Cameras + YouTube + Google - using the power

[MrHappyCyclist]

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.

Yes. I fact I remember the incident that made up my mind for me. It was a left hook when I was riding at about 20mph along a cycle lane and a car came from behind, slammed the brakes on and turned left across me. I managed to brake and swerve enough that the car, which finished up with the front end against the opposite kerb at 45 degrees, didn't actually hit me. The driver then floored it and shot off up the road. A police officer that I spoke to nearby wasn't interested because I had no evidence that the incident had even happened.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

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

Really ? I thought his point was that he was a cycling/driving god and that everyone who disagreed with him , about anything , was a moron?

 

[Jezston]

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?

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say - you seem to be saying that people who say that camera users are all idiots and camera use is bad because they've seen a couple of videos are as wrong as those who say all motorists are bastards because of a close pass or all cyclists are idiots because of those they've seen jumping the lights.

In which case I agree, but that seems to be the opposite of what Lee is saying. He appears to be doing the same generalisation that because of some poor road use or twattishness in a couple of videos that most camera users are bad.

(Also particularly odd because Lee has argued in the past that the red light jumpers you referred to are totally ok, and 'haters gonna hate' regardless of cyclist behaviour, which is what I called him out as being a hypocrite over.)

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

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?

I'm not completely sure what your point is, but I think it is about the fact that people have a tendency to pick on a small number of memorable, and therefore extreme, examples and use those to construct stereotypes. That appears to be true, at least of some people, given the number of people who believe that every cyclist jumps red lights, which has been shown in London to be far from the truth. (I think it was 18% in the London study.) However, drivers don't need to go in YouTube to see people behaving badly on bicycles.

As regards the "bad cycling" that Lee is referring to, I think it is very rare that a video shows bad cycling that the average driver would recognise as such. The examples seem to be mostly people failing to claim the lane when they should, not moving out when passing a side road with a car approaching, etc. Most drivers wouldn't have a clue about that.

In any case, you are certainly wrong about "Lee's point". He said: "the vast majority of cycling vids that I have looked at, the standard of cycling in them is poor." A point that uses the term "the vast majority" is not a point about cherry picking, even though he uses cherry picking to try to justify it.

 

[Norm]

Really ? I thought his point was that he was a cycling/driving god and that everyone who disagreed with him , about anything , was a moron?

Yes, I can see that you would interpret it that way.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say - you seem to be saying that people who say that camera users are all idiots and camera use is bad because they've seen a couple of videos are as wrong as those who say all motorists are bastards because of a close pass or all cyclists are idiots because of those they've seen jumping the lights.

Not quite what I'm saying, but it's close.

I think (and I might be wrong) that the issue is not one of every camera user being as bad as SonOfTheWinds or Taypet, as examples, but that any motorist who sees a video by SOTW would think "That cyclist is a cock" and there is, therefore, a danger that all camera users are tarred thus. If there was a water-cooler moment after a motorist had an encounter with a "HCW", the discussion would be "Yeah, I saw some videos posted by some cycling cock, check out XXX's videos on YouTube and you'll see how bad the cyclists are!". No-one would say "Hey, have a look at the videos by Gaz / HLaB / Magnatom etc", yet those are the people who, IMO, are posting stuff that needs to be seen by everyone.

In other words, cammers should look at their own video as a third party would see it and see if there's anything that they can pick up in their own riding before posting distractions and bleating about others on the roads.

In any case, you are certainly wrong about "Lee's point". He said: "the vast majority of cycling vids that I have looked at, the standard of cycling in them is poor." A point that uses the term "the vast majority" is not a point about cherry picking, even though he uses cherry picking to try to justify it.

That's a fair comment, I'm just trying to put (what I see as) Lee's point across slightly differently.

 

[col]

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.

Strange then that on a lot of youtube films , the cyclists makes a point of how the driver has lost their temper and is calling them? seems evident to most .

 

[gaz]

Lee and Norm have touched on some good points about looking at yourself and learning how to improve.
We all make mistakes

 

[Jezston]

I don't think anyone is going to argue that people can't and won't learn from their potential mistakes and improve their riding from posting their videos, I thought that was as much of a point for posting them as any? Certainly why I've posted many of mine - happy to take any criticism of my riding, as long as it's accurate, constructive and polite. I recall people being all over taypet and his dreadful riding when his videos were posted here, same with that guy (who's name I forget) who posted videos of him screaming at everyone who did anything remotely inconvenient to him.

