# Word is getting out ...



## buggi (6 Oct 2013)

... around the rest of the country. 

For some time now, we know that London Drivers are aware that cyclists are carrying cameras but word has started to spread. my electrician asked me the other day if i had one... and it became known on our works forum the other day with one driving expressing particular interest, asking if i always had it on me. 

Do you think they're getting worried???


----------



## classic33 (6 Oct 2013)

Possibly. Local paper warned road users to take care round cyclists as you may be caught on camera, by one.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Oct 2013)

I'm not a fan of helmet cams, no let me put it another way. I am not a fan of a lot of helmet cammers.
But anything that make car drivers more aware around cyclists is all good in my book.


----------



## Born2die (6 Oct 2013)

Might make a fake one up and stick it on the lid


----------



## Davidc (6 Oct 2013)

Saw a cyclist in Yeovil with a small version of the traffic camera sign on the pannier. Not sure if it's a good idea or not.

(I was in my car at the time)


----------



## DCLane (6 Oct 2013)

I've had a couple of people mention the words 'camera' and 'cyclist' and wondered if I have one.

Whilst I've thought about it I've decided not to since it'd always be flat when I needed it


----------



## MrDampy (6 Oct 2013)

Wish I had One fitted when that Car kept coming at me across the Roundabout I was on the Other day!


----------



## Maz (6 Oct 2013)

I reckon the sparky's worried he'll be making a guest appearance on _Rogue Traders_.


----------



## bikingdad90 (6 Oct 2013)

I have considered having a cam attached to my bike to capture my ride but I am yet to take the plunge because I don't agree with posting a video on YouTube of someone cutting me up or having bad driving skills essentially just to complain. I think it gives the cyclist a bit of a poor reputation. That said the only reason I would have a camera is incase I was involved in an accident or witnessed an accident and I needed real life CCTV to document what 'really' happened but I not sure if it would hold up in court as evidence. 

Are there any other reasons to convince me to get one. I.e wider birth given.


----------



## MrDampy (6 Oct 2013)

C H, What would happen if you were Cycling Home and a van Cut you up and and damaged your bike and drove off, you got no witness to what has happened, if the car hits you on the roundabout, they can just say it was Your Fault! I think i need to get on this wagon, for a bit of evidence, on how many crazy Motorist there are out there!


----------



## crazyjoe101 (6 Oct 2013)

chris harte said:


> Are there any other reasons to convince me to get one. I.e wider birth given.



I notice no difference in how drivers behave when I have my camera on/off my helmet, I have one for A) Evidence in case I need it, B) To show my family that cycling isn't some sort of suicidal maniac's hobby. and C) So I can share some of the interesting stuff that happens to me.
It doesn't make me any safer on the roads or make me a better cyclist.


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Oct 2013)

chris harte said:


> I have considered having a cam attached to my bike to capture my ride but I am yet to take the plunge because I don't agree with posting a video on YouTube of someone cutting me up or having bad driving skills essentially just to complain. I think it gives the cyclist a bit of a poor reputation. That said the only reason I would have a camera is incase I was involved in an accident or witnessed an accident and I needed real life CCTV to document what 'really' happened but I not sure if it would hold up in court as evidence.
> 
> Are there any other reasons to convince me to get one. I.e wider birth given.


At the end of the day a camera is only a tool. It's what you do with it that matters.


----------



## glenn forger (6 Oct 2013)

Filth.


----------



## Blurb (6 Oct 2013)

I get asked every now and then by bikers/cyclists/drivers about the camera and they are interested in battery life etc., so there is certainly more of an awareness around (I am in London though). I don't think it makes any difference to close passes IME. I have it purely for evidence "just in case", and I like gadgets ! 
I've uploaded 3 vids in nigh on 12 months. A couple of close passes and a silly cyclist type clip. I usually format without reviewing unless something in particular catches my eye.


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Oct 2013)

I dont think it is getting well known some cyclists have cameras. There are people I know that dont know I have a camera. It doesnt really change anything though. I doubt they would look at cyclists in any other way.


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Oct 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> I dont think it is getting well known some cyclists have cameras. There are people I know that dont know I have a camera. It doesnt really change anything though. I doubt they would look at cyclists in any other way.


You live in wales though. That is like the 1500's north of England.


----------



## fabregas485 (6 Oct 2013)

I tend to use my torch as my front light, so a few weeks ago when a lady cut me up, she got a little worried when I had a quick word. She asked if it was a camera and I said no.

Yes its cool that it means people are looking out for cyclist, but tis for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (6 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Filth.


Huh?


----------



## StuartG (6 Oct 2013)

The majority of incidents are because drivers don't clock you. If they don't clock you they certainly won't clock a camera.

Is the cyclist the best base for a camera? It would be great if all new cars had to have a mandatory operative camera that could be examined by the police after any incident. Might just modify driving (and some riding) behaviour to everybody's advantage. Good Russian drivers don't have a problem with the idea.


----------



## ComedyPilot (6 Oct 2013)

I've never had an issue with helmet cammers....but then again I drive with care and attention so never come up on their radar anyway.

Funny thing is, people that drive like twunts seem to have an issue.....?


----------



## Vikeonabike (7 Oct 2013)

chris harte said:


> That said the only reason I would have a camera is incase I was involved in an accident or witnessed an accident and I needed real life CCTV to document what 'really' happened but I not sure if it would hold up in court as evidence.


Why wouldn't it hold up in court. The Police use cams everyday to gather evidence, either body worn cams, Council CCTV or even CCTV from private households. The camera is better evidence than any verbal or written account you could give. So yes it would hold up in court!


----------



## akb (7 Oct 2013)

I'd rather other road users concentrate on their driving instead of searching me or my bike for a camera whilst in 'control' of their metal cages at 30mph.


----------



## classic33 (7 Oct 2013)

akb said:


> I'd rather other road users concentrate on their driving instead of searching me or my bike for a camera whilst in 'control' of their metal cages at 30mph.


 Agree on the concentrating on their driving. But if they were to treat every cyclist as though they may have a camera, would there'd be fewer incidents. At present as you say they're are sat in their metal cages, cut off from what is happenning around them.
It might force a change of attitudes as to how they feel they can treat us, as cyclists. Everyone with video evidence, to back up what we are saying.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Oct 2013)




----------



## martint235 (7 Oct 2013)

MrDampy said:


> Wish I had One fitted when that Car kept coming at me across the Roundabout I was on the Other day!


 


MrDampy said:


> C H, What would happen if you were Cycling Home and a van Cut you up and and damaged your bike and drove off, you got no witness to what has happened, if the car hits you on the roundabout, they can just say it was Your Fault! I think i need to get on this wagon, for a bit of evidence, on how many crazy Motorist there are out there!


 
For a fee I can come and fix your Caps Lock key for you.


----------



## Davidsw8 (7 Oct 2013)

If I hadn't had a camera when I got knocked off my bike last year, the case would never have gone to court and the guy would never have gotten his points and a fine.

Generally, the only other people that seem to notice the camera are other cyclists when I'm stopped with them at lights and they ask about the quality and battery life.

I don't think it'd be advisable to point out to someone that they were being filmed if they were up to no good as they could get aggressive, I would just film it and leave it for Roadsafe or the Met to deal with.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (7 Oct 2013)

akb said:


> I'd rather other road users concentrate on their texting instead of searching me or my bike for a camera whilst in 'control' of their metal cages at 30mph.



FTFY.


----------



## Archie_tect (7 Oct 2013)

Now one of those Google Earth ones would be good.


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Oct 2013)

I don't mind most of them... there are some nutters out there, but that's the same with any walk of life.

There's one near me who hides up a pole in a little yellow box. Instead of posting my car all over the Internet, he sends demands for money.

I pay, of course. He knows where I live and may be unstable.

I've seen him hiding in other parts of the country on faster sections of road in the same little box, but I'm onto him now.

He seems blithely unaware that I pay Road Tax and do not need to be faffing about with minor issues like speed limits and unbroken white lines.

Typical, but then again isn't everything? Where do I put my tick for UKIP?


----------



## HLaB (7 Oct 2013)

When I was hit from behind one of the first questions at the station was, was I wearing a cam.


