# YouTube Dilema



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

While I was in a bus lane, which allows taxis, a taxi overtook me leaving very little space between us. I guessed where he was going, a small detour for me, and managed to catch him up in order to get a good facial shot. He immediately apologised for being to close, stating a car on his right had caused him to pass too close. I will review my video later to see if his excuse holds up.
My dilemma is that his apology seemed genuine enough although he was a little shocked I had managed to catch him up, I am not a small guy and probably he may have noticed the camera stuck on top of my helmet. Did not help his cause by the fact he had parked his empty taxi in a parent/toddler space despite plenty of normal spaces available.


----------



## dondare (7 Jun 2010)

BSRU said:


> While I was in a bus lane, which allows taxis, a taxi overtook me leaving very little space between us. I guessed where he was going, a small detour for me, and managed to catch him up in order to get a good facial shot. He immediately apologised for being to close, stating a car on his right had caused him to pass too close. I will review my video later to see if his excuse holds up.
> My dilemma is that his apology seemed genuine enough although he was a little shocked I had managed to catch him up, I am not a small guy and probably he may have noticed the camera stuck on top of my helmet. Did not help his cause by the fact he had parked his empty taxi in a parent/toddler space despite plenty of normal spaces available.



Cameras seem to be trouble magnets. My thoughts when I see some of these youtube clips are "save your indignation for something more serious".


----------



## ianrauk (7 Jun 2010)

The cabby apologised, you think it was genuine. End of story.


----------



## Mark_Robson (7 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> If the above is an example of the 'culture' among cyclists who wear helmet cams then they should be banned. Honestly, whatever happened to serenity and accepting the cabbies version of events.


+100


----------



## jimboalee (7 Jun 2010)

If I had a helmet cam that recorded smells, I could have posted a quite brill vid on PhewTube.

An abattoir skip truck passing closely.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

Just reviewed the video and the cabbie is being insincere, he had no excuses and his pass was far more dangerous than I first thought.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Cameras seem to be trouble magnets. My thoughts when I see some of these youtube clips are "save your indignation for something more serious".


How can this be true?, someone has to overtake me and then look back to see the camera.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> If the above is an example of the 'culture' among cyclists who wear helmet cams then they should be banned. Honestly, whatever happened to serenity and accepting the cabbies version of events.


The whole point of the camera is it shows what really happened, instead of relying on someone's opinion, including mine, which can be wrong or exaggerated.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Post a link to your vid so I can have a look please.


I have to wait until I get home before I can cut it down to size for uploading to YouTube.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> If the above is an example of the 'culture' among cyclists who wear helmet cams then they should be banned. Honestly, whatever happened to serenity and *accepting the cabbies version of events*.



LMAO!!!


----------



## dondare (7 Jun 2010)

BSRU said:


> How can this be true?, someone has to overtake me and then look back to see the camera.



They seem to be trouble magnets in that cyclists who wear them seem to have more near misses and confrontations than I do. 
And when posted on youtube, some (not all) of those near misses appear to be completely unremarkable and some (not all) of those confrontations completely unnecessary.
Post it and see. I promise that I won't flame.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

Can't believe you were being serious is all!


----------



## dondare (7 Jun 2010)

Cabbies are the salt of the earth, guv.


----------



## manalog (7 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Cameras seem to be trouble magnets. My thoughts when I see some of these youtube clips are "save your indignation for something more serious".



Do you really want to wait for something more serious to happen before reporting bad driving? This same Driver could knock someone or the same Cyclist off his/her bike a few days/weeks later because it wasn't reported because it wasn't "serious".  The OP was obviously bothered by this Driver but was unsure because he "apologised"
Just my 2pence.


----------



## bryce (7 Jun 2010)

Wondering whether the actual act of securing a camera to one's bike makes you more uptight? I know I'm usually more relaxed without my HRM/ speed computer.

What compels cam-wearers to attach the cam day-in day-out? I can understand it for a nice ride in the countryside. But filming the same commute twice every day?

What happens to the daily commutes when nothing happens? Deleted? If so, then does dangerous driving count as a 'highlight'? Very weird world for me...


----------



## jimboalee (7 Jun 2010)

I'm going to do a "Blue Peter" with an old tobacco tin, a cotton reel and some sticky-backed plastic; and see if anything changes.


----------



## jimboalee (7 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I'm going to do a "Blue Peter" with an old tobacco tin, a cotton reel and some sticky-backed plastic; and see if anything changes.



Or shall I use a Colman's musturd tin?? 

Wait. They're not that big. A hair curler wrapped in black tape would be better.


----------



## Origamist (7 Jun 2010)

bryce said:


> Wondering whether the actual act of securing a camera to one's bike makes you more uptight? I know I'm usually more relaxed without my HRM/ speed computer....



Fit and forget.



bryce said:


> What compels cam-wearers to attach the cam day-in day-out? I can understand it for a nice ride in the countryside. But filming the same commute twice every day?...



If there are no witnesses to a collision/incident (other than those involved - and remember, cyclists don't usuallly come off better if they hit a car), a third-eye may well come in handy. 




bryce said:


> What happens to the daily commutes when nothing happens? Deleted? If so, then does dangerous driving count as a 'highlight'? Very weird world for me?...



Delete the film. The "highlight" is when nothing happens and you can format the card.


----------



## Mark_Robson (7 Jun 2010)

Wearing a headcam during a commute can be vital in the event of an accident caused by a motorist, ped or another cyclist. That's my reason for having one.
Where they become dangerous is when they are used as a weapon. I have watched many clips on Youtube where a cyclist has given chase to a car or bus and started an argument with the driver. Once the argument has became heated the cyclist points out that he is wearing a camera and he is going to use the footage to his advantage. This IMO is really not a good idea because someone is going to take exception to the cyclist and rip the camera from his head. 
If people want to give chase to motorists and argue with them then so be it but don't rely on a camera for protection.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> They seem to be trouble magnets in that cyclists who wear them seem to have more near misses and confrontations than I do.
> And when posted on youtube, some (not all) of those near misses appear to be completely unremarkable and some (not all) of those confrontations completely unnecessary.
> Post it and see. I promise that I won't flame.



The number of near misses and bad driving I see are the same now as when I did not use a camera. Just before when it happened I just shrugged my shoulders knowing nothing could be done about it, one persons word against another. Actually the vast majority of near misses never make it to YouTube because I only upload ones I felt were dangerous when it happened. I did get an apology from Stagecoach recently because of footage I sent them, would not have happened before.

I have to say that normally I never confront the bad drivers I see, too much hassle and not worthwhile. But in this case it happened to be the second taxi driver in a few days who had put my life at risk in order to gain a few seconds, my main aim was to let him see the camera and hopefully tell the other cabbies and in theory they might be a little more careful with overtaking cyclists.

I do not mind being flamed, especially if justified.


----------



## Jmetz (7 Jun 2010)

As above (Mark Robson) thats what grates on me, the hundreds of youtube clips of cycling chasing cars giving it what for about wearing a cam. If you're going to report it so be it, but banging on about your headcam and causing the situation to escalate further is petty and immature. Having said that i absolutely love watching both cyclists and motorists rant and rave on a head cam.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

It's a campaigning issue - bringing consequences for dangerous driving means that people will change their behaviour. Best of all, drivers won't know who is filming their actions.

As for ripping the camera off your head, well one driver tried that with me, in 4 or 5 years of filming, and he's due to attend Bromley today for an arrest by appointment. He didn't get the camera, and I have a second camera now anyway.


----------



## gaz (7 Jun 2010)

I don't post a lot of my footage, either becasue it looks different on camera or becasuse someone had clearly made a mistake and I don't think they will do it again.
The usual comments about us with cameras looking for incidences is always a laugh.
If the cabbie had told me a lie, and he had no reason to pass cloesly, then I would post it to expose him.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

bryce said:


> What compels cam-wearers to attach the cam day-in day-out? I can understand it for a nice ride in the countryside. But filming the same commute twice every day?



Because I'm a stubborn git, the misses said not to waste the money as I would get bored of it after a couple of weeks, so far three months. Most of the stuff I see is low level but the rare really bad driving inspires me to keep wearing it. I always hope to have a boring commute with nothing bad happening but Swindon seems to be full of muppets on the road.

For some reason I ride a lot more now than before I had the camera, even when it p1sses down.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> The usual comments about us with cameras looking for incidences is always a laugh.



I know it's hilarious! Such ignorance...


----------



## Origamist (7 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> I don't post a lot of my footage, either becasue it looks different on camera or becasuse someone had clearly made a mistake and I don't think they will do it again.
> The usual comments about us with cameras looking for incidences is always a laugh.



Why don't you post film of me riding this morning looking for trouble, trying to "choreograph"* incidents with motorists...


*Come back Col, all is forgiven


----------



## HLaB (7 Jun 2010)

The occasional time I've fitted mine to the bars. I've found less thing happen than normal; maybe the ATC is a pretty big deterrent. I've also found that the fish eye lens can distort thing a fair bit making things in front seem a lot closer and visa versa thing to the side seem a lot further. Despite these short comings, I find it good to review mine and other folks stuff.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

When campaigning like this, there's little point in filming someone's bad behaviour if you don't make the consequences evident. Telling them to search for their registration on youtube is nothing to do with inciting them, but to get them to see their actions, and know that others will watch their driving in public and on the internet. It's to get them to see their error in an irrefutable way.

Funnily enough I was thinking about posting a topic on how to tell people their registration is on youtube in a way that's least controversial.


----------



## dondare (7 Jun 2010)

I see a lot of genuinely dreadful driving when I'm walking. Perhaps the pavement is a better vantage-point for observing it. 
But where to mount the camera?


----------



## HLaB (7 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Funnily enough I was thinking about posting a topic on how to tell people their registration is on youtube in a way that's least controversial.


Smile, you're on Candid Camera and youtube too


----------



## Jmetz (7 Jun 2010)

why would they even be arsed if they were on youtube, i know i wouldnt, if they dont care how they have acted then i doubt a clip with a car matching their reg on youtube will deter them. Surely just take the reg and report, no need for the rest of the nonesense.


----------



## dondare (7 Jun 2010)

HLaB said:


> Smile, you're on Candid Camera and youtube too



Now that one was worth posting.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

Of course it makes a difference. Most drivers really do care if they are on youtube, especially when they know they've driven badly and their registration is searchable. Just look at those who've tried to get the video removed by reporting it to youtube.

Reporting it to the police does nothing for much bad driving, and at most will only get a letter from roadsafe. Well, unless it's a company vehicle, in which case you can often see the driver with a sickly expression as they realise just what they've done, and the possible consequences.

And this sort of action most definitely does deter drivers. Only on Sunday we had an aggressive young woman driver tone it down immediately I yelled and pointed out the camera. Before this she was tailgating and beeping two of our group on the CC London ride.

You anti-camera lot, you carry on doing nothing for your fellow cyclists, and criticising those of us who do care to take action. That'll get you a lot of respect, yes.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Funnily enough I was thinking about posting a topic on how to tell people their registration is on youtube in a way that's least controversial.



How about a sticker, that obviously causes no damage to the vehicle, or a business card stating they have been YouTube'd and the url to your channel.


----------



## dondare (7 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Of course it makes a difference. Most drivers really do care if they are on youtube, especially when they know they've driven badly and their registration is searchable. Just look at those who've tried to get the video removed by reporting it to youtube.
> 
> Reporting it to the police does nothing for much bad driving, and at most will only get a letter from roadsafe. Well, unless it's a company vehicle, in which case you can often see the driver with a sickly expression as they realise just what they've done, and the possible consequences.
> 
> ...



I'm not anti-camera, I just think that many of the youtube clips are mountains made out of wormcasts. (Not yours, of course.)


----------



## Mark_Robson (7 Jun 2010)

BSRU said:


> How about a sticker, that obviously causes no damage to the vehicle, or a business card stating they have been YouTube'd and the url to your channel.


Are you aware that the driver is still driving the vehicle?


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

Yes, Lee, your RLJing is probably just as selfish.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

There's no straw man - don't talk rubbish. I don't think you understand what a straw man argument is.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> Are you aware that the driver is still driving the vehicle?


