and learn from your mistakes.


It won't happen. You are far more interested in making vague assertions in here rather than actually giving constructive criticism for real examples.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (2 Jan 2012)

col said:


> I agree, but cyclists who go about threatening people with youtube, for what is normal everyday occurances on the road , just succeed in annoying those they threaten, and making yet another driver think cyclists are just out to annoy. Great yet another driver who dislikes cyclists now.


That wasn't what the question was about, so is irrelevant as a response to my reply.


----------



## Norm (2 Jan 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Your strategy for "proving" the veracity of your assertion is to cherry-pick one or two examples and then imply the fallacious argument that these specific cases prove the general case.


I think that the cherry-picking is precisely Lee's point, though.

Which cyclist remembers the 999 cars that pass without an issue rather than the one car which gets a bit close?

Which motorist remembers the 99 bikes that the pass rather than the one which goes past them on a red light?

Who thinks of the dozens of videos of dangerous driving rather than the one or two which shows someone on a bike acting like a twat or blaming motorists when they put themselves in danger?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (2 Jan 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> Something tells me that abstinence from camera use isn't going to reduce the number of incidents.
> I can't speak for anybody else - but I started filming as a response to incidents becoming more common, and more commonly seriously concerning.


Yes. I fact I remember the incident that made up my mind for me. It was a left hook when I was riding at about 20mph along a cycle lane and a car came from behind, slammed the brakes on and turned left across me. I managed to brake and swerve enough that the car, which finished up with the front end against the opposite kerb at 45 degrees, didn't actually hit me. The driver then floored it and shot off up the road. A police officer that I spoke to nearby wasn't interested because I had no evidence that the incident had even happened.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Jan 2012)

Norm said:


> I think that the cherry-picking is precisely Lee's point, though.


Really ? I thought his point was that he was a cycling/driving god and that everyone who disagreed with him , about anything , was a moron?


----------



## Jezston (2 Jan 2012)

Norm said:


> I think that the cherry-picking is precisely Lee's point, though.
> 
> Which cyclist remembers the 999 cars that pass without an issue rather than the one car which gets a bit close?
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say - you seem to be saying that people who say that camera users are all idiots and camera use is bad because they've seen a couple of videos are as wrong as those who say all motorists are bastards because of a close pass or all cyclists are idiots because of those they've seen jumping the lights.

In which case I agree, but that seems to be the _opposite _of what Lee is saying. He appears to be doing the same generalisation that because of some poor road use or twattishness in a couple of videos that most camera users are bad.

(Also particularly odd because Lee has argued in the past that the red light jumpers you referred to are totally ok, and 'haters gonna hate' regardless of cyclist behaviour, which is what I called him out as being a hypocrite over.)


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (2 Jan 2012)

Norm said:


> I think that the cherry-picking is precisely Lee's point, though.
> Which cyclist remembers the 999 cars that pass without an issue rather than the one car which gets a bit close?
> Which motorist remembers the 99 bikes that the pass rather than the one which goes past them on a red light?
> Who thinks of the dozens of videos of dangerous driving rather than the one or two which shows someone on a bike acting like a twat or blaming motorists when they put themselves in danger?


I'm not completely sure what your point is, but I think it is about the fact that people have a tendency to pick on a small number of memorable, and therefore extreme, examples and use those to construct stereotypes. That appears to be true, at least of some people, given the number of people who believe that every cyclist jumps red lights, which has been shown in London to be far from the truth. (I think it was 18% in the London study.) However, drivers don't need to go in YouTube to see people behaving badly on bicycles.

As regards the "bad cycling" that Lee is referring to, I think it is very rare that a video shows bad cycling that the average driver would recognise as such. The examples seem to be mostly people failing to claim the lane when they should, not moving out when passing a side road with a car approaching, etc. Most drivers wouldn't have a clue about that.

In any case, you are certainly wrong about "Lee's point". He said: "_the vast majority of cycling vids that I have looked at, the standard of cycling in them is poor._" A point that uses the term "the vast majority" is not a point about cherry picking, even though he uses cherry picking to try to justify it.


----------



## Norm (2 Jan 2012)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Really ? I thought his point was that he was a cycling/driving god and that everyone who disagreed with him , about anything , was a moron?


Yes, I can see that you would interpret it that way.



Jezston said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say - you seem to be saying that people who say that camera users are all idiots and camera use is bad because they've seen a couple of videos are as wrong as those who say all motorists are bastards because of a close pass or all cyclists are idiots because of those they've seen jumping the lights.


Not quite what I'm saying, but it's close.

I think (and I might be wrong) that the issue is not one of every camera user being as bad as SonOfTheWinds or Taypet, as examples, but that any motorist who sees a video by SOTW would think "That cyclist is a cock" and there is, therefore, a danger that all camera users are tarred thus. If there was a water-cooler moment after a motorist had an encounter with a "HCW", the discussion would be "Yeah, I saw some videos posted by some cycling cock, check out XXX's videos on YouTube and you'll see how bad the cyclists are!". No-one would say "Hey, have a look at the videos by Gaz / HLaB / Magnatom etc", yet those are the people who, IMO, are posting stuff that needs to be seen by everyone.

In other words, cammers should look at their own video as a third party would see it and see if there's anything that they can pick up in their own riding before posting distractions and bleating about others on the roads.



MrHappyCyclist said:


> In any case, you are certainly wrong about "Lee's point". He said: "_the vast majority of cycling vids that I have looked at, the standard of cycling in them is poor._" A point that uses the term "the vast majority" is not a point about cherry picking, even though he uses cherry picking to try to justify it.


That's a fair comment, I'm just trying to put (what I see as) Lee's point across slightly differently.


----------



## col (2 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Camera consequences will make drivers behave worse towards all cyclists? That's quite possibly the most unlikely and un-evidenced viewpoint I've seen all year.
> 
> Go on, let's do nothing about bad road users. That's *really* going to help us all.


 Strange then that on a lot of youtube films , the cyclists makes a point of how the driver has lost their temper and is calling them? seems evident to most .


----------



## gaz (2 Jan 2012)

Lee and Norm have touched on some good points about looking at yourself and learning how to improve.
We all make mistakes


----------



## Jezston (2 Jan 2012)

I don't think anyone is going to argue that people can't and won't learn from their potential mistakes and improve their riding from posting their videos, I thought that was as much of a point for posting them as any? Certainly why I've posted many of mine - happy to take any criticism of my riding, as long as it's accurate, constructive and polite. I recall people being all over taypet and his dreadful riding when his videos were posted here, same with that guy (who's name I forget) who posted videos of him screaming at everyone who did anything remotely inconvenient to him.

Regarding the issue of such videos affecting what people think of cyclists - I think it has and will continue to be largely highly positive. Those who hate cyclists will use it to justify what they believe, because they can't think critically and will always only accept what confirms their prejudices. When these videos have reached the media, they have generally been received very positively, even when the producers of the tv show or whatever have dragged out some bigot in the interests of 'balance' I feel their horribleness will generally engender those who haven't made up their minds towards the cyclist.

Even Traffic Droid got a surprisingly positive response from the pundits when he was on that Channel 5 show:
http://www.channel5.com/shows/live-with-gabby/episodes/episode-72-31
And regarding Lee's criticism of that, in the first video - while his road positioning is indeed poor, the van driver's behaviour is utterly inexcusable. I didn't fancy watching the second video as I don't like watching videos of people shouting at each other.

*But none of this goes against the main point in the OP.*

That is, to link information on dangerous behaviour would be positive in being able to deal with such behaviour. If someone reports a one off incident the police are less likely or interesting in doing something about it than if the same driver has been shown to behave in such a fashion repeatedly, and I don't see why, nor has anyone fairly argued why, that would be anything other than a good thing. If someone wants to disagree with the poster about whether they think the driving was that bad and the report is fair, then they can do that. Ultimately, the police will be able to decide whether it's bad enough to be worth persuing.



Norm said:


> That's a fair comment, I'm just trying to put (what I see as) Lee's point across slightly differently.


 
If only Lee could learn to do the same. If he wasn't so unpleasant to everyone he disagrees with, often so hypocritical in his standpoints, and was willing to accept when he is wrong, he might find people more willing to accept his points.


----------



## classic33 (2 Jan 2012)

[COLOR=#141414 said:


> *User3143*[/COLOR]
> Quite what you're trying to explain has been lost. _I could not have made my point any clearer TBH_*. Yes you could. Your argument has gon from causing a a problem to having the potential to cause a problem.*
> 
> We as cyclists are not the only camera users on the roads these days. Does your argument then follow the obvious route of all who have such cameras fitted and use them are all guilty of making the "them & us" situation worse. _I know that, and that's not what I'm actually getting at. _*No, just a minority of camera users, nowt else. Argue your case with the others who use cameras, in the same manner as you have done on here and see what they tell you to do.*
> ...


 

I have passed more onto the companies concerned & the relevant authorities than I've posted. One of my last ones saw 18 commercial vehicles removed from the road. Two of which were using illegal plates, three drivers had no driving licence and all were used for carrying fare paying passengers. The drivers felt they had been treated unfairly. Happy to take peoples money but not willing to follow the law.

With regards what constitutes as dangerous. Most side mounted vehicle cameras a single camera will often be covering the length of the vehicle, you can work out your own angle of view required, but will normally focused to within three feet for sharp focus. Why three feet, because the people who wanted them fitting regard anything under that as too close, if done at speed.

There is even the money side of things to consider. Some companies have used the fact that people are using the internet to check a vehicle registration to their own ends. The RAC used to have this as a free service, now you pay. Another advertises on TV.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Lee and Norm have touched on some good points about looking at yourself and learning how to improve.
> We all make mistakes



Yes, that's very fair. Quite a few of us have commented on how our own videos have taught us a lot.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1664586, member: 3143"]That's about the long and short of it.

Jexston has gone off on tangent again, Mike gets the non-sequiter award and Classic is talking about cams fitted to vehicles, of which the dynamics are completely different. As such I can't be arsed with this no more. ...[/quote]


Hey maybe I should take up being a soothsayer? About a hundred msgs back I said "I have the feeling that this thread will end up like the last one, where you make lots of noise, don't come up with anything positive and then flounce out when your bluff is called, again.".
I've only noticed you in two threads, is this the way all your contributions finish?


----------



## classic33 (2 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1664586, member: 3143"]That's about the long and short of it.

Jexston has gone off on tangent again, Mike gets the non-sequiter award and *Classic is talking about cams fitted to vehicles, of which the dynamics are completely different.* As such I can't be arsed with this no more. There is already one channel set up showing vids of poor cycling (I think someone posted something on here regarding this 'cyclist hater') and I can only imagine that this will increase with the attitude of some shown here.[/quote]

Not quite, I was talking about another set of road users who also have cameras fitted to their vehicles. To which you have not been able to respond. A bicycle is a road vehicle as well by the way.

In my previous post I stated that vehicles were removed from the road using the helmet camera as evidence, of a crime in progress.

As I also said you seem to be lacking in common sense, on this issue. You don't appear to use the very item you were trying to deride. Therefore *all *your views/opinions were third party nowt else.


----------



## stowie (2 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1664586, member: 3143"]That's about the long and short of it.

Jexston has gone off on tangent again, Mike gets the non-sequiter award and Classic is talking about cams fitted to vehicles, of which the dynamics are completely different. As such I can't be arsed with this no more. There is already one channel set up showing vids of poor cycling (I think someone posted something on here regarding this 'cyclist hater') and I can only imagine that this will increase with the attitude of some shown here.[/quote]

Errr, one of the best known channels showing poor cycling is Gaz's Silly Cyclists. Filmed by a cyclist.

Not sure he is a "cyclist hater" or was motivated by helmet camera cyclists' videos of poor driving. That would be a bit weird, since he also posts up bad driving. Maybe he records and post videos of dangerous driving, views them on you-tube, starts to hate cyclists (and, I assume, himself) and consequently posts up videos of poor cycling. 