----------



## SHornswaggle (7 Oct 2013)

I have a camera on my helmet.. 9 out of 10 rides I use it.. I post the scenic parts to YouTube for my friends to see.. Regards bad drivers - unless there was an accident or extreme abuse or something like that - I wouldn't use the footage.


----------



## Frood42 (7 Oct 2013)

I have a camera, it hasn't been used for a while, but I am considering getting it out again, would have helped with the idiot bus driver this morning...


----------



## downfader (7 Oct 2013)

Born2die said:


> Might make a fake one up and stick it on the lid



Others I knew, knew I ran with cameras so asked another rider what resolution his ran at and "is it HD?" It was quite funny when he corrected them and switched on the light that had been strapped to his helmet.


----------



## MrDampy (7 Oct 2013)

I'm Just Looking for a Go Pro Hero 3 Plus Edition, right this moment, !


----------



## downfader (7 Oct 2013)

MrDampy said:


> I'm Just Looking for a Go Pro Hero 3 Plus Edition, right this moment, !


I saw one in a shop on Saturday. Its about a third of the size of my Hero 2 HD


----------



## crazyjoe101 (7 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I don't mind most of them... there are some nutters out there, but that's the same with any walk of life.
> 
> There's one near me who hides up a pole in a little yellow box. Instead of posting my car all over the Internet, he sends demands for money.
> 
> ...



I see what you did there.


----------



## Jezston (7 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


>



In case anyone isn't aware, this is an advert from taxinewspaper.co.uk, a free magazine given to taxi drivers - usually left in piles at busy ranks.

First saw this advert months ago when I picked up a copy. Wasn't until someone messaged me about it today that I did a little research and found you can download every issue from their website as a PDF! Hope to see that image do the rounds more 

The attitudes towards other road users as presented by what is the official newspaper of the taxi trade, as it is produced by the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, in articles, printed letters and leader columns by the editor are pretty disgraceful tbh.


----------



## buggi (10 Oct 2013)

chris harte said:


> I have considered having a cam attached to my bike to capture my ride but I am yet to take the plunge because I don't agree with posting a video on YouTube of someone cutting me up or having bad driving skills essentially just to complain. I think it gives the cyclist a bit of a poor reputation. That said the only reason I would have a camera is incase I was involved in an accident or witnessed an accident and I needed real life CCTV to document what 'really' happened but I not sure if it would hold up in court as evidence.
> 
> Are there any other reasons to convince me to get one. I.e wider birth given.


i don't find it makes any difference at all other than sod's law the battery is flat and i've left it at home when i get some idiot driver on route. they don't really see it as they are not concentrating on me that hard. When i bought mine, it was after a particular malicious intentional incident that was reported to the police but nothing done about it (even though they questioned the driver and he admitted to the offence). I decided when i bought it I would use if for this purpose only, and not spend my life uploading every close pass to youtube (God, i'd be there forever!!!). So far, i have stuck to my promise to myself. If I get home without having to take a lift in an ambulance, i just delete the footage. A guy at work has bought one recently, swayed by me saying that it's really there for my mom... so that if some idiot does drive into me, she has the evidence to get some justice and hopefully some piece of mind (quite sad that i think like this isn't it?) 

It has, however, come in very useful recently for some safety stuff i've been doing at work. It has raised a few of the driver's eyebrows and changed a lot of their opinions, even about their own driving. i've decided to keep in on my handlebars facing backwards, as it's close passes from behind that give me the most grief. i figure if someone does hit me, it should hopefully get the footage without behind smashed with the back of the bike (this is presuming the back of the bike comes off worse than the front).


----------



## buggi (10 Oct 2013)

StuartG said:


> The majority of incidents are because drivers don't clock you. If they don't clock you they certainly won't clock a camera.
> 
> Is the cyclist the best base for a camera? It would be great if all new cars had to have a mandatory operative camera that could be examined by the police after any incident. Might just modify driving (and some riding) behaviour to everybody's advantage. Good Russian drivers don't have a problem with the idea.


When i was doing the cycle safety video i put the camera in my car in the hope that i would see some cyclists and be able to film overtaking them. (just for the record, in two weeks i only saw one... so where are all these cyclists holding up the drivers???) 
I would like to think that my hazard perception from cycling transfers to my driving, and i'm sure it does, but having the camera there made me even more conscious of how i drove. I think it would be an excellent idea that it was mandatory that cars had camera's in them.


----------



## buggi (10 Oct 2013)

Davidc said:


> Saw a cyclist in Yeovil with a small version of the traffic camera sign on the pannier. Not sure if it's a good idea or not.
> 
> (I was in my car at the time)


i've often wondered if a jersey with the same sign on the back would take off?


----------



## crazyjoe101 (10 Oct 2013)

buggi said:


> i've often wondered if a jersey with the same sign on the back would take off?



Whopping camera strapped to the top of my helmet asside, I'm not keen on drawing attention to the fact I cycle with it. I'm not out with a camera to show road users I'm watching them, I'm out with it to record my ride as to have evidence or just to record footage I can share with others.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Oct 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> At the end of the day a camera is only a tool. It's what you do with it that matters.


But the problem seems to be with certain people that you would have a tool on the helmet & a tool underneath it.

The things that some of the YouTube brigade seem to think is dangerous & unacceptable is so common place & mundane it is quite frankly boring. They never seem to be in the wrong, never do poor road management, never hold anybody up or change lanes without indicating, never filter down the outside on the wrong side of the unbroken line, now every line of the Highway code backwards in klingon, God I wish I was as perfect as they are, maybe that's what I'm missing, maybe wearing a helmet cam & posting on YouTube will make me a cycling god where I can do no wrong, feck me, i'm going to buy one from Best Buy tomorrow.

Alan...


----------



## Twelve Spokes (10 Oct 2013)

MrDampy said:


> I'm Just Looking for a Go Pro Hero 3 Plus Edition, right this moment, !



I saw one yesterday,they look smaller and improved.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (10 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> But the problem seems to be with certain people that you would have a tool on the helmet & a tool underneath it.
> 
> The things that some of the YouTube brigade seem to think is dangerous & unacceptable is so common place & mundane it is quite frankly boring. They never seem to be in the wrong, never do poor road management, never hold anybody up or change lanes without indicating, never filter down the outside on the wrong side of the unbroken line, now every line of the Highway code backwards in klingon, God I wish I was as perfect as they are, maybe that's what I'm missing, maybe wearing a helmet cam & posting on YouTube will make me a cycling god where I can do no wrong, feck me, i'm going to buy one from Best Buy tomorrow.
> 
> Alan...



I'm not going to argue with you about the conduct of some YouTubers in some of their videos as it can be confrontational and petty at times.

What I don't agree with is you saying that something which is inconsiderate and in a fraction of cases, dangerous "so common place and mundane that it is quite frankly boring". This is exactly the mentality that some drivers would use to justify repeatedly bad manoeuvres, and the reason there are so many cyclists jumping reds even where there's a risk from traffic and a risk to pedestrians; it's been allowed to become the norm. Sure, most of the time there's going to be what you like to call a "non event" but by law of averages, the more people think it's acceptable, the more it will happen and the more those "common place and boring" manoeuvres will get someone hit.

Just because some things happen all the time on the road, and some helmet cammers have a superiority complex, doesn't mean you can simply brush things off as being unimportant.


----------



## Jezston (10 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> But the problem seems to be with certain people that you would have a tool on the helmet & a tool underneath it.
> 
> The things that some of the YouTube brigade seem to think is dangerous & unacceptable is so common place & mundane it is quite frankly boring. They never seem to be in the wrong, never do poor road management, never hold anybody up or change lanes without indicating, never filter down the outside on the wrong side of the unbroken line, now every line of the Highway code backwards in klingon, God I wish I was as perfect as they are, maybe that's what I'm missing, maybe wearing a helmet cam & posting on YouTube will make me a cycling god where I can do no wrong, feck me, i'm going to buy one from Best Buy tomorrow.
> 
> Alan...



Who are the 'youtube brigade'? Are they like the 'PC brigade' or the 'health and safety brigade' who exist only in the minds of the prejudiced?

