# BentMikey and a Subaru Driver



## Origamist (28 Aug 2009)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jclIjO_6I9U


From YACF:

"This one is bad enough that I've reported it to the police, and made a request that someone speak to the driver, and put on a Section 59 marker. It's with the volunteers at Biggin Hill, just waiting for the police to get back to me."


----------



## HLaB (28 Aug 2009)

I managed to find a proxy that worked but the works pc has no sound; what was all that about?


----------



## Origamist (28 Aug 2009)

The guy stopped because BM hit the airzound/shouted. 

Without the sound, you miss the guy's opening remark:

"What the **** you shouting at bitch" quickly followed up with: 

"You can **** off with that stupid little thing" (i.e. the recumbent).

There's also some more verbals about road tax etc and BM says he will post it on YouTube...!


----------



## cannondale boy (28 Aug 2009)

Uncle Mort said:


> It's not very clear with sound either. It looks like he overtook very close, got out and then started hurling abuse and swearing at mikey, who kept very calm and told him it was going on YouTube.



+1 Better to stay calm in those kind of situations, but there very rare though. The driver seems to have a dislike to cyclists, what a very angry man .


----------



## XmisterIS (28 Aug 2009)

I think anyone who drives a chavved-up Impreza with a personalised numberplate has an inferiority complex and a desire to "prove" something to the world.


----------



## Bollo (28 Aug 2009)

Ugly little scene that, wasn't it?

I sincerely HOPE plod do something about it, but I suspect 'no contact', 'insufficient evidence' etc, etc. The reverse-light can be explained away by 'accidentally finding the wrong gear'.

I had a Mk 1 scoob years ago and they can be sods in the wet if driven by stupid, overconfident @rseholes such as D4n there. He'll have a date with a tree trunk soon enough. Here's hoping he commits involuntary euthanasia without anyone else coming to harm.


----------



## cheadle hulme (28 Aug 2009)

These type of people seem to attracted to Imprezzas.
I feared the worst for Mikey when the guy got out; could have been a lot worse, especially if it was a quieter area with less witnesses.

Note the "I pay road tax" comment! 

Looks to be a clear Section 59. Excess speed/dangerous overtake (section 3 RTA) plus clear behaviour likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance. 
Possibly section 5 public order too?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (28 Aug 2009)

Oh dear! - it's all so unecessary isn't it - what an idiot.

Shame we haven't got BM on this forum any more - he was always lively, seemed like a good sort to me.


----------



## hackbike 666 (28 Aug 2009)

+1


----------



## Crankarm (28 Aug 2009)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Oh dear! - it's all so unecessary isn't it - what an idiot.
> 
> Shame we haven't got BM on this forum any more - he was always lively, seemed like a good sort to me.



Why doesn't this guy post here any more? Banned or some one upset him?

It would be handy to have a rear mounted cam on a recumbent or any bike for that matter.

It's not that easy to to see how close the driver came to the cyclist. Seems no worse than what cyclists normally have to put up with including the driver getting out and shouting abuse. It's quite tame really.


----------



## J4CKO (28 Aug 2009)

Must confess to a fondness for the fast Japanese Minicab/rally car, have nearly bought one a few times but gone for something less contreversial, anyway, have made a few friends over on Scoobynet which is the mothership for Subaru owners, been posting over there for years, so have posted a thread in general to see if anyone owns up !

have to say, they are a good bunch and are general scathing of some of the more recent owners and their attitude, its not really the car, its just anything fast and cheap attracts certain types.


----------



## fossyant (28 Aug 2009)

Origamist said:


> "What the **** you shouting at bitch" quickly followed up with:



Who does he think he is....gangsta......???? 

Ugly scene indeed.... hope the plods take some action


----------



## PBancroft (28 Aug 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Why doesn't this guy post here any more? Banned or some one upset him?



I think he had a falling out with a Moderator, and as he couldn't add them to his ignore list, he left. Bit of a shame in my book.


----------



## 4F (28 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> I think he had a falling out with a Moderator, and as he couldn't add them to his ignore list, he left. Bit of a shame in my book.



Yep it was a spat with Cab who dissapeared at the same time.


----------



## manalog (28 Aug 2009)

So this Scooby overtook you so that he can go as quickly as poss from A to B and then braked, got out threw some abuse and away he went? Why overtake in the first place then stop? It doesn't make sense. I hope the Police pays him a visit. Please let us know what happens.


----------



## hackbike 666 (28 Aug 2009)

Road rage,it's jut no good driving when you are so wound up that you will get out of you car and shout abuse.Stupid prat.

Plus the fact driving without due care or consideration and not driving to the conditions.


----------



## Bollo (28 Aug 2009)

J4CKO said:


> Must confess to a fondness for the fast Japanese Minicab/rally car, have nearly bought one a few times but gone for something less contreversial, anyway, have made a few friends over on Scoobynet which is the mothership for Subaru owners, been posting over there for years, so have posted a thread in general to see if anyone owns up !
> 
> have to say, they are a good bunch and are general scathing of some of the more recent owners and their attitude, its not really the car, its just anything fast and cheap attracts certain types.



I managed to own one for five years until they started to get a bit of a bad rep. They're relatively cheap to buy, but cost a packet in fuel and maintenance (7500 mile service intervals at between £200-£500 a go!).

I spent a fair amount of time lurking on Scoobynet a few years ago. You're right that most members in my time were enthusiasts rather than boy racers and there was a big emphasis on driving skills and trackdays rather than ripping up the A12. As the second-hand prices dropped they did start to attract the boy racers and that's when I sold mine. I kinda felt a bit guilty about owning something so unnecessary and I drive like a grandad anyway. I never even managed a parking ticket. A poleese I met recently suggested that I might be the only (ex)-scoob owner in the country without points.

I suspect you'll get a mixed response over at s'net, but I'd hope most of the grownups would judge the vid on its merits.


----------



## thomas (28 Aug 2009)

Bollo said:


> A poleese I met recently suggested that I might be the only (ex)-scoob owner in the country without points.



One my old teachers, must have been in her 60s, short little lady, drove a Subaru...she bought it because she was told they were reliable.

Apparently she drove everywhere without exceeding the speed limit by even a dash


----------



## just jim (28 Aug 2009)

D4N NOT OK IN HED


----------



## XmisterIS (28 Aug 2009)

manalog said:


> So this Scooby overtook you so that he can go as quickly as poss from A to B and then braked, got out threw some abuse and away he went? Why overtake in the first place then stop? It doesn't make sense. I hope the Police pays him a visit. Please let us know what happens.



I suspect that the tw@t was spoiling for a fight.

In my experience if you don't react at all (not, not at ALL!) then they tend to leave you alone. I've never once had "road rage" off someone to whom I didn't react at all - no eye contact, just pretend they aren't there.


----------



## HLaB (28 Aug 2009)

thomas said:


> One my old teachers, must have been in her 60s, short little lady, drove a Subaru...she bought it because she was told they were reliable.
> 
> Apparently she drove everywhere without exceeding the speed limit by even a dash


I've heard folk saying similar going for the Subaru Forester ? (Estate) but i think the Imprezza are driven by wantabe rally drivers. Personally I don't think I've had a probleblem with the driver of one as they've got the acceleration to give them time to give me ample of space.


----------



## hackbike 666 (28 Aug 2009)

My mate dave at work would have taken this bloke on and that bloke would have run a mile.

Dave gets the hump very easily.Ex cabbie converted.


----------



## Origamist (28 Aug 2009)

The Scooby crowd seem reasonable and a laugh:

http://bbs.scoobynet.com/non-scooby-related-4/786350-ok-so-who-has-been-upsetting-cyclists.html

That said, I think BM would disagree that he is badly lit!

Who'd a thunk it, Bollo a Scooby petrolhead!


----------



## magnatom (28 Aug 2009)

I'll certainly be interested to know what the police do about this. 

The twerp came out of the car all hard man, but you can tell as soon as BM replies back (very politely if you ask me) the twerp realises that he isn't going to intimidate the cyclist and actually starts backing off and tries to exits 'without disgrace'. 

The twerp will probably crash into a tree soon. I wouldn't wish it on him, but he fits the tree crash profile.


----------



## jonny jeez (28 Aug 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> My mate dave at work would have taken this bloke on and that bloke would have run a mile.
> 
> Dave gets the hump very easily.Ex cabbie converted.




I think Dave and i must have gone to the same school...sorry i know its not PC, but I would have been too tempted to just lamp him.

unfortunatley (hear's xminsteR sighing in protest) I've never encountered road rage without it ending badly for one of us.


----------



## silverbow (28 Aug 2009)

magnatom said:


> I'll certainly be interested to know what the police do about this.
> 
> The twerp came out of the car all hard man, but you can tell as soon as BM replies back (very politely if you ask me) the twerp realises that he isn't going to intimidate the cyclist and actually starts backing off and tries to exits 'without disgrace'.
> 
> The twerp will probably crash into a tree soon. I wouldn't wish it on him, but he fits the tree crash profile.




Richard Ballentine talks about this curial time when a car driver leaves the comfort of his world and steps in to yours. Ballentine says this is the best time to exert your presence and gain the up hand. (I think Ballentine is a little more forceful, but the sentiment is there).


----------



## marinyork (28 Aug 2009)

As they got out of the car on top of the driving, I really hope the Police do something about it. If it had been done to them it wouldn't have been tolerated.


----------



## ComedyPilot (28 Aug 2009)

Can someone pass this to Bentmikey?

Sec 59 minimum. 

S5 Public order offence, using words or actions likely to cause harassment alarm or distress.

Number plate offence too. The plate should read D4 NOK.

The reversing might be 50-50, he could say he missed a gear, but depends where the reverse is on a scooby. A good traffic bobby would seal him into that offence during interview with good questioning.

If the police don't do anything, complain, and send footage to the local media and the YouTube URL to the Chief Constable of the area.

IMO there's more than enough evidence there to go round to the imbecile's hovel and read the riot act.


----------



## ComedyPilot (28 Aug 2009)

magnatom said:


> I'll certainly be interested to know what the police do about this.
> 
> The twerp came out of the car all hard man, but you can tell as soon as BM replies back (very politely if you ask me) the twerp realises that he isn't going to intimidate the cyclist and actually starts backing off and tries to exits 'without disgrace'.
> 
> The twerp will probably crash into a tree soon. *I wouldn't wish it on him*, but he fits the tree crash profile.



I bloody would (wood?)

But I wouldn't wish it on the tree.


----------



## jonredhornet (28 Aug 2009)

Was BentMikey his username on CC? I hadn't come across him before on YouTube .. just been looking through his vids.


----------



## HLaB (28 Aug 2009)

jonredhornet said:


> Was BentMikey his username on CC? I hadn't come across him before on YouTube .. just been looking through his vids.


Yip, I think Ismike is his you tube name before but I see he's also got cyclingmikey now


----------



## purplepolly (28 Aug 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Seems no worse than what cyclists normally have to put up with including the driver getting out and shouting abuse. It's quite tame really.



No it's not unusual, but it's totally out of order and would be unacceptable in any other circumstances. The driver is exhibiting a complete lack of control that is worrying in someone supposedly in charge of a heavy fast moving object. Do you suppose that this is a one off and the rest of the time he drvies around like some kind of driving school star pupil?


----------



## HLaB (28 Aug 2009)

Just played it back with sound what a tw@t Dan is!


----------



## Dan B (28 Aug 2009)

HLaB said:


> Yip, I think Ismike is his you tube name before but I see he's also got cyclingmikey now


Just for the record, that's actually Lsmike: short for LondonSkaters Mike, which is the name of his web site/skate instructor business


----------



## HLaB (28 Aug 2009)

coruskate said:


> Just for the record, that's actually Lsmike: short for LondonSkaters Mike, which is the name of his web site/skate instructor business


----------



## HLaB (28 Aug 2009)

4F said:


> Yep it was a spat with Cab who dissapeared at the same time.


I wonder if BM would be tempted to come back now?


----------



## Bollo (28 Aug 2009)

Origamist said:


> Who'd a thunk it, Bollo a Scooby petrolhead!



 Its not the first time I've had to confess my sins to you, is it?


----------



## Bollo (28 Aug 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Can someone pass this to Bentmikey?
> 
> Sec 59 minimum.
> 
> .....



That's what the police *should *do, but that's a world away from what they *will *do.

I'll lay a wager that D4N is already known to the police and may already have a few tickles on his licence. This might make them take notice I suppose.

FWIW, if D4N had've called me a 'bitch' like that I'd have probably pe'ed myself laughing. Horsepr1ck.


----------



## ianrauk (28 Aug 2009)

Dan, you pathetic twat...!


----------



## ComedyPilot (28 Aug 2009)

D4N, you lick the piss off a dead horse's dick.


----------



## Perfect Virgo (28 Aug 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> D4N, you lick the piss off a dead horse's dick.





Well done to BM for keeping his cool in an ugly and aggressive encounter. Sticking it in reverse was no mistake, that was surely intimidation.


----------



## fossyant (28 Aug 2009)

There are way more posts on here than YACF about the incident. It's difficult for a 'Bent' rider to get off and be aggressive - BM's voice was certainly 'soft'......it's the 'bitch' bit - I think I'd have laughed...but I'm a Manc...... and the guy looked white....ho..ho...

The reverse bit...well....... a timed boot from the old foot if on a 'proper bike'.....

TBH the fella was probably more worried about his 'paint' being intact.......


----------



## hackbike 666 (28 Aug 2009)

That bloke is a dick.That is totally unnaceptable caveman behaviour.


----------



## Tynan (29 Aug 2009)

I think the pass, if you can call it that, was bad because the car is going so fast and I presume cuts back in sharply because of the ongoing traffic, it certainly seems to appear from nowhere and I though brought a yelp from BM who is a very experienced rider

as to the rest, very tiresome shoot


----------



## Black Sheep (29 Aug 2009)

HLaB said:


> I've heard folk saying similar going for the Subaru Forester ? (Estate)
> there is an imprezza outback i believe, (outback being subaru's version of estate - think traveler being BL's version of estate  )
> 
> the forrester is a pseudo 4x4 (all subaru's are four wheel drive) in that its a bit taller and bulkier than a normal estate car but not a full on full sized ''off roader''
> ...


----------



## Twiggy (30 Aug 2009)

It's interesting to read what drivers are saying about air horns and cameras though. 
Where do we cyclists get off, don't we know only cars are allowed to have horns, it's just disgraceful that we'd wish some method of alerting other road users to our presence. 

Tis rather scary incident, though also amusing how the guy flees at the first sign of trouble.


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Aug 2009)

I think we ought to trace the knobber, and put letters under his windscreen asking him politely not to be such an arse.


----------



## ScottSub 10 (30 Aug 2009)

Ohh dear. I think this what happens when two pricks cross paths. 

Although Dan is in a league of different prickness what Mikey does in general (having viewed many of his videos including the very 'non-event' ones) is also pretty pathetic. In fact he is indeed in danger of escalating what might be a minor case of inconsiderate driving (especially in view of a lack of knowledge about recumbents and why they need more road and appear to be less considerate of those that pay big money to use roads). It is likely that if he filmed me in some vigilante style manner that he would get a response that might escalate negatively. 

I say all this as a chap who cycled London streets for eight years. I would also suggest I rode a bike better suited for the purpose and rode more defensively than this chap. He seems to ride quite quickly (think 25mph rather than 15mph)and only partially using cycle lanes ( I find it a bit scary, especially when he's overtaking in the right hand lane withcarsthat may turn right at any time). Having captured your accident on film is far less clever than being more realistic about the real road-world and avoiding one in the first place.

Again I say this as a chap who had his shoulder dislodged by a Citroen in Holborn (driver turned acros me in a bus lane) and as one who beat up a weaving Royal Mail driver after he knocked me off in a bus lane and then called me a c**t when I caught up with him. Something really snapped in me... A simple "sorry" would have avoided bruises...

I would also say that I had only about 4 serious incidents in 8 years (inc a BMW jumping a red). So castigate the twit Dan but also look home as well - something just aint right here... 

Scott D


----------



## cheadle hulme (30 Aug 2009)

Origamist said:


> The Scooby crowd seem reasonable and a laugh:
> 
> http://bbs.scoobynet.com/non-scooby-related-4/786350-ok-so-who-has-been-upsetting-cyclists.html



They seem to have turned a little -



ScoobyForumGC8WRC said:


> And last but not least i would have taken his camera off him and smashed it to small bits infront of him, then twatted him when there was no camera there, this ass hat has no right to go around harrasing motorists in this way, i hope he gets run over by an artic or gets ball cancer!



and 



ScoobyForumGC8WRC said:


> That forum will be full of like minded cnuts with the same zarked up outlook on life, i hope they all get aids!



Pity really, the rest of them seem quite sensible.

If you're in Cheshire/South Manchester, keep a look out for this shed. Its driver seems a little wound up.


----------



## magnatom (30 Aug 2009)

Please folks, don't feed the troll!


----------



## Differentpov (30 Aug 2009)

I come from scoobynet, and have a different point of view! Why is some guy riding around on a recumbent, with a camera, filming so called bad drivers? He has an airhorn fitted, these are illegal, and the use of one is likely to provoke a reaction form anyone! The subaru driver clearly said the recumbent rider pulled out on him (which i believe he did to provoke a reaction). Why does this guy think its up to him to police the local roads?, hasnt he got anything better to do? Whilst most on scoobynet have decided the driver in question was acting like a tool, i think the eccentric clown on the recumbent provoked the reaction, and has done 23 other seperate times according to youtube, this guy obvioulsly has no life at all and lives to annoy paying road users then go running to police with requests for action! and as for all the other members requesting police action, from my point of view thw scooby driver did nothing wrong. He wasnt going 100mph as the video said (no where near, more like 40), and the driver reversed to avoid hitting an obstacle in front, not to try to run the cyclist over, its all a big over reaction from another eccentric cyclist who thinks the road is exclusively for him! Basically stop filming other road users, get rid of the air horn and stop trying to provoke others who PAY for the privilidge of using our roads, GET A LIFE MATE ( i bet your wife has left you and your trying to fill the void, either that or she is the same as you and a total fruit loop) no offence meant but your making a load of noise about sweet fcuk all!


----------



## GrasB (30 Aug 2009)

Looks like a typical inappropriate overtake by a driver who doesn't really know how to anticipate a cyclist movements & has no consideration for other road users, personally I've taken a far stronger road position than that nice n' early. There's nothing major there besides Mikey has an air-horn & uses it inappropriately as most drivers do, you should use one to alert people to your presence not to tell someone you think they've done something stupid. Mr Scoobie driver doesn't like it & take offence so get out the car has a little bit of verbal & drives off. In all honesty it's 6 of one & half a dozen of the other as I think nothing would have happen beyond 2 or 3 people getting a little hot under the collar had it not been for that air-horn.


----------



## Differentpov (30 Aug 2009)

cheadle hulme said:


> They seem to have turned a little -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So your so bothered by this that you trawl scoobynet and misquote peoples posts, you lot really need to get a life, the road is not exclusivley for cycists!


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Aug 2009)

Lets not turn this into an argument with Scoobynet. This is a forum and we can discuss the facts in a civilised manner.

38 secs approaching roadworks, keep right sign warning of road narrowing on nearside. Note position of on coming vehicles (this is a single carriageway road)

39 secs - A shout - I presume Mikey - the bike steers close to the obstruction, Subaru drives past and brakes to a halt. 

40 secs - a car horn? one of the cars coming in the opposite direction? I wonder why and if it was the Subaru driver's actions that instigated it?

45 secs - Driver (D4N) get out approaches and says to Mikey, "What the fcuk you shouting at, bitch?

Mikey replies about how the driver was close and could have hit him - is that unreasonable?

Driver replies, "You can fcuk off with that stupid little.....(unclear)"

Mikey says he's got the number plate and will post on Youtube live??

Driver says that he's scared gets into car. More verbals are exchanged about road tax and Mikey pulling out. Driver says shut your mouth, the car goes into reverse??? (Why) Then drives off in a straight line - no sign of any obstruction?


----------



## Differentpov (30 Aug 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Lets not turn this into an argument with Scoobynet. This is a forum and we can discuss the facts in a civilised manner.
> 
> 38 secs approaching roadworks, keep right sign warning of road narrowing on nearside. Note position of on coming vehicles (this is a single carriageway road)
> 
> ...



40 secs an illegal air horn the recumbent rider feels the need to use to get his point across, your not driving a artic, whats the air horn about?


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Aug 2009)

Sorry, 39 secs is the Airzound horn - not me BTW, the bloke on the recumbent. Listen at about 40 secs there is another horn?


----------



## longers (30 Aug 2009)

This is what was used by BentMikey. 

Is it illegal? You'll have to prove to me that it is because I think you're wrong.


----------



## Differentpov (30 Aug 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Sorry, 39 secs is the Airzound horn - not me BTW, the bloke on the recumbent. Listen at about 40 secs there is another horn?



Fair point i missed it first time around! Does this recumbent cyclist regularly do this to motorists? If so its a ticking timebomb with regards to getting a reaction he cant cope with, i.e getting a punch in the face for his troubles!


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Aug 2009)

longers said:


> This is what was used by BentMikey.
> 
> Is it illegal? You'll have to prove to me that it is because I think you're wrong.



Just got off the phone with a mate in traffic, and she says the horn on the bike is ok.


----------



## longers (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> Fair point i missed it first time around! Does this recumbent cyclist regularly do this to motorists? If so its a ticking timebomb with regards to getting a reaction he cant cope with, *i.e getting a punch in the face for his troubles!*



Nice! Smack people for daring to express their discontent with poor driving. 
Lovely stuff.


----------



## Differentpov (30 Aug 2009)

longers said:


> Nice! Smack people for daring to express their discontent with poor driving.
> Lovely stuff.



I didnt mean me, some other road users might not be so forgiving when a vigilante starts trying to police the local roads as if HE owns them!


----------



## GrasB (30 Aug 2009)

GrasB said:


> Looks like a typical inappropriate overtake by a driver who doesn't really know how to anticipate a cyclist movements


No I change that to total disregard for the road space needs of a cyclist. The cyclist keeps a fairly constant distance from the curb between the roadwork barriers.


----------



## Differentpov (30 Aug 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Just got off the phone with a mate in traffic, and she says the horn on the bike is ok.



Whats its Dcb rating, i reckon its illegal due to excessive noise!


----------



## longers (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> Whats its Dcb rating, i reckon its illegal due to excessive noise!



JFGI.

You've gone from stating it is illegal to reckoning it's illegal - what next? You admit it isn't illegal?


----------



## GrasB (30 Aug 2009)

115dB, the same as the road legal e-marked PIAA motorsport air-horns & in the E-marked kits you get two 115dB air-horns in the box 100Hz apart.


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Aug 2009)

DifferentPOV

Cyclists and pedestrians are the two most vulnerable groups. There is no outer shell to protect them. 

Some people use cameras (as I have already said) to record evidence 'should' something happen. I don't use one because I tend to do most of my riding in the countryside, away from traffic and people in general (just a grumpy git), and I read the road and use a mirror, so I can anticipate if something happens. 

I aren't interested in getting to blows with you (or anyone), but I wouldn't tolerate that sort of behaviour from anyone. The bloke was being a bully. 

He committed things worthy of a visit from a copper:

The 'dodgy' overtake. Words of advice about driving would suffice, were it not backed up by him getting out of car and using threatening words and behaviour, Section 5 Public Order Offence signed, sealed, delivered.

The 'reverse' trick - IMO a Section 59 job minimum. What was he reversing for? He didn't steer clear of anything, he drove off (quickly) in a straight line - didn't he realise the cyclist was behind him? Or did he do it because he knew he was?

If it was the former - Driving without Due Care & Attention. I hate to think he was doing the latter, because that is using his vehicle as an offensive weapon.

Welcome to the forum BTW, have a cup of tea while you're here.


----------



## Differentpov (30 Aug 2009)

GrasB said:


> 115dB, the same as the road legal e-marked PIAA motorsport air-horns & in the E-marked kits you get two 115dB air-horns in the box 100Hz apart.



So how come 95 dcb for an exhaust is considered excessive by traffic plod, mot stations and most track day organisers, but a 115 dcb airhorn is ok? if i fitted that to my new scooby and used it when a cyclist is in the way you lot would not be happy! One rule for us....................


----------



## marinyork (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> So how come 95 dcb for an exhaust is considered excessive by traffic plod, mot stations and most track day organisers, but a 115 dcb airhorn is ok? if i fitted that to my new scooby and used it when a cyclist is in the way you lot would not be happy! One rule for us....................



An exhaust is used all the time. A horn is a functional devise used to warn in certain very limited situations.

The cyclist wasn't in the way, the only person in the way was the subaru driver who parked their car in an obstructing manner.


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Aug 2009)

Guys, please lets not turn this into a cross-forum slanging match.

Couple of thoughts...
Whilst this is a cyclist forum, I would estimate at least 90% of us drive cars and motorcycles some very powerful ones too, we have Taxi and bus drivers amongst our members and a few truckers too. I think road safety and good road manners are to the benefit of us all. There is bad driving by cyclists, cars drivers, taxi's et al. Poor road use and a poor attitude behind the wheel/bars is simply unnaceptable. However, in terms of vunerability it is cyclist and pedestrians that fare worst, therefore our sense of danger and risk is much more heightened than that of the caged driver. That's simply how it is.

The reason why cyclist in particular are turning to video technology is not out of some anti-car agenda or vendetta, but it is to highlight to others the hazards and attitudes we encounter daily from other road users. That really is the truth. Abuse from Car drivers in particular is very common. There are also circumstances where important video evidence has been used to prosecute dangerous driving and that should be a good thing. IIRC About 2 years ago a cyclist video was helped to show that WVM who hit a girl at a crossing was not culpable. It can works all ways. Maybe the Subaru driver should have had a video camera too, it would all be useful in court.

Regarding Mikey, he is a hugely capable and respected cyclist with regard to proper road usage and defensive riding by cyclists. I would imagine that his knowledge of the rules of the road would best most road users The Bible for road-cycling safety and positioning is called 'Cyclecraft' by Franklin published by HMSO books, the same series that also produces books for safer driving and motorcycling (they are all excellent reads).

A little more care, awareness, consideration, and politeness out there would be much appreciated... by all.


----------



## longers (30 Aug 2009)

Well said FF. I'm crap at arguing without sounding aggressive even when I'm not really that wound up - so cheerio DifferentPov, hope you learn something from these people.


----------



## Differentpov (30 Aug 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> DifferentPOV
> 
> Cyclists and pedestrians are the two most vulnerable groups. There is no outer shell to protect them.
> 
> ...



Jesus, what sort of life have you led, section 5 signed sealed and delivered, this sort of thing is an everyday occurance, as for the section 59, grow up, he reversed to avoid an obstacle infront of him, HE DID NOT GET ANYWHWERE NEAR ENOUGH TO THE CYCLIST TO EVEN WORRY HIM! And why has the cyclist not been lambasted for LYING! At no point in that video does anyone get anywhere near 50 mph, let alone 100 mph, this stinks of a one man crusade against performance car drivers, i dont even reckon "witnesses" stopped to offer help, the OP needs to get over himself and find a non road related hobby!


----------



## GrasB (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> So how come 95 dcb for an exhaust is considered excessive by traffic plod, mot stations and most track day organisers, but a 115 dcb airhorn is ok? if i fitted that to my new scooby and used it when a cyclist is in the way you lot would not be happy! One rule for us....................



Because your exhaust is a sustained acoustic noise where as the horn is a momentary acoustic event. In fact if you think about it if you allow 95dB exhaust you need horns to have a decent acoustic gain over that to be heard.

FYI I have the PIAA 400/500Hz horn attached to one of my cars & have used it because of an idiot of a cyclist who started cycling across the road looking LEFT only!


----------



## PBancroft (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> I didnt mean me, some other road users might not be so forgiving when a vigilante starts trying to police the local roads as if HE owns them!



How forgiving do you think the cyclist should be when, after using a horn to warn another road user of their presence (as the Highway Code suggests it must only be used for), the other party immediately stops, gets out of their vehicle, and swears aggressively at the cyclist?

Do you think he should react calmly, saying something along the lines of "That was really close - you nearly hit me mate"? Or do you think he should get off his bike and give the driver a punch in the face for his troubles?

Different POV, you are welcome to have a different point of view indeed, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are going to be right in every point (just like I am certain that not every viewpoint expressed on this forums is utterly correct either). ALL road users should treat each other with respect. No exceptions. Regardless of that, welcome, stay a while. Pull up a chair and have a cuppa.