It seems strange that you think viewing a cyclist's video of a bad driving would enrage a motorist unrelated to the incident to the point that they then take it out on a completely different cyclist to prove a point. That sounds just a little bit psychopathic if you ask me - I would imagine anyone with this kind of thought process shouldn't be left alone with anything more dangerous than plastic cutlery, less still a car.


----------



## Jezston (2 Jan 2012)

Lol "As thus you give an example of why I'll no longer be contributing to this thread." - posts again 10 minutes later.

P.S. It was Lukesdad who was implying such videos would lead to harm. Lee was only arguing that it would affect our reputation negatively, although then failed to address my counter points to that, as Lee so often fails to do with anyone who actually shows him to possibly be wrong about something.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> Something tells me that abstinence from camera use isn't going to reduce the number of incidents.
> 
> I can't speak for anybody else - but I started filming as a response to incidents becoming more common, and more commonly seriously concerning.


 Beyond belief ! Equate the post you were replying to, to the second line of your reply.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1664722, member: 3143"]Another set of road users which are motorised vehicles. Bikes are road users not vehicles...'[/quote]
Not according to The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 , but maybe that was written by idiots or morons?


----------



## classic33 (2 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1664722, member: 3143"]Another set of road users which are motorised vehicles. Bikes are road users not vehicles, the clue is there Classic why the dynamics are different and therefore non comparable.

Ok

Define ''irony''[/quote]

I'll let others do that last bit for me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony.

Bikes are road vehicles
http://blogs.law.nyu.edu/lifeatnyulaw/when-is-a-bicycle-a-vehicle-and-other-legal-questions/
I, as the rider of that vehicle am the road user.

What happenned to going anyway?


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> Lol "As thus you give an example of why I'll no longer be contributing to this thread." - posts again 10 minutes later.
> 
> P.S. It was Lukesdad who was implying such videos would lead to harm. Lee was only arguing that it would affect our reputation negatively, although then failed to address my counter points to that, as Lee so often fails to do with anyone who actually shows him to possibly be wrong about something.


Could lead to harm Jezston.


----------



## Jezston (2 Jan 2012)

Oh no I made an error of judgement once, thus all my other points that Lee is incapable of addressing, because he is wrong, are invalid.

Hey look - I admitted I was wrong about something (when I was able to remember what you were on about) - you might want to try it some time. You might find people respect your views more.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> Oh no I made an error of judgement once, thus all my other points that Lee is incapable of addressing, because he is wrong, are invalid.
> 
> Hey look - I admitted I was wrong about something (when I was able to remember what you were on about) - you might want to try it some time. You might find people respect your views more.


If only you d analysed the vid first before shooting from the hip for one of your moments of fame eh ?


----------



## Jezston (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> If only you d analysed the vid first before shooting from the hip for one of your moments of fame eh ?


 
You haven't actually seen the video, or the thread where it was discussed, in question have you.

No go on just carry on throwing ugly judgements towards other people about their sentiment and purpose much as you already have in this thread, without a hint of irony.


----------



## Jezston (2 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1664793, member: 3143"]Now you got a load of taxi drivers down the local rank all cussing some Doris/Cyclists who don't know the HC and RTA.

''What is it with cyclists man.''
''How da you mean cuss?''
''Some guy posted a vid of me innit claiming he had right of way over me when he was turning right in front of me''
''Cock''
''You feel me, blood.''[/quote]

I wonder what they say about your red light jumping, or the kind of riding demonstrated by alleycat fakenger types you think are so brilliant.

You're still off topic, by the way. And still posting after you'd said you wouldn't.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> You haven't actually seen the video, or the thread where it was discussed, in question have you.
> 
> No go on just carry on throwing ugly judgements towards other people about their sentiment and purpose much as you already have in this thread, without a hint of irony.


I did see the video as it happens, and was prepared to let it lie but you couldn t could you ? You have to keep on banging away. Truth hurts dunnit jezston ?


----------



## Jezston (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I did see the video as it happens, and was prepared to let it lie but you couldn t could you ? You have to keep on banging away. Truth hurts dunnit jezston ?


 
_Sigh. _I'll bite.

What exactly is the 'truth' here you're trying to show us all up for? That cyclists don't get it wrong sometimes? We've already been over this - people put their videos up as much as for learning experience as highlighting bad driving. My video makes no attempt to apportion blame solely on the driver.

Although oddly the handful of motorist colleagues I showed it to before I put it online felt hadn't done anything wrong. Not sure what that says about the main crux of your argument that seeing such videos will side motorists against cyclists.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

Don t bite Jezston.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Don t bite Jezston.


 
Why, does he taste nasty?


----------



## classic33 (2 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1664755, member: 3143"]But bikes and motorised vehicles are not the same Classic, hence why the dyanmics of fitting a camera to a bike and a motorised vehicle are different.

God's work is never done that is why I've not left.

Edit: Your link is a blog?? With that and Wiki I see the depth of research holds no bounds with sme people on cc.[/quote]

We now have god online folks.

Lee, straight question, straight answer required.
Is a bicycle a road vehicle or road user? Evidence to back your answer up required. If its a road user I'll have to keep mine chained up. Never know what it might get up to! Its got potential you know.

Bikes and motorised vehicles are road vehicles. The reasons for the placement of cameras on either type is for the same reason. Just in case something should happen. Please feel free to explain why the "dynamics" are wrong/different.

Using your reasoning when comparing a moped to an HGV, the former would not be classed as a road vehicle.

With regards the "research" no great effort was put into it, but the Oxford English dictionary isn't that different in the wording. What was done was easier than scanning the relevant page(s) in from the dictionary. You don't like the research feel free to do your own.


----------



## Bicycle (2 Jan 2012)

Many ideas that seem excellent in the pub or online amongst like-minded people can look rather different to onlookers peering in from the outside.

I've had few problems on the road as a driver, motorcyclist or cyclist. On the rare occasions when things have gone badly belly-up, I've found the Police an excellent resource.

I am cautious about the idea of what some folk (not me) might see as partisan, geekolicious, online vigilantism. 

Who will regulate the quality of the judgements made by posters? Who will be in a position to qualify the responses of anyone shown in 'snippet' posts, where critical footage laying a context might be absent? 

Who would be responsible if someone who saw something online took it anonymously upon themselves to damage the property (or worse) of the person believed to be driving an offending vehicle?

Helmet Cam footage can be a useful tool for training youngsters or inexperienced riders. I'd leave it there.


----------



## stowie (2 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1664707, member: 3143"]As thus you give an example of why I'll no longer be contributing to this thread. If you can point me to the bit that is bolded...?[/quote]

Implied in the quote below maybe? Or perhaps I inferred incorrectly. I am open to correction as I have a somewhat underdeveloped God complex....

_Why are you not interested in the morality of filming drivers? LOL this is paramount to what you are proposing, if you start putting up vids for thee most basic errors which people make out on the road, then you and every other helmet cam wearer that partakes in this dumb scheme will only further alienate drivers._

_And ME and all the other NON helmet camera wearers should not have to suffer the changing attitude that some helmet camera wearing doris will bring by posting some bullshit driving offence and linking it to some #tag._


----------



## classic33 (2 Jan 2012)

Bicycle said:


> Many ideas that seem excellent in the pub or online amongst like-minded people can look rather different to onlookers peering in from the outside.
> 
> I've had few problems on the road as a driver, motorcyclist or cyclist. On the rare occasions when things have gone badly belly-up, I've found the Police an excellent resource.
> 
> ...


 

Well, assuming you're posting with the intention of supplying it to the authorities, you keep the origional or supply them with a copy of the origional, warts an all. As for judging the content, could that not be left to those who view it. The poster supplying a simple explanation(possibly one mentioned on the first page of this) of what they feel was wrong and asking if they agree or not.

As to who would be responsiible for any damage caused by a person viewing it and then taking it upon themselves to seek "revenge or teach them a lesson. That can only come down on those commiting the acts.

To put it into context. When the Yorkshire Ripper was caught & named and despite the fact that the police had him securely locked up, a local butcher was firebombed & I had to have a change of teachers in the run up to exams. Their crime, they shared the same name as the ripper. The teacher received death threats, the butcher was made to close up and leave his business under police guard such was the feeling against him.


----------



## Norm (2 Jan 2012)

classic33 said:


> As for judging the content, could that not be left to those who view it.


We have, unfortunately, seen plenty of examples (and lost at least one respected CCer) of riders not accepting the judgement of other viewers during the post-mortems which videos receive when they are posted.


----------



## growingvegetables (2 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Beyond belief ! Equate the post you were replying to, to the second line of your reply.


 
*Simple observation - aye, and that is only of my own experience over the last 12 years.*

lukesdad - you don't like cameras. That's fine by me - I have no problem with that. Entirely and completely your choice.

It's different from my choice

- once, and not that long ago, I'd have a bowel-turning moment caused by the driver of a motor vehicle, something I consider sufficiently and objectively dangerous enough to report to the police, perhaps once in 6 months, maybe twice;

- but in the last six months of British Summer Time, I had 15 or more. Plain fact - incidents are more common, and seriously concerning incidents are more common, *in my experience*. Absolutely nothing to do with cyclists with cameras - for goodness' sake, there's not that many active cyclist-cammers in Leeds!


----------



## lukesdad (2 Jan 2012)

How can you not like a camera ?


----------



## mr_hippo (3 Jan 2012)

Whilst agreeing that cameras can be used for education, one has to remember that education is a two way street. There is at least one impressionable young man who seems to be influenced more by the cyclons on this site and not the cyclists.

Now i am going to open a big can of worms and please take off your rose tinted glasses.

Do you remember the now infamous tanker/roundabout video? What did you see? Did anyone notice the big signpost that shown a diagram of the roundabout? Did you notice that another road joined the roundabout to the left of the one the cyclists was on and at roughly the same point? Did you notice what was on the road to the left? You could not -there were buildings in the way. 

Cyclist sees no approaching traffic and none on the roundabout so he assumes it is safe to proceed and guess what the tanker driver sees - the same thing and does the same thing.

ln my, never too humble, opinion both parties were equally at fault.

We are vulnerable road users - in a car the fragile body is protected by steel but on a bike the fragile body protects the steel. No quips about my bike is carbon etc,, please. Does it matter if we slow down a bit to let a driver out or move to the left to allow a car to pass?


----------



## mr_hippo (3 Jan 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> It won't happen. You are far more interested in making vague assertions in here rather than actually giving constructive criticism for real examples.


What part of _Please continue to post examples of your poor cycling on youtube but try to review them from a third pary point of view and learn from your mistakes_ do you not understand?


----------



## Jezston (3 Jan 2012)

Mr Hippo said:


> Do you remember the now infamous tanker/roundabout video? What did you see? Did anyone notice the big signpost that shown a diagram of the roundabout? Did you notice that another road joined the roundabout to the left of the one the cyclists was on and at roughly the same point? Did you notice what was on the road to the left? You could not -there were buildings in the way.
> 
> Cyclist sees no approaching traffic and none on the roundabout so he assumes it is safe to proceed and guess what the tanker driver sees - the same thing and does the same thing.
> 
> ln my, never too humble, opinion both parties were equally at fault.


 
Except of course that there was no building obscuring the view and the police charged the driver with dangerous driving.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fqACT1jNV0

Your example there encapsulates the wrongness that cycling camera haters fail to address in themselves. That their judgements are often as wrong if not more so than the cyclists posting the video. And yet they so often (as demonstrated on this thread) don't back down and just hurl abuse around instead.

If Norm is referring to Magnatom above's leaving, I'd say his departure was more based around the amount of abuse and harassment he received from users here (the style of which you can see from some of the posts on this thread) than fair and constructive criticism. While he would often be highly defensive of his position I'd say he was generally found to be in the right by those who's opinions actually matter e.g. the police.

There's also a serious amount of victim blaming that goes on in such comments - because the rider COULD have done something to avoid the incident, somehow the incident is states as being THEIR fault. Whilst it's useful to learn to protect oneselves, to state it's their fault and not the driver who hit them or whatever because they potentially could have anticapted it is akin to (excuse the hyperbole) people saying women wearing short skirts were 'asking for it', and it's pretty disgusting.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> What part of _Please continue to post examples of your poor cycling on youtube but try to review them from a third pary point of view and learn from your mistakes_ do you not understand?