Because your description of camera users doesn't seem to match up with anyone I know who uses one.


----------



## Dmcd33 (10 Oct 2013)

I would get one, but only if it was discreet and small. On the plus side, I have not had many close calls for some time, so no incentive to buy one (sods law, I know)


----------



## crazyjoe101 (10 Oct 2013)

Dmcd33 said:


> I would get one, but only if it was discreet and small. On the plus side, I have not had many close calls for some time, so no incentive to buy one (sods law, I know)



This is off the top of my head so I'm not sure but I think the dogcam bullet ones are quite small. I think parts of the Metropolitan Police give them to their cyclists.


----------



## MrDampy (10 Oct 2013)

It's the battery life that is doing me!

Love the size of the Dogcam, but the battery does not last long.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (11 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> But the problem seems to be with certain people that you would have a tool on the helmet & a tool underneath it.
> 
> The things that some of the YouTube brigade seem to think is dangerous & unacceptable is so common place & mundane it is quite frankly boring. They never seem to be in the wrong, never do poor road management, never hold anybody up or change lanes without indicating, never filter down the outside on the wrong side of the unbroken line, now every line of the Highway code backwards in klingon, God I wish I was as perfect as they are, maybe that's what I'm missing, maybe wearing a helmet cam & posting on YouTube will make me a cycling god where I can do no wrong, feck me, i'm going to buy one from Best Buy tomorrow.
> 
> ...



I know,I just can't help it.x

Seriously though I put very little up now as generally it's all the same old,same old.


----------



## Roadrider48 (11 Oct 2013)

Jezston said:


> Who are the 'youtube brigade'? Are they like the 'PC brigade' or the 'health and safety brigade' who exist only in the minds of the prejudiced?
> 
> Because your description of camera users doesn't seem to match up with anyone I know who uses one.


Hello Jez. Still this camera thing, eh?


----------



## Jezston (11 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Hello Jez. Still this camera thing, eh?



Erm, mind not following me around the forum replying to all my posts in this rather creepy style, please?

You seem to be the one with the obsession over camera cyclists. Also, this is a thread about cameras.


----------



## Roadrider48 (11 Oct 2013)

Jezston said:


> Erm, mind not following me around the forum replying to all my posts in this rather creepy style, please?
> 
> You seem to be the one with the obsession over camera cyclists. Also, this is a thread about cameras.


A bit over the top Jez, eh? Following you? I just said hello mate, that's all. If conversing yesterday is following you, them I'm guilty. Anyway....see ya.


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (11 Oct 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> Now one of those Google Earth ones would be good.


----------



## MrDampy (12 Oct 2013)

jazloc said:


>



Where do you get one! I need this one!


----------



## buggi (12 Oct 2013)

jazloc said:


>


i can see why you like this.. its very discreet


----------



## classic33 (12 Oct 2013)

buggi said:


> i can see why you like this.. its very discreet


And it only weighs 285kg, without the rider or the batterries for the camera & recording equipment!!


----------



## mr_cellophane (12 Oct 2013)

You also need one so that you can post videos showing that you are generous towards the homeless.


----------



## lukesdad (12 Oct 2013)

Jezston said:


> Who are the 'youtube brigade'? Are they like the 'PC brigade' or the 'health and safety brigade' who exist only in the minds of the prejudiced?
> 
> Because your description of camera users doesn't seem to match up with anyone I know who uses one.


 Self expanatory I would of thought ,unless of course you're a numpty !


----------



## MrDampy (13 Oct 2013)

If I had a cam then maybe I could video Stupid Driver like this! 


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iWCCBhDZlc&feature=share&list=UUE28F7WMG2mqpbLokfIKsJg


----------



## crazyjoe101 (13 Oct 2013)

What I don't understand is why some people will seek further interaction with a driver after something's happened. The vast majority of people will react badly when confronted with what they've done wrong as they begin to realise they were in the wrong and become embarrassed or just believe steadfastly that they're correct. I can't recall when I've seen a confrontation end well; it's not as if they're going to go "well now that you've shown me my mistake I'll be sure to read into the rules and look to change my behaviour in the future."
Before going up to the window people might do well to ask themselves:
"What do I hope to achieve here?"
"What am I actually going to achieve here?"


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

You are right Joe. It only ever ends in a shouting match or at worst a fighting match. But when an accident happens, whoever is to blame, no one ever just walks away. Human nature.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> You are right Joe. It only ever ends in a shouting match or at worst a fighting match. But when an accident happens, whoever is to blame, no one ever just walks away. Human nature.



I know, I got a really slow pass by a cabbie the other day approaching a roundabout, he moved closer and closer from a good wide passing distance he began with before entering a mini roundabout. My attention became focused on him, since he sort of 'stuck' next to me moving slightly inwards I saw him nattering away into the phone blocking the left of his face. I lost it and shouted "WHY DON'T YOU GET OFF THAT PHONE MATE?" At the time it felt good but to be honest I doubt he cared, probably just thought "just another d******* cyclist". Looking over my shoulder the next mile also wasn't fun as I was paranoid of a punishment pass. I probably distracted him even more from the roundabout.


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

MrDampy said:


> If I had a cam then maybe I could video Stupid Driver like this!
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iWCCBhDZlc&feature=share&list=UUE28F7WMG2mqpbLokfIKsJg



She was in the wrong tailgating, but for the cyclists own safety wouldn't it have been safer all round to just momentarily pull over and let her pass? Very few motorists will just say "I'm sorry" in that situation. There is almost always confrontation. She was an ignorant ass and the cyclist did nothing wrong. But for the sake of safety. Is it worth it?


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

crazyjoe101 said:


> I know, I got a really slow pass by a cabbie the other day approaching a roundabout, he moved closer and closer from a good wide passing distance he began with before entering a mini roundabout. My attention became focused on him, since he sort of 'stuck' next to me moving slightly inwards I saw him nattering away into the phone blocking the left of his face. I lost it and shouted "WHY DON'T YOU GET OFF THAT PHONE MATE?" At the time it felt good but to be honest I doubt he cared, probably just thought "just another d******* cyclist". Looking over my shoulder the next mile also wasn't fun as I was paranoid of a punishment pass. I probably distracted him even more from the roundabout.


The point is mate, that it never ends. There is always another situation waiting to happen somewhere to somebody. Sad, but true. Personally it's pedestrians stepping off kerbs that I have had words with lately. But again, it won't stop.


----------



## Recycle (13 Oct 2013)

crazyjoe101 said:


> It doesn't make me any safer on the roads or make me a better cyclist.


It does with me. 
Cycling with a camera is a double edged sword. Learn from Richard Nixon. If you break the law you are collecting evidence against yourself as much as you are for those that wrong you. If you carry a camera you need to ensure your own behavior is pristine.

For that reason I am as much in favour of cars with cameras as I am with cyclists carrying them.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> The point is mate, that it never ends. There is always another situation waiting to happen somewhere to somebody. Sad, but true. Personally it's pedestrians stepping off kerbs that I have had words with lately. But again, it won't stop.



I know, it's very hard to decide if I want to ring the bell, shout or hit the brakes; sometimes none of them work but it's hard to make a decision quickly. On my first ride into Central London on Friday I soon realised it was safer to just stay in primary at traffic speed going *DING DING DING DING DING DING...*


----------



## crazyjoe101 (13 Oct 2013)

Recycle said:


> It does with me.
> Cycling with a camera is a double edged sword. Learn from Richard Nixon. If you break the law you are collecting evidence against yourself as much as you are for those that wrong you. If you carry a camera you need to ensure your own behavior is pristine.
> 
> For that reason I am as much in favour of cars with cameras as I am with cyclists carrying them.



True. I've got to the point where I've forgotten I wear it though, hence why I'm confused when some people keep glancing at the top of my helmet when I'm talking to them. Initially though it did add a few seconds into my thought processes.


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> She was in the wrong tailgating, but for the cyclists own safety wouldn't it have been safer all round to just momentarily pull over and let her pass? Very few motorists will just say "I'm sorry" in that situation. There is almost always confrontation. She was an ignorant ass and the cyclist did nothing wrong. But for the sake of safety. Is it worth it?


