# Smidgaf - video - would you report this



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

Based on this 


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Yw3J5Rt1k&feature=youtube_gdata_player


??


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

Mini roundabouts are tricky, i'm generally very cautious on them (both on bike and in car) as some people just don't have any idea how they work!

I would personally just write it off and learn from it, why?
I don't think your position is the best at the start, your lights are probably out done by the cars and you just blend in from the drivers point of view. He will see the car to your left taking the first exit and on that note will go, which is perfectly fine. You would be better off waiting behind the car, this will help keep you a bit more visible and will probably keep you out of conflicts like this.

I think the major issue here is the him cutting across the roundabout, which is what did bring the two of you into conflict. With only seeing the road from the video, I would guess that this is something he is going to have to do, as there is little chance of him taking the roundabout properly.

I wouldn't say you have right of way over the bus, he is meant to give priority to those on the right, but he was just on the roundabout before you, you should give priority to those who are already on it. What doesn't help is our size and the lines that we take, i've had many a conflict before because I took a mini roundabout a lot quicker and sharper than any cars do, so keep that in mind.

At the end of it, mini roundabouts are tricky, and stuff like this is bound to happen, the trick is to read the situation and have patience.


----------



## tongskie01 (14 Jan 2012)

let it go. might have not seen you because your along side another car.


----------



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> Mini roundabouts are tricky, i'm generally very cautious on them (both on bike and in car) as some people just don't have any idea how they work!
> 
> I would personally just write it off and learn from it, why?
> I don't think your position is the best at the start, your lights are probably out done by the cars and you just blend in from the drivers point of view. He will see the car to your left taking the first exit and on that note will go, which is perfectly fine. You would be better off waiting behind the car, this will help keep you a bit more visible and will probably keep you out of conflicts like this.
> ...




Appreciate the response - ill take it on board mate

Gaz


----------



## mr_hippo (14 Jan 2012)

Yes, you must submit all videos to this forum`s approval action committee before taking any further action.


----------



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Yes, you must submit all videos to this forum`s approval action committee before taking any further action.


 
It's about being a better rider , comments like Gaz's wouldn't reach me ,, had I not posted the video, however, his words make sense when I think about

WTF is your issue Pete ??????


----------



## subaqua (14 Jan 2012)

most drivers don't understand that you treat a mini roundabout the same as you do a normal roundabout. and the bus doesn't bend in the middle to go round the thing as gaz says it might have been harder for him to see you due to the positioning of yourself by the car on the approach.

would I have done the same- probably


----------



## 400bhp (14 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Yes, you must submit all videos to this forum`s approval action committee before taking any further action.


 
why the apostrophe?


----------



## 400bhp (14 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> It's about being a better rider , comments like Gaz's wouldn't reach me ,, had I not posted the video, however, his words make sense when I think about


 


Let it go boss - drivers do make mistakes.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Jan 2012)

subaqua said:


> most drivers don't understand that you treat a mini roundabout the same as you do a normal roundabout. and the bus doesn't bend in the middle to go round the thing as gaz says it might have been harder for him to see you due to the positioning of yourself by the car on the approach.
> 
> would I have done the same- probably


 
Potentially, he may have been obscured by his b-pillar too?


----------



## potsy (14 Jan 2012)

I think Gaz has summed it up nicely, not my favourite things those mini rabs, always wary myself of them especially with a vehicle that big.
Best to give way and live to fight another day,stay safe Gaz(the op)


----------



## 400bhp (14 Jan 2012)

I shouted at van driver turning across my path last week. I forgot there was a mini r'about there. Most of the paint has rubbed off and it was dark. That's my excuse and I'm stcking to it. 

Mini roundabouts are fiddle.


----------



## Norm (14 Jan 2012)

Have you got a head-light, Gaz? I've found that they help drivers to differentiate you from surrounding traffic more easily.

As for reporting the driver, I'm not sure as the bus entered the roundabout at the same time that you did. It is possible that he didn't see you (although there is an element of "victim blaming") there as you were tucked behind / beside the dark grey car and, even if he did see you, it's very unlikely that he could have seen that you were indicating.



mr_hippo said:


> Yes, you must submit all videos to this forum`s approval action committee before taking any further action.





400bhp said:


> why the apostrophe?


Because it should be there?


----------



## I like Skol (14 Jan 2012)

potsy said:


> Best to give way and live to fight another day,stay safe Gaz(the op)


 
I do that same roundabout going both ways on my commute gaz and it is pretty sh*te during peak times with continuous traffic flow from all directions. As has already been said, probably best not to try and negotiate it by the rules of what 'should' happen but to simply make sure you get across it safely. Not worth a trip to A&E to make your point!

It's even worse when it rains as a large 5-6ft wide puddle forms at the left side and because I am going left (as seen from your POV) I have to move to the right of the lane when there is a queue of cars & trucks trying to keep me pinned in to the kerb and then getting confused, so trying to undertake me as they think I am going right (despite signalling left!).

Just keep your wits about you and get home safely


----------



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

Norm said:


> Have you got a head-light, Gaz? I've found that they help drivers to differentiate you from surrounding traffic more easily.
> 
> As for reporting the driver, I'm not sure as the bus entered the roundabout at the same time that you did. It is possible that he didn't see you (although there is an element of "victim blaming") there as you were tucked behind / beside the dark grey car and, even if he did see you, it's very unlikely that he could have seen that you were indicating.
> 
> ...




Norm

No, no head light ( only just using a helmet but that's another day ) it's a good point and something I'll look into , how many $'s are we looking at ?


----------



## gb155 (14 Jan 2012)

I like Skol said:


> I do that same roundabout going both ways on my commute gaz and it is pretty sh*te during peak times with continuous traffic flow from all directions. As has already been said, probably best not to try and negotiate it by the rules of what 'should' happen but to simply make sure you get across it safely. Not worth a trip to A&E to make your point!
> 
> It's even worse when it rains as a large 5-6ft wide puddle forms at the left side and because I am going left (as seen from your POV) I have to move to the right of the lane when there is a queue of cars & trucks trying to keep me pinned in to the kerb and then getting confused, so trying to undertake me as they think I am going right (despite signalling left!).
> 
> Just keep your wits about you and get home safely




Agreed it shitty and worse in the rain - I do that roundabout both ways daily now too, might see ya


----------



## Norm (14 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Norm
> 
> No, no head light ( only just using a helmet but that's another day ) it's a good point and something I'll look into , how many $'s are we looking at ?


That depends on how many $s you want to spend? 

Mine is a Exposure Joystick, lots of money (around £150) but some significant benefits too. It's a very light self-contained unit, the battery lasts well over 20 hours on low power, which is what I use 95%+ of the time, you can get a Red Eye Micro so it also gives you a powerful rear light on your head and a tenner gets you a headband so it can be worn without a helmet. I don't like attaching things to my helmet, for many reasons, so this last one makes all the difference, I can, and do, use the Joystick every ride whether or not I'm wearing a lid.

As for the general benefits of any headtorch:

the different height makes it easier to separate you from traffic
lighting where you are looking is invaluable if you ever ride off road or if you have tight corners, as you can see stuff long before your bars are pointing in that direction. And head-height low twigs and branches are illuminated.
"Glancing" at a driver will get their attention in ways that you just cannot emulate with bar-mounted lights, whether it's to try and prevent a SMIDSY or to let them know you are there so they dip their own headlights.
On a night-time road ride on unlit tarmac, you will see all sorts of stuff (wildlife etc) happening in the hedges and woodlands beside the road.
Looking into parked cars lights them up so you can see if they are occupied and about to pull out on you.
Should you get a problem with your bike, you have a powerful light on whatever you are doing but with free hands
The main downside is that the light is very close to your eyes, so you don't get the depth perception from shadows that you get when there's a 2ft parallax offset from a bar-mounted light.


----------



## Nebulous (14 Jan 2012)

i've been using a 1 watt led headlight from TKMaxx for less than a fiver. They had a lot of cycling stuff in over Christmas. It has a fairly focused beam with half power, full power and flashing modes. I tend to only use it when its properly dark, but it definitely makes a difference in how cars respond.


----------



## Norm (14 Jan 2012)

Nebulous said:


> i've been using a 1 watt led headlight from TKMaxx for less than a fiver


 Yes, I should have pointed out that there are many benefits, IMO, from a head-mounted light but they do vary between lit / urban and unlit / rural riding.

For unlit rides, to get a torch which you can use to see with, you are looking at, IMO, £50+ but there are many possibilities, from TK Maxx, Millets, Maplin, Robert Dyas etc for considerably less than that if you just want to catch the attention of other road users.

In your video, for instance Gaz, a head torch would have been above the roof of the car you were following and easily seen by the bus driver. If you had been wearing one and he still pulled out like that, at least you would have been more certain that he was driving like a cock rather than a SMIDSY.


----------



## Crackle (14 Jan 2012)

Mini rdbts are poo. People pull out on you if you're driving a tank, car, bike, riding a camel or dressed in full cowboy gear on a mustang and lit up like a xmas tree, it doesn't matter. Gaz said it all, we can only re-inforce the mesage to expect the unexpected or as Donald would say, the expected, unexpecteds.


----------



## PpPete (14 Jan 2012)

There's mini roundabout that I have to go through on a regular basis, but usually only in daylight. I expect to get carved up in similar fashion to the OP on every trip through it. My hands are covering the brakes every single time. I've yet to hit a car but it's been close on several recent occasions and I had a major shock the other day.... a WVM actually stopped and gave way to me ! Nearly fell off in surprise !


----------



## HLaB (14 Jan 2012)

Let it Go; I usually give more leeway to buses as I rather have one them with half a dozen passengers than 6 extra cars on the road.


----------



## Thomk (14 Jan 2012)

It's likely that busses do this to cars as well as bikes there since, as gaz said, it's probably nearly impossible for them to get out otherwise. I've slowed down many times for busses & Lorries on roundabouts (while in my car) even when I have priority. As long as it's not dangerous and just falls into the "irritating" category it seems fine to me.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

He was actually already moving across the roundabout before you got to him. You should have given way, instead of posting this vid and trying to make something out of nothing.


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (14 Jan 2012)

Your approach into the roundabout was too fast.

(21 years driving, two lots of advanced driving instruction from the i.a.m and no accidents/convictions to my name).


----------



## Thomk (14 Jan 2012)

Approach speed seemed fine to me.

(28 years driving, advanced ADI driving and theory instruction from the DOT and no fault accidents/convictions to my name. 25m front crawl and best at marbles in my class, reception & year 1).