Oops, sorry, I misread what you had written and thought you were actually offering to do something constructive like offering impartial advice to individuals who may benefit from it - my mistake.

So, to your brilliant idea of using videos to learn from, I'm afraid it's already been thought of. Many of us do use videos to help us improve our technique - both our own and other people's. Even those whose cycling could be improved have been quite useful, for example I've found SonOfTheWinds's videos very instructive in illustrating how important it is to adopt an assertive position in traffic to prevent idiotic drivers doing stupid, dangerous things. In fact, I posted some time ago a list of my own reasons for taking and posting videos. Here it is again:

Learning – I have found it very useful to look back at incidents and see whether I can learn from them. I have also found it very useful to look at other people’s incidents and learn from them. I have also found it useful to get feedback on my own video clips from other experienced cyclists and learn from them. (Actually, it turns out that this has been by far the most valuable aspect.)
Retribution – yes, it feels good to be able to name and shame drivers who do bad things to me. (And to show some idiotic things cyclists do as well.)
Evidence – the way our laws work makes it very difficult to claim redress if needed. I have never had to do that, thank goodness, but it would help if needed. (See the lawyer’s comments in this One Show clip.) (This was my original reason for getting a camera.)
Improving the situation – (admittedly in a very small way) I know of a number of cases of cyclists using video evidence to show the employers of appalling commercial drivers what their staff are doing. This often results in drivers undergoing additional training, often compulsory.
Behaviour modification – there are people who claim that the presence of a video camera has the effect of improving the behaviour of drivers. I don’t really know whether this is true, but it seems plausible.
(See http://www.happycyclist.org/?p=87)​ 
Or to put it in the rather more succinct way that the young folk tend to use nowadays: We can learn from our videos? No shoot Sherlock!


----------



## Norm (3 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> If Norm is referring to Magnatom above's leaving, I'd say his departure was more based around the amount of abuse and harassment he received from users here (the style of which you can see from some of the posts on this) than fair and constructive criticism. While he would often be highly defensive of his position I'd say he was generally found to be in the right by those who's opinions actually matter e.g. the police.


If you could edit your post to correctly ascribe your quote, we could then deal with the second part of your point.


----------



## Jezston (3 Jan 2012)

Norm said:


> If you could edit your post to correctly ascribe your quote, we could then deal with the second part of your point.


 
Done. No idea how that happened ... maybe multiquoted and editing went weird.


----------



## Origamist (3 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Whilst agreeing that cameras can be used for education, one has to remember that education is a two way street. There is at least one impressionable young man who seems to be influenced more by the cyclons on this site and not the cyclists.
> 
> SNIP


 
Happy New Year mr_hippo and fellow CC commuters.

We are indeed vulnerable road users and eduation is cetainly a two way street... I remember when you posted a clip of yourself undertaking a coach and a few CCers criticised you for it. Whilst you defended your actions stoutly as I recall, I still have no doubt that some "cyclists" might view you as a "cyclon".


----------



## mr_hippo (3 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> Except of course that there was no building obscuring the view and the police charged the driver with dangerous driving.
> *Ok, there were buildings to the left and trees near the roundabout but how much of the road to the left did you see? i believe the charges wetre dropped*
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fqACT1jNV0
> ...


*So if a cyclist sees an incident unfolding and can do something about it but choses not to avoid it then who is at fault? If a cyclist can avoid an incident but choses not to, how can you blame the driver?*


----------



## 400bhp (3 Jan 2012)

Never mind a "War on Motorists", I think we've started a civil war. 

Observation hat on: Roughly what percentage of camera wearers work in IT? I suspect it is high.

I don't see the need for the sniping that goes on in these "debates". What's the point?


----------



## Origamist (3 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> *What's the point*?


 
...scoring.

More seriously, commuting is not a distinguished debating chamber (sorry to shatter the illusions of maybe one newbie CycleChatter); reasoned and rational debate was dispensed with years ago in favour of bile, pettiness, one-upmanship and discourtesy.

There is the occasional glimmer of enlightenment and comedy here, but recidivist old lags like me, too long inured to fighting with shitty sticks, should be deracinated by Admin sooner rather than later (the night of the long chain-whips, perhaps). If not, just get rid of commuting altogether.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Jan 2012)

I guess my question was slightly rhetorical, perhaps more in the hope of individuals taking a step back and thinking about what they are posting-it's all too easy to get caught up and forget what the discussion was about.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (3 Jan 2012)

So, to return to the original purpose of the thread. I think the potential that this combination of technologies provides is to improve the signal-to-noise ratio when using the available video clips for some particular purpose amongst the many different reasons that people had for posting them.

One such purpose is highlighting bad driving in an attempt to get some kind of change that might eventually improve the lot of cyclists on the road. There seem to be (at least) two potential ways to select videos for this purpose: repeat offenders (or at least vehicles that appear in more than one video), and selection based on the seriousness of the incident.

The "repeat offenders" one is probably a non-starter given the relatively small number of cyclists who post videos. I spent a bit of time playing with the YouTube API and wrote a program that extracts registration numbers from the titles of all videos on a particular channel, does a search of YouTube for any other videos with the same registration number in the title, and then lists them under the registration number. I was not surprised to see that there are very few repeat offenders turned up, even for some of the London commuters' channels - Mikey and Gaz for example. (I had fun writing it, though.)

So that leaves the seriousness of the incident as a basis for selection. There are many videos that, whilst showing behaviour that undoubtedly causes increased risk to the cyclist, are subject to debate even among cyclists as to whether the behaviour was sufficiently dangerous to warrant highlighting. (You only need to look at this topic for proof of that assertion.) It seems to me that the best approach, then, is to "pick the low hanging fruit" and concentrate on videos showing incidents that leave little or nothing open to argument regarding whether the driver's behaviour was dangerous. (I know, there will always be some 'ard man who claims that a truck screaming past at 40mph three inches from their elbow is nothing to make a fuss of, but I think we can just ignore them.)

Earlier, I suggested that some standard for tagging videos might be useful to aid in this, and I do think that might serve a purpose if enough people starting tagging according to the standard. However, it seems like that may be a sledgehammer to crack a nut; I've been involved in standards-making in the past and getting agreement on even the most trivial detail can be a right pain.

So, for those that are interested, why don't we just each share links to a small number of videos that we think are extreme examples and make a page of them? No fancy searches, just people. If anyone doesn't want to join in, then they are quite free to remain silent.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Jan 2012)

Whilst repeat offenders are fairly small, I've little doubt that that will go up in future with the ongoing explosion in the number of cyclists using cameras (and other road users for that matter).

I wonder whether the seriousness of videos is something worth looking at? Maybe more along the lines of what an editorial group rates videos as, rather than just the video owner, and that a set of tags gets generated as a result.


----------



## BSRU (3 Jan 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> So, to return to the original purpose of the thread. I think the potential that this combination of technologies provides is to improve the signal-to-noise ratio when using the available video clips for some particular purpose amongst the many different reasons that people had for posting them.
> 
> One such purpose is highlighting bad driving in an attempt to get some kind of change that might eventually improve the lot of cyclists on the road. There seem to be (at least) two potential ways to select videos for this purpose: repeat offenders (or at least vehicles that appear in more than one video), and selection based on the seriousness of the incident.
> 
> ...


Do you mean have a dedicated YouTube channel managed by someone, where videos which are deemed worthy by a group of reviewers are then favourited on that channel?


----------



## beastie (3 Jan 2012)

Why is it that cyclists who claim to be god, really are just sanctimonious pricks with an odious personality, who show zero respect for anyone. 

Not very god like.


----------



## Origamist (3 Jan 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> So that leaves the seriousness of the incident as a basis for selection. There are many videos that, whilst showing behaviour that undoubtedly causes increased risk to the cyclist, are subject to debate even among cyclists as to whether the behaviour was sufficiently dangerous to warrant highlighting. (You only need to look at this topic for proof of that assertion.) It seems to me that the best approach, then, is to "pick the low hanging fruit" and concentrate on videos showing incidents that leave little or nothing open to argument regarding whether the driver's behaviour was dangerous. (I know, there will always be some 'ard man who claims that a truck screaming past at 40mph three inches from their elbow is nothing to make a fuss of, but I think we can just ignore them.)


 
When I was putting together my defensive cycling videos (yuk - I sound like such a media darling), I used DfT and TFL cycle collision data as the basis for this series. This meant that the severity of the incident was not the criterion I adopted (although it is clearly entangled). Instead, I wanted to illustrate the most common types of collision configuration that involved cyclists getting injured *and* attendantly highlight approaches to anticipate or mitigate such situations.

I'm not sure this helps greatly, but it does give a different perspective on the basis for selecting seqeunces. My limited approach has obvious drawbacks though.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Jan 2012)

I was hoping you'd post a bit on this, Origamist, as your approach on reporting offenders is very different. I can see some of the advantages to it, but also disadvantages just as with the public approach I follow.


----------



## Origamist (3 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I was hoping you'd post a bit on this, Origamist, as your approach on reporting offenders is very different. I can see some of the advantages to it, but also disadvantages just as with the public approach I follow.


 
Yes, for those that don't know, I have two accounts. One for general, broadly educational vidoes (the defensive cycling series) on YouTube and a different account on Vimeo for reporting grade "A" idiots.

The former account does not list reg nos in the title, description or tags, but the reg plate is often visible in the film. Effectively, this means the chance of the driver finding the video on YouTube is fantastically remote. This channel is accessible to anyone with too much internet time on their hands and I do not use it for naming and shaming. Although occasionally in the summary section I might comment as to why I think it was poor driving, cycling, motorcycling etc. Comments are rarely disabled.

If I report someone to the Met Police's RoadSafe initiative, I use a private Vimeo account (different user name) and I only send the password to the police. I disable comments on the site and I rarely use this account.

I like to keep the two accounts separate - for various reasons.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (3 Jan 2012)

beastie said:


> Why is it that cyclists who claim to be god, really are just sanctimonious pricks with an odious personality, who show zero respect for anyone.
> 
> Not very god like.


 Jehovah, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter ? You description ( above) seems to fit them all...


----------



## classic33 (3 Jan 2012)

1665239 said:


> All the people I know called Peter Sutcliff have been perfectly well accepted in society. I even play bridge with one.


 
I was talking about in the days that followed the arrest. Failed to make that clear.
But who was guilty for the actions carried out against these two people.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Jan 2012)

BSRU said:


> Do you mean have a dedicated YouTube channel managed by someone


That would be one way to do it, but it would be limited to YouTube videos then.



BSRU said:


> where videos which are deemed worthy by a group of reviewers are then favourited on that channel?


I was thinking more of self selection, but I suppose a panel of reviewers might help to improve quality. There would need to be a clear set of criteria for selection, and also some criteria for membership of the review panel.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Whilst repeat offenders are fairly small, I've little doubt that that will go up in future with the ongoing explosion in the number of cyclists using cameras (and other road users for that matter).


That could be true; especially in London. Myself, I typically see four or five other cyclists in total on my 25 mile commute, so it's unlikely. I do have my program, so I could easily check from time to time.



BentMikey said:


> I wonder whether the seriousness of videos is something worth looking at? Maybe more along the lines of what an editorial group rates videos as, rather than just the video owner, and that a set of tags gets generated as a result.


I think the editorial group thing is the best way to go at the moment, as you say, and possibly some tags could come out of that.

Tagging itself is a means of classification, and any classification scheme is meaningless unless you know what it is for. So the tagging scheme, and the semantics (meaning) of the tags, that would come out of an editorial group would be quite specific to that editorial group's purpose. This was one of the reasons why I put hashes on the suggested tags earlier. For example, the word "dangerous" has different meanings depending on the context: in general is can be taken to mean bringing increased risk to life and limb; in law, when used in the term "dangerous driving", it means that there was deliberate intent on the part of the driver; in our panel's context, we might wish it to mean that there is little doubt over the seriousness of the incident as shown in the video. The hash (or other marker) would be taken to mean "this is a tag whose meaning is defined according to a particular scheme".

