# This mornings idiot



## Cab (18 Jul 2008)

Arrived at edge of Cambridge, light was green, turned left into Magdelene Street.

Immediately around the corner a white van in front of me indicates left to park in an on-pavement loading bay (at least I think thats what you call it - he's straddling the pavement). I continue around him, see a car ahead.

Now... The signs and road markings are clear. Says 'give way to oncoming traffic' where he's sitting. Or, in other words, I have priority the way I'm going.

I didn't fancy the gap between him and the bollards, the room for error is too small, so I did what I consider to be safer; first, I held a hand up to warn him (you can see that in the footage maybe), second, I stopped.

You can't see him scowling at me, nor can you see his scowl turn to a look of bored acceptance and an agreeing nod when I tell him for the second time (after telling him he's going on youtube) that he has to give way there.

I could have stopped and waited for him to come past me, not entering the narrow part, but I had priority, and to just stop there wouldn't necessarily be any safer. I don't claim to have handled this brilliantly, but run-ins with motorists who don't believe that the road signs apply to them when they're only accelerating head first towards cyclists are pretty much normal on that stretch of road.

Footage here:

View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fM7WQc9E9Eg


----------



## Riding in Circles (18 Jul 2008)

You militant.


----------



## beanzontoast (18 Jul 2008)

What it shows is that some motorists don't regard cyclists as traffic. Because many cyclists cycle way over to the left, motorists think there's room to pass them whenever they meet one.

You were pretty forceful in telling him what he'd done wrong - just an observation, not being critical.


----------



## spindrift (18 Jul 2008)

There seemed to be a fair amount of room for you, maybe the video distorts.


----------



## Cab (18 Jul 2008)

beanzontoast said:


> You were pretty forceful in telling him what he'd done wrong - just an observation, not being critical.



Loud but polite, I think. That was the goal. You can't be sure how well the person in the car can hear you, so I aimed for a clear but reasonably polite tone. Did I strike that note?


----------



## Cab (18 Jul 2008)

spindrift said:


> There seemed to be a fair amount of room for you, maybe the video distorts.



Theres room to pass a car like that there with, say, eleven inches to spare on my left (between me and the bollards) and eleven inches on my right (assuming he's practically skimming the bollards on the other side with his wing mirror). There are pedestrian entrances on either side (college gateways and shops), meaning that peds often step right up to the edge of the road with little or no warning, so you cannot responsibly kerb skim on either side. Thats why, maybe eight years ago, the road layout was changed such that there is only one stream of traffic at a time. Or, in other words, there is theoretically space to pass there, but in practical terms it is dangerous to do so. And this priority is clearly signposted.


----------



## beanzontoast (18 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> Loud but polite, I think. That was the goal. You can't be sure how well the person in the car can hear you, so I aimed for a clear but reasonably polite tone. Did I strike that note?



I think so. If I'd been the driver, I'd have got the message anyway!


----------



## Notsoblue (18 Jul 2008)

Hmm, I don't know if I'm just too used to squeezing round traffic in central London every morning, but it did look like you had alot of space there mate. Perhaps the video distorts, but I don't think I would have found that to be a problem.


----------



## spindrift (18 Jul 2008)

I dream of eleven inches.

Errr, hang on, I didn't mean...

If I filter in London I seem unconsciously to know my bar clearance and often get through gaps in (stationary) traffic with much less clearance, or between railings and a vehicle.


----------



## mr_cellophane (18 Jul 2008)

As the other cyclist got through OK, I bet he was a bit pissed with you ;-)


----------



## HLaB (18 Jul 2008)

I can't see the video (youtube is blocked) but my faith (or lack of faith) in the British wa restored last night. Cycling down Dundas St, Edinburgh (it quite a steep downhill), I'm doing around 25mph + and a muppet decides to pull out of a parking space and pull accross my lane. I was in the primary so I was OK. After a quick check over my sholder I pulled into the outside lane, he then proceeded to do it again.
At the lights a roadie pulled up who had seen the whole thing and he couldn't believe it.


----------



## magnatom (18 Jul 2008)

Mmm. It's a tricky one that. You are of course in the right, legally speaking and he should have stopped. You are probably in the right morally speaking as well, i.e. any decent driver who doesn't suffer from save 10 second syndrome, would probably see you coming and wait.

However, from the safety point of view I think the risk to you is very low as the speeds of both yourself and the driver appear to be low. There are occasions where I have cycled that close to oncoming traffic at that sort of speed and felt safe and happy.

THis would have been one of those rare occasions where I might have stared at the driver but not said anything....


----------



## Cab (18 Jul 2008)

spindrift said:


> I dream of eleven inches.
> 
> Errr, hang on, I didn't mean...
> 
> If I filter in London I seem unconsciously to know my bar clearance and often get through gaps in (stationary) traffic with much less clearance, or between railings and a vehicle.



Between stationary traffic, or even if theres a railing and a slow moving vehicle to my right, then such filtering may be okay... But with an oncoming vehicle and bollards/pedestrians on the left, I'm not happy to filter in that gap there. And the design and labelled use of the road backs me up.


----------



## magnatom (18 Jul 2008)

I should add that I have based this on my perception of the space available. You were there cab and the camera does sometimes lie.....


----------



## Cab (18 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> However, from the safety point of view I think the risk to you is very low as the speeds of both yourself and the driver appear to be low. There are occasions where I have cycled that close to oncoming traffic at that sort of speed and felt safe and happy.



Remember that the driver had ample time to see me coming, and that I'd held my hand up in front of me with a very obvious 'stop' gesture. Imagine a similar scenario where I've scooted towards the bollards and _not_ gestured to the oncoming motorist to slow down. What happens then is that they're accelerating at a really rather frightening speed, and you're filtering with pedestrians/bollards inches to your left and an accelerating car right at you/inches to your right. Thats why when this happens I choose not to be thus gutterised, instead I'll stop the traffic dead and move down the side of a now static (but oddly angry) motorist.


----------



## Cab (18 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> I should add that I have based this on my perception of the space available. You were there cab and the camera does sometimes lie.....



No, you're right, I'm happy in that much road space when things aren't moving. Slaloming a moving car and another moving vehicle behind it (which hasn't seen you, remember) and pedestrians and bollards on the left is what makes this a difficult road section.


----------



## 4F (18 Jul 2008)

Whilst I agree with you in principle and as you say it was your right of way it looks like you could have got a bus through that gap.

It comes across as you trying to prove a point because you have got your helmet camera on. Sorry


----------



## jezhiggins (18 Jul 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Whilst I agree with you in principle and as you say it was your right of way it looks like you could have got a bus through that gap.



Without wanting to comment on this particular reply, a common response to helmet cam footage seems to be along the lines of _there was loads of room_ or _it was miles away_. It is difficult to tell sometimes too, because the field of vision is often narrow and a lot of cameras fisheye rather. If someone is a disinterested (or uninterested) party, like say a bored desk sargeant, it makes it easier to dismiss the video as irrelevant or not showing what it purports to.

Has anyone with a helmet cam done a "calibration video" showing, for instance, where something two metres dead ahead is, something one metre to the right, and so on?


----------



## 4F (18 Jul 2008)

jezhiggins said:


> Without wanting to comment on this particular reply, a common response to helmet cam footage seems to be along the lines of _there was loads of room_ or _it was miles away_. It is difficult to tell sometimes too, because the field of vision is often narrow and a lot of cameras fisheye rather. If someone is a disinterested (or uninterested) party, like say a bored desk sargeant, it makes it easier to dismiss the video as irrelevant or not showing what it purports to.



You make a fair point however my comment was based on the amount of room the cyclist in front of cab appeared to have had who was able to pass between the car and and bollards in question.


----------



## Cab (18 Jul 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Whilst I agree with you in principle and as you say it was your right of way it looks like you could have got a bus through that gap.
> 
> It comes across as you trying to prove a point because you have got your helmet camera on. Sorry



See my reply to Magnatom at 16:07 today. Remember, that car was slowing down because I was slap bang in the middle of the lane and had gestured with an open, outstretched palm at him to stop. That other cyclist got past that car as it was slowing down due to me being in the way; would you be happy with bollards and pedestrians on one side, and an accelerating car on the other (which is the scenario if I'm _not_ in the middle of the lane slowing the car down)?

Edit: And I act that way without a helmet too.


----------



## 4F (18 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> See my reply to Magnatom at 16:07 today. Remember, that car was slowing down because I was slap bang in the middle of the lane and had gestured with an open, outstretched palm at him to stop. That other cyclist got past that car as it was slowing down due to me being in the way; would you be happy with bollards and pedestrians on one side, and an accelerating car on the other (which is the scenario if I'm _not_ in the middle of the lane slowing the car down)?
> 
> Edit: And I act that way without a helmet too.



I can only see 3 peds on the left hand side and they appear to be at the far end of the bollards pushing their bikes towards you. If the pavement was full of peds then I would tend to agree with you more.

My own perspective is that whilst there was not loads of space there was enough for both of you to pass safely if of course the car driver had slowed accordingly.


----------



## Cab (18 Jul 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> I can only see 3 peds on the left hand side and they appear to be at the far end of the bollards pushing their bikes towards you. If the pavement was full of peds then I would tend to agree with you more.



You're perhaps missing my earlier comments about that; pedestrians appear there very often from quite concealed entrances on both sides of the road; Magdalene college has a gateway on the left (the porters lodge) and on the right, and there are also shops on the right. The pedestrians you can see are not the ones you need to be worried about, its the sleepy students wandering straight out into the flow of people moving, and the people coming out of shops suddenly and making other step out of their way. 



> My own perspective is that whilst there was not loads of space there was enough for both of you to pass safely if of course the car driver had slowed accordingly.



Yet if you move to the side there is no compulsion for the car driver to slow, which is why there is clear priority given for traffic to go one way at a time there. 'Loads of space' at slow speeds does not equate to 'loads of space' if the motorist is neither forced right to the far right nor forced to slow down.


----------



## dodgy (18 Jul 2008)

I haven't read the comments in this thread, so to ensure I don't get coloured by them (as if ), I have to say that you made such a big deal out of that. The *pragmatic* part of me is thinking there's enough room for cars and bikes, despite the fact I know you have priority. All you're going to achieve there is more antagonstic feelings against cyclists - again, despite the fact you're right.

Dave.


----------



## Cab (18 Jul 2008)

dodgy said:


> I haven't read the comments in this thread,



Might I therefore suggest that you do; I don't agree that your approach is pragmatic for this site, and I've explained (in response to previous comments) why not.