----------



## zizou (14 Jan 2012)

IMO the bus looks to be moving onto the roundabout before you were.

Even if that wasn't the case it is very marginal anyway really not worth reporting or complaining about - if you are to complain about all "incidents" of this magnitude you'll never be doing anything other than filling out complaint forms!


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (14 Jan 2012)

Thomk said:


> Approach speed seemed fine to me.
> 
> (28 years driving, advanced ADI driving and theory instruction from the DOT and no fault accidents/convictions to my name. 25m front crawl and best at marbles in my class, reception & year 1).


 
I'll re-phrase:
Your approach into the roundabout was too fast, you need to be more prepared to deal with other peoples mistakes by reducing speed.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

Thomk said:


> It's likely that busses do this to cars as well as bikes there since, as gaz said, it's probably nearly impossible for them to get out otherwise. I've slowed down many times for busses & Lorries on roundabouts (while in my car) even when I have priority. As long as it's not dangerous and just falls into the "irritating" category it seems fine to me.


 Most dont realise that some busses cant accelerate very quickly, very slowly actually.


----------



## Thomk (14 Jan 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> I'll re-phrase:
> Your approach into the roundabout was too fast, you need to be more prepared to deal with other peoples mistakes by reducing speed.


 
Did you watch the vid? Any slower and he would have been going backwards. He dealt with the "mistake" of the bus driver perfectly safely and properly.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

Thomk said:


> Did you watch the vid? Any slower and he would have been going backwards. He dealt with the "mistake" of the bus driver perfectly safely and properly.


 There was no mistake on the bus driver, the mistake was forcing the so called incident. Some busses dont move off very quickly at all, it looks like this has happened. And even though the bus is halfway to the roundabout before the cyclist enters it, the cyclist decides to make something out of nothing.


----------



## Thomk (14 Jan 2012)

col said:


> There was no mistake on the bus driver, the mistake was forcing the so called incident. Some busses dont move off very quickly at all, it looks like this has happened. And even though the bus is halfway to the roundabout before the cyclist enters it, the cyclist decides to make something out of nothing.


I didn't say it was a mistake by the bus, hence the quote marks to emphasise that I was simply quoting fenlandpsetcetcetc.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

Actually on looking and relooking, It shows you as being a mag..... no Id better not say it.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

Thomk said:


> I didn't say it was a mistake by the bus, hence the quote marks to emphasise that I was simply quoting fenlandpsetcetcetc.


 Of course, Im sorry if i came across wrongly, I was simply stating the way it looks, so as not to carry the word mistake, in relation to the bus driver, as there was no mistake made.


----------



## gaz (14 Jan 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Your approach into the roundabout was too fast.
> 
> (21 years driving, two lots of advanced driving instruction from the i.a.m and no accidents/convictions to my name).


Why all the willy waving? It doesn't really make your opinion any more valuable than anyone else's.


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jan 2012)

You were of course indicating the direction you wished to take ?


----------



## boydj (14 Jan 2012)

Had the bus been a car, then the decision to go when he saw the vehicle to his right was turning left would have been unremarkable. And it does put him on the roundabout just about before the next vehicle gets there.


----------



## col (14 Jan 2012)

PpPete said:


> There's mini roundabout that I have to go through on a regular basis, but usually only in daylight. I expect to get carved up in similar fashion to the OP on every trip through it. My hands are covering the brakes every single time. I've yet to hit a car but it's been close on several recent occasions and I had a major shock the other day.... a WVM actually stopped and gave way to me ! Nearly fell off in surprise !


 You seriously believe the op was cut up by the bus?  we're doomed.


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

col said:


> There was no mistake on the bus driver, the mistake was forcing the so called incident. Some busses dont move off very quickly at all, it looks like this has happened. And even though the bus is halfway to the roundabout before the cyclist enters it, the cyclist decides to make something out of nothing.




The bus is half way round before I enter ? Jog on Man


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> The bus is half way round before I enter ? Jog on Man


 Check your vid again, the bus is halfway over the white line as you start to enter, you should have just held back a second or two. Result, no incident whatsoever.
And I hate jogging, too injury prone for my weight


----------



## dawesome (15 Jan 2012)

Vehicles should give way on a roundabout to vehicles coming from the right.

O Level Law, 1983.


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Check your vid again, the bus is halfway over the white line as you start to enter, you should have just held back a second or two. Result, no incident whatsoever.
> And I hate jogging, too injury prone for my weight




I take on board that Maybe the lens angle of the camera doesn't help but I was on it before he was

Power walk then ?


----------



## Norm (15 Jan 2012)

As I said, I do think that the bus was on the roundabout before Gaz but not "half way round".

I reckon Gaz enters around 6 seconds in and the bus' front wheels are over the line at that point.


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> I take on board that Maybe the lens angle of the camera doesn't help but I was on it before he was
> 
> Power walk then ?


 I think we would be better to agree to dissagree on this one then
And thats what I do, power walking is actually better for losing excess fat then running. its to do with the oxygen thats available to attatch itself to fat , so burning more off. If your out of breath there is less oxygen available to do this. I know I know, Iv opened myself right up to debate on this


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

Norm said:


> As I said, I do think that the bus was on the roundabout before Gaz but not "half way round".
> 
> I reckon Gaz enters around 6 seconds in and the bus' front wheels are over the line at that point.


 My wrong choice of words, half way OVER THE LINE I should have said.


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

col said:


> I think we would be better to agree to dissagree on this one then
> And thats what I do, power walking is actually better for losing excess fat then running. its to do with the oxygen thats available to attatch itself to fat , so burning more off. If your out of breath there is less oxygen available to do this. I know I know, Iv opened myself right up to debate on this




Agreed 

If only I knew that before I took up cycling, I could have then been successful in weight loss.....oh wait .....  only messing with ya


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Vehicles should give way on a roundabout to vehicles coming from the right.
> 
> O Level Law, 1983.


 Thats right, but when a vehicle, never mind a slow one, has already entered before anything on the right, it has the right of way.


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Agreed
> 
> If only I knew that before I took up cycling, I could have then been successful in weight loss.....oh wait .....  only messing with ya


 Its only recently I learned this too, could have been an adonis years ago if Id known


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

After re watching it again the video does show it in the light it happened 

And on the subject of light - its made me realise just how dark it is on that section - helmet light ftw I feel :0)


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Its only recently I learned this too, could have been an adonis years ago if Id known



Think of the money saved on bikes and kit too


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Think of the money saved on bikes and kit too


 Thats one thing Im happy to spend on, well when allowed.


----------



## Norm (15 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Thats one thing Im happy to spend on, well when allowed.


I have no idea why, possibly something to do with the Adonis reference earlier, but the first time I read that, I thought it ended "well endowed".


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

Norm said:


> I have no idea why, possibly something to do with the Adonis reference earlier, but the first time I read that, I thought it ended "well endowed".[/quote]
> 
> Anything but


----------



## gaz (15 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Thats right, but when a vehicle, never mind a slow one, has already entered before anything on the right, it has the right of way.


No such thing as right of way, it has priority.


----------



## Norm (15 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> No such thing as right of way, it has priority.


Is that not a touch pedantic, Gaz?

I think most people understood Col's post, even if his terminology may not stand up in court. IMO, picking him up on it ignores (or shows that you agree with) the point that he was making.


----------



## gaz (15 Jan 2012)

Norm said:


> Is that not a touch pedantic, Gaz?
> 
> I think most people understood Col's post, even if his terminology may not stand up in court. IMO, picking him up on it ignores (or shows that you agree with) the point that he was making.


I already said that the bus was on the roundabout before gaz in the second post :P


----------



## yello (15 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> but he was just on the roundabout before you


 
That's what it looked like to me as well. Though obviously it's difficult to know exactly where you were.

Personally, I'd let it go. At that time of day, in that weight of traffic, under those conditions you have to being extra vigilant.


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> No such thing as right of way, it has priority.


 Ok Im from the old school, means the same thing really though doesnt it.


----------



## gaz (15 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Ok Im from the old school, means the same thing really though doesnt it.


They essentially mean the same thing but the term 'right of way' is often used by people when they want to make them selves look more important than other road users.


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (15 Jan 2012)

Can someone prove how the fitment and use of a camera will reduce the risk of injury whilst cycling on public roads?
Possibly not.

I think they're more for capturing fun moments to share with mates, such as crashing into trees, falling off onto rocks, etc.


----------



## gb155 (15 Jan 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Can someone prove how the fitment and use of a camera will reduce the risk of injury whilst cycling on public roads?
> Possibly not.
> 
> I think they're more for capturing fun moments to share with mates, such as crashing into trees, falling off onto rocks, etc.



When I got hit by the van driver I was on a super long commute - I was 3 miles from work - however the battery had died so it didn't capture it

The wittiness were the ones that got the van driver well and truly nailed 

So no, it won't stop anything , it might not even capture what you need it to

But it's fun


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2012)

Well, of course they can't reduce or eliminate the incident being filmed, nobody thinks that. I think they can affect future driver behaviour by preventing a lot of the stuff we all see on a day to day basis.

OTOH the process of camera, edit, YouTube upload, registration indexed on Google (and/or company name if liveried vehicle), report to Roadsafe or police, and report to company, together with all the helmet camera news articles means that driver behaviour is getting affected. More and more drivers are noticing and chatting about the cameras, and more and more are experiencing the consequences of some misbehaviour around cyclists. There's a sea change in driver responsibility and behaviour now, thanks to camera use. It's no longer a case of mistreat the cyclist and laugh off the occasional one who complains when they have nothing to back up their side of the story to police.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Well, of course they can't reduce or eliminate the incident being filmed, nobody thinks that. I think they can affect future driver behaviour by preventing a lot of the stuff we all see on a day to day basis.
> 
> OTOH the process of camera, edit, YouTube upload, registration indexed on Google (and/or company name if liveried vehicle), report to Roadsafe or police, and report to company, together with all the helmet camera news articles means that driver behaviour is getting affected. More and more drivers are noticing and chatting about the cameras, and more and more are experiencing the consequences of some misbehaviour around cyclists. *There's a sea change in driver responsibility and behaviour now, thanks to camera use*. It's no longer a case of mistreat the cyclist and laugh off the occasional one who complains when they have nothing to back up their side of the story to police.


 
I haven't noticed any changes. Furthermore, if you believe that there has been a "sea change", then attributing all of that to camera use is ridiculous.

I'm bored of your posts on helmet cam use now tbh.


----------



## gaz (15 Jan 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Can someone prove how the fitment and use of a camera will reduce the risk of injury whilst cycling on public roads?
> Possibly not.
> 
> I think they're more for capturing fun moments to share with mates, such as crashing into trees, falling off onto rocks, etc.