It looks like origamist has already implemented a classification scheme that could be a good starting point, with "grade A idiot" being the most serious category.


----------



## dawesome (4 Jan 2012)

Sunglasses camera catches stupid drivers, copper implies it's the cyclist's fault:


http://www.thisishullandeastriding....ivers-sights/story-14322545-detail/story.html


Chief Inspector David Rawding, from Humberside Police, said: "We are aware that many cyclists are fitting cameras on to their cycles, however at this time it is unclear how much this will support police investigations.
"I would advise cyclists looking at investing on their bikes and riding apparatus to invest in reflective clothing, cycle helmets, high visibility lights and decent D-locks to ensure their safety and the security of their property."


----------



## growingvegetables (4 Jan 2012)

BSRU said:


> Do you mean have a dedicated YouTube channel managed by someone, where videos which are deemed worthy by a group of reviewers are then favourited on that channel?





MrHappyCyclist said:


> That would be one way to do it, but it would be limited to YouTube videos then.


A blog to which the panel of reviewers all had editing access? That at least could have videos from Vimeo and other sources? And the tagging?

Aye - and maybe focus on one message? +1 for "If only we had Roadsafe up here."



MrHappyCyclist said:


> I think the editorial group thing is the best way to go at the moment, as you say, and possibly some tags could come out of that.


 
+1

"Dangerous" - learning from the fair few videos now under my belt, I think I've now got a fairish "feel" for how
- the guys in West Yorkshire Police measure the risk of an incident - above a certain level, and they write and deliver letter by hand, and take the opportunity for a "wee conversation" about safe driving;
- the management at First Leeds assess a bus driving incident - above a certain level, the driver is taken off the road for extra training.

Just throwing that in as possibly one way of helping define "#dangerous"?


----------



## dawesome (4 Jan 2012)

Does anyone invest ON bikes? rather strange comments, anyway.


----------



## Riding in Circles (4 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Chief Inspector David Rawding, from Humberside Police, said:
> "I would advise cyclists looking at investing on their bikes and riding apparatus to invest in decent D-locks to ensure their safety and the security of their property."


 
Is he saying it is ok to beat dangerous drivers with a D-Lock??


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)

Catrike UK said:


> Is he saying it is ok to beat dangerous drivers with a D-Lock??


That is how i see it.


----------



## marafi (4 Jan 2012)

Catrike UK said:


> Is he saying it is ok to beat dangerous drivers with a D-Lock??


Now would that not be a crime if a cyclist did that. Camera are a good way to flim things people do not want to notice, that it is happening in their eye. The best phase the 'elephant in the room'.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Jan 2012)

Where do I buy those glasses from-they are ace.


----------



## BSRU (4 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> Where do I buy those glasses from-they are ace.


I have a pair of those glasses, although sun glasses, I bought about two years ago for £30.
The video quality seems similar to my old one's, so £170 sounds very steep, in my opinion.


----------



## mr_hippo (4 Jan 2012)

Catrike UK said:


> Is he saying it is ok to beat dangerous drivers with a D-Lock??


 
Is English your mother tongue? If it is, are you trying, and failing very badly, to be witty?

Read the quote again, especially the last 6 words.

"I would advise cyclists looking at investing on their bikes and riding apparatus to invest in reflective clothing, cycle helmets, high visibility lights and decent D-locks to ensure their safety *and the security of their property*."


----------



## Riding in Circles (4 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Is English your mother tongue? If it is, are you trying, and failing very badly, to be witty?
> 
> Read the quote again, especially the last 6 words.
> 
> "I would advise cyclists looking at investing on their bikes and riding apparatus to invest in reflective clothing, cycle helmets, high visibility lights and decent D-locks to ensure their safety *and the security of their property*."


Thanks, me no speaky goody engrish.


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Is English your mother tongue? If it is, are you trying, and failing very badly, to be witty?
> 
> Read the quote again, especially the last 6 words.
> 
> "I would advise cyclists looking at investing on their bikes and riding apparatus to invest in reflective clothing, cycle helmets, high visibility lights and decent D-locks to ensure their safety *and the security of their property*."


You no get a joke?


----------



## Hip Priest (4 Jan 2012)

I apologise if this has already been asked, but has there ever been a case of one driver appearing in multiple videos?


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)

BSRU said:


> I have a pair of those glasses, although sun glasses, I bought about two years ago for £30.
> The video quality seems similar to my old one's, so £170 sounds very steep, in my opinion.


He paid £170 for that? Quality isn't great and it's dropping frames regularly.


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> I apologise if this has already been asked, but has there ever been a case of one driver appearing in multiple videos?


Yes


----------



## Hip Priest (4 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Yes


 
I'm surprised. Do you have a link to the footage in question?


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> I'm surprised. Do you have a link to the footage in question?


 


There are others as well.


----------



## goo_mason (4 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Is English your mother tongue? If it is, are you trying, and failing very badly, to be witty?
> 
> Read the quote again, especially the last 6 words.
> 
> "I would advise cyclists looking at investing on their bikes and riding apparatus to invest in reflective clothing, cycle helmets, high visibility lights and decent D-locks to ensure their safety *and the security of their property*."


 
Major sense of humour failure, there! Catrike's post made me smile when I read it at lunchtime - I found it very witty indeed


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> There are others as well.



Im trying to find the significance, of the second clip gaz maybe Im just being thick ?


----------



## growingvegetables (4 Jan 2012)

and before


and after


edited to add - people have used the phrase "name and shame" quite often. I knew the guy had been visited with a letter about his driving - but I'd absolutely no idea who he was. Seems fair to say thank you ... in some way?


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1667836, member: 3143"]I thought you'd post that, technically that would not appear in the grand scheme of things because the second is not an incident.

No doubt though another notch on the ''educating'' bed post and ''Yer gonna be on Youtube.'' Ad Nauseum. [/quote]
Considering the distance that mikey does and the amount of cars that he passes and gets passed by each day. It's pretty impressive that he even sees the same car twice on film. It probably helps that it is a rare car and a unique numberplate (DUH!!).


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Im trying to find the significance, of the second clip gaz maybe Im just being thick ?


It shows that the system works. The drivers attitude and driving in the first video was poor, but in the second it was just fine.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> It shows that the system works. The drivers attitude and driving in the first video was poor, but in the second it was just fine.


 I thought the question was multiple offences being filmed ?


----------



## P_Dalen (4 Jan 2012)

goo_mason said:


> Major sense of humour failure, there! Catrike's post made me smile when I read it at lunchtime - I found it very witty indeed


English is _not_ my mother tongue, but I found it humorous, too...


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (4 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> It shows that the system works. The drivers attitude and driving in the first video was poor, but in the second it was just fine.


Not much evidence of "Rage against helmet cammers" from the driver who had previously been taped! I thought , from the vehemence that was shown last week , that this was almost inevitable?


----------



## Hip Priest (4 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I thought the question was multiple offences being filmed ?


 
Yes, I meant multiple instances of bad driving filmed by separate cameras. The sort of thing BentMikey is hoping to pick up with this campaign. I perhaps didn't word my request well. Thanks to GV and Gaz for the examples anyway, I enjoyed them.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Not much evidence of "Rage against helmet cammers" from the driver who had previously been taped! I thought , from the vehemence that was shown last week , that this was almost inevitable?


Why would you think that ?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (4 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Why would you think that ?


 
Because of the vehemence that was shown last week...


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Because of the vehemence that was shown last week...


Sure it was the same driver ?


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> Yes, I meant multiple instances of bad driving filmed by separate cameras. The sort of thing BentMikey is hoping to pick up with this campaign. I perhaps didn't word my request well. Thanks to GV and Gaz for the examples anyway, I enjoyed them.


 Nothing wrong with the wording. The tack was changed


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)




----------



## Hip Priest (4 Jan 2012)

Wow. That fella is clearly a persistant danger to those around him. Definitely gives weight to Mikey's suggestion in the OP.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


>



Come off it gaz ! The the guy moves out of his lane into the path of traffic with no shoulder check, poor cycling. In the second you are far to close to the motorcyclist in front. Talk about pot...kettle.


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> Wow. That fella is clearly a persistant danger to those around him. Definitely gives weight to Mikey's suggestion in the OP.


 
Even with the number of cars on the road and the number of road users using cameras. I think it will be rare to see the same vehicle twice doing something careless/dangerous/silly.


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Come off it gaz ! The the guy moves out of his lane into the path of traffic with no shoulder check, poor cycling. In the second you are far to close to the motorcyclist in front. Talk about pot...kettle.


Indeed, can't argue with either of those points. Well apart from the fact that you called the other cyclist a guy, when clearly it is a girl. come on!

Aye, could have been further back but I think at the point you are referring to the traffic is rather slow and i'm not directly behind it. Not exactly dangerous.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

Ooops sorry Mrs....or miss


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Indeed, can't argue with either of those points. Well apart from the fact that you called the other cyclist a guy, when clearly it is a girl. come on!
> 
> Aye, could have been further back but I think at the point you are referring to the traffic is rather slow and i'm not directly behind it. Not exactly dangerous.


Maybe, maybe not, but the motorcyclist was certainly aware of your being there hence the constant shoulder checking.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Jan 2012)

No. 2 incident above really irks me when that kind of thing happens. It's simple impatience.

A couple of points:

i) Father of Luke - a little unfair to criticise Gaz on his cycling in that scenario. He is close, but isn't being agressive and he will be the one who comes off worse as a result of his choice to ride where he did.

ii) I remember when incident number 1 was posted here. I seem to recall there was a lot of people outting the cyclist primarilarly at fault. I'm not convinced, but it does go to show that even with a camera, things aren't clear cut. Furthermore, could the reaction of the cyclists on the driver further in the clip have contributed to the driver being a d1ck in vid 2. One could draw the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that the cyclists ganged up on the driver and come to a conclusion that cyclists are an agressive bunch, hence the driver's low opinion of cyclists?

iii) Gaz-if it is unlikely that a driver will be caught on 2 videos, what is the point of this youtube channel?


----------



## Origamist (4 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1667849, member: 3143"]Never use hand signals that are not in and accepted by the HC. It confuses people.[/quote]

What about these hand signals


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> No. 2 incident above really irks me when that kind of thing happens. It's simple impatience.
> 
> A couple of points:
> 
> ...


400Bhp Im never unfair to gaz, I think he knows that. He puts his head up to be shot at,and good on him for that. I dont agree with him on a lot of things, but he believes in what he does and goes about it in the right way IMO. he s not slow in accepting observations and comments, its just a shame some of the other road warriors on here don t take a leaf out of his book. By the way Im always fair


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)

I think that we can all strive to improve our own cycling and I am more than willing to accept that I make mistakes.
Luckily I can learn from them and improve


----------



## Norm (4 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> ii) I remember when incident number 1 was posted here. I seem to recall there was a lot of people outting the cyclist primarilarly at fault. I'm not convinced, but it does go to show that even with a camera, things aren't clear cut. Furthermore, could the reaction of the cyclists on the driver further in the clip have contributed to the driver being a d1ck in vid 2. One could draw the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that the cyclists ganged up on the driver and come to a conclusion that cyclists are an agressive bunch, hence the driver's low opinion of cyclists?


 But... but... but... 

If that is correct, that would mean that you believe it is possible that someone gets pissed off with cyclist A and takes it out on cyclist B, just because he / she is a cyclist. So that second video could be taken to be proof of the concerns that some people have about HCW's.


----------



## gaz (4 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> its just a shame some of the other road warriors on here


Hold on, are you calling me a road warrior?  on the


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

Diverting the attention of another road user can be a recipe for disaster !


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Hold on, are you calling me a road warrior?  on the


In the nicest possible way


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Jan 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> I apologise if this has already been asked, but has there ever been a case of one driver appearing in multiple videos?


See my post number 189 (3rd paragraph) and Mikey's reply number 190.

