Cameras + YouTube + Google - using the power

[mr_hippo]

I am not going to re-read the 6 pages. can someone please define dangerous. I was riding on the Korat bypass today and was passed by a convoy of draw-bar trailers, I was travelling at about 30kph and i estimate they were doing about 100kph. They passed within an arm's length of me - is that dangerous?
How many forum members have incidents that are far worse than those you cyclons post on youtube but do not whinge about them? We cyclists far out weigh you cyclons but have to suffer at your hands.
I think I know what cyclons mean when they say 'a punishment pass' but just think about it for a moment. A cyclist is riding happily along when an 'incident' happens, he has done nothing wrong so why the incident? It is you and the other cyclons who have annoyed the driver so much that he takes his frustration out on the innocent and do not tell me that it does not happen because it does. You have had a bad day at work, your boss has spent the day picking on you and you are getting frustrated. you cannot say anything to him so what happens? You get home, kids toys all over the place and your wife has made you bangers and mash yet again; so you kick off at innocent parties.
Forget for the moment 'educating' drivers but concentrate on your skills and educating other cyclists
Please continue to post examples of your poor cycling on youtube but try to review them from a third pary point of view and learn from your mistakes.
'

 

[Norm]

User3143 Quite what you're trying to explain has been lost.

I think he is saying that, for every cam-wearer who posts stuff which shows something which is actually dangerous, there seems to be a dozen who bleat about any vehicle that passes within 6 feet and who chase them down to shout at them. And that posting videos of cyclists who lose it at car drivers for little or no reason just detracts from the videos where something dangerous does happen.

BTW We don't have a tube service near me.

YouTube, not London Underground Tube.

I do think there is a place for cams, for real evidence for example But posting every close pass and showing number plates just gets a bad reaction, and is detrimental to cyclists.

This.

And as you say it only served as back up to what drivers said.

No he didn't. He said that camera footage resolved every dispute, and he explicitly posts the opposite of what your interpretation, saying that "It worked both ways though, it also showed the driver of the cam vehicle was in the wrong too".

can someone please define dangerous. '

Here is the crux. I'm not sure whether it's something inherent in us or whether years of riding a motorbike have made me more immune than some of the helmet cammers but I look at some of the videos posted and have no idea what the dangerous moment was until I read the text.

As I said above, I think that posting innocuous videos with number plates and text bleating and whining about motons detracts from the message that there are some inattentive, unobservant or genuinely dangerous drivers out there.

 

[lukesdad]

classic 33, I have no problem with cams for personal use. What is being planned in the OP is not personal use, its an organised campaign. What it boils down to at the end of the day is, the responsible or irresponsible use of cameras.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

So you think its fine to provoke one of these so called nutters, then let him take it out on some innocent cyclist because he can t find you !

I doubt it. If someone wants revenge because they have been disciplined at work for their disgraceful driving, then they are not going to target some random cyclist. The people who target random cyclists just hate cyclists and the only way to address that is to show them that there will be consequences for their behaviour.

 

[col]

I doubt it. If someone wants revenge because they have been disciplined at work for their disgraceful driving, then they are not going to target some random cyclist. The people who target random cyclists just hate cyclists and the only way to address that is to show them that there will be consequences for their behaviour.

I agree, but cyclists who go about threatening people with youtube, for what is normal everyday occurances on the road , just succeed in annoying those they threaten, and making yet another driver think cyclists are just out to annoy. Great yet another driver who dislikes cyclists now.

 

[Archie_tect]

[QUOTE 1663964, member: 3143"]
I could go on posting other vids, hopefully I've made my point clear in that cyclists need to look at thier own behaviour on video before they start posting vids. More importantly, awarenesss, position, and letting things go.

Above all, apply a bit of common sense.[/quote]

Totally agree with lee here, the over zealous aggression and the reaction to other road users is appalling. I really don't see what the point of posting these confrontational videos on line achieves. I can see the point of sending them to the Police as examples or as a personal record to use as evidence, but the confrontation is unnecessary- it is not then acceptable to continue to aggressively harrass people by chasing down other vehicles on a public highway to the point of provocation by claiming justification that the passes were dangerous and life-threatening [the first video close pass was totally unacceptable].

 

[growingvegetables]

Is it not dawning on any of you yet that, all this footage maybe fuelling further incidents ?

Something tells me that abstinence from camera use isn't going to reduce the number of incidents.

I can't speak for anybody else - but I started filming as a response to incidents becoming more common, and more commonly seriously concerning.

 

[stowie]

I think there little point doing what Traffic Droid does and try to point out erroneous driving after the event. Little will be achieved. But I think the first video Lee posts indicates the reason why cameras are used. So, traffic droid isn't as assertive with his positioning as he should be. I know loads of cyclists who aren't. But this isn't the reason why the cockwomble of a van driver close passes. It is because the van driver is an idiot. Any normal driver in that situation would pull back to see what the cyclist is up to (its what I would do) and then keep a distance until safe to overtake. The agressive driving shown in this video is the reason we should video and report to the police - the only thing that will change this driver's attitude in the long-term is penalties for behaviour. As much as the road-positioning can be counted as poor, it isn't much of a reason for being treated in this appalling way by a driver.