To an individual or to all cyclists?
As soon as you start uploading any kind of material onto the internet of yourself cycling you are immediately open to being judged and criticised by others. If you cycle like a total plonker then you will be raised on that.
In turn that should make those of us that use them better than our previous selves as any kind of silly mistake by us will immediately be judged by others, thus we have to try and be squeaky clean.

As others have said before more, the more media attention that we get then hopefully the better as it should change drivers attitudes towards us and if people start being more cautious of us and around us then that can only be a good thing. (oh wait, you already complained about a guy that didn't overtake you on a duel carriageway, so maybe you don't like cautious drivers)


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> They essentially mean the same thing but the term 'right of way' is often used by people when they want to make them selves look more important than other road users.


 Your attempt to insult is rather childish gaz, I expected at least a direct name call from a man with your inteligence


----------



## gaz (15 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Your attempt to insult is rather childish gaz, I expected at least a direct name call from a man with your inteligence


I made no attempt to insult anyone.


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> To an individual or to all cyclists?
> As soon as you start uploading any kind of material onto the internet of yourself cycling you are immediately open to being judged and criticised by others. If you cycle like a total plonker then you will be raised on that.
> In turn that should make those of us that use them better than our previous selves as any kind of silly mistake by us will immediately be judged by others, thus we have to try and be squeaky clean.
> 
> As others have said before more, the more media attention that we get then hopefully the better as it should change drivers attitudes towards us and if people start being more cautious of us and around us then that can only be a good thing. (oh wait, you already complained about a guy that didn't overtake you on a duel carriageway, so maybe you don't like cautious drivers)


 Oh its changing drivers attitude towards us alright


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> I made no attempt to insult anyone.


 Oh good, nor I


----------



## potsy (15 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> I made no attempt to insult anyone.





col said:


> Oh good, nor I


 Thought it was compulsory in 'commuting'


----------



## gaz (15 Jan 2012)

potsy said:


> Thought it was compulsory in 'commuting'


Watch it or me and col will make an alliance and come for you!


----------



## fossyant (15 Jan 2012)

TBH use a camera if you feel like it - I used a cheap MD80 for a few months until my shoulder condition was sorted out medically.

I think any camera distracts on the 'users' direction.


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (15 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> (oh wait, you already complained about a guy that didn't overtake you on a duel carriageway, so maybe you don't like cautious drivers)


 
In my eyes he was damn right incompetant and worthy of mention.
I think i can tell the difference between a normal cautious driver and one that may be dangerous to us cyclists.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> I haven't noticed any changes. Furthermore, if you believe that there has been a "sea change", then attributing all of that to camera use is ridiculous.
> 
> I'm bored of your posts on helmet cam use now tbh.



Based on your logic, the government should disband all traffic policing, all speed cameras, all junction CCTV, all meter maids, etc, yes? That'd save the taxpayer a lot of money since none of these affect driving behaviour either, according to your logic.

Now I'm not suggesting camera cyclists are police in any way, but they are capable of bringing consequences in much the same way, and will have much the same effect.


----------



## col (15 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Based on your logic, the government should disband all traffic policing, all speed cameras, all junction CCTV, all meter maids, etc, yes? That'd save the taxpayer a lot of money since none of these affect driving behaviour either, according to your logic.
> 
> Now I'm not suggesting camera cyclists are police in any way, but they are capable of bringing consequences in much the same way, and will have much the same effect.


 
They dont have the same effect at all, they just annoy others when they are so rediculous in threatening people with youtube for normally nothing much. And dont get me started on the ones who cuase the problem in the first place eh "bent"


----------



## Bicycle (15 Jan 2012)

I do think there is sometimes a positive or helpful outcome to some helmet-cam footage, but to put this in even the same paragraph as the benefit brought by the traffic police, speed cameras, traffic wardens and similar seems like hyperbole to me.

I've shown my offspring a few helmet-cam vids on YouTube to demonstrate situations I can't just conjour up in real life on a whim... Thanks to some of the Helmet-Cam brigade for that.

I think that anyone claiming any profound benefit beyond occasional use as a training tool is believing their own PR rather more than might be healthy.

By all means amuse yourselves, but be sure to remember that it is largely about just that: amusing yourselves.

In that way it is alarmingly similar to this habit I have of posting on a web forum. I can dream all I want, but the net effect is zero.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Jan 2012)

Bicycle said:


> I do think there is sometimes a positive or helpful outcome to some helmet-cam footage, but to put this in even the same paragraph as the benefit brought by the traffic police, speed cameras, traffic wardens and similar seems like hyperbole to me.
> 
> I've shown my offspring a few helmet-cam vids on YouTube to demonstrate situations I can't just conjour up in real life on a whim... Thanks to some of the Helmet-Cam brigade for that.
> 
> ...


 
You have it spot on - every word.

I'm going to give something a go - ignore list. Nuff said.


----------



## subaqua (16 Jan 2012)

col said:


> They dont have the same effect at all, they just annoy others when they are so rediculous in threatening people with youtube for normally nothing much. *And dont get me started on the ones who cuase the problem in the first place eh* "bent"


 

what motorists who think its OK to drive like a tw@ without care or consideration for other road users, oh and for balance there are cylists out there who are the same and think laws do not apply to them either. some laws don't but the vast majority do . camera evidence there is worth its weight in gold.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jan 2012)

Yes, because 3 points and £60 is a so much worse consequence than being called in for an interview with your Transport Manager, and receiving a formal warning, or perhaps even losing your job, yes?


----------



## Origamist (16 Jan 2012)

I'd not report that, GB. 

It looks like you both get to the RaB at about the same time. In most similar situations, vehicles coming from the same direction as the bus will give way to you, but certainly not all - particularly if they are moving faster or have been waiting a while.

Someone not prepared to give way:


----------



## gaz (16 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1682955, member: 45"]I think that being so immersed in a practice can easily make you get things out of perspective. Personally I don't have a problem with *proper camera use*. I don't know whether I have respect or sympathy for those on here who are so heavily committed, but I recognise that some good comes out of it. Attributing a sea-change to camera use however is, I feel, several steps too far, and a result of the immersion.[/quote]
What is proper use?


----------



## Norm (16 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> What is proper use?


I think those four words are what this and many, many other similar threads have been discussing. 

With no definitive conclusion being found to date.


----------



## Jezston (16 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1683041, member: 45"]As an educational tool for road users, and where they bring benefit.[/quote]

So using them as evidence in a report isn't?


----------



## Jezston (16 Jan 2012)

Because I got the impression that you were suggesting it isn't.


----------



## Jezston (16 Jan 2012)

My apologies, I misread that initially as meaning their only proper use is as an educational tool for road users, THAT BEING where they bring benefit - not that this was a separate reason.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jan 2012)

One day we'll look back on this, and have a little chuckle at the standards of driving back then (now).


----------



## Bicycle (16 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> One day we'll look back on this, and have a little chuckle at the standards of driving back then (now).


 
A chuckle at how good they were or how bad they were?

I'm broadly OK with them as they are now. I believe I was at less risk cycling 4 miles to the cinema in the london suburbs aged 12 (early 70s) than my youngest is now if he goes for a 4-mile ride, but I am not overly exercised about road safety in the UK.

My wife told me the other day with a horrified look on her face that there'd been 16 cycling fatalities in london in the past year. I was surprised. She got quite cross with me when I (honestly) admitted I'd have guessed it would be four times that figure.

She told me this just before I took one of our kids on a mad, cross-London ride to the Emirates. I think she was trying to embed a little caution in my riding style (or similar). We got to the match and got to our seats after some awesome descending down Archway Road under what in childhood we referred to as Suicide Bridge. Bus lane? Schmuss Lane!

My issue (of course) would be if I or one I loved were to become one of those 16. Would I ride less if it were 32 or 64 fatalities? Of course not.

Do I think that helmet cams will ever be anything more than the cause of mild amusement and some occasional training benefit? No.

Has video evidence taken from a helmet cam been used to prove anything in a claim? I dare say it has, but so has the testimony of Mrs Bridges at number 12. No-one is building her up to be something special.

Will helmet-cam evidence play even a minor role in making our highways any safer? Tee hee... 

Does helmet-cam footage do any harm? No. Nor do novelty birthday cards. 

It's fun. If you take it seriously it can be terribly, terribly serious. But if you don't, it is even funnier when those who do keep saying what a benefit it is to mankind.


----------



## Jezston (16 Jan 2012)

> Do I think that helmet cams will ever be anything more than the cause of mild amusement and some occasional training benefit? No.


 
Bike cam footage has already been shown to be utterly vital in several cases where otherwise there would have been no evidence.

From a quick google search:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2011/06/helmet-camera-secures-conviction.html
http://road.cc/content/news/23959-legal-first-cyclists-helmet-cam-footage-helps-convict-driver
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12334486 (our very own benborp)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-and-8201-just-because-he-couldnt-overtake.do

And I'm sure there must have been many more that haven't made the news.

Care to retract that statement?


----------



## Norm (16 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> Care to retract that statement?


I think he covered that in the very next line:



Bicycle said:


> Has video evidence taken from a helmet cam been used to prove anything in a claim? I dare say it has, but so has the testimony of Mrs Bridges at number 12. No-one is building her up to be something special.


I think, Jez, that you are doing yourself and your point of view no favours at all by pulling one line out of the context for setting up a straw man.

Having only 2 hours previously misrepresented Mr P's post on this very thread, maybe you should be a tad more dilligent before reaching for Google to prove a point that's either not there or not really relevant.


----------



## Bicycle (16 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> Bike cam footage has already been shown to be utterly vital in several cases where otherwise there would have been no evidence.
> 
> Care to retract that statement?


 
I'm sorry Jezston, but I fear Norm has a point. I had already accepted that proof from helmet cameras had made a difference.

I've said as much elsewhere too. It would therefore help you not at all if I were to retract my statement in part or in whole.

When loftily asking someone if they'd care to 'retract that statement', it can help if you've read the whole statement. 

I'm sorry if this offends; I enjoy your posts. I have no idea how _'utterly vital'_ differs from merely _'vital'_, but I do enjoy your posts.

As I am the wordiest bastard on this forum, that last point may be a little rich, but I have no shame and few boundaries.


----------



## Jezston (16 Jan 2012)

It was entirely relevant, certainly not out of context and not a straw man as I do not believe I was misrepresenting his opinion.