I meant instead of confronting the driver while they are stopped. I could not imagine anything more dangerous than trying to hand a business card to a car driver while they are actually moving, let alone to some in a huge truck.

I was only giving a suggestion, I would not bother myself as people are very territorial and unpredictable when they are surround by a metal cage with four wheels.


----------



## Origamist (7 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> I'm not anti-camera, I just think that many of the youtube clips are mountains made out of wormcasts. (Not yours, of course.)



It's an interesting question, but films focussing on the casual disregard that many vulnerable road users face at the hands of motorists is as important as extreme vids of the "crash, bang, wallop" or "holy shoot" variety. They may not be as exciting, gruesome, or scary but film covering more commonplace incidents capture the indifference and/or disdain meted out to cyclists. It is this more general culture of disrepsect that needs to be highlighted and challenged. The downside is that thousands of videos dealing with quotidian carelessness paint (an arguably skewed) portrait of cyclist-unfriendly conditions in the UK.


----------



## ianrauk (7 Jun 2010)

Cars are many drivers prized possession. Put any type of sticker on a car and I can imagine you will get more trouble then it's worth.



BSRU said:


> How about a sticker, that obviously causes no damage to the vehicle, or a business card stating they have been YouTube'd and the url to your channel.


----------



## Jmetz (7 Jun 2010)

Although as i have stated i think quite often it appears on camera as though the cyclist initiated any aggression or arguments, but also that the posting of such videos as a deterrent to drivers is a complete waste of time, i do however find such videos are highly useful for demonstrating situations which can arise, and common areas for these, i.e traffic islands, which viewing can certainly be highly benefical to any new cyclists.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

Lee, you clearly don't understand what a straw man argument is. You RLJ for purely selfish reasons - this is no misrepresentation of your position. You're disdainful and thus also selfish about camera users and use in much the same way in that you don't care about changing conditions for you and your fellow cyclists.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

Jmetz said:


> Although as i have stated i think quite often it appears on camera as though the cyclist initiated any aggression or arguments,



A little better observation will show you that the cyclist is not the initiator in most videos, it's the driver's bad driving that is the initial cause.



Jmetz said:


> but also that the posting of such videos as a deterrent to drivers is a complete waste of time



This bit is also completely wrong. Just seeing the camera causes many drivers to become immediately more careful. I've had significant success in changing driver behaviour, as have many of the other youtubers as a direct result of posting these videos. Quite a few have resulted in company apologies. What would you feel if you were called in by your boss/director/fleet manager at your work for some p1ss poor driving behaviour?


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> That's simply rubbish, I fail to see how you can link RLJing to what I'm saying about helmet cameras!! That's madness.



Of course it is - it's about your attitude towards other road users. It's exactly the same selfishness shown in both examples, nothing more.



User3143 said:


> Changing conditions? Please post a link that shows that vids posted on Youtube have a positive effect on motorists and their attitudes towards cyclists.



Any number of company youtube links, where the companies have responded with an apology. They brought significant consequences to the driver involved.


----------



## Mark_Robson (7 Jun 2010)

Mike, just to take this back on topic for a moment, I understand your motives for posting videos of bad drivers on Youtube but in reality I think that it could back fire on you. You could create a Asbo type culture where young kids think it's actually cool to have their antics posted on your channel or disgruntled drivers may actually start to target bents in revenge close passes. That may sound melodramatic but it is possible. I would suggest that you discuss your proposal with the Police before you any further with it because once you make your idea public and start to advertise it you are going to leave yourself very exposed.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

Ahahahahahaahaahaa!


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> So what about the other videos then?



Of those drivers that did look for their video, the embarrassment is still there. Not as painful as that for the company driver, sure, but still. I don't think any of us would like to be on youtube, identifiable, and not able to get the video taken down.


----------



## Jmetz (7 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> A little better observation will show you that the cyclist is not the initiator in most videos, it's the driver's bad driving that is the initial cause.



Obviously the driver initiates the situations through his/her actions, but from my youtube experience it is quite often the one to go racing after a car and so on. But i guess thats down to which videos you watch.





BentMikey said:


> This bit is also completely wrong. Just seeing the camera causes many drivers to become immediately more careful. I've had significant success in changing driver behaviour, as have many of the other youtubers as a direct result of posting these videos. Quite a few have resulted in company apologies. What would you feel if you were called in by your boss/director/fleet manager at your work for some p1ss poor driving behaviour?



How do you know it has changed that drivers behaviour? I can see the argument for a company no doubt, cant argue there, but perhaps the affects will be much shorter lived, or even non-existant in relation to the everyday motorist.


I'd be careful with the sticker notion too, i wouldnt take kindly to someone putting anything adhesive to my bike nor car.


----------



## gaz (7 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> So what about the other videos then?



The other videos are about rljers and scalping


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

Jmetz said:


> How do you know it has changed that drivers behaviour? I can see the argument for a company no doubt, cant argue there, but perhaps the affects will be much shorter lived, or even non-existant in relation to the everyday motorist.
> 
> 
> I'd be careful with the sticker notion too, i wouldnt take kindly to someone putting anything adhesive to my bike nor car.



I didn't say anything about stickers. I don't think that's a good idea either.

How do I know it's changed driver behaviour? I think the effects will be smaller with an ordinary motorist, but still there. How else do you explain the improved driving shown by an aggressive moton when they notice the camera, or the immediate improvement in manners? This is not rare, but very common. I'm quite amazed how you'd try to argue against something that's so blatantly obvious.


----------



## Jmetz (7 Jun 2010)

As i said, it is likely to be short lived, so yes maybe occur during the period of about a minute while you're still around, but after that then what, thats all i'm getting at. The relevance in relation to company drivers i can see, but to the generic driver, not so much, purely in my view.


The sticker malarky wasn't aimed at yourself, i just thought id give it response.


As for Gaz the scalping ones are my faves, although i was on the unfortunate end of karma last week... unfamiliar area, saw a person fully clad in lycra, on a nice flat steadily mulling along, intended to take but saw a hill so waited, on the next flat sped past what turned out to be a woman of about 70, only to find an even bigger hill,. upon which she ambled past me as i lost the will to live..... hare and tortoise moment


----------



## manalog (7 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> You anti-camera lot, you carry on doing nothing for your fellow cyclists, and criticising those of us who do care to take action. That'll get you a lot of respect, yes.



+1 
Instead of supporting those who care about other Cylist they rant about other cyclist with Cams!


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

Good, it looks like you're both rather closer to my position that youtubing does have a useful effect. Yes, I'd agree that the effect on ordinary motons is likely smaller than it will be on a company driver. That's OK, the amount of pain for a reported company driver is likely to be quite serious for some, especially in this recession.

Many of the drivers will see one cycling youtube video, and then see the many similar video links YouTube suggests. That'll lead them to realise that there are many cyclists, motor cyclists, and drivers youtubing, so it will have a longer effect. They won't know who is filming them, and they will be reminded of the original incident every time they see another cyclist, even if the camera is just a light on their helmet.

It's very amusing hearing drivers ask me if "That's a camera". You can often hear the slightly stressed and excited tone to their question. There are clearly many people out there who worry about it.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Jun 2010)

bryce said:


> *What compels cam-wearers to attach the cam day-in day-out?* I can understand it for a nice ride in the countryside. But filming the same commute twice every day?
> 
> *What happens to the daily commutes when nothing happens? Deleted? *If so, then does dangerous driving count as a 'highlight'? Very weird world for me...



The reason I wear a camera (having very recently bought it, i.e. last week) and film every commute, is quite simple. The act of commuting normally involves cycling on busy roads, where the chance of being hit or involved in an incident is increased (at least for me), vs a nice weekend ride out somewhere quiet. Thus wearing a camera is solely for the purpose of evidence in the case of an incident involving me (or as a secondary concern, another road user, car, cyclist or even pedestrian, in the case it witnesses an incident not involving me) should the need be.

I was recently knocked of by someone who wouldnt provide details, acted aggresivelly and then tells me he isnt insured and leaves. Yes I have witnesses, but a camera would have been infallible evidence in this case, should it have survived the crash (which it would have no doubt in this case).

And yup, on commutes where there are no incidents, footage is deleted without even watching it. I dont upload my footage to youtube to pick out idiots, it is on my helmet for every ride, I have deleted all footage recorded using it so far, and hope this remains the case. But id much rather have it than not due to my recent experiences. 

I turn it on, and then ride to work/home/out for a nice leisurely ride and on the most part forget it is there. If it has any effect on the way I cycle, id say its a possitive one, i.e. prompting me to look behind more often and not to make silly manouvres or mistakes because I know im filming my own stupidity if I act that way.


----------



## dondare (7 Jun 2010)

manalog said:


> +1
> Instead of supporting those who care about other Cylist they rant about other cyclist with Cams!



I try not to rant. (As long as you don't get me started....) But those Ubend clips do not always show the cyclist who posts them in a good light, and by association, don't show cyclists generally in a good light. 

If I filmed my rides and posted all the times that I genuinely feel enraged or endangered by the actions of other road users then I'd be posting about one a year, and perhaps not every year. 

If I posted every bit of crap driving I saw then that'd be another matter entirely, but what I see is the same as everyone else can see so it doesn't need to be posted.


----------



## manalog (7 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> I try not to rant. (As long as you don't get me started....) But those Ubend clips do not always show the cyclist who posts them in a good light, and by association, don't show cyclists generally in a good light.
> 
> *If I filmed my rides and posted all the times that I genuinely feel enraged or endangered by the actions of other road users then I'd be posting about one a year, and perhaps not every year. *
> 
> If I posted every bit of crap driving I saw then that'd be another matter entirely, but what I see is the same as everyone else can see so it doesn't need to be posted.



Where do you commute Dondare sounds like cyclists heaven.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (7 Jun 2010)

BSRU said:


> How about a sticker, that obviously causes no damage to the vehicle, or a business card stating they have been YouTube'd and the url to your channel.



....and then upload it elsewhere other than YT and let them get frustrated knowing there is footage of them somewhere but thay can't see what it is


----------



## jonny jeez (7 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Cameras seem to be trouble magnets. ".


not in my experience, quite the opposite in fact



User3143 said:


> If the above is an example of the 'culture' among cyclists who wear helmet cams then they should be banned. Honestly, whatever happened to serenity and accepting the cabbies version of events.



What culture? why am I always the last to know.

please, can somebody let me know when i join a culture (I would have worn something more formal)

if there is a culture, I can assure you I am not a member.




bryce said:


> What compels cam-wearers to attach the cam day-in day-out?
> What happens to the daily commutes when nothing happens?



Safety.
Yes, deleted along with 99% of all my footage (that i dont even review)

For my part, I dont "upload" videos to youtube very often, if I do, I make a habit of trying to make them informative or helpful in some way or just funny.

I agree that chasing offending drivers is a really bad idea...for us all... and there is something to be said for the negative image that it conveys to other road sharers.

but, after all said and done, nothing will stop me recording my rides.


----------



## dondare (7 Jun 2010)

manalog said:


> Where do you commute Dondare sounds like cyclists heaven.


Barnet to Bloomsbury. (Morning.) A1000 (GNR) to Archway, then through Camden.
Bloomsbury to Barnet. (Evening.) .evoba sA


----------



## dondare (7 Jun 2010)

jonny jeez said:


> What culture? why am I always the last to know.
> 
> please, can somebody let me know when i join a culture (I would have worn something more formal)
> 
> if there is a culture, I can assure you I am not a member.




Not culture, 'culture'. 



jonny jeez said:


> Safety.
> Yes, deleted along with 99% of all my footage (that i dont even review)
> 
> For my part, I dont "upload" videos to youtube very often, if I do, I make a habit of trying to make them informative or helpful in some way or just funny.
> ...


----------



## Jmetz (7 Jun 2010)

jonny jeez said:


> For my part, I dont "upload" videos to youtube very often, if I do, I make a habit of trying to make them informative or helpful in some way or just funny.
> 
> I agree that chasing offending drivers is a really bad idea...for us all... and there is something to be said for the negative image that it conveys to other road sharers.
> 
> but, after all said and done, nothing will stop me recording my rides.



