Classic youtube replies

[Matthames]

I'm sure I've seen someone on here criticise a cyclist for not looking round enough, only to be told that the camera was on the handlebars and not on the helmet...

I think that may of been me that was criticised. I had at one stage mounted the camera to my helmet, but due to a number of issues with it mounted there I decided to mount it to my handlebars instead, which on the whole has worked out much better.

 

[downfader]

Not good enough to recognise him. And raindrops on my camera annoyingly reduce the film quality considerably. I want a vio hd on the front now!!

Havent seen the footage of the VioHD yet. Rain will affect all cameras, what we need is a wiper adapter fitted over the top.

Stopp talking about new cameras. I can only dream of affording one just now!

I've prolly spend my yearly budget already. I'm prolly going to be handing cameras to friends and family as I have a few and people have been asking about them for insurance, etc.

I think that may of been me that was criticised. I had at one stage mounted the camera to my helmet, but due to a number of issues with it mounted there I decided to mount it to my handlebars instead, which on the whole has worked out much better.

I rarely mount the cam on the helmet as the wires were a pain. Only recently with the new wireless have I returned to doing it that way. I've had a few comments in the past, even on forums, where people seem to think the handlebar mounted cam was elsewhere... even with cables clearly in the way:

Fairwaynoob

 

[ohnovino]

I'm sure I've seen someone on here criticise a cyclist for not looking round enough, only to be told that the camera was on the handlebars and not on the helmet...

I think there's a video (can't remember which one) of a close HGV pass, filmed from a rear camera, where one of the comments criticised the cyclist for facing backwards and filming with his mobile

---

EDIT: Found it! It's this one: link

...well how can you call him a tossa when you have a video camera mobile phone what ever it is in your hand moving it from back to front think again buster...

 

[Gandalf]

I'd forgotten about this delightful chap. I didn't realise that Rab C Nesbitt was a Youtube contributor.

http://www.youtube.c...1&v=ndcWyhZDK2A

I won't repeat the NSFW comments here, just look for the contributions from 'kilted06yass'

 

[BSRU]

If he is deleting comments like that, that is very poor.

He's also deleted your comment.

 

[magnatom]

He's also deleted your comment.

That is very, very poor. I have a copy of what I wrote at work, so I'll post it here. It's almost as if he is more worried about his image than proper debate. Mmmmm.

 

[BentMikey]

Yeah post it, and post a link to the video itself.

 

[magnatom]

Here is the conversation I had with Martin that he has deleted

To be? fair here, the cyclist did also cycle through the crossing whilst the pedestrian was still on? the crossing.

No-one was perfect here.



@magnatom There really really is nothing wrong (at all) with going through whilst a pedestrian? is the other side of the crossing walking away from you. The obligation is to give way to the pedestrian and that I clearly did. Trust me on this I am a lawyer and I have sent the video to the Met. The driver will be directed by the police to this site. I do not mind constructive criticism? at all but cyclists being hyper-critical of each other can just feed the prejudices of poor motorists.


@givecyclistsroom

I won't deny you could be right, but what about overtaking/undertaking at a crossing. It was my understanding that this wasn't legal?

I totally disagree with you with regards to being critical. How can we justify our criticism of others if we can't accept criticism back? This is the very reason why I will post mistakes that I make. At least then I can defend suggestions of hypocrisy.

Trust me, I'm an experiences cyclist and vblogger! :-)

I'm very disappointed that he deleted this. I can understand deleting abusive posts, but deleting reasoned debate is pretty poor show. I hate to say it, but he has lost my support.

 

[BSRU]

He seems to think being a lawyer makes him right and he never makes mistakes unlike the rest of us mere mortals, he appears to not like any criticism at all.

No point being subscribed to a channel owned by someone like that.

 

[gaz]

I'm curious. What's a gaz545?

LOL!