Bicycle claimed that helmet cam footage was not useful for anything other than training and mild amusement. I took his second, somewhat contradictory statement to suggest it has been *useful* in a claim (insurance?), my point being that it has been _essential _in many serious criminal cases where it has been the only piece of irrefutable evidence. And that's a big difference.

Edit: bicycle - 


> I had already accepted that proof from helmet cameras had made a difference.


 
Then why would you then say it doesn't?


----------



## col (16 Jan 2012)

Origamist said:


> I'd not report that, GB.
> 
> It looks like you both get to the RaB at about the same time. In most similar situations, vehicles coming from the same direction as the bus will give way to you, but certainly not all - particularly if they are moving faster or have been waiting a while.
> 
> Someone not prepared to give way:




Same time? ok if thats how you see it


----------



## Bicycle (16 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> Then why would you then say it doesn't?


 
I don't say it doesn't. I can accept that the proof was accepted and at the same time see that as nothing of any wider significance or pith. I do accept that helmet cameras have provided proof. I say I do in more than one post. I also think it isn't a big deal in the wider scheme of things and that ultimately helmet cameras are mildly amusing at best and platforms for shouty mad people at worst. I thought I'd made that point. You disagree. 

Mrs Bridges from number 12 has also provided evidence that settled a case. That doesn't make her the next big thing. Nor does it make her a shouty mad person.

You like to get exercised about these things and trawl for evidence. I think that's lovely, but I don't take it the teensiest bit seriously.

I've provided evidence in criminal and traffic cases. I am not the best thing since slivced bread and don't have a YouTube channel.

To me, helmet-camera footage posted online is largely a mild form of harmless entertainment, of which some has some occasional training benefit. I am not the enemy, but I can't get excited about this and that utterly vital bit of proof in this or that case.

You give the impression that perhaps you can. If so, that's a laudable trait I do not share.


----------



## Jezston (16 Jan 2012)

Bicycle said:


> I don't say it doesn't. I can accept that the proof was accepted and at the same time see that as nothing of any wider significance or pith. I do accept that helmet cameras have provided proof. I say I do in more than one post. I also think it isn't a big deal in the wider scheme of things and that ultimately helmet cameras are mildly amusing at best and platforms for shouty mad people at worst. I thought I'd made that point. You disagree.


 
Strongly.

I believe the legal victories cyclists have achieved which they never would have without the cams, and the media attention many have received is instrumental in changing the behaviour some motorists have towards cyclists, along with helping cyclists learn skills to control traffic and make themselves safer. As they become increasingly prominent and prosecutions more frequent, the kind of bully-boy inconsiderate or flat out hostile driver will increasingly think twice before putting a cyclists at risk for their own convenience or ego.



> Mrs Bridges from number 12 has also provided evidence that settled a case. That doesn't make her the next big thing. Nor does it make her a shouty mad person ... I am not the best thing since slivced bread and don't have a YouTube channel ...You give the impression that perhaps you can. If so, that's a laudable trait I do not share.


 
This isn't about individuals, but as a group. Our theoretical Mrs Bridges from number 12 isn't on her own a big deal because of the evidence she gave, but Neighbourhood Watch which she is a member of has reduced burglaries by 15% in her area, despite some of the neigbours calling her a busybody. I'm stretching the analogy thin here, but I hope you get the idea.

In summary, I strongly believe cam usage has, is and will increasingly become a powerful force for improving the lot of the cyclist.


----------



## Bicycle (16 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> In summary, I strongly believe cam usage has, is and will increasingly become a powerful force for improving the lot of the cyclist.


 
I quite understand and as I said in an earlier post, I find your stance on this laudable.

I also disagree with it, but the matter of who agrees with whom on this will not make the roads a safer or more dangerous environment.


----------



## Origamist (16 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Same time? ok if thats how you see it


 
Not at the "same time" at "*about* the same time" - you realise there is a difference between the two statements?


----------



## col (16 Jan 2012)

Origamist said:


> Not at the "same time" at "*about* the same time" - you realise there is a difference between the two statements?


 I do, but your statement insinuates not enough difference to say someone was ahead. Which there was.


----------



## gaz (16 Jan 2012)

col said:


> I do, but your statement insinuates not enough difference to say someone was ahead. Which there was.


In your opinion there is.


----------



## col (16 Jan 2012)

gaz said:


> In your opinion there is.


 ok


----------



## Origamist (16 Jan 2012)

col said:


> I do, but your statement insinuates not enough difference to say someone was ahead. Which there was.


 
I have not implied that there was "not enough difference to say someone was ahead", you have inferred that. That's fine though, Col.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jan 2012)

...and yet the numbers of cammers on the tube are exploding, as are the rate of Roadsafe reports.


----------



## col (16 Jan 2012)

Origamist said:


> I'd not report that, GB.
> 
> It looks like you both get to the RaB at about the same time. In most similar situations, vehicles coming from the same direction as the bus will give way to you, but certainly not all - particularly if they are moving faster or have been waiting a while.
> 
> Someone not prepared to give way:





Oh ok, maybe your right I miss read your post


----------



## BentMikey (17 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1684007, member: 45"]Well, in terms of the specialist group who post vids on youtube, but I wouldnt even call that exploding.

This is in danger of becoming the kind of fanatical up-talking common on other road-related websites.[/quote]

Well, you're certainly correct that road safety isn't a particularly large part of my life, as I imagine for most people on here. I guess you're also right about the fanatical talking up of the ineffectiveness of cameras and campaigning.


----------



## Origamist (17 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1684249, member: 45"]Does anyone know how much roadsafe reporting has increased by, how many of these reports are camera clips? How does the percentage of roadsafe reports which are clips compare with, say, 12 and 24 months ago?[/quote]

You'd need to send them an FOI request for that info. Might be worth a shot?

Here's a link to some RoasSafe reporting stats, but not really what you are looking for:

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/reporting-mobile-use-while-driving.50122/post-983655


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (17 Jan 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Yes, you must submit all videos to this forum`s approval action committee before taking any further action.


 

heh!


----------



## Cheradenine (17 Jan 2012)

If cyclists go to head cams and cherry pick bad road use by drivers it's just going to lead to tit for tat from drivers with dash cams.

Drivers are shockingly bad but then again so are about 50% of the cyclists I have seen out there.


----------



## benb (17 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> If cyclists go to head cams and cherry pick bad road use by drivers it's just going to lead to tit for tat from drivers with dash cams.
> 
> Drivers are shockingly bad but then again so are about 50% of the cyclists I have seen out there.


 
I guess the difference is that only one is significantly likely to kill you.


----------



## Cheradenine (17 Jan 2012)

benb said:


> I guess the difference is that only one is significantly likely to kill you.


Stupidity or arrogance on a bike can indeed kill - it just happens to be the rider.

It's a common sense and courtesy game - not a blame game.

If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere.


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> Stupidity or arrogance on a bike can indeed kill - it just happens to be the rider.
> 
> It's a common sense and courtesy game - not a blame game.
> 
> If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere.


 

Transgressions by motor vehicle drivers are more common, and more deadly. That's a fact, in most collsions between a cyclist and driver the driver is at fault.

That's why all the pressure to film commutes comes mainly from cyclists. That tells all you need to no, we are the ones threatened and bullied so we fight back by carrying an independent witness.


----------



## Cheradenine (17 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Transgressions by motor vehicle drivers are more common, and more deadly. That's a fact, in most collsions between a cyclist and driver the driver is at fault.
> 
> That's why all the pressure to film commutes comes mainly from cyclists. That tells all you need to no, we are the ones threatened and bullied so we fight back by carrying an independent witness.


We don't know that.

As I said - if we all go over to cameras drivers may well do the same and it will indeed shatter our illusions about drivers being in the wrong the majority of the time.

You change something the moment you try to observe it, always remember that.


----------



## subaqua (17 Jan 2012)

^ does that means shrodingers cat was cycling inside the box ??


----------



## Cheradenine (17 Jan 2012)

subaqua said:


> ^ does that means shrodingers cat was cycling inside the box ??


Fixed of free wheel?


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> We don't know that.
> 
> .


 
Don't know what?

Worldwide studies confirm in most vehicle/cyclist collision the driver's at fault:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/drivers-at-fault-in-majority-of-cycling-accidents-28489/


----------



## Cheradenine (17 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Don't know what?
> 
> Worldwide studies confirm in most vehicle/cyclist collision the driver's at fault:
> 
> ...


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

Nice, disagree with the findings so assert without a shred of evidence the _Monash University Accident Research Centre _is biased and corrupt.


----------



## Thomk (17 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> We don't know that.
> 
> As I said - if we all go over to cameras drivers may well do the same and it will indeed shatter our illusions about drivers being in the wrong the majority of the time.
> 
> *You change something the moment you try to observe it, always remember that*.


 
A commonly misunderstood concept. You are translating a theory of the sub microscopic world into the macro sphere which is fairly meaningless at best.


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> As I said - if we all go over to cameras drivers may well do the same and it will indeed shatter our illusions about drivers being in the wrong the majority of the time.


 

I'd be jolly interested in seeing any published evidence that suggests cyclists are usually at fault in a bike/vehicle collision.

Got any?


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (17 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> If cyclists go to head cams and cherry pick bad road use by drivers it's just going to lead to tit for tat from drivers with dash cams.


 
Bear in mind many haulage firms and local bus companies are fitting cameras to record incidents, so any incident of car/hgv/bus vs cyclist
that is captured on the cyclists' camera ... may also be filmed on the vehicle as well.
My friends haulage company has two cameras on each truck as per the request of his insurers.

Which leads me on to the small detail that if you are involved in a near miss, you may be able to contact the company involved and ask
to view their video recordings prior to making a complaint.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere.


 
As far as I can see, in this topic it's only you doing this polarizing, yes? I offer you the Silly Cyclists series to press home my point. We're all the same humans with the same sort of attitude to road use.

And in the reality of motor vehicle vs cyclist collisions, then yes, it is the driver to blame most of the time. That's not to say that drivers are bad, but that it's a simple consequence of the cager effect - some soft skinned vulnerable cyclists might not obey rules of the road, but they are considerably more motivated to avoid injury to themselves than drivers protected inside their metal cage.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Jan 2012)

p.s. great username!!!


----------



## col (17 Jan 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Bear in mind many haulage firms and local bus companies are fitting cameras to record incidents, so any incident of car/hgv/bus vs cyclist
> that is captured on the cyclists' camera ... may also be filmed on the vehicle as well.
> My friends haulage company has two cameras on each truck as per the request of his insurers.
> 
> ...


