Cyclist threatened with legal action over near miss posting.

[Slick]

Good afternoon,

I see the whole situation quite differently.

I have acquired a base assumption that riders with helmet cameras will be in the wrong most of the time they complain, they may technically be correct but they were probably riding in an anitsocial manner.

This dislike come from my experiences that many->most riders with them have them because they ride badly, insist on their legal rights without regard or consideration to anything or anyone else and as a result get into more awkward positions.

That video hasn't altered that starting point.

As for the company's response I quite like the stop whining you silly self important little man response, how would the rider have reacted if the van owning company had sent him a letter saying your riding was dangerous?

As a general principle the idea that a video posted with the text see this dangerous driving could be libellous seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I also suspect that there will be more upside from people thinking thank goodness for someone having the courage to tell that annoying cycle brigade to shut up than downside from people annoyed by the response.

Bye

Ian

That really does surprise me.

 

[wiggydiggy]

Getting picked up elsewhere: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/05...t-for-trademark-over-near-miss-youtube-video/

137k views....

 

[IanSmithCSE]

Good morning,

.... but this is a cycling forum

I am not saying that this was a good pass or that the trademark case has any merit, but that if you show this still

to a typical cross section of the public I would expect to get a very favourable response to the car/van driver being fed up with complaining cyclists riding in the middle of the road.

If you then show this still from a few seconds back

You will see that the cyclist with the cam is correctly moving away from the kerb to avoid crossing the broken lines enclosing the diagonal lines.

The van driver may have been surprised by this as his was expecting the rider to do the same as the rider in front and simply and incorrectly just ignore the restricted area. I agree that the van driver was wrong and did end up making an unsafe overtake but this may be because he was surprised by a cyclist obeying the rules of the road and had the rider with the cam done the same as the other rider the overtake would have been safe.

Remembering that this would just be a few seconds of driving it seems to be a non issue to me and not worth making a fuss, but if you were going to make a fuss you also need to address the rider who rode over the diagonal lines establishing the idea that cyclists will just ignore these areas leaving plenty of room for an overtake.

From my experience many cyclists and drivers tend to ignore these areas if they know the roads and know that they don't really make sense. So yes the driver was wrong but nowhere near as wrong as it looks if you don't consider all of the circumstances and nobody here has criticized the other cyclist.

Bye

Ian

 

[Bonefish Blues]

I would have ridden over the hatched area as the preceding cyclist did - it's marked with a broken line and is there to move prohibited traffic right in the lead-up to the start of the bus lane, which I would also use. Legal & sensible to use* the area, particularly if Stroppy Masons Inc were up my chuff.

*I'm sure there will be an almighty debate as to whether this is 'necessary' under the Highway Code

ETA
That would have avoided any possibility of conflict. That does not in any way excuse Masons R Close-Passers Ltd.

 

[Dogtrousers]

As for the company's response I quite like the stop whining you silly self important little man response, how would the rider have reacted if the van owning company had sent him a letter saying your riding was dangerous?

I think you're missing the entire point of this story. The company's response was nothing like that. If they had responded in that manner there would be no story at all. The video would still have a handful of views, and this thread wouldn't exist.

What they actually did was ... well, you'd have to read the articles or maybe summaries above to see what they actually did. Have a look, it's quite amusing.

 

[night cycler]

Well not run over and no real situation there.
Cars and vans pass closer here due to the narrow roads.
It's all part of cycling on the road...🙄

But, I seem to recall that 1.5M was the proposed minimum to pass a cyclists if possible. Do we see that often.

 

[night cycler]

For those not familiar with the case, here's the gist....

https://prunescape.fandom.com/wiki/The_Reply_Given_in_Arkell_v_Pressdram_(1971)

Excellent

 

[Ming the Merciless]

For those not familiar with the case, here's the gist....

https://prunescape.fandom.com/wiki/The_Reply_Given_in_Arkell_v_Pressdram_(1971)

Justice

 

[Ming the Merciless]

But, I seem to recall that 1.5M was the proposed minimum to pass a cyclists if possible. Do we see that often.

Not only proposed, it’s in the rules

 

[qigong chimp]

But, I seem to recall that 1.5M was the proposed minimum to pass a cyclists if possible.

"...if possible"?

• give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide:
  • leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
  • ....
  • you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Good morning,

.... but this is a cycling forum

I am not saying that this was a good pass or that the trademark case has any merit, but that if you show this still
View attachment 718185
to a typical cross section of the public I would expect to get a very favourable response to the car/van driver being fed up with complaining cyclists riding in the middle of the road.