When I ran my program against YouTube, there were some, but very few and far between.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I thought the question was multiple offences being filmed ?


Some of the results that were spat out by my program:

MX58 DWL - MX58DWL:
MX58DWL - First Bus Cuts Me Up (MrGrumpycyclist, 2011-11-21T21:16:56.000Z)
37380 - MX58DWL - First Bus: One Bad Apple (MrGrumpycyclist, 2011-08-30T21:33:52.000Z)
37380 - MX58DWL - First Bus Really Good Pass (MrGrumpycyclist, 2011-08-30T19:11:19.000Z)

KX59 YNY - KX59YNY:
KX59YNY - Must Get Past The Cyclist (MrGrumpycyclist, 2011-11-21T20:59:08.000Z)
KX59YNY - Squeezes Through At Speed (MrGrumpycyclist, 2011-09-13T08:42:30.000Z)

RT03 BEX - RT03BEX:
RT03BEX - Close Pass (MrGrumpycyclist, 2011-02-22T09:33:20.000Z)
RT03BEX - Close Pass At A Roundabout (MrGrumpycyclist, 2011-08-23T07:57:11.000Z)

R69 LPF - R69LPF:
R69LPF - Close pass and potentially aggressive driver (gaz545, 2010-11-16T21:33:35.000Z)
R69LPF - Tailgating (gaz545, 2011-03-27T17:02:10.000Z)

It hasn't found any repeats of the same car with different cyclists. (Though I haven't run it against many channels.)

I know that some were on the same commute, including the bus that did a bad pass and a good one.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

Norm said:


> But... but... but...
> 
> If that is correct, that would mean that you believe it is possible that someone gets pissed off with cyclist A and takes it out on cyclist B, just because he / she is a cyclist. So that second video could be taken to be proof of the concerns that some people have about HCW's.


Please, language, Norm ! We are dealing with sensitive souls here.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Jan 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Some of the results that were spat out by my program:
> 
> MX58 DWL - MX58DWL:
> MX58DWL - First Bus Cuts Me Up (MrGrumpycyclist, 2011-11-21T21:16:56.000Z)
> ...


Well, we will just have to take your word on the examples being offences won t we.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Jan 2012)

Norm said:


> But... but... but...
> 
> If that is correct, that would mean that you believe it is possible that someone gets pissed off with cyclist A and takes it out on cyclist B, just because he / she is a cyclist. So that second video could be taken to be proof of the concerns that some people have about HCW's.


 
Absolutely.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Well, we will just have to take your word on the examples being offences won t we.


No, you can easily check if you want to. (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=RT03BEX)

Oh, and they _were_ offences because I found them bl**dy offensive.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> 400Bhp Im never unfair to gaz, I think he knows that. He puts his head up to be shot at,and good on him for that. I dont agree with him on a lot of things, but he believes in what he does and goes about it in the right way IMO. he s not slow in accepting observations and comments, its just a shame some of the other road warriors on here don t take a leaf out of his book. By the way Im always fair


 
Fair point boss


----------



## Norm (4 Jan 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> No, you can easily check if you want to. (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=RT03BEX)
> 
> Oh, and they _were_ offences because I found them bl**dy offensive.


The second one, approaching the roundabout, was crap but the first didn't look like an issue to me. I'd have been more worried about the silver Megane (WC53 FHR?) who went past in front of the Mini, as they passed you at the entrance to a road coming in from your right. If a car had been coming out of that road and turning left, it could have been messy. There is a significant risk coming from that Megane, IMO, and it's ironic that wasn't commented.


----------



## gb155 (4 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Oh, and I'm not keen on opinions such as rude tw@t and that sort of thing going into videos. I think we'll have far more impact if we're calm and matter of fact in descriptions. Same goes for speaking to motons, but then best practice is not to speak to them at all.




Agreed 110% mate

I'm about to get back into helmet camming so count me in !


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (5 Jan 2012)

Norm said:


> The second one, approaching the roundabout, was crap but the first didn't look like an issue to me. I'd have been more worried about the silver Megane (WC53 FHR?) who went past in front of the Mini, as they passed you at the entrance to a road coming in from your right. If a car had been coming out of that road and turning left, it could have been messy. There is a significant risk coming from that Megane, IMO, and it's ironic that wasn't commented.


Well, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. The Megane was no problem; they gave me plenty of space and there was no problem with the side road as you can see quite a way down it and there weren't any vehicles in sight. The mini, on the other hand, passed far too close, even though there was plenty of room to move further out without even encroaching on the oncoming lane.

However, notwithstanding my earlier comments about their being few and far between, this pair of videos does show the value of identifying repeat "offenders". I don't think the first incident alone warrants any further action, but the two incidents taken together show a pattern of impatient, inconsiderate driving and disregard for other people's safety that ought to be dealt with.


----------



## lukesdad (5 Jan 2012)

I ll repeat the same question I asked LYB earlier are you certain they are the same driver ?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (5 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I ll repeat the same question I asked LYB earlier are you certain they are the same driver ?


Same (private) car, same road, same time of day, same impatient disregard for safety: very likely the same driver. For the buses: no, it could well be a different driver.


----------



## BentMikey (5 Jan 2012)

678CR is another one, and I'm sure there are more I recall seeing.

LOL on the Subaru driver totally destroying the point that a filmed driver will get angry and misbehave around cyclists after being outed on youtube.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> 678CR is another one, and I'm sure there are more I recall seeing.
> 
> LOL on the Subaru driver totally destroying the point that a filmed driver will get angry and misbehave around cyclists after being outed on youtube.


 
Was it Youtube that changed his driving (on this particular occasion) then? Did you have a chat?


----------



## Origamist (5 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> Was it Youtube that changed his driving (on this particular occasion) then? Did you have a chat?


 
I believe the police also had words.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Jan 2012)

Also?


----------



## Jezston (5 Jan 2012)

It's nice that this thread seems to have gone back on track somewhat.

Thoughts about the system of referencing videos:


*Method*

(Mr Happy Cyclist - please comment on the practicality of this in relation to how your system worked!)

1. Some kind of 'group' is set up, either via YouTube subscription or whatever is practical, which submitters have to join and/or are invited to.
2. When a member encounters an incident, they post it online with whatever tags are required for an automated script to grab the reg details from. E.g. they need to put "RD=" or something before the plate so the bot can identify it, unless MHC's script is cleverer than that!
3. This gets added to some list hidden away somewhere.
4. If the reg the member has entered matches one already on the list, they and the related submitters are alerted to each other's incidents in some way.
5. Perhaps also the reg can be searched somehow to see if existing submissions exist before a member needs to submit a new one, although there may be additional privacy implications there.


*Discussion & Action*

_"Who decides what's dangerous or not?"_

My opinion? Those submitting the videos, then ultimately the Police. 

If someone puts a new video up (perhaps they could search the database on the reg before submitting?), and then gets an alert saying someone else already has an incident with that reg plate on their channel, they can look at it. If they feel the other incident isn't a big deal or it turns out to be different car or suchlike, and they don't think their own video is that bad, they can just leave it. If they think that their incident was bad enough to be worth reporting to police, this additional video could support their case.

Then, they can report it to the police should they wish, and it's up to the police to ultimately decide if the incident is bad enough. The viewing officer might decide that one such incident on it's own isn't worth persuing, but several instances of bad driving (or even bad cycling) warrant action.

I don't think such decision making should be down to the community - but there's no reason why discussion shouldn't take place which can affect the submitters decision whether to proceed or not.

But as we've seen from this thread, like shouting abuse at drivers in the street - hurling abuse at each other isn't the most constructive method to get your points accepted. It just puts people on the defensive and less willing and likely to take on board your points, or even engage with others at all, even if those points may be legitimate. If you've got something to say, and you think it would be genuinely useful, then say it politely and respectfully and you'll be more likely to be taken seriously. And I'm not saying any of that doesn't apply to me.

Thoughts?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (5 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> It's nice that this thread seems to have gone back on track somewhat.
> Thoughts about the system of referencing videos:
> <snip>


As far as my script is concerned, it is indeed a bit cleverer than that (even if I do say so myself). It scrapes the VRNs from the titles of all the videos in a channel, and will detect and capture any of the following formats:
"AAAnnnA" "AAAnnA" "AAAnA" "AnnnAAA" "AnnAAA" "AnAAA" "AAnnAAA" "AAA#nnnA" "AAA#nnA" "AAA#nA" "Annn#AAA" "Ann#AAA" "An#AAA" "AAnn#AAA"
(where A is an upper case letter, n is a number and # is a space)
with appropriate restrictions on which letters and numbers are allowed in each position of each format. There are very few false positives, but it misses those that have non-standard VRNs; for example, it missed Mikey's 678CR one, which is a weird personal number plate. The weird ones could well be handled by a tag or prefix as you suggest. It then searches the whole of YouTube for each of the VRNs listed, both with and without the spaces, and displays the ones that have the registration number in the title.

However, I developed the script for fun because I enjoy writing programs and playing with public APIs, and whilst it works well ("does the job right"), I'm not convinced that it currently is of much use ("does the right job"). As I said before, videos of repeat offenders are currently few and far between, so the benefit is not clear. If Mikey is right and the use of cameras (and posting) becomes very common, then that may change, but right now hardly seems worth it (though I'm happy to contribute the code and help).

Perhaps we could come back to that idea as a support mechanism for people who want to make official complaints some time in the future. However, there is another point in that context regarding the usefulness of the script. The benefit of the script is just that it can go through the whole history of a channel and check for other videos featuring the same vehicle for all of them (often hundreds). For an individual who wishes to check whether a particular vehicle has been featured before, it is easy just to do a search on YouTube (which uses the Google search engine). So again, I'm not sure of the benefit.

Regarding the decision on whether to report a particular incident to the police (or Roadsafe for those lucky enough to have it or similar), it is up to the individual to decide that. I think the community aspect boils down to reaching some common understanding of which incidents are worth reporting and which are not, and that could be useful given the amount of disagreement on here. Of course, that is more to do with whether the complainant is likely to get anywhere than whether the incident itself has merit, and sharing experience of that could be (is already?) useful.

The other way in which videos could be useful is their use for campaigning. I think the key issue right now with the effectiveness of videos for this is that there are far too many of them and, whilst huge numbers of these do show bad and dangerous driving, most of them do not make an impact on the viewer. The comments in this thread whenever videos have been linked to illustrates this very well. Remember, this is not about whether the incident portrayed was worthy of posting, it is about whether it has sufficient impact to be useful for campaigning purposes. That is where gathering together a collection of relatively high impact videos from different cyclists could by useful and IMO is where we might usefully focus our attention. The process you outlined could be useful as a basis for that.

(But these are my opinions, of course.)


----------



## Origamist (5 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> Also?


 
Fill yer boots:

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/bentmikey-and-a-subaru-driver.37725/


----------



## Jezston (5 Jan 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> For an individual who wishes to check whether a particular vehicle has been featured before, it is easy just to do a search on YouTube (which uses the Google search engine). So again, I'm not sure of the benefit.


 
Yeah that's kind of a serious point 

But I think there's still benefits to be had, such as an alert if someone else has. As has been said, cameras are rare and matches even rarer. But personal cameras - amongst all forms of transport - are becoming increasingly common, and so matches are becoming more likely.


----------



## lukesdad (5 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> 678CR is another one, and I'm sure there are more I recall seeing.
> 
> LOL on the Subaru driver totally destroying the point that a filmed driver will get angry and misbehave around cyclists after being outed on youtube.


Im not so sure it does, the second clip could have easily been somone else driving, the style being so different, for example his spouse ?


----------



## Bicycle (5 Jan 2012)

When I realised what a fascination this Helmet Cam thing was with a certain type of cyclist, I searched all my recent registration plates on YouTube and Google.

I was jolly relieved to find none of them. This suggests (or seems to confirm) that I am the excellent and considerate driver I've always thought I must be.