Also, some real harsh comments on that YouTube video.


----------



## Hip Priest (13 Oct 2013)

crazyjoe101 said:


> What I don't understand is why some people will seek further interaction with a driver after something's happened. The vast majority of people will react badly when confronted with what they've done wrong as they begin to realise they were in the wrong and become embarrassed or just believe steadfastly that they're correct. I can't recall when I've seen a confrontation end well; it's not as if they're going to go "well now that you've shown me my mistake I'll be sure to read into the rules and look to change my behaviour in the future."
> Before going up to the window people might do well to ask themselves:
> "What do I hope to achieve here?"
> "What am I actually going to achieve here?"



Totally agree with this.

I had a couple of confrontations with motorists early on in my cycling days, and I quickly realised that it achieved nothing other than to ruin my day. So I decided from them on to try to remain calm. In the situation above I'd definitely have pulled slightly to the left and waved the impatient woman through.


----------



## Black Country Ste (13 Oct 2013)

I know talking to drivers is futile but I still do it. Meh. I'm sure there are plenty of reasonable drivers out there who will take things on board with good grace. On the other hand there's plenty of the wilfully ignorant who embarrass themselves.

Moving slightly to the left would have invited a stupid overtake, I was better off in front where I'm less likely to be deliberately hit than run off the road by a close pass. She can wait: I knew we would either part ways at the second roundabout or she would turn left with me where there was space to overtake. On a longer stretch I may have just let her go.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (13 Oct 2013)

Black Country Ste said:


> I know talking to drivers is futile but I still do it. Meh. I'm sure there are plenty of reasonable drivers out there who will take things on board with good grace. On the other hand there's plenty of the wilfully ignorant who embarrass themselves.
> ...



I think the problem is that generally the reasonable drivers aren't the ones who need an attitude adjustment.


----------



## Black Country Ste (13 Oct 2013)

crazyjoe101 said:


> I think the problem is that generally the reasonable drivers aren't the ones who need an attitude adjustment.


Indeed. I've had one or two friendly conversations with drivers who have done something daft but understood what happened and are apologetic. I tend not to upload those.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (13 Oct 2013)

Black Country Ste said:


> Indeed. I've had one or two friendly conversations with drivers who have done something daft but understood what happened and are apologetic. *I tend not to upload those.*



Why not?


----------



## Black Country Ste (13 Oct 2013)

crazyjoe101 said:


> Why not?


There are plenty of existing examples so if the driver recognises their fault, unless it's particularly serious there's no need to upload them. Taking close passes for example, if I feel threatened by one then it's too close, end of. But, watching them later on they don't exactly appear deadly because of the wide angle lens. Uploading those diminish the seriously dangerous incidents that others have shared.


----------



## buggi (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> She was in the wrong tailgating, but for the cyclists own safety wouldn't it have been safer all round to just momentarily pull over and let her pass? Very few motorists will just say "I'm sorry" in that situation. There is almost always confrontation. She was an ignorant ass and the cyclist did nothing wrong. But for the sake of safety. Is it worth it?


i wouldn't have pulled over, i would have sat in front of her and slowed down . Moving over reinforces their belief they have a right over you


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

I


buggi said:


> i wouldn't have pulled over, i would have sat in front of her and slowed down . Moving over reinforces their belief they have a right over you


I completely understand where your coming from, and I agree with you! But conditions were wet and she was tailgating close. If the cyclist comes off through panic or being shunted by the car and then gets run over by the same car, who comes off worse? Sure, the driver will be prosecuted(maybe) , but the cyclist may be dead!!


----------



## downfader (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> She was in the wrong tailgating, but for the cyclists own safety wouldn't it have been safer all round to just momentarily pull over and let her pass? Very few motorists will just say "I'm sorry" in that situation. There is almost always confrontation. She was an ignorant ass and the cyclist did nothing wrong. But for the sake of safety. Is it worth it?



You cant always expect them to know to pass if they dont understand that tailgating is a bloody no-no. I've actually done that - pulled over and waved them past. One more than one occasion they just sat there confused. Have you considered he might have felt concerned about stopping in case she just kept going? 

I've read some of your posts on here and other thread. Try not to be so judgemental towards other riders.


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> You cant always expect them to know to pass if they dont understand that tailgating is a bloody no-no. I've actually done that - pulled over and waved them past. One more than one occasion they just sat there confused. Have you considered he might have felt concerned about stopping in case she just kept going?
> 
> I've read some of your posts on here and other thread. Try not to be so judgemental towards other riders.


I'm not judging anyone! Where did you get that from?


----------



## downfader (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> I'm not judging anyone! Where did you get that from?


By the constant badgering of the cycle-cammers.


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> By the constant badgering of the cycle-cammers.


I knew you'd say that, that's why I asked. So I am going to change my opinion because of you, am I? Happy camming downy!


----------



## downfader (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> I knew you'd say that, that's why I asked. So I am going to change my opinion because of you, am I? Happy camming downy!


Equally you wont change our opinions on camming, or the real benefits they've brought. You just make yourself look aggressive on a forum


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> Equally you wont change our opinions on camming, or the real benefits they've brought. You just make yourself look aggressive on a forum.


You want to film everyone, go for it! I object to you lot forcibly trying to convert any who disagrees you. You are in a minority, despite how many ego stroking "likes or comments" you get on here. People tend to keep quiet here for the fear of being ganged up on.


----------



## downfader (13 Oct 2013)

Dont you think you're putting words in other's mouths now? 

We're not out to gang up, just highlight issues. How many more times does that have to be said. Simply ignoring the issues hasn't made them go away in the past 50 years. I'm in my mid 30s now and have seen things change for the worse until the last decade when people started to get interested in campaigning again.

The camera is just a tool. Perhaps people like yourself have some latent regret that you've not done enough to push for change and thats why you go for an easy target.


----------



## Cycling Dan (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Also, some real harsh comments on that YouTube video.


Its the internet. What do you expect?


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Its the internet. What do you expect?


I expected that from you!


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> Dont you think you're putting words in other's mouths now?
> 
> We're not out to gang up, just highlight issues. How many more times does that have to be said. Simply ignoring the issues hasn't made them go away in the past 50 years. I'm in my mid 30s now and have seen things change for the worse until the last decade when people started to get interested in campaigning again.
> 
> The camera is just a tool. Perhaps people like yourself have some latent regret that you've not done enough to push for change and thats why you go for an easy target.


No, I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth and no I don't have some latent regret about not having done enough. You do gang up! On anyone like me who doesn't think cameras on bikes is a good idea. You also mentioned that I am aggressive. As far as I can remember I haven't insulted anyone or ever printed a swear word at someone. You stick to your view and I'll stick to mine.


----------



## 400bhp (13 Oct 2013)

crazyjoe101 said:


> What I don't understand is why some people will seek further interaction with a driver after something's happened. The vast majority of people will react badly when confronted with what they've done wrong as they begin to realise they were in the wrong and become embarrassed or just believe steadfastly that they're correct. I can't recall when I've seen a confrontation end well; it's not as if they're going to go "well now that you've shown me my mistake I'll be sure to read into the rules and look to change my behaviour in the future."
> Before going up to the window people might do well to ask themselves:
> "What do I hope to achieve here?"
> "What am I actually going to achieve here?"



You're right and perhaps we can play on the word "confront" here.

Confronting someone generally means taking an agressive tone.

You need to be assertive to get a point across. If assertive tends to agressive you've lost.

I've done both. On a couple of occasions where I've been assertive I believe I got a positive outcome. You need to get to the point quickly and don't look for a response. "Give me more room next time mate", "I'm not cycling in the bit where if someone opens the door I'm toast, so give me a bit more room".

It's difficult to do this and if you haven't had time to take a moment and think about your response you'll get nowhere.


----------



## downfader (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> No, I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth and no I don't have some latent regret about not having done enough. You do gang up! On anyone like me who doesn't think cameras on bikes is a good idea. You also mentioned that I am aggressive. As far as I can remember I haven't insulted anyone or ever printed a swear word at someone. You stick to your view and I'll stick to mine.