I occasionally use a camera when cycling reasonable distances, very rarely have much to report, and have reported only a few drivers to road-safe. Most drivers are too busy being twats to each other to worry too much about a cyclist - especially in London - I get the impression the majority of motorists are pretty neutral to cyclists.

I do think the "but a cyclist being nasty to a motorist means they are nasty to me" is utter bollocks of the highest order. It reminds me of the victim of the school bully thinking that being nice to their tormentor is going to help matters. It is trying to rationalise someone's behaviour towards other people and thinking "if only I do x,y,z" then it won't happen to me.

 

[BentMikey]

Camera consequences will make drivers behave worse towards all cyclists? That's quite possibly the most unlikely and un-evidenced viewpoint I've seen all year.

Go on, let's do nothing about bad road users. That's *really* going to help us all.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Camera consequences will make drivers behave worse towards all cyclists? That's quite possibly the most unlikely and un-evidenced viewpoint I've seen all year.

Go on, let's do nothing about bad road users. That's *really* going to help us all.

The year has only just begun, give it a while .

 

[BentMikey]

LOL, you got me there. I meant 2011, of course.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

[QUOTE 1663964, member: 3143"]the vast majority of cycling vids that I have looked at, the standard of cycling in them is poor.[/quote]
People cannot argue against an assertion that is not falsifiable and therefore has no merit. It is quite possible that you you have only looked at videos where the standard of riding is poor, but we have no idea which videos you have looked at. Your strategy for "proving" the veracity of your assertion is to cherry-pick one or two examples and then imply the fallacious argument that these specific cases prove the general case.

[QUOTE 1663964, member: 3143"]Some Examples

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwpgrbyQRbs
In the above the cyclist split a lane and tried to hold a position that was suicidal. If he had posted the above wrt the OP's scheme. Then no doubt people would have had a go at his dumb position and the fact tha he should not have been there in the first place. Not very constructive, I'm sure you'll agree - as I've said people need to look at thier own riding before posting vids which may do more harm then good.[/quote]
You are correct that SonOfTheWinds would have been better to take the centre of the lane rather than riding on the inside of the lane. However, that does not give the driver any excuse at all for driving is such a dangerous manner. Just because the rider didn't take action to prevent idiots doing stupid things does not make the driver any less of an idiot.

[QUOTE 1663964, member: 3143"]
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUp2skyQmNg&feature=plcp&context=C37973aeUDOEgsToPDskLSL6ReOZ8KPRV7j0qkYu8tA
Rather over zealous approach to a man on a mobile, granted he was breaking the law but the actions of the cyclist at the end really is quite sad, you'd have to be pretty thick to get in front of a car whom you've just had a go at. Why the cyclist did not let the guy go I don't know. Again if this was posted wrt to the OP scheme then no doubt people would say 'Well why the **** did you not get out the way?'' Potential to change attitudes here of other road users is fairly high given the over zealous approach by the cyclist in question towards the end of the vid.[/quote]
This example is nothing to do with "the standard of cycling". There is an issue with the way that SOTW persists in haranguing the driver, but that is a totally different matter altogether and is nothing to do with cycling at all. In any case, you have cherry-picked an extreme example of persistent haranguing from an individual who is himself pretty extreme in this respect, so it is a very bad example to illustrate any assertion about "the vast majority of cycling vids".

[QUOTE 1663964, member: 3143"]I could go on posting other vids, hopefully I've made my point clear in that cyclists need to look at thier own behaviour on video before they start posting vids. More importantly, awarenesss, position, and letting things go. Above all, apply a bit of common sense.[/quote]
If you've taken the trouble to watch these "other vids", then I trust you have given polite, constructive criticism to the posters of those particular "vids" to help them improve their cycling. I don't know what your YouTube username is, so I can't tell. If you haven't, then that would raise some questions over the vague comments that you are posting here; perhaps these videos don't really exist.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I am not going to re-read the 6 pages. can someone please define dangerous. I was riding on the Korat bypass today and was passed by a convoy of draw-bar trailers, I was travelling at about 30kph and i estimate they were doing about 100kph. They passed within an arm's length of me - is that dangerous?

Probably.

Please continue to post examples of your poor cycling on youtube but try to review them from a third pary point of view and learn from your mistakes.

It won't happen. You are far more interested in making vague assertions in here rather than actually giving constructive criticism for real examples.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I agree, but cyclists who go about threatening people with youtube, for what is normal everyday occurances on the road , just succeed in annoying those they threaten, and making yet another driver think cyclists are just out to annoy. Great yet another driver who dislikes cyclists now.

That wasn't what the question was about, so is irrelevant as a response to my reply.

 

[Norm]

Your strategy for "proving" the veracity of your assertion is to cherry-pick one or two examples and then imply the fallacious argument that these specific cases prove the general case.

I think that the cherry-picking is precisely Lee's point, though.

Which cyclist remembers the 999 cars that pass without an issue rather than the one car which gets a bit close?

Which motorist remembers the 99 bikes that the pass rather than the one which goes past them on a red light?

Who thinks of the dozens of videos of dangerous driving rather than the one or two which shows someone on a bike acting like a twat or blaming motorists when they put themselves in danger?