Compulsory helmet cams?

[Jezston]

I don't see the inches there, the overtake was pretty good imo (look at the front view) and the distance from the rear was okay - it was a bit closer prior to the overtake, but that is normal behaviour.

Except for the "pistol" hand sign, I don't see a problem. Even then, I don't see it as being malicious.

I think you need to understand the effect on distance the wide angle lenses on these cameras have. It's the old 'objects in the rear view mirror may be closer than they appear' disclaimer on convex rear view mirrors - things can seem further away over a designed distance, then suddenly seem to get very close.

From my experience looking at such footage, I'd gauge the driver was no more than 2 feet from his rear wheel, potentially less.

 

[wiggydiggy]

Agreed the front view shows a good overtake but the rear view shows them within 70cm of my back wheel.
The camera is set up so that if I can see the whole car I know they are more than 70cm's away from me.
My main point was it was unnecessary, as the front view clearly shows the road is completely clear.

Having a camera doesnt stop it though, just lets you tell us about it later. Just sayin

 

[BSRU]

Having a camera doesnt stop it though, just lets you tell us about it later. Just sayin

I know, need to fit a rear facing flame thrower, that will sort out cars which are too close and make good viewing.

 

[DrSquirrel]

I think you need to understand the effect on distance the wide angle lenses on these cameras have. It's the old 'objects in the rear view mirror may be closer than they appear' disclaimer on convex rear view mirrors - things can seem further away over a designed distance, then suddenly seem to get very close.

From my experience looking at such footage, I'd gauge the driver was no more than 2 feet from his rear wheel, potentially less.

I think you need to understand that a lot of us know the effect on distance the wide angle lenses on these camera have, and how bored some are seeing it explained.

More than 2ft, easily.

 

[BSRU]

I think you need to understand that a lot of us know the effect on distance the wide angle lenses on these camera have, and how bored some are seeing it explained.

More than 2ft, easily.

It's easy enough to prove, I just need to remember a tape measure and find a parked car.

 

[Jezston]

I realise that I may live in a different part of the UK, but I just don't get a sense that there's a 'drivinglikeadouchebag' lobby.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

http://www.abd.org.uk/

Plus the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, various other high profile columnists, motoring magazines etc.

All promote irresponsible and selfish driving.

But around the fringes there are helmetcam posters who display tendencies indicative of a 'bikes good, cars bad' mentality.

I often see people saying that on here, as if the helmet cammers are somehow 'anti-car'. Where on earth do people get that impression?

 

[BentMikey]

It's interesting how people display their own prejudices exceptionally well when talking about something controversial like camera users. That's a general comment by the way, not specifically aimed at you, Bicycle.

 

[BentMikey]

p.s. I think that tailgating of BRSU was pretty close based on my own camera experience. Close enough to make me make a back off driver motion if it'd been me in that situation.

 

[abo]

Actually Safe Speed have a point, in that robotic policing of people going over a set speed will have little effect on road safety. Though I've only been riding a short time, the near knock-off I had last week was from a guy doing less than the speed limit. A camera would have done nothing, a real copper might have actually pulled him. But in 22 years of driving I've seem countless instances of twattish driving, none of which would have registered on a camera yet were dangerous and worthy of prosecution...

 

[wiggydiggy]

I know, need to fit a rear facing flame thrower, that will sort out cars which are too close and make good viewing.

That would work

 

[marinyork]

[QUOTE 1426092"]
I'd say that less than 3 seconds was spent too close to the rear wheel, and as you say that's pretty normal. Apart from that he hung back pretty well. While hanging back, the gap was noticeably more than 2 feet.
[/quote]

He was fine until he lost the plot and deliberately decided to get too close to the cyclist as a funny prank. It is unimportant that his previous positioning was good. We can only judge him on his intentions and that he got too close.

It isn't normal to be messing around a cyclist deliberately, driving close to the back of them for around 3s or however long at all. It is not normal behaviour in the slightest.

 

[DrSquirrel]

They move forward (closer to OP) just before an oncoming bus goes past, then they pull around.

Moving up and to the right is common for overtaking...

 

[gaz]

It may be common, but is it right?

 

[BentMikey]

It may be common, but is it right?

Of course not, it's sub standard driving, and in BRSU's video, I'd go as far as dangerously close.

 

[marinyork]

[QUOTE 1426095"]
Getting closer immediately prior to an overtake is completely normal. Not necessarily right, and not something I'd do, but it's normal. Happens all day long out there.
Thanks for the continued attention, btw
[/quote]

Yes, well if you can stop constructing strawmen and switch some of the lights on upstairs it'd be appreciated. The clue in what I said was wrong can be found in what I wrote earlier. It ain't difficult to understand.