The constant questioning of other's objectives and making out that its subversive rather than reactive is aggressive. 
If you cant see that you've fallen into the same prejudiced trap many anti-cyclists take then you become part of the larger problem on the roads.


----------



## 400bhp (13 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> The constant questioning of other's objectives and making out that its subversive rather than reactive is aggressive.
> If you cant see that you've fallen into the same prejudiced trap many anti-cyclists take then you become part of the larger problem on the roads.



I'd say assertive rather than agressive, but I could be wrong.

Sorry fella, but people like Roadrider really aren't the problem. He's a cyclist and he doesn't see the point of cameras. That's it.


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

400bhp has got it in one! No need for arguments or endless posts on the whys and wherefores.


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> The constant questioning of other's objectives and making out that its subversive rather than reactive is aggressive.
> If you cant see that you've fallen into the same prejudiced trap many anti-cyclists take then you become part of the larger problem on the roads.


I'm not questioning your objectives in life, I just see cameras on bikes as spying. Simple!


----------



## downfader (13 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> I'd say assertive rather than agressive, but I could be wrong.
> 
> Sorry fella, but people like Roadrider really aren't the problem. He's a cyclist and he doesn't see the point of cameras. That's it.



The point is that in-fighting of this sort, and pointless in-fighting at that, just weakens the effort we all should be making towards making cycling a real option for everyday people - from those that seek fitness to those that wish to save on fuel. If he doesn't want the whys and wherefores why the fingerpointing..? Rhetorical question, that


----------



## downfader (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> I'm not questioning your objectives in life, I just see cameras on bikes as spying. Simple!


Public road. Option of behaving out there too. The same nonsense gets said about speed cameras.


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> The point is that in-fighting of this sort, and pointless in-fighting at that, just weakens the effort we all should be making towards making cycling a real option for everyday people - from those that seek fitness to those that wish to save on fuel. If he doesn't want the whys and wherefores why the fingerpointing..? Rhetorical question, that


Why is it the effort we all should be making, if I don't agree with it? I don't agree with cameras and I never will. You love filming things, and that's cool. Why am I not entitled to speak against the use of cameras? All you are doing is trying to force people into your way of thinking. You are the one who is aggressively pushing their point.


----------



## veloevol (13 Oct 2013)

The idealist in me dreams of a world where people take responsibility for their own actions (A world without cameras) but the realist in me knows better.


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> Public road. Option of behaving out there too. The same nonsense gets said about speed cameras.


Speed cameras don't follow you along the road and then tap on your window and start a row. Whatever way you see it, most people object to being filmed without prior permission.


----------



## 400bhp (13 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> The point is that in-fighting of this sort, and pointless in-fighting at that, just weakens *the effort we all should be making towards making cycling a real option for everyday people *- from those that seek fitness to those that wish to save on fuel. If he doesn't want the whys and wherefores why the fingerpointing..? Rhetorical question, that



Genuine question - why should we, or why should I?


----------



## classic33 (13 Oct 2013)

What about CCTV, that follows you from street to street. Often done without any legally required warning signs. You can't escape them, when they're in operation!


----------



## 400bhp (13 Oct 2013)

A lot of people don't like it Classic and I get that (it's not a particularly big issue for me). Pick your nose and someone is watching you and sniggering to his mates or whatever.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> I'm not questioning your objectives in life, I just see cameras on bikes as spying. Simple!



I wouldn't go that far as if you're on a road you're in plain public view, it's not as though the camera allows it's user to see more than they otherwise would, it just means more people can see what the cammer saw at the time.



Roadrider48 said:


> Speed cameras don't follow you along the road and then tap on your window and start a row. Whatever way you see it, most people object to being filmed without prior permission.



Neither do helmet cameras, just some cyclists who wear helmet cameras. And yes, I wouldn't be particularly happy at being filmed by a stranger and having my image uploaded to YouTube, but when people behave irresponsively I don't really have much sympathy when they're exposed to a wider audience, this goes for both the subject of the video and the person who made it.


----------



## downfader (13 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> Genuine question - why should we, or why should I?


Because there are health epidemics and we can offer solutions. £10bn lost each year in the NHS to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Cancers can also have their risks reduced. 

Because up to £36 billion is lost to the economy and the tax payer due to road collision. Less private motors used for local journeys means less risk of that happening.

Because air pollution still damages our health and our nature. It also interferes with out livestock and our farm produce. A bicycle, post production, produces no air pollution or CO2. 80% of all harmful air pollutants come from motor traffic.

Because parking is a real issue for councils and business, and traffic congestion is interfering with business. 

We all have a responsibility to promote cycling and its benefits as we all have a responsibility to society whether we sit on the right, centre or left of the political spectrum. The motoring lobby is strong because in the main motorists support it, cyclists have to take some inspiration from certain aspects of how that has worked.


----------



## 400bhp (13 Oct 2013)

I have no responsibility whatsoever to promote cycling.


----------



## downfader (13 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Speed cameras don't follow you along the road and then tap on your window and start a row. Whatever way you see it, most people object to being filmed without prior permission.



You're talking about a select few cammers on youtube. Many cyclists don't upload. They keep the camera for an emergency witness situation, an insurance policy. Most drivers I've spoken to actually agree with me that the camera is a good idea - it also would show if I had caused an incident, dont forget. Many drivers have contacted me over the years to ask how they too can protect themselves with cameras. Two were HGV drivers.


----------



## downfader (13 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> I have no responsibility whatsoever to promote cycling.


You dont realise how tenuous a grip cycling has, then. You also have no right to complain when cycling infrastructure or road conditions dont meet your expectations. Same as non-voters have less right to complain about political parties when they didn't bother voting or standing/fighting for an independent


----------



## 400bhp (13 Oct 2013)

I don't complain.

I cycle because I love it. It's part of my life. I do not expect others to feel the same way and I would not impunge my way of life on other people in that way.


----------



## Roadrider48 (14 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> I don't complain.
> 
> I cycle because I love it. It's part of my life. I do not expect others to feel the same way and I would not impunge my way of life on other people in that way.


Excellent reply 400bhp


----------



## Roadrider48 (14 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> Because there are health epidemics and we can offer solutions. £10bn lost each year in the NHS to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Cancers can also have their risks reduced.
> 
> Because up to £36 billion is lost to the economy and the tax payer due to road collision. Less private motors used for local journeys means less risk of that happening.
> 
> ...


You have just shown yourself up as the original car hating cyclist. No one is obliged to promote anything they don't believe in or want to. As I've said, I cycle every day, 7 days a week. But cars will not ever yield to cycles, not in this lifetime anyway. You, nor anybody else, do not have the right to put peoples faces or plate details all over the internet. But for some weird reason, you all think that you're judge and jury. And that you can carry out some kind of kangaroo court at the kerbside.


----------



## Jezston (14 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> I object to you lot forcibly trying to convert any who disagrees you. You are in a minority, desu'rpite how many ego stroking "likes or comments" you get on here. People tend to keep quiet here for the fear of being ganged up on.



Oh for goodness sakes stop acting like you're such a bloody martyr.

You came into a thread throwing personal insults, ridiculous accusations and crass, tired generalizations against anyone and everyone who uses a camera on their bike.

As soon as people question your attack and pointed out what was wrong about it, you claimed "that's my opinion and I won't change it", arrogantly rejecting any idea that you might actually be wrong about anything, ever.

Then when multiple people start to disagree with you, you claim that some kind of clique are ganging up on you and this forum is hostile to people with your views, despite this forum being absolutely notorious for attacking people who put footage up of their rides and the number of people who've left the forum because of the harrassment and abuse they've got from people on this forum for doing so often with tacit approval of the staff.

You aggressively attack people on this forum with ignorant baseless accusations, persuing them around threads, and when people react to that you claim YOU are the victim. 

You are being a dick, or just being a troll. Get over yourself, and/or stop acting like one. But I'm guessing you won't, because you probably find this entertaining. If you've got such an issue with spying, why not spend your energy usefully, campaigning against illegal state surviellance (preferablly not in a Warner Brothers licenced movie merchandise mask) rather than making snarky, pathetic attacks against people who feel the need to gather evidence in case anything bad happens to them on the road. Guessing you disagree with people filming police at protests in case of brutality?