----------



## yello (18 Jul 2008)

To be honest, I think I would gone through that gap without thinking anything of it. But then I did ride in central London so my perspective is different. Or maybe I'm just used to not being treated like traffic to be given way to.

Now whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know. It's certainly a thing thing.


----------



## dodgy (18 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> Might I therefore suggest that you do; I don't agree that your approach is pragmatic for this site, and I've explained (in response to previous comments) why not.



OK, put it this way, imagine my post was the first response.

Dave.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Jul 2008)

I think I would also do the primary thing, slow the car, and then go through on the left. Minus the lecture and telling off to the motorist though.

I'm not sure there's as much room as some people on this topic suggest, since I know how the ATC shows space. I'm also not sure I'd be quite as militant with the lecture.


----------



## HLaB (18 Jul 2008)

Just saw the vid, that ones common enough and although the driver is at fault its not worth arguing from 6ft under if they don't stop.

BTW the worst case of this I've had was when I was cycling down a bit of a gradient, to a road narrowing where I had priority. The neds (chavs) in the car coming the other way, despite me being half way past the barrier and in the primary had other ideas. They ignored the giveway and signs and came straight at me.


----------



## cannondale boy (18 Jul 2008)

I think you addressed the matter well to a point, and the driver was at fault. I am guessing the driver was not local so did make an error without looking at the sign. If he/she were local i don't think this mistake would of happened. If i was in that position i would of went past the slow moving car and hope it does not happen again.


----------



## atbman (19 Jul 2008)

I don't understand those comments about there apparently being lots of room for bike and car. What is it about the legally unambiguous sign, "Give way to oncoming traffic" that you don't understand?

The driver didn't have any right *at all* to ignore the instruction and the possible amount of room has no relevance whatsoever. You are also assuming that this particular pillock would have sufficient judgement to squeeze past the rider without putting him at risk.

Having faced that problem on Middleton Road in Morley on a fortnightly(ish) basis before I retired from daily commuting, the OP was perfectly correct in what he did. One driver tried it on 3(!) times and I always refused to give way. On the third time he failed to notice the police m/cyclist in his rearview mirror while screaming obscenities at me. Ho, ho, ho.

Officer beckoned me over, made him pull into the side and lectured him at some length, told him he would be recording his reg. no. on the police computer and instructed him to apologise to me. I accepted the apology, smiled sweetly and said that I was glad he now appreciated how cretinously stupid he had been.

I then said goodbye to the sergeant I had recently spent the day with as we trained a bunch of PCSOs in the arcane arts of cycling safely in traffic and went on my way thinking "There may actually be a god, after all".


----------



## Perry (20 Jul 2008)

You handled that a lot better than I would have done. 

I would have said something like, "Well done!.....Ya Fu___ing knob!


----------



## yello (20 Jul 2008)

atbman said:


> What is it about the legally unambiguous sign, "Give way to oncoming traffic" that you don't understand?.



Oh, I'd understand the sign. No problem there. I just wouldn't have considered there to have been a problem. It looked to me as though there was room to pass safely (and I do accept the camera may distort that view). That's all that would have concerned me in honesty. I don't go around asserting my rights just because. Too easy going for that.


----------



## hackbike 6 (20 Jul 2008)

Same here I would have just been on my way like the cyclist in front.Perhaps im just used to that in London.

Oh I get that with Cambridge it's supposed to be much more of a cycling tolerant city.


----------



## Mr Pig (20 Jul 2008)

I'm sorry mate, but I think that all you've done is made another car driver think that cyclists are jumped-up twats!

There was plenty of room. The cyclists right in front of you passed the car without any problem, the car was driving very slowly, and I don't see any kind of problem or danger that warranted your rebuke. In fact I might've given the driver a wave for moving over and slowing down!

I understand that 'legally' he should've stopped but common sense suggests that while that's necessary for two cars there is ample room for a bike to pass a car there.

Sorry, but that's my opinion. I don't think we'll see much progress towards a better deal for cyclists on the road while we're treating drivers as the enemy. They've got to feel that we're reasonable before they'll take our views at all seriously.


----------



## domd1979 (20 Jul 2008)

Just read through the thread.

Providing the car was moving at a reasonably slow speed (it was) I'd have taken the gap and carried on. With the car on-coming the driver is on the side the cyclist is passing unlike when you're being overtaken and there's no way the driver can accurately judge the gap. I certainly wouldn't have stopped to lay into him. I agree with going for a primary to begin with since that helps to control the speed of the car before then moving over. 



hackbike 6 said:


> Same here I would have just been on my way like the cyclist in front.Perhaps im just used to that in London.
> 
> Oh I get that with Cambridge it's supposed to be much more of a cycling tolerant city.


----------



## joebe (20 Jul 2008)

Dodgy and Mr Pig sum this one up perfectly, yes you had right of way, but come on..... looking at the other cyclist you had a shed load of room and there was absolutely no need for your holier-than-thou (sp) attitude. 

It's all about give and take, so we can all get on together. If I was that driver I would be thinking what an absolute nob, where does he get off behaving like that.

Helmet cams can be very useful, but there now appears to be darker side to them, i.e the uTube brigade that feel compelled to post the most minor of incidents and often seem to go out of their way to manufacture situations.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you were out of order almost to the extent of bullying the other car to stop. This seems a ludicious position to put yourself in given the lectures your giving about it all being done for your own safety.


----------



## magnatom (20 Jul 2008)

joebe said:


> Helmet cams can be very useful, but there now appears to be darker side to them, i.e the uTube brigade that feel compelled to post the most minor of incidents and often seem to go out of their way to manufacture situations.



I take it you are referring to me there? 

I think you are right, that without care, cameras could be mis-used. I honestly can't think of an occasion where I have manufactured an incident though. Sure I have in the past had words with drivers and filmed that, but I have done exactly the same without my camera on. That is just who I am, although I am trying to 'chat' less. If anyone can point out one of my videos where they feel I have manufactured an incident, feel free to point it out.

For me, this incident does look a little bit minor, but we have to remember, we weren't there, we have no idea how good the other cyclist in the video was (i.e. they were possibly taking a risk there), and it can be difficult judging distances on film.

We also have to take into account the fact that cab might have had some more serious incidents on this section of road. These experiences might suggest to cab that his approach is the best approach.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (20 Jul 2008)

Well, I've watched the film, and read all the comments and I have to say that it looks like you've made a big deal out of nothing here.

When you hold your hand up, it looks like you're ready to overtake the cyclist in front of you - I think I'd of tucked in behind him / her (that would've reduce my speed for the pinch point, too), and just carried on.

Of course, you can argue about the way the camera makes it look, speed, or anything else - but from where I'm looking it seems that you've made a big deal out of nothing.

joebe is right about the YouTube brigade - very few of the posted videos look that serious to me, but maybe that's all down to camera perspective; the real events may have looked different.


----------



## dodgy (20 Jul 2008)

And if camera perspective really is reducing the ability of these helmet cameras from telling the truth, what's the point of them? Has any cyclist so far been able to use footage to convince the police to take positive action against a motorist or other wrong doer?

Dave.


----------



## dondare (20 Jul 2008)

Anyone who knows Cambridge will know that motorists see a lot of illegal, dangerous and generally idiotic behaviour by cyclists and therefore just don't regard them as real traffic. They also expect cyclists to squeeze through any gap and use the pavement if there's not enough road; this chap must have been somewhat bemused to be stopped and admonished by you in the circumstances. 
As a general point, many of the incidents on youtube don't look that bad, I suppose you have to be there to realise that they are.


----------



## magnatom (20 Jul 2008)

dodgy said:


> And if camera perspective really is reducing the ability of these helmet cameras from telling the truth, what's the point of them? Has any cyclist so far been able to use footage to convince the police to take positive action against a motorist or other wrong doer?
> 
> Dave.



It doesn't make them useless, it is just something that need to taken into account when viewing the video. This particular video is not a good example, but you can often use features on the road, the reactions of those on the video etc to infer things like 'closeness' etc. Speeds can be estimated as well, although there will always be an error in this.

Having the camera does not replace witness reports, but it can back up or be used to verify them. 

No charges have been brought from my use of the helmet camera, but on the one occasion that I reported a driver for poor driving and I had footage, the police did have a very strong word with the driver. I was happy with that.

Bollo, has successfully used his footage in a compensation claim.


----------



## domd1979 (20 Jul 2008)

If you watch the film between 0:15 and 0:17 its pretty obvious that there's sufficient room to pass. Pausing the film and comparing the width of road available to the width of the Audi shows that. 

You're right, we weren't there. That didn't stop Cab going on ad infinitum for 60 pages on that thread (potentially the longest thread ever on Commuting?) about the bus/cyclist where even though Cab wasn't there, all the available evidence pointed to the cyclist being sat in the bus' blind spot, yet Cab still declared the bus driver an evil cyclist killer and that the cyclist could not possibly have been wrong by the simple virtue of being on a bicycle. 

There are bad drivers out there, but Cab's automatic assumption is that all drivers are evil, all cyclists are correct, which just isn't the case - as shown by this latest video clip. 

Perhaps the driver took the same attitude as RLJing cyclists - the priority is there to control motorists, not cyclists...... 



magnatom said:


> For me, this incident does look a little bit minor, but we have to remember, we weren't there, we have no idea how good the other cyclist in the video was (i.e. they were possibly taking a risk there), and it can be difficult judging distances on film.
> 
> We also have to take into account the fact that cab might have had some more serious incidents on this section of road. These experiences might suggest to cab that his approach is the best approach.


----------



## dodgy (20 Jul 2008)

Thanks magna, that's good to know.

Dave.


----------



## magnatom (20 Jul 2008)

dondare said:


> As a general point, many of the incidents on youtube don't look that bad, I suppose you have to be there to realise that they are.



I don't always post videos because they were particularly bad. I post them because they highlight particular problems that cyclists face. I think part of the reason that they aren't particularly dangerous is that I try and cycle in such a way, so that I have an escape route at all times. 

In my three years cycle commuting I think I have probably had only two or three incidents where I actually felt in any danger. Even then, I probably had a way out.


----------



## magnatom (20 Jul 2008)

domd1979 said:


> There are bad drivers out there, but Cab's automatic assumption is that all drivers are evil, all cyclists are correct, which just isn't the case - as shown by this latest video clip.