And that is exactly what headcams should be for, in my opinion, informative or funny videos.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

Removing the version I mentioned because it was missing the rear facing footage which is important. Should be ready in about 20 minutes.


----------



## jonny jeez (7 Jun 2010)

Jmetz said:


> And that is exactly what headcams should be for, in my opinion, informative or funny videos.



although, just to add to the polemic, this is (as a lot of you tube posters would argue) the point of showing conforntational material...to inform.

which is not to say that I agree with that stance, as I feel to much of it is confrontation for its own sake and actually acheives and educates very little.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

This time hopefully the right video which includes rear facing footage, which is important as it shows the taxi basically barges past me.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHq6M_9BJmc


----------



## gaz (7 Jun 2010)

I saw the first one, and didn't think much of it, just the usual crappy overtake. but coupled with the rear, it clearly shows he just pushed through and didn't give you much room when he started to pass.


----------



## Origamist (7 Jun 2010)

Bus lane: check
Cyclist: check
Hackney carriage: check
Stupid and dangerous pass by taxi: check


----------



## dondare (7 Jun 2010)

BSRU said:


> This time hopefully the right video which includes rear facing footage, which is important as it shows the taxi basically barges past me.
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHq6M_9BJmc




Well, that was bad driving. I'd guess that he anticipated that you'd take the bend closer to the curb.
Who's horn?


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Who's horn?



It was my AirZound.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> I saw the first one, and didn't think much of it, just the usual crappy overtake. but coupled with the rear, it clearly shows he just pushed through and didn't give you much room when he started to pass.



The first video looks very tame, not worth uploading but the rear view is what makes it.

Strangely enough another taxi driving perfectly safely is forced wide by him in order to allow him to overtake me.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jun 2010)

I should add that this would not have happened before May 1st as that is when the local council decided to allow taxi's to use bus lanes, for a fee of course.


----------



## dondare (7 Jun 2010)

The traffic was moving freely, he didn't even need to use the bus lane.


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jun 2010)

bryce said:


> Wondering whether the actual act of securing a camera to one's bike makes you more uptight? I know I'm usually more relaxed without my HRM/ speed computer.
> 
> What compels cam-wearers to attach the cam day-in day-out? I can understand it for a nice ride in the countryside. But filming the same commute twice every day?
> 
> What happens to the daily commutes when nothing happens? Deleted? If so, then does dangerous driving count as a 'highlight'? Very weird world for me...



Speed Computer...I am no longer trying to prove how fast I am...Those days are gone...Nice to see an upturn in form from me as I have been faster this year...

Helmet Cams....A lot of the time I forget the thing is on now and sometimes forget to turn it off....

A workmate caught up with me at Mile End the other day (on his moped) and said "get him on my camera at the lights"....I actually thought he wanted me to take a photo with my camera phone...I had forgotten about the camera on my helmet...(fnarr fnarr).


----------



## DrSquirrel (7 Jun 2010)

BSRU said:


> While I was in a bus lane, which allows taxis, a taxi overtook me leaving very little space between us. I guessed where he was going, a small detour for me, and managed to catch him up in order to get a good facial shot. He immediately apologised for being to close, stating a car on his right had caused him to pass too close. I will review my video later to see if his excuse holds up.
> My dilemma is that his apology seemed genuine enough although he was a little shocked I had managed to catch him up, I am not a small guy and probably he may have noticed the camera stuck on top of my helmet. Did not help his cause by the fact he had parked his empty taxi in a parent/toddler space despite plenty of normal spaces available.



Often small men feel big in their 1200kg of metal. And some people are clever enough to play soft and pretend to be sorry, specially good with the Police, arguing won't get you anywhere.

As for the other car forced him in - poor excuse, it's like the drivers that pass you and go "but you were wobbling all over the road", which is pretty much the perfect excuse NOT to overtake.

Parking in that bay at the end, although not the crime of the century, starts to build up a general attitude... one of someone that just doesn't care.



Sheffield_Tiger said:


> ....and then upload it elsewhere other than YT and let them get frustrated knowing there is footage of them somewhere but thay can't see what it is




http://www.yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2010-05-10

heh


----------



## 2Loose (7 Jun 2010)

Do I get the impression that Lee is resisting any options of legal defence or retribution against bullying motorists by cyclists? 

I get the message that cameras are evil because sh*tty driving is the acceptable norm. But then again, it is only from him...but then RLJ'ing is not defendable.

That was a close overtake, endangering other road users in the outer lanes, probably more for them than the cyclist posting it.

**Editing this because Lee's playing of the devil's advocate often polarizes these threads after all**


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

You're not making your point very well for someone with a supposed IQ of 133.


----------



## 2Loose (7 Jun 2010)

Too concise for your own good Lee. But what am I referring too...?


----------



## 2Loose (7 Jun 2010)

One numpy who becomes more aware due to dodgy footagevisit from plod is a result surely.
Nobody expects to change the world in a day. Little by little, chip, chip away.

A single driver considering their actions is a RESULT, surely you can't dismiss that? Magnatom hitting TV=big result, but the youtube crowd are smaller fish, but fish nonetheless.

I think I see your point, having a camera on should not encourage following drivers and forcing them to 'face up to being a prat' while I hide behind the camera...


and in that I agree.


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jun 2010)

2Loose said:


> Do I get the impression that Lee is resisting any options of legal defence or retribution against bullying motorists by cyclists?
> 
> I get the message that cameras are evil because sh*tty driving is the acceptable norm. But then again, it is only from him...but then RLJ'ing is not defendable.
> 
> ...



I use the cam to pick up on my cycling and positioning....also looking at dodgy incidents...Have a few interesting ones as well as the Blackfriars Bridge incident somewhere.

Had one with a cabbie at Bank also...he pulled in but it looks like nothing on cam and the ped incident doesn't look as serious as it was.Think the handlebar cam picked it up better.


----------



## 2Loose (7 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> I'm not talking about that.




Actually this one. Nonetheless, I hope that my point was clear.

And I agree with hackers (and others) use of cams, they should remain as educational aids, perhaps to be used in the event of something bad where the police should be involved, rather than the 'I am cyclist - better than car driver' argument. Or in worst case, prosecutioninsurance proof. 

NB. I don't wear a cam...yet.


----------



## 2Loose (7 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> No, that was a reply to BM about cyclists being the instigator in 'most videos' I simply asked what about 'the other ones then'?



Forgive me not being psychic. Perhaps the 'too concise' message may be a lesson?


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

Like I said earlier, you've agreed with my position. Filming does affect driver behaviour, not as much as we'd like it to, but far more than you tried to suggest in the beginning.

p.s. You best go read up on straw man arguments and learn what they really are, because you've shown your misunderstanding quite well here.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jun 2010)

Yeah, 2Loose, I've no idea what he's trying to get at either.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Not really for reasons in respect of new drivers, mentality, culture, risk, strategy, education and implementation. Can't be arsed to go into now and Origamist knows more about the above then I do. I'm going to watch Predator 2.



Predator 2 really isn't very good and Cloverfield was on. 

That was bad driving from a professional driver. How much worse it was from what people expect from cabbies is hard to tell from that clip of film.

I get the impression that camera-toting cyclists condition themselves to notice and react to bad driving and possibly become more confrontational themselves. But then again, perhaps they were like that before.

I would be genuinely interested to see film from your rides. There might be some interesting moments that you regard as unremarkable. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if you ever did feel the need to chase someone down it wouldn't be to tell them "this is going on youtube".


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah, 2Loose, I've no idea what he's trying to get at either.



BM, you did once film Lee riding through the darkened streets of London. Could you save me the trouble of finding the clip by posting the link?


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMWuPsUoBB0


As I said before he's a good rider, leaving out the RLJing debate of which there's none in the above clip anyway.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

Ta.


----------



## martint235 (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> I get the impression that camera-toting cyclists condition themselves to notice and react to bad driving and possibly become more confrontational themselves. But then again, perhaps they were like that before.



I think I'm the opposite. Not had the camera for very long but before I had it, I was extremely confrontational, always willing to chase a moton down and have a good slanging match. Since getting the camera, I don't shout and swear (missus sometimes watches the films) and tend to just point to the camera rather than enter a row.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

martint235 said:


> I think I'm the opposite. Not had the camera for very long but before I had it, I was extremely confrontational, always willing to chase a moton down and have a good slanging match. Since getting the camera, I don't shout and swear (missus sometimes watches the films) and tend to just point to the camera rather than enter a row.




Well that is consistant with my alternative hypothesis that it's the confrontational cyclists who use the helmet cams. 

As Karpaith reminded us recently, correlation is not the same as cause.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> If I ever had a camera I'd film parts of my ride to eduacate my fellow cyclist brethen. Not as a tool to ride after some cabbie who made a genuine mistake and confront them in a car park. Then start a thread about what to do and use the fact that he was parked in a parent & toddler space (not illegal) as a contributing factor.



The cabbie was being a genuine prat. He didn't even need to use the bus lane, the traffic was moving freely. Using a space intended for someone else may not be illegal but it's selfish and antisocial which is morally as bad.


----------



## BSRU (8 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Not as a tool to ride after some cabbie who made a genuine mistake and confront them in a car park. Then start a thread about what to do and use the fact that he was parked in a parent & toddler space (not illegal) as a contributing factor.



It is genuine bad driving. Parking in a parent/toddler space shows lack of respect for rules that most people have the decency to follow.

Like I wrote before in this thread, I do not normally ride after drivers, this was the first time and due to the fact it was the second bad taxi driving incident in a few days. I did not seek to inflame the situation, I stayed on my bike and just cycled passed, I said nothing to him, he offered his insincere apology without prompting. There was no confrontation.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about helmet cams.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> No I have not and I see you have not answered my questions with respect to the amount of people that view your vids on YouTube you really think you make that much of an impact?



What, over 900,000 views? Well, admittedly that includes my skating vids, I can't be bothered to go count them up seperately. LMAO!



User3143 said:


> As for the strawman argument I find it ironic that you mention my misunderstanding when it was you that went off tangent. I'm still a bit confused as to your reasoning about me having an opinion about helmet cameras to then being labelled a 'selfish cyclist' not caring about my fellow cyclists? Clutching at starws perhaps?



What exactly is it that you do to help your fellow cyclists? Is your unwillingness to do something perhaps just as selfish as your red light jumping is?


----------



## BSRU (8 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Taxi's travel in bus lanes Dondare, it's a known fact if the OP had bothered to look at his position he wouldn't of been passed so close.



If you bothered to actually watch the video you will see he straddles the solid white line forcing the taxi in the other lane to move wider, what position on a bicycle is going to stop a muppet like that. I am in the middle of the lane to try and stop idiots like him trying to squeeze past, it normally works.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

The OP could have moved in a bit but the cabbie should not have assumed that this was about to happen. A professional driver should be able to read the situation and act appropriately. If he wanted to hammer along the bus lane in order to gain a few seconds then he could at least have entered it after he was clear of the cyclist.
Why use the reserved space at all? It stinks of bad attitude.

I'm wondering about a camera, but I don't wear a lid.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Well that is consistant with my alternative hypothesis that it's the confrontational cyclists who use the helmet cams.
> 
> As Karpaith reminded us recently, correlation is not the same as cause.



I'm not sure I follow your logic. I've said much along the lines of Martin's comment in the past.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

BSRU said:


> If you bothered to actually watch the video you will see he straddles the solid white line forcing the taxi in the other lane to move wider, what position on a bicycle is going to stop a muppet like that. I am in the middle of the lane to try and stop idiots like him trying to squeeze past, it normally works.



"Taking the lane" sometimes works but not with the driver who _always_ overtakes cyclists.


----------



## BSRU (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> I'm wondering about a camera, but I don't wear a lid.


That is a downside, having to wear a helmet all the time, I would not usually wear a helmet when it gets warmer unless it was peeing it down.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I'm not sure I follow your logic. I've said much along the lines of Martin's comment in the past.



Still only a hypothesis. Or two. Not enough data yet.

The cyclists who post on Youtube don't react to situations the way I'd react or the way I see most other cyclists react.


----------



## BSRU (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> "Taking the lane" sometimes works but not with the driver who _always_ overtakes cyclists.