 That works both ways. Im in a position of being able to see things from both sides. Yes there are a lot of bad drivers out there, but also there are bad cyclists. My experience has generally been good from cyclists, but Iv also had bad ones. But my point is, I wonder how this all would seem if the tables were turned. Drivers recorded and cherry picked what cyclists got up to. I believe there would be relatively as many so called numpty/law breaking/dangerous and what ever the other names cyclists have called them, cyclists out there. As for the cams fitted to vehicles, they were origionally for countering a motor claim that didnt happen, ie the claim of a bus touching or catching a vehicle so the owner can get work done on the companies insurance. There were surprisingly a lot of these.


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Yes there are a lot of bad drivers out there, but also there are bad cyclists. My experience has generally been good from cyclists, but Iv also had bad ones. But my point is, I wonder how this all would seem if the tables were turned. Drivers recorded and cherry picked what cyclists got up to. I believe there would be relatively as many so called numpty/law breaking/dangerous and what ever the other names cyclists have called them, cyclists out there.


 
I'm willing to bet you're wrong. No real way of measuring the dangerousness of cyclists, unless of course you compare the 2500 coffins a year filled by drivers and the half a coffin a year filled by cyclists.


----------



## col (17 Jan 2012)

BentMikey said:


> As far as I can see, in this topic it's only you doing this polarizing, yes? I offer you the Silly Cyclists series to press home my point. We're all the same humans with the same sort of attitude to road use.
> 
> And in the reality of motor vehicle vs cyclist collisions, then yes, it is the driver to blame most of the time. That's not to say that drivers are bad, but that it's a simple consequence of the cager effect - some soft skinned vulnerable cyclists might not obey rules of the road, but they are considerably more motivated to avoid injury to themselves than drivers protected inside their metal cage.


The polarizing is being done by others, the op gave an opinion, which I think was correct. But your polarising tried to turn it round on them, so showing how polarised you are, you need to stop being so defensive to everything that you deem an attack on cyclists, as some of it is actually true. Which brings us to soft skinned cyclists who dont obey the rules of the road, yet are not to blame? What facts are you going on to say drivers are mostly to blame?


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

col said:


> The polarizing is being done by others, the op gave an opinion, which I think was correct.


 
cheredenine claimed it was an "illusion" that cyclists were usually not to blame and then implied evidence that showed otherwise was tainted. No evidence offered for either contention.


----------



## col (17 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> I'm willing to bet you're wrong. No real way of measuring the dangerousness of cyclists, unless of course you compare the 2500 coffins a year filled by drivers and the half a coffin a year filled by cyclists.


 Would you say there are 2500 times more drivers than cyclists? maybe more?
Also if drivers filmed rlj's/ pavement cycling, no lights, filtering at dangerous times and places, bad position ect, Im sure there could be a vary large collection on you tube, nameing and shaming oh I forgot, there is no way of doing that with cyclists is there? No wonder they rlj, pavement cycle and generally just dont follow the rules of the road eh? do you see the way it could go? Pretty much the same as the cctv ones are doing with cars now. Again we come back to the polarised comment, which does fit in this point.


----------



## col (17 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> cheredenine claimed it was an "illusion" that cyclists were usually not to blame and then implied evidence that showed otherwise was tainted. No evidence offered for either contention.


 You obviously missed the sentence 
If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere.​


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Would you say there are 2500 times more drivers than cyclists? maybe more?


 

Nowhere near, cyclists are the majority on many London roads now, Blackfriar's, for instance. Plus, remember that the truism that more cyclists = safer roads most emphatiocally does not apply to motor vehicles.


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

col said:


> You obviously missed the sentence
> If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere.​


 

No, I addressed it by highlighting cherdenine's dishonesty. That's an argument plucked from thin air that nobody's made. It's a troll tactic, rather than address the points raised make up a daft argument and attack it. Saves dealing with what's actually been said.


----------



## Bicycle (17 Jan 2012)

Col seems to make a very fair and reasonable point to me. There is a big difference between holding a position diametrically opposed to that of another contributor and one just a few critical degrees off to one side.

Of course there are dreadful cyclists. As Col says, being 'soft-skinned' doesn't make them saints. It doesn't make them clever either.

There are dreadful drivers too. There are few drivers who feel the need to post online the antics of dreadful cyclists. 

Most road users are courteous, skilled and law-abiding. Those few who are not can be found on every possible type of road transport.


----------



## col (17 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> No, I addressed it by highlighting cherdenine's dishonesty. That's an argument plucked from thin air that nobody's made. It's a troll tactic, rather than address the points raised make up a daft argument and attack it. Saves dealing with what's actually been said.


 It actually describes very well some on here, as it obviously seems you dont like the statement so attatch the word troll to it. Which seems to be the sop of some here too.
Its actually a good point.


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

col said:


> It actually describes very well some on here, as it obviously seems you dont like the statement so attatch the word troll to it. Which seems to be the sop of some here too.
> Its actually a good point.


 

It's not that I don't like the statement, it's that it's factually inaccurate. That's not a matter of opinion, but of fact, drivers are usually at fault in vehicle/cyclist collisions. cherdenine's tactic is to refute this with no evidence and dismiss evidence that supports the claim as "biased", again with no explanation.


----------



## col (17 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> It's not that I don't like the statement, it's that it's factually inaccurate. That's not a matter of opinion, but of fact, drivers are usually at fault in vehicle/cyclist collisions. cherdenine's tactic is to refute this with no evidence and dismiss evidence that supports the claim as "biased", again with no explanation.


 I think we are on crossed lines, Im saying some are polarised.


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

col said:


> I think we are on crossed lines, Im saying some are polarised.


 

I've never heard anyone make the argument that all cyclists are saints, that's just silly. And again, it's wasting a lot of energy arguing against silly points noone's posted.


----------



## col (17 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> I've never heard anyone make the argument that all cyclists are saints, that's just silly. And again, it's wasting a lot of energy arguing against silly points noone's posted.


 This is the post Im talking about, I agree about the polarised view of some. This point was posted earlier, thought you saw it?
"If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere"


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

col said:


> This is the post Im talking about, I agree about the polarised view of some. This point was posted earlier, thought you saw it?
> "If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere"


 
Yep, an argument no-one's made.

It was pointed out that cyclists are indeed rarely at fault in vehicle RTCs. This, it was claimed, is an "illusion". Supporting evidence was posted and dismissed. That, to me, suggests a closed mind.


----------



## col (17 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Yep, an argument no-one's made.
> 
> It was pointed out that cyclists are indeed rarely at fault in vehicle RTCs. This, it was claimed, is an "illusion". Supporting evidence was posted and dismissed. That, to me, suggests a closed mind.


 It seemed a response to quite a lot of posts on here?


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

Any actual examples of posters claiming cyclists are saints or just a general sort of wistful feeling?

(just cycled 5 miles through icy streets since my last post!).


----------



## col (17 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Any actual examples of posters claiming cyclists are saints or just a general sort of wistful feeling?
> 
> (just cycled 5 miles through icy streets since my last post!).


 I wont give examples , as the examples might think Im having a go at them personally. But there are plenty for you to browse 
An icy five miles? No ta, jim jams and stargazing live for me


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

col said:


> I wont give examples , as the examples might think Im having a go at them personally.


 

Mmmmmkay.


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (17 Jan 2012)

It'd be interesting to know the age statistics of cyclists injured by vehicles.

I suspect a huge percentage of cycling casualties are children, with the vehicle driver being blamed.


----------



## dawesome (17 Jan 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> It'd be interesting to know the age statistics of cyclists injured by vehicles.
> 
> I suspect a huge percentage of cycling casualties are children, with the vehicle driver being blamed.


 

Most child cycling injuries don't involve other vehicles,it's in the risky cycling link upthread:

*The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.*
*With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.*
*The cyclists' lobby group CTC said the report showed that the government needed to focus more on driver behaviour rather than on issues such as cyclists wearing helmets.*


----------



## boydj (17 Jan 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> It'd be interesting to know the age statistics of cyclists injured by vehicles.
> 
> I suspect a huge percentage of cycling casualties are children, with the vehicle driver being blamed.


My understanding is that the opposite is true - in terms of blame. In adult cycle/vehicle incidents the cyclist is rarely to blame, while children are far more likely to do silly things.


----------



## benb (17 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> Stupidity or arrogance on a bike can indeed kill - it just happens to be the rider.
> 
> It's a common sense and courtesy game - not a blame game.
> 
> If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere.


 
I never said that "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!"so please don't call me childish. Nerr.


----------



## benb (17 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> Fixed of free wheel?


 
Equal probability of both, until we look inside the box and the probability functions collapse.


----------



## benb (17 Jan 2012)

Bicycle said:


> Col seems to make a very fair and reasonable point to me. There is a big difference between holding a position diametrically opposed to that of another contributor and one just a few critical degrees off to one side.
> 
> Of course there are dreadful cyclists. As Col says, being 'soft-skinned' doesn't make them saints. It doesn't make them clever either.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, of course there are dreadful cyclists. But dreadful cyclists are, in the vast majority of cases, only a danger to themselves. Dreadful drivers are often a danger to everyone they encounter.


----------



## Jezston (18 Jan 2012)

col said:


> You obviously missed the sentence
> If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere.​


 
I really don't see anyone making any kind of argument suggesting this in any way.

If people are misinterpreting people's statements and drawing such sentiment from them, this might explain some of the attitudes seen on this thread and others like it.

I know 3 other people who have got cameras for capturing their journeys - 2 of them are not cyclists and use them in their cars, the purpose being to capture the same kind of bad driving that threatens cyclists. One of them got one after being caught out by a textbook forced-collision scam by a couple of minicab drivers.

There is no war between cyclists and drivers agenda here. I'm sure most of the camera users here also drive.


----------



## Cheradenine (18 Jan 2012)

Thomk said:


> A commonly misunderstood concept. You are translating a theory of the sub microscopic world into the macro sphere which is fairly meaningless at best.


No it extends beyond quantum physics.

Studies rarely set out to disprove themself, no researcher is going to constantly prove they are not worth the pay cheque, they will nearly always find in their own favour.

As time goes on and cameras, GPS, IRF and collison detection becomes more and more common in almost anything with wheels we will start seeing the raw data related to collisions and not just from the cyclists view point.

When this happens a lot of people are going to have to take a long hard look at the victim status of cyclists that is being put forward in a lot of the cycling media, this is not to say that there are not bad drivers out there but it certainly is not as dangerous as many claim it to be and in many circumstances cyclists contribute to there own demise through the way they use the road and how they dress and equip themself while doing so.