I don't know cab personally (although recently we passed about 4 metres from each other!) but I really don't think he has that attitude. In fact he has told me I was in the wrong (cycling wise) on a few occasions in the past. 

Of course he will be biased (I probably am as well) towards cyclists as that is who we are, but I, and I am sure cab, try to be as fair and even handed as possible. 

I actually tend to agree that cab may have overreacted here, that is my opinion based on the facts we have, but we don't have all of the facts and I am willing to admit that I could be wrong.


----------



## Mr Pig (20 Jul 2008)

I looked at a few cycle-cam videos on YouTubeYou but so many were a waste of bandwidth I gave up. I think in the long run these cameras will prove to be a benefit to cyclists but crying wolf all the time is counter-productive.


----------



## magnatom (20 Jul 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I looked at a few cycle-cam videos on YouTubeYou but so many were a waste of bandwidth I gave up. I think in the long run these cameras will prove to be a benefit to cyclists but crying wolf all the time is counter-productive.



I agree, contacting the police too often will not help. That's why I have only contacted them once since I have had my cameras (had a camera for about 2.5 years now).

Are you suggesting I am wasting bandwidth?....


----------



## Mr Pig (20 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Are you suggesting I am wasting bandwidth?....



My post contained no generalisation about any cam user ;0)


----------



## magnatom (20 Jul 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> My post contained no generalisation about any cam user ;0)



Surely that wouldn't be a generalisation.........


----------



## joebe (20 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> I take it you are referring to me there?




Not just you, but you certainly feature an awful lot.


----------



## magnatom (20 Jul 2008)

joebe said:


> Not just you, but you certainly feature an awful lot.



Fair enough, but could you point out the videos where I have in any way manufactured the incident?


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> the car was driving very slowly



I'm mostly with your point of view, but in fairness to Cab, I think the only reason the motorist was driving so slowly was because Cab owned the lane and forced them to stop. I regularly see similar bullying when going down a narrow road with parked cars both sides, and the only way to avoid problems seems to be to own the lane and force the driver to slow down, before passing safely to the side.


----------



## hackbike 6 (20 Jul 2008)

The good thing is that there was no reaction from the motorist.What happens if it had turned nasty?

Yes I know I have done it and made myself look a right tit.I've been there.


----------



## Mr Pig (20 Jul 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I regularly see similar bullying and the only way to avoid problems seems to be to own the lane and force the driver to slow down



I agree. It's the same when driving a car. You need to be assertive without becoming a bully yourself.


----------



## snorri (20 Jul 2008)

What do the majority of cyclists tend to do when travelling in the other direction on this street?
Do they wait for a gap in motorised traffic or press on carefully in the knowledge that they can squeeze through anyway?


----------



## wlc1 (20 Jul 2008)

I think you come across as a bit of a cycling Hitler. There is a difference between informing someone of a mistake ( it wasn't even close - he braked to a stop also)and lecturing someone until they appoligise. 

There was masses of room to pass him - you put your hand up very very early, maybe keep both hands on the bars and ride past him.

Not me being critical just an observation. I would have had words with you if that was me in that car.


----------



## wlc1 (20 Jul 2008)

Having watched your other videos you love a row with drivers don't you. You say "it's all on video" - what are you going to do with the footage ? Go to the police if your that worried - Believe me they will do someone about it if the evidence is good enough.

Chill or one day some bloke is going to get out and lump the crap out of you. 

Happy riding


----------



## CopperBrompton (21 Jul 2008)

I'd have to enter another vote for 'There was plenty of room (based on watching the cyclist ahead of you go through) and the driver slowed to a safe speed for the two of you to pass safely'. 

Ben (another London cyclist, so perhaps that's the common thread)


----------



## Aperitif (21 Jul 2008)

And another London cyclist.
The rider in front went through the gap between truck and bus with you in tow into the clear space ahead, then, elbows out, past the car 'driving at you'.
Be assertive, not stupid Cab - and, to use your brakes and steering effectively, you really need both hands on the bars.
Cheer up and share the road.
PS Toe your brakes in - they squeak.


----------



## dondare (21 Jul 2008)

The cyclist in front didn't seem to have any difficulty getting through but then they were riding much closer to the curb and the bollards than I would have liked to be doing myself. The road at that point has been made with room for traffic travelling in one direction at a time and Cab did have priority. 
Having said that, I'd have let it go.


----------



## dondare (21 Jul 2008)

snorri said:


> What do the majority of cyclists tend to do when travelling in the other direction on this street?
> Do they wait for a gap in motorised traffic or press on carefully in the knowledge that they can squeeze through anyway?



This, of course, is the point. Cyclists shouldn't have to wait for a gap in the motorised traffic when they are coming from this direction because they have priority: the motorised traffic should give way. 
The test would be what does Cab do when he's riding the other way; wait, or squeeze through?


----------



## spindrift (21 Jul 2008)

_I think you come across as a bit of a cycling Hitler._ 

this thread is dead now, move along, nothing to see.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

dodgy said:


> OK, put it this way, imagine my post was the first response.



And instead of referring you to where I've addressed the points you raise, repeat myself? No.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jul 2008)

Cab, any chance you might accept that perhaps you were a bit too militant here?


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

cannondale boy said:


> I think you addressed the matter well to a point, and the driver was at fault. I am guessing the driver was not local so did make an error without looking at the sign. If he/she were local i don't think this mistake would of happened. If i was in that position i would of went past the slow moving car and hope it does not happen again.



Locals do it there too I'm afraid; you see the same cars day in, day out, always intentionally breaking the rules there. Shame, really.


----------



## joebe (21 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Fair enough, but could you point out the videos where I have in any way manufactured the incident?




err..... 
blocking

But let's not open up old wounds.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

yello said:


> Oh, I'd understand the sign. No problem there. I just wouldn't have considered there to have been a problem. It looked to me as though there was room to pass safely (and I do accept the camera may distort that view). That's all that would have concerned me in honesty. I don't go around asserting my rights just because. Too easy going for that.



I didn't stop and tell him 'because'.

I stopped and told him because if as a cyclist I choose to pootle down the side of the car, the car will neither slow down nor will he move right over to the other side, he'll miss me (the oncoming obstruction) and the bollards (static obstruction) more or less equidistantly, meaning I'll be facing an oncoming, accelerating vehicle missing me by far less than you see in the video (I estimate from watching other cyclists there that this would be six inches or so) while also keeping a wary eye out at the hidden pedestrian entrances. 

By stopping and slowing the traffic down I had more room and could safely pass.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jul 2008)

joebe said:


> err.....
> blocking
> 
> But let's not open up old wounds.



How is that a manufactured incident? Poorly planned overtake, yes, but then I've done that myself.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I'm sorry mate, but I think that all you've done is made another car driver think that cyclists are jumped-up twats!
> 
> There was plenty of room. The cyclists right in front of you passed the car without any problem, the car was driving very slowly,



Further cut unread.

Read the comments and responses in a thread before posting.


----------



## magnatom (21 Jul 2008)

joebe said:


> err.....
> blocking
> 
> But let's not open up old wounds.



Why say, lets not open up old wounds and then open one....

I didn't manufacture that. I have actually on here, and on youtube admitted that I probably shouldn't have overtaken. I made a mistake (although the lady in the car overreacted, so you could say she manufactured it!). I now don't filter there when there is oncoming traffic. So by posting that video I have improved my cycling. Would you then agree that there is good reason for posting videos like these, so long as the poster has an open mind?


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

joebe said:


> Sorry to be so blunt



See my earlier comments about why the other cyclist had a slow vehicle approaching him and more space than he normally would have done, i.e. there was another cyclist right behind him (me) stopping the traffic.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> We also have to take into account the fact that cab might have had some more serious incidents on this section of road. These experiences might suggest to cab that his approach is the best approach.



The situation is really very simple. Go down the side of the oncoming vehicle and when you pass it is still accelerating, you've got bollards and hidden pedestrian access down one side and a car missing you with inches to spare on the other. Having talked to the planners who designed this section, they were quite clear that if there had been room for a cycle lane there they would have installed one; and remember, we've got plenty of cycle lanes in Cambridgeshire that are no wider than a bicycle! 

I ride that section every day, and I've tried all ways to find the safest way to ride it. I've been clipped by oncoming vehicles there, which is frightening. Truly, the only really safe way is to stop the traffic.

It took years to get the bus companies to take this seriously, now for busses to break the rules there is quite rare. Currently working on the taxi companies, thats even harder.


----------



## domd1979 (21 Jul 2008)

Taking a primary position to slow the oncoming car down - fine, but was it necessary to stop him and then stand in the road ranting?



Cab said:


> I ride that section every day, and I've tried all ways to find the safest way to ride it. I've been clipped by oncoming vehicles there, which is frightening. Truly, the only really safe way is to stop the traffic.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

domd1979 said:


> If you watch the film between 0:15 and 0:17 its pretty obvious that there's sufficient room to pass. Pausing the film and comparing the width of road available to the width of the Audi shows that.



It never ceases to amaze me how people ignore preceding comments before opening their gobs.

The car gave more road space and slowed down because I was right in the middle of the road. Had I not been there, making him do so, he would not have done so. That is the experience of using that road day in, day out.

I created a safer situation by my actions, such would not have been the case otherwise.



> You're right, we weren't there. That didn't stop Cab going on ad infinitum for 60 pages on that thread (potentially the longest thread ever on Commuting?)



(remainder cut unread)

You mean, the one where when people stopped whining and simply making noise, the original poster accepted that the point I was putting to her was correct? The one where I was, according to the one eye witness we had, correct?


----------



## magnatom (21 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> I ride that section every day, and I've tried all ways to find the safest way to ride it. I've been clipped by oncoming vehicles there, which is frightening. Truly, the only really safe way is to stop the traffic.



I think you should have mentioned this before. If I had experience of being clipped here I would probably be as cautious as you. Experience of this section is something that most poster on here don't have. That is why it is sometimes difficult to see the point of view of the cyclist videoing, because we don't have the local knowledge.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

snorri said:


> What do the majority of cyclists tend to do when travelling in the other direction on this street?



10% or so dismount

10% or so would tend to ride on to the pavement (often with hilarious consequences)

About 30% will wait for oncoming traffic in the distance to pass, even though they have priority 

Another 30% ish will ride down the narrow gap

And about 20% will be assertive, slowing the oncoming traffic down to create a safer space to use. Once a week or so I see someone berate a motorist in that scenario.