----------



## Differentpov (30 Aug 2009)

Fab Foodie said:


> Guys, please lets not turn this into a cross-forum slanging match.
> 
> Couple of thoughts...
> Whilst this is a cyclist forum, I would estimate at least 90% of us drive cars and motorcycles some very powerful ones too, we have Taxi and bus drivers amongst our members and a few truckers too. I think road safety and good road manners are to the benefit of us all. There is bad driving by cyclists, cars drivers, taxi's et al. Poor road use and a poor attitude behind the wheel/bars is simply unnaceptable. However, in terms of vunerability it is cyclist and pedestrians that fare worst, therefore our sense of danger and risk is much more heightened than that of the caged driver. That's simply how it is.
> ...



All the cyclists i see round my way ride two abreast, hold up traffic, jump red lights, ride on the pavement when something silly like a red traffic light dares to hold up their progress and generally disregard the rules, then complain when they get bollocked by other road users, cyclists need to be registered and have number plates, then they would stop the vigilante tactics and conform like everyone else!


----------



## PBancroft (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> All the cyclists i see round my way ride two abreast, hold up traffic, jump red lights, ride on the pavement when something silly like a red traffic light dares to hold up their progress and generally disregard the rules, then complain when they get bollocked by other road users, cyclists need to be registered and have number plates, then they would stop the vigilante tactics and conform like everyone else!



I've never run a red light in my life, nor do I ride on pavements. Yet around my way I see cars run the red lights quite frequently, car drivers who use the mobile phone whilst driving, car drivers who park on double yellow lines, or park blocking exits, or speeding.

Registration fixed none of those problems. It would be an expensive solution and wouldn't work anyway - better training for all road users is required, not one subset.


----------



## Differentpov (30 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> How forgiving do you think the cyclist should be when, after using a horn to warn another road user of their presence (as the Highway Code suggests it must only be used for), the other party immediately stops, gets out of their vehicle, and swears aggressively at the cyclist?
> 
> Do you think he should react calmly, saying something along the lines of "That was really close - you nearly hit me mate"? Or do you think he should get off his bike and give the driver a punch in the face for his troubles?
> 
> Different POV, you are welcome to have a different point of view indeed, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are going to be right in every point (just like I am certain that not every viewpoint expressed on this forums is utterly correct either). ALL road users should treat each other with respect. No exceptions. Regardless of that, welcome, stay a while. Pull up a chair and have a cuppa.



Cheers my friend, my first friendly post! I agree we should respect each other more when it comes to roads usage, but it just gets my back right up when neighbourhood warriors purposely provoke the film other road users, then film them! I mean there are bigger priorities in life, get a grip! Unfortunately i live in a rural area and cyclists and horse riders cause more trouble than they are worth, they both think they own the road ( in my opinion), and HATE any form of motorised transport! I have been held up for 3 miles by 3 cyclists riding next to each other (3 abreast), and when i over took them at a place i saw fit and safe, they all gave the self-gratification artist sign, why does this happen, 2 abreast is illegal, but you all do it!


----------



## cheadle hulme (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> All the cyclists i see round my way ride two abreast, hold up traffic, jump red lights, ride on the pavement when something silly like a red traffic light dares to hold up their progress and generally disregard the rules, then complain when they get bollocked by other road users, cyclists need to be registered and have number plates, then they would stop the vigilante tactics and conform like everyone else!



Macclesfield Wheelers club run?


----------



## PBancroft (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> Cheers my friend, my first friendly post! I agree we should respect each other more when it comes to roads usage, but it just gets my back right up when neighbourhood warriors purposely provoke the film other road users, then film them! I mean there are bigger priorities in life, get a grip! Unfortunately i live in a rural area and cyclists and horse riders cause more trouble than they are worth, they both think they own the road ( in my opinion), and HATE any form of motorised transport! I have been held up for 3 miles by 3 cyclists riding next to each other (3 abreast), and when i over took them at a place i saw fit and safe, they all gave the self-gratification artist sign, why does this happen, 2 abreast is illegal, but you all do it!



Trust me when I say this - most cyclists do not hate motorised transport. Personally, I use it frequently.

I'll repeat that, because its worth saying twice. Cyclists do not hate cars.

Also, cycling two abreast is not illegal. It isn't. People might think it is, or think that it should be - but it isn't, and there are reasons why that is the case. You'll find things on that page which some cyclists do which are illegal, but not all of us do them - please do not paint us all with the same brush. 

Part of the reason some people have started putting video cameras on their bikes is that in any road accident involving a cyclist, the cyclist will come off worse compared to the driver. We don't have metal shielding around us. Unfortunately the police are unable to take action in most cases, because its simply down to one road user's word against another. With recorded evidence they are able to get a prosecution, and get a dangerous road user off the road.

This is not targeted at cars because cyclists hate them. You will find just as many strong viewpoints from regular cyclists towards other cyclists who act in a dangerous manner on the road.

EDIT: It swings both ways of course - if the video actually shows the cyclist is in the wrong, its there for all to see! That's happened a fair bit on this very forum. I'll see if I can dig one of them out for you.


----------



## GrasB (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov, 2 abreast isn't illegal, however it is not recommended in areas where you'll restrict the flow of traffic.

On your note of JRLing, I've had people on bikes try to push me off my bike for suggesting they adhere to red lights. I also now avoid the most convinent last 1.3miles to work to avoid the regular JRLing of car drivers, though the local council can be handed a fair amount of stick for that as they've managed to obsure 2 of the 3 traffic lights at that junction from a reasonable distance away with, ironically, road safety signs.


----------



## Differentpov (30 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> I've never run a red light in my life, nor do I ride on pavements. Yet around my way I see cars run the red lights quite frequently, car drivers who use the mobile phone whilst driving, car drivers who park on double yellow lines, or park blocking exits, or speeding.
> 
> Registration fixed none of those problems. It would be an expensive solution and wouldn't work anyway - better training for all road users is required, not one subset.



Parking badly and blocking access is one of my pet hates, and a car running a red light is infinately more dangerous than a cyclist doing the same thing. I personally think using a mobile is no more dangerous than changing radio stations or changing a cd, and we all do that everyday! Speeding i hate in built up populated areas, but is ok on a dry motorway when traffic conditions allow. I guess we all have bad apples in the bunch, but drivers generally do not pursue things over zealously in the same way "victimised" cyclists do, why is that?


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> All the cyclists i see round my way ride two abreast, hold up traffic, jump red lights, ride on the pavement when something silly like a red traffic light dares to hold up their progress and generally disregard the rules, then complain when they get bollocked by other road users, cyclists need to be registered and have number plates, then they would stop the vigilante tactics and conform like everyone else!



Riding 2 abreast is LEGAL, riding MORE than 2 abreast is not.
Holding-up traffic is an acceptable road usage technique by a cyclist as a common defensive riding technique (See HMSO Cycle-craft). Funny how traffic jams are caused by cars...
Riding through red lights is illegal and stupid and condoned by most members of this cycling forums.
Pavement cycling is unfortunately a grey area, some are legal as shared paths others are not, however having been told many times to get off the road and ride on the pavement by car drivesr I'd assumed drivers would be happy with pavement riding cyclists  IMO there should be no cycle-paths or any need to be seperated from traffic, what is required is a better standard of care by motorised transport. Try Holland, Scandanavia, in fact most of Europe for better standards of shared road usage.
Unlike drivers of motorised vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, horses have an automatic right to use the public highway that car drivers do not. That is why we have to have a licence to use the road with a car that can be revoked.
Don't even start on the road-tax argument because you are likely to be wrong there also.


----------



## J4CKO (30 Aug 2009)

Riding two abreast with a trail of angry motorist behind, legal or whatever is just plain ignorant if there isnt a safety reason for doing so, but actually being held up by cyclists doing this is very rare in my experience, most dont want a two mile queue of irate drivers behind, those that do really need to stop as it doenst do the image of cycling any good.


----------



## PBancroft (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> Parking badly and blocking access is one of my pet hates, and a car running a red light is infinately more dangerous than a cyclist doing the same thing. I personally think using a mobile is no more dangerous than changing radio stations or changing a cd, and we all do that everyday! Speeding i hate in built up populated areas, but is ok on a dry motorway when traffic conditions allow. I guess we all have bad apples in the bunch, but drivers generally do not pursue things over zealously in the same way "victimised" cyclists do, why is that?



I think you may be mistaken on that last point. In the video in the OP, it wasn't the cyclist who pursued the matter, but the driver. The video simply recorded his behaviour. But you do also need to bear in mind that what might be a minor prang in a car - damaged bodywork, a nuisance of an insurance claim - could well cause the death of a more vulnerable road user. *EDIT*: _That could be why they are more likely to react._

Using a non-handsfree mobile is substantially more dangerous than changing a radio station - you are in less control of the vehicle if you need to react suddenly, because one of your hands is full. You're not in full control of the vehicle to negotiate hazards or the road itself either. There are a couple of studies which have demonstrated this, again, I'll see if I can dig some out for you. *EDIT:* _Here's one._ *EDIT2*: _And this is one of the likely outcomes of not paying attention on the road, be it changing the radio station or whatever. You might think that you are capable of using the phone and driving, but we are ALL fallible._

You mention speeding on a motorway being OK - but a fair number of people do it in populated areas, even near schools.

It isn't the type of road user which is at fault - that's a false means of identifying the bad apples. Its no more correct than saying people with large foreheads are more likely to be criminals. 

It's the _individual_ which counts. You know as well as I that there are some terrible drivers out there. I'd put money on you knowing some bad drivers personally. That doesn't make all car drivers inherently bad - only those individuals. The same is true of cyclists.


----------



## GrasB (30 Aug 2009)

Problem is with cyclists is that if you make a small mistake like clipping a curb & cannoning into one you can do serious damage to that person at 10mph. Like 5 weeks in hospital & spending 3 or 4 years of physio just to be able to do 20 pull-ups in a row without dislocating your shoulder. 

Also we are treated worse than moped & motorbike users, I've followed a motorbike at doing 20 in a 20 limit about 5m behind & had someone let the motorbike through on their right of way & almost drive straight into me despite the fact we were doing about the same speed!


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> Parking badly and blocking access is one of my pet hates, and a car running a red light is infinately more dangerous than a cyclist doing the same thing. I personally think using a mobile is no more dangerous than changing radio stations or changing a cd, and we all do that everyday! Speeding i hate in built up populated areas, but is ok on a dry motorway when traffic conditions allow. I guess we all have bad apples in the bunch, *but drivers generally do not pursue things over zealously in the same way "victimised" cyclists do, why is that*?



Because we are more likely to be killed by your actions than you are by ours... think about it.

I'm sure most here would be really happy to take you out on a regular commuting run so you can feel the excitement, the regular adrenalin rush of a near-death experience on your way to work or back home to your loved ones.


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> Jesus, what sort of life have you led, section 5 signed sealed and delivered, this sort of thing is an everyday occurance, as for the section 59, grow up, he reversed to avoid an obstacle infront of him, HE DID NOT GET ANYWHWERE NEAR ENOUGH TO THE CYCLIST TO EVEN WORRY HIM! And why has the cyclist not been lambasted for LYING! At no point in that video does anyone get anywhere near 50 mph, let alone 100 mph, this stinks of a one man crusade against performance car drivers, i dont even reckon "witnesses" stopped to offer help, the OP needs to get over himself and find a non road related hobby!



Section 5 Public Order Act - look it up or ask a copper. 

I have already stated about the S59 job. 

What 'obstacle' was there? I didn't see one, and he didn't alter his steering in any way when he drove off (drive around obstacle?) So why did he reverse? If he says he didn't realise the cyclist was behind him, then it's Due Care and Attention, because he was only swearing at him 15 seconds previously, and if he did know he was there why put it in reverse? 

I'll have a guess (due to his previous display of contempt) that he (again) wanted to intimidate and bully someone.

With a display of that sort of driving, if I were a Subaru driver, I would want to distance myself from that sort of cretin.


----------



## ScottSub 10 (30 Aug 2009)

This is a very bizarre place!

I love cycling (just cycled Devon to Wales aka 'Devon to Heaven' ) and as I said commuted for many many years in London. I still communte where I live now when jobs permit but avoid mingling with traffic as much as possible as I have two young kids now... I also ditched the motorbike for exactly the same reasons...

However I have little sympathy to the approach or attitudes shown here. The whole camera and publish thing is quite bonkers. Also the approaches to purposefully slowing down traffic or riding two abreast as it is 'your right' is idiotic. Most other road users (including less militant cyclists like me) will think (be it wrongly or due to being 'uneducated') that you are being arsey and selfish.

Your best weapon is common sense, accepting the 'limitations of intellect of other road users and being ULTRA defensive - not getting all arsey and taping someone on their phone. Who the hell do you think you are? It will end in tears...

Scott D
(Ex Air Zound owner and user!)


----------



## PBancroft (30 Aug 2009)

ScottSub 10 said:


> This is a very bizarre place!



Show me one Internet forum which isn't...


----------



## ScottSub 10 (30 Aug 2009)

The M&S forum is REALLY odd (or was that S&M)


----------



## PBancroft (30 Aug 2009)

ScottSub 10 said:


> The M&S forum is REALLY odd (or was that S&M)



Heheh... as I said in a PM to differentPOV:-



> One aspect of [...] meeting with like-minded people is that you're never encouraged to really study the facts and challenge your own beliefs.
> 
> (nicked from Derren Brown).


Grab a chair and a cuppa, stay a while. We're friendly really.


----------



## ScottSub 10 (30 Aug 2009)

I think that, on a practical level, you are challenging stuff that may not be in your best interests or longevity guys.

Having said that I take your point and was surprised to learn here that cycle lanes may not be a good idea. Hmmm! 

Scott D


----------



## just jim (30 Aug 2009)

ScottSub 10 said:


> I think that, on a practical level, you are challenging stuff that may not be in your best interests or longevity guys.
> 
> 
> Scott D



Don't patronise me, _mate_.


----------



## Joe24 (30 Aug 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Oh sh1t, Joe's found the scoobie thread.



Wooops, sorry. Ill leave this thread alone now.


----------



## Moderators (30 Aug 2009)

OK, I see we have members from another forum on this thread discussing the incident.

Can we please try and keep the heat out of any discussion and refrain from baiting people. It does neither side any good to inflame the other, seeing as we all have to share the roads. 

Keep it civilised please, otherwise the thread will be closed.


----------



## J4CKO (30 Aug 2009)

Oops, probably my fault, I thought in the interests of common understanding this might help, but like different groups of mates meeting each other it can go badly wrong.


----------



## Joe24 (30 Aug 2009)

Its gone


----------



## ScottSub 10 (30 Aug 2009)

just jim said:


> Don't patronise me, _mate_.



A better answer might be to explain why my thoughts ( I used the term 'think') are taken as patronising. I never mean to patronise as it rarely achieves anything.

Scott D


----------



## Black Sheep (30 Aug 2009)

ScottSub 10 said:


> Ohh dear. I think this what happens when two pricks cross paths.
> 
> I say all this as a chap who cycled London streets for eight years. I would also suggest I rode a bike better suited for the purpose and rode more defensively than this chap. He seems to ride quite quickly (think 25mph rather than 15mph)and only partially using cycle lanes ( I find it a bit scary, especially when he's overtaking in the right hand lane withcarsthat may turn right at any time). Having captured your accident on film is far less clever than being more realistic about the real road-world and avoiding one in the first place.
> 
> ...



had you been with traffic you'd not have got hit by the citroen. 

had you been cycling at a pace you were happy cycling at you'd have not been in as much danger, I cycle to work every day and get muppets attempting to overtake me while there is a traffic island, cycling at 25 - 30 mph stops most of these idiots attempting to overtake. 

part of my route takes me along a road with a few truck depots on, sometimes there is a truck parked on the road. attempting to pass this while going 15mph is nearly impossible, take it at 25mph and i can flow with traffic

have a read of cycle craft and you'll soon find why cycle lanes are often not very safe.


----------



## f1_fan (30 Aug 2009)

Moderators said:


> Can we please try and keep the heat out of any discussion and refrain from baiting people. It does neither side any good to inflame the other, seeing as we all have to share the roads.



Might help if Mikey Boy didn't cycle around baiting motorists then!

Some of that tosh of his on You Tube beggars belief!


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Aug 2009)

Scottsub10

I don't think that any cyclist in their right minds goes out to anger/irritate/annoy/provoke people rolling around in 2 tonne metal boxes. However I admit that drivers often get enranged by being delayed by a cyclist on their journey if only by just a few seconds, the fact that this occurs says a lot about the mental state of many drivers. It is necessary to deliberately hold-up cars if only for a few seconds for improved road safety at some lights, roundabouts, width restriction/bollards where there is insufficient space for a car and bike to pass side by side. The Highway code states that you should allow as much space to overtake a cycle as you would a car. Most motorists do not come anywhere close to this requirement.

It's funny that motorists always give a wide berth to horses but rarely cyclist. The only conclusion I can draw from this is either that motorists care more about horses than cyclists, or, that motorists realise that passing close to a horse might damage their cars... go figure?


----------



## Black Sheep (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> I come from scoobynet, and have a different point of view! Why is some guy riding around on a recumbent, with a camera, filming so called bad drivers? He has an airhorn fitted, these are illegal, and the use of one is likely to provoke a reaction form anyone! The subaru driver clearly said the recumbent rider pulled out on him (which i believe he did to provoke a reaction). Why does this guy think its up to him to police the local roads?, hasnt he got anything better to do? Whilst most on scoobynet have decided the driver in question was acting like a tool, i think the eccentric clown on the recumbent provoked the reaction, and has done 23 other seperate times according to youtube, this guy obvioulsly has no life at all and lives to annoy paying road users then go running to police with requests for action! and as for all the other members requesting police action, from my point of view thw scooby driver did nothing wrong. He wasnt going 100mph as the video said (no where near, more like 40), and the driver reversed to avoid hitting an obstacle in front, not to try to run the cyclist over, its all a big over reaction from another eccentric cyclist who thinks the road is exclusively for him! Basically stop filming other road users, get rid of the air horn and stop trying to provoke others who PAY for the privilidge of using our roads, GET A LIFE MATE ( i bet your wife has left you and your trying to fill the void, either that or she is the same as you and a total fruit loop) no offence meant but your making a load of noise about sweet fcuk all!




ok, point 1 - I have just payed money to my local council in the form of council tax, this gets spent on the roads.
I have also just payed VED to be allowed to use my car on a public highway, this money goes straight into the governments coffers and is most likely on its way to a fat cat banker's pocket.

air horns are perfectly legal and much better than a bell for alerting vehicles to a cyclists presence - it came in very handy to stop the prick in a car coming out the wrong end of a one way street from knocking me off. 

the claimed 100mph was the witness who said "about 100mph" a statement intended to express the innapropriate speed.

with regards to the cyclist pulling out - spotted the roadworks? or you want him to cycle into them?


----------



## Joe24 (30 Aug 2009)

Fab Foodie said:


> Scottsub10
> 
> *I don't think that any cyclist in their right minds goes out to anger/irritate/annoy/provoke people rolling around in 2 tonne metal boxes.* However I admit that drivers often get enranged by being delayed by a cyclist on their journey if only by just a few seconds, the fact that this occurs says a lot about the mental state of many drivers. It is necessary to deliberately hold-up cars if only for a few seconds for improved road safety at some lights, roundabouts, width restriction/bollards where there is insufficient space for a car and bike to pass side by side. The Highway code states that you should allow as much space to overtake a cycle as you would a car. Most motorists do not come anywhere close to this requirement.
> 
> It's funny that motorists always give a wide berth to horses but rarely cyclist. The only conclusion I can draw from this is either that motorists care more about horses than cyclists, or, that motorists realise that passing close to a horse might damage their cars... go figure?




Oh yeah, what about critical masses? Is that not what critical masses do?


----------



## Steve Austin (30 Aug 2009)

'sits back munching popcorn'


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Aug 2009)

ScottSub 10 said:


> I think that, on a practical level, you are challenging stuff that may not be in your best interests or longevity guys.
> 
> Having said that I take your point and was surprised to learn here that cycle lanes may not be a good idea. Hmmm!
> 
> Scott D



I dunno, there's a lot of years of experienece and miles cycled here who would challenge your first point above.
With respect to cycle-lanes, they're a mixed blessing, a few are good where segregation is total, most that are painted onto roads are hopeless. Frankly we shouldn't need segregation, especially in cities. If you've not seen this I think you'll enjoy it... Crap cycle lanes

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm

The roads should be available for all to use in safety and with respect.


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Aug 2009)

Joe24 said:


> Oh yeah, what about critical masses? Is that not what critical masses do?



No.


----------



## marinyork (30 Aug 2009)

Very good fab foodie. My favourite is April 2008 from the Warrington Cycle Campaign Facility of the Month.


----------



## Joe24 (30 Aug 2009)

Fab Foodie said:


> No.



Oh right, what do critical masses do?


----------



## ScottSub 10 (30 Aug 2009)

My accident with the Citroen was not predictable - too many details to explain but maybe if you know Holborn and the bus lane on the right before the 'bridge'? He crossed two lanes to turn right and was invisible till impact... I didnt tape it or You Tube it but I did shake his hand and told him not to worry as he was so mortified. It was an old fashioned 'accident' - do we still have those these days?

Now horses - don't get me started! If you did a risk assessment for that you would conclude 'Ifor Williams trailers.com' and all would then live happily ever after.

Scott


----------



## Joe24 (30 Aug 2009)

ScottSub 10 said:


> My accident with the Citroen was not predictable - too many details to explain but maybe if you know Holborn and the bus lane on the right before the 'bridge'? He crossed two lanes to turn right and was invisible till impact... I didnt tape it or You Tube it but I did shake his hand and told him not to worry as he was so mortified. It was an old fashioned 'accident' - do we still have those these days?
> 
> Now horses - don't get me started! If you did a risk assessment for that you would conclude 'Ifor Williams trailers.com' and all would then live happily ever after.
> 
> Scott



What about donkeys?
Would you agree with me that horses should be got rid of, and there should only be donkeys and miniature horses?


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Might help if Mikey Boy didn't cycle around baiting motorists then!
> 
> Some of that tosh of his on You Tube beggars belief!


and your license plate number is............?


----------



## ScottSub 10 (30 Aug 2009)

Fab Foodie said:


> I dunno, there's a lot of years of experienece and miles cycled here who would challenge your first point above.
> With respect to cycle-lanes, they're a mixed blessing, a few are good where segregation is total, most that are painted onto roads are hopeless. Frankly we shouldn't need segregation, especially in cities. If you've not seen this I think you'll enjoy it... Crap cycle lanes
> 
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm
> ...



Great link mate - that sums up councils so much. LOL

As to your earlier point I think I do claim some space when needed 'at the expense of traffic'. However I tend to defer far more for my own safety - 5" seems to mean a LOT more to twatty motorists like Dan than me... That's probably the crux of what I am saying here and why my attitude differs a bit - albeit as a fellow cyclist


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> I personally think using a mobile is no more dangerous than changing radio stations or changing a cd, and we all do that everyday!


No we don't all do that - in fact I don't know a single driver who changes a CD or radio station while on the move. You're in need of some education



Differentpov said:


> I guess we all have bad apples in the bunch, but drivers generally do not pursue things over zealously in the same way "victimised" cyclists do, why is that?


Perhaps the stakes are a little higher? And, in the case of BentMikey v. Dan it was Dan that screeched to a halt in search of a ruck.


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Might help if Mikey Boy didn't cycle around baiting motorists then!
> 
> Some of that tosh of his on You Tube beggars belief!




Come on mate,some of the driving out there is shocking.


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Aug 2009)

Joe24 said:


> Oh right, what do critical masses do?



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

I'm sure it annoys a few drivers, but that's not the aim.


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Aug 2009)

Originally Posted by *Differentpov* 

 
_I personally think using a mobile is no more dangerous than changing radio stations or changing a cd, and we all do that everyday!

*Not quite.I tend to concentrate on my driving/cycling.*
_


----------



## Black Sheep (30 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> I have been held up for 3 miles by 3 cyclists riding next to each other (3 abreast), and when i over took them at a place i saw fit and safe, they all gave the self-gratification artist sign, why does this happen, 2 abreast is illegal, but you all do it!



2 abreast is perfectly legal, its in the highway code.

the reason they gave you the self-gratification artist sign is they were warning you about themselves being such.


----------



## thomas (30 Aug 2009)

hmmm. Everything seems quite civil at the moment. My ten pence worth.

I have both an airzound horn and a helmet camera...I guess that makes me a loser with no life, but I can deal with that 

In regard to the airzound, I have seen some cycling videos where people seem to use it and hold it down for no real reason/for a long time after the incident (just to make a point). I will use it to warn people of my presence, such as if someone does pull out on me, pulls into me, overtakes too close and so on. I will also give light warning taps to stop incidents from even happening, and just to let people know I am there. I will 'tell people off' by giving a short blast if something has scared the bejesus out of me (such as a really close overtake), however, I generally wouldn't just hold the horn down for ages.

I don't feel that using a horn should cause offence, though would accept if I held it down for a minute after something it might do.

Now, with the camera. I first wanted one just because I thought they were a cool bit of kit. When I bought it it was because I had nearly been wiped out by a bus driver and got fed up when the police wouldn't do anything about it. I don't wear it every time I go on the bike. I just use it on my commute/during heavy traffic/rush hour. Basically, at times when I feel there is an increased risk of poor road behaviour (everyone in a rush).

Now, been a few comments about how isn't it weird that a cyclist goes out filming with a camera? I know car drivers that do the same thing so it isn't that weird.

Not sure I've really said anything of any benefit, but it's wasted a couple minutes while my dinner cooked!!


----------



## Black Sheep (30 Aug 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> No we don't all do that - in fact I don't know a single driver who changes a CD or radio station while on the move. You're in need of some education



i'll admit to changing radio stations on the move, it takes less effort and concentration than turning on the windscreen wiper for the back window!

tap a button near the gear lever, let it scan its way through to what I want, if its not what i want, hit the button again

don't change cd's tho


----------



## magnatom (30 Aug 2009)

Now....Let me see....What should I do here....

On the one hand these sorts of discussions never really get anywhere. However, on the other hand they can be mildly entertaining...hmmm.......




As long as no-one clicks on any of my signature links then I should be ok.......


----------



## Crackle (30 Aug 2009)

The vultures are circling.


----------



## jonesy (30 Aug 2009)

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r...ars_the_relative_hazards_of_mobile_phones.htm



> The aim of this study was to benchmark the distraction caused by hands-free mobile phone conversations in relation to other conventional in-car tasks, and to similar conversations held with a front seat passenger. Thirty experienced drivers aged between 21 and 64 years drove a 17 km route in the TRL driving simulator for each experimental condition. The results showed a complex but consistent picture of distraction. Measures of car following ability and general measures of speed control showed that all additional conversation and in-vehicle tasks produced more variable performance consistent with the additional load imposed. Self report subjective workload measures showed that both in-vehicle and passenger conversation tasks were rated equally more difficult than baseline driving. Handsfree conversations were rated yet more difficult. This pattern was repeated in results of choice reaction time tasks. When drivers were required to respond selectively to road signs, it was shown that the best performance was achieved in the driving baseline condition, with a significant deterioration to in-vehicle and passenger conversation conditions, and yet further deterioration in the handsfree conversation drive. The act of driving was shown to have a distinct effect on the quality and character of a conversation. The rate of talking, the number of pauses, number of errors and performance on verbal and numerical reasoning tasks all deteriorated when driving at the same time. Comparison was made between the conversations held over the carphone and with the front seat passenger. There was a clear difference on all conversation measures showing that performance was worse when the response was via the handsfree carphone. *It is concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than these other common in-vehicle distractions.*



NB- this study is about *hands-free* phones


----------



## Joe24 (30 Aug 2009)

magnatom said:


> Now....Let me see....What should I do here....
> 
> On the one hand these sorts of discussions never really get anywhere. However, on the other hand they can be mildly entertaining...hmmm.......
> 
> ...



These conversations are pointless.
It just circles round and around, and no matter how many facts you give car drivers(or any other driver of a motor vehicular) they wont listen and just say cyclists shouldn't be on the road, which then circles back around, and around.


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Aug 2009)

I have motocycle horn x2 im sure these aren't illegal and they work a treat.

Im waiting for the next motorist to get the hump and reverse into me just because I get the hump with yet another close pass mobile phone wielding motorist and give a blast.


----------



## ScottSub 10 (30 Aug 2009)

Joe24 said:


> These conversations are pointless.
> It just circles round and around, and no matter how many facts you give car drivers(or any other driver of a motor vehicular) they wont listen and just say cyclists shouldn't be on the road, which then circles back around, and around.




Guess that means I lose on two counts then... >rolleyes< What a pointless black and white approach. 

At the double risk of sounding ill-informed/arrogant, I am fairly happy with both my motoring and cycling life approach. I would suggest that all my cycling/driving buddies are too (even those with a Subaru!). I know cos I just did 276 miles with 20 of them with NO other traffic issues (the only cameras were inside our Camelbaks!). We rarely rode 2 abreast (as is our God given right >rolleyes<) though, as we nderstand the danger when other heavier, faster potentially lethal vehicles were about...