I have to take that position as I would end up with loads of taxi's barging past. In that position taxi's normally stick to the non-bus lane, using the bus lane saves them no time.
The bus drivers are far more courteous and always wait behind, in response I give it a bit more gas and move out of their way as soon as possible, just after the end of the bus lane.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

Yeah, but your earlier comment doesn't seem to confirm what you suggest. Perhaps you might explain a little more?

One difference is that pointing out the camera will almost certainly prevent someone from having another go at you, be that verbal or with their vehicle.


----------



## martint235 (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Still only a hypothesis. Or two. Not enough data yet.
> 
> The cyclists who post on Youtube don't react to situations the way I'd react or the way I see most other cyclists react.



This was kind of my point. Now I wear a camera, my reactions are completely different to the way I used to react to an issue with a driver. I am now much calmer, more thoughtful and less likely to go ballistic at bad driving (and believe me in SE London there are many opportunities). On this basis I would say cameras are a good thing, I'm sure drivers would agree with me as now they are just politely informed that they are being filmed rather than having to quickly wind their window up whilst faced with a cyclist frothing at the mouth, hurling obscenities their way.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah, but your earlier comment doesn't seem to confirm what you suggest. Perhaps you might explain a little more?
> 
> One difference is that pointing out the camera will almost certainly prevent someone from having another go at you, be that verbal or with their vehicle.



I have very little trouble on the road when cycling and I never feel that there is any advantage in informing bad drivers that they are bad drivers. I think that this will simply turn them into bad-tempered bad drivers which is worse.
I don't see other cyclists chasing down motorists in order to tell them that they have comitted some misdemeanor and such confrontations that I have witnessed have been initiated by the driver. 
But on Youtube it's quite different.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

You've got to be having a laugh, dondare. You've never seen other cyclists chasing down drivers to shout at them? I see it quite regularly. Maybe you don't ride very much.

p.s. I also have very little trouble on the road.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> You've got to be having a laugh, dondare. You've never seen other cyclists chasing down drivers to shout at them? I see it quite regularly. Maybe you don't ride very much.
> 
> p.s. I also have very little trouble on the road.



I ride a fair bit. I'll start noticing such events if they happen.

North London is rather more civilised than Sarf London, perhaps.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

I think I shall go for a ride now and look out for notable happenings.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jun 2010)

If you had one of these, the taxi wouldn't bother you.


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


----------



## BSRU (8 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> If you had one of these, the taxi wouldn't bother you.
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWxjUDEYIiw




I bet it's crap on roundabouts.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jun 2010)

BSRU said:


> I bet it's crap on roundabouts.



He runs a quite good 'Mobile Paint Stripper' business.


----------



## Jezston (8 Jun 2010)

I love the classic trollesque techniques used by Lee here. Can't be bothered to actually refute other people's statements of fact, because you can't? Just claim they are 'missing the point' (without actually stating what that point is), accuse them of bad arguing techniques, and the old 'prove me wrong or I'm right' style statements where you don't actually have to make any effort yourself (or have any facts or even an argument at all), and sit back and watch the fireworks.

I never really understand what people who act like this get out of it. The amount of time and effort they have to spend to maintain pointless, circular arguments. Do they really get pleasure out of it? Aren't their easier and more rewarding pastimes?


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> North London is rather more civilised than Sarf London, perhaps.



If you really think that, you must have your head up your rear.


----------



## HLaB (8 Jun 2010)

A bit OT but I liked this drivers response to a helmet cam


----------



## BSRU (8 Jun 2010)

HLaB said:


> A bit OT but I liked this drivers response to a helmet cam


I had a woman this morning look at me in horror when she noticed me, she dropped the mobile phone she was using on the floor.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

LOL, just watched that one, HLaB.



BSRU said:


> I had a woman this morning look at me in horror when she noticed me, she dropped the mobile phone she was using on the floor.



Yeah, that is amusing! The camera is great at getting drivers to put the phone away.


----------



## Origamist (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> I have very little trouble on the road when cycling and I never feel that there is any advantage in informing bad drivers that they are bad drivers. I think that this will simply turn them into bad-tempered bad drivers which is worse.



Generally, this is my take. However, with a camera I know I don't have to confront a driver (not that I usually did anyway) as I can now send a link (anonymously, if I choose) to RoadSafe and they can determine if the driver needs a warning letter or a more serious form of censure. 




dondare said:


> *I don't see other cyclists chasing down motorists in order to tell them that they have comitted some misdemeanor *and such confrontations that I have witnessed have been initiated by the driver. But on Youtube it's quite different.



I see this on a weekly basis.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jun 2010)

Helmet cams can be useful.

A chap once said to me ( my uncle ), "There's been a few B**t**ds play dirty tricks on me. If I'm diagnosed with a terminal illness, I'm not going alone".


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Jun 2010)

Jezston said:


> I never really understand what people who act like this get out of it. The amount of time and effort they have to spend to maintain pointless, circular arguments. Do they really get pleasure out of it? Aren't their easier and more rewarding pastimes?



+1 to that Jezston


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> If you really think that, you must have your head up your rear.



Well, Barnet, anyway.


----------



## Norm (8 Jun 2010)

If there's one reason that I wear a camera, it can be determined in this thread.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

On my way in today I had one minor incident. 
I arrived at an ASZ with the light red. Like most of these ludicrous travesties of a "facility" it went the full width but could only be entered legally at the left hand corner. I went in and moved slightly across because the road forks and I wasn't going left.
Well; a small white van stopped behind me, mostly behind the zone so no problem, but just before the lights changed he moved off, coming so close that his wing mirror bumped my elbow. Impatient, rude, annoying and illegal (although the lights did change at that moment so he went through on red+amber, not green) but not life-threatening. 

What would you lot have done about it? Answers from camera users and non-users, please.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

Lee, now you're just arguing about the argument.


----------



## JoysOfSight (8 Jun 2010)

I wonder if I'm alone in finding that when I don't have a camera on, I seem to experience a lot more incidents than otherwise?

I don't for one minute believe this is down to people seeing the camera, so it seems the two possibilities are either that when I ride without a camera I somehow "provoke" incidents, which is unlikely as many are things like mobile-related or pulling out in front, or that when I have the camera on I don't assign such significance to what others are doing (perhaps subconciously knowing that if push came to shove, they were doing it on camera).

I don't really know which explanation I prefer (and would welcome any other suggestions).

As for the wider question of whether cameras do any good, in fact I think the greatest good comes to my own riding, because I am so much more relaxed and feel less need to argue with people. I still do argue with them, sometimes, but less than when I rode "naked" and of course there is an objective viewpoint to it all. (Interestingly I can often tell when a video clip is from by how adversarial I am - the more outraged, it's often an early one when I hadn't got used to the idea that I was recording yet).

I'm not sure it has much of an impact on driving per se, but as people have commented above, individual drivers who get burned will not forget in a hurry. In this I specifically disagree with the post above.

Rome wasn't built in a day!


----------



## HLaB (8 Jun 2010)

JoysOfSight said:


> I wonder if I'm alone in finding that when I don't have a camera on, I seem to experience a lot more incidents than otherwise?


You are not alone, when I've got a camera fitted I have hardly any incidents. I know the ATC is a pretty big beast and would be hard to miss but SMIDSY would.


----------



## martint235 (8 Jun 2010)

I agree entirely. My commutes with the camera are a lot less stressful and with fewer incidents than my commutes without. I have no idea why as it's only a small muvi camera so virtually invisible against my bulk!


----------



## gaz (8 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> It was then a passing comment by Gaz about 'looking for incidents' that started the last 12 or so pages of this thread.


Haha don't try and pin this on my comment! whilst i may have said that, i haven't contributed since.



User3143 said:


> If you want to ride with a helmet cam then that's fine, but please don't feel it is your mission to hunt down every single bad bad overtake there is because you will do more harm then good.


I doubt anyone here 'hunts' down, or talks to every driver that performs a poor overtake. If i get the oppertunity then i might have a word if the overtake was of particularly poor standard. I get many bad overtakes on most journeys that i don't even bother posting.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> What will piss people off and futher alienate drivers from cyclists are the attitudes of some helmet cam cyclists who think it is their God given right to make such a big deal out of the incidents that for the most part are minimal and occur every day.
> 
> If you have a bad pass there really is no need to start a thread on it and try and induce some sort of moral dileema such as the cabbie was illegally parked.
> 
> If you want to ride with a helmet cam then that's fine, but please don't feel it is your mission to hunt down every single bad bad overtake there is because you will do more harm then good.



I cant disagree with any of that, I do often think we "cam-dwellers" feel that, because we have the footage, we have to post it. And I am often convinced that the debate that some of this footage sparks off is not healthy, especially for us...I can think of only ONE you tube thread that resulted in a sensible admission form the driver and even that was only due to the fact that someone on here (I think it was either Fossy or Ianruk) suggesting we go easy on the driver as they had dislpayed a clear willingness to listen 

But having a cam does provide you with evidence when needed to show the relevant authorities.



JoysOfSight said:


> I wonder if I'm alone in finding that when I don't have a camera on, I seem to experience a lot more incidents than otherwise?
> 
> I don't for one minute believe this is down to people seeing the camera, so it seems the two possibilities are either that when I ride without a camera I somehow "provoke" incidents, which is unlikely as many are things like mobile-related or pulling out in front, or that when I have the camera on I don't assign such significance to what others are doing (perhaps subconciously knowing that if push came to shove, they were doing it on camera).
> 
> ...



you are most definitely *not* alone there J O S


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> I doubt anyone here 'hunts' down, or talks to every driver that performs a poor overtake. If i get the oppertunity then i might have a word if the overtake was of particularly poor standard. I get many bad overtakes on most journeys that i don't even bother posting.



I think lee probably ovestated the "every single" point, But I understand his point, there are a shocking amount of vids of cyclists berating drivers on 'tinternet. The problem is, cyclist sometimes HAVE to berate drivers, its just that when recorded and posted, thats all the general masses get to see.


----------



## bryce (8 Jun 2010)

Not sure if there's a definitive concensus from all the cam wearer replies but it seems to be towards _'cam wearing is essential to take evidence of crimes and bad driving'_ rather than wearing it to record fun rides or skillful manoeuvres or a fun 'scalping'.

So you're setting out on each ride thinking that you may be a victim of a crime. Fair enough - same logic as wearing a helmet to avoid the injuries caused by a crash.

The only criticism I would then have is using it to record bad driving rather than a crime scene. People make mistakes all the time. I had a dopey Chelsea lady in her Range Rover pull out from a side road yesterday and almost fell me (on Onslow Gardens(, London)). It was a mistake and I cycled on with a menacing glare and flick of the hand. To then go and report her, send the video evidence to the Police (or whoever), just seems way overkill and a waste of everyone's time. Rather than educating said driver, I'd argue that it would in fact breed further antagonistic/ them-and-us behaviour all round.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Jun 2010)

> I agree that it does seem unbalanced. But to upload every good overtake would be the most boring job (to upload and to view) in the world.



That made me chuckle, 

but its not true MP...you only need to upload a few good examples for every few bad...yin and yang and all that.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Jun 2010)

bryce said:


> So you're setting out on each ride thinking that you may be a victim of a crime. Fair enough - same logic as wearing a helmet to avoid the injuries caused by a crash.
> 
> *Yep, that's about right*
> 
> ...


I would also add that the more this happens, the less time (and appetite)the police will have to investigate really bad offenders


----------



## JoysOfSight (8 Jun 2010)

bryce said:


> The only criticism I would then have is using it to record bad driving rather than a crime scene. People make mistakes all the time. I had a dopey Chelsea lady in her Range Rover pull out from a side road yesterday and almost fell me (on Onslow Gardens(, London)). It was a mistake and I cycled on with a menacing glare and flick of the hand. To then go and report her, send the video evidence to the Police (or whoever), just seems way overkill and a waste of everyone's time. Rather than educating said driver, I'd argue that it would in fact breed further antagonistic/ them-and-us behaviour all round.



But what's the difference between "bad driving" and a "crime scene", in terms of the driver's actions? Seems to me it is an artificial distinction - it's like when someone defends driving at 50mph past a primary school because they didn't hit anyone (that time).