----------



## domd1979 (21 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> The car gave more road space and slowed down because I was right in the middle of the road. Had I not been there, making him do so, he would not have done so. That is the experience of using that road day in, day out.
> 
> I created a safer situation by my actions, such would not have been the case otherwise.



I didn't argue with your use of primary to slow him down, because having slowed him down you could then make safe use of the gap. Did the standing in the road ranting "create a safer situation"? Or will it create one in the future? Just slowing him down might have been enough to make him think next time. 




> (remainder cut unread)
> 
> You mean, the one where when people stopped whining and simply making noise, the original poster accepted that the point I was putting to her was correct? The one where I was, according to the one eye witness we had, correct?



Yes, only to placate you and for no other reason I suspect. Think about how false confessions occur.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

wlc1 said:


> Having watched your other videos you love a row with drivers don't you. You say "it's all on video" - what are you going to do with the footage ? Go to the police if your that worried - Believe me they will do someone about it if the evidence is good enough.
> 
> Chill or one day some bloke is going to get out and lump the crap out of you.
> 
> Happy riding



Ahh, yes, the one where the taxi driver cut in between me and the traffic island. Yes, I did take that to the Police. Whats your point?


----------



## magnatom (21 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> 10% or so dismount
> 
> 10% or so would tend to ride on to the pavement (often with hilarious consequences)
> 
> ...




Have you ever thought of filming that section of road for a few hours? That might be informative, not only for us, but for anyone that you need to aim your campaigning at.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

dondare said:


> The test would be what does Cab do when he's riding the other way; wait, or squeeze through?



When I'm going out of town there (the other way) and there is a car behind me and an oncoming cyclist then I wait behind the line and hold the traffic up.

When I'm going that way and there is an oncoming car, van, bus etc. then I wait behind the line.

When I'm going that way and there is no other vehicle behind me but oncoming bicycles, I slowly advance over the line, making eye contact with the oncoming bike, and if the other guy has seen me and moved over safely then I go, otherwise, I wait behind the line. 

Its a really simple piece of road; you give way to oncoming traffic.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Cab, any chance you might accept that perhaps you were a bit too militant here?



I stopped him because thats the safest option. I told him what he'd done wrong and asked him politely not to do it again. I didn't shout louder than was needed to be heard through his window.

Too militant? No, not really.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Taking a primary position to slow the oncoming car down - fine, but was it necessary to stop him and then stand in the road ranting?



Ranting? I told him what he'd done wrong and politely asked him not to do it again, told him he was on camera (which changed his outlook from aggressive to accepting; he knew what he'd done wrong and that he couldn't bully me), and asked him politely again. Ranting? This is some new use of 'rant', I believe, where you really mean 'politely and assertively stated the truth'.


----------



## Riding in Circles (21 Jul 2008)

Regardless of peoples conceptions about space, the rule at that point is to wait for on coming traffic, the driver was taking the view that a cyclist was not "traffic" and that is an attitude that has to be challenged if we are to get any respect and therefore any safety on the roads so I think Cab is justified.


----------



## Origamist (21 Jul 2008)

I have sympathy for Cab on this one. The driver had ignored the give way sign and by taking the lane Cab was able to make the situation safer for himself. 

However, the "telling off" and the U-Tube threat was not how I'd have handled the dialogue...


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

domd1979 said:


> I didn't argue with your use of primary to slow him down, because having slowed him down you could then make safe use of the gap. Did the standing in the road ranting "create a safer situation"?  Or will it create one in the future? Just slowing him down might have been enough to make him think next time.



No, what you can't see (but I have alluded to here) is the angry look on his face and his rather negative attitude to me being in his way. I judged that the further impact of telling him he was being recorded might help there; he then went quite passive and accepted his error. So, I believe, it worked.



> Yes, only to placate you and for no other reason I suspect. Think about how false confessions occur.



Or think about how people behave when they know they can't get away with being a bully. Often it only takes one person to stand up to a bully.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Have you ever thought of filming that section of road for a few hours? That might be informative, not only for us, but for anyone that you need to aim your campaigning at.



I've thought about it, and previously I've concentrated on filming busses there. That worked pretty well, the question really becomes where should my focus be now. I'm thinking taxis.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> However, the "telling off" and the U-Tube threat was not how I'd have handled the dialogue...



What (if anything) would you have said?


----------



## magnatom (21 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> I have sympathy for Cab on this one. The driver had ignored the give way sign and by taking the lane Cab was able to make the situation safer for himself.
> 
> However, the "telling off" and the U-Tube threat was not how I'd have handled the dialogue...



Actually the youtube threat can be very effective at turning an aggressive situation into a calmer one. I have used it in the past and will continue to use it in the future. 

If anything, you are actually giving them a chance to say that they would rather not end up on youtube. Although my conversation with the information commissioner suggests that permission is not required anyway, though it could be seen as being polite.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (21 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> I've thought about it, and previously I've concentrated on filming busses there. That worked pretty well, the question really becomes where should my focus be now. I'm thinking taxis.



I don't like to imply anything, but are you really considering spending a few hours of your life filmimg traffic?
Why not go for a beer instead?


----------



## Origamist (21 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> What (if anything) would you have said?



I'd have opened with:

"Mate, cyclists have priority on this road - did you see the give way sign back there?"


----------



## Origamist (21 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Actually the youtube threat can be very effective at turning an aggressive situation into a calmer one. I have used it in the past and will continue to use it in the future.
> 
> If anything, you are actually giving them a chance to say that they would rather not end up on youtube. Although my conversation with the information commissioner suggests that permission is not required anyway, though it could be seen as being polite.



I don't have a camera - that's why I wouldn't have mentioned U-tube!


----------



## magnatom (21 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> I don't have a camera - that's why I wouldn't have mentioned U-tube!



 But if you had a camera.....


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> I don't have a camera - that's why I wouldn't have mentioned U-tube!



Fair enough


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I don't like to imply anything, but are you really considering spending a few hours of your life filmimg traffic?
> Why not go for a beer instead?



Not an ideal way to spend hours of free time I don't have, but helmet cam footage of the area is easy to acquire (what with riding that section once, sometimes twice a day).


----------



## magnatom (21 Jul 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I don't like to imply anything, but are you really considering spending a few hours of your life filmimg traffic?
> Why not go for a beer instead?



Because it might improve road safety? Good enough reason I would have thought. I haven't done it myself, but if there was a section of road where I thought tere was a particular problem, then I would consider it.

You can go for a beer any time!


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

Origamist said:


> I'd have opened with:
> 
> "Mate, cyclists have priority on this road - did you see the give way sign back there?"



Not a bad opening gambit. I've used, almost word for word, that phrase. On one occasion the response was that the passenger got out and pushed me off the road (wearing his employers logo all over him and the van, wasn't hard to track him down and see to it that Plod paid him a visit). On another a taxi driver drove, gently, straight in to me. 

The presence of a camera takes the sting out of thise situations; these guys know that they're in the wrong, knowing that theres absolutely no way it will not be recorded is a great motivation for them to back off.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (21 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> Not an ideal way to spend hours of free time I don't have, but helmet cam footage of the area is easy to acquire (what with riding that section once, sometimes twice a day).



Riiiight. I had an image of you making a special journey and standing by the roadside for three hours filming buses and taxis.


----------



## Origamist (21 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> Not a bad opening gambit. I've used, almost word for word, that phrase. On one occasion the response was that the passenger got out and pushed me off the road (wearing his employers logo all over him and the van, wasn't hard to track him down and see to it that Plod paid him a visit). On another a taxi driver drove, gently, straight in to me.



This is the problem with any confrontation - an escalation. However, if you are more emollient, you stand a (slightly) better chance of reasoned dialogue. I thought your apporach was more of a school master ticking off a naughty pupil.



Cab said:


> The presence of a camera takes the sting out of thise situations; these guys know that they're in the wrong, knowing that theres absolutely no way it will not be recorded is a great motivation for them to back off.



I agree in the main.


----------



## domd1979 (21 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> Ranting? This is some new use of 'rant', I believe, where you really mean 'politely and assertively stated the truth'.



http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=rant&title=21st

Fits the bill nicely. 

Politely would have involved saying "thank you" when he agreed not to be a naughty boy and never to do it again, but I don't recall hearing that....


----------



## BentMikey (21 Jul 2008)

You were right to move out and herd the driver into slowing down - I'd fully agree with that. Take note, however, of how many people told you you were wrong for the lecture added on top.

Learning from your mistakes is a good thing, I'm sad to say seems not to be the case here.



Cab said:


> You mean, the one where when people stopped whining and simply making noise, the original poster accepted that the point I was putting to her was correct? The one where I was, according to the one eye witness we had, correct?



She only did that to shut you up, not to admit you were right, so stop falsely claiming some sort of points victory on that.


----------



## Mr Pig (21 Jul 2008)

I need to so unsubscribe from this thread. Night all :0)


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Riiiight. I had an image of you making a special journey and standing by the roadside for three hours filming buses and taxis.



I have considered it, and I think such footage would prove quite clearly what the problems there are... But there are only so many hours in the day!


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

domd1979 said:


> http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=rant&title=21st
> 
> Fits the bill nicely.
> 
> Politely would have involved saying "thank you" when he agreed not to be a naughty boy and never to do it again, but I don't recall hearing that....




You've got to be loud and clear to be heard over engines and through glass. To then ask someone politely, at volume, is always going to sound rather assertive. No way around that; you either make a little more noise and get heard or he sits there revving his engine at you and not hearing what you've (validly) got to say. 

Of course, what you don't see is a smile and a slight inclination of the head when he has agreed to behave next time.


----------



## medals (21 Jul 2008)

beanzontoast said:


> What it shows is that some motorists don't regard cyclists as traffic.
> 
> A point I thought of this morning.
> I was going past a road on my right when a driver at the give way line pulls out of it to turn right, to go the same direction as me, regardless of whether I'm passing the junction. Ok, he drives on the right hand lane for a bit while he overtakes me. But I thought, 'would you have done that to a car'. Er well no 'cos he would have hit it. But it just goes to show that some drivers just don't regard cyclists as legitimate road users.


----------



## CopperBrompton (21 Jul 2008)

If a word is necessary, I find a polite tap on the window and motioning (non-aggressively) for them to open it works wonders.

I had a case recently in the Stratford one-way system where a driver cut rather close to me while changing lanes. I caught him at the lights, knocked on his window, put a friendly expression on my face and motioned for him to open the window. Conversation:

Me: "A bit close back there, mate"
Him: "Oh, sorry, didn't realise"
Me: "It can be a bit scary for cyclists when you cut in close"
Him: "Ok, will look out"
Me: "Thanks!"