I might add a little black gaffer tape to one of the letters, just to make sure I continue to be an excellent and 'un-youTubed' driver.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Jan 2012)

Origamist said:


> Fill yer boots:
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/bentmikey-and-a-subaru-driver.37725/


 
I CBA to read all that


----------



## 400bhp (5 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> LOL on the Subaru driver totally destroying the point that a filmed driver will get angry and misbehave around cyclists after being outed on youtube.


 
Seeing as I CBA to read the thread attached to this, then I'll make my points:

i) Firstly, I'm not sure anyone has said that a filmed driver will get angry and misbehave around cyclists after being "outed" on Youtube? My original point was a different one.

ii) One incident where you believe that a driver changed his attitude in a positive way can't be extrapolated to all other incidents.

iii) Regarding the nice second pass, you appear to be making several assumptions that:a) it's the same driver, b)the change in driving was the sole result of the incident being on Youtube. Indeed, pass number 2 occured without the need to create this Google group.


----------



## mr_hippo (6 Jan 2012)

WOIW!!! Your own youtube channel and blog but have you thought of a name for it yet?
How about *PINCHPOINTS?*
*P*etty *I*ncompetent *N*umpty *C*yclons w*H*ose *P*ointless *O*pinions *I*ntend *N*aming *T*hen *S*haming

Now you have to entice people to post, what about a reward system? Something like this:-

Anything that looks like a close pass - 1 point
As above but with swearing - 2 points
Screaming at passenger or driver - 3 points
2 pages or more on this forum or 10 comments on youtube - 3 points
Driver gets out of car - 4 points
5 pages or more on this forum or 30 comments on youtube - 7 points
If another member suggests it was a deliberate attack - 8 points
If another member suggests an upgrade to attempted ABH or GBH - 10 points
If another member suggests an upgrade to attempted murder- 25 points

Points can also be deducted:-
Daring to suggest that it may be your fault -2 points
Admitting it was your fault -5 points
Not posting an agreeable reply -7 points
Failure to post at least 1 non-incident a month -10 poilnt
No videos on this forum or youtube for 6 months - loss of all points, 6 months ban and re-education


----------



## lukesdad (6 Jan 2012)

Jezston this is one thread that has not gone off track. Opinions have been given which have been countered. Now, if you mean the wind went against you and you waited for your mates to fight back before returning. Why don t you say so ?


----------



## Jezston (6 Jan 2012)

Ugh. What are you on about now LD? Do you think you could try being a little less unpleasant for a while?


----------



## gb155 (13 Jan 2012)

2 pro drivers show us how it's done :0)


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEeVCKmXX78&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## Hip Priest (13 Jan 2012)

Jeez. Talking on a phone is bad enough, but texting?! I'd whip their licences away in a shot.


----------



## gb155 (13 Jan 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> Jeez. Talking on a phone is bad enough, but texting?! I'd whip their licences away in a shot.



Sadly I didn't get the plates - assumed the camera would pick it up so didn't shout it out


----------



## Bicycle (13 Jan 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> Jeez. Talking on a phone is bad enough, .



Indeed! It's bloody impossible. With predictive, you can end up writing nonsense if the traffic is bad...


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2012)

I.A. Harris and Sons Ltd - just spotted that there's another one of those videos. Manually cross-linked now.


----------



## mr_hippo (14 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Sadly I didn't get the plates - assumed the camera would pick it up so didn't shout it out


Have you ever thought about concentratimg on what you are doing?


----------



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Have you ever thought about concentratimg on what you are doing?


 

Was I not ?


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Was I not ?


 
LOL, and you even question yourself based on a mrhippo comment? Maybe if Gaz or someone else said something, that'd be worth thinking about. Sorry mrhippo, but your opinions on roadcraft in the past have been almost uniformly poor, at least IMO.

If you want to have a laugh go look at mrhippo's channel on YouTube, and listen to some of his narration.


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, and you even question yourself based on a mrhippo comment? Maybe if Gaz or someone else said something, that'd be worth thinking about. Sorry mrhippo, but your opinions on roadcraft in the past have been almost uniformly poor, at least IMO.
> 
> If you want to have a laugh go look at mrhippo's channel on YouTube, and listen to some of his narration.


Oooh channel wars this should be fun


----------



## Jezston (14 Jan 2012)

I think Mr Hippo's only repeating point seems to be "I don't like people putting up videos of poor driving and I'm going to slag off anyone that does".


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> I think Mr Hippo's only repeating point seems to be "I don't like people putting up videos of poor driving and I'm going to slag off anyone that does".


 I think you ll find he also comments on video s of poor riding too.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2012)

No, it's just the quality of his comments have been so consistently poor that he's just not worth reading any more.


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> No, it's just the quality of his comments have been so consistently poor that he's just not worth reading any more.


 So why do you read them ?


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> No, it's just the quality of his comments have been so consistently poor that he's just not worth reading any more.


 His comments are actually very sensible.


----------



## ianrauk (14 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> So why do you read them ?


 

People do have the option to put members on an ignore list. But for some reason they usually don't. They like to read what they don't like from whom they don't like so to give them an excuse to throw their toys.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, and you even question yourself based on a mrhippo comment? Maybe if Gaz or someone else said something, that'd be worth thinking about. Sorry mrhippo, but your opinions on roadcraft in the past have been almost uniformly poor, at least IMO.
> 
> If you want to have a laugh go look at mrhippo's channel on YouTube, and listen to some of his narration.


 Is trying to ridicule someones talking a good thing?


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

ianrauk said:


> People do have the option to put members on an ignore list. But for some reason they usually don't. They like to read what they don't like from whom they don't like so to give them an excuse to throw their toys.


That is a very good point , Iv also noticed that anyone" bent "doesnt like, he picks or tries to call.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2012)

I think you'll find I was quoting and responding to Gaz. DKUATB.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, and you even question yourself based on a mrhippo comment? Maybe if Gaz or someone else said something, that'd be worth thinking about. Sorry mrhippo, but your opinions on roadcraft in the past have been almost uniformly poor, at least IMO.
> 
> If you want to have a laugh go look at mrhippo's channel on YouTube, and listen to some of his narration.


 
No, Looks like an attempt to get others to join in too.

dkuatb ? dont know what that means?


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> dkuatb ? dont know what that means?


Do Keep Up At the Back




col said:


> His comments are actually very sensible.


How is the below comment sensible in relation to the post he was replying to?


mr_hippo said:


> Have you ever thought about concentratimg on what you are doing?


 
Perhaps his comments are sometimes sensible, but they are certainly not all sensible (just like the rest of us).


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Do Keep Up At the Back
> 
> 
> 
> How is the below comment sensible in relation to the post he was replying to?


 Like us all there are some personal opinion, but in general very sensible.


----------



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, and you even question yourself based on a mrhippo comment? Maybe if Gaz or someone else said something, that'd be worth thinking about. Sorry mrhippo, but your opinions on roadcraft in the past have been almost uniformly poor, at least IMO.
> 
> If you want to have a laugh go look at mrhippo's channel on YouTube, and listen to some of his narration.




Mr H seems to be acting the knobber here tbh but I wanted him to explain why he felt the need to suggest I pay attention


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Do Keep Up At the Back
> 
> Do speak in understandable words, unless its because you couldnt be bothered to type, YFW
> 
> ...


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Like us all there are some personal opinion, but in general very sensible.


So his comment wasn't sensible?


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> 2 pro drivers show us how it's done :0)
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEeVCKmXX78&feature=youtube_gdata_player



Blimey you have good eyesight, first looks like he is scratching his head, the second, couldnt make out a thing.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> So his comment wasn't sensible?


 Is that what you think?


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> Jeez. Talking on a phone is bad enough, but texting?! I'd whip their licences away in a shot.


 If you could show me the phones they were doing this on, i would agree.


----------



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Blimey you have good eyesight, first looks like he is scratching his head, the second, couldnt make out a thing.




The first One is as clear as day when you full screen the video, was even more do in real life too

The second is much more clear on the original video file and again in real life 

But hey ho


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> The first One is as clear as day when you full screen the video, was even more do in real life too
> 
> The second is much more clear on the original video file and again in real life
> 
> But hey ho


 Iv viewed them full screen, and still dont see a phone, nothing on the second either. Im afraid you couldnt convict on this vid.


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Mr H seems to be acting the knobber here tbh but I wanted him to explain why he felt the need to suggest I pay attention


Point of order ! if you want to be considered a serious cyclist its nobber OK !


----------



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Point of order ! if you want to be considered a serious cyclist its nobber OK !




Sorry LD


----------



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Iv viewed them full screen, and still dont see a phone, nothing on the second either. Im afraid you couldnt convict on this vid.




The reg plate isn't clear either - so what's your point ? I'm not asking for a conviction


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> The reg plate isn't clear either - so what's your point ? I'm not asking for a conviction


 My point is this doesnt show or prove anything. So what was YOUR point of showing it and claiming something that isnt evident ?


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Sorry LD


Apology accepted


----------



## stowie (14 Jan 2012)

Mobile phone usage doesn't show up on camera very well, especially if the vehicle is moving - I guess the glass reflections cause problems even if we can see it perfectly. 

Was nearly hit today by a car drifting into the cycle lane - the driver was texting and steering with his knees. Later on the driver in front of me at the lights was busy talking into his handheld and set off at the light change by steering inbetween gear changes with one hand. This was in the space of a cycle trip of 2 miles to the shops. Handheld Mobile use is utterly endemic these days. With bluetooth sets costing less than £20 there is absolutely no excuse.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

stowie said:


> Mobile phone usage doesn't show up on camera very well, especially if the vehicle is moving - I guess the glass reflections cause problems even if we can see it perfectly.
> 
> Was nearly hit today by a car drifting into the cycle lane - the driver was texting and steering with his knees. Later on the driver in front of me at the lights was busy talking into his handheld and set off at the light change by steering inbetween gear changes with one hand. This was in the space of a cycle trip of 2 miles to the shops. Handheld Mobile use is utterly endemic these days. With bluetooth sets costing less than £20 there is absolutely no excuse.


 I agree with take their licence away, BUT we have to be able to see the phone clearly. In that vid if anyone can enlarge the image to show a phone I would be very surprised.


----------



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> My point is this doesnt show or prove anything. So what was YOUR point of showing it and claiming something that isnt evident ?




Van one is CLEAR 

Van 2- fair nuff


----------



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Apology accepted


thank you sir


----------



## mr_hippo (14 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Mr H seems to be acting the knobber here tbh but I wanted him to explain why he felt the need to suggest I pay attention


Comcentrate on what you are doing not on what others might be doing.So you think that one driver was on the phone and one was textung - how did that affect you?


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Van one is CLEAR
> 
> Van 2- fair nuff


 Ok enlarge the pic, I couldnt see a phone in one, just a hand on his head. I dont believe you will be able to show a phone no matter how large the pic is.


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Comcentrate on what you are doing not on what others might be doing.So you think that one driver was on the phone and one was textung - how did that affect you?


How did him looking at oncoming traffic and noticing two drivers who where on their phones whilst he was waiting to turn right across their paths equate to him not concentrating?


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> How did him looking at oncoming traffic and noticing two drivers who where on their phones whilst he was waiting to turn right across their paths equate to him not concentrating?


 Objection, it hasnt yet been shown that there were phones in use.


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Comcentrate on what you are doing not on what others might be doing.So you think that one driver was on the phone and one was textung - how did that affect you?


This would depend on the assumption being made in actual time or viewing the vid ?


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Objection, it hasnt yet been shown that there were phones in use.


So if there aren't phones, does that mean he wasn't concentrating enough on what the drivers where holding and as such was concentrating more on the traffic and when he can turn which as a result proves Mr H's point more absurd.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> So if there aren't phones, does that mean he wasn't concentrating enough on what the drivers where holding and as such was concentrating more on the traffic and when he can turn which as a result proves Mr H's point more absurd.


 Im not sure what that means, but can you see the phones in question?


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> So if there aren't phones, does that mean he wasn't concentrating enough on what the drivers where holding and as such was concentrating more on the traffic and when he can turn which as a result proves Mr H's point more absurd.