----------



## Roadrider48 (14 Oct 2013)

Jezston said:


> Oh for goodness sakes stop acting like you're such a bloody martyr.
> 
> You came into a thread throwing personal insults, ridiculous accusations and crass, tired generalizations against anyone and everyone who uses a camera on their bike.
> 
> ...


Oh dear Jez, the anger in your post surpasses even the grimace on the face of your avatar. Also another assumption that I am a troll that enjoys flaming. None of which is true, but to coin a phrase, "that's your opinion".
I have most definitely not insulted anyone as far as I'm concerned. Having an opinion and voicing it doesn't constitute insult, surely? As far as me "pursuing" people around the forums goes; I said hi to you once. Show me some examples of my stalking and I will agree with you. Where as today you have insulted me personally by calling me a dick. But not worry, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. When you resort to swearing it just means that you obviously can't hold a cojent argument.
Finally Jezzer, I am no victim! I am just an advocate for free speech, fairness and democracy.
I look forward to seeing what group of swear words you come up with next. I do respect your honesty though!


----------



## stowie (14 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> Genuine question - why should we, or why should I?



That is an interesting question and one I have thought about on more than one occasion. I cycle for a couple of reasons - one of them being that it is quicker and simpler than driving locally. If other people want to sit in their cars for 30 minutes for a journey that takes 10 on a bicycle who am I to try to dissuade them? But on a government / transport level I believe there are good reasons why cycling should be promoted for as many people as possible.


----------



## Leodis (14 Oct 2013)

I love cycle commuting, over the past few weeks I have been without a commuter bike so been stuck on the bus. One day I fought temptation and lost so took my best bike out for the commute, within 2 miles some numpty hit me from the side, I was lucky as I wasn’t hurt and the driver stopped but if he had drove off whilst I was on the deck I would be £600 worse off right now on a 4 week old bike!! So I have bought a helmet camera, not to point out poor driving though if it does endanger me or others it will be sent to the police but against the 1,000,000 uninsured drivers in the UK who have a habit of hit and running against cyclists. Call me a camera warrior but when the next idiot driver tries to take my life I know there is a change that evidence on camera.


----------



## Roadrider48 (14 Oct 2013)

Leodis said:


> I love cycle commuting, over the past few weeks I have been without a commuter bike so been stuck on the bus. One day I fought temptation and lost so took my best bike out for the commute, within 2 miles some numpty hit me from the side, I was lucky as I wasn’t hurt and the driver stopped but if he had drove off whilst I was on the deck I would be £600 worse off right now on a 4 week old bike!! So I have bought a helmet camera, not to point out poor driving though if it does endanger me or others it will be sent to the police but against the 1,000,000 uninsured drivers in the UK who have a habit of hit and running against cyclists. Call me a camera warrior but when the next idiot driver tries to take my life I know there is a change that evidence on camera.


That was bad luck Leodis, I'm glad the driver stopped and you were able to sort it out. And obviously I am happy you were not injured.


----------



## downfader (14 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> You have just shown yourself up as the original car hating cyclist. No one is obliged to promote anything they don't believe in or want to. As I've said, I cycle every day, 7 days a week. But cars will not ever yield to cycles, not in this lifetime anyway. You, nor anybody else, do not have the right to put peoples faces or plate details all over the internet. But for some weird reason, you all think that you're judge and jury. And that you can carry out some kind of kangaroo court at the kerbside.


LMAO how do you glean "car hating" from that..? I'll say it again. I think you feel some guilt about not getting involved and thats why you're so aggressively targeting fellow riders who have done nothing wrong. 

Target your frustrations at the real risk.


----------



## Kookas (14 Oct 2013)

crazyjoe101 said:


> What I don't understand is why some people will seek further interaction with a driver after something's happened. The vast majority of people will react badly when confronted with what they've done wrong as they begin to realise they were in the wrong and become embarrassed or just believe steadfastly that they're correct. I can't recall when I've seen a confrontation end well; it's not as if they're going to go "well now that you've shown me my mistake I'll be sure to read into the rules and look to change my behaviour in the future."
> Before going up to the window people might do well to ask themselves:
> "What do I hope to achieve here?"
> "What am I actually going to achieve here?"



Of course they don't say that. It would feel disempowering (that really ought to be a word), and would to them feel like bowing down to someone else, which we all know no-one likes to do (I certainly don't).

That doesn't mean they don't have a little think afterwards and silently change their ways.

I know in the past I've kept arguing with people who've convinced me that they're actually right, just because I didn't want to be seen to back down and admit defeat. And plenty of people do this all the time, even if they should just apologise and move on.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (14 Oct 2013)

Kookas said:


> Of course they don't say that. It would feel disempowering (that really ought to be a word), and would to them feel like bowing down to someone else, which we all know no-one likes to do (I certainly don't).
> 
> That doesn't mean they don't have a little think afterwards and silently change their ways.
> 
> I know in the past I've kept arguing with people who've convinced me that they're actually right, just because I didn't want to be seen to back down and admit defeat. And plenty of people do this all the time, even if they should just apologise and move on.



Which is why I think people should start their conversations in a less confrontational way that tapping a window and demading it to be rolled down. A simple polite statement of fact and a swift goodbye should be enough. I think over asserting one's self or being aggressive will simply cause the other person to 'lock out'. If something's going to be said then it needs to be said properly when practicable.


----------



## ComedyPilot (14 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Speed cameras don't follow you along the road and then tap on your window and start a row. *Whatever way you see it, most people object to being filmed without prior permission*.



Whatever way you see it, vulnerable road users are sick to the back teeth of being driven at, crashed into, abused, close-passed, tail-gated and generally endangered on the road by drivers that are complete twunts. And you seem to want cammers to back off filming said twunts because of their 'privacy'?

I, like a good number of very experienced cyclists on here, couldn't give a rat's @rse about the 'privacy' of some nobber in a car. A vulnerable road user's safety trumps their privacy_* every *_time. And as a responsible driver, I don't give a toss either about the cyclist at the lights with the camera filming because, surprise to you as it may be, I am highly unlikely to ever be a subject of one of their films. And, perish the though that I ever were to be the main feature, my acute embarrassment over 15 mins of online fame is nothing to the possible harm I could have inflicted on a human being due to my driving.

The anti-cammer voice out there is nothing to do with privacy, or confrontation, it's more to do with the majority of bad drivers not wanting to be made responsible for their actions. And I don't know about you, but I find the very idea that a driver with 1 ton + of high speed metal under their control wanting to be absolved of responsibility for their actions wholly abysmal.


----------



## stowie (14 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Speed cameras don't follow you along the road and then tap on your window and start a row. Whatever way you see it, most people object to being filmed without prior permission.



People may object but (as I outlined in another thread) the entitlement to privacy in a public place is lower than in private, and if those filmed are engaged in criminal or antisocial behaviour, the entitlment to privacy is very greatly reduced. Most people don't object to being filmed in their cars - in fact I think it probably highly unlikely that most people think too much about it. People quite often object to being filmed when they are doing something antisocial or illegal, but that doesn't mean the objection is valid.


----------



## gaz (14 Oct 2013)

I've been filming on the roads for 3 or 4 years now. I've never had anyone object to being filmed and it's pretty obvious I've got cameras.

If you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. If you drive like an idiot, well you might well see your self online.


----------



## stowie (14 Oct 2013)

gaz said:


> I've been filming on the roads for 3 or 4 years now. I've never had anyone object to being filmed and it's pretty obvious I've got cameras.
> 
> If you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. If you drive like an idiot, well you might well see your self online.



To be fair, I don't like the "if you are not doing something wrong you have nothing to worry about" line very much. I believe (and think correct) that if someone is filmed in a public place and feels a violation of privacy, they can object. People should have some control over their image even in public. But the entitlement to privacy is based on context, and I doubt very much if a claim of privacy over a record of antisocial behaviour (such as the bullying close pass a cabbie gave me today in the rain) would be taken particularly seriously.