Which of the two encounters do you suspect did most good?

Ben


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You were right to move out and herd the driver into slowing down - I'd fully agree with that. Take note, however, of how many people told you you were wrong for the lecture added on top.
> 
> Learning from your mistakes is a good thing, I'm sad to say seems not to be the case here.



I've had experience using this road all ways. 

You can go down the side, which for reasons I've explained is dangerous.

You can hold traffic up and then go down the side, which can either lead to a tirade of abuse or can lead to nothing, but _certainly_ you leave the motorist feeling like he's been held up by a bicycle for no good reason (and you can see this when you look at them, they're left just _angry_, they simply don't believe that the oncoming cyclist can validly do that).

I've learned from my mistakes on that road, which is why I now act there as I do. I'll stop the traffic, assess the situation, and either tell the oncoming motorist what they've done wrong or just cycle on, depending on the demeanor of the motorist. 



> She only did that to shut you up, not to admit you were right, so stop falsely claiming some sort of points victory on that.



I disagree, she agreed because I was right, and she did so when others stopped bellyaching that I was pointing out where she was in error and asking her not to behave thusly again. 

I didn't raise this again here, so let it drop; I shall otherwise defend my stance there as I have always done, for the simple reason that I am correct.


----------



## domd1979 (21 Jul 2008)

Are you in fact Judge Dredd....? "I AM the law"


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> If a word is necessary, I find a polite tap on the window and motioning (non-aggressively) for them to open it works wonders.
> 
> I had a case recently in the Stratford one-way system where a driver cut rather close to me while changing lanes. I caught him at the lights, knocked on his window, put a friendly expression on my face and motioned for him to open the window. Conversation:
> 
> ...



At the road in question, if you move up alongside for a tap on the window, the car will simply accelerate away. I've found that the safest approach is to stop the car entiely, to give enough room and time to pass safely. Really, I don't want to be leaning over towards a vehicle that is about to drive off in the opposite direction, that strikes me as a little unsafe. Where I've later caught up with someone who has cut me up, and he's opened his window, I entirely agree with your polite word method there, its more or less exactly what I do.

But here I had an angry bloke right in front of me, scowling through closed windows. The quiet, polite word wasn't appropriate, I simply needed more volume.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Are you in fact Judge Dredd....? "I AM the law"



So if you decide you want to be heard above the sound of an engine and through glass, do you raise your voice or not?

Or do you simply not communicate to the person in front of you (who is quite willing to endanger you again even though he knows he's in the wong) that he is in error and that he'll get caught for it?

The result here was the guy knows he's not to do that and that he'll get caught if he does so, he knows he can't get away with that and that bullying someone with a car is not something he can do there any more. Result.


----------



## CopperBrompton (21 Jul 2008)

Well, I can't claim I make a habit of it, but I must have done it about 20 times over the years, and I haven't yet had anyone accelerate away. I think the friendly expression on your face is a key part of the approach.

Ben


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Well, I can't claim I make a habit of it, but I must have done it about 20 times over the years, and I haven't yet had anyone accelerate away. I think the friendly expression on your face is a key part of the approach.



Don't get me wrong, side on you're fine doing that, and I've rarely even had anyone take offense at such polite communication. A gentle tap, a request for a little more space next time, generally even if they don't like that you're talking to them they don't get uppity.

But head on? When you've just riled them by stopping in the middle of the lane? I don't find that works at this particluar location, and unless I've stopped the traffic and had some words there then as soon as I start shuffling to the side the car will come at me. Seems especially the case with taxis.


----------



## domd1979 (21 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> So if you decide you want to be heard above the sound of an engine and through glass, do you raise your voice or not?



I was referring to your "I was right", "I am correct" quote.... never mind...




> Or do you simply not communicate to the person in front of you (who is quite willing to endanger you again even though he knows he's in the wong) that he is in error and that he'll get caught for it?



Not saying anything is a perfectly sensible option. Taking primary (which I haven't disagreed with) communicates that you're not happy with his actions in itself without needing to say anything.



> The result here was the guy knows he's not to do that and that he'll get caught if he does so, he knows he can't get away with that and that bullying someone with a car is not something he can do there any more. Result.



Result? You don't know that at all.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Result? You don't know that at all.



Of course I do. That motorist now knows that theres a fighting chance that any time he does that he'll be stopped and caught on camera bullying his way through where he does not have right of way. He went from quite forceful to entirely passive when informed that he was being recorded. That resolved the immediate situation and left the message that cyclists aren't pushovers. In what way is that not a result?


----------



## joebe (21 Jul 2008)

I'm following Mr Pigs lead and unsubscribing from this thread as it's pretty obvious Cab feels he's done nothing wrong and will continue in his ways. Ho hum.

I look forward to the next instalment, who knows what unsuspecting member of the public will be made to yield to the power of Cab cam.


----------



## spindrift (21 Jul 2008)

_who knows what unsuspecting member of the public will be made to yield to the power of Cab cam._

Arf


----------



## domd1979 (21 Jul 2008)

It may have resolved the immediate situation as far as you're concerned. But, you can only speculate as to whether or not he'll do it again. You also don't know whether your ranting has done more harm than good. It might (and you may consider I'm being overly charitable) have been a one-off for him. If your actions have made him more anti-cyclist then that hasn't done anyone any favours. 

Cyclists with helmet cams are in a pretty small minority, so I don't think that's going to enter into his decision making process next time he decides to transgress the highway code somewhere.




Cab said:


> Of course I do. That motorist now knows that theres a fighting chance that any time he does that he'll be stopped and caught on camera bullying his way through where he does not have right of way. He went from quite forceful to entirely passive when informed that he was being recorded. That resolved the immediate situation and left the message that cyclists aren't pushovers. In what way is that not a result?


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

domd1979 said:


> It may have resolved the immediate situation as far as you're concerned. But, you can only speculate as to whether or not he'll do it again. You also don't know whether your ranting has done more harm than good. It might (and you may consider I'm being overly charitable) have been a one-off for him. If your actions have made him more anti-cyclist then that hasn't done anyone any favours.



Yet his demeanor changed dramatically, from hostile to accepting, on having been caught out on camera. He knew he was in the wrong when he went forward, he knew he was in the wrong when I stopped him, and he knew he was in the wrong when his first reaction was so negative. He now knows that when he's proceding like that, in the wrong such that he is inconveniencing and endangering cyclists, he can now get caught. If it was a one off for him then it was a really angry one, my assessment of the situation was that such was unlikely; he didn't hold his hand up or acknowledge his error until I challenged him.



> Cyclists with helmet cams are in a pretty small minority, so I don't think that's going to enter into his decision making process next time he decides to transgress the highway code somewhere.



A small minority of cyclists in Cambridge is still a reasonable number of people though. If it doesn't change the way he acts then he'll get caught out again, and again...


----------



## domd1979 (21 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> He knew he was in the wrong when he went forward, he knew he was in the wrong when I stopped him, and he knew he was in the wrong when his first reaction was so negative. He now knows that when he's proceding like that, in the wrong such that he is inconveniencing and endangering cyclists, he can now get caught.



Cab, you can only speculate as to his future actions. Do you know - for certain - if your actions have had a positive effect both on his attitudes and behaviour towards cyclists in the future? Yes or no?




> If it doesn't change the way he acts then he'll get caught out again, and again...



The sad reality is that the chances of being caught for any motoring offence are pretty minimal.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Cab, you can only speculate as to his future actions. Do you know - for certain - if your actions have had a positive effect both on his attitudes and behaviour towards cyclists in the future? Yes or no?



No one can predict the future perfectly. My experience and observation says yes, probably.



> The sad reality is that the chances of being caught for any motoring offence are pretty minimal.



And when more serious incidences than this ine are reported and logged, eventually (with any luck) something will happen. Or when enough such incidents are reported such that the stats start making police forces look bad, perhaps change will happen. Don't wear a camera, don't record incidents, don't stand up against people doing this kind of thing... Well, inactivity changes nothing.


----------



## CopperBrompton (21 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> as soon as I start shuffling to the side the car will come at me. Seems especially the case with taxis.


I'm quite surprised at that if you've politely gestured that you'd like a word. Can you show us a video of that - I'd be interested to see.

Ben


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> I'm quite surprised at that if you've politely gestured that you'd like a word. Can you show us a video of that - I'd be interested to see.



Don't currently have a video of that because (a) I don't keep videos unless they're likely to provoke a discussion, ( I don't always take the camera with me, and (c) more often than not after stopping the traffic there I'll send an accusing glare at the usually quite regretful motorist, and move along the side of the now static traffic.


----------



## Cab (21 Jul 2008)

Perhaps its also worth mentioning, I've cycled that same road four times in the same direction since that incident, and not once has there been the slightest whiff of conflict there since. Happens sometimes, but its not a daily event there (not since the Stagecoach started having words with drivers).


----------



## hackbike 6 (21 Jul 2008)

I've just cycled from Waterloo to Baker Street to Leyton via Oxford Circus and the 38 bus route.Alasit was an absolute dream.Just shows how boooooring my Mile End Road commute is.

(17 miles) Got lost on way to Baker Street.


----------



## col (22 Jul 2008)

No need for the rant at all,over reaction.If anything,a cyclist purposely stopping in the middle of the road to rant at a motorist,when there was no need,is just trouble waiting to happen,you had a third of the road but decided to make a big deal of it.
Why did you overtake the cyclist in front of you,or didnt you see the car coming ?


----------



## hackbike 6 (22 Jul 2008)

I think its one oe those to learn from and get over.


----------



## Cab (22 Jul 2008)

col said:


> No need for the rant at all,over reaction.If anything,a cyclist purposely stopping in the middle of the road to rant at a motorist,when there was no need,is just trouble waiting to happen,you had a third of the road but decided to make a big deal of it.
> Why did you overtake the cyclist in front of you,or didnt you see the car coming ?



There was every need to stop there; the road space to pass only existed because of the position I took. Read the previous comments where that has been discussed. I invite you to ride that road regularly, see what happens if you don't claim the middle.

You'll also note that I didn't overtake any other cyclists.


----------



## col (22 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> There was every need to stop there; the road space to pass only existed because of the position I took. Read the previous comments where that has been discussed. I invite you to ride that road regularly, see what happens if you don't claim the middle.
> 
> You'll also note that I didn't overtake any other cyclists.