 

[Origamist]

Here is the conversation I had with Martin that he has deleted



I'm very disappointed that he deleted this. I can understand deleting abusive posts, but deleting reasoned debate is pretty poor show. I hate to say it, but he has lost my support.

I can see why he has deleted those comments - they are a diversion and of considerably less importance than what he is trying to highlight with the video (i.e the endangerment of a more vulnerable road user).

We all like to pick holes with the riding of others, usually with a caveat along the lines of "not to excuse the blah, blah, blah, but I did notice that you could have shoulder-checked for 0.4 secs longer, 18 secs into that video and you'd have avoided the incident, blah, blah, blah".

Would I have deleted those comments, "no", but it's his channel and he has his own road safety agenda and I'm in broad agreement with his stance.

 

[magnatom]

I can see why he has deleted those comments - they are a diversion and of considerably less importance than what he is trying to highlight with the video (i.e the endangerment of a more vulnerable road user).

We all like to pick holes with the riding of others, usually with a caveat along the lines of "not to excuse the blah, blah, blah, but I did notice that you could have shoulder-checked for 0.4 secs longer, 18 secs into that video and you'd have avoided the incident, blah, blah, blah".

Would I have deleted those comments, "no", but it's his channel and he has his own road safety agenda and I'm in broad agreement with his stance.

Oh absolutely, it is his channel, he can delete what he likes, and yes he may be trying to keep things focused, but to change attitudes requires debate, honesty, humility, and a willingness to compromise. Deleting comments like mine and the others suggest, and this could be wrong of course, that these attributes are lacking.

Imagine you are a car driver watching that clip, you see the bad driving, but then you also see that the cyclist brakes the law. It seems a little hypocritical doesn't it? Unless of course you admit your faults and suggest that you are trying to improve.

 

[Origamist]

Oh absolutely, it is his channel, he can delete what he likes, and yes he may be trying to keep things focused, but to change attitudes requires debate, honesty, humility, and a willingness to compromise. Deleting comments like mine and the others suggest, and this could be wrong of course, that these attributes are lacking.

Imagine you are a car driver watching that clip, you see the bad driving, but then you also see that the cyclist brakes the law. It seems a little hypocritical doesn't it? Unless of course you admit your faults and suggest that you are trying to improve.

Mags, he was in a tight spot trying to avoid getting left hooked: I wouldn't give two hoots if I undertook on the approach to zebra crossing in order to avoid a dangerous manoeuvre. First and foremost, you have to try to keep yourself safe, sometimes this might mean you err. If your only comments relate to a piddling infraction brought on by poor driving (i.e. a late and careless overtake on the approach to a side road) your missing what's important here and attaching to much significance to a trifling matter.

 

[BentMikey]

"you're" - does a magnatom.

 

[magnatom]

Mags, he was in a tight spot trying to avoid getting left hooked: I wouldn't give two hoots if I undertook on the approach to zebra crossing in order to avoid a dangerous manoeuvre. First and foremost, you have to try to keep yourself safe, sometimes this might mean you err. If your only comments relate to a piddling infraction brought on by poor driving (i.e. a late and careless overtake on the approach to a side road) your missing what's important here and attaching to much significance to a trifling matter.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it doesn't help to ignore the infringement, however, minor. Was it not in Benborp's case that the driver was done for overtaking at a crossing. Yes, the circumstances are very different, but how can we celebrate that, and yet, ignore the infraction, even if there were mitigating circumstances in Martin's case. We need to be as fair and even handed as possible. Now I am not suggesting that Martin deserves to be punished, nothing like it, but an acknowledgement of what happened would be reasonable, I would suggest.

I have done this myself, in one video where I cut over a mini roundabout. I acknowledge that by the letter of the law it is wrong, however, I explained the mitigating circumstances. Then the reader/viewer can make their own mind up. Just ignoring, and in this case censoring debate just raises suspicion and builds barriers. His action has alienated me, and I suspect a couple of others who's comments were deleted. That isn't helpful, is it?