Scott


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Aug 2009)

When I ride with others I will ride two abreast, until a vehicle approaches from behind, then I (or the other rider) will move in to the nearside. I see it as a common courtesy.


----------



## PBancroft (30 Aug 2009)

I'm sorry... but I'm personally finding this thread (as a whole) a little ridiculous now. On both sides.

C'mon folks. We're all just trying to _go_ somewhere.


----------



## Joe24 (30 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> I'm sorry... but I'm personally finding this thread (as a whole) a little ridiculous now. On both sides.
> 
> C'mon folks. We're all just trying to _go_ somewhere.



Its still got to go around abit more yet until it dies.


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> I'm sorry... but I'm personally finding this thread (as a whole) a little ridiculous now. On both sides.
> 
> C'mon folks. We're all just trying to _go_ somewhere.



The key words being as safe as possible which is not always possible.


----------



## PBancroft (30 Aug 2009)

Joe24 said:


> Its still got to go around abit more yet until it dies.



No. It doesn't.

Sorry folks, this is shoot. We (both CC and the Scooby lot) are above that.


----------



## Steve Austin (30 Aug 2009)

I'm with kaipaith on this


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Aug 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> The key words being as safe as possible which is not always possible.


Amen.


----------



## f1_fan (30 Aug 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> and your license plate number is............?



Barking up the wrong tree there I am afraid. Mikey Boy won't get me on camera as I give all cyclists an extremely wide berth as many are quite unpredictable in their manouvres on the road.


----------



## f1_fan (30 Aug 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Come on mate,some of the driving out there is shocking.



Yes it is, but the 'offences' on some of Mikey Boy's vids on You Tube are not worth a comment let alone the trouble of uploading them to You Tube for pity's sake.


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Barking up the wrong tree there I am afraid. Mikey Boy won't get me on camera as I give all cyclists an extremely wide berth as many are quite unpredictable in their manouvres on the road.



Good Man. Good race this afternoon, shame Button and Hamilton weren't in the mix on the best circuit of the year. Great for Force India.


----------



## magnatom (30 Aug 2009)

I have heard the whole cyclist looking for trouble to film argument so many times, it really is boring now. 

Look at this this way, if a cyclist was to cycle in such a way to increase the likelyhood of having incidents to film, then unless they were a very skillful cyclist, they would be at serious risk of having a serious accident. 

I have known BM for quite a while online. He has a child, he values life, he does not place himself in any unecessary danger. 

I have two children, a third on the way. Unless I was very skillful at cycling, I would be mad to incite incidents.

I challenge anyone to suggest that I am skillful enough to get away with cycling to cause incidents!


----------



## Steve Austin (30 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Yes it is, but the 'offences' on some of Mikey Boy's vids on You Tube are not worth a comment let alone the trouble of uploading them to You Tube for pity's sake.



I would agree with that

I cycle daily, and experience daily 'bad' driving, but it hardly warrants posting on the internet. 

this discussion isn't about bad drivers, its about the bad* drivers in the video clips


*so subjective i can't even think how to classify it


----------



## Crackle (30 Aug 2009)

maggers said:


> I challenge anyone to suggest that I am skillful enough to get away with cycling to cause incidents!




<tumbleweed>


----------



## magnatom (30 Aug 2009)

Steve Austin said:


> I would agree with that
> 
> I cycle daily, and experience daily 'bad' driving, but it hardly warrants posting on the internet.
> 
> ...



The problem is, that nearly everyone drives a car, and so understands the drivers perspective. However, how many drivers understand the cyclists perspective? Not many. So by posting incidents, sometimes relatively trivial, it is possible for others to look at the roads from a cyclists point of view.


----------



## magnatom (30 Aug 2009)

Crackle said:


> <tumbleweed>




I knew you'd be along!


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Aug 2009)

Hang on mags I may not have kids and have no plans to have any in the future but I still want to get to work without a life threatening incident.


----------



## thomas (30 Aug 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Hang on mags I may not have kids and have no plans to have any in the future but I still want to get to work without a life threatening incident.



I think he was just making a point for why cyclingmikey would want to cycle safely, without going out to cause problems.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Aug 2009)

Well, as someone who's had the pleasure of cycling with BentMikey, I'd say that he was as safe and as prudent a cyclist as any I've known. 

He's also distressingly fast, but age will slow him down.........


----------



## f1_fan (30 Aug 2009)

thomas said:


> I think he was just making a point for why cyclingmikey would want to cycle safely, without going out to cause problems.



But videoing people, sounding loud airhorns at them and then telling them that 'this or that' incident will be on You Tube and/or the police will be informed is far more likley to cause problems than just having a polite word. Surely people here can see that.

Some drivers are idiots, we all know that, so politely tell them if you must or just let it go as life is too short.

I watched some of the other videos on You Tube and there is one where he films a guy on the phone in a van (in stationery traffic), he points the camera right at him so much so that the guy is looking at him, then gets off the phone and gets out of the van where the video conveniently cuts with Mikey saying nothing further happened in the text comments below. Well if nothing did happen one day it will and as much as these people may be in the worng having someone filming them and gobbing off is only going to end up one way as like it or not it is antagonistic.


----------



## GrasB (30 Aug 2009)

Just come back from a collage bar so pardon me if I get a little way ward. Firstly, I think us cycling enthusiasts have to take note of something that came up earlier, as cycling enthusiasts we see a difference between a "person on a bike" & a cyclist, most motorists don't. Most people I (we, see below about "we") consider cyclists have lights, ware some sort of high-viz clothing ad-hear to the rules of the road, notably don't usually JRL (more on this latter), most of the time & find that using cycle paths is one of the most dangerous things you can do due to peds.

Had a discussion about this with a load of Maths/Physics PhD students & post-docs, these guys are intelligent, level headed & analytical by nature so great to bounce ideas around with, too boot they were all rowers &/or cyclists (the "we" mentioned above).

First thing we noticed is that almost all our incidents were when riding around urban areas even though most of our cycling miles was done outside urban zones. Then we all got down to the idea that a big part of the problem with car drivers is their version of adequate space is radically different from ours, simply put we worked out the *minimum* safe distance a car should be leaving a cyclist between any nearside obstruction & the nearside of their car is around 1.75m, this is actually quite a lot of road if you think about it.

The next thing we noticed is that when people were travelling slowly they had almost no incidents, the problem was when you get much over 13mph & gets to be a real problem once above 18mph, so one has to say that:
1) Car drivers simply aren't judging cyclists speed properly
2) As a cyclist you're going to be hyped up physically so more aggressive
We also think when drivers get into slower more restricted road conditions they start to get impatient, as you get more impatient you get less tolerant, so things like a cyclist being a cars door width away from parked cars (note: that 1.75m minimum now doesn't actually seem excessive) & staying behind a cyclist at a traffic flow obstruction "calming" pinch points become a real annoyance.

We all agreed with the best intentions in the world we've all JRLed when riding hot as the so called intelligent lights which pick up a cyclist doing 20~25mph & phase to red at just the time you reach the lights because some idiot at the council hasn't worked out that faster cyclists tend to operate in the 20~25mph area. We also agreed that there are 2 lights which a cyclist HAS to JRL if we don't have a car or second cyclist pull up as a lone cyclist isn't heavy enough to trigger the sensors.

On a personal note today I got a middle-aged woman shout at me from her 4x4 "Bike hooligan! Don't be lazy & sit there with your brakes on"... ... sorry WTF?! I have a rear light on because I want to be seen.. k, thanks. Obviously has a bee in her bonnet about that & completely oblivious to the fact most bikes *don't* have brake lights.


----------



## f1_fan (30 Aug 2009)

magnatom said:


> The problem is, that nearly everyone drives a car, and so understands the drivers perspective. However, how many drivers understand the cyclists perspective? Not many. So by posting incidents, sometimes relatively trivial, it is possible for others to look at the roads from a cyclists point of view.



Couldn't agree more, but Mikey isn't just doing that is he? He is threatening these people with You Tube and/or the police and in some cases it would seem actually going to the police. 

So while the notion he might want to educate us lowly car drivers about what it is like to ride a bike on the roads is a noble one it is also complete crap.


----------



## cheadle hulme (31 Aug 2009)

GrasB said:


> Just come back from a collage bar so pardon me if I get a little way ward.



Stay away from that Hoegarden - its loony juice!



GrasB said:


> We also think when drivers get into slower more restricted road conditions they start to get impatient, as you get more impatient you get less tolerant, so things like a cyclist being a cars door width away from parked cars (note: that 1.75m minimum now doesn't actually seem excessive)



More seriously, this pees some motorists off. Quote from missus "why do you need 2m room when a car overtakes but only a whisker when you overtake queuing traffic?"

If you think about speed differentials; 15mph when a car overtakes me (35 vs 20) and 20mph when I overtake them (20 vs nil). She does have a bit of point.


----------



## 2Loose (31 Aug 2009)

cheadle hulme said:


> If you think about speed differentials; 15mph when a car overtakes me (35 vs 20) and 20mph when I overtake them (20 vs nil). She does have a bit of point.



Aah, but if you fall off because of a car door opening, then that is bike height plus rider height (2m-ish) into the flow of traffic.

If you are filtering, then a car door opening on the driver side is hardly likey is it.


----------



## GrasB (31 Aug 2009)

cheadle hulme said:


> More seriously, this pees some motorists off. Quote from missus "why do you need 2m room when a car overtakes but only a whisker when you overtake queuing traffic?"
> 
> If you think about speed differentials; 15mph when a car overtakes me (35 vs 20) and 20mph when I overtake them (20 vs nil). She does have a bit of point.


Personally I never overtake in a situation that I'm not comfortable being overtaken in, that applies to driving a car or bike. If that means coming to a halt in a cycle lane I damn well will. I overtake on the right hand side of the road I'm out a fair way over into the oncoming traffic if I'm going any speed else I'm going past at walking pace & if a car was that close at that speed I don't mind.

That said if I am a decent distance out from a row of parked cars or on a narrow road & I not going to quickly I *will* pull into an empty space when it's available & often even stop to let cars through. You'll be amazed at how many people give you a nod or a hand up in thanks.


----------



## Radius (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Some drivers are idiots, we all know that, so politely tell them if you must or just let it go as life is too short.



And some people's lives will be a hell of a lot shorter because of them. I'm not a fan of the filming / witch hunting thing, but sometimes reporting a driver doing something really bad is probably a good idea, since if they get a string of people doing so, said driver may well be reprimanded.


----------



## jonny jeez (31 Aug 2009)

Steve Austin said:


> 'sits back munching popcorn'




LOL, better than corrie and free too!

Where the hell is Blazed when we need him, will someone please let him out of his box so that he can put an end to this thread!!


----------



## cheadle hulme (31 Aug 2009)

GrasB said:


> Personally *I never overtake in a situation that I'm not comfortable being overtaken in*, that applies to driving a car or bike. If that means coming to a halt in a cycle lane I damn well will. I overtake on the right hand side of the road I'm out a fair way over into the oncoming traffic if I'm going any speed else I'm going past at walking pace & if a car was that close at that speed I don't mind.



Hi GrasB, your profile doesn't make it clear where you are. In central Manchester, if I never overtook in a situation I'm not comfortable being overtaken in, I may as well travel by car! At least I wouldn't get wet.

My point was that in urban areas, the advantage of cycling is that you can filter and nip between lanes at 20mph with impunity.

This then creates a contradiction in motorists minds as to why we need 2m room when being overtaken at 30mph in suburban areas. 

Apologies if I didn't make this clear.

Link back to the OP - speed differential (if MB was doing 20mph) was around 20mph, difficult to tell though as the scooby is braking as soon as it comes into shot.)


----------



## GrasB (31 Aug 2009)

See if things were tight I wouldn't be doing 20mph I'd be down at a slower pace for which I'd be comfortable with a car overtaking at that speed difference & distance.


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

Radius said:


> And some people's lives will be a hell of a lot shorter because of them. I'm not a fan of the filming / witch hunting thing, but sometimes reporting a driver doing something really bad is probably a good idea, since if they get a string of people doing so, said driver may well be reprimanded.



Yes, but at least half of the videos posted on You Tube by Mikey that I have watched aren't really bad. Take the phone one I mentioned. If Mikey really feels that strongly just say to the guy politely 'come on mate, knock the phone on the head will you', but oh no he sticks a camera in the guy's face etc.

Surely some of you can see that this is antagonistic, bordering on OCD and frankly going to end up with Mikey getting a good kicking one day.


----------



## hackbike 666 (31 Aug 2009)

GrasB said:


> See if things were tight I wouldn't be doing 20mph I'd be down at a slower pace for which I'd be comfortable with a car overtaking at that speed difference & distance.



I ride in heavy London traffic and I find the biggest dangers at this time are peds appearing from nowhere so in that situation i wouldn't be cycling fast anyway.


----------



## ComedyPilot (31 Aug 2009)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypy07XFArmI


About 5:35 in. 'Car drivers should be aware of the situation and that they are in a machine that could kill, and that they should behave responsibly for that situation'

I found this clip and thought it was applicable here. There has been a conflict between a bike (rider) and a car (driver).

The car driver should (because of their environment - in over a ton of moving metal) behave in a responsible manner. 

The cyclist should not have been in the situation in the first place. Due to bad planning and government policy, bikes and cars in the uk share the roads. 

This OP incident and the film attached here are proof that our roads infrastructure is woafully inadequate for purpose. The film in Holland also hints that the Dutch were in a similar situation with cyclist/ped/vehicle collisions, but their electorate DEMANDED change, and what a change they got.


----------



## hackbike 666 (31 Aug 2009)

The big problem here sometimes it seems is the driving is agressive.Seems to be different in other countries.People say Thailand is bad but the first time I cycled there I found it quite cycle friendly.Probably because there are more bikes/motorbikes tuk tuks and anything slow with wheels.


----------



## stowie (31 Aug 2009)

cheadle hulme said:


> My point was that in urban areas, the advantage of cycling is that you can filter and nip between lanes at 20mph with impunity.
> 
> This then creates a contradiction in motorists minds as to why we need 2m room when being overtaken at 30mph in suburban areas.



When a bicycle is filtering through stationary traffic, the moving mass is much less than when a car is overtaking a slower moving bicycle. The capacity for the cyclist to get injured or killed in the latter scenario is much higher. And so the motorist should give more space accordingly.


----------



## PBancroft (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Yes, but at least half of the videos posted on You Tube by Mikey that I have watched aren't really bad. Take the phone one I mentioned. If Mikey really feels that strongly just say to the guy politely 'come on mate, knock the phone on the head will you', but oh no he sticks a camera in the guy's face etc.
> 
> Surely some of you can see that this is antagonistic, bordering on OCD and frankly going to end up with Mikey getting a good kicking one day.



I intended to bow out of this thread, but I find this a rather interesting thing to say. To an extent, I find myself in agreement on both sides. I understand the benefits of having a camera as a passive observer, though I do not have one myself. I can also see how someone having a camera "stuck in your face" being antagonistic.

What I'm not so sure about is the statement - he's going to get a *good *kicking. I'm sure he doesn't mean if he see's BM with a camera, he's going to _give_ him a good kicking. 

But... I kind of at a loss as to why f1 is making this assumption anyway. If BM films someone doing something illegal, and calls them on it - and then BM gets the kicking - Who is in the wrong there really? It isn't BM, though people could make the _he shouldn't get involved_ argument.

To revert back to the OP, there is no way that DAN OK could have known that BM had a camera on him when he stopped his car. That argument is right out the window, and frankly its bordering on ridiculous anyway. To use it as a reason to get out of a car, swear aggressively, threaten someone, or even give someone a "good kicking" is insane. Calm down. As I said before - we're all just going somewhere.


----------



## Mark T (31 Aug 2009)

> Take the phone one I mentioned. If Mikey really feels that strongly just say to the guy politely 'come on mate, knock the phone on the head will you', but oh no he sticks a camera in the guy's face etc.



Given that talking on the phone while driving is quite a dangerous thing to do - perhaps as dangerous as drunk driving, if statistics are anything to go by, and just as illegal - perhaps a pertinent question is, if you had a camera and you saw someone drinking from a can behind the wheel, would you film them? Or would you just say, 'give it a rest mate?'


----------



## PBancroft (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Couldn't agree more, but Mikey isn't just doing that is he? He is threatening these people with You Tube and/or the police and in some cases it would seem actually going to the police.
> 
> So while the notion he might want to educate us lowly car drivers about what it is like to ride a bike on the roads is a noble one it is also complete crap.



Why shouldn't he go to the Police if people act dangerously to the extent he is concerned about his welfare on the road? That's kinda what the traffic cops are there for...


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Yes, but at least half of the videos posted on You Tube by Mikey that I have watched aren't really bad. Take the phone one I mentioned. If Mikey really feels that strongly just say to the guy politely 'come on mate, knock the phone on the head will you', but oh no he sticks a camera in the guy's face etc.
> 
> Surely some of you can see that this is antagonistic, bordering on OCD and frankly going to end up with Mikey getting a good kicking one day.


if the incident isn't 'really bad' what's the problem? And he doesn't stick the camera in his face - it's running continually on the front of the bike. Your friend Dan jumped out of the car and made a point of putting his face in the shot.

Carrying a video camera or a still camera is a really sensible thing to do. If you have a problem that you want to take to the police, or the employer of a van driver, or somebody's insurance company then having a photographic or video record is as good as it gets.

The startling thing is the reaction. People shield their faces, roar off at high speed, or, in one case, when I took a picture of somebody's license plate, ran his car aground on the kerb, making a pretty mess of the body panel - and in front of a bus queue on the Farringdon Road.


----------



## just jim (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Yes, but at least half of the videos posted on You Tube by Mikey that I have watched aren't really bad. Take the phone one I mentioned. If Mikey really feels that strongly just say to the guy politely 'come on mate, knock the phone on the head will you', but oh no he sticks a camera in the guy's face etc.
> 
> Surely some of you can see that this is antagonistic, bordering on OCD and frankly going to end up with Mikey getting a good kicking one day.



Who's head would phone be knocked on? There's a lot of pent up motorist aggression out there just waiting for any opportunity to be unleashed at somebody on a bicycle.


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> IWhat I'm not so sure about is the statement - he's going to get a *good *kicking. I'm sure he doesn't mean if he see's BM with a camera, he's going to _give_ him a good kicking.
> 
> But... I kind of at a loss as to why f1 is making this assumption anyway. If BM films someone doing something illegal, and calls them on it - and then BM gets the kicking - Who is in the wrong there really? It isn't BM, though people could make the _he shouldn't get involved_ argument.



LOL, no way did I mean I am going to give him a good kicking, but you know that of course and are just looking for a rise 

Look I won't even get involved verbally mate, road rage is just not worth it. I have made mistakes when driving and I have apologised when required. If someone does the same to me I just try and let it pass without so much as a gesticulation as really what is the point? Just get on with life.

What I mean is that someone rightly or wrongly is going to take offence at the camera being pointed at them and the 'this is going to the police/on You Tube' stuff he spouts and take the matter into their own hands. Yes they will be in the wrong, but that does not stop Mikey getting assaulted and at least part of that will be down to his overly antagonistic actions.


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

Mark T said:


> Given that talking on the phone while driving is quite a dangerous thing to do - perhaps as dangerous as drunk driving, if statistics are anything to go by, and just as illegal - perhaps a pertinent question is, if you had a camera and you saw someone drinking from a can behind the wheel, would you film them? Or would you just say, 'give it a rest mate?'



Well being as I do not swallow the being on the phone thing as being anywhere near as bad as drink driving I can't answer your question. Statistics on the subject are all bollocks anyway as the government will massage them to suit their own agenda. Road deaths have not dramatically decreased since talking on the phone was outlawed - end of argument really, but that's for another thread.

Bear in mind the video I am referring was in stationery traffic so really what harm was the van driver doing? Yes he was technically breaking the law, but I wouldn't be shoving a camera in his face and remonstrating with him over it. As I said have a polite word if you feel that strongly, often the more friendly and less antagonsitic approach will yield more results not that Mikey will ever understand that I suspect.


----------



## fossyant (31 Aug 2009)

Slightly OT (cos this is getting out of hand)... what do the Scooby lads think of the new model -  - now a small hatchback - something's gone wrong there hasn't it......


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> Why shouldn't he go to the Police if people act dangerously to the extent he is concerned about his welfare on the road? That's kinda what the traffic cops are there for...



Yes OK, but judging by his video collection I think he has a rather exagerated opinion of what is unacceptable on the road - maybe when he finds the cops don't take any action he should maybe ask himself why or no doubt that is because they are all cyclist hating fascists


----------



## PBancroft (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> LOL, no way did I mean I am going to give him a good kicking, but you know that of course and are just looking for a rise
> 
> Look I won't even get involved verbally mate, road rage is just not worth it. I have made mistakes when driving and I have apologised when required. If someone does the same to me I just try and let it pass without so much as a gesticulation as really what is the point? Just get on with life.
> 
> What I mean is that someone rightly or wrongly is going to take offence at the camera being pointed at them and the 'this is going to the police/on You Tube' stuff he spouts and take the matter into their own hands. Yes they will be in the wrong, but that does not stop Mikey getting assaulted and at least part of that will be down to his overly antagonistic actions.



Actually - I wasn't looking for a rise. I don't know you from Adam and some of the posts on this thread have been somewhat borderline on both sides - claiming stuff is illegal when it isn't, or saying that someone is going to get a good kicking. I simply found it an interesting choice of words.

Can I ask if you have a horn in your car? Have you ever used it? Because ultimately thats what BM did - used his horn to warn another road user of his presence.

Did that condone the car driver getting out of his vehicle, swearing at him, calling him a "bitch" and telling him to "f*** off"?

The camera didn't come into the question until after that point. Using that as a reason for the aggressive attitude of the driver is ridiculous. Maybe BM shouldn't have mentioned its presence at all - but that in no way condones or explains the behaviour of the motorist in this instance.


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> if the incident isn't 'really bad' what's the problem? And he doesn't stick the camera in his face - it's running continually on the front of the bike. Your friend Dan jumped out of the car and made a point of putting his face in the shot.



In the video with the guy on the phone he sticks the camera virtually through the guy's window. That is the video I am talking about as I clearly state in my post. 

As for 'my friend Dan' I have said all along the Subaru driver is a complete idiot, but you know that and are just looking for a rise out of me.


----------



## magnatom (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Well being as I do not swallow the being on the phone thing as being anywhere near as bad as drink driving I can't answer your question. Statistics on the subject are all bollocks anyway as the government will massage them to suit their own agenda. Road deaths have not dramatically decreased since talking on the phone was outlawed - end of argument really, but that's for another thread.
> 
> Bear in mind the video I am referring was in stationery traffic so really what harm was the van driver doing? Yes he was technically breaking the law, but I wouldn't be shoving a camera in his face and remonstrating with him over it. As I said have a polite word if you feel that strongly, often the more friendly and less antagonsitic approach will yield more results not that Mikey will ever understand that I suspect.



BM has in fact handed in chocholates to a bus depot to say thanks for the good driving he had seen from the companies bus drivers. It seems He does understand less antagonistic approaches. ..


----------



## PBancroft (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> In the video with the guy on the phone he sticks the camera virtually through the guy's window. That is the video I am talking about as I clearly state in my post.
> 
> As for 'my friend Dan' I have said all along the Subaru driver is a complete idiot, but you know that and are just looking for a rise out of me.



Yes, yes he is an idiot. A dangerous one.

Have you linked to the video you refer to?


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> Actually - I wasn't looking for a rise. I don't know you from Adam and some of the posts on this thread have been somewhat borderline on both sides - claiming stuff is illegal when it isn't, or saying that someone is going to get a good kicking. I simply found it an interesting choice of words.
> 
> Can I ask if you have a horn in your car? Have you ever used it? Because ultimately thats what BM did - used his horn to warn another road user of his presence.
> 
> ...



Agreed re the Subaru incident, I am referring more to some of the other videos he has posted on You Tube and particularly one where he ticks off the guy about being on the phone. 

That is where he is videoing him through the window and the guy takes umbrage at the situation and gets out of the van whereupon the video mysteriously stops and Mikey tells us nothing more happened in the comments. If it didn't he is lucky as one day someone will get nasty with him. Yes they will be in the wrong, but then again if Mikey approached these aituations less confrontationally I can't help but think he would get a better reaction.

Anyway I can see I am in a minority over here and if this thread has taught me one thing it is to give cyclists an even wider berth as the last thing I want is a confrontation with one of you camera wielding confrontational types


----------



## andrew-the-tortoise (31 Aug 2009)

I use a small VGA helmet cam on my commute [which on the whole is quite event free].
I see it more as a 'black box recorder' if anything nasty should happen.

Don't have a Youtube account, don't upload anything but would have probably informed the police if an event as depicted in the OP occurred.

Would the roads be safer if all vehicles has built in cameras? Don't know - but I would only object to being filmed if I was doing something I shouldn't.


----------



## marinyork (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Yes OK, but judging by his video collection I think he has a rather exagerated opinion of what is unacceptable on the road - maybe when he finds the cops don't take any action he should maybe ask himself why or no doubt that is because they are all cyclist hating fascists



People were commenting on this particular video. It is much worse than some other of bentmikey's other videos - the saturated road, the obstructions, the poor overtake, parking car in a dangerous position, aggressive behaviour by the subaru driver and then reversing to threaten the recumbent rider.

The issue isn't the camera in this particular video, it is that the driver got rumbled for not only very poor driving but threatening and aggressive behaviour on top of that.


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

fossyant said:


> Slightly OT (cos this is getting out of hand)... what do the Scooby lads think of the new model -  - now a small hatchback - something's gone wrong there hasn't it......



It's pants, but shhhhh as some of them over there like it


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> Yes, yes he is an idiot. A dangerous one.
> 
> Have you linked to the video you refer to?



Sorry as I never bookmarked it and really watching it once was enough  Its in his list of videos if you can be bothered.


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

marinyork said:


> People were commenting on this particular video. It is much worse than some other of bentmikey's other videos - the saturated road, the obstructions, the poor overtake, parking car in a dangerous position, aggressive behaviour by the subaru driver and then reversing to threaten the recumbent rider.
> 
> The issue isn't the camera in this particular video, it is that the driver got rumbled for not only very poor driving but threatening and aggressive behaviour on top of that.



As I said agreed re. the particular video in the OP. Still think Mikey's 'this will be on You Tube' stuff is not a clever thing to say to someone who has just demonstrated once that he is a moron and may therefore do it again!

Anyway I have to go out now and find some cylcists to hassle (just kidding), but thanks for the debate so far. I hope that even though I drive a Scoob you will realise that I can have a reasoned debate and that I and others aren't like the dick in the video here. It ain't the car, it's the person.


----------



## PBancroft (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Sorry as I never bookmarked it and really watching it once was enough  Its in his list of videos if you can be bothered.



If you mean this one - there are two interesting things about this video.

Firstly, notice the cyclist who jumps the red lights. We don't all claim to be saints, and the benefit of the camera is that it catches our actions too.

Secondly, the guy is having a telephone conversation sat at traffic lights, not stuck in traffic. The traffic will pull away after a few moments and unless the conversation was remarkably short he will still be on the phone. That's really not very safe or professional. Now, personally I wouldn't have either filmed it or stuck it on YouTube - but if it makes the van driver think twice in future, who cares?

And finally - how are you imagining he is sticking a camera in his face? I do wonder if the guy even realised a camera was there. It's just a little cylinder attached to his helmet.


----------



## PBancroft (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Anyway I have to go out now and find some cylcists to hassle (just kidding), but thanks for the debate so far. I hope that even though I drive a Scoob you will realise that I can have a reasoned debate and that I and others aren't like the dick in the video here. It ain't the car, it's the person.



It's not the bike, its the person too.


----------



## thomas (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> As I said agreed re. the particular video in the OP. Still think Mikey's 'this will be on You Tube' stuff is not a clever thing to say to someone who has just demonstrated once that he is a moron and may therefore do it again!



I'll agree that saying "this will be on youtube" is a little pointless. I've got a helmet camera, so you could throw me in the same boat as Mikey. I feel the youtube line kind of devalues any problems as it isn't really that threatening.

I would at times point to the camera...such as if there was someone really tailgating and ready to creep past where they shouldn't, just so they know they're on film. I know that this has probably stopped people trying to get past at any cost. This wouldn't be done to antagonise, it'd be just a quick point...or at times I might just "rearrange" it it make it obvious, without specifically showing it.

Now, here's a video of mine where I honk and yell. The reason I did both was just shock. I didn't expect this at all and it was just my reaction. Up a hill with a blind corner and with oncoming traffic. Even if I was right in the gutter there should not be enough room to overtake:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6eU4pk0pgw


Now. Just like in Mickey's case the driver could of stopped and called me a bitch. He didn't and when I showed the taxi company the footage the driver said he misjudged the gap and apologised for it. Can't really ask for more! People make mistakes.