The car was already as far over as it could go,you didnt make any space,so why claim you did?I do note you didnt overtake anymore cyclists too,as there were no more at that point,i dont understand the relevance of your claim on this either?
The only danger there was the danger your putting yourself into doing this sort of thing,your going to pick on the wrong car one day to make your unneccesary point.Im all for having a go at a car for a dangerous maneouver when its called for,but not making one happen.


----------



## Cab (22 Jul 2008)

col said:


> The car was already as far over as it could go,you didnt make any space,so why claim you did?



Its like the entire thread happened and you missed it.

The car was far over because I held my ground from the outset and held my hand out to stop him. He otherwise wouldn't have given so much space. The proof? The fact that I see this behaviour there, day in, day out, if you try to go down the side then the car will pass equidistant between you and the bollards, being then FAR too close. So you can passively accept someone breaking the law and passing too close (as happens there all of the time) or you can claim your road space. They're your choices; which do you pick?



> I do note you didnt overtake anymore cyclists too,as there were no more at that point,i dont understand the relevance of your claim on this either?



So why did you ask:


> Why did you overtake the cyclist in front of you,or didnt you see the car coming ?



I didn't overtake the other cyclist, why are you first asking why I did and then saying that you note I did not? What are you talking about?



> The only danger there was the danger your putting yourself into doing this sort of thing,your going to pick on the wrong car one day to make your unneccesary point.Im all for having a go at a car for a dangerous maneouver when its called for,but not making one happen.



I can't really simplify this any further for you, and your recalcitrance to read earlier responses to this very question is quite tiresome. The motorist was acting dangerously, my experience every day tells me what happens if you go down the gap there. The only safe way to handle this situation is to create more road space by basically being in the way, its exactly the same principle as taking primary where theres a traffic island.


----------



## Graham O (22 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> When I'm going that way and there is no other vehicle behind me but oncoming bicycles, I slowly advance over the line, making eye contact with the oncoming bike, and if the other guy has seen me and moved over safely then I go, otherwise, I wait behind the line.
> 
> Its a really simple piece of road; you give way to oncoming traffic.





It seems to me that you are taking the "give way to oncoming traffic" to an extreme. If, by proceeding, you force the other road user to change his actions, then you are not giving way. However, if the other user is unimpeded in his journey, then there is no need to give way and you can proceed. I don't think that "give way to oncoming traffic" means that you cannot enter that stretch of road just because someone else is present on it. There is a subjective assessment of this based on experience, reading of the road etc and perhaps the car driver had seen you, had seen the sign and on the basis of the preceeding cyclist passing safely had concluded that you could also do so. Yes, you have a right to ride in primary, but is it worth an arguement over? I don't think so. You do. Who is right? Probably neither of us.


----------



## col (22 Jul 2008)

Cab said:


> Its like the entire thread happened and you missed it.
> 
> The car was far over because I held my ground from the outset and held my hand out to stop him. He otherwise wouldn't have given so much space. The proof? The fact that I see this behaviour there, day in, day out, if you try to go down the side then the car will pass equidistant between you and the bollards, being then FAR too close. So you can passively accept someone breaking the law and passing too close (as happens there all of the time) or you can claim your road space. They're your choices; which do you pick?
> 
> ...




Ok,carry on the way your going.


----------



## Cab (22 Jul 2008)

Graham O said:


> It seems to me that you are taking the "give way to oncoming traffic" to an extreme. If, by proceeding, you force the other road user to change his actions, then you are not giving way. However, if the other user is unimpeded in his journey, then there is no need to give way and you can proceed.



True so far...



> I don't think that "give way to oncoming traffic" means that you cannot enter that stretch of road just because someone else is present on it.



Again, arguably true, but theres a clear stop line there and a very clear 'give way to oncoming traffic' sign; if the vehicle approaching is in the middle of the road then you don't enter, its that simple, because to do so requires the oncoming vehicle to change course.



> There is a subjective assessment of this based on experience, reading of the road etc and perhaps the car driver had seen you, had seen the sign and on the basis of the preceeding cyclist passing safely had concluded that you could also do so. Yes, you have a right to ride in primary, but is it worth an arguement over? I don't think so. You do. Who is right? Probably neither of us.



Yes, its worth the argument there, and its worth repeating again that the cyclist in front got a heck of a lot more room than most do there, because there was another cyclist behind him (me) making the motorist slow down and move out of the way. The normal scenario is that a car would pass the cyclist far, far too closely there, equidistant from the bollards and the cyclist, at best, thus reducing clearance on either side of the cyclist to less than a foot (far too close). 

If I approach in primary and hold my ground, then the car should not be coming into that zone. I've got priority, its my choice whether or not thats road space I want to share with an oncoming vehicle, not his. I choose not, because I see time and time again that to do otherwise is unsafe. If he enters my road space (the signs tell him that it is such) then he's in the wrong. Worth reminding him of that? I'll achieve nothing by not doing so.


----------



## magnatom (22 Jul 2008)

Guys,

I think at this stage, it doesn't matter if you agree with cab or not. The debate centres on two things:

1) Did cab have enough space? Some say yes, some may say no. I don't think anyone is going to change their mind, so there seems little point in further debate.

2) Should cab have said anything (particularly, what he did) to the driver. Some say things to drivers (I do) some don't. There are good arguments on both sides. Maybe cab should have let it pass, but to call it a rant is stretching things a tad. If you think that is a rant, best to hide in your bed all day . Again I don't think agreement will be reached. (there is a bit of ranting on here!)

I have been on the receiving end of 'rants' on here. Whilst some of it is probably valid, it can go on a bit too far. Lets let it lie, at least until I post my next video.

(No chance of that at the moment, I'm at home with bad lurgy )


----------



## spindrift (22 Jul 2008)

The car couldn't even see the cyclist when the car entered. the driver did nowt wrong, IMO.


----------



## Cab (22 Jul 2008)

spindrift said:


> The car couldn't even see the cyclist when the car entered. the driver did nowt wrong, IMO.



Of course he could see me, and the cyclist in front. I could see him, clearly, waiting behind the line, he was static as I approached the narrow section, and when he started moving I was clearly in the middle of the lane. If he didn't see the oncoming traffic, it could only be because he didn't look.


----------



## Cab (22 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> 1) Did cab have enough space? Some say yes, some may say no. I don't think anyone is going to change their mind, so there seems little point in further debate.



When I have time I'll take some footage showing what happens if you scoot down the side of the oncoming vehicle, as many cyclists choose to do.


----------



## Graham O (22 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Guys,
> 
> I don't think anyone is going to change their mind, so there seems little point in further debate.




That has never stopped anyone on here before! I thought that endless ramblings and re-iterations were part of Cycle Chat.


----------



## Mr Pig (22 Jul 2008)

Are you people still talking about this? Good greif, man's probably died of old age by now!


----------



## magnatom (22 Jul 2008)

Graham O said:


> That has never stopped anyone on here before! I thought that endless ramblings and re-iterations were part of Cycle Chat.



No, no, I think your totally wrong there......


----------



## Cab (4 Feb 2009)

User3143 said:


> My point is...



Already answered. Read the damn thread.


----------



## BentMikey (4 Feb 2009)

I think this was over the grey area and into the land of excessive militancy.


----------



## adunn01 (4 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> Already answered. Read the damn thread.




The only thing that's still not clear to me is why it was safe for you to follow the other cyclist and pass through the gap between a moving truck and a bus but completely unsafe for you to follow when he comfortably passed a car with feet to spare because you'd spotted a sign telling the driver to give way to oncoming traffic.

Just smacked a little of confrontation for the sake of confrontation, safe in the knowledge you had a road sign you felt backed you up.

But then again, you can come back with the cutting "you're too passive if you don't agree with the way I behaved" and that'll be my opinion totally useless.


----------



## MacB (4 Feb 2009)

adunn01 said:


> The only thing that's still not clear to me is why it was safe for you to follow the other cyclist and pass through the gap between a moving truck and a bus but completely unsafe for you to follow when he comfortably passed a car with feet to spare because you'd spotted a sign telling the driver to give way to oncoming traffic.
> 
> Just smacked a little of confrontation for the sake of confrontation, safe in the knowledge you had a road sign you felt backed you up.
> 
> But then again, you can come back with the cutting "you're too passive if you don't agree with the way I behaved" and that'll be my opinion totally useless.



+1


----------



## thomas (4 Feb 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> +1




+2

There are times when there isn't room and that didn't look like one. If cars are going through at a sensible speed then it looked relativity safe.


----------



## Radius (4 Feb 2009)

+3

And you should try riding on London, the space it looks like you have would feel like riding with no traffic...


----------



## J4CKO (4 Feb 2009)

I reckon if it had been the other way round you would have jibbed through.

There was enough room, nobody was in danger, the other cyclist got through, just cos you can make a point doesnt mean you should do, its not very often I feel sorry for Audi drivers....


----------



## Cab (4 Feb 2009)

adunn01 said:


> The only thing that's still not clear to me is why it was safe for you to follow the other cyclist and pass through the gap between a moving truck and a bus



Never happened. The bus and the truck were static when I went past.



> but completely unsafe for you to follow when he comfortably passed a car with feet to spare because you'd spotted a sign telling the driver to give way to oncoming traffic.



Read the thread. The car slowed to a stop and a gap emerged sufficiently wide to pass entirely because I held the lane. I ride that route every day, if you don't do as I did then the car will accelerate through the gap leaving minimum passing distance, which is unsafe and there have been numerous incidents in which cyclists have been clipped there doing precisely what you'd have me do (shopkeepers in that street have recently raised awareness of the dangers of that road, specifically citing this risk). Don't tell the guy and he'll do it tomorrow to. Stop and tell him and next time you see him he doesn't do it; yes, I've experience of doing that there, over, and over. 



> Just smacked a little of confrontation for the sake of confrontation, safe in the knowledge you had a road sign you felt backed you up.
> 
> But then again, you can come back with the cutting "you're too passive if you don't agree with the way I behaved" and that'll be my opinion totally useless.



You are too passive if you believe that you should do as you suggest here; the evidence is that a number of cyclists have been clipped doing that on Magdalene Street and, to my knowledge, no one holding primary and explaining the errors made by an oncoming motorist has.


----------



## Cab (4 Feb 2009)

J4CKO said:


> I reckon if it had been the other way round you would have jibbed through.
> 
> There was enough room, nobody was in danger, the other cyclist got through, just cos you can make a point doesnt mean you should do, its not very often I feel sorry for Audi drivers....