However, the point about setting out "expecting to be hit" is well made, and I'm quite conflicted about the whole thing from that point of view. I personally try to advocate "normal" cycling, as in you don't need to wear body armour and a bin-man suit to cycle to the corner shop for milk, and yet I record everything around me. This isn't something I've ever been able to reconcile.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> What will piss people off and futher alienate drivers from cyclists are



...those RLJing cyclists like yourself, perhaps more than anything else at all. You really talk such a load of bawlocks sometimes Lee.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jun 2010)

jonny jeez said:


> I would also add that the more this happens, the less time (and appetite)the police will have to investigate really bad offenders



a la ... The little boy who cried wolf.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> a la ... The little boy who cried wolf.



Or is it Chicken Licken "The sky is falling!"


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

I seem to recall a study that showed the more time that police spent on minor traffic offences, the more the KSI figures dropped. It seems pretty obvious to me that what is needed is more consequences for the more minor traffic infractions, all the time. If some of those consequences are due to helmet cameras, I'm pretty happy with that.


----------



## Jezston (8 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> ...those RLJing cyclists like yourself, perhaps more than anything else at all. You really talk such a load of bawlocks sometimes Lee.



The only way to stop people (or trolls) on forums who like antagonising people by being deliberately contrarian, argumentative etc is to stop engaging with them.

When lee comes out with bollocks just ignore him, and he'll soon stop doing it when he realises there's no fun to be had.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

It's not very hard to score points off Lee.


----------



## BSRU (8 Jun 2010)

In my short experience with helmet cams I have had some positive results.
Three examples:
1) An apology from a regional manager of Stagecoach for the dangerous driving of one of their drivers, who has been talked to.
2) Helping the Police catch a car tax dodger, the video evidence proved he was driving when it was supposed to be SORN'd.
3) Traffic Police actually trying to catch persistent bus lane abusers who used them with impunity and they managed to totally pi$$ of all the bus drivers.

Writing a letters of complaint to the authorities is only going to make them think I am some crazed nutter with too much spare time but back them up with video footage and I become some crazed nutter with too much spare time making a verifiable point.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jun 2010)

The tale of Cyclist Lyclist.

One day, as Cyclist Lyclist was riding to work, an unattentative motorist passes him closely.
Cyclist Lyclist sits up in horror and says to himself "The cars hate me, the cars hate me!". I must tell the police.

When Cyclist Lyclist meets Recumbent Lecumbant, Cyclist Lyclist tells Recumbent Lecumbant "The cars hate us, the cars hate us! We must tell the police"

Recumbent Lecumbant agrees and says "I have it on video. Let's show it to the police." 

They meet EmmTeeBee LemTeeBee."

They both tell EmmTeeBee LemTeeBee "The cars hate us, the cars hate us!"

EmmTeeBee LemTeeBee agrees and says they should tell Roadracer Loadracer.

Then they told Moulton Loulton.

Then they told SuperGal LuperGal.

Then they told Brompton Lompton.

Brompton Lompton suggests telling Pennyfarthing Lennyfarthing.

Cyclist Lyclist, Recumbent Lecumbant, EmmTeeBee LemTeeBee, Roadracer Loadracer, Moulton Loulton, SuperGal Lupergal and Brompton Lompton tell Pennyfarthing Lennyfarthing "The cars hate us, the cars hate us!"

"Of course they do, you stupid twats. They always have, and running around squealing about it will make them hate you more".


----------



## trustysteed (8 Jun 2010)




----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

That's the best post you've done in ages Jimbo!!! Quality!


----------



## JoysOfSight (8 Jun 2010)

Of course the elephant in the room is that drivers, both commercial and private are increasingly starting to use cameras anyway (in some cases as an insurance requirement).

In fact, I first got onto the idea of using a camera from a guy at work who has one in his car. I'm not sure whether there are as many angry drivers posting YouTube videos though (or on second thoughts...)


----------



## Origamist (8 Jun 2010)

bryce said:


> Not sure if there's a definitive concensus from all the cam wearer replies but it seems to be towards _'cam wearing is essential to take evidence of crimes and bad driving'_ rather than wearing it to record fun rides or skillful manoeuvres or a fun 'scalping'.
> 
> So you're setting out on each ride thinking that you may be a victim of a crime. Fair enough - same logic as wearing a helmet to avoid the injuries caused by a crash.



It's not just about looking after number one, you can help others too. 

If I filmed you being assaulted by a driver who had run you off the road, would you want to use the footage to corroborate your version of events, or would you refuse to use the film on a matter of principle? I imagine most people would bite my hand off to have film of the incident.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

Just like it's not a trolling session for you Lee? OTOH I've been fairly serious all the way along, though enjoying knocking down your points.


----------



## Origamist (8 Jun 2010)

JoysOfSight said:


> However, the point about setting out "expecting to be hit" is well made, and I'm quite conflicted about the whole thing from that point of view. I personally try to advocate "normal" cycling, as in you don't need to wear body armour and a bin-man suit to cycle to the corner shop for milk, and yet I record everything around me. *This isn't something I've ever been able to reconcile*.



Me too, but I'll think you'll have to concede that I look pefectly normal when I cycle:


----------



## BigSteev (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> North London is rather more civilised than Sarf London, perhaps.



Having just read through all of this thread, this is the only sensible comment I've come across. 

I've pretty much stopped looking at videos of things like close overtakes 'cos to be honest, they're boring and it just makes me thing what a bunch of whiners the posters are.


----------



## Notsoblue (8 Jun 2010)

Er, I agree with Lee's initial point. There does seem to be a particular attitude prevalent with those helmetcam users that are prolific on youtube. It comes across as a bit sanctimonious :S You have to admit thats the case... And I'm saying that as someone who often wears a helmetcam. 

Oh and effectively trying to shut him out of the debate just because he admits to have occasionally jumped red lights, something you disagree with, is just childish.

My 2p anyway.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

BigSteev said:


> I've pretty much stopped looking at videos of things like close overtakes 'cos to be honest, they're boring and it just makes me thing what a bunch of whiners the posters are.



They're not boring when they happen to you though, and they shouldn't be so boringly acceptable either.


----------



## Origamist (8 Jun 2010)

BigSteev said:


> Having just read through all of this thread, this is the only sensible comment I've come across.
> 
> I've pretty much stopped looking at videos of things like close overtakes 'cos to be honest, they're boring and it just makes me thing what a bunch of whiners the posters are.



Steve, you seem to spend most of your time whining about whiny posters - is irony wasted on you

I'm happy to whine about whiners, who whinge about cycle cam users who whine. Capish?


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Just like it's not a trolling session for you Lee? OTOH I've been fairly serious all the way along, though enjoying knocking down your points.



Stating and defending one's own opinions does not constitute trolling. Lee is one of the regular posters who makes this forum site more interesting than the other cycling forums.


----------



## BigSteev (8 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> I'm happy to whine about whiners, who whinge about cycle cam users who whine. Capish?



lol. Yes, but I wouldn't want to say that several times quickly.


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Thank you for that.
> 
> 
> 
> So this is a points scoring exercise is it? Just gets better and better.



You mean you never knew?


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Or is it Chicken Licken "The sky is falling!"



both I think

hey.. its a fairytale mashup!!


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> The tale of Cyclist Lyclist.
> 
> One day, as Cyclist Lyclist was riding to work, an unattentative motorist passes him closely.
> Cyclist Lyclist sits up in horror and says to himself "The cars hate me, the cars hate me!". I must tell the police.
> ...



well, that's saved me a job tonght, I can never find a good bedtime story for my little'un.

perfect


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 Jun 2010)

So who's winning on points?


----------



## Bollo (8 Jun 2010)

Much as it pains me, I think Lee is right about changing drivers' attitudes. Pointing a camera in their face could prevent any instant and violent retribution or even get them to squeeze out a half-assed apology, but I'd bet they're subsequent driving changes not one jot. Poor driver attitudes in this country are too deeply ingrained for that.

I also believe that riding with a camera does change a cyclist's attitude, but in different ways for different cyclists. It might make some a little more ready to engage in 'afters', while others are generally calmer knowing that there's good evidence available if something bad happens. I'd include myself in the second category. I like the description (quoted by Origamist but originally from dondare?) of the camera as a 'black box'.

The other thing that gets forgotten when someone posts footage is that the camera rarely gives the whole picture. You can add an extended commentary explaining your perfect road position, excellent obs and great hair, but viewers will either not read it at all or treat it as self-agrandising after-the-fact bum gravy. Often the footage cannot reflect the proximity, speed or complexity of an incident, and it certainly can't get across the rider's subjective sense of danger.

I can think of many incidents posted that (based on the footage alone) wouldn't have bothered me much and others where I'd have filled my pants. I've also had incidents that, while concerning at the time have looked fairly innocuous on camera, and vice-versa. Based on the type of riding we do and where we do it, we've all got our risk dials set differently. There are always going to be disagreements about what constitutes an acceptable risk-reward-responsibility balance (ref helmets/earphones/RLJ/cycle lanes). There's no right answer.


----------



## just jim (8 Jun 2010)

Bollo said:


> while others are generally calmer knowing that there's good evidence available if something bad happens.



Sorry for picking this out Bollo, but I think for most cyclists with cameras this surely is the pragmatic, non-wolf-crying reason for taking one along on a regular commute.


----------



## Origamist (8 Jun 2010)

Bollo said:


> I like the description (quoted by Origamist but originally from dondare?) of the camera as a 'black box'.



A rare moment of insight from Broken Betty!



Bollo said:


> The other thing that gets forgotten when someone posts footage is that the camera rarely gives the whole picture. You can add an extended commentary explaining your perfect road position, excellent obs and great hair, but viewers will either not read it at all or treat it as self-agrandising after-the-fact bum gravy. Often the footage cannot reflect the proximity, speed or complexity of an incident, and it certainly can't get across the rider's subjective sense of danger.



Indeed. Film flattens, distorts and dilutes etc, but also catches things we miss. Dynamic situations that leave our sensory organs buzzing at the time, look very different (the "mummification of time") when we're munching some Pringles, with a laptop burning our knees in the swaddling comfort of a sofa sagging under our weight (or is that just me?).


----------



## HLaB (8 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> Indeed. Film flattens, distorts and dilutes etc, but also catches things we miss. Dynamic situations that leave our sensory organs buzzing at the time, look very different (the "mummification of time") when we're munching some Pringles, with a laptop burning our knees in the swaddling comfort of a sofa sagging under our weight (or is that just me?).


Indeed I've had thing I thought were bad on the road but when I've reviewed the film I thought, no. Visa versa I've had thing that didn't feel bad on the road but look close on camera. I put some of it down to the Fisheye lens which, makes things to the side look further and things in front look closer. There is however probably an element of just being in a different mood.


----------



## Bollo (8 Jun 2010)

just jim said:


> Sorry for picking this out Bollo, but I think for most cyclists with cameras this surely is the pragmatic, non-wolf-crying reason for taking one along on a regular commute.



I'm not sure cammed up cyclists are crying-wolf because, really, who's listening? We can get all worked up on here, but what proportion of the travelling public are regular cyclists? We can also get into flame wars with other special-interest groups like safespeed or bloodbus but in the grand scheme this counts for (continuing Origamist's mafia-themed slang) nadda.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

Magnatom has achieved National fame as a campaining cyclist withacamera. Dunno if that's had any perceptible effect on the people I share the road with.


----------



## HLaB (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Magnatom has achieved National fame as a campaining cyclist withacamera. Dunno if that's had any perceptible effect on the people I share the road with.


I'd say First bus have got better in this area (by no means are they perfect though) but whether the Magnatom effect has spread from Glasgow


----------



## Bollo (8 Jun 2010)

HLaB said:


> I'd say First bus have got better in this area (by no means are they perfect though) but whether the Magnatom effect has spread from Glasgow



Maggers is probably the best example we have of building a proper campaign around cyclist cams and I really admire and appreciate his efforts. They're also a world away from just sticking something on youtube and then arguing the toss with whoever trolls along. But unfortunately it's just too limited in scope and geographic area to have a measurable impact nationwide.