----------



## blazed (31 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> If you mean this one - there are two interesting things about this video.
> 
> Firstly, notice the cyclist who jumps the red lights. We don't all claim to be saints, and the benefit of the camera is that it catches our actions too.
> 
> ...



Old helmet camera dweeb gets all irate but the lorry driver didnt even do anything wrong in that video.


----------



## PBancroft (31 Aug 2009)

blazed said:


> Old helmet camera dweeb gets all irate but the lorry driver didnt even do anything wrong in that video.



My bad - linked to the wrong video. Think it should be this one. Will edit my post.

Again, I wouldn't have really called the video Blazed refers to above as worth the time of putting on You Tube, but I wouldn't go so far as to call BM a dweeb over it.

And anyway - Dweeb?


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> In the video with the guy on the phone he sticks the camera virtually through the guy's window. That is the video I am talking about as I clearly state in my post.


I've done the same. It's the way to get a good picture. And the result is almost always the same - incomprehension followed by extreme anger. And the clue, my little friend, is that many many car drivers go around in a state of suppressed frenzy. Given your warning to BentMikey I'd suggest you should lie down and contemplate your own state of mind.



f1_fan said:


> As for 'my friend Dan' I have said all along the Subaru driver is a complete idiot, but you know that and are just looking for a rise out of me.


If you didn't make it so easy.........


----------



## blazed (31 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> He did, he overtook to closely on the approach to a load of traffic, WTF is the point in that?



How much room do you want when someone over takes you? He didnt overtake to closely at all assuming the middle of the picture is his head there is plenty of room.


----------



## thomas (31 Aug 2009)

blazed said:


> How much room do you want when someone over takes you? He didnt overtake to closely at all assuming the middle of the picture is his head there is plenty of room.




With the removal van clip it pays to mention that things can seem worst in real life than they do on a video. For something of that size to come closely it can be quite intimidating.

The other point is, a wide angle lens can sometimes make things look further away than they were when they happened. As well as this, it depends where the camera is position on the bike. If the camera is on the far left it may seem like more room as been given. I guess it is at the middle in the front, but even then you take away a foot for the side of the bike/shoulders/etc, then the space becomes smaller.







The removal driver's driving isn't the worst I've seen, but would another meter really have hurt him?


----------



## Origamist (31 Aug 2009)

The frame-grabs don't tell you that BM has veered to the left in order to avoid an even closer overtake. It was good observation and defensive riding.

It was an unnecessary overtake by the HGV as the traffic ahead was queueing. What's more, it forced the cyclist to veer left in order to "facilitate" the overtake.

If you wanted to be ultra-critical of BM's road position when the lorry was approaching, it was not far out enough to inhibit overtakes, but was far enough out to make close passes an issue (particularly drivers of wider track vehicles who don't want to straddle the lane markings). 

On a widish lane like that, IMO, you either want to be more to the left or more to the right when approaching queuing traffic.


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> And the clue, my little friend, is that many many car drivers go around in a state of suppressed frenzy. Given your warning to BentMikey I'd suggest you should lie down and contemplate your own state of mind.



Well leaving the patronising nature of your reply aside how about you actally read my posts? I am not warning Mikey personally as no road user will ever get a word out of me, I simply don't do road rage, it's so subjective and pointless that I would rather just defuse the situation and go on my way apologising if I am in the wrong.

My warning is that he is antagonistic in his approach and he will one day meet someone who will take matters (wrongly) into his own hands. The fact he will be able to claim the moral high ground will do him no good at all when he is on the end of a physical assault. Still, that's up to him. 

In fact I would go as far as to say that Mikey appears to go around in a state of suppressed frenzy just as much as any car driver. After all why else would he go home and create his little vigilante videos complete with all those cute captions to post on You Tube. OCD is the only other answer I can find.


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> F1, the only point of yours that worth considering is that maybe one day BM may get a slap. All the other stuff though: Use of airhorn, position on the road, people riding two abrest, guy on the phone talking etc is all rubbish, has no substance at all - none.
> 
> I did admire (and laugh) about how you mention that that an Airzound was illegal and then when it was pointed out to you that they were in fact not you went straight down the old path of 'cyclists RLJ, ride on pavements, etc'



Good God, what is this place, home of the 'I can't read a forum post properly to save my life society'???

Not me mate, the two abreast, position on the road, airhorn being illegal etc. etc. were Differentpov's posts not mine. Maybe you lot should actually learn to read people's posts before mounting your high horses eh?


----------



## GrasB (31 Aug 2009)

blazed said:


> How much room do you want when someone over takes you? He didnt overtake to closely at all assuming the middle of the picture is his head there is plenty of room.


Enough so that if I put my arm out for a signal it isn't touching a car so:
1) I can signal & the vehicles behind can see what I'm doing
2) I actually have space to fall off without a very high risk of serious injury
Personal experience is that cats, squirrels, rabbits & other medium sized mammals have very little road sense. I've personally hit a squirrel at 25mph in town that ran under a car who was overtaking me at the time, thankfully the guy gave me about 2m room while overtaking so I just ate some tarmac. Had he been as close as that lorry I have no idea what would have happened to me.


----------



## Differentpov (31 Aug 2009)

Where is the recumbent rider? Does he not have an opinion? Or has he realised cycling round provoking people then filming their reactions is not a good use of spare time and has now decided to get a normal hobby! Im genuinely interested to hear his pov, and to ask hi why he feels the need to post stuff on youtube and go running to the cops 5 times a week, i bet even the cops are sick of him!


----------



## Origamist (31 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> Where is the recumbent rider? Does he not have an opinion? Or has he realised cycling round provoking people then filming their reactions is not a good use of spare time and has now decided to get a normal hobby! Im genuinely interested to hear his pov, and to ask hi why he feels the need to post stuff on youtube and go running to the cops 5 times a week, i bet even the cops are sick of him!



He's no longer on this forum. Post on the comments section of his YouTube vids if you want a discussion.

He also writes to companies complimenting their drivers when he encounters courteous behaviour. It's not all negative.


----------



## thomas (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Well leaving the patronising nature of your reply aside how about you actally read my posts? I am not warning Mikey personally as no road user will ever get a word out of me, I simply don't do road rage, it's so subjective and pointless that I would rather just defuse the situation and go on my way apologising if I am in the wrong.
> 
> My warning is that he is antagonistic in his approach and he will one day meet someone who will take matters (wrongly) into his own hands. The fact he will be able to claim the mroal high ground will do him no good at all when he is on the end of a physical assault. Still, that's up to him.




F1. If you make a mistake an apologise big thumbs up for that! I film my commute and a simple hands up or apology would be all that is needed. We all make mistakes (even CyclingMikey).

I think you could antagonise with the airzound, such as like in this clip (another youtube user) but they can come in handy without causing offence.

Now, from the Dan video. I think we can all admit that the driver is a bit of a knob. I don't think cyclingmikey over reacted with his horn, it certainly wasn't held down. His yell could quite well be a natural reaction.

The video doesn't really show how close Dan was, but as his car was said to be going quite quickly along with probably being quite loud this could give anyone a fright.

Now, I don't think, in this video, Dan was antagonised before he got out of the car. Simply being honked and a yell shouldn't result in someone slamming on the brakes and getting out of the car.

For instance, ages ago I pulled out on a roundabout when I shouldn't. I was in a rush and misjudged their speed. My mistake. I realised this and just wanted to get out of the drivers way, hold my hand up/apologise and move on.

Now, rather than letting me do this, the driver decided to use his car to make a point. He could have quite easily have slowed down or stopped.

Instead of this, he held down his horn until I had stopped. He wouldn't stop or slow down until he could get in front of me, and wiggle his finger to tell me off. Now him holding his horn down like he did, did antagonise me. I wouldn't of minded being honked, but it was the fact he pushed it a few times in such a way just to teach me a lesson. I ended up not apologising and just said something like "alright, I made a mistake" but couldn't really have cared less at this point.


----------



## blazed (31 Aug 2009)

thomas said:


> With the removal van clip it pays to mention that things can seem worst in real life than they do on a video. For something of that size to come closely it can be quite intimidating.
> 
> The other point is, a wide angle lens can sometimes make things look further away than they were when they happened. As well as this, it depends where the camera is position on the bike. If the camera is on the far left it may seem like more room as been given. I guess it is at the middle in the front, but even then you take away a foot for the side of the bike/shoulders/etc, then the space becomes smaller.
> 
> ...



Arent recumbents no wider than the person riding it? This is an average sized one no? Your drawing looks way to big?!?!


----------



## Mark T (31 Aug 2009)

> Or has he realised cycling round provoking people then filming their reactions then filming their reactions is not a good use of spare time



Can we drop this crap about BM 'provoking' the reaction he got from this Subaru driver? 

Seriously. The only reason this is even in the public domain is because of his crap driving and ridiculous behaviour.


----------



## blazed (31 Aug 2009)

This is more accurate.








LOADSSSA ROOM!


----------



## fossyant (31 Aug 2009)

Seems the police aren't happy......

Quote BM...........

J_ust had a call back from Bromley, it looks like they will consider an £80 FPN. I reckon I'm pretty happy with that. I have to take the video in to them tomorrow or Wednesday, they can't view youtube as it's blocked by the IT dept_


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Well leaving the patronising nature of your reply aside how about you actally read my posts? I am not warning Mikey personally as no road user will ever get a word out of me, I simply don't do road rage, it's so subjective and pointless that I would rather just defuse the situation and go on my way apologising if I am in the wrong.
> 
> My warning is that he is antagonistic in his approach and he will one day meet someone who will take matters (wrongly) into his own hands. The fact he will be able to claim the moral high ground will do him no good at all when he is on the end of a physical assault. Still, that's up to him.
> 
> In fact I would go as far as to say that Mikey appears to go around in a state of suppressed frenzy just as much as any car driver. After all why else would he go home and create his little vigilante videos complete with all those cute captions to post on You Tube. OCD is the only other answer I can find.


now you're getting upset. That wasn't my intention. 

Take this on board. This is a knowledge building forum which attempts to link the experience of cyclists. And BentMikey, like Magnatom, is one of those good souls who bring to this board an appreciation of things as they are, and how short things are from what they should be. Overtaking in the lunatic fashion shown on his videos is a constant bugbear.

My approach is very different to BM's. I noticed long ago that the slower the cyclist the less respect they were shown by motorists. Further, women cyclists, my own dear lady wife included, are intimidated in a manner that male cyclists aren't - the usual thing is driving too close behind when it is impossible to pass, and then passing when there really isn't enough room. 

When I cycle with my wife, which I do on a regular basis, I manage to contain the excesses of drivers taking the mickey with a kind of patented stare - you would be amazed at the havoc a bit of eye contact wreaks on their fragile egos. When I'm on my own, on those very rare occasions that I'm messed about with by a driver, I tend to exact a degree of punishment - in London this is easily done because there is very little chance of the muppets escaping. I call it consciousness building in motorists - it's a kind of public service. Don't trouble to thank me.

BM's approach, which is altogether more civilised, is commendable in its restraint - but, then, of the two of us, he is by far the better man. Those motorists who find themselves on his youtube files can thank their lucky stars that they met him and not me.

At the ripe old age of 55 I long ago worked out that the kind of driver that cuts you up is the kind of driver that shrinks in to his shell when he (always he, by the way) is taken to task.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Aug 2009)

blazed said:


> Arent recumbents no wider than the person riding it? This is an average sized one no? Your drawing looks way to big?!?!


why not work out the scale from the width of the white line? I know it's a maths thing - feel free to get back to us if you're having difficulty...........


----------



## thomas (31 Aug 2009)

fossyant said:


> Seems the police aren't happy......
> 
> Quote BM...........
> 
> J_ust had a call back from Bromley, it looks like they will consider an £80 FPN. I reckon I'm pretty happy with that. I have to take the video in to them tomorrow or Wednesday, they can't view youtube as it's blocked by the IT dept_




I think that sounds fair to be honest. Hopefully being £80 out of pocket might teach Dan a lesson!


----------



## blazed (31 Aug 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> why not work out the scale from the width of the white line? I know it's a maths thing - feel free to get back to us if you're having difficulty...........


I already done so old man which is how i came to the conclusion his drawing is way to big, no man is that wide not even rick waller.


----------



## Mark T (31 Aug 2009)

> I already done so old man which is how i came to the conclusion his drawing is way to big



This is going to get very boring very quickly - but here goes. The "cyclist" lines on that screen capture are 8 times the width of the white line. 

Just measured a white line outside my house - it's 10 cm wide. So that drawing suggests a cyclist who is 80 cm wide.

Just measured myself - I'm a thinnish chap, and I find myself to be... 60 cm wide. Not sure about BM or anyone else.

Are you sure that the drawing is "way too big"?


----------



## Mark T (31 Aug 2009)

FWIW my handlebars are 60 cm wide too.


----------



## PBancroft (31 Aug 2009)

fossyant said:


> Seems the police aren't happy......
> 
> Quote BM...........
> 
> J_ust had a call back from Bromley, it looks like they will consider an £80 FPN. I reckon I'm pretty happy with that. I have to take the video in to them tomorrow or Wednesday, they can't view youtube as it's blocked by the IT dept_



Wow - that's a pretty good outcome, especially considering BM was baiting the driver...

*runs away sharpish*


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Aug 2009)

Differentpov said:


> All the cyclists i see round my way ride two abreast, hold up traffic, jump red lights, ride on the pavement when something silly like a red traffic light dares to hold up their progress and generally disregard the rules, then complain when they get bollocked by other road users, cyclists need to be registered and have number plates, then they would stop the vigilante tactics and conform like everyone else!




I always find this hilarious...

Motorists *never* do any of these, you never see cars on pavements, they apply all the rules (including speed) absolutely flawlessly and it is reasonable if they decide to give another road user "advice". Funniest of all is the magic panacea that number plates and registration will solve all problems like they have with motorists. We all know that there are absolutely no traffic offences committed simply because they have these, all th reports of dangerous driving are figments of our imagination and false.

Lets look at it differently for a second.... no-one forced "DAN" to have illegalplates, drive dangerously and be aggressive. The fact is that he has been caught, and lots of others do not like this hence the "vigilante" aspect (a clear misunderstanding of the term's use). Totally unfounded - the Police will decide whether "DAN" is a numpty or not.

I have personally had three drivers fined and one lose his job due to video evidence. It was the Police who made these decisions.


----------



## ComedyPilot (31 Aug 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> I always find this hilarious...
> 
> Motorists *never* do any of these, you never see cars on pavements, they apply all the rules (including speed) absolutely flawlessly and it is reasonable if they decide to give another road user "advice". Funniest of all is the magic panacea that number plates and registration will solve all problems like they have with motorists. We all know that there are absolutely no traffic offences committed simply because they have these, all th reports of dangerous driving are figments of our imagination and false.
> 
> ...



Surely it was the Police /CPS decision to fine etc, and the losing of the job must have been the employer?


----------



## blazed (31 Aug 2009)

Mark T said:


> This is going to get very boring very quickly - but here goes. The "cyclist" lines on that screen capture are 8 times the width of the white line.
> 
> Just measured a white line outside my house - it's 10 cm wide. So that drawing suggests a cyclist who is 80 cm wide.
> 
> ...


Oooh i got you good.


----------



## Mark T (31 Aug 2009)

> Oooh i got you good.



I was expecting an argument about how wide lines *really* are.

You've given up far too soon.


----------



## Joe24 (31 Aug 2009)

Mark T said:


> I was expecting an argument about how wide lines *really* are.
> 
> You've given up far too soon.



No, Blazed just got you to go out onto the street and measure a white line
I think he has infact got you, and got you good

Did anyone see you measuring this white line?


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Aug 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> I have personally had three drivers fined and one lose his job due to video evidence. It was the Police who made these decisions.


A surprising number of employers are aghast when you tell them that their driver followed your wife for one hundred metres, less than two metres behind her back wheel. Back it up with a snap of a number plate and Mr. Nasty staring at your camera through the cab window and you're getting there. There is alway hope* - and, of course, there are other drivers who the company might employ without risk.

*forget skip lorry companies, though


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> now you're getting upset. That wasn't my intention.
> 
> Take this on board. This is a knowledge building forum which attempts to link the experience of cyclists. And BentMikey, like Magnatom, is one of those good souls who bring to this board an appreciation of things as they are, and how short things are from what they should be. Overtaking in the lunatic fashion shown on his videos is a constant bugbear.
> 
> ...



Not upset at all, just want you to read what I have written - surely that is OK isn't it?

As for the rest of your post I will say this. I have a lot of experience of Internet forums focusing on a variety of different subjects including running one medium sized motorsport forum for five years and will say that in my experience a poster who writes the sort of tough rhetoric you have written above invariably is unable to back up his words with actions in the real world. A keyboard warrior if you will.

Now you may be the exception to the rule and if so I take my hat off to you, but frankly to me and I am sure to others your post comes over just a little like.... well let's just say I wouldn't have guessed you were 55 years old 

No offence meant, just saying it as I see it. If you really do mete out justice to those who actually deserve it then fair enough and fair play to you.


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

fossyant said:


> Seems the police aren't happy......
> 
> Quote BM...........
> 
> J_ust had a call back from Bromley, it looks like they will consider an £80 FPN. I reckon I'm pretty happy with that. I have to take the video in to them tomorrow or Wednesday, they can't view youtube as it's blocked by the IT dept_



Er if the police haven't seen the video and just have the word of Mikey to go on how do we know they are not happy. All they have done, if this post is to be believed, is agree to view the video.

Now in this case I really hope the driver gets more than an £80 fine as he appears to deserve it, but a good lawyer would have him off in no time as the video is not that clear, doesn't have a wide enough angle of view and does not show any possible events leading up to said incident which is why I say 'appears to deserve it'.


----------



## Crackle (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan if you want to know what drives cyclists to worry so much about bad driving check this thread. It's hard to explain how vulnerable you feel or are sometimes.


----------



## Origamist (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Er if the police haven't seen the video and just have the word of Mikey to go on how do we know they are not happy. All they have done, if this post is to be believed, is agree to view the video.
> 
> Now in this case I really hope the driver gets more than an £80 fine as he appears to deserve it, but a good lawyer would have him off in no time as the video is not that clear, doesn't have a wide enough angle of view and does not show any possible events leading up to said incident which is why I say 'appears to deserve it'.



There's also an independent witness who stopped and gave his details to BentMikey at the scene, after being overtaken by the same driver at high speed.


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

Crackle said:


> f1_fan if you want to know what drives cyclists to worry so much about bad driving check this thread. It's hard to explain how vulnerable you feel or are sometimes.



Oh believe you me I understand it. From 1983 to 1990 I cycled everywhere around Manchester. Then one day I was cycling up Oxford Road when a black cab pulled out on me and I clattered into the side of his cab and went 'a over t'. I was lucky as I had a lot of cuts and bruisesand a sprained ankle, but nothing broken. 

To be fair the cab driver was great, he made a mistake and we have all done that, but I couldn't help but realise then and there that had I been in a car he may have seen me and if not I would have a damaged wing and he a damaged door, but no injuries. That day I gave up cycling forever. It is the same reaosn that despite me being a complete petrolhead I have never learnt to ride a motorbike, for me you are just too vulnerable on two wheels.

I admire you guys for getting on with it and dealing with all the crap that comes your way, but I still do not 100% condone Mikey's methods of dealing with the incidents he witnesses as I can't help but feel there is an element of looking for troible about what he does. If I am wrong then so be it, but in the video posted a couple of pages ago with the lorry I really do think he was being a little over zealous about the space he was given, it really did not look that bad to me. Still maybe I have forgotten after all these years what it is like to be on a bike, who knows?


----------



## f1_fan (31 Aug 2009)

Origamist said:


> There's also an independent witness who stopped and gave his details to BentMikey at the scene, after being overtaken by the same driver at high speed.



Well as I said in this case I hope he gets the book thrown at him and I am just playing devil's advocate as to what might happen. Just think we should save the celebrations until the police actually do something rather than talk about it.


----------



## Origamist (31 Aug 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Well as I said in this case I hope he gets the book thrown at him and I am just playing devil's advocate as to what might happen. *Just think we should save the celebrations until the police actually do something rather than talk about it*.



Indeed.


----------



## jig-sore (31 Aug 2009)

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

some of these videos are truly appalling but most are really not worth posting, anyone who wishes to create these clips simply dilutes their case by posting trivial clips.

posting clips of drivers using phones is really not necessary and only causes the kind of anger that we have witnessed in this topic, this guy is NOT A POLICE MAN

in the case of the op, regardless of what happened, the driver responded like a tit.

nuff said... bitch


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Aug 2009)

Joe24 said:


> No, Blazed just got you to go out onto the street and measure a white line
> I think he has infact got you, and got you good
> 
> Did anyone see you measuring this white line?



Remember the correct passing distance advised by the IAM and others is the length of 6 erect penises.......... so next time you get a close pass just think that the driver is usingtheir own reference - the distance was 6 times that driver's penis!

Now... back to DAN - I leaveyou to your own conclusions.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Aug 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Surely it was the Police /CPS decision to fine etc, and the losing of the job must have been the employer?



Sorry, wasn't clear...

A copy of a letter to the Police with video was sent to the company.

I got a letter in reply stating that it was not the first complaint, and he was suspended awaiting the Police investigation. When the drivers was fined and docked points he was then sacked.


----------



## thomas (31 Aug 2009)

the anorak said:


> some of these videos are truly appalling but most are really not worth posting, anyone who wishes to create these clips simply dilutes their case by posting trivial clips.
> 
> posting clips of drivers using phones is really not necessary and only causes the kind of anger that we have witnessed in this topic, this guy is NOT A POLICE MAN



A lot of my helmet camera footage is not that big a deal but I don't go around filming people one phones and what not. I have seen cyclists start yelling at car drivers about them being on their mobile phone and I was just embarrassed.


----------



## BentMikey (31 Aug 2009)

Evening all, I'm back! Well, that's been pretty funny reading through all that stuff, quite entertaining! I'm very grateful for those who gave such glowing character references, that's very kind of you!


----------



## Joe24 (31 Aug 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Evening all, I'm back! Well, that's been pretty funny reading through all that stuff, quite entertaining! I'm very grateful for those who gave such glowing character references, that's very kind of you!



You know, i saw that BentMikey had replied to this, and was confused, not seen this username pop up in a while!


----------



## Bollo (31 Aug 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Evening all, I'm back! Well, that's been pretty funny reading through all that stuff, quite entertaining! I'm very grateful for those who gave such glowing character references, that's very kind of you!


BITCH!


----------



## Tinuts (31 Aug 2009)

thomas said:


> I think you could antagonise with the airzound, such as like in this clip (another youtube user) but they can come in handy without causing offence.



Well Thomas, much as I respect your opinion, I can't agree with you there. But, as it's my vid, that's not really surprising. 



The guy, IMHO, was too damn close and deserved a good long toot to convey my *utter* displeasure at his obvious disregard for both the highway code and *my* safety. 

If he had chosen to get antagonised/take offence (and I must emphasise the *chosen *bit) then that's his problem. Like it or not, we all choose how we react to incidents - the incident may be something that happens to us, our reaction is entirely our responsibility. However, like dellzeqq, I'm quite prepared to admit that, judging from his restrained response, BM is far better at controlling his response than am I. I'm not, on the whole, particularly inclined to be on my best behaviour when confronted by a dick-brained motorist who has just put my life at risk.

Without wanting to hijack the thread, other members might like to know that I reported the twat in my vid to the Police. I won't go into *all* the details of their poor performance in dealing with the matter; suffice to say they considered that, as I hadn't _appeared_ to take "evasive action", a prosecution would likely be unsuccesful. Obviously, any such evasive action I might have taken would, quite possibly, have resulted in me driving into the roadside barrier. Interestingly, they did actually manage to view the vid on YouTube! 

As to some of the other sentiments expressed in this thread, the idea that wearing a camera is provocative stinks about as much as the _"speed cameras are unfair, revenue raising and therefore souldn't be allowed"_ argument motorists regularly bleat on about because, basically, they don't like to be caught speeding. It's really quite simple: if you don't want to be filmed, don't break the law!

I've been commuting in London for over 25 years, during which time the driving standard has diminished along with the respect shown to other road users. What has also diminished (and with good reason) is the fear motorists have about being apprehended for any misdeeds they commit whilst driving. What hasn't changed, of course, is the fact that cyclists are still just as vulnerable as they ever were. There may be more of them on the roads but they now have to deal with more aggressive, abusive and dangerous behavior from motorists.

I started using a cam because one stupid (motorist) stunt too many resulted in me being knocked off my bike by an idiot who didn't look. Luckily, on that occasion, a pedestrian offered to be a witness. Had he not I would have been unsuccesful in my attempt to get considerable compensation from the idiot's insurance company. Had I then owned a camera I would not have needed the witness. As witnesses are generally pretty hard to come by (that wasn't my first accident so I'm quite familiar with the potential-witness-sudden-amnesia effect) I believe helmet cams to be, for me at least, an essential bit of kit.

To come back to the BM incident, I totally understand and support the posting of such clips on YT. People like the dangerous, dimwhitted DAN deserve to be named-and-shamed in public. I'm sure that, like me, BM probably posts a fraction of the incidents he encounters. Life is, I'm afraid, just too short.

One thing, though. I absolutely* don't* tell people they'll be on YouTube!

I tell them they'll be on *TV*.

You wouldn'y believe the results I get.



Oh, and BM, if you're worried about getting the _seeing to_ hinted at in some of the posts above then buy a truncheon!


----------



## blazed (31 Aug 2009)

Mark T said:


> This is going to get very boring very quickly - but here goes. The "cyclist" lines on that screen capture are 8 times the width of the white line.
> 
> Just measured a white line outside my house - it's 10 cm wide. So that drawing suggests a cyclist who is 80 cm wide.
> 
> ...



These lines are going to be the death of you. It starts off innocently, you whip out the tape measure every so often and measure a yellow, double yellow even a red but then you start hitting serious shoot, the box junction. So many lines you dont know where to start and dont see the bus coming. 

It happens all the time promise me you wont go down that path.


----------



## BentMikey (31 Aug 2009)

So Blaze, is that a very nice picture to draw? If I recall correctly, the lorry was about a foot away from me, rather different than the picture in the highway code in rule 163.

Some other points to the scooby drivers here:

I rather like scoobys, and until this chap D4N, I've experienced excellent driving from them.
Badly lit recumbent? I think not, my lights are in the brightest 1 or 2% of cyclist lights you see on the roads.
100mph? That was when d4n overtook the witness, according to the witness, not when he drove past me.
Sad for filming? If you say so. Does it matter to you unless you drive badly?


----------



## HLaB (31 Aug 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Evening all, I'm back! Well, that's been pretty funny reading through all that stuff, quite entertaining! I'm very grateful for those who gave such glowing character references, that's very kind of you!


Welcome back BM


----------



## just jim (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Oh believe you me I understand it. From 1983 to 1990 I cycled everywhere around Manchester. Then one day I was cycling up Oxford Road when a black cab pulled out on me and I clattered into the side of his cab and went 'a over t'. I was lucky as I had a lot of cuts and bruisesand a sprained ankle, but nothing broken.
> 
> To be fair the cab driver was great, he made a mistake and we have all done that, but I couldn't help but realise then and there that had I been in a car he may have seen me and if not I would have a damaged wing and he a damaged door, but no injuries. That day I gave up cycling forever. It is the same reaosn that despite me being a complete petrolhead I have never learnt to ride a motorbike, for me you are just too vulnerable on two wheels.
> 
> I admire you guys for getting on with it and dealing with all the crap that comes your way, but I still do not 100% condone Mikey's methods of dealing with the incidents he witnesses as I can't help but feel there is an element of looking for troible about what he does. If I am wrong then so be it, but in the video posted a couple of pages ago with the lorry I really do think he was being a little over zealous about the space he was given, it really did not look that bad to me. *Still maybe I have forgotten after all these years what it is like to be on a bike, who knows?*



Indeed!


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Sep 2009)

Indeed, indeed.

There was a time when cyclists thought that being invisible was their best defence. We now know that you get more respect the more visible you are, and that shrinking violets are treated with less respect than those of us who take the time to bring the shortcomings of a minority of drivers to their attention. A bit of an upbraiding (tailored to the type of driver) at the next traffic lights, or a referral to the driver's employer does the world of good. It exposes the shortfall in their appreciation of what, in these parts at least, is the new reality - to quote a phrase 'we're here'. 

The comparison between cyclists and gays (all references to lycra aside) is a fruitful one. Homosexual men spent decades in a kind of collective closet and it did them no good whatsoever. Twenty or thirty years ago many of them decided to make the point that they were 'here'. and the climate of opinion changed as a result. 