Regarding the issue of such videos affecting what people think of cyclists - I think it has and will continue to be largely highly positive. Those who hate cyclists will use it to justify what they believe, because they can't think critically and will always only accept what confirms their prejudices. When these videos have reached the media, they have generally been received very positively, even when the producers of the tv show or whatever have dragged out some bigot in the interests of 'balance' I feel their horribleness will generally engender those who haven't made up their minds towards the cyclist.

Even Traffic Droid got a surprisingly positive response from the pundits when he was on that Channel 5 show:
http://www.channel5.com/shows/live-with-gabby/episodes/episode-72-31
And regarding Lee's criticism of that, in the first video - while his road positioning is indeed poor, the van driver's behaviour is utterly inexcusable. I didn't fancy watching the second video as I don't like watching videos of people shouting at each other.

But none of this goes against the main point in the OP.

That is, to link information on dangerous behaviour would be positive in being able to deal with such behaviour. If someone reports a one off incident the police are less likely or interesting in doing something about it than if the same driver has been shown to behave in such a fashion repeatedly, and I don't see why, nor has anyone fairly argued why, that would be anything other than a good thing. If someone wants to disagree with the poster about whether they think the driving was that bad and the report is fair, then they can do that. Ultimately, the police will be able to decide whether it's bad enough to be worth persuing.

That's a fair comment, I'm just trying to put (what I see as) Lee's point across slightly differently.

If only Lee could learn to do the same. If he wasn't so unpleasant to everyone he disagrees with, often so hypocritical in his standpoints, and was willing to accept when he is wrong, he might find people more willing to accept his points.

 

[classic33]

User3143[/COLOR]
Quite what you're trying to explain has been lost. I could not have made my point any clearer TBH. Yes you could. Your argument has gon from causing a a problem to having the potential to cause a problem.

We as cyclists are not the only camera users on the roads these days. Does your argument then follow the obvious route of all who have such cameras fitted and use them are all guilty of making the "them & us" situation worse. I know that, and that's not what I'm actually getting at. No, just a minority of camera users, nowt else. Argue your case with the others who use cameras, in the same manner as you have done on here and see what they tell you to do.

I'm aware of coaches, HGV's buses and private vehicles that have them fitted. The major difference for us as cyclists is that the camera can be easily seen, when compared to a private car. Some buses & fleet operators have got round the law by calling them collision cameras & not CCTV cameras. In order to do this, the warning sign(s) of "collision cameras in use" has to be fitted in a place that is easily seen. Next time you see one, watch the actions of those around them. There is footage from these cameras on the the television and the internet. No mention made of what these are doing to help the situation

DHL & the Royal Mail have fitted them to some of their vehicles that enter city centres on a daily basis. Does that create a "them and us" feeling amongst other road users? Where will your argument go when more drivers opt to have such cameras fitted to record their journeys? We are at the start, what comes after we may have no say in. I've mentioned the above so don't know it has been raised.

There is potential everywhere for something to happen and not just on the roads. There have been videos by drivers of commercial vehicles, made using hand held video recorders to record the actions of others on the roads posted on youtube. How does that square up with your own arguments of the "them and us" and the potential for things to go wrong. Again, a non point..No, a very valid point. They are using handheld cameras whilst driving. Greater potential for things to wrong.

Comforting to know though that if you were involved in an incident and a witness came forward with video evidence of who was to blame, you'd give up cycling. Turning away a witness, who may have spoken in your favour will look good and also has the potential for that person to say "why did I bother trying". To walk towards the body of a person lying in the road, with a crowd around them after being hit by a car, camera in hand isn't easy. Carried as I approached because I didn't want to be seen as simply wanting to take a picture upon getting there. No answer on this very valid point. As the question could be asked what have you to hide by not want to use all the evidence available. Were you the cause of the incident, that sort of question.

"User3143, post: 1663964, member: 3143"]I'll repeat again for those whose comprehension is lacking - or rather cut n paste my previous posts on the matter:


I'm not though! My point has always been tha HCW's should look at thier own riding wrt to various incidents, as the examples I've given wrt Sonsofthewinds and Taypet. When Taypet posted that vid about ''Big Momma'' do you think that this would not have changed attitudes that people have towards cyclists? That's my only point, he thought he had right of way but his ignorance and his riding as a whole has let down the cycling community. Would you not agree? If so would you not agree that as a whole there is the potential for the OP's scheme to be more damage then good? Quite where you going with the whole personal safety thing I'm not sure.