I've used my own footage to complain about the behaviour of a commercial driver and walked away feeling I've done some good. But it's one thing to initiate local change after an incident, and quite another proactively to bring about a cultural change amongst drivers as a whole. Like Lee says, it has to come from the top and that means training and legislation. No real appetite for that at the moment.

Before you get carried away Lee, I still think you're a gobshite.


----------



## bryce (8 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> It's not just about looking after number one, you can help others too.
> 
> If I filmed you being assaulted by a driver who had run you off the road, would you want to use the footage to corroborate your version of events, or would you refuse to use the film on a matter of principle? I imagine most people would bite my hand off to have film of the incident.



For sure I'd ask to use it if it was available. In the same way I'd check local CCTV. I'm in no way against using cams but just question peoples' rationale for wearing them and then how they use them.

Important to remember that camera-wearers are a massive minority on this forum, which is itself a minute microcosm of all commuting cyclists. In the main, commuting cyclists aren't out to record/ educate/ reprimand people around them but just to enjoy themselves getting from A to B.


----------



## bryce (8 Jun 2010)

P.s. if this thread is 20 pages long, what odds we hit 40 once Maggers returns and picks up on each point..?


----------



## Bollo (8 Jun 2010)

bryce said:


> P.s. if this thread is 20 pages long, what odds we hit 40 once Maggers returns and picks up on each point..?



Bring back Mr hippo!!


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Jun 2010)

Something that has struck me over the last 20 or so pages, is the repeated reference to “Head cam users” and their attitude or approach (or rationale).

I think this is an unfair description.

I use a head cam but don’t have a markedly different attitude or approach to “normal” riders. I think what defines us, is the way in which we use the footage. As Bollo, Origamist, Bettey (anon) say, I use mine as a recording device, not a conduit to you-tube. I do post videos on you tube but am selective about those that I do, I want to present a balanced view and (as I do on this forum) will often accept the role of devils advocate to facilitate that balance.

So let’s not fall into the trap of defining those of us who may or may not wear a cam…

lets define them by their actions, not their attire.


----------



## scotbiker (8 Jun 2010)

For those advocating driver training and leglislation I'd like to hear their thoughts on how this will be achieved? 

The government aren't going to implement anything without proof/statistics defining a need for it. If the cammers keep reporting bad drivers to roadsafe etc and file police reports for the more serious ones (i.e, Magnatom's roundabout scare and BM's assault) then they are helping define that need.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

Cycling PM Cameron wants "Big Society" to take over some of the social duties traditionally carried out by Nanny State. 
Jag-driving Transport Secretary Hammond wants to reduce the number of traffic enforcement cameras. 
Obviously the time is right for cyclists to monitor traffic as a social duty.


----------



## Jezston (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Cycling PM Cameron wants "Big Society" to take over some of the social duties traditionally carried out by Nanny State.
> Jag-driving Transport Secretary Hammond wants to reduce the number of traffic enforcement cameras.
> Obviously the time is right for cyclists to monitor traffic as a social duty.



Haha perfect! They've been asking for suggestions haven't they?


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

And motorists can retaliate by filming redlightjumping cyclists.


----------



## 4F (8 Jun 2010)

Jezston said:


> The only way to stop people (or trolls) on forums who like antagonising people by being deliberately contrarian, argumentative etc is to stop engaging with them.
> 
> When lee comes out with bollocks just ignore him, and he'll soon stop doing it when he realises there's no fun to be had.



So just because someone has a different viewpoint then they are labelled a troll ? 

I have to say that I agree with Lee's initial point and pointing to a camera and saying you are going to be on you tube is going to make bugger all difference to their driving and at the worst could just antagonise a nutter. Mikey, was it you who got your helmet cam ripped from your head by said nutter ?

Most of the clips that are put up seem to be non events (apart from Bollo's incident and Magnatom's lorry at the roundabout) and I do get the impression that people are almost hoping that something does happen so they can put it on youtube.

Get the cam off and enjoy the cycling.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

Or even keep the cam on and enjoy cycling.


----------



## 4F (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Or even keep the cam on and enjoy cycling.



Fair enough, some are quite amusing especially the commuter racing ones


----------



## Bman (8 Jun 2010)

I film for many reasons. Most of which have been mentioned by my fellow camera cyclists. 

Wearing my camera does not change my behaviour. I know, of course I'm going to say that, but thats how I feel. 

My main reason for wearing my camera is because I like to vent. Instead of just describing what occured that annoyed me, I can show like minded people, the video.

Also, my camera is a tiny MUVI, its black and I wear it on my black rucksack strap. It is not very noticiable. I have never pointed it out and I have never followed a driver to remonstrate with them, just because I know I am recording it.


----------



## boydj (8 Jun 2010)

jonny jeez said:


> .... The problem is, cyclist sometimes HAVE to berate drivers......



+1 - whether the camera is there or not because either :

1. the driver is unaware of how dangerous his/her manoeuvre was and by 'having a word', in a reasonable manner, may just learn something of future value or

2. the driver is aware and may just learn that there could be 'consequences' for driving dangerously round cyclists.

These type of incidents have been going on since way before cameras were available. Cameras just give us all the chance to learn and engage in long meaningful discussions (or interminable threads) and may provide the person with the camera with some useful evidence to take to the police or other interested party.


----------



## Bollo (8 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Cycling PM Cameron wants "Big Society" to take over some of the social duties traditionally carried out by *Nanny State*.



Sounds like a communist Nanny MacPhee

ScotBiker - without turning this into a P&L thread, cycling has been the cinderella of transport for many years now. Evidence is one thing, the great god of public opinion is something else entirely. Public opinion tends to like its motors and dislike cyclists cluttering up its roads, for which it pays road tax.


----------



## Bollo (8 Jun 2010)

boydj said:


> +1 - whether the camera is there or not because either :
> 
> 1. the driver is unaware of how dangerous his/her manoeuvre was and by 'having a word', in a reasonable manner, may just learn something of future value or
> 
> ...



I think this is Lee's point. You can explain, cajole and threaten an errant motorist but unless there are real, possibly legal consequences then it's largely irrelevant. Threatening to 'expose' their behaviour on youtube is just pointless. Youtube is a sewer, and all you're doing is chucking another turd in.


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 Jun 2010)

Bollo said:


> Sounds like a communist Nanny MacPhee
> 
> ScotBiker - without turning this into a P&L thread, cycling has been the cinderella of transport for many years now. Evidence is one thing, the great god of public opinion is something else entirely. Public opinion tends to like its motors and dislike cyclists cluttering up its roads, for which it pays road tax.





It does in this car orientated society.I have cycled in other countries on this planet and some of it isn't so bad or as aggressive...Japan and Thailand were like a breath of fresh air.

I have noticed it even today.The bloke in the Merton council van thingy giving us a dirty aggressive type look...I pick up because my workmate parked his 4x4 in not one of the best places.It was after this I suggested he should park it in the car park.He didn't mis-park it by accident but like me he didn't know the layout of the place we were at.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Understand your point but there are better ways, lobbying by the CTC is one.



The CTC might be glad of filmed evidence to support any demands.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

Bollo said:


> I think this is Lee's point. You can explain, cajole and threaten an errant motorist but unless there are real, possibly legal consequences then it's largely irrelevant. Threatening to 'expose' their behaviour on youtube is just pointless. *Youtube is a sewer, and all you're doing is chucking another turd in*.



I'd have that as a sig, if I wasn't so pleased with the one I already use.


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 Jun 2010)

Bollo is probably right.

Although my videos are meant to be more of an educational thing for other cyclists...Not an opportunity to have a go at motorists online.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Trolling? I've raised valid points to which other memebers have agreed upon. So if someone has a conflict of views you get labelled a troll?
> 
> That's constructive that it is.




No, Lee, you tend to get labelled a troll because of the way you argue. You exhibit many of the characteristics of trolling, getting all controversial and in your face [1]. I don't think you're being quite serious in this topic, I think you are genuinely on a windup to some degree.

[1] I think this is probably what you most dislike about yourself, and why you whine about helmet camera users doing the same thing.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

> It can work for companies. Reputational risk is a wonderful thing.



That is so right. I've had profuse apology letters, and begging for me to take the video down in the past.


p.s. don't think cameras change attitudes? Lee wouldn't RLJ in front of my camera on our little ride. I bet you forgot about that, Lee.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> That is so right. I've had profuse apology letters, and begging for me to take the video down in the past.
> 
> 
> p.s. don't think cameras change attitudes? Lee wouldn't RLJ in front of my camera on our little ride. I bet you forgot about that, Lee.



Well, he knew you wouldn't follow him if he did.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jun 2010)

Wrong.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> No, Lee, you tend to get labelled a troll because of the way you argue. You exhibit many of the characteristics of trolling, getting all controversial and in your face [1]. *I don't think you're being quite serious in this topic*, I think you are genuinely on a windup to some degree.



Humour sugars the bitterest pill. Or something.
I'm never serious, even when I'm being completely serious.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Wrong.



You'd have followed him? Well, no-one was filming you.


----------



## dondare (8 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> That is so right. I've had profuse apology letters, and begging for me to take the video down in the past.
> 
> 
> p.s. don't think cameras change attitudes? Lee wouldn't RLJ in front of my camera on our little ride. I bet you forgot about that, Lee.



Changes attitudes or changes behaviour?


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jun 2010)

Your memory isn't very good - you told me how you'd normally jump lights like that particular example, I told you I'd follow if you wanted to, and you still wouldn't go through the red light until I promised you I wouldn't put it on the video clip.

Aaaahaahahahahaa, such hypocrisy about how cameras won't change anyone else's behaviour, and yet one changed yours remarkably.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Jun 2010)

Sorry for jumping in on this debate here, and excuse me if I am wrong in my interpretation but BentMikey, I 'think' (im not sure) that Lee (or at least someone) at some point said camera's only change peoples behaviour while the camera is in their face, then when its not there they will act the same as they did before.

Your example shows this, Lee wouldnt jump a red because you had a camera, when you arent there, he jumps reds.


Im under no illusion that having a camera will make my commute any safer (from anyone elses persepective anyway, it definatelly makes me more aware of my road ettiquette hence improving how safe I act), it will simply provide evidence in the case of an accident.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jun 2010)

bryce said:


> For sure I'd ask to use it if it was available. In the same way I'd check local CCTV. I'm in no way against using cams but just question peoples' rationale for wearing them and then how they use them.



I'm glad you'd take me up on my hypothetical offer as filming rides means I can help others (and not just cyclists). Recently I came through the aftermath of an incident and was able to post the positions and reg plates of the vehicles involved, not enormously helpful, but better than nothing.

It is important to make a distinction between filming your ride and what you then choose to do with film itself.

In the Netherlands, nearly all of the films I have seen highlight the high modal share, the facilities, the ordinariness of riding a bike - the films celebrate cycling. In this country, it's far more about near misses, incidents, collisions, bad driving/riding etc. What does this tell us (if anything) about the two countries' cycling culture and the actual/perceived risk of riding a bike ? 




bryce said:


> Important to remember that camera-wearers are a massive minority on this forum, which is itself a minute microcosm of all commuting cyclists. In the main, commuting cyclists aren't out to record/ educate/ reprimand people around them but just to enjoy themselves getting from A to B.



True, but I imagine 10 years ago the amount of commuter cyclists filming their rides numbered a few dozen, 5 years ago - in the hundreds, and now - in the thousands (and increasing rapidly with the Muvi explosion).


----------



## Jezston (9 Jun 2010)

I'd just like to take the opportunity to clear up any confusion I may have caused by making the following statement.

I don't have much of a problem with Lee's argument here. In fact I actually agree with a lot of it. What I DO have a problem with is his whole STYLE or argument. He may not be trolling, but he's using trolling techniques. Stalling, insults, reversing, putting the onus on the other to prove him wrong rather than making the effort to prove himself right. Arguing for the sake of arguing. Being argumentative to deliberately get peoples backs up and start an argument where one wasn't needed. Insulting people who have a different view to him. I'm not just talking this thread, but many others too. The one sticking in my mind was after me daring to speculate that one of his fellow truckers might be responsible for an accident that what I said was 'moronic' without stating WHY.

I hate this whole style of internet argument.