Cyclists face a hostile press, and a proportion of drivers who drive angry, that anger not diminished by sitting in traffic as bikes go whizzing through on the red tarmac. They're not going to be any less angry if we shrink in to the gutter - witness the intimidation of women cyclists who tend to ride more slowly and further to the left. They've got to be shown the error of their ways. BentMikey is part of that showing. In time the concensus will change, and change for the better, and it's noticeable that whatever the inner turmoil of F1_fan's mates in their hot hatches, the generality of car drivers behave themselves in London, however unskilled or ignorant they might be.

As for my age, young F1, I'll let the eighty or so Cycle Chatters who have come on my rides judge whether I look it or not. A bit of research doesn't hurt.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Sep 2009)

Dellzeqq is right, it's about bringing consequences to bad drivers. An excellent post, btw, very eloquent. It's about the power of one person to make a change. My motivation isn't to benefit myself, it's to benefit the other road users and particularly cyclists that a particular driver will come across in the future.

There are tens if not hundreds of cyclists in London and the rest of the UK with video cameras now. And from what I see on youtube, the same goes for motorcyclists and car drivers too. Before now, many instances of bad driving were never exposed to the light of day, and with cheap camera technology, now they are.

I'm now seeing the direct results of my own actions, and that they do also benefit me directly. When I first moved out here, I saw hardly any other cyclists, and had many many bad overtakes. A little toot on the AirZound and a pushing out motion after a too-close overtake has educated many of the regular drivers on my route, and I get only a fraction of those now. Best of all, all the other drivers on the road around us also learn from the reprobate driver's mistake as a result of my feedback. I should point out that I give far more thank you waves and salutes to the many excellent drivers out there.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Sep 2009)

p.s. I quoted you recently on cycling in London: "We've already won, we just don't know it yet". At least I think it was you that said this.

I love cycling in London, and I think that the critical mass that changes behaviour has already occurred. Despite the relatively few bad incidents I've videoed, I think we live in cycling utopia.


----------



## magnatom (1 Sep 2009)

Welcome back BM! Good to have you back. 

I too film my rides just like BM. I too have the same reasons for doing it (more information can be found in my blog if you look at my signature below). 

Don't get me wrong BM and I don't always agree on everything, i.e the utility of hi-viz, the use of air-zounds (although I can understand why some want them) etc. However, more often than not we agree and we certainly agree on the general idea that there should be mutal respect on the roads i.e. it has to work both ways


----------



## Crackle (1 Sep 2009)

I'm a cyclist, who'd just like to distance himself from the embarrasing rhetoric of BM and Dellzeqq, which kinda makes me laugh out loud. Cycling doesn't begin and end in London by the way.

Strip away the rhetoric though and and the aims remain the same. Cycling safely on the road with due respect given both ways.


----------



## magnatom (1 Sep 2009)

Crackle said:


> I'm a cyclist, who'd just like to distance himself from the embarrasing rhetoric of BM and Dellzeqq, which kinda makes me laugh out loud. Cycling doesn't begin and end in London by the way.
> 
> Strip away the rhetoric though and and the aims remain the same. Cycling safely on the road with due respect given both ways.




I think you'll need to explain that Crackle!


----------



## Origamist (1 Sep 2009)

Welcome back, BM. All I need to do now is lure Cab back...


----------



## Bollo (1 Sep 2009)

+welcome BM.

I don't think f1 and d'pov will have an appreciation of the amount of debate (genuine debate, not point-scoring twatery) that's taken place on this forum about the uses and abuses of helmet-cams.

I use my cam as an insurance policy. Unlike maggers, I've not the drive to start a campaign. Unlike BM, I don't believe that posting bad driving on the interbob furthers the cause of cycling in the UK. This isn't because I have any moral queasiness about showing people at their very worst, rather I think it focuses a disproportionate amount of attention on the negatives. I could make a montage of the hundreds of people that give me enough room every day, but its not good television. You don't get a long take on "Police, Camera, Action" of plod chatting about the football while worrying a couple of cheese burgers. Also, youtube may be democratic, but its also filled with crazies. Life is too short to deal with "U R A SICELLING C***. GET OF OUR ROADZ" landing in your inbox every other day.

"You f****** hypocrit" some may say. And they'd be right. I do have a youtube account, and on it you'll find some more or less unpleasant moments. But if you check the dates, you'll find that these were posted in the first flush of excitement at owning a cam. I don't much bother these days.

Now I keep the account for two reasons - the first is that I still use it if I've had a run-in with a commerical vehicle. I post the vid, ring the company, get them to look at the vid and, if I'm happy with the response, I remove the vid. I've done this twice in two years, and twice the companies involved responded positively. I'm only looking for the small victories.

The second will be familiar to longer serving forumites (apologies for repetition - this is for the benefit of f1 and d'pov), but its an object lesson in why cyclists cam up, and why we are so concerned about the gap between our legal rights and the respect those rights are afforded.

Here it is. I walked away from this with relatively minor injuries (cuts, bruises, longer term damage to my shoulder, bike written off), probably thanks to my genetically big bones. This is great TV and I had my fifteen minutes, but the crash is the least interesting thing about it.

There were two witnesses who called the police and an ambulance immediately. The police turned up first, breathalysed the admitted shocked and contrite driver, checked his licence and let him go. Can you spot what's missing? He wasn't cautioned. What would he be cautioned for? Its a fender bender, right? The attending copper what nice enough, but as I wasn't dead or anything, what was the problem? 

Now to the ambo driver. He was annoyed with me. What did I expect if I cycled, I was bound to get hit sometime. I wasn't wearing a helmet, so I deserved what I got. Funnily, what I didn't have was any head injuries. Despite sky-high blood pressure from shock, he effectively refused to take me to the hospital. Copper disappears to attend to some otherwise careful and law-abiding motorist who's just caused a multi-vehicle on the M3 and the ambo driver dumps me out on the street. I'm left to phone a colleague from work to pick me up and cart me home.

I could also talk about how his insurance company tried to accuse me of irresponsible cycling so that, without the footage and a solicitor handy in the black art of cycle claims, I'd still be fighting the claim now.

The police decided not to prosecute the driver for careless driving. These things happen. You can't blame the motorist.


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

Crackle said:


> I'm a cyclist, who'd just like to distance himself from the embarrasing rhetoric of BM and Dellzeqq, which kinda makes me laugh out loud. Cycling doesn't begin and end in London by the way.



Thank God for that, I was really beginning to think you were all that self righteous. 

OK a few observations. I keep reading from some of you in here about how car drivers have pent up frustrations and anger etc. etc. Well I don't. I love driving, especially a performance car. Driving is a privilege and not a right and it should be treated as such at all times. The freedom it gives (despite the government's best efforts in the opposite direction) is something our ancestors could only dream about and for me there is nothing like a spirited drive across a beautiful landscape. 

Next up is that it is obvious to me that equal consideration should be given to all road users no matter what type of vehicle they use and no one has any more rights to use the roads than anyone else. I think we have all seen situations where some car drivers don't seem to believe that, but it cuts both ways and I think certain posters could do to remember that.

IMO the whole video camera thing is fine until we see things like some of the antics of Mikey here, the telling the 'offenders' they will be on You Tube or the very obvious filming of plates and drivers etc. As I said there are overtones of playing the policeman and in some ways looking for trouble. I stick by my statement that a less antagonsitic approach would in many cases yield better results.

@dellzeqq - as I said just saying it as I see it. I have no idea what you mean by 'exacting a degree of punishment' or 'those people can thank their lucky stars they met Mikey and not me' but I can tell you it comes across as all a bit pathetic. If you really do go around taking the law into your own hands then that is up to you, but do we not have a police force and a judicial system for that sort of thing. I suppose I am asking what gives you the right to play policeman?

Finally I will tell you the one and only thing that irks me slightly about this whole video camera thing. As we have seen Mikey is quite happy to film the licence plates of the vehicles he sees commiting an 'offence' and he can of course then pass them on to the police and they can be used to ID the 'offender'. Pity then that if I did choose (and don't worry as I really could not ever be that bothered to do it - life is just too short) to video cyclists running red lights and the likes (and yes SOME do - I know you probably can't believe it  ) I have no way to ID them. I wonder if there is some reverse psychology working there?


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

Bollo said:


> +welcome BM.
> 
> I don't think f1 and d'pov will have an appreciation of the amount of debate (genuine debate, not point-scoring twatery) that's taken place on this forum about the uses and abuses of helmet-cams.
> 
> ...



The trouble is that like it or not there is an element of 'this will happen' given the roads today. As my post a few pages back described I gave up cycling when I was knocked off my bike in Manchester in 1990 as I just decided that on 2 wheels you are too vulnerable. Not saying you or anyone else should have to do that, but for me that was the only logical decision. Please note the 'for me' in that statement before I get flamed!!!


----------



## Crackle (1 Sep 2009)

magnatom said:


> I think you'll need to explain that Crackle!




Actually I feel no need to explain it but because you asked I will. Comparing cycling to Gay rights, making statements like 'we've already won', makes it sound like a war of suppresion: I repeat, that's embarrassing. I want exactly the same things but I can't think of it in those terms. You already know, that I'm ambivalent about the use of cameras, I feel their use comes at a cost.

Now in any raising of awareness of a lack of equality, there will always be those who need to lead at the front, appear to have a greater zeal, I think that's necessary and am prepared to tolerate and defend their actions, though I sometimes find them uncomfortable.

Ultimately we all want the same thing and often that's all we have in common, our idealogy may well differ.


----------



## PBancroft (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> The trouble is that like it or not there is an element of 'this will happen' given the roads today.



That's the thing - I don't like it, and I don't think anyone should. Why should it be acceptable that anyone, through no fault of their own, is hurt on the roads and the person who causes the accident walks away without a caution.

And there's no real difference between Bollo's example, and any other accident where someone is killed or hurt on the road by someone else's mistake. Thousands of people are killed and injured every year, and its not just cyclists. There is a culture of acceptance which you have demonstrated that a certain amount of death is to be expected.

It shouldn't be.


----------



## thomas (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Pity then that if I did choose (and don't worry as I really could not ever be that bothered to do it - life is just too short) to video cyclists running red lights and the likes (and yes SOME do - I know you probably can't believe it  ) I have no way to ID them. I wonder if there is some reverse psychology working there?




At times the Police in London have coppers on push bikes near RLJing hot spots and they stop people and give them a £30 fine or something.

Even if cyclists were licenced it wouldn't stop red light jumping....just like cars with number plates doesn't stop bad driving.

As for identifying them, if you had a camera you could record the model of their bike and what they look like. A numberplate doesn't mean you know who was driving, but a picture of what they look like behind the wheel would...so just go video the cyclists.

I was in London on Friday with someone and we were at times a little naughty (when in Rome ). We didn't do it at cross roads, but I'll admit we went through the odd empty ped crossing (it was late at night and pissing it down). I thought it was quite good, that people would actually just make a comment about the lights being red. They wouldn't work themselves up and try and drive us of the road, just make a comment like "why don't you wait"...etc.

I could give reasons to try and justify it, but ultimately that doesn't make it right. I will admit, it does annoy me when I see people RLJ on my commute. There are like 3 traffic lights in 13.5 miles so it makes no difference to time.


----------



## Bollo (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:



> Finally I will tell you the one and only thing that irks me slightly about this whole video camera thing. As we have seen Mikey is quite happy to film the licence plates of the vehicles he sees commiting an 'offence' and he can of course then pass them on to the police and they can be used to ID the 'offender'. Pity then that if I did choose (and don't worry as I really could not ever be that bothered to do it - life is just too short) to video cyclists running red lights and the likes (and yes SOME do - I know you probably can't believe it  ) I have no way to ID them. I wonder if there is some reverse psychology working there?



Do a search on this forum and read the debate. One of the great things about cycling is its diversity, and that means diversity of opinion as well. You'll find as many here that get p1ssed off with RLJers as anywhere else.

But unfortunately, the RLJ argument doesn't compare like with like. We're all so used to the idea of cars that we forget that they're several tonnes of industrial equipment. Using a motor vehicle is a unique responsibility because most of us will not be in charge of anything so potentially damaging at any other time in our lives. But because motor vehicles are so common, we take them for granted and dismiss the risks to ourselves and others.

Whatever idiot is riding a bike, and howevermuch the press highlight RLJers and 'lycra louts', a cyclist is physically incapable of causing the same damage as a driver.


----------



## thomas (1 Sep 2009)

Bollo said:


> Whatever idiot is riding a bike, and howevermuch the press highlight RLJers and 'lycra louts', a cyclist is physically incapable of causing the same damage as a driver.



Cyclists can and have killed people though, so we should ride with that in mind.


----------



## Bollo (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> The trouble is that like it or not there is an element of 'this will happen' given the roads today. As my post a few pages back described I gave up cycling when I was knocked off my bike in Manchester in 1990 as I just decided that on 2 wheels you are too vulnerable. Not saying you or anyone else should have to do that, but for me that was the only logical decision. Please note the 'for me' in that statement before I get flamed!!!



OK. First of all, statistically cycling is safer in terms of longevity than not cycling. Its a question of killing yourself slowly through a sedentary lifestyle rather than accept the smaller risk that you'll auger in like I did, only worse. And my quality of life will be better. And women indecently younger than me will want to touch my thighs "to see how they feel" (this actually happened!!!!)

The "state of the roads" is not a natural phenomenon. All those cars have people in them, and most of those people are sentient and capable of choice. People's attitudes and prejudices can change, but its a long hard process. And you'll have picked up by now that there's plenty of argument about how to do this last bit.

I'll admit that getting on the bike after the crash was tough, but I don't ever regret doing it. 

I'm going to be unusually positive for once in my life. F1 - if you're in a city, borrow a bike, find a returner's cycling group and give it a go. If you don't get anything out of it, then nothing lost and you'll get at least some insight into cycling today. You might just enjoy it. Despite all the gobbing-off on this forum, most of us enjoy our cycling nearly all the time.


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

Bollo said:


> Whatever idiot is riding a bike, and howevermuch the press highlight RLJers and 'lycra louts', a cyclist is physically incapable of causing the same damage as a driver.



Ah so because cyclists can cause less damage they should be given more leeway to break the law? 

As I said a few posts back I believe all road users should be treated with equal respect and the extension of that is they should all abide by the law equally. It really is as simple as that.


----------



## Bollo (1 Sep 2009)

thomas said:


> Cyclists can and have killed people though, so we should ride with that in mind.


Yep, and I've no sympathy with tw@ts who ride with no consideration for others. But motorists have the potential to cause havoc with very little risk to themselves. Hence the unique responsibility.


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

thomas said:


> At times the Police in London have coppers on push bikes near RLJing hot spots and they stop people and give them a £30 fine or something.
> 
> Even if cyclists were licenced it wouldn't stop red light jumping....just like cars with number plates doesn't stop bad driving.
> 
> As for identifying them, if you had a camera you could record the model of their bike and what they look like. A numberplate doesn't mean you know who was driving, but a picture of what they look like behind the wheel would...so just go video the cyclists.



Nah, sorry you are clutching at straws there. A registration plate is a far easier way to identify a vehicle and subsequently the driver than noting down the make of a bike and how a rider looks etc. and you know it.

I know it wouldn't stop red light jumping or any other bad behaviour to any great degree, but it might just help in those extreme cases when a cyclist does something really bad (and yes it can and does happen) just the same way it does when a nutter behind the wheel of car does something really stupid... which leads us nicely back to Dan in his Subaru. 

Wthout the plate the police have no chance of apprehending him...


----------



## thomas (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Ah so because cyclists can cause less damage they should be given more leeway to break the law?



Can anyone confirm this with some proof for me, but I think it was mentioned on here at the time of that pavement cyclist who got 7 months for killing the pedestrian...basically, 7 months for the cyclist was longer than any car driver got when driving up onto the pavement and killing a pedestrian.



Bollo said:


> Yep, and I've no sympathy with tw@ts who ride with no consideration for others. But motorists have the potential to cause havoc with very little risk to themselves. Hence the unique responsibility.




I wasn't disagreeing with you, just bringing it up as a point .


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> That's the thing - I don't like it, and I don't think anyone should. Why should it be acceptable that anyone, through no fault of their own, is hurt on the roads and the person who causes the accident walks away without a caution.
> 
> And there's no real difference between Bollo's example, and any other accident where someone is killed or hurt on the road by someone else's mistake. Thousands of people are killed and injured every year, and its not just cyclists. There is a culture of acceptance which you have demonstrated that a certain amount of death is to be expected.
> 
> It shouldn't be.



Human beings are fallible, accidents will always happen and while we allow people to drive round in 1 tonne lumps of metal it is inevitable people will get injured and killed. Sorry, but that is a fact. So the only way we are going to get to the utopia you seem to want is to ban cars.... which I suspect half of you on here have as your main agenda anyway


----------



## PBancroft (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Wthout the plate the police have no chance of apprehending him...



...or without BM's video.


----------



## magnatom (1 Sep 2009)

Crackle said:


> Actually I feel no need to explain it but because you asked I will. Comparing cycling to Gay rights, making statements like 'we've already won', makes it sound like a war of suppresion: I repeat, that's embarrassing. I want exactly the same things but I can't think of it in those terms. You already know, that I'm ambivalent about the use of cameras, I feel their use comes at a cost.
> 
> Now in any raising of awareness of a lack of equality, there will always be those who need to lead at the front, appear to have a greater zeal, I think that's necessary and am prepared to tolerate and defend their actions, though I sometimes find them uncomfortable.
> 
> Ultimately we all want the same thing and often that's all we have in common, our idealogy may well differ.



I think comparing it to the Gay Rights movement is a little off the mark, however, I understand the sentiment. Perhaps a better comparison is with joggers and runners. A while back someone posted an article discussing the issues about those who chose to to go out running back in the 60's (can anyone find the link?). Runners were seen as nutters, a fringe element...why would anyone want to go out running!

Fast forward to today and runners/joggers are an accepted part of the urban landscape. On a drive into the city centre I would be amazed if I didn't see a large number of joggers. The article sited a ground swell of runners/joggers in the late 70's early 80's when it became almost 'trendy' to run. That sudden increase in numbers led to acceptance. It isn't trendy now, just an accepted part of daily life.

Cycling 'according to the article', is currently experiencing the same 'ground swell' of participants. Some might even say that it is becoming trendy! I know myself that the numbers of cyclists in Glasgow has shot up over the last 4 years. When I started I was lucky to see any other cyclists, now I see dozens most days. 

I think there is a battle, but not a battle between cyclists and anyone else... the battle is for aceptance and to win that we need numbers. 

IMO.


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

thomas said:


> Can anyone confirm this with some proof for me, but I think it was mentioned on here at the time of that pavement cyclist who got 7 months for killing the pedestrian...basically, 7 months for the cyclist was longer than any car driver got when driving up onto the pavement and killing a pedestrian.



It was a question - I am asking if your statement about cyclists being able to do less damage means you think they should be given more leeway to break the law?


----------



## Bollo (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Ah so because cyclists can cause less damage they should be given more leeway to break the law?
> 
> As I said a few posts back I believe all road users should be treated with equal respect and the extension of that is they should all abide by the law equally. It really is as simple as that.



But you've just said that "this will happen". So you're implying that a certain number of injuries and deaths on the road are acceptable. Most of those injuries and deaths will be caused by a motorist acting incorrectly, and often breaking the law. Can't have it both ways.

I didn't say that they should be given more leeway to break the law - I said that motorists have a unique responsibility of care because the consequences of their action are potentially more serious.


----------



## PBancroft (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Human beings are fallible, accidents will always happen and while we allow people to drive round in 1 tonne lumps of metal it is inevitable people will get injured and killed. Sorry, but that is a fact. So the only way we are going to get to the utopia you seem to want is to ban cars.... which I suspect half of you on here have as your main agenda anyway



Considering I drive for my job, that would be counter productive. What I don't like is the acceptance of the idea that it is OK for people to make these mistakes and walk away without punishment. The victim often doesn't get the chance to do that.

What I would like is for when people are killed or injured, appropriate measures are taken to prevent it happening again in future. So people who drive dangerously are not immediately allowed back in their cars without a caution, for example. And people are aware that behaving without respect on the road has consequences. Note I am referring to ALL road users here.

Why is that not an acceptable or desirable goal?


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

thomas said:


> Can anyone confirm this with some proof for me, but I think it was mentioned on here at the time of that pavement cyclist who got 7 months for killing the pedestrian...basically, 7 months for the cyclist was longer than any car driver got when driving up onto the pavement and killing a pedestrian.



A 2 second Google finds a car driver jailed for 20 months for mounting the pavement and killing a pedestrian so save the persecution complex for another day OK?


----------



## thomas (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Nah, sorry you are clutching at straws there. A registration plate is a far easier way to identify a vehicle and subsequently the driver than noting down the make of a bike and how a rider looks etc. and you know it.
> 
> I know it wouldn't stop red light jumping or any other bad behaviour to any great degree, but it might just help in those extreme cases when a cyclist does something really bad (and yes it can and does happen) just the same way it does when a nutter behind the wheel of car does something really stupid... which leads us nicely back to Dan in his Subaru.
> 
> Wthout the plate the police have no chance of apprehending him...



I don't disagree with your argument in principle, but cyclists should never be licensed or be required to have registration plates. RLJing, pavement cycling, etc, would go down because less people would be cycling.

It pays to mention, that if something really bad does happen remembering a numberplate is not always the first thing people would do. Certainly when I nearly got squashed by a bus getting the number plate was not my first thought, and when I did realise the bus was a bit too far away and I could not read it, partly due to distance, partly cos the number plate had filth all over it.

If a cyclist does something really bad, I can't really think of much which probably doesn't result in the cyclist coming off and therefore probably injured too (eg, won't be able just to drive off to hide).

In theory a pedestrian can do a lot of damage, but we don't wear number plates when we walk around (very similar theory). For instance, I got assaulted (someone walked up to me, said I said something about his sister and then hit me). I couldn't really remember what he looked like, other than he was tanned and had bushy eyebrows. The Police managed to find him in a couple of days.

Along with that...watch this video. I can't believe how lucky I was, but the lorry didn't have a numberplate!


----------



## Bollo (1 Sep 2009)

This guy's on a windup. I'm out of here........ <pop!>


----------



## thomas (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> A 2 second Google finds a car driver jailed for 20 months for mounting the pavement and killing a pedestrian so save the persecution complex for another day OK?




Link to article please? There was a case when the driver drove off and tried to hide it - is that the one? If so, different circumstances.


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> Considering I drive for my job, that would be counter productive. What I don't like is the acceptance of the idea that it is OK for people to make these mistakes and walk away without punishment. The victim often doesn't get the chance to do that.
> 
> What I would like is for when people are killed or injured, appropriate measures are taken to prevent it happening again in future. So people who drive dangerously are not immediately allowed back in their cars without a caution, for example. And people are aware that behaving without respect on the road has consequences. Note I am referring to ALL road users here.
> 
> Why is that not an acceptable or desirable goal?



I agree absolutely with what you say here, but I took your previous post to mean you found it unacceptable that there were any accidents at all and I cannot ever see a time when that will be the case unless we ban motorised vehicles from the road. Humans are fallible and hence there will always be accidents, that for me anyway, is a fact.


----------



## marinyork (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> A 2 second Google finds a car driver jailed for 20 months for mounting the pavement and killing a pedestrian so save the persecution complex for another day OK?



That's because it's a very common occurance. However, 20 months is not a favourable comparison as the maximum tariffs for causing death by dangerous driving or other motoring offences are rarely ever dished out. 20 months is very light indeed.


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

thomas said:


> Link to article please? There was a case when the driver drove off and tried to hide it - is that the one? If so, different circumstances.



Are you unable to use Google yourself or is that something else you expect us car drivers to do for you cyclists? 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7064522.stm


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Ah so because cyclists can cause less damage they should be given more leeway to break the law?
> 
> As I said a few posts back I believe all road users should be treated with equal respect and the extension of that is they should all abide by the law equally. It really is as simple as that.


the difference being that cyclists don't kill or injure people in big numbers. Which you seem to think of as a 'fact of life'. I think of as an epidemic that is being treated, and with some success. As we become more numerous and more assertive the casualty figures decline.

While it's always fascinating to read the words of somebody giving advice on something that he or she has no clue about, as far as I can make it out, your little disquisition is just another motorist's 'oh, we're so hard done by' sob story. Rest assured, there's no chance of my paying any heed to it.

If I choose to admonish, upbraid, or, occasionally, humiliate poor drivers then that's my choice. I've put up with being cut up for the last forty years, not to mention being put in hospital by a hit and run driver, and, from time to time, I'm going to put some people (almost always men) straight. If it happens to be you, just sit back and enjoy a master at work. If BentMikey gets the police involved, or Cunobelin gets a driver sacked, that's their choice.


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> the difference being that cyclists don't kill or injure people in big numbers. Which you seem to think of as a 'fact of life'. I think of as an epidemic that is being treated, and with some success. As we become more numerous and more assertive the casualty figures decline.
> 
> While it's always fascinating to read the words of somebody giving advice on something that he or she has no clue about, as far as I can make it out, your little disquisition is just another motorist's 'oh, we're so hard done by' sob story. Rest assured, there's no chance of my paying any heed to it.
> 
> If I choose to admonish, upbraid, or, occasionally, humiliate poor drivers then that's my choice. I've put up with being cut up for the last forty years, not to mention being put in hospital by a hit and run driver, and, from time to time, I'm going to put some people (almost always men) straight. If it happens to be you, just sit back and enjoy a master at work. If BentMikey gets the police involved, or Cunobelin gets a driver sacked, that's their choice.



Talking of people on wind ups 

If not then listen to yourself, you are a master all right LOL!


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

Well I had better go and get some work done. Nice to debate with some level headed people and a special nod to dellzeqq, you are a legend


----------



## BentMikey (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Finally I will tell you the one and only thing that irks me slightly about this whole video camera thing. As we have seen Mikey is quite happy to film the licence plates of the vehicles he sees commiting an 'offence' and he can of course then pass them on to the police and they can be used to ID the 'offender'. Pity then that if I did choose (and don't worry as I really could not ever be that bothered to do it - life is just too short) to video cyclists running red lights and the likes (and yes SOME do - I know you probably can't believe it  ) I have no way to ID them. I wonder if there is some reverse psychology working there?




I'm so with you there. I hate RLJing cyclists because it's antisocial, frightening for pedestrians, and just general bad behaviour. I'm happy for all red light jumpers to get ticketed. Cyclists are harder to catch, but then they also cause far less death and injury than do the heavyweights of the road.

You do realise an RAC study found that 48% of cyclists jump lights, 1 in 10 car drivers, and 1 in 5 bus drivers? If it weren't for the awkward facts that the car ahead stopping often prevents an RLJ, and there weren't number plates, then far more would do this.

I should point out I used to RLJ (on a bicycle, never my car) before I learnt the error of my ways. I'm far from perfect myself.


----------



## PBancroft (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> I agree absolutely with what you say here, but I took your previous post to mean you found it unacceptable that there were any accidents at all and I cannot ever see a time when that will be the case unless we ban motorised vehicles from the road. Humans are fallible and hence there will always be accidents, that for me anyway, is a fact.



That isn't what I meant, but regardless... Even if it is inevitable does it make it OK for those accidents to occur? Does it mean we should accept that accidents will happen, and allow the people who caused them to carry on their way? Does it mean that the friends and family of the 9 people who die *each day* on the roads in this country alone should accept that this was inevitable?

Does that mean that the people who caused them should be able to walk away without punishment?

What about the people who cause injuries? Should they be allowed to walk away without caution, without retraining, without penalty and potentially cause a much more serious accident in future?

I don't think so. We shouldn't be so accepting that a certain amount of injury on the road is "OK" - none of it is, even if it is inevitable statistically.


----------



## wafflycat (1 Sep 2009)

If there were nine people a day killed on the railways, they'd close them down. If there were nine people a day killed in aircraft crashes, they'd ban planes. But somehow, an average of nine people a day killed on our raods and many more injured, is 'one of those things' that is seen by too many as acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Well I had better go and get some work done. Nice to debate with some level headed people and a special nod to dellzeqq, you are a legend


a flounce of Linftastic proportions. One can almost hear the petticoats!


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> a flounce of Linftastic proportions. One can almost hear the petticoats!



LOL  

Anyway how come you are here hiding behind your keyboard? I thought a big hard man like you would be out doling out justice to the evil car drivers by midday any day of the week, but especially on a nice summer's day like today


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> LOL
> 
> Anyway how come you are here hiding behind your keyboard? I thought a big hard man like you would be out doling out justice to the evil car drivers by midday any day of the week, but especially on a nice summer's day like today


Smileys. My case reclines on a divan, pausing only to wave a scented handkerchief...........


----------



## skwerl (1 Sep 2009)

thomas said:


> RLJing, pavement cycling, etc, would go down because less people would be cycling.



absolutes (which are fairly meaningless) yes but I'm sure that relative numbers would drop.

You say that bikes should "never be licenced". Why?