----------



## Roadrider48 (14 Oct 2013)

stowie said:


> People may object but (as I outlined in another thread) the entitlement to privacy in a public place is lower than in private, and if those filmed are engaged in criminal or antisocial behaviour, the entitlment to privacy is very greatly reduced. Most people don't object to being filmed in their cars - in fact I think it probably highly unlikely that most people think too much about it. People quite often object to being filmed when they are doing something antisocial or illegal, but that doesn't mean the objection is valid.


Stowie, I agree with you and you do make a good point. Well put!


----------



## Roadrider48 (14 Oct 2013)

gaz said:


> I've been filming on the roads for 3 or 4 years now. I've never had anyone object to being filmed and it's pretty obvious I've got cameras.
> 
> If you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. If you drive like an idiot, well you might well see your self online.


Gaz, I have seen you on YouTube and you are a very clued up, sensible cyclist, with years of good reputation behind you, No dispute there! But the first line of stowies post is correct and I agree with that. #119.


----------



## Roadrider48 (14 Oct 2013)

ComedyPilot said:


> Whatever way you see it, vulnerable road users are sick to the back teeth of being driven at, crashed into, abused, close-passed, tail-gated and generally endangered on the road by drivers that are complete twunts. And you seem to want cammers to back off filming said twunts because of their 'privacy'?
> 
> I, like a good number of very experienced cyclists on here, couldn't give a rat's @rse about the 'privacy' of some nobber in a car. A vulnerable road user's safety trumps their privacy_* every *_time. And as a responsible driver, I don't give a toss either about the cyclist at the lights with the camera filming because, surprise to you as it may be, I am highly unlikely to ever be a subject of one of their films. And, perish the though that I ever were to be the main feature, my acute embarrassment over 15 mins of online fame is nothing to the possible harm I could have inflicted on a human being due to my driving.
> 
> The anti-cammer voice out there is nothing to do with privacy, or confrontation, it's more to do with the majority of bad drivers not wanting to be made responsible for their actions. And I don't know about you, but I find the very idea that a driver with 1 ton + of high speed metal under their control wanting to be absolved of responsibility for their actions wholly abysmal.


So drivers are automatically guilty unless proven otherwise by the means of your camera? And why would I be surprised at the supremacy of your driving. I am sure you're not constantly "driving at" cyclists as you put it. You are exactly the kind of cyclist that blames cars for everything and you take no responsibility for bad cycling habits, all in the name of vulnerability. Irrespective of circumstance or evidence! I advocate equal rights for all parties, cars and cyclists alike. And don't bother to misquote me either. I am well aware that a bike is more vulnerable than a car. But there is blame on both sides for most incidents, in equal proportion.


----------



## stowie (14 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> So drivers are automatically guilty unless proven otherwise by the means of your camera? And why would I be surprised at the supremacy of your driving. I am sure you're not constantly "driving at" cyclists as you put it. You are exactly the kind of cyclist that blames cars for everything and you take no responsibility for bad cycling habits, all in the name of vulnerability. Irrespective of circumstance or evidence! I advocate equal rights for all parties, cars and cyclists alike.



So here is one of the problems with your "equal rights". Walking is different to cycling which is different to driving a car. Each brings its own external risk to the environment and others. Pedestrians bring very little danger to others, cyclists a bit more danger, a car drivers a lot more. Hence the reason why I need a license and insurance to drive and my car needs an MOT - all items deemed unnecessary for walking and cycling. The fact that the risk brought to others by each activity is so vastly different makes the "equal rights and responsibilities" argument tosh.


----------



## Roadrider48 (14 Oct 2013)

stowie said:


> So here is one of the problems with your "equal rights". Walking is different to cycling which is different to driving a car. Each brings its own external risk to the environment and others. Pedestrians bring very little danger to others, cyclists a bit more danger, a car drivers a lot more. Hence the reason why I need a license and insurance to drive and my car needs an MOT - all items deemed unnecessary for walking and cycling. The fact that the risk brought to others by each activity is so vastly different makes the "equal rights and responsibilities" argument tosh.


In the name of argument "Tosh", let's say for example a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian and causes such injury that they are unable to work for a short while and would have required hospital treatment. Where would it be possible for the injured pedestrian to claim their costs and expenses from? The cyclists insurance?, no, that wouldn't be possible, because cyclists have no need for such a triviality as insurance, surely? I am waiting for you to quote the car to bike accident ratios and then say we don't ever injure anybody. Now that is Tosh, as you say. But I already know that you won't see any other side to this except the side of the cyclist. But carry on all the same.


----------



## stowie (14 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> In the name of argument "Tosh", let's say for example a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian and causes such injury that they are unable to work for a short while and would have required hospital treatment. Where would it be possible for the injured pedestrian to claim their costs and expenses from? The cyclists insurance?, no, that wouldn't be possible, because cyclists have no need for such a triviality as insurance, surely? I am waiting for you to quote the car to bike accident ratios and then say we don't ever injure anybody. Now that is Tosh, as you say. But I already know that you won't see any other side to this except the side of the cyclist. But carry on all the same.



Cyclists do injure people. But, as I expect you already know, the numbers are significantly below those injured by motorised transport so the risk isn't deemed large enough to warrant compulsory insurance. There are loads of activities where risk to others is increased a small amount that don't warrant insurance so cycling is hardly an exception.

If a cyclist injured a pedestrian, it might be that the cyclist has insurance (many have), or a claim for damages could be brought directly against the cyclist themselves in the case of having no insurance, if the cyclist was deemed at fault.

I do also walk and drive you know. I also know that with each mode of transport a different level of responsibility is required based on the risk brought about by this activity. Are you saying this is not correct?


----------



## classic33 (14 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> You have just shown yourself up as the original car hating cyclist. No one is obliged to promote anything they don't believe in or want to. As I've said, I cycle every day, 7 days a week. But cars will not ever yield to cycles, not in this lifetime anyway. You, nor anybody else, do not have the right to put peoples faces or plate details all over the internet. But for some weird reason, you all think that you're judge and jury. And that you can carry out some kind of kangaroo court at the kerbside.


If "kangaroo courts" were held at the roadside, there'd be fewer drivers on the road.
You tell me where it states that one person cannot put peoples faces or plate details on the internet. The internet has just become another means of getting the same information out there. Nowt else.


----------



## ComedyPilot (14 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> So drivers are automatically guilty unless proven otherwise by the means of your camera? And why would I be surprised at the supremacy of your driving. I am sure you're not constantly "driving at" cyclists as you put it. *You are exactly the kind of cyclist that blames cars for everything and you take no responsibility for bad cycling habits, all in the name of vulnerability*.**1* Irrespective of circumstance or evidence! I advocate equal rights for all parties, cars and cyclists alike. And don't bother to misquote me either. I am well aware that a bike is more vulnerable than a car. *But there is blame on both sides for most incidents, in equal proportion*2*.


**1* - No I am not - and anyone that knows me on here and out in the 'real' world will tell you I am just as likely to call a bad cyclist a twunt as I would call the same to a bad driver. I for one applaud @gaz and his silly cyclists channel, because we can all learn from it.

**2* - Afraid I disagree with you on this one, we have a personal responsibility for our own actions in that they do not endanger others (and ourselves if we have any sense of self preservation), but equal responsibility for 'most' incidents? Come on........... 

I am sure @Crankarm of this parish, @gaz , @Black Country Ste and @Leodis could tell you a thing or two about whether their incidents had equal 'blame' levels. 

I suppose if we looked at my worst incidents, then yes, it was my fault a lorry overtook me and pulled back in before completing the move forcing me to take to the verge so I didn't go under the trailer's rear wheels. It was my fault a bus driver passing me at 50mph decided 6" was enough room between it's nearside and my elbow. It was also my fault that at least half a dozen cars have been driving towards me on a single carriage way road and pull out to overtake cars on their side and drive AT me at 60mph+ forcing me to do the only option left - ride onto the verge (the same 1/2 mile stretch of road every time!)