Person A: Statement
Person B: You are wrong, and here is an insult. And I'm not going to say why you are wrong.
Person A: Why am I wrong? Insult returned.
Person B: Prove to me why you are right, you idiot.

This kind of shoot I see on the internet all the time, and it pisses me off. Lee pulls this shoot all the time.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the points or not at all. I just HATE this style. It's not about having an argument so that all points can be raised and after debate an educated consensus can be reached. It's not about trying to convince the other person of your perspective. It's about amusing yourself by creating tension, creating argument because you like a fight, drawing attention to yourself and having fun with it, and THAT is trolling, and it doesn't get anyone anywhere.


----------



## Mark_Robson (9 Jun 2010)

Even as a camera user I have to agree that Lee's point is valid. 
The argument that cameras and the consequences of ending up on Youtube will modify peoples behaviour reminds me of the speed camera debate. 
If people are speeding then they will slow for a speed camera and then accelerate once they have passed it, so that shows that speed cameras only modify peoples driving when they are visible, stick a copper in a bus stop with a speed gun and he will have a field day. Surely the same argument applies for head cams?
IMO the only purpose that a camera serves is to provide a source of evidence in the event of an accident and to help the cyclist improve his own road skills.


----------



## Bollo (9 Jun 2010)

There's a piece in the guardian today about police use of head cams. Not completely on topic, but worth a read. Linky here


----------



## jonny jeez (9 Jun 2010)

Jezston said:


> I'd just like to take the opportunity to clear up any confusion I may have caused by making the following statement.
> 
> I don't have much of a problem with Lee's argument here. In fact I actually agree with a lot of it. What I DO have a problem with is his whole STYLE or argument. He may not be trolling, but he's using trolling techniques. Stalling, insults, reversing, putting the onus on the other to prove him wrong rather than making the effort to prove himself right. Arguing for the sake of arguing. Being argumentative to deliberately get peoples backs up and start an argument where one wasn't needed. Insulting people who have a different view to him. I'm not just talking this thread, but many others too. The one sticking in my mind was after me daring to speculate that one of his fellow truckers might be responsible for an accident that what I said was 'moronic' without stating WHY.
> 
> ...




Couldnt of said it better myself

And this attitude is compounded when two members who display similar characteristics lock horns...as with Mikey and Lee..Mikey, you often take this same approach, (I'm right, your wrong and everyone who disagrees is just piss poor) although, granted your initial responses are never normally as inflammatory as Lee's...

I fear this one will go on and on

Popcorn anyone?


----------



## Origamist (9 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> IMO the only purpose that a camera serves is to provide a source of evidence in the event of an accident and to help the cyclist improve his own road skills.



You're forgetting that cycle-cam footage is also the life-blood of this forum...

But seriously, cameras can be used to celebrate and champion cycling - it should not just be about the "crash, bang wallop" type films or falling back on the footage (as evidence) in the event of a collision.


----------



## Bollo (9 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> You're forgetting that cycle-cam footage is also the life-blood of this forum...
> 
> But seriously, cameras can be used to celebrate and champion cycling - it should not just be about the "crash, bang wallop" type films.



I've tried to start using my cam for this type of stuff as well, although I've only publicised the results with family. I've also _not _used youtube. Even the most innocuous footage is going to get the "all syclists r cunz" comments, and I can't really be bothered.

Best of the lot is a short clip where I taped the cam to Bolletta's helmet and then went for a ride on the tandem. I never realised she looked around so much. Better obs than her dad for sure.


----------



## dondare (9 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Your memory isn't very good - you told me how you'd normally jump lights like that particular example, I told you I'd follow if you wanted to, and you still wouldn't go through the red light until I promised you I wouldn't put it on the video clip.
> 
> Aaaahaahahahahaa, such hypocrisy about how cameras won't change anyone else's behaviour, and yet one changed yours remarkably.




There is no doubt that cameras can change behaviour; the best example being the way average speed cameras actually make motorists slow down. 

But I'd rather change attitudes which affect behaviour all the time rather than only when the cameras are known to be there; and the Youtube clips don't change attitudes. (If the comments are anything to go by.)

Non-cyclists need to understand that bikes are a legitimate form of transport that can be used by everyone and that safer roads benefit all road users. Any kind of them/us debate is counter-productive.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jun 2010)

Bollo said:


> I've tried to start using my cam for this type of stuff as well, although I've only publicised the results with family. I've also _not _used youtube. Even the most innocuous footage is going to get the "all syclists r cunz" comments, and I can't really be bothered.
> 
> Best of the lot is a short clip where I taped the cam to Bolletta's helmet and then went for a ride on the tandem. I never realised she looked around so much. Better obs than her dad for sure.



I'm going to film part of the northern FNRttC as it is beautiful at dawn with 70 cyclists sweeping through the countryside...

I'm surprised so many people persist with YouTube, Vimeo is far more friendly and has very few imbeciles posting lycra nazi comments...

I suspect Bolletta will be towing you up hills soon...


----------



## HLaB (9 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> I'm surprised so many people persist with YouTube, Vimeo is far more friendly and has very few imbeciles posting lycra nazi comments...


Some of the comments on Andyb vid on Vimeo were pretty poor IMO but I think they were by refugees from you tube.

For my own vids I tried a few other hosting sites while back and found them not as good in the sound sync, formats etc. Youtube despite it problems is just more flexible. That being said I've had no trolls so far in 2 & 1/2 years, if I did that might cause me to rethink.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jun 2010)

Bollo said:


> There's a piece in the guardian today about police use of head cams. Not completely on topic, but worth a read. Linky here



The article is interesting as it widens the debate.

The level of monitoring and surveillance in this country is incredibly high and it is not surprising that many people will object to the ever increasing use of cameras (at a state, corporate, and personal level). Most people seem to back off when confronted with a cycle cam, but some people feel provoked and take their aggression out on the user. It works both ways and this should not be forgotten. 

It also seems that cameras beget cameras (although I’m sure FM can correct me, if I’m mistaken), and yet, I struggle to see how an environment in which increasing numbers of road users film one another will improve road safety in the long term. It is now the case that people apologise if they have not captured film of an incident when they post on CC (as if it is in some way less real without supporting pixels). In addition, the proliferation of cycle-cams ultimately might start to disadvantage those who choose not to film and are involved in a collision – “where’s your film evidence, son” etc. 

My user name is Panopticon on Vimeo for a reason (and not just because I’m pretentious and affected). Riding with a camera whilst commuting raises troubling questions about the right to privacy, road safety, the need to film in public places and, of course, my own confused motivations for doing so.


----------



## gaz (9 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> I'm going to film part of the northern FNRttC as it is beautiful at dawn with 70 cyclists sweeping through the countryside...
> 
> I'm surprised so many people persist with YouTube, Vimeo is far more friendly and has very few imbeciles posting lycra nazi comments...
> 
> I suspect Bolletta will be towing you up hills soon...



YouTube is too big to ignore for me. With so many people using it, your videos get more exposure. I doubt my cycling superhighway videos would have as many views on vimeo.
Saying that I am starting to upload a few videos on vimeo and vholder


----------



## Norm (9 Jun 2010)

> Then we need a network of helmet-wide average behaviour cameras!


There's a few on my YouTube channel, but I don't bother posting them on here because, well, that's just cycling and it's what we all do. Well, nearly all, anyway.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> YouTube is too big to ignore for me. With so many people using it, your videos get more exposure. I doubt my cycling superhighway videos would have as many views on vimeo.
> Saying that I am starting to upload a few videos on vimeo and vholder




Yes, but you're just a "hits whore"...!


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Eh? You're lying now. You told me that you would follow me if I RLJed, that is correct. But the reason for me not RLJing was that the fact I didn't think it was fair on you RLJing when you are so against it and I didn't want to be some what responsible should you try and follow me and end up causing an accident.
> 
> Nothing to do at all with you ''promising not to put in on the clip'' I find it ironic you are labelling me a troll yet look at your last few posts on this thread.



Calling me a liar? It's not me that's lying here. Your debating level can really be quite contemptible sometimes. And talking down to me as though I'm not capable of safe RLJing.

All that's happened here is that you've made an arse of yourself. Hypocrite, that's what you are.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> If people are speeding then they will slow for a speed camera and then accelerate once they have passed it, so that shows that speed cameras only modify peoples driving when they are visible, stick a copper in a bus stop with a speed gun and he will have a field day. Surely the same argument applies for head cams?



To a small degree that's true. On the other hand, there are so many thousands of camera toting road users now, that a more comparable example would be average speed cameras, and/or hidden speed cameras that get moved around often. People won't know when they're likely to be caught, so are more likely to behave all the time.

Besides which, even if the effect is only there and then, that still benefits me personally. It'd be a stretch though, for this to be the case. It would mean that not a single person videoed, caught, or reported to their company makes a single change in their behaviour. Unlikely at best.



Mark_Robson said:


> IMO the only purpose that a camera serves is to provide a source of evidence in the event of an accident and to help the cyclist improve his own road skills.



There are far more uses for cameras than this.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jun 2010)

Nice find Bollo! Clearly the police think they work, and not just in the immediate moment either.

LOL on the bolleta observation being better than yours!!


----------



## gaz (9 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> Yes, but you're just a "hits whore"...!


Nothing wrong with that, it gets you invites to meet with TFL


----------



## Origamist (9 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> Nothing wrong with that, it gets you invites to meet with TFL



Gaz, don't get too excited as TFL will try to asphyxiate you with talk of smoothing traffic flow, congestion modelling software and balancing the needs of all road users...

Funnily enough, my correspondence with TFL has actually been quite amusing on CSs. Only a few weeks ago a TFL Comms manager was quoting best practice at me ("leave a door and a bit more") even though I'd pointed out that the left-hand side of the CS lane puts you in the door zone!

My video will be sent to them next week.


----------



## gaz (9 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> Gaz, don't get too excited as TFL will try to asphyxiate you with talk of smoothing traffic flow, congestion modelling software and balancing the needs of all road users...
> 
> Funnily enough, my correspondence with TFL has actually been quite amusing on CSs. Only a few weeks ago a TFL Comms manager was quoting best practice at me ("leave a door and a bit more") even though I'd pointed out that the left-hand side of the CS lane puts you in the door zone!
> 
> My video will be sent to them next week.



Where does the cs put you on the doorzone? I can only recall it going through parking spaces and thus not actually promoting a bad position when passing parked cars.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> Where does the cs put you on the doorzone? I can only recall it going through parking spaces and thus not actually promoting a bad position when passing parked cars.





View: http://vimeo.com/12031490
at 9 secs in. The buffer needs to be bigger between the loading bays and the CS lane.


----------



## gaz (9 Jun 2010)

Origamist said:


> View: http://vimeo.com/12031490
> at 9 secs in. The buffer needs to be bigger between the loading bays and the CS lane.




I see. I agree, I think I missed that as I totally ignore that section and just take primary. I also don't like how the cs gets narrower as you approach a side junction. It should be wider, surely?
Although I guess it isn't promoting undertaking. Not that overtaking safely in the cs is possible (bike vs bike)


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Yes, whatever, and I think I'll leave it at that.



So you laugh about calling me a liar? I'm not impressed, not at all.

I distinctly recall just how uncomfortable you were about going through that light on camera. I'm not making a mistake, and it's p1ss poor when you have to call someone a liar just because you didn't like losing your point. That's a real good way to lose all credit with me.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (9 Jun 2010)

On the "why film?" question there's another angle other than confrontation/preaching/etc..

Went out on a quick tootle to Sainsburys to take the recycling, just as an excuse to try out the newly purchased cam - not the nicest of days to do so but new toys must be used straightaway, instructions read later.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG1O31pKA1c


Nothing to write home about, the car pulling out was a minor niggle, not like it was dangerously close, just something a non-cyclist wouldn't understand, the loss of momentum when the road slopes up, and it was obvious he was going to go anyway from his nose-out positioning.

No, the real thing I noticed when watching an incident-free ride was my poor positionng in one short section. Only watching back do I realise that I lost my confidence to keep up with traffic and without realising it, edged to the side, not far enough to make a clear path for an overtaking vehicle but enough to open the door to a close pass.

The following car didn't succumb to temptation and no-one was held up since I was keeping average pace with traffic, just at the cyclist's constant(ish) pace rather than the car's erratic speed-up-slow-down pace.

