I've seen a cut of one of Gaz's interview segments. Carlton Reid posted it on BikeBiz but it has been taken down - probably due to Carlton breaking the embargo.
There were a couple of phrases used in the narration that didn't chime quite right and might raise some hackles here, but that might not be the case when Gaz is juxtaposed by another interviewee. Gaz came across well and clearly explained several aspects of commuting in London.
I was interviewed and gave consent for footage to be used. I don't know if any of my footage will make it through to the final cut. The makers intentions have changed several times. It's been a long process and cycling's profile is changing massively at the moment. There have been numerous high profile cyclists, incidents and campaigns in the news in the meantime. The mechanics of using a helmetcam have changed since they started filming. At the beginning video footage was a breakthrough for having the Met police pursue motoring offences committed against cyclists. Then, a short time later, the Met effectively cited video evidence as being a reason to dismiss any cyclist's complaint. Now Roadsafe is looking like it's going to be more effective than we could have ever thought. Motorists prosecuted for a close pass? Possibly, they've tried. Gaz's blog has documented these changes. The production team were looking at exploring this strand of the story but it has clearly being moving too fast. Edit: The YouTube environment has changed rapidly in this time as well with many different reasons and approaches to filming developing and networks of users becoming established: shock jocks, reportage, educationalists.
I think there was a request after an early edit to increase the human interest angle. This was to be done by obtaining the views of both sides in any conflict caught on camera. This wasn't to up the them and us ante, in most cases people are far more contrite when presented with their behaviour on screen, but supposedly to give an indication of the attitudes and behaviours that underlie the interactions we all have on the road. My adversary proved difficult to find as he operates under a number of aliases and I was less involved from this point.
Since then I think there have probably been the normal pressures of people trying to maintain their original concept of a project against circumstance, other editorial influences wanting it sexed-up, toned down, more human, more footage based, etc. and time.
There's no question of being able to withdraw our involvement at this stage. We've signed consent forms for a documentary examining conflict on the road caught on helmet cameras. When you agree to take part it's understood that it is on their terms. That's the risk we have to take when engaging with the media. If individuals involved have been misrepresented then it might be worth doing something about it, although despite so many people's misgivings I think misrepresentation is unlikely.
Talk of protests, letter campaigns and efforts to withdraw the programme before it's aired are over-reactions at the moment. Nobody is going to have an accurate view on this until Thursday morning, when their own and other peoples views on it have sunk in.
