Cameras + YouTube + Google - using the power

[gaz]

Im trying to find the significance, of the second clip gaz maybe Im just being thick ?

It shows that the system works. The drivers attitude and driving in the first video was poor, but in the second it was just fine.

 

[lukesdad]

It shows that the system works. The drivers attitude and driving in the first video was poor, but in the second it was just fine.

I thought the question was multiple offences being filmed ?

 

[P_Dalen]

Major sense of humour failure, there! Catrike's post made me smile when I read it at lunchtime - I found it very witty indeed

English is not my mother tongue, but I found it humorous, too...

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

It shows that the system works. The drivers attitude and driving in the first video was poor, but in the second it was just fine.

Not much evidence of "Rage against helmet cammers" from the driver who had previously been taped! I thought , from the vehemence that was shown last week , that this was almost inevitable?

 

[Hip Priest]

I thought the question was multiple offences being filmed ?

Yes, I meant multiple instances of bad driving filmed by separate cameras. The sort of thing BentMikey is hoping to pick up with this campaign. I perhaps didn't word my request well. Thanks to GV and Gaz for the examples anyway, I enjoyed them.

 

[lukesdad]

Not much evidence of "Rage against helmet cammers" from the driver who had previously been taped! I thought , from the vehemence that was shown last week , that this was almost inevitable?

Why would you think that ?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Why would you think that ?

Because of the vehemence that was shown last week...

 

[lukesdad]

Because of the vehemence that was shown last week...

Sure it was the same driver ?

 

[lukesdad]

Yes, I meant multiple instances of bad driving filmed by separate cameras. The sort of thing BentMikey is hoping to pick up with this campaign. I perhaps didn't word my request well. Thanks to GV and Gaz for the examples anyway, I enjoyed them.

Nothing wrong with the wording. The tack was changed

 

[gaz]

 

[Hip Priest]

Wow. That fella is clearly a persistant danger to those around him. Definitely gives weight to Mikey's suggestion in the OP.

 

[lukesdad]

Come off it gaz ! The the guy moves out of his lane into the path of traffic with no shoulder check, poor cycling. In the second you are far to close to the motorcyclist in front. Talk about pot...kettle.

 

[gaz]

Wow. That fella is clearly a persistant danger to those around him. Definitely gives weight to Mikey's suggestion in the OP.

Even with the number of cars on the road and the number of road users using cameras. I think it will be rare to see the same vehicle twice doing something careless/dangerous/silly.

 

[gaz]

Come off it gaz ! The the guy moves out of his lane into the path of traffic with no shoulder check, poor cycling. In the second you are far to close to the motorcyclist in front. Talk about pot...kettle.

Indeed, can't argue with either of those points. Well apart from the fact that you called the other cyclist a guy, when clearly it is a girl. come on!

Aye, could have been further back but I think at the point you are referring to the traffic is rather slow and i'm not directly behind it. Not exactly dangerous.

 

[lukesdad]

Ooops sorry Mrs....or miss