The snooty way of ignoring this is by claiming that some people are not "real cyclists" or that they are "persons on a bike", it's a weak argument and one that needs to be ignored.


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> When this happens a lot of people are going to have to take a long hard look at the victim status of cyclists that is being put forward in a lot of the cycling media, this is not to say that there are not bad drivers out there but it certainly is not as dangerous as many claim it to be and in many circumstances cyclists contribute to there own demise through the way they use the road


 
You've been asked several times and ignored the question, but, hopefully, have you any actual evidence that cyclists being rarely at fault is an "illusion", as you claimed?


----------



## Cheradenine (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> You've been asked several times and ignored the question, but, hopefully, have you any actual evidence that cyclists being rarely at fault is an "illusion", as you claimed?


I didn't say it was an illusion.

I said that not enough data exists to make a claim either way right now, if you lokoed for drivers being at fault then thats the answer you will mostly get, if you look for cyclists being at fault then you will largely get that result also, if you include a third catergory of just pure dumb luck or an unfortunate series of events you will get a third set of figures.

Expressed as percentage and totted up all three will account for more than 100% of incidents as there will be overlap in findings, it's at this stage you need a Venn diagram and it all gets a bit abstract.

Studies by the Guardian are not something I would trust as a real indicator, go back and read the rest of my post instead of cherry picking the few lines you want in order to prove a shrill argument.


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> I didn't say it was an illusion.


 


Cheradenine said:


> We don't know that.
> 
> As I said - if we all go over to cameras drivers may well do the same and it will indeed shatter our illusions about drivers being in the wrong the majority of the time.
> 
> You change something the moment you try to observe it, always remember that.


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> Studies by the Guardian are not something I would trust as a real indicator, go back and read the rest of my post instead of cherry picking the few lines you want in order to prove a shrill argument.


 
It was a study by Transport For London, reported in the Guardian.


----------



## Cheradenine (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> It was a study by Transport For London, reported in the Guardian.


And there lies the problem.

It's not the source material you are reading but the guardians editorial of it.


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> And there lies the problem.
> 
> It's not the source material you are reading but the guardians editorial of it.


 

You did say it was an illusion. If stats can be twisted in the way you suggest I wondered why you can't find any that blame the cyclist most of the time.

And really, implying the data is flawed with zero evidence is a bit daft.

The research was carried out by the Dept of Transport and analysed by TFL, neither organisations noted for sympathy with cyclists!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

I guess what I'm getting at is that I have an opinion I can back up with research.

You have an opinion.


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

So, why did you claim it's an "illusion" that cyclists are rarely at fault? What's your evidence please?


----------



## Cheradenine (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> So, why did you claim it's an "illusion" that cyclists are rarely at fault? What's your evidence please?


We all ride and we all see the twankers.

You know, I know and everyone else knows that there is a sea of gibbons out there just itching to improve the gene pool by removing them self from it. If the government goes so far as running an advert warning of the dangers of filtering up the side of high sided vehicles then that suggests that the problem may not just be with the drivers.

You were provided with the answer several posts back, you just didn't understand it.


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> We all ride and we all see the twankers.
> 
> You know, I know and everyone else knows that there is a sea of gibbons out there just itching to improve the gene pool by removing them self from it. If the government goes so far as running an advert warning of the dangers of filtering up the side of high sided vehicles then that suggests that the problem may not just be with the drivers.
> 
> You were provided with the answer several posts back, you just didn't understand it.


 

Please don't patronise me, I'm attacked your argument, not you personally. If you are now saying your evidence that it's an "illusion" that cyclists are rarely to blame is your own eyes then I politely disagree and can point to evidence that refutes your personal experience. The plural of anecdote is not data.

The government run adverts about the dangers of drink driving and driving whilst on a mobile, only a halfwit would conclude this means drivers are always in the wrong.


----------



## Cheradenine (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Please don't patronise me, I'm attacked your argument, not you personally. If you are now saying your evidence that it's an "illusion" that cyclists are rarely to blame is your own eyes then I politely disagree and can point to evidence that refutes your personal experience. The plural of anecdote is not data.
> 
> The government run adverts about the dangers of drink driving and driving whilst on a mobile, only a halfwit would conclude this means drivers are always in the wrong.


I never at any stage claimed that cyclists are always in the wrong did I?

Cyclist are not perfect, people are getting a strop on when this is pointed out and clinging to petty arguments. There is I believe a poster on here with his own Youtube channel dedicated to people who ride like fools so it's far from just anecdotal accounts at work.

We as cylists are the people out there on the roads, we are the ones who survive year in year out without getting ourseleves killed, that makes us the ones qualified to comment, we don't have to go looking for studies in the Guardian.


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> I never at any stage claimed that cyclists are always in the wrong did I?
> 
> Cyclist are not perfect, people are getting a strop on when this is pointed out and clinging to petty arguments. There is I believe a poster on here with his own Youtube channel dedicated to people who ride like fools so it's far from just anecdotal accounts at work.
> 
> We as cylists are the people out there on the roads, we are the ones who survive year in year out without getting ourseleves killed, that makes us the ones qualified to comment, we don't have to go looking for studies in the Guardian.


 

You said:



Cheradenine said:


> As I said - if we all go over to cameras drivers may well do the same and it will indeed shatter our illusions about drivers being in the wrong the majority of the time.


 

And you've repeatedly refused to say what you base this claim on other than "I saw a badly behaved cyclist". Nobody's getting in a strop because you are saying cyclists aren't perfect, that's daft, I'm just pointing out you are making assertions you cannot back up.


----------



## Cheradenine (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And you are making the assertation that the data is simply not there to suggest that cyclists could be at fault more than we would like to admit.

How do you know?

Have you gone looking for it?


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> And you are making the assertation that the data is simply not there to suggest that cyclists could be at fault more than we would like to admit.
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> Have you gone looking for it?


 

Yes! And I've asked you several times to post it!

I can't for the life of me think why you're unable to do so, especially since you confidently asserted the fact that cyclists are rarely to blame is just an "illusion"!

Is it this?


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rkr0LUnSVA


----------



## Cheradenine (18 Jan 2012)

So...lets get this straight.

On a cycling forum some one states the common sense point of view that there is always more than one set of data out there and you get in a tiz because some one doesn't have the team of researchers and grant money at hand to dash out a conflicting study to the existing ones in a single after noon?

And this makes you right how exactly?

Are you keen on creationist theory as well by any chance?


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> So...lets get this straight.
> 
> On a cycling forum some one states the common sense point of view that there is always more than one set of data out there and you get in a tiz because some one doesn't have the team of researchers and grant money at hand to dash out a conflicting study to the existing ones in a single after noon?
> 
> ...


 

Nope. It's really very simple.

You stated confidently that it's an "illusion" that cyclists are rarely to blame. We've established you have no evidence for this.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Cheradenine (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Nope. It's really very simple.
> 
> You stated confidently that it's an "illusion" that cyclists are rarely to blame. We've established you have no evidence for this.
> 
> Hope this helps.


And you have no evidence to disprove it as existing studies are known to be flawed as they always find the results they go looking for.

You were told this several pages ago but just decide to gleefully leap upon certain phrases like a tramp who has found a bag of still warm chips.


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> And you have no evidence to disprove it as existing studies are known to be flawed as they always find the results they go looking for.
> 
> You were told this several pages ago but just decide to gleefully leap upon certain phrases like a tramp who has found a bag of still warm chips.


 
Once again, what is your evidence that the studies were corrupted please? The findings are replicated worldwide, are you claiming a worldwide conspiracy exists to downplay cyclists culpability in accidents?


----------



## Jezston (18 Jan 2012)

The only evidence out there, researched and presented by a body certainly not known to be biased towards cyclists (TFL/DFT), states that in most collisions, the cyclist was not to blame.

There is no evidence suggesting otherwise.

Thus, we conclude that in most collisions, the cyclist was not to blame.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. If not - accept the evidence and move on.

That is all there is to it.


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> The only evidence out there, researched and presented by a body certainly not known to be biased towards cyclists (TFL/DFT), states that in most collisions, the cyclist was not to blame.
> 
> There is no evidence suggesting otherwise.
> 
> ...


So was the motorist to blame or could blame not be apportioned to either party ?


----------



## Thomk (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> No it extends beyond quantum physics.
> 
> Studies rarely set out to disprove themself, no researcher is going to constantly prove they are not worth the pay cheque, they will nearly always find in their own favour.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not clear what you are trying to contradict here by saying "No it goes beyong quantum physics".

You said "*You change something the moment you try to observe it, always remember that*."

I simply pointed out that this statement is fairly meaningless and of no use in this context. To put is (too) simply, the cumulative effect of uncertainty at the quantum level tends to average out in the macro world making it fairly meaningless to translate quantum laws to the macro world.


----------



## Cheradenine (18 Jan 2012)

Thomk said:


> I'm not clear what you are trying to contradict here by saying "No it goes beyong quantum physics".
> 
> You said "*You change something the moment you try to observe it, always remember that*."
> 
> I simply pointed out that this statement is fairly meaningless and of no use in this context. To put is (too) simply, the cumulative effect of uncertainty at the quantum level tends to average out in the macro world making it fairly meaningless to translate quantum laws to the macro world.


You deliberately ignore the fact that studies are rarely impartial despite claims to the contrary.

Observation and recording an event from a certain view point can skew others perception of it, it's a very hard thing to remove from the process as there is too much vested interest in getting the "right" result.


----------



## Thomk (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> You deliberately ignore the fact that studies are rarely impartial despite claims to the contrary.
> 
> Observation and recording an event from a certain view point can skew others perception of it, it's a very hard thing to remove from the process as there is too much vested interest in getting the "right" result.


 
I'm afraid I won't be able to discuss anything meaningful with you as I find your replies fairly nonsensical. I will indeed "deliberately ignore" your future dogmatic assertions.


----------



## Cheradenine (18 Jan 2012)

Thomk said:


> I'm afraid I won't be able to discuss anything meaningful with you as I find your replies fairly nonsensical. I will indeed "deliberately ignore" your future dogmatic assertions.


Then why bother posting in the thread at all then if all you do is show contempt for others?


----------



## Origamist (18 Jan 2012)

Cheradenine said:


> So...lets get this straight.
> 
> On a cycling forum some one states the common sense point of view that there is always more than one set of data out there and you get in a tiz because some one doesn't have the team of researchers and grant money at hand to dash out a conflicting study to the existing ones in a single after noon?
> 
> ...