Read the damn thread. The other cyclist got through with plenty of room because I was holding the lane, ride that route close to the kerb on your own and it doesn't happen, the car will be positioned between you and the bollards on the other side with inches to spare either side, on a route on which a gutter position is unsafe anyway because of the pedestrian access points on either side of the road (openings into Magdalene College through which there is a pretty steady stream of pedestrians during the day).


----------



## Cab (4 Feb 2009)

thomas said:


> +2
> 
> There are times when there isn't room and that didn't look like one. If cars are going through at a sensible speed then it looked relativity safe.



If you don't slow 'em down then they do not go through there at a sensible speed; there is a 20mph limit there which, according to traders there recently raising the issue in the local press, is regularly flouted. Bluntly, hold your lane or you don't get any space at all.


----------



## Cab (4 Feb 2009)

Radius said:


> +3
> 
> And you should try riding on London, the space it looks like you have would feel like riding with no traffic...



I've ridden sufficiently in London to know its not that different. Head on, I won't pass a moving car in a constriction like that anywhere, under any circumstances.


----------



## col (4 Feb 2009)

The confrontation was not neccesary, a case of not giving because you had the right, and a point prover nothing else. There was nothing dangerous there other than you holding the line you did,to force the car to slow even more so you could have your say.


----------



## Cab (4 Feb 2009)

You've a short memory Col, you're repeating yourself again.


----------



## col (4 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> You've a short memory Col, you're repeating yourself again.




Mmm your right, sorry bout that


----------



## MacB (4 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> Read the damn thread. quote]
> 
> read it and watched the vid and still felt you were over the top. Not the first time you've posted 'read the damn thread' either. Might one suggest a 'chill pill'


----------



## Cab (4 Feb 2009)

MacBludgeon;574998][quote=Cab said:


> Read the damn thread. quote]
> 
> read it and watched the vid and still felt you were over the top. Not the first time you've posted 'read the damn thread' either. Might one suggest a 'chill pill'



I'm chilled, but at my best totally intolerant of being asked to repeat myself.


----------



## adunn01 (4 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> I'm chilled, but at my best totally intolerant of being asked to repeat myself.



i suspect you're having to repeat yourself because despite the opinions of so many fellow cyclists suggesting you might be in the wrong you're completely unwilling to admit the possibility your actions were unnecessary. 

Your repeating yourself in the whole debate has basically consisted of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "i'm right i'm right im right" (no doubt while you squeeze your bike between two hgvs, eyes closed, before stopping an old lady in a 2CV to tell her she's far too close to your bike).


----------



## 4F (4 Feb 2009)

I thought this thread was dead and buried, thanks Lee  Still think you were wrong cab and you could have got a bus through that gap B)


----------



## Bollo (4 Feb 2009)

So it goes.

Despite being a card-carrying cammunist, I've always tried to avoid making judgements on people's cycling skills based on video evidence. This thread is a good example why I don't think it's a good idea. The words of explanation in the OP and all the experience of riding that bit of road day-to-day just get lost beneath a few seconds of footage.

I can think of two examples from recent experience. The first is when I came close to a fight with a courier over a close pass. I got home, looked at the footage and......it was close, but I'll get maybe one of those a week and live with it without risking an appearance in court for affray.

The second example is how I deal with this junction, crossing Pack Lane from SE to NW. If I showed footage of how I enter the ASL at the lights, but then usually pull into some neutral space and indicate to any following drivers to pass when the lights change, most people on here would think 'huh?' (apart from col. col would get a semi).

But from experience I know that its almost impossible to control the space crossing the junction, that the ASL is on a nasty little incline that makes it difficult to clip in and go quickly, that there's a sharp pinch point on the junction exit, that the road goes to the national speed limit that tempts drivers to overtake when it's unsafe due to the way the road bends, even that there's one of those little roadside shrines to a kid who was killed on a bike a few years ago about 50 yards down the road that I can never pass without feeling sad and mortal.

All these things wouldn't come across in the footage, but no amount of criticism would make me take it any differently. Ride it and then make your judgements.


----------



## Bollo (4 Feb 2009)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> I thought this thread was dead and buried


Sorry!B)


----------



## boydj (4 Feb 2009)

Good post, Bollo.


----------



## col (4 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> So it goes.
> 
> Despite being a card-carrying cammunist, I've always tried to avoid making judgements on people's cycling skills based on video evidence. This thread is a good example why I don't think it's a good idea. The words of explanation in the OP and all the experience of riding that bit of road day-to-day just get lost beneath a few seconds of footage.
> 
> ...





Only if you gently bumped into me bigbo er bollo


----------



## mr_hippo (5 Feb 2009)

I promised myself that I would not comment any more on numpty cyclists displaying their imcompetence and blaming other road users but...
Have you read the Highway Code and I don't mean just looked at the pretty pictures? From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069856
What do you think "Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident." means?
It may help if you change your user name here and on youtube to "R Sole".


----------



## Lurker (5 Feb 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> .... From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069856
> What do you think "Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident." means?....



Or, to give the full quote from the above section of the Highway Code:


"103-158: General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."


----------



## Origamist (5 Feb 2009)

Apologies, FFFF. I provided a link to this thread as part of my role as Cyclechat's Information-Dissemination Commissar.

When Bollo abstains from the postprandial port, he talks a lot of sense. Proffering advice, (but mostly criticism), from one's office chair or sofa is easy - riding a route day in day out and negotiating trouble-spots is not. I know how I might ride in a given situation, but I also know that this might not be the best course of action as local knowledge can be invaluable. For this reason, I try to attach as much worth to the OP's opinions as I do the footage (which is limited and stands in isolation). 

For example, Mr Hippo's Thailand footage makes more sense to me when he explains his road position and tactics.


----------



## magnatom (5 Feb 2009)

Another +1 for Bollo's post. This is exactly the situation for my roundabout exit. Experience has taught me that if I don't take a good line (and it wasn't quite far enough right in the taxi incident) then I get problems. No amount of analysis of a video can tease out that experience. Not that there isn't merit in debating, however, for those that haven't been there, you have to place a reasonable amount of weight on the OP's description of his experiences.

I actually came across another cyclist on yacf the other day who has used my roundabout exit on regular basis. He also agrees that a primary line is the best. That is 3 cyclists who have been there and agree with me. That has to count for something.

So I say, lets give cab the benefit of the doubt, as he knows this junction better than anyone here.


----------



## magnatom (5 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> For example, Mr Hippo's Thailand footage makes more sense to me when he explains his road position and tactics.



Ah, but do Mr Hippo's posts make any sense...


----------



## Bollo (5 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> When Bollo abstains from the postprandial port, he talks a lot of sense.


In vino veritas


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (5 Feb 2009)

The cyclist has priority, he was almost overtaking the other cyclist (quite legitimately) and was forced to change his riding due to a knob in a car who doesn't want to abide by the rules as it's only a cyclist.


----------



## BentMikey (5 Feb 2009)

I think Cab was fine in taking primary and making the motorist slow down, although in fairness I couldn't see that driver demonstrating any signs of speed or aggression. Where he gets militant is the angry and whining lecture he gave the car driver. That was out of order and unnecessary.


----------



## Cab (5 Feb 2009)

adunn01 said:


> i suspect you're having to repeat yourself because despite the opinions of so many fellow cyclists suggesting you might be in the wrong you're completely unwilling to admit the possibility your actions were unnecessary.



So the others voicing support mean I'm right then?



> Your repeating yourself in the whole debate has basically consisted of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "i'm right i'm right im right" (no doubt while you squeeze your bike between two hgvs, eyes closed, before stopping an old lady in a 2CV to tell her she's far too close to your bike).



So, you haven't read the thread then (even my response to your post where I explained that the bus and the van were static). I've explained what happens at that location if you don't do as I did; do you dispute that claim? Have you ridden there? Once? Twice? Frequently? Never?


----------



## Cab (5 Feb 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> I promised myself that I would not comment any more on numpty cyclists displaying their imcompetence and blaming other road users but...
> Have you read the Highway Code and I don't mean just looked at the pretty pictures? From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069856
> What do you think "Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident." means?
> It may help if you change your user name here and on youtube to "R Sole".



Points already dealt with, read the damn thread, and stop being insulting.


----------



## Cab (5 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I think Cab was fine in taking primary and making the motorist slow down, although in fairness I couldn't see that driver demonstrating any signs of speed or aggression. Where he gets militant is the angry and whining lecture he gave the car driver. That was out of order and unnecessary.



This harks back to a plint I made in Magnatoms thread.

You think its un-necessary... Well, okay, fine, but so what? Are we now compelled never to tell others when they've made an error because it isn't strictly speaking necessary?

I also dispute whether its unnecessary. You see the same cars, same drivers, on the same section of road, day in, day out. Dunno about that particular driver, but I know for a fact that those I've stopped there and told not to do it again have behaved better when I've come across them again, at the same point. Bluntly, making enough noise such that passers by stare at the situation, such that you actually get heard through the glass, well, it works. Necessary? Only in the interest of making the road safer.


----------



## MacB (5 Feb 2009)

Cab, it's a forum, discussion, disagreement, and all that, you proffered up the vid and explanation. We merely viewed, assessed and commented, maybe the video does portray the situation badly, in which case you shouldn't have posted it in support of your point. The lecture to the driver, and the 'you'll be on youtube in an hour, you will', didn't come across too well. But that's only my opinion, if all you ever want to hear is you were right then the net isn't the place for that


----------



## Cab (5 Feb 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> Cab, it's a forum, discussion, disagreement, and all that, you proffered up the vid and explanation. We merely viewed, assessed and commented, maybe the video does portray the situation badly, in which case you shouldn't have posted it in support of your point. The lecture to the driver, and the 'you'll be on youtube in an hour, you will', didn't come across too well. But that's only my opinion, if all you ever want to hear is you were right then the net isn't the place for that



The 'you'll be on youtube' line really does work. If you've got a guy glowering at you, point at the camera and say he'll be on youtube, most often you see a complete tranformation in how they act. 

Your idea that robustly correcting criticism that is incorrect shows a lack of being willing to engage with criticism... I find that odd.


----------



## col (5 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> The 'you'll be on youtube' line really does work. If you've got a guy glowering at you, point at the camera and say he'll be on youtube, most often you see a complete tranformation in how they act.
> 
> Your idea that robustly correcting criticism that is incorrect shows a lack of being willing to engage with criticism... I find that odd.