I only did it the once but the value of the footage is there, for me, to acknowledge my own mistake and bear it in mind. Hopefully then lessening the number of "angry" videos captured by the camera in future...


----------



## Mark_Robson (9 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> IMO the only purpose that a camera serves is to provide a source of evidence in the event of an accident and to help the cyclist improve his own road skills.


I agree with you Sheffield Tiger


----------



## BentMikey (10 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> What light?



Now this is pure trolling Lee. It was the traffic light that you were unwilling to jump on camera, and you know exactly what I'm talking about.



User3143 said:


> Your own words as agreed before that ride. NOthing to do at all with me RLJing on camera - as I said before you're lying and I would go as far to say you are full of shoot but I won't.



Now that's all true, that we agreed to make the ride about your ability. It's also true that you wouldn't jump the light on camera because of what the CC lot would say. You were taking a lot of strain about your RLJing at the time on the forum, and you couldn't take the pressure of having it on video. You only went through after I promised not to put it on the video clip.

Here's another lie of yours shown up - your faux concern for me having a collision through that light. You tried desperately hard to lose me through the traffic, and you simply weren't good enough or fast enough. You went out the back in a sweating panting heap when I turned up the power in the second half, not that I have that much power. You didn't show the slightest bit of concern for my safety at any stage during that ride.

We're seeing your real morals here, Lee. Stop calling me a liar when it's you that's lying just because you hate losing debates so much. IMO that is very scummy behaviour.


----------



## dondare (10 Jun 2010)

The debate is about cameras, how they are used, how they should be used and whether cameras modify behaviour or attitudes. (Not least that of the camera user.)
It is about whether the posting of other cyclist's or motorist's transgressions on Youtube and similar internet sites can improve road safety. 

One thing is clear to me, the camera cannot show what the cyclists felt at the time. Near misses may not look that bad, so the poster is told, both by motorists and by other cyclists, to stop whining and MTFU. The _really_ nasty happenings don't happen that often. 

This is an interesting and useful debate and both Lee and BM have opinions and arguments to support their opinions which are getting lost in the rising noise of various side arguments. Please leave personal accusations out of it except when they have real relevance to the topic. (That would be like "You forced a confrontation because you had a camera" rather than "You're a liar/troll".) 

The way you two argue gives even popcorn a sour taste. Perhaps it's time for another ride. In dayilght, this time.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Jun 2010)

Being called a liar when I'm clearly not also leaves a sour taste in my mouth, dondare.

It's not really a side argument either - Lee says cameras don't change behaviour, and yet one changed his behaviour about jumping that one particular light that he wanted to.


----------



## dondare (10 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Being called a liar when I'm clearly not also leaves a sour taste in my mouth, dondare.
> 
> It's not really a side argument either - Lee says cameras don't change behaviour, and yet one changed his behaviour about jumping that one particular light that he wanted to.



If people only behave legally and safely when they know they're being filmed then it's either an argument for blanket coverage or evidence that cameras alone are not effective. 
Lee says that he now rljs less but if that's the case then it's because his attitude to rljing has changed, not because of that clip. I'm sure that you have better examples of the positive power of the camera.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Jun 2010)

Yeah, but it totally destroys his argument that cameras don't make any difference. I distinctly remember how he was stressed about the idea of the CC lot giving him more stick for RLJing on camera.

You can attribute his reduction in RLJing to the peer pressure on here, or to the worry of the camera exposing him, or to some of both. That is what cameras do - they make whatever behaviour it is more public, and allow peer pressure to become more effective and hard hitting.

My viewpoint is that cameras do make a difference. Just like traffic policing, they bring consequences. The effects of those consequences will probably be similar too, lasting a while and then fading away for each individual instance, being shared with friends and affecting those friends behaviour a smaller amount, etc.


----------



## dondare (10 Jun 2010)

One worry I have is that selectively posting hairy moments and confrontations gives the impression that cycling is dangerous and that confrontations are common. 
What I remember about that ride is that before it you were flaming each other like now and after it you stopped for a while. Go for another one.


----------



## Mark_Robson (10 Jun 2010)

Personal attacks aside, both sides have valid points and each have merit. 
I've already stated my opinion on headcams so I'm not going to go over it 
but I was thinking about this issue in bed last night ( sad I know ) 

I remember many moons ago when the government gave the go ahead for everyone and his dog to install CC TV to protect their property or monitor the our roads, shopping centres, carparks and estates. 
The reason that the cameras were installed was to capture or deter criminals. You could argue that they prevented crime by modifying the criminals behaviour but you could also argue that they didn't modify the criminals attitude to committing crime. Criminals simply got quicker at committing the crime, wore a mask, disabled the camera or more importantly targeted areas where there were no cameras.

The point that I am getting at is that CC TV is a visual deterrent that is used to deter crime, much the same as a burglar alarm but it doesn't change the criminals attitude.
So as Lee said rather than trying to fight a Youtube campaign we would all be better off if there were a government led campaign to educate motorists into believing that their actions against cyclist are visible and that they will be held accountable for their actions. Cyclists could be issued with warning stickers or tabards to make drivers aware that they are using a cam. I also think that a national reporting site where evidence could be deposited for investigation would be a good idea as well.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> One worry I have is that selectively posting hairy moments and confrontations gives the impression that cycling is dangerous and that confrontations are common.
> What I remember about that ride is that before it you were flaming each other like now and after it you stopped for a while. Go for another one.



Yeah, I agree, that's a worry of mine too. As for Lee, no, he's going on my ignore list now. His behaviour on this topic has passed into unacceptable territory now.


----------



## dondare (10 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah, I agree, that's a worry of mine too. As for Lee, no, he's going on my ignore list now. His behaviour on this topic has passed into unacceptable territory now.



That would be a shame. 
I used to post on cyclingforums.com and there were a couple of real nasty flamers on there who were allowed to get away with it by the mods. 
Both have died now (one killed by a texting motorist, the other natural causes) and the place is so boring now I don't bother with it. 

(On the FAQs there's this about one of them:

Question: "Boudreaux pissed me off, what should I do?" 

Answer: Nothing, just shut up and take his advice.)


----------



## dondare (10 Jun 2010)

> ...and it comes from the top when a company addresses the problem highlighted on the camera.
> 
> As to your claim that they don't change long term behaviour because you didn't change yours, that's just you. There are plenty on here who have changed their riding after camera discussions on the forum. And anyway, that's cyclists and not drivers.



I suspect that the only influences on Lee's behaviour are top down, that is the ones that originate in his own head.


----------



## Origamist (10 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> *One thing is clear to me, the camera cannot show what the cyclists felt at the time.* Near misses may not look that bad, so the poster is told, both by motorists and by other cyclists, to stop whining and MTFU. The _really_ nasty happenings don't happen that often.




This is key. Cycle cam films strip away thoughts, senses, experiences and feelings. As a consequence, I find watching incidents mediated through the eye of a lens often leave me feeling: disaffected, cold, superior, voyeuristic as I’m distanced from the rider’s perceptions at the time. The exception to this 1D blandness is usually the rider’s voice - this humanises the material enormously. I’m thinking particularly about Magnatom’s scream when confronted with a HGV failing to give way at a RaB and Andy’s RaB incident when he just has time mouth a few resigned words before impact. It is these things that stick in my memory as it gives a clear insight into rider’s experiences and emotions.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Jun 2010)

Yes, I think company complaints are the most likely to affect driving behaviour, both immediately and longer term. That's because the drivers are most vulnerable to complaints. They are in a liveried vehicle, and they report to their company. The consequence is also likely to be very painful, stinging even. I can't imagine that points from the police will be anything like as effective as being hauled up in front of your boss/transport manager.

The companies too are more vulnerable to having to deal properly with the incident, because of public perception of their image, and because whomever you complain to in the organisation is likely to have to perform their job to general standards. That means taking the complaint much more seriously, especially in bigger organisations.


----------



## Origamist (10 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> One worry I have is that selectively posting hairy moments and confrontations gives the impression that cycling is dangerous and that confrontations are common.



Indeed. Mag’s tries to counter this on his blog by commenting that the overwhelming majority of his rides are incident free. The problem is that people quickly forget this when they watch clip after clip of near misses and collisions: pictures/film speak louder than words.


----------



## magnatom (11 Jun 2010)

Have I missed anything with this thread....?


(Magnatom walks slowly and quietly away from the thread. He is only about half way through his holiday and he doesn't have time to take part in controversial threads......)


----------



## Tinuts (14 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> I don't post a lot of my footage, either becasue it looks different on camera or becasuse someone had clearly made a mistake and I don't think they will do it again.
> The usual comments about us with cameras looking for incidences is always a laugh.
> If the cabbie had told me a lie, and he had no reason to pass cloesly, then I would post it to expose him.



Exactly.


----------



## Tinuts (14 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Yes, I think company complaints are the most likely to affect driving behaviour, both immediately and longer term. That's because the drivers are most vulnerable to complaints. They are in a liveried vehicle, and they report to their company. The consequence is also likely to be very painful, stinging even. I can't imagine that points from the police will be anything like as effective as being hauled up in front of your boss/transport manager.
> 
> The companies too are more vulnerable to having to deal properly with the incident, because of public perception of their image, and because whomever you complain to in the organisation is likely to have to perform their job to general standards. That means taking the complaint much more seriously, especially in bigger organisations.



Given that it still amazes me when I get *no* response from a company who is the subject of a complaint. Some of them clearly don't give a s**t.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jun 2010)

Yeah, some don't seem to care at all. Most care enough to at least respond though, they don't like the painful public attention very much. At least half take responsible action against their driver, or so they claim.


----------



## Tinuts (14 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah, some don't seem to care at all. Most care enough to at least respond though, they don't like the painful public attention very much. At least half take responsible action against their driver, or so they claim.


Yes, I agree. I've definitely had some positive responses.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (24 Jun 2010)

BentMikey said:


> You're not making your point very well for someone with a supposed IQ of 133.





User3143 said:


> *Not supposed, confirmed*.


How does one "confirm" ones IQ? I have an IQ of 151 on the Advanced IQ Test on Facebook... is this an accurate measure?


----------



## Ashaman42 (24 Jun 2010)

bryce said:


> What compels cam-wearers to attach the cam day-in day-out? I can understand it for a nice ride in the countryside. But filming the same commute twice every day?



I sure wish I'd had a camera for my daily commute when someone knocked me off on a roundabout and then ran a red light rather than see if I was ok.

Too startled to look at, let alone remember, his reg.


----------



## dondare (24 Jun 2010)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> How does one "confirm" ones IQ?



Think of a number.



Sh4rkyBloke said:


> I have an IQ of 151 on the Advanced IQ Test on Facebook... is this an accurate measure?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (24 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Think of a number.


Ok. Now what?


----------



## dondare (24 Jun 2010)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Ok. Now what?



That's it.


----------



## magnatom (24 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> You are not going to believe this but you can go and take an IQ test, have it marked and the result given to you - no really.




Oh, the temptation to go into detail about the practicalites, the usefulness and the limtations of IQ tests is very hard to resist.......


----------



## magnatom (24 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> Could say the same for your vids, ho hum.




You don't tend to hold back Lee, and I would't want it any other way.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Jun 2010)

LOL! Is it pick on Lee like a nostril day today?


----------



## dondare (25 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> You are not going to believe this but you can go and take an IQ test, have it marked and the result given to you - no really.



But that would be a really nerdy thing to do.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (25 Jun 2010)

User3143 said:


> You are not going to believe this but you can go and take an IQ test, have it marked and the result given to you - no really.


Yeah, but seriously... would you? That'd be like going to the Doctors to have your penis measured, wouldn't it?


----------



## jonny jeez (25 Jun 2010)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> How does one "confirm" ones IQ? I have an IQ of 151 on the Advanced IQ Test on Facebook... is this an accurate measure?



hmmm, the problem there is that the very admission of using facebook deducts at least 100 from the stated IQ.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (25 Jun 2010)

jonny jeez said:


> hmmm, the problem there is that the very admission of using facebook deducts at least 100 from the stated IQ.


hence the smilies at the irony of it.


----------