As cycling gets more popular (and it will, as motoring costs rise and average speeds drop) you can be sure the govt. will start eyeing us as an extra revenue stream.


----------



## just jim (1 Sep 2009)

Skwerl - I can't see this happening at all. It's not politically expedient to tax a mode of transport which ticks so many right-on boxes.


----------



## CharlieB (1 Sep 2009)

Sorry, found this thread quite late, and found it quite distressing.
D4N OK???
W4N K3R, more like.


----------



## PBancroft (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> LOL
> 
> Anyway how come you are here hiding behind your keyboard? I thought a big hard man like you would be out doling out justice to the evil car drivers by midday any day of the week, but especially on a nice summer's day like today



Why don't you answer any questions yourself?

Regarding accidents, even if it is inevitable does it make it OK for those accidents to occur? Does it mean we should accept that accidents will happen, and allow the people who caused them to carry on their way? Does it mean that the friends and family of the 9 people who die *each day* on the roads in this country alone should accept that this was inevitable?

Does that mean that the people who caused them should be able to walk away without punishment?

What about the people who cause injuries? Should they be allowed to walk away without caution, without retraining, without penalty and potentially cause a much more serious accident in future?


----------



## ComedyPilot (1 Sep 2009)

And the vehicle drivers aside, shouldn't the government in this green day and age (and high unemployment) be implementing better cycling facilities - along the lines of Holland and Germany? It's not as if they don't get enough (road) taxes?


----------



## BentMikey (1 Sep 2009)

Just passed D4N OK on my way into Bromley in the car. He was going far too fast yet again.


----------



## hackbike 666 (1 Sep 2009)

Hello again BM and welcome back.

BTW im posting and soon to be cycling in Bangkok.


----------



## PBancroft (1 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Just passed D4N OK on my way into Bromley in the car. He was going far too fast yet again.



YOU passed HIM, but he was going too fast?

Bloody speeding cyclists.


----------



## CharlieB (1 Sep 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> YOU passed HIM, but he was going too fast?
> 
> Bloody speeding cyclists.


In the opposite direction, perchance?


----------



## BentMikey (1 Sep 2009)

CharlieB said:


> In the opposite direction, perchance?




LOL, yes, that's it.


----------



## Mark T (1 Sep 2009)

Bit of a mistake getting such a memorable number plate if he's going to drive around drawing attention to himself, isn't it?

Although I presume the police haven't got in touch with him yet. Hehe.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Nah, sorry you are clutching at straws there. A registration plate is a far easier way to identify a vehicle and subsequently the driver than noting down the make of a bike and how a rider looks etc. and you know it.
> 
> I know it wouldn't stop red light jumping or any other bad behaviour to any great degree, but it might just help in those extreme cases when a cyclist does something really bad (and yes it can and does happen) just the same way it does when a nutter behind the wheel of car does something really stupid... which leads us nicely back to Dan in his Subaru.
> 
> Wthout the plate the police have no chance of apprehending him...



Unless you have a "Road Safety rganisation" like SafeSpeed that advocated changing your plate and claiming you were dyslexic, or that "local kids changed it and ran way"

Also lets not forget the thousands of "prat plates" (like DAN) or those with unreadable writing, altered spacing or reflective coatings that are supposed to be unrecordable, or unrecognised by ANPR etc.

Number plates as an effective recognition tool require a greater degree of enforcement and are frequently and deliberately flouted by motorists - as in the same way the bad cyclists would be finding ways to avoid recognition.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2009)

just jim said:


> Skwerl - I can't see this happening at all. It's not politically expedient to tax a mode of transport which ticks so many right-on boxes.



Slightly OT ... but the level of taxation on cycles is one area where there is full equality with powered vehicles. Assessed by the same criteria we are in Class A (VED) and all cyclists pay the tariff in full!


----------



## f1_fan (1 Sep 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> Why don't you answer any questions yourself?
> 
> Regarding accidents, even if it is inevitable does it make it OK for those accidents to occur? Does it mean we should accept that accidents will happen, and allow the people who caused them to carry on their way? Does it mean that the friends and family of the 9 people who die *each day* on the roads in this country alone should accept that this was inevitable?
> 
> ...



Kaipaith, been busy working so only just got back here. 

Anyway, post 261 mate. I quote you saying much the same as above and say I agree with what you wrote there so why don't YOU read the bloody thread 

I am all for retraining, education, justice for those guilty of causing an accident through negligence or sheer stupidity etc. etc. BUT I still say that there will always be a certain number of accidents simply becuase humans are fallible and will always make mistakes.


----------



## PBancroft (2 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Kaipaith, been busy working so only just got back here.
> 
> Anyway, post 261 mate. I quote you saying much the same as above and say I agree with what you wrote there so why don't YOU read the bloody thread
> 
> I am all for retraining, education, justice for those guilty of causing an accident through negligence or sheer stupidity etc. etc. BUT I still say that there will always be a certain number of accidents simply becuase humans are fallible and will always make mistakes.



I did read that post - this was the reply to it. You say that a certain number of accidents are inevitable and should be accepted. 

That is not OK - the post was to question whether you thought it was, which thus far (until the above) you haven't said.


----------



## just jim (2 Sep 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> Slightly OT ... but the level of taxation on cycles is one area where there is full equality with powered vehicles. Assessed by the same criteria we are in Class A (VED) and all cyclists pay the tariff in full!



Yes, I should know this by now...I've even rehearsed it as part of my slightly convoluted response to the "You don't pay road tax" accusation.


----------



## Panter (2 Sep 2009)

Just seen this video, nasty stuff 

Well done for staying so calm BM, I must admit I would have lost it and administered a good hiding.


----------



## f1_fan (2 Sep 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> I did read that post - this was the reply to it. You say that a certain number of accidents are inevitable and should be accepted.
> 
> That is not OK - the post was to question whether you thought it was, which thus far (until the above) you haven't said.



OK I think we are getting bogged down in syntax more than anything here. I am not so much saying it is OK that there are accidents, just that given the fallibility of human beings it is inevitable that a certain number of accidents will happen while we allow people to drive around an increasingly congested road system in an array of vehicles ranging from bikes all the way to large trcuks.

Let me ask you a question now. Are you saying that you have never ever made a mistake on the road? If you answer no I suspect you aren't telling the truth. The problem comes when that mistake results in an accident and/or injury which on a bike is less likely than in a car of course, but nevertheless the principle is the same.

Of course we should strive to reduce accidents and of course we should attempt to bring to justice/re-educate etc. anyone causing an accident through negligence or worse, sheer stupidity, but the fact remains that there are always going to be a certain number of accidents as we will never be able to make every road user perfect (or every vehicle perfect as some accidents are caused by vehicle failure - relatively few thankfully). Human beings are not perfect and never will be.

In essence as a society we balance risk all the time. In this case we are balancing the risk of accidents against allowing people to freely move around by road. Speed limits, better road construction, signage, education etc.etc. are all there to fine tune and improve that risk, but short of banning motorised vehicles I cannot ever see a time when accidents won't happen.

So it's not so much a case of accepting it as being realistic in my view. Given what I have said above and given the fact that I do not want to lose the ability to drive my car to get from A to B I know there will be accidents as a trade off for the fact we all have the freedom to use the roads so to a certain extent yes I guess I accept it but with caveats as mentioned above. If you really think accidents can be reduced to zero without the draconian measures of banning all motorised vehicles for instance then I applaud your optimism.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2009)

F1 and d'pov, why have you gone quiet on my comments/replies?


----------



## f1_fan (2 Sep 2009)

Commenting on the taxation issue bubbling along in this thread too I, even as a car driver, have no wish to see cyclists taxed for all the reasons mentioned here and probably in numerous other threads. 

I do think that a registration plate of some sort would be a good idea though, but as we know our beloved government would simply see this as a way to get yet more money via back door taxation and would no doubt charge all cyclists for the privilege of registering their bikes at least twice as much as the real world cost so for that reason alone let's leave things as they are. I would rather bikes remain unregistered than see yet more money disappear into the treasury's piggy bank.


----------



## f1_fan (2 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> F1 and d'pov, why have you gone quiet on my comments/replies?



BM, sorry, but as I said I have been working and off again in a minute.

What post would you like a reply to?


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2009)

One here:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=874979&postcount=228

..and another
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=875495&postcount=267

If it weren't for your oh so reasonable and decent debate, I'd almost be tempted to think you were ashamed of some of the posts over on the Subaru forum.


----------



## Dan B (2 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> So it's not so much a case of accepting it as being realistic in my view. Given what I have said above and given the fact that I do not want to lose the ability to drive my car to get from A to B I know there will be accidents as a trade off for the fact we all have the freedom to use the roads so to a certain extent yes I guess I accept it but with caveats as mentioned above.


I would be interested, by the way, to know _how many_ deaths are acceptable in your view. Are you happy with the current 3000/year?

But that's not really why I posted. What I would like to ask you is whether you recognise that there's a basic unfairness here: it's by and large the people with "the freedom to use the roads" by driving cars and other motor vehicles around them who are causing the accidents, but the victims of those accidents also include people who don't have that freedom or who choose not to exercise it. Pedestrians, for example. If the only victims of car accidents were car drivers ("you knew the risk and accepted it when you got in the car"), it's possible this might be a fairer swap.


----------



## f1_fan (2 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> One here:
> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=874979&postcount=228
> 
> ..and another
> ...



OK then here goes. 



BentMikey said:


> I rather like scoobys, and until this chap D4N, I've experienced excellent driving from them.



Funny you say that as I would disagree. There is a fair proportion of old Scoobs in the hands of complete dickheads from what I have seen. Sad as it tars the rest of us with the same brush in some people's eyes.



BentMikey said:


> Badly lit recumbent? I think not, my lights are in the brightest 1 or 2% of cyclist lights you see on the roads.



Not my comment or opinion. I have no idea how well lit your bike is, but I suspect from your behaviour it is very well lit indeed.



BentMikey said:


> 100mph? That was when d4n overtook the witness, according to the witness, not when he drove past me.



Yes I understood that, sorry some of my fellow Scoob drivers seem unable to read what is written.



BentMikey said:


> Sad for filming? If you say so. Does it matter to you unless you drive badly?



BM, OK apologies for the exact syntax I used on Scoobynet, but I will stand by my opinion here as I really think watching your You Tube videos that there is an element of antagonism on your part and a little bit of a 'looking for trouble' scenario about the way you go about things. I know your defence will be that the drivers in your videos were antagonistic in their behaviour in the first place not to mention in some cases dangerous, but two wrongs don't make a right. 

There is a danger that as a fanatic of anything (in this case cycling) you can become overly blinkered and move away form a more impartial middle of the road (no pun intended) view on things that are obviously close to your heart. By virtue of the fact you feel it is perfectly nromal to video these events, remonstrate with the 'offenders', threaten them with the police/You Tube and then return home, download the video, edit it adding captions and post it up on You Tube I would say you are already there. Just saying it as I see it and you probably won't see it that way, but there are many people myself included who will.

Have you tried a different approach like just talking to the 'offfenders' and explaining what they did and asking them not to do it again. I can't help but feel that in some cases this would yield better results .... not including Dan the Dickhead in that group however. 

Anyway we are never going to agree so let's not bat it back and forth, vive le difference I guess. Still think you are as mad as a march hare though, but despite all I have said I really do hope you don't come across a real 'nutter' who assaults you though my worry is that one day you will and no amount of moral high ground will help you then 



BentMikey said:


> I'm so with you there. I hate RLJing cyclists because it's antisocial, frightening for pedestrians, and just general bad behaviour. I'm happy for all red light jumpers to get ticketed. Cyclists are harder to catch, but then they also cause far less death and injury than do the heavyweights of the road.
> 
> You do realise an RAC study found that 48% of cyclists jump lights, 1 in 10 car drivers, and 1 in 5 bus drivers? If it weren't for the awkward facts that the car ahead stopping often prevents an RLJ, and there weren't number plates, then far more would do this.
> 
> I should point out I used to RLJ (on a bicycle, never my car) before I learnt the error of my ways. I'm far from perfect myself.



Well I am impressed you don't partake of this particular activity and I must admit to being surprised at how high the percentage of cyclists that do this actually is. I think what surprises me most is that you are so vulnerable on a bike that why would you take the chance. I remember from my cycling days that it seemed like the road based equivalent of Russian Roulette.

Anyway as to the fact that more car drivers would do it were it not for numberplates I agree and the corollary to that is that maybe less cyclists would do it if they had numberplates. Who knows?


----------



## Crankarm (2 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Anyway as to the fact that more car drivers would do it were it not for numberplates I agree and the corollary to that is that maybe less cyclists would do it if they had numberplates. Who knows?



Since when did a number plate, genuine or false, ever stop a driver harassing, threatening or assaulting another road user - vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian?

Quite where on a bike a number plate of the size and style I think you are alluding would be attached I haven't the foggiest...... Just isn't practical or feasible.


----------



## f1_fan (2 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> I would be interested, by the way, to know _how many_ deaths are acceptable in your view. Are you happy with the current 3000/year?



It's not a question of being happy and of course (as I have said several times already) I think we should always strive to reduce the numbers injured and killed on the roads, but it is this subtext buibbling along underneath here that we shouldn't tolerate even one injury or death per year as the ONLY way that is going to happen is to ban motor vehicles and of course being a self confessed petrolhead I don't want that.



coruskate said:


> But that's not really why I posted. What I would like to ask you is whether you recognise that there's a basic unfairness here: it's by and large the people with "the freedom to use the roads" by driving cars and other motor vehicles around them who are causing the accidents, but the victims of those accidents also include people who don't have that freedom or who choose not to exercise it. Pedestrians, for example. If the only victims of car accidents were car drivers ("you knew the risk and accepted it when you got in the car"), it's possible this might be a fairer swap.



It's not unfairness, it's physics.

A cyclist or pedestrian makes an error of judgement and as a result gets hit by a car then they are going to come off worse. A car driver makes an error of judgement and as a result hits a cyclist it is the cyclist that comes off worse. That is just the laws of physics and the same applies to big trucks and cars, but in reverse.

It's the fact you view it as unfairness that is the disturbing thing. Yes a car driver making a mistake is far more likley to cause an accident than a cyclist making a mistake and hence maybe unlike cyclists car drivers should have to take a driving test and hold a driving licence etc. because of the extra danger they pose.... oh hang on they do!!!


----------



## PBancroft (2 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Let me ask you a question now. Are you saying that you have never ever made a mistake on the road? If you answer no I suspect you aren't telling the truth. The problem comes when that mistake results in an accident and/or injury which on a bike is less likely than in a car of course, but nevertheless the principle is the same.
> 
> ...
> 
> So it's not so much a case of accepting it as being realistic in my view. Given what I have said above and given the fact that I do not want to lose the ability to drive my car to get from A to B I know there will be accidents as a trade off for the fact we all have the freedom to use the roads so to a certain extent yes I guess I accept it but with caveats as mentioned above. If you really think accidents can be reduced to zero without the draconian measures of banning all motorised vehicles for instance then I applaud your optimism.



Of course I have made mistakes. Luckily I have never hurt or killed anyone. Unfortunately people do, and they are allowed back behind the wheel of the vehicle again often without retraining, and often enough without punishment.

I've lost a very good friend on the road (through his own fault) and he could very easily have killed someone else too. His death was not inevitable, but the result of bad training and respect for the vehicle he was driving.

There are many others on the road just like him.

As Coruskate says - what level of deaths on the road is acceptable? My view is none. I think that can be done without removing all vehicles from the road, and I don't think it is reasonable to simply accept otherwise without really trying. We make gestures in that direction at the moment, but we don't actually _try_.


----------



## blazed (2 Sep 2009)

Is it true speed limits do not apply to recumbents/cyclists as BentMikey says?


----------



## f1_fan (2 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Since when did a number plate, genuine or false, ever stop a driver harassing, threatening or assaulting another road user - vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian?



Plenty of times I would have thought as just because some still do doesn't mean others wouldn't if the traceability was lost. Not sure how you know that not to be the case, but I bow to your superior knowledge. 



Crankarm said:


> Quite where on a bike a number plate of the size and style I think you are alluding would be attached I haven't the foggiest...... Just isn't practical or feasible.



Agreed and I was just applying reverse psychology for the sake of the discussion. As I said a few posts back if the government ever did decide to license bicycles they would use it as another opportunity to stiff you all out of yet more money and for that reason alone I am against it


----------



## f1_fan (2 Sep 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> Of course I have made mistakes. Luckily I have never hurt or killed anyone. Unfortunately people do, and they are allowed back behind the wheel of the vehicle again often without retraining, and often enough without punishment.



Agree with you 100% on that.



Kaipaith said:


> I've lost a very good friend on the road (through his own fault) and he could very easily have killed someone else too. His death was not inevitable, but the result of bad training and respect for the vehicle he was driving.
> 
> There are many others on the road just like him.
> 
> As Coruskate says - what level of deaths on the road is acceptable? My view is none. I think that can be done without removing all vehicles from the road, and I don't think it is reasonable to simply accept otherwise without really trying. We make gestures in that direction at the moment, but we don't actually _try_.



Fair enough and that is where we differ as while even one is not acceptable I still feel it is inevitable, but I truly admire your optimism. Fair play to you. 

Sorry to hear about your friend too, a loss of life is sad no matter whose fault it is.

I had better get back to work... sadly!


----------



## Crankarm (2 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Yes a car driver making a mistake is far more likley to cause an accident than a cyclist making a mistake and hence maybe unlike cyclists *car drivers should have to take a driving test and hold a driving licence etc.* because of the extra danger they pose.... oh hang on they do!!!



And unsurprisingly many are still a danger.......

The law needs to change such that there is a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of any driver of a vehicle who is in collision with another party who is not driving or a passenger in another vehicle eg pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2009)

Yes, there's not a particularly good signal to noise ratio there, at least on the D4N topic.

I'm quite pleased how your reaction is much more toned down and reasonable now. That's also what a video camera does to most drivers on the road. It changes their behaviour significantly for the better. To be honest it changes my own too, I'm much less sweary and much calmer. Best of all, I've often found what I've done wrong in my own riding and how to play the odds and ride to a higher standard in future. One example is the recent Robinson's removals lorry clip. I really should have taken the whole lane there, though that was a particularly hard case given the trickle of earlier traffic, and the speed at which he approached me from behind.

You do realise I on occasion offer this sort of footage to production companies? At least one clip has made it onto Road Wars, so D4N might be more famous than he planned.

You want more numberplates, including on bikes for the consequences and improvement in road behaviour. The helmet video youtubed by so many people also equals consequences. Not really that different, are we.


----------



## thomas (2 Sep 2009)

skwerl said:


> You say that bikes should "never be licenced". Why?
> 
> As cycling gets more popular (and it will, as motoring costs rise and average speeds drop) you can be sure the govt. will start eyeing us as an extra revenue stream.



The Gov got 17.5% of what my bike cost when I bought it, along with clothes and accessories at different levels of taxation. They already make money off cyclists.

As for never be licences, we have a inbuilt right to use the roads without licence. Roads were built for horses and bicycles! I would not be against bike training becoming easier to get access to, as this would probably do a lot of cyclists some good - but don't think people should be put of cycling by having to pass a test before they can do it.

I don't believe licensing bicycles would solve any problems, it would just put people off which can only be bad for any "green" debate, congestion, people's fitness....



blazed said:


> Is it true speed limits do not apply to recumbents/cyclists as BentMikey says?



Yes, you can't officially be done for speeding as speed limits only cover motorised vehicles. However, if you were found to have killed someone because of doing 40mph in a 30mph then you could be done for warent and furious driving (not cycling!!), dangerous cycling or something else. Basically, if you were being stupid the police would probably give you some advice...do a search on here though, there are a few threads with links to the actual legal mumbojumbo.


----------



## Dan B (2 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> It's not a question of being happy and of course (as I have said several times already) I think we should always strive to reduce the numbers injured and killed on the roads, but it is this subtext buibbling along underneath here that we shouldn't tolerate even one injury or death per year as the ONLY way that is going to happen is to ban motor vehicles and of course being a self confessed petrolhead I don't want that.


I asked you what number you would find acceptable: I didn't say that the only correct answer is zero. 


f1_fan said:


> It's the fact you view it as unfairness that is the disturbing thing.


It's the fact you don't ... ;-)

It's clear that you recognise that the danger on the roads is overwhelmingly due to the operation of motor vehicles thereon. I can see three possible responses: one is to ban motor vehicles from roads, one is to ban everything else from the roads (after all, we don't let anyone walk around on the railways) and the third is to make car users a lot more careful than they presently are. All these have different tradeoffs (I would be as unhappy about option 1 as you would option 2) but the "shoot happens, live with it" position you seem to be resigned to is really not worthy of a civilised country.


----------



## PBancroft (2 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Fair enough and that is where we differ as while even one is not acceptable I still feel it is inevitable, but I truly admire your optimism. Fair play to you.
> 
> Sorry to hear about your friend too, a loss of life is sad no matter whose fault it is.



It was ten years ago, but thank you. My point remains however ... was his death inevitable? I don't think it was, and I strongly - vehemently even - oppose the idea that it was. He was driving far too fast for the conditions of the road (actually far too fast full stop) and wrapped his car around a tree. It was not a momentary lapse of judgement or attention. He was not aware of the limitations of his own ability. It wasn't inevitable that he or anyone would do this, and I think it lessens peoples lives to assume that it is otherwise.

Better training, better social awareness, better enforcement of the law and other measures could have prevented his death, just as they could prevent others across the country every day, not to mention countless injuries.

To say that these deaths could not be prevented - that they are inevitable - is to accept them and implicitly state that they are acceptable.

They are not.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> (section removed)
> 
> So it's not so much a case of accepting it as being realistic in my view. Given what I have said above and given the fact that I do not want to lose the ability to drive my car to get from A to B I know there will be accidents as a trade off for the fact we all have the freedom to use the roads so to a certain extent yes I guess I accept it but with caveats as mentioned above. If you really think accidents can be reduced to zero without the draconian measures of banning all motorised vehicles for instance then I applaud your optimism.



They can be reduced by removing the numpties - the ones who are too stupid to realise that using a phone whilst driving isn't safe, that stopping at junctions is a good idea and that parking on pavements is unacceptable.

The answer is simple - people like our "DAN" need to be removed from th road - the simplest and most effective road safety measure we can apply.


----------



## purplepolly (2 Sep 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> The answer is simple - people like our "DAN" need to be removed from th road - the simplest and most effective road safety measure we can apply.



it could be simplified even further - break a highway code 'must' and loose your licence. simples.


----------



## Tinuts (2 Sep 2009)

purplepolly said:


> it could be simplified even further - break a highway code 'must' and loose your licence. simples.



Or, use a mobile phone whilst driving and you get your car crushed. For a repeat offence you get crushed with the car.


----------



## Dan B (2 Sep 2009)

I think it does no real good to pretend that all offences are equally bad. (If you genuinely believe all offences are really bad, I won't bother trying to argue with you, but please be aware that your opnion is not universally held)

Honestly, which is more dangerous: answering the phone while doing 50mph on a clear straight empty road, or tailgating in fog? Where would you rather devote enforcement effort? A sense of proportion hurts nobody


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2009)

purplepolly said:


> it could be simplified even further - break a highway code 'must' and loose your licence. simples.



That might be slightly over the top. More seriously, a bit more rigour in applying the current points system, and more traffic police and enforcement, and driving standards and safety would go up considerably.

Besides which, corpulent Dan might just get a little happier and healthier from the exercise and endorphins. That's got to be good for all who come in contact with him.


----------



## PBancroft (2 Sep 2009)

purplepolly said:


> it could be simplified even further - break a highway code 'must' and loose your licence. simples.



I've said this a few times - but what is it with this "points" malarky?

It's OK to break the law a couple of times before you get properly punished? It makes no sense. You can get _caught_ breaking road laws several times before you have to prove you can drive within the law.

Its ridiculous.


----------



## fossyant (2 Sep 2009)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 

Car driver is a Muppet - being passed again by said driver..oh...eck.... but he's obviously on the same route regular........


----------



## purplepolly (2 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> I think it does no real good to pretend that all offences are equally bad. (If you genuinely believe all offences are really bad, I won't bother trying to argue with you, but please be aware that your opnion is not universally held)
> 
> Honestly, which is more dangerous: answering the phone while doing 50mph on a clear straight empty road, or tailgating in fog? Where would you rather devote enforcement effort? A sense of proportion hurts nobody



They're not all equally bad _but _if people knew their licence would taken away for contravening the HC then almost everyone would drive very very carefully. Practically speaking though, this is impractical as standards are so low that most drivers break the code eveytime they drive a car. It would solve congestion though.


----------



## purplepolly (2 Sep 2009)

fossyant said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> Car driver is a Muppet - being passed again by said driver..oh...eck.... but he's obviously on the same route regular........



or near home


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2009)

Well he lives in Biggin Hill apparently, so I'm likely to see more of him. The next encounter might be interesting...


----------



## thomas (3 Sep 2009)

purplepolly said:


> They're not all equally bad _but _if people knew their licence would taken away for contravening the HC then almost everyone would drive very very carefully. Practically speaking though, this is impractical as standards are so low that most drivers break the code eveytime they drive a car. It would solve congestion though.



Well, I got 7 minors on my driving test does that mean I should loose my licence 7 times?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (3 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Well he lives in Biggin Hill apparently, so I'm likely to see more of him. The next encounter might be interesting...




Gonna get tooled up?!

It's good to have BM back isn't it? - only he could keep a 30 odd page thread going in 'commuting'!!!


----------



## paddy01 (3 Sep 2009)

purplepolly said:


> They're not all equally bad _but _if people knew their licence would taken away for contravening the HC then almost everyone would drive very very carefully. Practically speaking though, this is impractical as standards are so low that most drivers break the code eveytime they drive a car. It would solve congestion though.



Or would the result simply be more unlicenced and therefore uninsured drivers on the roads....


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> They can be reduced by removing the numpties - the ones who are too stupid to realise that using a phone whilst driving isn't safe, that stopping at junctions is a good idea and that parking on pavements is unacceptable.
> 
> The answer is simple - people like our "DAN" need to be removed from th road - the simplest and most effective road safety measure we can apply.



Yes, but there will always be another numptie coming along to take his place and that is the inevitability of it all sadly.


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> And unsurprisingly many are still a danger.......
> 
> The law needs to change such that there is a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of any driver of a vehicle who is in collision with another party who is not driving or a passenger in another vehicle eg pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider.



Are you serious? So you are saying that just becuase one of the people in a collision is in a motorised vehicle they should be presumed the guilty party until found innocent. That goes against the very cornerstone of our society quite aside from the fact that to any level headed person it is complete crap.

No wonder cyclists get tainted with a blinkered holier than thou tag when some of you actually think like this.


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Yes, there's not a particularly good signal to noise ratio there, at least on the D4N topic.
> 
> I'm quite pleased how your reaction is much more toned down and reasonable now. That's also what a video camera does to most drivers on the road. It changes their behaviour significantly for the better. To be honest it changes my own too, I'm much less sweary and much calmer. Best of all, I've often found what I've done wrong in my own riding and how to play the odds and ride to a higher standard in future. One example is the recent Robinson's removals lorry clip. I really should have taken the whole lane there, though that was a particularly hard case given the trickle of earlier traffic, and the speed at which he approached me from behind.
> 
> ...



My words may have toned down, but as I said I still question your methods just as much, but I think we can just agree to differ there now as I doubt either of will change our stance and that's OK.

As nice an idea as having all cycles registered like cars is I do agree that it is impractical, would discourgae people from cycling which is clearly not sensible (even to me as a nasty evil car driver  ) and would just result in yet another way to tax people which our government manages perfectly well already so it's probably best left alone. 

As I said for those rare occasions whan a cyclist does something really stupid and then rides off into the sunset it would help to trace them, but I guess those occasions are rare and hence once again we come down to balancing benefits vs costs and in this case I think it's not worth the costs.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2009)

I think he's talking about the civil liability issue as in the Netherlands. I couldn't be sure of the details, but it comes down to the eye of suspicion being cast towards the motor vehicle driver in any collision involving pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists.

Even an RAC study found that the driver was to blame in 4 out of 5 of the subset of collisions involving bicycles and motorvehicles, so perhaps that's not entirely unreasonable. The danger to others is brought by the heavier and faster vehicle after all.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Sep 2009)

British Columbia had a law that not only made the driver responsible for the damage that he or she caused, but removed insurance cover for injuries to pedestrians. Living in Vancouver was civilised in the extreme. One walked across streets as and when, while drivers deferred. And, it must be said, with good grace.

As a general rule, if you are propelling a tonne or more of rusty metal around, you should take responsibility for the damage it causes. Nobody compels you to drive. If you don't want the responsibility, and can't ride a bike, take the bus.