Your glowering guy is going to be your undoing eventually, when he decides being threatened with public humiliation, even if he did nothing wrong, or made a mistake, when he was forcibly stopped and lectured even with plenty of room and he was moving slowly anyway. You really need to see it from another perspective, if not for all cyclists sakes, as we are it seems being seen more like you and others, but for your own good too.

If you cant see the point people are making, then your very blinkered in your ways, and i dont like the idea of being generalised into a group that do what you and others do with drivers just to prove something. There isnt a collective name for your group, but im sure someone could suggest some.


----------



## MacB (5 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> The 'you'll be on youtube' line really does work. If you've got a guy glowering at you, point at the camera and say he'll be on youtube, most often you see a complete tranformation in how they act.
> 
> Your idea that robustly correcting criticism that is incorrect shows a lack of being willing to engage with criticism... I find that odd.



Let's put it another way if, at some point in the future, I see one of your videos portraying a very dark tunnel with lots of background screaming, I won't be surprised. I'll be guessing that you gave the 'lecture' to the wrong driver and are now having the camera surgially removed


----------



## Cab (5 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Your glowering guy is going to be your undoing eventually, when he decides being threatened with public humiliation, even if he did nothing wrong, or made a mistake, when he was forcibly stopped and lectured even with plenty of room



(remainder cut unread)

Read the damn thread.


----------



## Cab (5 Feb 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> Let's put it another way if, at some point in the future, I see one of your videos portraying a very dark tunnel with lots of background screaming, I won't be surprised. I'll be guessing that you gave the 'lecture' to the wrong driver and are now having the camera surgially removed



We'll see. The only time I've been physically assaulted while on my bike was when I didn't have a camera; guy got out of a van, with witnesses, and pushed me off the road. I rekon I could have stopped him had I had a camera back then to point at.


----------



## mr_hippo (5 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> Points already dealt with, read the damn thread, and stop being insulting.



I have read the thread. If you acted civilised in the first place then the incident would never have happened. How did I insult you?
Is parrot food part of you diet? "Read the damn thread, read the damn thread, read the damn thread, read the damn thread....."
You were in the wrong, live with it and learn from your mistake.


----------



## col (5 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> We'll see. The only time I've been physically assaulted while on my bike was when I didn't have a camera; guy got out of a van, with witnesses, and pushed me off the road. I rekon I could have stopped him had I had a camera back then to point at.



Ah so here is the point, you really feel safer from people who might react badly to you because of your mannerism to them. Some sort of star trek shield perhaps? 

Some dont think twice about smashing news cameras when they feel threatened with them, what makes you think a pendantic cyclist pointing at a cctv will be any different?


----------



## adunn01 (5 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> So, you haven't read the thread then (even my response to your post where I explained that the bus and the van were static).?



I read your post about the static van and bus, and then watched the video again a few times. The truck comes into view at the start of the clip and is just passing a bollard at the corner, then it reappears and the rear of the truck hasn't yet come in line with the white van going in the opposite direction, then as you pass the truck's about to come fully in line with the bus. If it is static as you claim it is far from from parked and may have slowed virtually to a complete stop almost exactly as you pass. It's disengenious of you to claim it static as if you're moving between two parked/stopped vehicles. The truck is in the process of passing the bus, albeit maybe in a slow fashion due to the lack of space between the two vehicles. For someone so concerned with his own safety, it seems like a strange decision for you to pass in such circumstances.



Cab said:


> I've explained what happens at that location if you don't do as I did; do you dispute that claim? Have you ridden there? Once? Twice? Frequently? Never?



You've explained. But I don't believe you. And the cyclist 5 yards in front of you shows what appears to happen. Everyone safely gets through the gap.


----------



## Cab (5 Feb 2009)

adunn01 said:


> I read your post about the static van and bus, and then watched the video again a few times. The truck comes into view at the start of the clip and is just passing a bollard at the corner, then it reappears and the rear of the truck hasn't yet come in line with the white van going in the opposite direction, then as you pass the truck's about to come fully in line with the bus. If it is static as you claim it is far from from parked and may have slowed virtually to a complete stop almost exactly as you pass. It's disengenious of you to claim it static as if you're moving between two parked/stopped vehicles. The truck is in the process of passing the bus, albeit maybe in a slow fashion due to the lack of space between the two vehicles. For someone so concerned with his own safety, it seems like a strange decision for you to pass in such circumstances.



The truck had stopped because there was not room for it to go forward until the lights changed, allowing the traffic (of which the bus was part) to move forward. The lights weren't going to change for a while, neither the van nor the bus were going anywhere. It was perfectly safe to move between two static vehicles.




> You've explained. But I don't believe you. And the cyclist 5 yards in front of you shows what appears to happen. Everyone safely gets through the gap.



So you haven't read the thread then. Everyone does not safely get through that gap, there have been numerous knocks on cyclists reported there, according to recent press reports


----------



## Cab (5 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Ah so here is the point, you really feel safer from people who might react badly to you because of your mannerism to them. Some sort of star trek shield perhaps?



What planet are you from? What the heck are you talking about here? 

Point out at someone who is acting threateningly that they're on camera and most often they back off; its the experience of police forces employing this kind of technology all over the country, and its the experience of camera users posting here. What don't you believe about that?




> Some dont think twice about smashing news cameras when they feel threatened with them, what makes you think a pendantic cyclist pointing at a cctv will be any different?



Earth to Planet Col... Earth to Planet Col... Whats the weather like there? Its pretty s**t here but at least we don't have to worry about rampaging mobs targetting tiny cameras in the hope of getting away with destroying memory chips.


----------



## BentMikey (5 Feb 2009)

Cab, do you really think this sort of strident and aggressive posting is appropriate behaviour for a moderator? Perhaps you should step down if you're going to behave like this.


----------



## Cab (5 Feb 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> I have read the thread.


(cut)

Then why waste time stating something that has already been refuted, i.e. that it would be safe to scoot down the side to avoid an 'incident'? The highway code invites us to give way to avoid incident, but not at the expense of our own safety.



> How did I insult you?





> It may help if you change your user name here and on youtube to "R Sole



If that, to you, is not merely insulting, then really, don't waste my time posting threads directed at me, because your level of 'conversation' is contemptible.

(further irrelevent abuse cut)


----------



## Cab (5 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Cab, do you really think this sort of strident and aggressive posting is appropriate behaviour for a moderator? Perhaps you should step down if you're going to behave like this.



*shrug* This is why we have a team of moderators. It isn't up to each of us, individually, to moderate a discussion in which we're taking part. 

Aggressive? I don't accept that. Strident? Why, yes.


----------



## J4CKO (5 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> but I know for a fact that those I've stopped there and told not to do it again have behaved better when I've come across them again, at the same point.



I did read the "Damn Thread"

Sounds to me like you are looking all the time for an opportunity to berate motorists, willing them to do something so you can go into full on "Road Captain" mode.

I am all for not having the piss taken by motorists but I also feel there is a line to be drawn, as for them behaving better, they are thinking "Oh here's that mental cyclist again, dont want him ranting through the window again" which is good in a way but may alienate and antagonise some drivers into behaving worse towards us.

I dont think that partiulcar driver was bullying, he seemed to be going slowly, he just saw that the way was mostly free and went through, a bit of give and take would suggest you move over a little instead of claiming the whole road, it wasnt like he blasted through and made you swerve into the pavement, I think he was just making a judgement, it just wasnt agressive.


----------



## mr_hippo (5 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> (cut)
> 
> Then why waste time stating something that has already been refuted, i.e. that it would be safe to scoot down the side to avoid an 'incident'? The highway code invites us to give way to avoid incident, but not at the expense of our own safety.
> 
> ...


I will understand if English is not your native language but 'scooting down the side' and 'giving way' are not the same. You not only put yourself in danger but provoked the situation.
The 'R Sole' remark was merely a humourous suggestion.
At least I have a level of conversation far in excess of your's and do not repeat myself parrot fashion.


----------



## adunn01 (5 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> The truck had stopped because there was not room for it to go forward until the lights changed, allowing the traffic (of which the bus was part) to move forward. The lights weren't going to change for a while, neither the van nor the bus were going anywhere. It was perfectly safe to move between two static vehicles.



Sorry, but if it was static and there was no space for it to pass the bus why was it alongside the bus having moved there all the way through your video. If it was static and not slow moving why are it's rear sidelights on but not its brakelights. And if there was no room for it to pass the bus how was there room for you to fit your bike through the gap safely.

Lets face it, the truck was clearly moving and you clearly carried out a manoeuvre in passing it which doesn't fit with your subsequent safety rant.


----------



## joebe (5 Feb 2009)

People, FFS, you turn your back for a few weeks and it all kicks off again (Pru!!!!!).

Why argue, Cab's never going to admit he was wrong/aggressive/intollerant/bullying, so just leave it until the next episode of "Cab Cam in your face" so we can all have a laugh again.


----------



## Maz (5 Feb 2009)

I've cycled down Magdalene Street many a time and never had a problem riding down the side of oncoming cars. There's tons of space to get by. No need to have a go at the driver, IMO.


----------



## 4F (5 Feb 2009)

Maz said:


> I've cycled down Magdalene Street many a time and never had a problem riding down the side of oncoming cars. There's tons of space to get by. No need to have a go at the driver, IMO.



Maz but have you read all of the thread


----------



## Maz (5 Feb 2009)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Maz but have you read all of the thread


[cab]I don't have to. YOU should all give way to MY oncoming comment, OK? You will remember that in future, won't you? Good.[/cab]


----------



## col (5 Feb 2009)

Cab said:


> What planet are you from? What the heck are you talking about here?
> 
> Point out at someone who is acting threateningly that they're on camera and most often they back off; its the experience of police forces employing this kind of technology all over the country, and its the experience of camera users posting here. What don't you believe about that?
> 
> ...




Mork calling orson(does anyone remember that?) It was my attempt at humour which wasnt picked up on I think you will find the police cams are mainly for evidence and proof, I dont honestly think it was because they were getting attacked on a regular basis?

I do think however that you get a false sense of security with the camera, and this seems to be shown by your reasoning to have one so you can point to it while its being shoved somewhere the sun dont shine(possibly)


----------



## hackbike 666 (5 Feb 2009)




----------



## hackbike 666 (6 Feb 2009)

Sure beats banging my head against a brick wall.


----------