That was not really the point I was making, the vast majority of cycling vids that I have looked at, the standard of cycling in them is poor. In fact there is only one person of the HCW community whose vids warrant merit and has done some good with respect to cycling tutalege. Cyclists need to look at thier own riding before they have a go at other road users. As do all who use the roads.


Above all, apply a bit of common sense. Something you appear to have in short supply at present.

I have passed more onto the companies concerned & the relevant authorities than I've posted. One of my last ones saw 18 commercial vehicles removed from the road. Two of which were using illegal plates, three drivers had no driving licence and all were used for carrying fare paying passengers. The drivers felt they had been treated unfairly. Happy to take peoples money but not willing to follow the law.

With regards what constitutes as dangerous. Most side mounted vehicle cameras a single camera will often be covering the length of the vehicle, you can work out your own angle of view required, but will normally focused to within three feet for sharp focus. Why three feet, because the people who wanted them fitting regard anything under that as too close, if done at speed.

There is even the money side of things to consider. Some companies have used the fact that people are using the internet to check a vehicle registration to their own ends. The RAC used to have this as a free service, now you pay. Another advertises on TV.

 

[BentMikey]

Lee and Norm have touched on some good points about looking at yourself and learning how to improve.
We all make mistakes

Yes, that's very fair. Quite a few of us have commented on how our own videos have taught us a lot.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

[QUOTE 1664586, member: 3143"]That's about the long and short of it.

Jexston has gone off on tangent again, Mike gets the non-sequiter award and Classic is talking about cams fitted to vehicles, of which the dynamics are completely different. As such I can't be arsed with this no more. ...[/quote]


Hey maybe I should take up being a soothsayer? About a hundred msgs back I said "I have the feeling that this thread will end up like the last one, where you make lots of noise, don't come up with anything positive and then flounce out when your bluff is called, again.".
I've only noticed you in two threads, is this the way all your contributions finish?

 

[classic33]

[QUOTE 1664586, member: 3143"]That's about the long and short of it.

Jexston has gone off on tangent again, Mike gets the non-sequiter award and Classic is talking about cams fitted to vehicles, of which the dynamics are completely different. As such I can't be arsed with this no more. There is already one channel set up showing vids of poor cycling (I think someone posted something on here regarding this 'cyclist hater') and I can only imagine that this will increase with the attitude of some shown here.[/quote]

Not quite, I was talking about another set of road users who also have cameras fitted to their vehicles. To which you have not been able to respond. A bicycle is a road vehicle as well by the way.

In my previous post I stated that vehicles were removed from the road using the helmet camera as evidence, of a crime in progress.

As I also said you seem to be lacking in common sense, on this issue. You don't appear to use the very item you were trying to deride. Therefore all your views/opinions were third party nowt else.

 

[stowie]

[QUOTE 1664586, member: 3143"]That's about the long and short of it.

Jexston has gone off on tangent again, Mike gets the non-sequiter award and Classic is talking about cams fitted to vehicles, of which the dynamics are completely different. As such I can't be arsed with this no more. There is already one channel set up showing vids of poor cycling (I think someone posted something on here regarding this 'cyclist hater') and I can only imagine that this will increase with the attitude of some shown here.[/quote]

Errr, one of the best known channels showing poor cycling is Gaz's Silly Cyclists. Filmed by a cyclist.

Not sure he is a "cyclist hater" or was motivated by helmet camera cyclists' videos of poor driving. That would be a bit weird, since he also posts up bad driving. Maybe he records and post videos of dangerous driving, views them on you-tube, starts to hate cyclists (and, I assume, himself) and consequently posts up videos of poor cycling.

It seems strange that you think viewing a cyclist's video of a bad driving would enrage a motorist unrelated to the incident to the point that they then take it out on a completely different cyclist to prove a point. That sounds just a little bit psychopathic if you ask me - I would imagine anyone with this kind of thought process shouldn't be left alone with anything more dangerous than plastic cutlery, less still a car.

 

[Jezston]

Lol "As thus you give an example of why I'll no longer be contributing to this thread." - posts again 10 minutes later.

P.S. It was Lukesdad who was implying such videos would lead to harm. Lee was only arguing that it would affect our reputation negatively, although then failed to address my counter points to that, as Lee so often fails to do with anyone who actually shows him to possibly be wrong about something.

 

[lukesdad]

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.

Beyond belief ! Equate the post you were replying to, to the second line of your reply.