----------



## ComedyPilot (14 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> In the name of argument "Tosh", let's say for example a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian and causes such injury that they are unable to work for a short while and would have required hospital treatment. Where would it be possible for the injured pedestrian to claim their costs and expenses from? *The cyclists insurance?, no, that wouldn't be possible, because cyclists have no need for such a triviality as insurance, surely?* I am waiting for you to quote the car to bike accident ratios and then say we don't ever injure anybody. Now that is Tosh, as you say. But I already know that you won't see any other side to this except the side of the cyclist. But carry on all the same.



I'm insured as a cyclist...are you?


----------



## classic33 (14 Oct 2013)

@Roadrider48
Read the account given for these two & tell us where the blame lies please?
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/split-from-incident-outcome.68203/#post-1267705
&
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/hit-and-run.140959/
With regards the second the rider involved hasn't been back since.


----------



## gaz (14 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> Gaz, I have seen you on YouTube and you are a very clued up, sensible cyclist, with years of good reputation behind you, No dispute there! But the first line of stowies post is correct and I agree with that. #119.


FYI: The first line for another user is subjective to the size of their browser window. So for all I can tell you are agreeing with his words "To be fair" :P


----------



## classic33 (14 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2711134, member: 30090"]What's the above got to do with anything? As far as I can see RR has stated his position quite clearly. It's others that have got come with a load of strawmans to make a point.

All very tiresome.[/quote]
Are you answering for him?
Is he incapable of answering for himself, that you feel the need to answer a question directed at someone else to answer?


----------



## Jezston (14 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2711124, member: 30090"]Irony alert, whoop, whoop.[/quote]

Eh?


----------



## classic33 (14 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2711179, member: 30090"]Oh I'm sorry for voicing an opinion on a public forum.

And my opinion that I made (if you had bothered to read it) was that RR has clearly stated his position regarding cameras and filming in public. Yours and other posters various introductions of non relevant points is irksome which ultimately leads to a very tiresome discussion ad nauseum.

Me having the foresight that I have could see this so I thought I'd raise the point now rather then in a another seven pages.

So, what and how exactly is your post to RR got to do with filming people?[/quote]
Start with the simple question first.
Are you now answering for @Roadrider48?
Questions raised, by yourself, will be answered after. Or you could just read and supply his answer for him, what was put up for the person of whom the question was asked, was asked to answer!


----------



## classic33 (14 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2711202, member: 30090"]No I'm not and *I don't think I've ever given the impression that I have* or have wanted to sometime in the future.

If you want to put off the inevitable Classic then by all means carry on.[/quote]
You answered a previous question intended for him, so it appeared that you were now fielding his answers. If you want to answer questions not aimed at you, carry on. They'll be met with the contempt they deserve.


----------



## Roadrider48 (15 Oct 2013)

stowie said:


> Cyclists do injure people. But, as I expect you already know, the numbers are significantly below those injured by motorised transport so the risk isn't deemed large enough to warrant compulsory insurance. There are loads of activities where risk to others is increased a small amount that don't warrant insurance so cycling is hardly an exception.
> 
> If a cyclist injured a pedestrian, it might be that the cyclist has insurance (many have), or a claim for damages could be brought directly against the cyclist themselves in the case of having no insurance, if the cyclist was deemed at fault.
> 
> I do also walk and drive you know. I also know that with each mode of transport a different level of responsibility is required based on the risk brought about by this activity. Are you saying this is not correct?


What a really weak answer!!


----------



## Roadrider48 (15 Oct 2013)

ComedyPilot said:


> I'm insured as a cyclist...are you?


Yes!!


----------



## Roadrider48 (15 Oct 2013)

classic33 said:


> If "kangaroo courts" were held at the roadside, there'd be fewer drivers on the road.
> You tell me where it states that one person cannot put peoples faces or plate details on the internet. The internet has just become another means of getting the same information out there. Nowt else.


I didn't say it was illegal. It's just, in my opinion, and many others I'm sure....not right!


----------



## Roadrider48 (15 Oct 2013)

gaz said:


> FYI: The first line for another user is subjective to the size of their browser window. So for all I can tell you are agreeing with his words "To be fair" :P


That's very clever Gaz, i like that! I still think you're a great guy though!


----------



## Roadrider48 (15 Oct 2013)

ComedyPilot said:


> **1* - No I am not - and anyone that knows me on here and out in the 'real' world will tell you I am just as likely to call a bad cyclist a twunt as I would call the same to a bad driver. I for one applaud @gaz and his silly cyclists channel, because we can all learn from it.
> 
> **2* - Afraid I disagree with you on this one, we have a personal responsibility for our own actions in that they do not endanger others (and ourselves if we have any sense of self preservation), but equal responsibility for 'most' incidents? Come on...........
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrider48 (15 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2711179, member: 30090"]Oh I'm sorry for voicing an opinion on a public forum.

And my opinion that I made (if you had bothered to read it) was that RR has clearly stated his position regarding cameras and filming in public. Yours and other posters various introductions of non relevant points is irksome which ultimately leads to a very tiresome discussion ad nauseum.

Me having the foresight that I have could see this so I thought I'd raise the point now rather then in a another seven pages.

So, what and how exactly is your post to RR got to do with filming people?[/quote]
My point was made quite clearly very early on in the thread. But if you tend not to conform with the "in crowd" you get ganged.


----------



## Roadrider48 (15 Oct 2013)

classic33 said:


> @Roadrider48
> Read the account given for these two & tell us where the blame lies please?
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/split-from-incident-outcome.68203/#post-1267705
> &
> ...


Tell me seriously! Is there something wrong with you? You really think that as a cyclist I condone and somehow enjoy hearing about others being injured? My comments are on cameras and equality not other cyclists injuries!! I would be grateful if you don't post towards me again. You actually think I get some kind of retribution from injured cyclists? I have no more words for you!!!


----------



## classic33 (15 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> You really think that as a cyclist I condone and somehow enjoy hearing about others being injured?(1) My comments are on cameras and equality not other cyclists injuries!! You actually think I get some kind of retribution from injured cyclists?(2)


Yes to points 1 & 2.
As for the piece on equality, is it equality to your standard or some other as yet un-named standard?
What about pedestrians using camera's to do exactly the same thing? I've caught drivers whilst on two feet as well as two & four wheels. 
You're not able to point out a single piece against your argument of the use of camera's being wrong & for some reason that irks you. If I, as a law abiding person have at my disposal the means to record someone doing something that is illegal or would be against the interests of the company(if one is involved), who are you to say that that equipment shouldn't be used?
I used single use camera's before moving onto a VHS camcorder & then helmet camera's whilst cycling. An SLR carried most days when not cycling.
You are at the most basic level possible, saying that I have no right to be able to back up my side of the story if it involves the use of a camera.
Question. Why is it that some insurance companies now either give you a single use camera or ask as part of the policy that a camera be carried in the vehicle. Local haulage companies & bus companies have issued their drivers with single use camera's, despite the fact that the vehicles are fitted with external video camera's. We as cyclists & pedestrians are not the only ones using camera's, yet you single cyclists out. Why?


----------



## Leodis (15 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> My point was made quite clearly very early on in the thread. But if you tend not to conform with the "in crowd" you get ganged.



Beano has always been a nobber, nowt new there.


----------



## Roadrider48 (15 Oct 2013)

classic33 said:


> Yes to points 1 & 2.
> As for the piece on equality, is it equality to your standard or some other as yet un-named standard?
> What about pedestrians using camera's to do exactly the same thing? I've caught drivers whilst on two feet as well as two & four wheels.
> You're not able to point out a single piece against your argument of the use of camera's being wrong & for some reason that irks you. If I, as a law abiding person have at my disposal the means to record someone doing something that is illegal or would be against the interests of the company(if one is involved), who are you to say that that equipment shouldn't be used?
> ...


 I bet you're a joy to know? Do you take your camera everywhere? Did you really used to go out with a VHS camcorder? Oh dear! I bet that got in the way on shopping day? Thank god for technology advancement! Sorry, I was going to write more but I can't stop laughing.


----------



## stowie (15 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> What a really weak answer!!



I see you decided to exceed the perceived weakness of my answer with your own...


----------



## Roadrider48 (15 Oct 2013)

stowie said:


> I see you decided to exceed the perceived weakness of my answer with your own...


Yeah!


----------