Ill repeat where is the assumption made ?


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Ill repeat where is the assumption made ?


 Ere wait your turn for cross examination


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Im not sure what that means, but can you see the phones in question?


Well you said that Mr H posts sensible comments, I'm showing by the use of logic, that he does not.


lukesdad said:


> Ill repeat where is the assumption made ?


The assumption of what exactly? I saw your post to Mr H but i'm not sure if you are referencing the drivers concentration or gaz's?
The concentration thing was first pointed out by Mr H and it was aimed at gaz.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Well you said that Mr H posts sensible comments, I'm showing by the use of logic, that he does not.
> 
> But can you see the phones??? I think not.
> 
> ...


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> .


I can't comment on your comment, as it is in my quote.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> I can't comment on your comment, as it is in my quote.


 Ok


----------



## classic33 (14 Jan 2012)

stowie said:


> Mobile phone usage doesn't show up on camera very well, especially if the vehicle is moving - I guess the glass reflections cause problems even if we can see it perfectly.


 
When they make a camera that can match the human eye it won't be very small or cheap.

Most windscreens are no longer a flat plate of glass, they curve at the sides. A polarizing filter may help, but it would take constant adjustment to keep the image clear. I'd rather keep my mind on riding the bike.

Caught a bus driver using a handheld mobile. I could see it in his hand, but the video didn't show it clear enough. He didn't seem bothered by the one fitted over him, which is the one that backed up the initial complaint to the company. So there is proof that they do work.

A complaint on its own may meet with no response on its own, even with the video. Put the video where the company can be seen in a bad light & I'd say you'll get an answer.


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Ok


ok i'll answer it. There is not a clear image of either driver holding a phone in my opinion.
By agreeing with you on that, it in turn proves my logic in post 324 correct which in turn proves your comment about Mr H making sensible posts incorrect.


----------



## Hip Priest (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> If you could show me the phones they were doing this on, i would agree.


 
I take you point onboard regarding these particular vids. I take Gaz's word for it, but you can't really make out the phones on the vid, so it wouldn't be admissable. I just meant that people who text whilst driving - in general -should lose their licences for a period of time


----------



## mr_hippo (14 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> If you want to have a laugh go look at mrhippo's channel on YouTube, and listen to some of his narration.


I like to keep my private life just that - private but you have decided to make a personal attack and I feel that I have to reply.
I grew up in a time when left-handedness was considered wrong and somewhat evil: the Latin word for left is sinister. Some parents would do anything in their power to convert their child to using the right hand. In my case it was constant beatings and at one point a broken arm - broken accidently on purpose.
The legacy of this abuse left me with two problems - deafness in the left ear and a bad stutter. If anyone remembers Patrick Campbell from Call My Bluff, he was a fluent speaker compared t5o me! 
I don't recall any bullying in primary school but endured 5 years of hell in grammar school - not only by pupils but also teachers and on one occassion by the whole school in morming assembly. The bullying and skitting also continued at home which is possibly why I took up cycling one my own with no one to mock me but this also had its moments.
I remember the summer of 62, cycling back from Southport and my back wheeel came loose, no problem, get the spanner out, tighten the nuts and be on my way. Someone, either Dad or one of my brothers had borrowed the spanner and never put it back. What would you have done? Possibly knocked on someone's door and ask to borrow a spanner. I could not so ended up having to push ny bike about 20 miles home
Did you watch The King's Speech? I was almost in tears watching that as it brought back so many memories especially the scene where the older brother was skitting the younger one - so very similar to my childhood but with both parents doing it as well as 5 siblings.
Do you know how many hours it takes me to narrate those videos? You can possibly do it in one take, I cannot. So, please, go ahead and continue to mock, You can say nothing to hurt me and say nothing that I have not heard before.


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Well you said that Mr H posts sensible comments, I'm showing by the use of logic, that he does not.
> 
> The assumption of what exactly? I saw your post to Mr H but i'm not sure if you are referencing the drivers concentration or gaz's?
> The concentration thing was first pointed out by Mr H and it was aimed at gaz.


I thought it was obvious it was the cyclists that was under scrutiny in the post, has it been a long week gaz ?


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> I take you point onboard regarding these particular vids. I take Gaz's word for it, but you can't really make out the phones on the vid, so it wouldn't be admissable. I just meant that people who text whilst driving - in general -should lose their licences for a period of time


 I think they should lose them for good, one mistake and your or my relative could be crippled or dead, for what? Ill be home in twenty minutes?


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> ok i'll answer it. There is not a clear image of either driver holding a phone in my opinion.
> By agreeing with you on that, it in turn proves my logic in post 324 correct which in turn proves your comment about Mr H making sensible posts incorrect.


 Actually it makes the opposite point, he was concentrating on seeing something that is difficult to see. Making Mr H quite right.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> I take you point onboard regarding these particular vids. I take Gaz's word for it, but you can't really make out the phones on the vid, so it wouldn't be admissable. I just meant that people who text whilst driving - in general -should lose their licences for a period of time


 I dont doubt The op on this, but just posting a vid that doesnt show whats claimed isnt right, as previous experience shows there can be dubious claims sometimes from some.


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I thought it was obvious it was the cyclists that was under scrutiny in the post, has it been a long week gaz ?


Yes a rather long one.



col said:


> Actually it makes the opposite point, he was concentrating on seeing something that is difficult to see. Making Mr H quite right.


He was hardly concentrating on it. He has it on video so there is no need to.
Back to one of my previous points, what should he be concentrating on if it is not oncoming traffic?


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Yes a rather long one.
> 
> 
> He was hardly concentrating on it. He has it on video so there is no need to.
> Back to one of my previous points, what should he be concentrating on if it is not oncoming traffic?


 I like your twist there, no one was saying he shouldnt be concentrating on traffic , but then you knew that didnt you


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> I like your twist there, no one was saying he shouldnt be concentrating on traffic , but then you knew that didnt you


Well we will only know that if Mr H explains what he was referring to when he first brought concentrating into the thread.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Well we will only know that if Mr H explains what he was referring to when he first brought concentrating into the thread.


 At a wild stab in the dark gaz, Id say dont concentrate on whats inside vehicles, more like outside .Thought it would be obvious really?


----------



## Hip Priest (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> I think they should lose them for good, one mistake and your or my relative could be crippled or dead, for what? Ill be home in twenty minutes?



I dunno. If they kill or seriously injure someone whilst texting, they should get a life ban. If they're caught texting otherwise, a 12 month ban should ensure that they never do it again and would deter others from doing it.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> I dunno. If they kill or seriously injure someone whilst texting, they should get a life ban. If they're caught texting otherwise, a 12 month ban should ensure that they never do it again and would deter others from doing it.


 Thats a more sensible approach Hip, but Id still have them banned for good if caught anyway.


----------



## stowie (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> At a wild stab in the dark gaz, Id say dont concentrate on whats inside vehicles, more like outside .Thought it would be obvious really?


 
I often look inside a vehicle, directly at a driver to gain eye contact. Especially if I think they might be concentrating on something else. Tends to be easy to spot those using a mobile - especially texters as they are holding the phone directly in front of them.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

stowie said:


> I often look inside a vehicle, directly at a driver to gain eye contact. Especially if I think they might be concentrating on something else. Tends to be easy to spot those using a mobile - especially texters as they are holding the phone directly in front of them.


 But not in the sense that your out to see if someone is doing something they shouldnt. Thats not the priority, or it could be for some. It seems some are becoming vigilante police , or trying to be. And its that that can make things unsafe for all. I agree sometimes its obvious a phone is being used, but we shouldnt be looking out for them, why would we, other than to post a film.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

1681254 said:


> Routine risk assessment.


 If you happen to spot one great, but id rather concentrate on the road with all my attention. thats the point.


----------



## stowie (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> But not in the sense that your out to see if someone is doing something they shouldnt. Thats not the priority, or it could be for some. It seems some are becoming vigilante police , or trying to be. And its that that can make things unsafe for all. I agree sometimes its obvious a phone is being used, but we shouldnt be looking out for them, why would we, other than to post a film.


 
In the video, I would be looking directly at drivers to see if anyone might slow to let me round. Would do the same in the car as well. As for making things unsafe for all, I cannot really see how. And I doubt there are many cyclists going around specifically looking for incidents. Frankly, there are enough drivers out there who can be moronic all by themselves without help from cyclists, video camera vigilantes or no. On occasion I use a camera on my cycle, but I don't really believe it makes much difference to riding styles. I have reported really bad driving to roadsafe before now but wouldn't really make a habit of it. I would do the same in my car.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

1681261 said:


> The road, why? It's the people on it who represent the bulk of the danger, apart from the occasional pothole.


 Here we go again eh


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

stowie said:


> In the video, I would be looking directly at drivers to see if anyone might slow to let me round. Would do the same in the car as well. As for making things unsafe for all, I cannot really see how. And I doubt there are many cyclists going around specifically looking for incidents. Frankly, there are enough drivers out there who can be moronic all by themselves without help from cyclists, video camera vigilantes or no. On occasion I use a camera on my cycle, but I don't really believe it makes much difference to riding styles. I have reported really bad driving to roadsafe before now but wouldn't really make a habit of it. I would do the same in my car.


 Looking directly at drivers is good practice, but Im not looking for what they may be doing aswell. Cam stars can be looking in the wrong direction trying to get footage , which could cause problems. And there are some who look for things, or even force things for more footage, take a look on youtube, plenty dubious incidents there. Any attention given to what is happening inside a vehicle detracts from attention on the road, this is not the safest thing to do.


----------



## mr_hippo (14 Jan 2012)

1681254 said:


> Routine risk assessment.


Just a quick reply before I get off cycling.
If you can see the driver then it is too late for risk assessment assumiing that you are travelling at a reasonable speed. You risk assessment should be based on what is happening a few hundred yards ahead of you and not what is in fromt of your nose - then it is far too late for risk assessment unless your reactions are faster than a speeding bullet


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

1681282 said:


> Maybe some people are capable of seeing more than other people.


 Im sure there are some who can take in more info than others, but it still not the best thing to do in my opinion.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

1681288 said:


> Nonsense, the car driver a few hundred yards away is not about to left hook you now is he?


 But I think you would agree, you need to look ahead too.


----------



## boydj (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Looking directly at drivers is good practice, but Im not looking for what they may be doing aswell. Cam stars can be looking in the wrong direction trying to get footage , which could cause problems. And there are some who look for things, or even force things for more footage, take a look on youtube, plenty dubious incidents there. Any attention given to what is happening inside a vehicle detracts from attention on the road, this is not the safest thing to )do.


I've never heard so much nonsense. If you are looking directly at a driver (and where else would you be looking if you are waiting to turn across an approaching vehicle) then you cannot help but see if the driver is using a hand-held phone.

This constant going on about cyclists trying to engineer 'situations' is just nonsensical. Most of the cammers on here are experienced cyclists with good technique for cycling in traffic. To suggest that they deliberately put themselves in danger defies logic - but logic is not a strong point with some of the motoring apologists on this site.


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Just a quick reply before I get off cycling.
> If you can see the driver then it is too late for risk assessment assumiing that you are travelling at a reasonable speed. You risk assessment should be based on what is happening a few hundred yards ahead of you and not what is in fromt of your nose - then it is far too late for risk assessment unless your reactions are faster than a speeding bullet


Whilst yes you need to read ahead of you a few hundred yards. You still need to read things that are only a few yards ahead of you, as situations change consistently on roads and whilst the side road was clear when you where 150 yards away from it, now when you are 30 yards away there is a car trying to pull out.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

boydj said:


> I've never heard so much nonsense. If you are looking directly at a driver (and where else would you be looking if you are waiting to turn across an approaching vehicle) then you cannot help but see if the driver is using a hand-held phone.
> 
> I agree
> 
> This constant going on about cyclists trying to engineer 'situations' is just nonsensical. Most of the cammers on here are experienced cyclists with good technique for cycling in traffic. To suggest that they deliberately put themselves in danger defies logic - but logic is not a strong point with some of the motoring apologists on this site.