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> I asked you what number you would find acceptable: I didn't say that the only correct answer is zero.
> 
> It's the fact you don't ... ;-)
> 
> It's clear that you recognise that the danger on the roads is overwhelmingly due to the operation of motor vehicles thereon. I can see three possible responses: one is to ban motor vehicles from roads, one is to ban everything else from the roads (after all, we don't let anyone walk around on the railways) and the third is to make car users a lot more careful than they presently are. All these have different tradeoffs (I would be as unhappy about option 1 as you would option 2) but the "shoot happens, live with it" position you seem to be resigned to is really not worthy of a civilised country.



As I said I cannot put a number on it, I just accept there will be some accidents as humans are involved. Zero is not achievable in my eyes unless we ban motorised vehicles from the road.

Yes I accept that most of the danger in terms of injury to pedestrians and cyclists comes from motorised vehicles, but as I said before it is not unfair, it is physics. It really is that simple. In an earlier replay I asked kaipaith whether he had never made a mistake and he said he had, but luckily he had never hurt or killed anyone. Interesting choice of words as luck would mean that purely by chance he hadn't hurt anyone the corollary of which is to say if he had it would have been unlucky.

Expand this to car drivers and why is it any different? People make mistakes every day and while I wholeheartedly support better training, education, punishment for negligence, stupidity etc. I cannot ever see zero accidents/deaths as a realistic target. S**t does happen every day in all walks of life and while we as a society are prepared to let people drive 1 tonne lumps of metal around sharing the roads with pedestrians, cyclists etc. I (happy about it or not) accept there will be some accidents. Maybe that makes me uncivilised, who knows?


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

A couple of interesting items:

Can't wait to see this:

http://directionsdrivertraining.co.uk/blog/general/bad-driving-report/

Also, http://betterdrivingplease.com/index.asp has closed. As I posted a number of my incidents on there it is gratifying to know that, apparently, something positive will come of it.


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Well he lives in Biggin Hill apparently, so I'm likely to see more of him. The next encounter might be interesting...



BM, we may not see eye to eye on things, but please be careful, this guy is a complete idiot and next time may be even more extreme.

Did the police look at your video btw? If so what did they say?


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I think he's talking about the civil liability issue as in the Netherlands. I couldn't be sure of the details, but it comes down to the eye of suspicion being cast towards the motor vehicle driver in any collision involving pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists.
> 
> Even an RAC study found that the driver was to blame in 4 out of 5 of the subset of collisions involving bicycles and motorvehicles, so perhaps that's not entirely unreasonable. The danger to others is brought by the heavier and faster vehicle after all.



But what about the 1 out of 5 where is wasn't the driver's fault?

I just think it sets a dangerous precedent. 

Surely if a pedstrian steps out in front of a motor vehicle without looking it is hardly fair that the onus then falls on the driver to prove his innocence rather than the authorities to prove his guilt.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan, I've not referred or even thought of you as a "nasty evil car driver". I would imagine you're quite a good and careful driver, given that you're an enthusiast. Who knows though, there are likely to be both good and bad on any forum, just like I'm sure there are poor cyclists on here too.


----------



## purplepolly (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Are you serious? So you are saying that just becuase one of the people in a collision is in a motorised vehicle they should be presumed the guilty party until found innocent. That goes against the very cornerstone of our society quite aside from the fact that to any level headed person it is complete crap.



Crankarm is referring to the legal situation in parts of Europe and it has been proposed occassionaly that the UK should be in-line with this (contentious) legislation.

Currently the situation is the oppoisite - the motorist has to be proved to be at fault and even with witnesses this isn't always possible. Innocent until proven guilty. Nothing wrong with that. Except that what it actually means is that if the motorist is "innocent" then the cyclist/pedestrian must be at fault and gets no compensation. Not exactly fair either.


----------



## purplepolly (3 Sep 2009)

thomas said:


> Well, I got 7 minors on my driving test does that mean I should loose my licence 7 times?



No you'll be safe from my plans. I very much doubt you would have passed your test if you had contravened 7 "musts" (legal requirements) in the highway code. Minor faults are exactly that. In my case I overtook a road sweeper too slowly, that's not something that's legislated against.


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> I think it does no real good to pretend that all offences are equally bad. (If you genuinely believe all offences are really bad, I won't bother trying to argue with you, but please be aware that your opnion is not universally held)
> 
> Honestly, which is more dangerous: answering the phone while doing 50mph on a clear straight empty road, or tailgating in fog? Where would you rather devote enforcement effort? A sense of proportion hurts nobody



Using a mobile phone whilst driving has been shown to have the same effect on driving ability as alcoholic intoxication, a fact of which those drivers who persist in breaking the law in this way seem to be in constant denial. Of course, if one of those mobile-using-moron's family were to be mown down by a drink driver they'd quite likely want that driver's head on a plate now, wouldn't they? 

Yes, a sense of proportion hurts nobody.


----------



## thomas (3 Sep 2009)

Tinuts said:


> Using a mobile phone whilst driving has been shown to have the same effect on driving ability as alcoholic intoxication, a fact of which those drivers who persist in breaking the law in this way seem to be in constant denial. Of course, if one of those mobile-using-moron's family were to be mown down by a drink driver they'd quite likely want that driver's head on a plate now, wouldn't they?
> 
> Yes, a sense of proportion hurts nobody.



I'd rather have someone on their mobile phone behind me than a drunk driver.


----------



## blazed (3 Sep 2009)

Tinuts said:


> Using a mobile phone whilst driving has been shown to have the same effect on driving ability as alcoholic intoxication, a fact of which those drivers who persist in breaking the law in this way seem to be in constant denial. Of course, if one of those mobile-using-moron's family were to be mown down by a drink driver they'd quite likely want that driver's head on a plate now, wouldn't they?
> 
> Yes, a sense of proportion hurts nobody.



If they were just as bad they would carry the same penalty. Being on the phone is 3 points. Being drunk is often a ban, hefty fine and possible prison time. 

Its not a fact at all, just because one study showed that doesnt make it a fact. There are conflicting studies on everything.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2009)

Just because you don't want it to be a fact doesn't make it so. There's fairly robust and convincing evidence that mobile phone use is a big impairment, roughly similar to driving drunk.

Apparently there are around 500,000 A&E visits a year due to pedestrians on the phone tripping over street furniture.


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Surely if a pedstrian steps out in front of a motor vehicle without looking it is hardly fair that the onus then falls on the driver to prove his innocence rather than the authorities to prove his guilt.



All the more reason to get one of these, then:

http://www.actioncameras.co.uk/X_Driven


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Just because you don't want it to be a fact doesn't make it so. There's fairly robust and convincing evidence that mobile phone use is a big impairment, roughly similar to driving drunk.
> 
> Apparently there are around 500,000 A&E visits a year due to pedestrians on the phone tripping over street furniture.



Exactly.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> BM, we may not see eye to eye on things, but please be careful, this guy is a complete idiot and next time may be even more extreme.
> 
> Did the police look at your video btw? If so what did they say?



Thanks for your concern! I have to commute along the same main road that's pretty much the only entry to Biggin Hill from the north.

As you're an experienced driver, what do you suggest I change to increase my safety w.r.t. D4N?

No news from the police yet, I dropped the video off Tuesday night, and left a message yesterday.


----------



## purplepolly (3 Sep 2009)

thomas said:


> I'd rather have someone on their mobile phone behind me than a drunk driver.



Last week I turned onto a through road into a traffic queue, behind me was a 4x4 and the driver was on the phone. The traffic moved off, he overtook me, approaching the next lights he was in the right hand lane then swerved left forcing the car in that lane to slam on the brakes. The lights turned to red when he was still a reasonable distance away from the lights but he managed to overshoot the stop line, went through the ASL and stopped halfway on the pedestrian crossing. As there was no left turn I used the cycle lane to undertake the 3 cars ending up alongside him. He was still on the phone. Lights changed, he went off, last thing I saw he was about a meter over the center line causing the oncoming traffic to take evasive action.

Had I not seen the mobile, I would have assumed he was drunk as the effect seems to be pretty much the same.


----------



## thomas (3 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Just because you don't want it to be a fact doesn't make it so. There's fairly robust and convincing evidence that mobile phone use is a big impairment, roughly similar to driving drunk.



I've only used my mobile phone while driving once. Friend stuck their phone on loud speaker so I could ask someone something, but I found it really distracting and couldn't talk.

However, like Blazed said, if they are similar in how bad they are, mobile phone use should result in loosing your license, fine, etc. It won't be taken seriously otherwise.


----------



## blazed (3 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Just because you don't want it to be a fact doesn't make it so. There's fairly robust and convincing evidence that mobile phone use is a big impairment, roughly similar to driving drunk.
> 
> Apparently there are around 500,000 A&E visits a year due to pedestrians on the phone tripping over street furniture.



The studies ive seen are done at the minimal drink drive limit, which is about 1 pint of beer for a man. The average drunk driver has had a lot more than 1 pint of beer.


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Thanks for your concern! I have to commute along the same main road that's pretty much the only entry to Biggin Hill from the north.
> 
> As you're an experienced driver, what do you suggest I change to increase my safety w.r.t. D4N?



I am resisting the urge to be flippant and say get the bus, but seriously BM I don't think there is anything you can do as regards D4N on the road.

Leaving aside my personal opinion about your methods as they aren't relevant here if D4N if he is wound up enough to jump out of his car like he does in this video and clearly drives too fast as per the independent witness's account then he is one of those few drivers that needs the law to deal with him.

I really feel that instead of enaging him again your best bet is to follow up with the police daily until they at least go and talk to him. I think having an officer of the law turn up and caution him will make him think whereas another altercation with a cyclist is only going to further entrench his already skewed mindset.

I will post again on Scoobynet and ask anyone who might know him (as Scooby drivers tend to be enthusiasts of the marque) to tell him or even he himself might be reading (although I doubt he can) to calm the **** down.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2009)

thomas said:


> However, like Blazed said, if they are similar in how bad they are, mobile phone use should result in loosing your license, fine, etc. It won't be taken seriously otherwise.



I think the disparity in punishments probably comes from the fact that drink driving has been socially unacceptable for a very long time, and we've come to understand the consequences better. Mobile phone driving isn't yet as unacceptable, and people haven't yet connected doing so with the possible consequences in accidents.


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

purplepolly said:


> Had I not seen the mobile, I would have assumed he was drunk as the effect seems to be pretty much the same.



I've seen it so many times it just isn't worth even arguing about.

The penalties for this offence are, IMHO, far too meagre.


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

Tinuts said:


> All the more reason to get one of these, then:
> 
> http://www.actioncameras.co.uk/X_Driven




 Oh very funny


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2009)

Tinuts said:


> Using a mobile phone whilst driving has been shown to have the same effect on driving ability as alcoholic intoxication


That's not actually true, at least according to the study I'm aware of: it would be fair to say "as profound an effect" but the actual characteristics are quite different. Strayer, Drews & Crouch 2006, put drivers in a simulator and found


> Results:
> When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, their
> braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than
> when they were not conversing on a cell phone. By contrast, when drivers were intox-
> ...


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I think the disparity in punishments probably comes from the fact that drink driving has been socially unacceptable for a very long time, and we've come to understand the consequences better. Mobile phone driving isn't yet as unacceptable, and people haven't yet connected doing so with the possible consequences in accidents.



Yes, most certainly. It doesn't help that the TV adverts encouraging drivers to desist aren't nearly as hard hitting as the anti drink-drive ones.

Perhaps we could have one like that shown last Xmas (the blokes drinking in a bar swiftly cutting into a scene of drink-drive effected carnage but actually in the bar). Maybe that would change people's minds a bit more.


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> That's not actually true, at least according to the study I'm aware of: it would be fair to say "as profound an effect" but the actual characteristics are quite different. Strayer, Drews & Crouch 2006, put drivers in a simulator and found



Semantics, semantics and more semantics. It's enough to make one anti-semantic.


----------



## blazed (3 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> That's not actually true, at least according to the study I'm aware of: it would be fair to say "as profound an effect" but the actual characteristics are quite different. Strayer, Drews & Crouch 2006, put drivers in a simulator and found



The difference is there are many stages of drink driving. Which is why you cant say using the phone is as dangerous as drink driving. Simply because you can have 2 pints and be a "drunk driver" and that may be as dangerous as using the phone, but a different person may have had 8 pints and is now a lot more of a danger than someone on the phone. Which is why those studies are useless, and why the penalties are nowhere near the same.


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Yes I accept that most of the danger in terms of injury to pedestrians and cyclists comes from motorised vehicles, but as I said before it is not unfair, it is physics.


Sorry, but that's just a category error. 90% of the time the physics only comes into play as a result of bad decisions or poor judgment on the part of humans: yes, your one tonne car will crush 70kg me, but only as a result of your action (or lack of action) as its operator. Physics is irrelevant until the mistake has been made already

If it was commonplace for poorly-trained pilots to drop their planes out of the sky and kill people standing underneath them, I wager that your response would not be "oh well, that's physics for you, the victim was just unlucky" but "how can we improve the standard of pilot training so that this doesn't happen (or doesn't happen as much)". So why do so many people see it differently when it's a car not a plane? Possible answers might be that they fear deep down that they're a poor driver and so it will affect them personally, or maybe that they (incorrectly) subconsciously believe the roads are for cars and everyone else is there on sufferance. I'm assuming neither of these fits you, so - got any other explanations?


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

blazed said:


> The difference is there are many stages of drink driving. Which is why you cant say using the phone is as dangerous as drink driving. Simply because you can have 2 pints and be a "drunk driver" and that may be as dangerous as using the phone, but a different person may have had 8 pints and is now a lot more of a danger than someone on the phone. Which is why those studies are useless, and why the penalties are nowhere near the same.



Useless, why?

Whether you have a blood alcohol level of  80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood or 200 mg you're still classed as a drunk driver and will be prosecuted as such. I don't believe anybody is under the illusion that alcohol effects all people the same way but a legal minimum has been set. Let's not forget that there is quite a robust and strongly supported argument for lowering that legal minimum in the UK to put it in line with the more common 50mg/100ml endorsed by most EU states.

If using a mobile phone means you will drive as if you were experiencing the effects of at least an 80mg/100ml of blood level then I can see no persuasive argument for not implementing the same penalties.

I don't think it is any secret that the Police would like far stronger penalties to be in force.

As for that bloke using 8 mobile phones whilst driving.................


----------



## thomas (3 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> Possible answers might be that they fear deep down that they're a poor driver and so it will affect them personally



I think a lot of people would be against having to do something every so often (be that each year or every 10 years) which means they have to pass something to continue driving, just in case they couldn't.


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> Sorry, but that's just a category error. 90% of the time the physics only comes into play as a result of bad decisions or poor judgment on the part of humans: yes, your one tonne car will crush 70kg me, but only as a result of your action (or lack of action) as its operator. Physics is irrelevant until the mistake has been made already



Or your action as a cyclist as believe it or not (and I know you probably can't) you could make a mistake or error that causes the accident yet you will be the one that gets hurt because of the physics of the situation!!!!!



coruskate said:


> If it was commonplace for poorly-trained pilots to drop their planes out of the sky and kill people standing underneath them, I wager that your response would not be "oh well, that's physics for you, the victim was just unlucky" but "how can we improve the standard of pilot training so that this doesn't happen (or doesn't happen as much)". So why do so many people see it differently when it's a car not a plane? Possible answers might be that they fear deep down that they're a poor driver and so it will affect them personally, or maybe that they (incorrectly) subconsciously believe the roads are for cars and everyone else is there on sufferance. I'm assuming neither of these fits you, so - got any other explanations?



But in the case of light aircraft pilot error IS to blame for most plane crashes and the fact that people aren't killed more often is simply because they rarely crash into areas densely crowded with people 

The problem with your argument is you seem (and I may be wrong here so hands up if so) to assume that pedestrians and cyclists never make any errors and the drivers of motorised vehicles are always to blame hence why you have the persecution complex thing going on.

My attitude is that everyone will make mistakes from time to time and with better training education I hope we can lessen the numbers of these mistakes, but they will still happen. When they do the laws of physics dictate that no matter whose fault it is in a collision between a cyclist and car it is the cyclist who will come off worse. That is the fact of it. The unfairness is just your opinion and I don't share it and never will hence given that my views are clearly entrenched (and probably evil and nasty in your eyes) and yours are just as entrenched in the opposite direction I see little point continuing this debate.


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2009)

If I'd had 8 pints I doubt I'd even be able to find the ignition switch, so no real risk to anyone on the road unless possibly to their dry cleaning bill.

But for the benefit of anyone who wants to actually _read_ the studies instead of hypothesising about what they might possibly have said, 
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/ is a good place to start


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

thomas said:


> I think a lot of people would be against having to do something every so often (be that each year or every 10 years) which means they have to pass something to continue driving, just in case they couldn't.



I agree, but personally I would be delighted if something like this was introduced. 

I think I am an OK driver, not the best, but certainly not the worst - to have to have an assessment every 10 years would confirm whether I am in fact OK or I am actually deluded.


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> I agree, but personally I would be delighted if something like this was introduced.
> 
> I think I am an OK driver, not the best, but certainly not the worst - to have to have an assessment every 10 years would confirm whether I am in fact OK or I am actually deluded.



I'm surprised the g'ment hasn't proposed it. Think of the revenue raising opportunities!

Oh, no........I can hear it now:

"Bloody cyclists. Don't pay *Road Tax*, don't pay *Insurance*, don't have to take the *Ten Year Re-test*........."

OK, Scrub that.


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> The problem with your argument is you seem (and I may be wrong here so hands up if so) to assume that pedestrians and cyclists never make any errors and the drivers of motorised vehicles are always to blame


You are, as you suspect, wrong. 

My argument is quite simply that when drivers are driving in a shared space which is also open to pedestrians, cyclists, sheep, horses and random other legal road users, then because physics says they're the most intrinsically dangerous people, the moral obligation is on them to take extra care correspondingly. Not on the horses and pedestrians to get out of their way. 

If someone walks through a shopping mall carrying a bale of barbed wire, they would take more care, yes? Because by carrying it they are increasing the danger to anyone who bumps into them. If you collided with someone carrying that bale who was not taking appropriate extra care, you would reasonably be upset. If the result was they you sustained an injury and they got away without, you might say that was unfair, wouldn't you? So, substitute the mall for a road and the bale for a car, how does that change the picture? It doesn't, unless deep down you believe that the roads are not really shared spaces


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> I agree, but personally I would be delighted if something like [ten year retest] was introduced.


I think that makes you unusual. I've just had the ten year reminder from the DVLA that my photocard licence has expired and they want £20 and a new picture off me to renew it. I have to say "delighted" was not exactly the adjective I'd have used to describe my reaction.

Maybe if they could combine it with something fun it'd sweeten the pill. You know, "you must now take the ten year retest and then we've arranged a skid pan driving lesson for you" or something


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> You are, as you suspect, wrong.
> 
> My argument is quite simply that when drivers are driving in a shared space which is also open to pedestrians, cyclists, sheep, horses and random other legal road users, then because physics says they're the most intrinsically dangerous people, the moral obligation is on them to take extra care correspondingly. Not on the horses and pedestrians to get out of their way.
> 
> If someone walks through a shopping mall carrying a bale of barbed wire, they would take more care, yes? Because by carrying it they are increasing the danger to anyone who bumps into them. If you collided with someone carrying that bale who was not taking appropriate extra care, you would reasonably be upset. If the result was they you sustained an injury and they got away without, you might say that was unfair, wouldn't you? So, substitute the mall for a road and the bale for a car, how does that change the picture? It doesn't, unless deep down you believe that the roads are not really shared spaces



While what you say has some validity I would see the person with barbed wire and take extra care around them because I know I would come off worse if I were to collide with them whether it is my fault or theirs.

And that is the part of the argument you seem unable to comprehend. Yes car drivers should take more care, but that does not alleviate other road users from being responsible for their own saftey and that of others to a certain extent too. No it doesn't. We all have responsibilities on the road, all of us.

Also you keep banging on about me deep down believing the roads are not really shared spaces. For your information I believe no such thing, the roads are there for all of us to use repsonsibly. Your repeated digging away at that issue just makes you look even more like you have a persecution complex quite frankly.


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> I think that makes you unusual. I've just had the ten year reminder from the DVLA that my photocard licence has expired and they want £20 and a new picture off me to renew it. I have to say "delighted" was not exactly the adjective I'd have used to describe my reaction.



Talking of revenue raising opportunities..............

I never did apply for one of those photo-card jobbies so I still have the old one. I would now seem to be £20 the richer because of it!


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> I think that makes you unusual. I've just had the ten year reminder from the DVLA that my photocard licence has expired and they want £20 and a new picture off me to renew it. I have to say "delighted" was not exactly the adjective I'd have used to describe my reaction.
> 
> Maybe if they could combine it with something fun it'd sweeten the pill. You know, "you must now take the ten year retest and then we've arranged a skid pan driving lesson for you" or something



When I say delighted I mean I would welcome the legally enforced periodic reasessement of people's driving my own included.

And being serious for a minute a skidpan lesson would teach a lot of drivers a thing or two about handling their vehicle in less than ideal road conditions. I am lucky enough to do trackdays and skidpan courses every now and then because I enjoy them, but they also teach me a lot about driving my car in different conditions.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> As you're an experienced driver, what do you suggest I change to increase my safety w.r.t. D4N?


_I_ have a plan. And it's a good one. Since, BM, you'll not be spending the night with me any time soon, I wondered if you were going to the next CM.........?


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> _I_ have a plan. And it's a good one. Since, BM, you'll not be spending the night with me any time soon, I wondered if you were going to the next CM.........?



I have a better plan: Lend f1_fan a bike and get him to go.


----------



## thomas (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> And being serious for a minute a skidpan lesson would teach a lot of drivers a thing or two about handling their vehicle in less than ideal road conditions. I am lucky enough to do trackdays and skidpan courses every now and then because I enjoy them, but they also teach me a lot about driving my car in different conditions.



I find a lot of people drive more aggressively in bad weather...or don't adapt for it. In Sweden (I think) you have to have a couple hours in skidpans before you can pass your driving test.

Teaching advance driving practices, like that, probably isn't a bad idea.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Sep 2009)

Tinuts said:


> I have a better plan: Lend f1_fan a bike and get him to go.


That's a very good plan. F1_fan - how tall are you and where do you live? I have a bike I can lend you. You'll get a bit of instruction and advice on fitness thrown in for free.


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> That's a very good plan. F1_fan - how tall are you and where do you live? I have a bike I can lend you. You'll get a bit of instruction and advice on fitness thrown in for free.



Believe you me if you want to keep the roads safe then putting me on a bike 19 years after last being on one is not the answer


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> While what you say has some validity I would see the person with barbed wire and take extra care around them because I know I would come off worse if I were to collide with them whether it is my fault or theirs.


Well, that's certainly prudent and I commend you for it: allowing for the errors of others is always a good thing. But it still wouldn't be your fault if you didn't see them. Perhaps they emerged unexpectedly from around a corner, or ran into you from behind - or maybe you had a physical disability that made it impossible to get out of their way in time.


f1_fan said:


> And that is the part of the argument you seem unable to comprehend. Yes car drivers should take more care, but that does not alleviate other road users from being responsible for their own saftey and that of others to a certain extent too.


I don't think anyone's suggested otherwise, and I'm sure if you look through the other threads on this board you will find that most cyclists take responsibility for their safety quite seriously.

But how far does that go? Somewhere way back in the discussion was a post by someone (it may have been you, I can't remember any longer) who had given up cycling after being hit by a car because they felt it was too dangerous on today's roads - is that the level of responsibility we should all be held to? Is it the level of responsibility we will be held to in ten years time? That we deserve what we get if we go out on the streets without a metal box around us? The country will be a poorer place if so.


f1_fan said:


> Also you keep banging on about me deep down believing the roads are not really shared spaces.


Er, no. If you thought I mean that personally I can see why you're upset, but the first time I explicitly said that I assumed it didn't apply to you, and the second time it was part of a hypothetical. But I see enough drivers whose words and actions indicate that they don't think other people have the same right to use the road as them (honking horns, or the incessant "you don't pay road tax" complaint) that I think it is _in general_ one possible explanation why they're so blase about 3000 deaths a year.


----------



## Tinuts (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Believe you me if you want to keep the roads safe then putting me on a bike 19 years after last being on one is not the answer



That's a shame. I was going to lend you a helmet cam so you could re-live the memories with the grandchildren in years to come. Assuming, of course, that you have a big enough helmet for it to fit on.


----------



## hackbike 666 (3 Sep 2009)

Yeah welcome back BM missed you.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2009)

You might have missed this topic, f1_fan. It's relevant:

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=42711


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> _I_ have a plan. And it's a good one. Since, BM, you'll not be spending the night with me any time soon, I wondered if you were going to the next CM.........?



I'd love to meet up! I'll try to make the next one...


----------



## purplepolly (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> While what you say has some validity I would see the person with barbed wire and take extra care around them because I know I would come off worse if I were to collide with them whether it is my fault or theirs..



Many people have visual impairments and often this isn't bad enough for a guide dog but is bad enough to affect the persons ability to see great distances or judge speed. This often leads to people losing confidence and becoming increasingly isolated and dependent.

As someone with a mild eyesight condition that has to potential to suddenly get worse, the frequency with which I see motorists go through red lights at pelican crossings (well ater the lights have changed) is a cause for concern. I'm not one to sit around at home all day and have been described as cross awkward so I thoroughly expect to end my days on a pelican crossing. 

Would this be my fault for not giving up? I suggest not. Motorists should be aware that pedestrians may have visual or mental impairments and drive accordingly. It's hardly rocket science, yet many drivers seem to think that pedestrians are just as able as themselves depsite the fact they're more likely than a driver to be disabled like this.


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

purplepolly said:


> Many people have visual impairments and often this isn't bad enough for a guide dog but is bad enough to affect the persons ability to see great distances or judge speed. This often leads to people losing confidence and becoming increasingly isolated and dependent.
> 
> As someone with a mild eyesight condition that has to potential to suddenly get worse, the frequency with which I see motorists go through red lights at pelican crossings (well ater the lights have changed) is a cause for concern. I'm not one to sit around at home all day and have been described as cross awkward so I thoroughly expect to end my days on a pelican crossing.
> 
> Would this be my fault for not giving up? I suggest not. Motorists should be aware that pedestrians may have visual or mental impairments and drive accordingly. It's hardly rocket science, yet many drivers seem to think that pedestrians are just as able as themselves depsite the fact they're more likely than a driver to be disabled like this.



Well I sincerely hope you do not end your days on a pelican crossing and if drivers are stupid enough to run pelican crossings on red then they need prosecuting. Fact!

I think maybe my point is getting misconstrued a little. All I am saying in the barbed wire scenario is that if I have the ability to take more care around the guy with the barbed wire I will.

Let me give you a real world example of that.

Every evening I leave work and my first major intersection is a three lane roundabout controlled by traffic lights. Now in my opinion this roundabout is not really suitable for three lanes as they are quite narrow. I am turning right so position myself in the right most lane indicator on. Now sometimes I will end up with a huge truck next to me in the centre lane as he will be going straight on. In this case and especially if I am near the front of the queue I will let the truck go first as with the lanes being so narrow it is all too easy for the truck to 'use' part of 'my' lane and could potentially collide with me and as to my right is a large raised kerb demarking the centre of the roundabout I will have 'nowhere to go'.

Frequently when this happens I get a car behind sounding their horn while I wait, but I don't care. This is my way of dealing with the hazard. I could trust his judgement to see me and give me room but being as I am going to come off very much the worst I drive defensively to eradicate any chance of a collision.

Now luckily I have the ability to do that, your situation is somewhat different hence I can see your point too. Of course drivers should try and behave sensibly and responsibly to other road users be they pedestrians or otherwise. As I said earlier we all have a responsibility on the road. I still come back to the fact that for us all to co-exist happily and safely we all need to be aware of each other, the limitations of our various means of transport and take responsibilty for our actions. 

I am not the best driver in the world, I know that and I have made mistakes, but I try to look out for other road users be they cyclists or huge trucks or anything in between and I do drive as defnesively as I can.

A driving instructor once told me that I should never expect other road users to be as aware of me as I am of them and that has stuck with me all this time.


----------



## Mark T (3 Sep 2009)

> Now sometimes I will end up with a huge truck next to me in the centre lane as he will be going straight on. In this case and especially if I am near the front of the queue I will let the truck go first



If you're in a Scooby, surely you could get to the apex first?


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Believe you me if you want to keep the roads safe then putting me on a bike 19 years after last being on one is not the answer


you underestimate my expertise. As an accomplished rides leader (I've improved since you TEC'd BM) and as someone who has, many a time, guided an inexpert rider across Central London, you'd get a sound education. And education is not to be sniffed at.


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

Mark T said:


> If you're in a Scooby, surely you could get to the apex first?