 
STATS 19 forms are usually the basis for research conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory when analysing cyclist casualties and causal factors. These subjective police reports determine the primary contributory factor: cyclist, motorist, or both. Where adult cyclist casualties are concerned, the primary contributory factor is more often ascribed to the driver, rather than the cyclist, in collisions involving a motorised vehicle.

This finding flies in the face of much "common sense" which usually associates cyclists with risk taking behaviour due to the fact that they don't have to have training, hold a licence, or pay "road tax" etc. However, I'm sure it just because the police are institutionally anti-motorist and love yogurt knitting cyclists when they apportion responsibility for collisions.


----------



## col (18 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> I really don't see anyone making any kind of argument suggesting this in any way.
> 
> If people are misinterpreting people's statements and drawing such sentiment from them, this might explain some of the attitudes seen on this thread and others like it.
> 
> ...


 Its an observation, of what seems to go on quite a lot here. If you cant see that, your more polarised than you realise


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Its an observation, of what seems to go on quite a lot here. If you cant see that, your more polarised than you realise


 
Hang on, I asked if you had evidence of this attitude and you ducked the answer!

And it's "you're", that mistake makes me killy.


----------



## col (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Hang on, I asked if you had evidence of this attitude and you ducked the answer!
> 
> And it's "you're", that mistake makes me killy.


 O for gawds saik, its a puppeeeeeeeet. and wots killy mean?


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Most child cycling injuries don't involve other vehicles,it's in the risky cycling link upthread:
> 
> *The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.*
> *With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.*
> *The cyclists' lobby group CTC said the report showed that the government needed to focus more on driver behaviour rather than on issues such as cyclists wearing helmets.*


This seems a bit loose about 60% -75% and 17% -25%, Can t they be sure ? Not exactly concrete is it ?


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

col said:


> O for gawds saik, its a puppeeeeeeeet. and wots killy mean?


 

Right, so we must be "polarised" if we don't acknowledge the opinions of people you refuse to name?

As a get-out, it's a doozie.


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> This seems a bit loose about 60% -75% and 17% -25%, Can t they be sure ? Not exactly concrete is it ?


 
It's a scale of responses. A range.


----------



## col (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Right, so we must be "polarised" if we don't acknowledge the opinions of people you refuse to name?
> 
> As a get-out, it's a doozie.


 YOR being very persistant, I like that, But YOUR not going to get me to name and shame, as yu shud be able to find these things very easily for YOUR self 
I havnt seen YOUR answer about killy either?


----------



## col (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> It's a scale of responses. A range.


 Ah so it doesnt matter what the 25% of cyclists attitudes are, only if they dont wear helmets?


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> It's a scale of responses. A range.


 not exactly difinitive then or even accurate ?


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

Divinitive, maybe. 

Illiterate trolls make you comfortable in the way that sitting on a public transport seat warm and wet with fresh urine makes you comfortable. Festive, even.


----------



## col (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Divinitive, maybe.
> 
> Illiterate trolls make you comfortable in the way that sitting on a public transport seat warm and wet with fresh urine makes you comfortable. Festive, even.


 Sounds tickly? How often do you enjoy sitting in peoples Urine then? Sounds a bit fetishist, in YOUR own way


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Divinitive, maybe.
> 
> Illiterate trolls make you comfortable in the way that sitting on a public transport seat warm and wet with fresh urine makes you comfortable. Festive, even.


Oh dear the slippery slope..........


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2012)

Lets look at the evidence dawesome has produced shall we and interpret it another way ? As many as 25% of cyclists could be to blame for collisions and as low as 60% of motorists. Now lets equate that to journeys undertaken. A conservative estimate would be 10 fold more journeys by car ? So collisions per journey could read 25 % of cyclists to blame and 6% of motorists ? But wait we havn t even considered the time spent doing the journey yet ?


----------



## dawesome (18 Jan 2012)

It's not judged by number of journeys, it's ACCIDENTS, stats 19 questions don't include

_"How many times have you cycled this week?"_

[Edited by Admin]


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Lets look at the evidence dawesome has produced shall we and interpret it another way ? As many as 25% of cyclists could be to blame for collisions and as low as 60% of motorists. Now lets equate that to journeys undertaken. A conservative estimate would be 10 fold more journeys by car ? So collisions per journey could read 25 % of cyclists to blame and 6% of motorists ? But wait we havn t even considered the time spent doing the journey yet ?


I may have got the maths wrong but you get the idea


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> It's not judged by number of journeys, it's ACCIDENTS, stats 19 questions don't include
> 
> _"How many times have you cycled this week?"_


Really thats nice isnt it  So judging by time spent using the public highway who causes the greater percentage of collisions ?

[Quote edited by Admin]


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2012)

Ah selective evidence 
^^^^shall I give you a clue ?


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

Use more smileys.

No, post:

_"Ah ha! So I win this argument!!!"_

[Edited by Admin]


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2012)

Argument ? Bye bye dullsome, come back when you ve grown up !


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (19 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Argument ? Bye bye dullsome, come back when you ve grown up !


 
 Kids eh?


----------



## Norm (19 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Edited by Admin - original post removed


That's pretty offensive isn't it. I thought such things had died in the 1970s.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Really thats nice isnt it  So judging by time spent using the public highway who causes the greater percentage of collisions ?


 

No idea. Got any stats?


----------



## Shaun (19 Jan 2012)

Let's have some calm and reasoned discussion in this thread from here on in please - and no more personal insults or it will be locked.

Thank you.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> No idea. Got any stats?


You have allready provided the stats I think you re ducking the answer now.


----------



## Jezston (19 Jan 2012)

Wow, looks like I missed a whole load of internet drama. Thank goodness.

Well done guys, it appears you've successfully trolled at least one person to breaking point.

If you don't understand the research and results by TFL/DFT, I suggest you contact them to ask them further questions as they are in a better position to answer your questions than any of us.

I'm out.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> Wow, looks like I missed a whole load of internet drama. Thank goodness.
> 
> Well done guys, it appears you've successfully trolled at least one person to breaking point.
> 
> ...


Brings a whole new meaning to hit and run 

You don t seem to be able to answer any question Jezston, you just dissapear !


----------



## benb (19 Jan 2012)

I think that, in the absence of any evidence of fraud or bias on the part of the TfL report, we need to take the results of that analysis at face value. It's not as if TfL are renowned for being pro-cycling.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> You have allready provided the stats I think you re ducking the answer now.


 

I didn't provide any stats on proportional road usage, that's something you raised. You said:



lukesdad said:


> Lets look at the evidence dawesome has produced shall we and interpret it another way ? As many as 25% of cyclists could be to blame for collisions and as low as 60% of motorists. Now lets equate that to journeys undertaken. A conservative estimate would be 10 fold more journeys by car ? So collisions per journey could read 25 % of cyclists to blame and 6% of motorists ? But wait we havn t even considered the time spent doing the journey yet ?


 
I wondered if you had any stats to support this, you seem to be claiming that blame may be higher for cyclists but now we seem to be dancing around the point.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

benb said:


> I think that, in the absence of any evidence of fraud or bias on the part of the TfL report, we need to take the results of that analysis at face value. It's not as if TfL are renowned for being pro-cycling.


 

The accident stats are replicated in a number of studies across the world, and it makes sense when you think about it. Look around the streets you cycle on, notice the bent railings, smashed bollards, all the dings and scratches and bumps on cars. Cyclists, being made of people, have a natural disinclination to colliding with anything because it bloody hurts. Drivers have the protection of a steel cage.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2012)

benb said:


> I think that, in the absence of any evidence of fraud or bias on the part of the TfL report, we need to take the results of that analysis at face value. It's not as if TfL are renowned for being pro-cycling.


I dont think anybody has claimed the stats fraudulent, its interpreting what the stats show. Now if we are including Professional drivers in the stats, the evidence produced on the forum here as well as in campaigning, shows that for instance a high proportion of collisions are caused by this group. Perhaps indicating the private motorist is not the monster portrayed here.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> I didn't provide any stats on proportional road usage, that's something you raised. You said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wondered if you had any stats to support this, you seem to be claiming that blame may be higher for cyclists but now we seem to be dancing around the point.


I thought I d made myself pretty clear, no dancing , only on your part. Im obviously going to wait a long time for an answer.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I thought I d made myself pretty clear, no dancing , only on your part. Im obviously going to wait a long time for an answer.


 

Ok, you're happy to imply the research is wrong without actually saying why. You claimed that because there are far more cars than bikes the figures are skewed but you're unable to explain your reasoning. If there's 1 bike and 5 cars on the roads how would the ratio effect blame apportioned in accidents? And how have you factored in the truism that more bikes=safer roads?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm

And nobody called motorists "monsters", that's pointless trolling. Why not debate what's been said?


----------



## benb (19 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I dont think anybody has claimed the stats fraudulent, its interpreting what the stats show. Now if we are including Professional drivers in the stats, the evidence produced on the forum here as well as in campaigning, shows that for instance a high proportion of collisions are caused by this group. Perhaps indicating the private motorist is not the monster portrayed here.


 
Cheradenine heavily implied it, when they said the study (and by implication all studies everywhere) only found what they were looking for.

Well, that's obviously rubbish, and even if true, there's no indication that TfL were looking for the result that motorists were more often to blame in a collision. I would have thought the opposite would be true, with TfL's anti-cyclist policies.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Ok, you're happy to imply the research is wrong without actually saying why. You claimed that because there are far more cars than bikes the figures are skewed but you're unable to explain your reasoning. If there's 1 bike and 5 cars on the roads how would the ratio effect blame apportioned in accidents? And how have you factored in the truism that more bikes=safer roads?
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm
> 
> And nobody called motorists "monsters", that's pointless trolling. Why not debate what's been said?


The research has arrived at a conclusion Ive indicated another possible conclusion. I never claimed there are more cars than bikes ( though the statement maybe true ) I pointed to journeys and time, you seem to be unable to understand this. As for your truism well, that could well apply if the offenders took to bikes highly unlikely IMO, and if they did they may start causing collisions on their bikes and what would that do to the stats ?
One bike and five cars where did you pull that one from ?


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> The research has arrived at a conclusion Ive indicated another possible conclusion. I never claimed there are more cars than bikes ( though the statement maybe true ) I pointed to journeys and time, you seem to be unable to understand this.


 
How would journey times have any bearing on apportion of blame?


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2012)

Anyway no point going round in circles. Tell Jezston he can stop sniping from the undergrowth, its all clear he can come out now!


----------



## benb (19 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> The research has arrived at a conclusion Ive indicated another possible conclusion. I never claimed there are more cars than bikes ( though the statement maybe true ) I pointed to journeys and time, you seem to be unable to understand this.