 
I dissagree. As for motoring apologist, I just see what I percieve as fair and from both sides,not just from one. The simple fact that you say this phrase shows me you are heavily against anything motor , and probably dont see a simple mistake but instead see it as a dangerous thing done on purpose. And will defend the ones that do make mountains out of molehills for the sake of the cam.
Also your never heard so much nonsense opening ,indicates to me your general attitude. And coincidentally always seem to attack posts such as this. Without realising it, your probably one of the most dangerous things on the road, because of your attitude. Which puts all cyclists in the same light with other road users, the sooner you and your ilk realise this, the safer the roads will be for all.


----------



## CopperCyclist (15 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> WOIW!!! Your own youtube channel and blog but have you thought of a name for it yet?
> How about *PINCHPOINTS?*
> *P*etty *I*ncompetent *N*umpty *C*yclons w*H*ose *P*ointless *O*pinions *I*ntend *N*aming *T*hen *S*haming



That's quite clever actually. Except for the wHose bit. That could have been Having, and then you'd have to change Intend to Intending for it to roll off the tongue better.

Anyway, nonsense apart, I still like the whole idea, and I'm not even a helmet cammer! Here's a suggestion - how about a 'Gateway' site? There seem to be some very tech savvy people here, how difficult would it be to set up a website that sits in between the user and YouTube, so that you upload your video to the 'new' website, inputting the car reg into a form, along with the video upload. That webby could then store a database of the regs and whatever other info you wanted on the form, and then upload the video to YouTube.

I have no idea if this is technically possible, just chucking an idea into the mix. If it is, someone needs to rush off and get www.pinchpoints.com before MrHippo starts Internet squatting on it


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

Ok- guys n gals - what editing program out there will allow me to slow mo and zoom in onto the drivers in question ?

 thanks


----------



## mr_hippo (15 Jan 2012)

Apologies for my last post, done in haste just before I went out. You need to be aware of the situation all around you and not just what is in front of your nose; the situation is constantly changing. Take a look at the following non-cycling scenarios:-
1) Someone is walking towards you, suddenly they clench a fist and make a bee-line for you
2) Someone is standing close to you within arm's length and suddenly they clench a fist.
In the first situation, you can take avoiding action and not get punched but what can you do in the second one?
I have enlarged and enhanced the stills from the video, the first driver could be scratching his ear, holding his jaw or anything, thev second shows nothing. I have tried to upload but images are very blurry.
Yes, I have read posts on this forum where posters say that someone on a mobile and driving could be involved in an accident and kill one of your family so why are you not filming people who drop litter? After all, someone could drop a bag of unfinished chips on the pavement and your elderly mum or gran could slip on them, crack their skull open and die. Oh, I forgot, pedestrians do not have number plates so you cannot name and shame.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2012)

mrhippo, I never even noticed your stuttering, and wasn't referring to that. I was critiquing your videos in exactly the way you do to others, only less nastily and in less of a bullying fashion. If you were a little kinder to others on here, then perhaps many posters would be more willing to treat you the same way in return?


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Ok- guys n gals - what editing program out there will allow me to slow mo and zoom in onto the drivers in question ?
> 
> thanks


 
I use Premiere Elements. I'm not sure whether it's the best, but it seems good and is quite powerful, much more so than for my needs. I also use Quicktime Pro, as that lets me clip the relevant bit of video out of the long segments my camera produces very quickly, without re-rendering the video.


----------



## mr_hippo (15 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> mrhippo, I never even noticed your stuttering, and wasn't referring to that. I was critiquing your videos in exactly the way you do to others, only less nastily and in less of a bullying fashion. If you were a little kinder to others on here, then perhaps many posters would be more willing to treat you the same way in return?


Well what do you you call "If you want to have a laugh go look at mrhippo's channel on YouTube,* and listen to some of his narration*." if not a personal attack?
This is not the first time you have attacked someone's speaking ability is it? Remember https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/holding-cars-up.89878/post-1611487 and your comment "Oh, and this guy must be the winner for the worst voice ever in camera cyclists"
You do not like my videos, how about giving me some constructive criticism?


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Well what do you you call "If you want to have a laugh go look at mrhippo's channel on YouTube,* and listen to some of his narration*." if not a personal attack?
> This is not the first time you have attacked someone's speaking ability is it? Remember https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/holding-cars-up.89878/post-1611487 and your comment "Oh, and this guy must be the winner for the worst voice ever in camera cyclists"
> You do not like my videos, how about giving me some constructive criticism?




Your 2 comments to me we're not constructive and were a direct attack - now considering I've never crossed your path it seems a little rich that your upset because you feel someone else is doing the same to you as you do to others ?


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I use Premiere Elements. I'm not sure whether it's the best, but it seems good and is quite powerful, much more so than for my needs. I also use Quicktime Pro, as that lets me clip the relevant bit of video out of the long segments my camera produces very quickly, without re-rendering the video.




Thanks mate, I shall have a dabble later


----------



## mr_hippo (15 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Your 2 comments to me we're not constructive and were a direct attack - now considering I've never crossed your path it seems a little rich that your upset because you feel someone else is doing the same to you as you do to others ?


Are you referring to:-

Have you ever thought about concentrating on what you are doing?
Concentrate on what you are doing not on what others might be doing. So you think that one driver was on the phone and one was texting - how did that affect you?

The first comment was a direct question. How is that a direct attack?
The second was advice and, yes, concentrationj does involve observation and there was another direct question at the end of it.


----------



## BSRU (15 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Ok- guys n gals - what editing program out there will allow me to slow mo and zoom in onto the drivers in question ?
> 
> thanks


PowerDirector 8


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

BSRU said:


> PowerDirector 8


 

It does ?...I know it can slow-mo but zoom too? hummmm )


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (15 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Ok- guys n gals - what editing program out there will allow me to slow mo and zoom in onto the drivers in question ?
> thanks


I use OpenShot if I want to do anything more than just taking out a clip and posting it. If I don't want to do anything fancy, I just use Avidemux to clip out the bit I'm interested in. To focus on a detail, I would normally step through frame by frame in Avidemux, save a single frame as JPEG and then work on that with GIMP (Gnu Image Manipulation Program). All of these are free, open-source software.

Regarding zoom, of course you can't go to in closer than the resolution that's on the original video.


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I use Premiere Elements. I'm not sure whether it's the best, but it seems good and is quite powerful, much more so than for my needs. I also use Quicktime Pro, as that lets me clip the relevant bit of video out of the long segments my camera produces very quickly, without re-rendering the video.




I'm not thick but how the heck do you use it to zoom ? I'm in the right area but .....


----------



## mr_hippo (15 Jan 2012)

Snipping tool (in Windows Accessories), brightness enhanced using Microsoft Publisher


----------



## gaz (15 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Are you referring to:-
> 
> Have you ever thought about concentrating on what you are doing?
> Concentrate on what you are doing not on what others might be doing. So you think that one driver was on the phone and one was texting - how did that affect you?
> ...


Can you please explain your concentrating issue with regards to the video that gb155 posted.
He was looking at oncoming traffic as he wanted to turn right across them and he noted that two where potentially using the phone. How is that not concentrating on what he should be and what should he be concentrating on in that situation?



gb155 said:


> I'm not thick but how the heck do you use it to zoom ? I'm in the right area but .....


Look for something called ken burns.


----------



## BSRU (15 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> It does ?...I know it can slow-mo but zoom too? hummmm )


When you go to power tools for slow motion there is the option to crop the video, that is "zoom in".


----------



## Jezston (15 Jan 2012)

Could really do with some kind of polarizing filter for our cameras so we can see past those reflections on the glass.

I'm going to look into that once daylight returns to my commute.


----------



## gaz (15 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> Could really do with some kind of polarizing filter for our cameras so we can see past those reflections on the glass.
> 
> I'm going to look into that once daylight returns to my commute.


BSRU had one on his contour a while ago...


----------



## BSRU (15 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> BSRU had one on his contour a while ago...


I use one when both my commutes are in daylight, it makes a difference if you are at the right angle to the glass.
It does reduce the field of view available so you need to use 1080p otherwise the filter is visible in the video.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> I'm not thick but how the heck do you use it to zoom ? I'm in the right area but .....


 
Ah, select the clip in the timeline, then click on Edit, Effects, and Edit Effects. Then click on the Motion drop down, and you should be able to zoom the clip. You can point the zoom by dragging the picture around.


----------



## Jezston (15 Jan 2012)

BSRU said:


> I use one when both my commutes are in daylight, it makes a difference if you are at the right angle to the glass.
> It does reduce the field of view available so you need to use 1080p otherwise the filter is visible in the video.


 
What do you use? Is it that xtremevu camlens thingamajig?
Looking for something a little simpler (and cheaper!) myself, like a gel that can be slipped on under the lens cover or suchlike.


----------



## BSRU (15 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> What do you use? Is it that xtremevu camlens thingamajig?
> Looking for something a little simpler (and cheaper!) myself, like a gel that can be slipped on under the lens cover or suchlike.


I used a 37mm Hama circular polarising filter but you need the filter adaptor that comes with the lens replacement kit.


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

BSRU and Mikey thanks guys


----------



## boydj (15 Jan 2012)

col said:


> I dissagree. As for motoring apologist, I just see what I percieve as fair and from both sides,not just from one. The simple fact that you say this phrase shows me you are heavily against anything motor , and probably dont see a simple mistake but instead see it as a dangerous thing done on purpose. And will defend the ones that do make mountains out of molehills for the sake of the cam.
> Also your never heard so much nonsense opening ,indicates to me your general attitude. And coincidentally always seem to attack posts such as this. Without realising it, your probably one of the most dangerous things on the road, because of your attitude. Which puts all cyclists in the same light with other road users, the sooner you and your ilk realise this, the safer the roads will be for all.


I think your record is scratched and your needle is stuck, Col.


----------



## classic33 (15 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> I like to keep my private life just that - private but you have decided to make a personal attack and I feel that I have to reply.
> I grew up in a time when left-handedness was considered wrong and somewhat evil: the Latin word for left is sinister. Some parents would do anything in their power to convert their child to using the right hand. In my case it was constant beatings and at one point a broken arm - broken accidently on purpose.
> The legacy of this abuse left me with two problems - deafness in the left ear and a bad stutter. If anyone remembers Patrick Campbell from Call My Bluff, he was a fluent speaker compared t5o me!
> I don't recall any bullying in primary school but endured 5 years of hell in grammar school - not only by pupils but also teachers and on one occassion by the whole school in morming assembly. The bullying and skitting also continued at home which is possibly why I took up cycling one my own with no one to mock me but this also had its moments.
> ...


 
Had a similar experience. Different problem, but the way in which others perceived it was the sticky point.
Some refused to come near me in case they caught it. I had teachers request that they be allowed not to teach me because of it. And even in the mid 1990's it still got me classed as "educationally subnormal".
It, being epilepsy.

I don't use what other people have done to me in the past because of it, allow me to use it to blame people today. But if you are willing to have a go at someone else's views on here then your own will also be open for having a go at.


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

boydj said:


> I think your record is scratched and your needle is stuck, Col.


 I Think your stuck, and scratching your head


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2012)

Is that your Think for the day, col?


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Is that your Think for the day, col?


 DId you say the same to Boydj? No? I wonder why "bent"


----------



## Peowpeowpeowlasers (23 Jan 2012)

Interesting discussion. For those in any doubt as to the worth of recording such footage, witness this video:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwgP37B4Yts


The company bent over backwards to apologise, sincerely in my opinion. The bloke on the phone wanted to use my video as training material.

Provided these things are done constructively I think they can be of benefit.


----------



## Bassjunkieuk (10 Feb 2012)

I started using a "cycling events" spreadsheet, hosted on Google Docs, to track my helmet cam clips :-) Having it in the cloud means I can access it easily regardless of which computer I'm on and it's always in sync. Also serves as a nice easy reference for clips without having to sift through YT's Video Manager.

Have put an example up here, feel free to share, use and modify as you please :-D


----------