Ah well the daily driver is a small Honda, the Scoob is for weekend and track fun


----------



## f1_fan (3 Sep 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> you underestimate my expertise. As an accomplished rides leader (I've improved since you TEC'd BM) and as someone who has, many a time, guided an inexpert rider across Central London, you'd get a sound education. And education is not to be sniffed at.



Underestimate you? Never! You just overestimate my cycling ability. Inexpert wouldn't be the half of it!


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Just because you don't want it to be a fact doesn't make it so. There's fairly robust and convincing evidence that mobile phone use is a big impairment, roughly similar to driving drunk.
> 
> Apparently there are around 500,000 A&E visits a year due to pedestrians on the phone tripping over street furniture.



Research is showing that the two are equal......



> Cell phones as dangerous as drunk driving
> by Erica Ogg
> 
> Is having a cell phone pressed to your ear while behind the wheel the equivalent of driving while intoxicated? According to a study by University of Utah psychologists, the answer is, unfortunately, yes.
> ...




What we need to start recognising is that many of these drivers hav a total disregard for the law and good driving. The chances are that the driver on the phone and that one tailgating or speeding will be the same one.

There is also evidence that if we assess these drivers we can easily identify the problems and with remedial education improve the attitude and hence the driving standards. Using this process Arriva halved the accidents in their fleet.

Perhaps we need to be less lax and to start recognising that this stupidity can be a signal of more serious issues and start a "zero tolerance" for all the little misdemeanours that contribute to the behaviour of the "DANs" of this world


----------



## PBancroft (3 Sep 2009)

I agree with Cunobelin, which is why I would like to see the end of the whole points system. It's just bonkers.

Oi! You can't drive, so... um, carry on.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> Underestimate you? Never! You just overestimate my cycling ability. Inexpert wouldn't be the half of it!


sounds like a bit of a retreat here..........live a little!


----------



## BentMikey (4 Sep 2009)

I expect that f1_fan is demotivated by the same fear of cycling that most people have, thinking that it's extremely dangerous. Cycling can sometimes be intimidating, but it's largely as dangerous as walking, in other words not very dangerous at all. What's more, the health and other benefits outweigh the risks 20 to 1, so much so that we can't really afford not to cycle regularly. Cycling is so dangerous that on average a regular cyclist will live 2 years longer than the general UK population.

f1_fan, I think you'd have a very good time with dellzeqq, he's a super chap in person. I'd certainly enjoy coming along and meeting you, you seem like a very decent sort. Video camera off of course...

One problem for me is that the effect of my videos is to make cycling seem more dangerous, and I'm not very happy about that.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> (Edited)
> 
> One problem for me is that the effect of my videos is to make cycling seem more dangerous, and I'm not very happy about that.



I disagree - Forums like this are a "reflective" process (No pun intended) where we share experiences and learn from them. Most of us would recognise that cycling is fun and safe, but discussing the low point is cathartc for the OP and we can all pick up and learn from the experience.

There are a lot of "I had a good ride threads" as well


----------



## thomas (5 Sep 2009)

okay, having not really noticed Subaru drivers (probably a good thing), I've seen quite a few this week. All of them were driving really smoothly and sensibly. Dan obviously as only upgraded from his boy-racer-mo-bile.

Not seen our friend Dan though ...thought it would be quite funny to bump into him.


----------



## Crankarm (5 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I expect that f1_fan is demotivated by the same fear of cycling that most people have, thinking that it's extremely dangerous.



This is because they know that most drivers including themselves drive much of the time like complete idiots and if they were to cycle they would more than likely encounter many of the them risking being knocked off seriously injured or killed. Their fear of cycling is self perpetuating. There are many drivers male or female that are selfish bullying cowards. Simples.


----------



## hackbike 666 (5 Sep 2009)

Originally Posted by *BentMikey* 

 
_(Edited)

One problem for me is that the effect of my videos is to make cycling seem more dangerous, and I'm not very happy about that.


*Why not show the 'warts and all' stuff.Cycling isn't always a honeymoon,we all know that.*
_


----------



## GrasB (5 Sep 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> > Originally Posted by *BentMikey*
> >
> >
> > _(Edited)
> ...


The thing is seasoned cyclists see theses as isolated incidents as part of many road miles a year, when I mention I ride around 6500 miles a year on my bike just going work most non-cyclists look absolutely amazed you can cover that kind of mileage. Seeing these incidents on youtube, etc. then makes people this is very common & so get scared & don't feel confident enough cycling.


----------



## BentMikey (5 Sep 2009)

Yeah, I'm doing about the same sort mileage myself. I laughed when I saw the subaru forum comments of horror and amazement that I had 23 videos of incidents. Taking away the fun stuff, the good drivers, and the stuff that happened to others, leaves 19 incident videos. I've done about 4500 miles in that time, so it averages at 1 per 230 miles. Even then, most of the 19 videos are about relatively minor stuff.


----------



## f1_fan (6 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> This is because they know that most drivers *including themselves* drive much of the time like complete idiots and if they were to cycle they would more than likely encounter many of the them risking being knocked off seriously injured or killed. Their fear of cycling is self perpetuating. There are many drivers male or female that are selfish bullying cowards. Simples.



What a stupid and ludicrously presumptuous statement? 

I no longer cycle as for me (and for goodness sake take note of the for me there) it is just too dangerous. I narrowly avoided serious injury in 1990 and I decided to not cycle again. My life, my decision.


----------



## f1_fan (6 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah, I'm doing about the same sort mileage myself. I laughed when I saw the subaru forum comments of horror and amazement that I had 23 videos of incidents. Taking away the fun stuff, the good drivers, and the stuff that happened to others, leaves 19 incident videos. I've done about 4500 miles in that time, so it averages at 1 per 230 miles. Even then, most of the 19 videos are about relatively minor stuff.



My amazement is not that they happen, but that you can actually be bothered to go home, download them, edit them and post them


----------



## Crankarm (7 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> What a stupid and ludicrously presumptuous statement?
> 
> I no longer cycle as for me (and for goodness sake take note of the for me there) *it is just too dangerous*. I narrowly avoided serious injury in 1990 and I decided to not cycle again. My life, my decision.



Why is it dangerous? See my post above #385 which will give you an indication.


----------



## f1_fan (7 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Why is it dangerous? See my post above #385 which will give you an indication.



And a ludicrously presumptuous comment into the bargain 

If you had said 'some' drivers and left out the 'including themselves' then it would have given your statement some credibility, as it is you are in my 'persecution complex' file!


----------



## BentMikey (7 Sep 2009)

I'm still slightly amazed how so many people think cycling is dangerous. It's certainly intimidating, but roughly as dangerous as walking in the UK, so very safe by the standards of just about all the things most do on a daily basis. Cycling is in fact so safe that on average regular cyclists can expect to live 2 years longer than the general population.

Mind you, most people don't think walking is dangerous, and forget about the many people that get taken out by cars on the pavement, for example.




f1_fan said:


> My amazement is not that they happen, but that you can actually be bothered to go home, download them, edit them and post them



Not when it takes only a few minutes to post one up. Modern technology. What's really funny is the sense of horror and outrage on the subaru forum that someone might film *their* bad driving.


----------



## PBancroft (7 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Why is it dangerous? See my post above #385 which will give you an indication.



I'm not sure I agree with you Crankarm. I don't agree that most drivers are inherently dangerous. A lot aren't as skilled as they perhaps could be, but not outright dangerous. That might be an issue in extra-ordinary situations, but for day to day rides aren't any trouble at all. Decent road positionng and awareness of the road and likely numpty behaviour of drivers by cyclists (and other drivers as well in fact) will mitigate most problems.

The dangerous ones are the ones like BM's Scooby driver. The sort of person who literally thinks he owns the road, and other people should get off it. The sort of person who drives far too close, but is aware of his surroundings enough that he can stop on a sixpence because he knows *exactly* where the sound is coming from when honked. I'm delighted that BM brought him to task over his behaviour (though I still wouldn't have posted the video on YouTube personally, but meh). However I'm left a little disappointed that someone can act like that on the road, and be allowed back in their car the very same day. But he is in the very significant minority. 

f1_fan - Cycling *is not* dangerous. It isn't. Come out for a ride with one of us.


----------



## Crankarm (7 Sep 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> I'm not sure I agree with you Crankarm. I don't agree that most drivers are inherently dangerous. A lot aren't as skilled as they perhaps could be, but not outright dangerous. That might be an issue in extra-ordinary situations, but for day to day rides aren't any trouble at all. Decent road positionng and awareness of the road and likely numpty behaviour of drivers by cyclists (and other drivers as well in fact) will mitigate most problems.



The point is that many motorists would NEVER cycle as they know how inconsiderate, thoughtless, selfish, careless, reckless and dangerous they or their fellow vehicle road users can be and often are, as instanced by the OP's footage. Therefore the very people who would never cycle because they say it is too dangerous are the very people creating and perpetuating the dangers.

Cycling is dangerous. If a cyclist is involved in a collision with a vehicle you are likely to be seriously injured or killed. If a driver has a collision whilst driving a car they are more likely to survive or suffer less severe injury as a vehicle offers so much more protection. Vehicles are now very safe for their occupants.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Cycling is dangerous.




No, this is rubbish. Sure, there is some danger, but cycling is nowhere near dangerous, it's roughly as safe as many other common daily activities we all partake in.


----------



## Origamist (7 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Cycling is dangerous. If a cyclist is involved in a collision with a vehicle you are likely to be seriously injured or killed. If a driver has a collision whilst driving a car they are more likely to survive or suffer less severe injury as a vehicle offers so much more protection. Vehicles are now very safe for their occupants.



Cycling is not a dangerous activity; cyclists are vulnerable though.


----------



## f1_fan (7 Sep 2009)

> I'm sorry you think that, because it's rubbish.



I did say 'for me' and emphasise it .... sigh!!!


----------



## Crankarm (7 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> No, this is rubbish. Sure, there is some danger, but cycling is nowhere near dangerous, it's roughly as safe as many other common daily activities we all partake in.



Well I guess it is all down to your common daily activities then. Maybe you regularly pot hole, are an oxy-acetylene welder, coal miner, fireman, work as a soldier or bomb disposal expert in Afghanistan, or regularly cycle in Central London. Cycling in itself is not dangerous it only becomes so when in proximity to cars, vans, trucks and other vehicular traffic. Unless of course you are a Pro cyclist or down hill racer where crashing is an ouccpational hazard.


----------



## Crankarm (7 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> I no longer cycle as for me (and for goodness sake take note of the for me there) it is just too dangerous. I narrowly avoided serious injury in 1990 and I decided to not cycle again. My life, my decision.



So please enlighten us as to what this incident was?


----------



## BentMikey (7 Sep 2009)

Don't be silly Crankarm. You might have once thought that general cycling is dangerous, but you should by now know that was wrong.

p.s. Do keep up at the back, f1_fan already posted about his incident.


----------



## Crankarm (7 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Don't be silly Crankarm. You might have once thought that general cycling is dangerous, but you should by now know that was wrong.
> 
> p.s. Do keep up at the back, f1_fan already posted about his incident.



I can't be bothered to trawl through 40 pages to find it. I posted at the start of thread then dropped out as it got boring and tedious. I somehow seem to have now been sucked in.

So if cycling isn't dangerous BM why are you tooled up with a helmet cam? Presumably you don't carry one because you are a budding film maker ?


----------



## Dan B (7 Sep 2009)

If we're going to do the semantic quibbling thing, f1_fan is probably still incorrect to state "for me it is too dangerous" unless (a) his particular circumstances make cycling much more dangerous than it usually would be for anyone else (e.g. he has a balance problem, or is blind, or his bicycle is made out of razorblades and painted with contact explosive), or ( he has also given up doing everything else that's similarly dangerous or more dangerous. Like, say, walking.

If he'd said "I feel it is too dangerous" or "I do not feel safe" or even just "I don't like it" - which is probably what he meant to say all along, then that would be his personal opinion to which he's entitled, and unchallengeable.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> So if cycling isn't dangerous BM why are you tooled up with a helmet cam? Presumably you don't carry one because you are a budding film maker ?



Yeah yeah. Cycling might not be dangerous, but it can also be safer than it currently is.


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Well I guess it is all down to your common daily activities then. Maybe you regularly pot hole, are an oxy-acetylene welder, coal miner, fireman, work as a soldier or bomb disposal expert in Afghanistan, or regularly cycle in Central London. Cycling in itself is not dangerous it only becomes so when in proximity to cars, vans, trucks and other vehicular traffic. Unless of course you are a Pro cyclist or down hill racer where crashing is an ouccpational hazard.



I agree with Crankarm in many ways.It is made dangerous by inconsiderate drivers who drive to fast without due care and attention.Obviously it would be safer if there wern't nutters driving tin boxes who lose their rag at you because you or me point out that it probably isn't a good idea to use a mobile when driving.

Obviously if there were no cars or vehicles out their i'd be happier because I wouldn't have a bigger chance of being taken out by some idiot.

A lot of these people think they are better than what they are at the task they are doing and get an inflated opinion of themselves which seems to have spread to this forum.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (7 Sep 2009)

It's crazy to say that cycling is dangerous - I've managed it for safely for years and I was still alive last time I looked.

Dangerous is smoking cigarettes, tombstoning, being obese, playing Russian Roulette, etc.


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Sep 2009)

It's not crazy.It's an opinion.

I've been doing it for 30+ years but so what.Im saying it can be dangerous.

I think mobiles just up the risk factor.

I feel safer walking on the pavement probably because I am.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Sep 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> I feel safer walking on the pavement probably because I am.



Not when you measure the risk by mile. Then it's actually more dangerous to walk. Admittedly walking is slightly less dangerous when measured by hour, but they are in the same ballpark.


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Sep 2009)

Hmmmm can't really compare in miles it would take forever.

What are the risks per mile say

Car 
Plane
Motorbike
Ped
Cyclist?

I remember when I came back from Bangkok the first time how long it took me to adjust back to the agressive sort driving after I had got used to the more laid back and tolerant driving here.Feel a bit safer here but there are millions of motorbikes to look out for.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (7 Sep 2009)

Don't know about planes but I think it's car - bike - motorbike - ped. Ped being statistically more likely to be injured!


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Sep 2009)

By their own stupidness?


----------



## Jonny (7 Sep 2009)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Don't know about planes but I think it's car - bike - motorbike - ped. Ped being statistically more likely to be injured!



I work in the rail industry. A recent safety report showed the following fatality risk per passenger km compared with rail (i.e. rail=1) in Great Britain:

Rail 1
Bus/Coach 3
Car 26
Cycle 328
Pedestrian 370
Motorcycle 1110

This gives a good idea of the relative risk

Source: http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/reports/strategic safety plan 09-14.pdf


----------



## Nortones2 (7 Sep 2009)

You quote data based on mileage death rate (MDR) If time spent in transit was used as the base, then the bias towards those modes which are used for longer distances/high speeds (rail, motorised road users) would be different. I'm no statistician, but there are other methods of calculating death rates, which give very different conclusions. This link gives an idea of the complexity of the issue: http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol4/winter/halperin.htm


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Sep 2009)

Hmmm cycle and ped are quite high but at a guess peds can be? more at fault?


----------



## f1_fan (7 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> So please enlighten us as to what this incident was?



Already have, Post 216!!!


----------



## f1_fan (7 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> I can't be bothered to trawl through 40 pages to find it. I posted at the start of thread then dropped out as it got boring and tedious. I somehow seem to have now been sucked in.



Maybe you are boring and tedious too then


----------



## f1_fan (7 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> If he'd said "I feel it is too dangerous" or "I do not feel safe" or even just "I don't like it" - which is probably what he meant to say all along, then that would be his personal opinion to which he's entitled, and unchallengeable.



Yes exactly and sorry if that wasn't clear.

Oh and please don't think I am saying any of you shouldn't cycle. It is just my opinion of what is right for me. More power to you all if you can just get on with it.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Sep 2009)

Well, it's certainly been a pleasure chatting with you, f1_fan. Thanks for taking the time to stop by.


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Well, it's certainly been a pleasure chatting with you, f1_fan. Thanks for taking the time to stop by.



Does that mean bog off then?


----------



## Crankarm (7 Sep 2009)

There you go I've done your work for you:



f1_fan said:


> Oh believe you me I understand it. From 1983 to 1990 I cycled everywhere around Manchester. Then one day I was cycling up Oxford Road when a black cab pulled out on me and I clattered into the side of his cab and went 'a over t'. I was lucky as I had a lot of cuts and bruisesand a sprained ankle, but nothing broken.
> 
> To be fair the cab driver was great, he made a mistake and we have all done that, but I couldn't help but realise then and there that had I been in a car he may have seen me and if not I would have a damaged wing and he a damaged door, but no injuries. That day I gave up cycling forever. It is the same reaosn that despite me being a complete petrolhead I have never learnt to ride a motorbike, for me you are just too vulnerable on two wheels.
> 
> I admire you guys for getting on with it and dealing with all the crap that comes your way, but I still do not 100% condone Mikey's methods of dealing with the incidents he witnesses as I can't help but feel there is an element of looking for troible about what he does. If I am wrong then so be it, but in the video posted a couple of pages ago with the lorry I really do think he was being a little over zealous about the space he was given, it really did not look that bad to me. Still maybe I have forgotten after all these years what it is like to be on a bike, who knows?



Your collision is much pretty along the lines I've been writing. 'Am I right or am I right?




f1_fan said:


> Maybe you are boring and tedious too then



You're sarcasm is as good as your bike riding skills .


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Sep 2009)

Wasn't sure whether this is a separate topic or part of this one.....

There are lots of videos om YouTube where the drivers themselves post their own bad driving and stupidity, often trying to justify it in the process.

Typical video

This must give BM the moral high ground...... at least there is a benefit to his efforts.


----------



## GrasB (7 Sep 2009)

Yet another "Where can you drive a fast car quickly? B-roads is answer" comment. I have to say both of my cars regularly see the far side of 140mph *legally* in the relatively safe & controlled confines of a *RACE TRACK*. Sure it's not as cheap as blasting down your nearest B-road but if it all goes wrong, you're far more likely to walk away than ploughing into a tree.


----------



## f1_fan (7 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> *You're* sarcasm is as good as your bike riding skills .



But still better than *your* grammar


----------



## Crankarm (8 Sep 2009)

f1_fan said:


> But still better than *your* grammar



I'm dsyslexic. It takes me ages to post anything as I have to check each line about 4 times. I'm forever editing . But point taken, no harm done eh?


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> I'm dsyslexic. It takes me ages to post anything as I have to check each line about 4 times. I'm forever editing . But point taken, no harm done eh?



Apostrophe taken?


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Sep 2009)

when I went over a cab (the traffic lights were out, and both of us, coming at ninety degrees, had deemed our side to be green) (I was younger) I remember thinking, as I somersaulted over the bonnet 'this is f*cking stylish, I hope somebody's watching'.

I did lose my nerve and give up for seven years, though. The cab smash came a few months after being rear-ended and left for dead by a hit and run driver doing 55 on a dark country road. It took even longer than seven years before I rode on dark roads. Now.......

So I don't mind people losing their nerve. I'm not in a position to mind. And it might be no bad thing - Simon Mk2 is a safer cyclist than Simon Mk1* and Simon Mk2 shepherds his wife across central London in the morning as if he were carrying a load of Faberge eggs. And leading group rides does give you a real sense of what might go wrong with an inexperienced rider.

*Of course Simon Mk2 did come off while racing some twentysomething down Bishopsgate and break his pelvis. But, that was a one-off.....


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 Sep 2009)

I know two blokes at work who have had accidents recently.One was rear ended and the other was left hooked.Thankfully they are both ok.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Sep 2009)

Was passed by several of these Subaroo types cars this evening all travelling at insane speeds in a 30 mph limit one was pretty close. Hopefully they will all meet tree trunks or brick walls removing themselves from the planet .


----------



## Crankarm (12 Sep 2009)

User3143 said:


> Wishing death on someone is not nice, spread the love people and make hay not war.



No surprise it's User3143 . Given that they were road racing and could easily have killed me or left me for dead I don't give a toss. The roads would be a safer place if they were removed from them permanently preferrably by their own stupidity either crashing into a tree trunk a brick wall or into themselves . I really do not give a sh1t if dangerous drivers kill themselves bikers included. In fact good riddance. I'm really not the sentimental type.


----------



## GrasB (12 Sep 2009)

Problem is a number of drivers get in those WRCesque cars & think they're Marcus Grönholm or someone like that then blat around the countryside like they're invincible. I had a very bad experience with someone overtaking me in the wet, no try about monsoon as it gets around here, at high speed almost knocking me off my bike with the spray velocity going between Grantchester from Newnham (Crankarm will probably appreciate how nasty this road is), soon after this I hear a scratching sound and a dull thud & 2 Corners latter I find the said car in the ditch. Nice waste of my afternoon getting ambulance out, then interviewed by the police etc.


----------



## hackbike 666 (13 Sep 2009)

There was a monsoon on the RAMA IV the other day and while cycling there in the dark I don't think it was my finest hour in quite heavy traffic.Even lost my fenix which didn't go down too well.


----------



## asterix (13 Sep 2009)

Oh boy, am I looking forward to getting off the ferry when it reaches Dover! (not)


----------



## Bollo (13 Sep 2009)

asterix said:


> Oh boy, am I looking forward to getting off the ferry when it reaches Dover! (not)



Believe me, you'll be glad to get off the ferry.


----------



## ComedyPilot (13 Sep 2009)

asterix said:


> Oh boy, am I looking forward to getting off the ferry when it reaches Dover! (not)





Bollo said:


> Believe me, you'll be glad to get off the ferry.



I'll be the exciteable one on the cliffs waving the placard 

'Don't do it - Go back!'


----------



## 2Loose (13 Sep 2009)

GrasB said:


> Problem is a number of drivers get in those WRCesque cars & think they're Marcus Grönholm or someone like that then blat around the countryside like they're invincible. I had a very bad experience with someone overtaking me in the wet, no try about monsoon as it gets around here, at high speed almost knocking me off my bike with the spray velocity going between Grantchester from Newnham (Crankarm will probably appreciate how nasty this road is), soon after this I hear a scratching sound and a dull thud & 2 Corners latter I find the said car in the ditch. Nice waste of my afternoon getting ambulance out, then interviewed by the police etc.



Grantchester Racetrack? Can't do more than 30-40 even on a motorcycle, I've tried  But it does attract the 'how fast can I corner on narrow roads with high verges, for sure.


----------



## GrasB (13 Sep 2009)

2Loose said:


> Grantchester Racetrack? Can't do more than 30-40 even on a motorcycle, I've tried  But it does attract the 'how fast can I corner on narrow roads with high verges, for sure.


Yeah, so you're driving in relative safely then. You can easily go faster that with complete disregard for safety & other people coming the opposite way.


----------



## asterix (14 Sep 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> I'll be the exciteable one on the cliffs waving the placard
> 
> 'Don't do it - Go back!'



Unfortunately I have no choice.

..but there's a good chance I can escape again in October


----------



## J4CKO (15 Sep 2009)

I actually want a WRCesque car, generally I find they are driven fairly well, occasionally though, if they are driven badly, its very badly, I keep my eyes open for one on the way to work, the driver drives in a spirited manner and hasnt actually caused me any problems but he does "make progress", he has overtaken when I have been coming towards him, enough room but a bit worrying and I have seen him slide a little sideways off the roundabout, looked controlled but again makes me wary, DE55 ZKB, black Impreza in the Knutsford area, if you read this mate, watch out for podgy, slightly nervous cyclists on Chelford road.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Mar 2011)

Here's his latest overtake:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD56P9fCXG0


Result!!

p.s. Sorry for the thread necromancy, and for anyone who's already seen the video on my youtube channel.


----------



## Jezston (3 Mar 2011)

Not having the time to go through all 30 pages, although I do remember the incident, did the driver get a bollocking from the old bill after the first incident?

Might explain why he appeared to be ultra-cautious around you this time!


----------



## BentMikey (3 Mar 2011)

I think he got a warning from the police. I wonder whether that had more effect than the publicity on his custom numberplate though? I suspect that someone who's paid a lot of dosh for a custom plate will feel the pain and devaluation of youtube exposure slightly more than someone with a standard issue one.


----------



## thomas (3 Mar 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I think he got a warning from the police. I wonder whether that had more effect than the publicity on his custom numberplate though? I suspect that someone who's paid a lot of dosh for a custom plate will feel the pain and devaluation of youtube exposure slightly more than someone with a standard issue one.



Probably just wasn't on his time of the month this week 

Good to see people do learn though. I'm sure he realised it was you...I guess there aren't that many people on them funny bikes around his/your area.


----------



## 2Loose (3 Mar 2011)

Monkeys learn when taught what is acceptable and what isn't. Good to see another learning primate. 1 down, several hundred to go.


----------



## GrasB (3 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 728056"]
The way he hung right back and then shot off, it's as if he was trying to keep his distance. He must be terrifed of you!
[/quote]
That's one advantage of having a high performance car, you can hang way back to take the pressure off but you have confidence that when the opportunity open up you can tap into that performance to quickly close the gap & pass. An offshoot is you spend less time on the wrong side of the road & so can give a wider pass to cyclist.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Mar 2011)

GrasB said:


> That's one advantage of having a high performance car, you can hang way back to take the pressure off but you have confidence that when the opportunity open up you can tap into that performance to quickly close the gap & pass. An offshoot is you spend less time on the wrong side of the road & so can give a wider pass to cyclist.



Spot on


----------



## BentMikey (3 Mar 2011)

Funnily enough I saw him a third time the other Saturday, although he was coming the other way through Darwin's Corners. Gave me what I thought was a friendly toot toot. I think he likes the second video.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Mar 2011)

Motor cars and cycles are my passions.

To me they go hand in hand - there's so many commonalities between them, both in terms of machinery and ride/drive experience.

Perhaps he has realised that - after all what you ride is a rather unusual piece of machinery.


----------



## GrasB (4 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> hmmm, not too sure about this, the way you describe it makes it all sound rather idyllic, unfortunately there are many with these types of cars that will have that Jeremy Clarkson moment.
> 
> I wonder how safe these high performance cars actually are, insurance companies do seem to increase premiums with bhp.


There's a difference between how the driver (ab)uses the performance they have access to & what that performance can offer in road safety. I own 2 cars that can do 40-100mph faster than a lot of cars can do 0-60, one can do 30-80mph in 5th faster than most cars can do the same through the gears, this allows for quick overtaking with a larger margin of safety if used properly. They can also do 100-0mph in substantially less distance than the average car on the street. With that comes the fact that they demand more respect from the driver because they'll get you in trouble just as quickly as they will get you out of trouble.


----------



## BentMikey (4 Mar 2011)

I think GrasB is right, but the problem is that human nature allows very few people the willpower to use that performance properly and safely, and thus far too many people get themselves into trouble with that power. I'm guessing reiver is also right on insurance premiums.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Mar 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I'm guessing reiver is also right on insurance premiums.



In a non direct way yes.

One of the principal risks is "the speed the car is driven".

This will be partially down to car performance, although there is clearly a large overlap beween driver.

The above risk is higher say, for example with an inexperienced male driver (EU recent court ruling aside).

I think Gras has intimated elsewhere that he drives cars on track like I do. There's usually 2 distinct types of drivers on these type of days, i) those that wish to learn and ii) those that don't as they think they know everyhing. Those in camp ii) are thankfully a smaller minority but a high proportion of them drive SubaruEvo's, are male with short hair and usually turn up in a group. You spot them a mile off and keep away from them on track.


----------



## GrasB (4 Mar 2011)

400bhp said:


> In a non direct way yes.
> 
> One of the principal risks is "the speed the car is driven".
> 
> ...


I also think for the less educated driver that the think these cars are more-or-less invincible, they're not they just give you more rope to hang your self by.




> I think Gras has intimated elsewhere that he drives cars on track like I do. There's usually 2 distinct types of drivers on these type of days, i) those that wish to learn and ii) those that don't as they think they know everyhing. Those in camp ii) are thankfully a smaller minority but a high proportion of them drive SubaruEvo's, are male with short hair and usually turn up in a group. You spot them a mile off and keep away from them on track.


I done a fair amount of track driving & I have a track tweaked Exige. Previous to this have done a fair bit of entry level motorsport in my time (hill climbs, sprints, auto testing).

While type i drivers tend to be very aware of the difference between road & track driving. In addition to the type ii 'hooligans on the track' being very noticeable on a track day they're also the ones who seem to have very little regard for differences between road & track driving. Problem is that those drivers who have no regard for the differences are the ones who get all performance car drivers a bad name. My experience is that most drivers of high end cars tend to have good intentions on the road. That's not to say they get it right but they don't have aggressive intentions they just get it wrong - thinking about a drop-top DB9 driver who jinked the car to the right after I exclaimed "oh, jesus" as I realised how close he was going to pass, then a hand up after he pulled in.


----------