 
Can you elaborate? I can't see how that would have any effect on who was to blame in a collision.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

How would journey times have anything at all to do with the allocation of blame?


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

One thing to bear in mind in the TRL report is that is only takes account of collisions reported to the police.

It is more than likely that car drivers were to blame for these types of accidents. You're more likely to end up dead or seriously injured as a result of an error of driving, rather than vice versa nd these are the types likely to be reported to the police.


----------



## fossyant (19 Jan 2012)

Play nice children !


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

fossyant said:


> Play nice children !


 
Don't be silly - this is commuting.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> One thing to bear in mind in the TRL report is that is only takes account of collisions reported to the police.
> 
> It is more than likely that car drivers were to blame for these types of accidents. You're more likely to end up dead or seriously injured as a result of an error of driving, rather than vice versa nd these are the types likely to be reported to the police.


 

This is true, and I bet loads of smidsies like this don't even get reported:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...brief-note-on-lifestyle-choices.html#comments


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> This is true, and I bet loads of smidsies like this don't even get reported:
> 
> http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...brief-note-on-lifestyle-choices.html#comments


 
Like what?


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jan 2012)

benb said:


> Can you elaborate? I can't see how that would have any effect on who was to blame in a collision.


 My last post on the subject. It s not who was to blame. The point is, cyclists would appear to cause more collisions per time spent on the road between the 2 modes of transport.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> The point is, cyclists would appear to cause more collisions per time spent on the road between the 2 modes of transport.


 
I have no idea how you've drawn that conclusion. It would certainly take some explaining to prove that cyclists, who kill on average half a person a year, are involved in more collisions than drivers, who kill two and a half thousand people a year.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> Like what?


 
Like the one in the link.

Hitchens takes on the trolls in the comments:

Some years ago I was cycling along a main road in broad daylight when suddenly without any signal, a car coming the other way turned right and ran into me head on. I was launched over the bonnet, smashing his windscreen with my back, then continued at speed over the roof, eventually landing face down in the middle of a busy road. A double somersault with a half twist would normally be quite a high-value vault but I lost a lot of points with that landing. (By the way, I was wearing a helmet and might not be writing this had I been bareheaded).​As I lay there motionless, the driver, a young undergraduate was appropriately mortified at what he'd done, apologised profusely and quite properly accepted full responsibility for the collision. A crowd gathered and eventually the police and ambulance arrived. Before they hauled me off to hospital I asked the policeman if they would take my bicycle to the station or other place for safe keeping. He refused, suggesting dismissively that it would be simply left by the side of the road. As a member of the CTC I had been made aware of this disregard by the police for cyclists' property. Apparently it is a quite common attitude and bicycles abandoned like this are usually, surprise surprise, stolen. Adding insult to injury you might call it. Eventually a kind onlooker from a nearby house agreed to look after it until I was able to collect it (only the front wheel and forks were badly damaged).​Later, in hospital I was visited by two policemen who delivered this speech to me at my bedside. "We've interviewed the driver and he seems to us to be a very well brought up and well-spoken young gentleman and in the light of that we don't see that any purpose would be served by bringing a prosecution". Apparently the fact that he was a millionaire's son was enough to impress them to take no action. I guess they'd come to the hospital just to make sure that I wasn't even posher than he was. I was still suffering from shock and in too much pain to tell them what I thought of their decision. ​The attitude of the police made me wonder just what a motorist has to do to a cyclist to get prosecuted. I didn't want revenge I just feel that a summons for driving without due care and three points on his licence might have helped to ensure that he never made the same mistake again.​


----------



## benb (19 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> My last post on the subject. It s not who was to blame. The point is, cyclists would appear to cause more collisions per time spent on the road between the 2 modes of transport.


 
Then you clearly haven't understood the study.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Like the one in the link.
> 
> Hitchens takes on the trolls in the comments:
> 
> Some years ago I was cycling along a main road in broad daylight when suddenly without any signal, a car coming the other way turned right and ran into me head on. I was launched over the bonnet, smashing his windscreen with my back, then continued at speed over the roof, eventually landing face down in the middle of a busy road. A double somersault with a half twist would normally be quite a high-value vault but I lost a lot of points with that landing. (By the way, I was wearing a helmet and might not be writing this had I been bareheaded).​As I lay there motionless, the driver, a young undergraduate was appropriately mortified at what he'd done, apologised profusely and quite properly accepted full responsibility for the collision. A crowd gathered and eventually the police and ambulance arrived. Before they hauled me off to hospital I asked the policeman if they would take my bicycle to the station or other place for safe keeping. He refused, suggesting dismissively that it would be simply left by the side of the road. As a member of the CTC I had been made aware of this disregard by the police for cyclists' property. Apparently it is a quite common attitude and bicycles abandoned like this are usually, surprise surprise, stolen. Adding insult to injury you might call it. Eventually a kind onlooker from a nearby house agreed to look after it until I was able to collect it (only the front wheel and forks were badly damaged).​Later, in hospital I was visited by two policemen who delivered this speech to me at my bedside. "We've interviewed the driver and he seems to us to be a very well brought up and well-spoken young gentleman and in the light of that we don't see that any purpose would be served by bringing a prosecution". Apparently the fact that he was a millionaire's son was enough to impress them to take no action. I guess they'd come to the hospital just to make sure that I wasn't even posher than he was. I was still suffering from shock and in too much pain to tell them what I thought of their decision. ​The attitude of the police made me wonder just what a motorist has to do to a cyclist to get prosecuted. I didn't want revenge I just feel that a summons for driving without due care and three points on his licence might have helped to ensure that he never made the same mistake again.​


 
What's your point?


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

That an awful lot of collisions don't get reported, the motorist drives off, or uses false plates like the one that hit me, the cops did nothing, or the driver digs his/her checkbook out and it's settled privately. So they're not included in the stats.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

Where a collision is reported to the police and there is an injury it is included in the stats!


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

But not in the examples I've just give, under reporting is rife.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

Hitchen's is likely to have been included since he ended up in hospital.

I'm sure there are other accidents of the type you describe that don't get reported (i've no idea if it is rife or not), but there are lots of other types of accidents too. Remember-lots of accidents may involve little or no damage to property and/or vehicles.

I would say that we shouldn't extrapolate from the report to "accidents" in general. 

I can provide a number of personal examples, but there is no point as it becomes a pissing contest (for want of a better term).


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> Hitchen's is likely to have been included since he ended up in hospital.


 
Doesn't say that in the article.


----------



## gaz (19 Jan 2012)

lukesdad said:


> My last post on the subject. It s not who was to blame. The point is, cyclists would appear to cause more collisions per time spent on the road between the 2 modes of transport.


You've probably spent the most time on a bicycle out of anyone on this forum. How many collisions have you caused?


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

dawesome said:


> Doesn't say that in the article.


 
doesn't say what?


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

There were twelve million prosecutions of drivers for motoring offences in 2002. There are only 1 million regular cyclist commuters. Anyone who claims cyclists are the worse transgressors needs their bumps felt.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> doesn't say what?


 
When you reply to posts, do you bother to read the bit that's quoted?


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

you mean the bit where it says he was in hospital?


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> you mean the bit where it says he was in hospital?


 

That's not Hitchens, it's from the comments, a reader wrote in with his experience of the cops refusing to do anything with an errant driver.

Hitchens didn't go to hospital, the RTC won't be reported.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

But the reader went into hospital therefore it is likely the reader would be included in the stats.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> But the reader went into hospital therefore it is likely the reader would be included in the stats.


 

That's right, the ones that go into the stats will be in the stats, the ones that don't won't. 


Thank goodness you're on hand to make that clear.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

:sigh:

A passive agressive. Pointless entering into any kind of conversation with as has a sense of agression and dismissiveness in posts.

You're now on ignore.

zzzz


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1687619, member: 45"]<leans back in recliner and twists top off jar of pickled eggs>[/quote]

I fell off my bike this morning. Was entirely my fault.


----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

You've just wasted half a thread arguing Hitchen's smidsie was reported. It's not really my fault you didn't bother to read the link.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

I currently have one on my arm thank you-a nice reddy brown colour.


----------



## Jezston (19 Jan 2012)

I think what everyone is saying is - did that incident in the comments on that article get included in the stats?

Considering the stats seem to be based on where there was an investigation, and it was determined who was at fault. From the sounds of this story, it appears no investigation was done so it wouldn't have had any effect on the stats either way.

TBH I think we should move on from this story because it's just some anonymous story in the comments section of a newspaper article and quite possibly entirely fictional.

Regarding early points about distance travelled and proportion of motorists and cyclists on the road - this is irrelevant as that would be what effects NUMBER of incidents, not the PROPORTION of responsibility in accidents between these modes of transport. 

...

And could we ALL (myself included) do more to make Commuting a place where people can debate, share experience and get feedback without getting into personal attacks, petty point scoring, and deliberate shoot stirring? I'm sure it would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything, but it would certainly be a lot more pleasant place to be if we could disagree without being dicks about it.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> I think what everyone is saying is - did that incident in the comments on that article get included in the stats?
> 
> *Considering the stats seem to be based on where there was an investigation, and it was determined who was at fault. From the sounds of this story, it appears no investigation was done so it wouldn't have had any effect on the stats either way.*


 
Jetzston-the report is pretty clear what the stats are based on.



> The main source of collision data for this study is the STATS19 injury accident data for 1994 - 2007. STATS19 is the national database of records of road accidents that occur on the highway involving personal injury reported to and by the police


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> And could we ALL (myself included) do more to make Commuting a place where people can debate, share experience and get feedback without getting into personal attacks, petty point scoring, and deliberate shoot stirring? I'm sure it would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything, but it would certainly be a lot more pleasant place to be if we could disagree without being dicks about it.


 
Completely agree - but some people don't want to debate, they just want to dictate.


----------



## benb (19 Jan 2012)

400bhp said:


> Completely agree - but some people don't want to debate, they just want to dic*k*tate.


 
FTFY.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2012)




----------



## dawesome (19 Jan 2012)

Jezston said:


> I think what everyone is saying is - did that incident in the comments on that article get included in the stats?
> 
> Considering the stats seem to be based on where there was an investigation, and it was determined who was at fault. From the sounds of this story, it appears no investigation was done so it wouldn't have had any effect on the stats either way.
> 
> ...


 

Anecdotal I know, but I've heard several examples where the cops do precisely nothing after an RTC involving a cyclist, this being maybe the worst:

http://road.cc/content/news/25146-london-cyclist-strangled-taxi-driver-cleared-assault


----------