If you then show this still from a few seconds back
View attachment 718186
You will see that the cyclist with the cam is correctly moving away from the kerb to avoid crossing the broken lines enclosing the diagonal lines.

The van driver may have been surprised by this as his was expecting the rider to do the same as the rider in front and simply and incorrectly just ignore the restricted area. I agree that the van driver was wrong and did end up making an unsafe overtake but this may be because he was surprised by a cyclist obeying the rules of the road and had the rider with the cam done the same as the other rider the overtake would have been safe.

Remembering that this would just be a few seconds of driving it seems to be a non issue to me and not worth making a fuss, but if you were going to make a fuss you also need to address the rider who rode over the diagonal lines establishing the idea that cyclists will just ignore these areas leaving plenty of room for an overtake.

From my experience many cyclists and drivers tend to ignore these areas if they know the roads and know that they don't really make sense. So yes the driver was wrong but nowhere near as wrong as it looks if you don't consider all of the circumstances and nobody here has criticized the other cyclist.

Bye

Ian

To which the reply would be

Should have gone to Specsavers

 

[presta]

Good afternoon,

I see the whole situation quite differently.

I have acquired a base assumption that riders with helmet cameras will be in the wrong most of the time they complain, they may technically be correct but they were probably riding in an anitsocial manner.

This dislike come from my experiences that many->most riders with them have them because they ride badly, insist on their legal rights without regard or consideration to anything or anyone else and as a result get into more awkward positions.

That video hasn't altered that starting point.

As for the company's response I quite like the stop whining you silly self important little man response, how would the rider have reacted if the van owning company had sent him a letter saying your riding was dangerous?

As a general principle the idea that a video posted with the text see this dangerous driving could be libellous seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I also suspect that there will be more upside from people thinking thank goodness for someone having the courage to tell that annoying cycle brigade to shut up than downside from people annoyed by the response.

Bye

Ian

Whenever I've felt tempted to get a camera the words hoist & petard have always sprung to mind too, although I've also had quite a few spectacular near misses and been left wishing I had a video of them. I hadn't commented on this particular video because wide angle lenses are quite deceptive, and there isn't much in view to judge the actual distance by, but the point about copyright infringement rather than passing clearance does seem absurd.

I can think of quite a few videos I've seen that were an absolute gift on a plate to the anti-cycling brigade though, one being one of Vine's in which he had a perfectly valid point about a MGIF white van man pushing past, but then neglected to trim off the view of himself going the wrong way past a No Entry sign immediately afterwards.

 

[night cycler]

Did the cyclist ONLY send this clip to the company , and was it put on you tube for everyone to see after he received the unreasonable response from the company?

 

[boydj]

Good afternoon,

I see the whole situation quite differently.

I have acquired a base assumption that riders with helmet cameras will be in the wrong most of the time they complain, they may technically be correct but they were probably riding in an anitsocial manner.

This dislike come from my experiences that many->most riders with them have them because they ride badly, insist on their legal rights without regard or consideration to anything or anyone else and as a result get into more awkward positions.

That video hasn't altered that starting point.

As for the company's response I quite like the stop whining you silly self important little man response, how would the rider have reacted if the van owning company had sent him a letter saying your riding was dangerous?

As a general principle the idea that a video posted with the text see this dangerous driving could be libellous seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I also suspect that there will be more upside from people thinking thank goodness for someone having the courage to tell that annoying cycle brigade to shut up than downside from people annoyed by the response.

Bye

Ian

You're letting the side down badly here, Ian.

Cyclists use of cameras and publishing the relatively rare instance of bad or dangerous driving that we encounter is primarily educational for novice cyclists and drivers who don't cycle or even come across cyclists very often when driving. It also allows the prosecution of particularly bad driving if submitted to the police.

In this particular instance, the driving was poor, the cyclist had every right to publish and, by threatening the cyclist (a totally spurious threat btw) rather than accepting the criticism and apologising, the company has brought a lot more fully deserved attention on itself than would have been the case otherwise.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

You will see that the cyclist with the cam is correctly moving away from the kerb to avoid crossing the broken lines enclosing the diagonal lines.

The van driver may have been surprised by this as his was expecting the rider to do the same as the rider in front and simply and incorrectly just ignore the restricted area. I agree that the van driver was wrong and did end up making an unsafe overtake but this may be because he was surprised by a cyclist obeying the rules of the road and had the rider with the cam done the same as the other rider the overtake would have been safe

Sorry Ian, but ime, the driver was not surprised at all.
The driver expected the cyclist to ride in the restricted area, so that his van could overtake.
After getting close passed or beeped off the road a few times for obeying the rules of the road, I know ride the restricted zones just like the other cyclist did.