Should magnatom sell his camera?

[magnatom]

I apologise.

Thank you kindly!

 

[classic33]

How can one cyclist be involved in so many incidents of a life threatening nature?!?!? Surely, for his own safety he should ditch the bloody camera?

You seem to have it in for him. Has he upset you in someway.

As for being involved in so many incidents, I've been shot(with an air rifle) whilst at lights. Run off the road by a bus. Shunted onto a roundabout by a car driver, just for fun you understand. Had something sprayed in the eyes from a rear seat passenger in a vehicle that cut me up which led to the temporary loss of sight. Tailgated & rear ended. Had cars driven at me.

The innocent bystander in an accident where two vehicles collided head on. One driver, over the limit said he didn't see me but moved out over to the other side of the road to avoid me. Hitting the oncoming car, at speed. You seldom see a 4X4 written off in an accident with a Fiat Punto.
A lorry driver jump out of his cab, roundabout A58 j26(Chain Bar) M62, leaving the vehicle to hit the side of the bridge. My sin on that one, I didn't move off from the lights quick enough. Local company, knew the owner so I diverted to his house on the way back. No longer drives for them. That was a result.

I spent three & half years going after a driver who hit me sideways on, pulling out onto the road I was on. The first 12 months were spent tracing the driver on my own.

I could go on but why should I? Should I stop cycling? should I now abandon the camera that I now use?

 

[thomas]

I assume from your second point that you are at Uni in Norwich doing a degree course in niaveity? If you have filmed yourself on a helmet cam, you do have one don't you, and make a slight mis-calculation resulting in knocking someone flying, are you seriously telling me you would hand in the footage and take the consequences like a man?

You're telling me that if you sent someone flying you, at your own fault, that you wouldn't feel terrible and that you would try and pass the blame..Shame on you!..Accidents happen, if I made a "slight mis-calculation" I wouldn't need to hand in the footage as if it was obviously my fault I would "be a man" and admit it. I have third party insurance as part of CTC and if I was with my UNI's Triathlon club (which I go to in between studying for my degree in "niaveity") I would have cover as part of my sport's membership. Therefore other than damages to my bike I would be covered.

On another note, the local police station is well aware that I have the helmet camera so if they wanted to see it, or had a report that someone was hit with something weird on his helmet they already have all my details.

When I cycle I know that I am on film, therefore I make sure that I cycle correctly - not that I cycle like a loony without it! Chances are, if I did send someone flying they would have crossed the road, not realising how fast I was going and I didn't have enough stopping distance. I would still feel terrible for hurting someone, even if it wasn't my fault, but at least then the footage could be used to show what happened.

I would step out in front of a car that had flashed it's headlights and politely waved me across, yes. If he then does something by mistake and hits me all the video shows is me walking across in front of him. What is so bloody difficult to understand about that?

You didn't answer my question. As a general rule I wouldn't rely on flashed headlights (technically they should just be used as a warning "i'm here"). Waving across, but if the car didn't start to slow down would be a bit suspect.

Your argument seems to be that, if you had a camera and did anything wrong it might show what was your fault and get you in a little bit of trouble...?

 

[thomas]

No, thats not my argument at all. My point is the compulsory use of cameras would be fraught with problems. You seem to live in a world of honesty and truthfulness by all. Let me assure you, even if it's on film people will deny it. Look at magnatoms thread. The taxi driver was apparantly bang to rights, on film everything. He denies it, then when he realises there is video, he blames magnatom. You need to take a reality check chap.

You were saying that I wouldn't admit to stuff - "are you seriously telling me you would hand in the footage and take the consequences like a man?" see?!

Even if the police did know you cycle with a helmet cam, well you just didn't have on that day did you? You then promptly put a £10 memory card in, in case they come calling, thus saving you a £250 fine and loss of your no claims discount Then you get a smart student union lawyer and sue the rozzers for harrasment

Or I could just delete the footage if I were that way inclined? What would the fine be for? I don't have a no claims discount so I wouldn't loose anything.

If your point is that if everyone had cameras people would just edit their footage then you're going the complete wrong way about it by attacking me directly with the comments about me editing my camera's footage or not owning up when I've done something wrong.

I said:

As for tamper proof cameras, if insurance companies insisted on it, they would no doubt only let certain people access the footage. As for my footage, if I'm in the wrong I've got insurance so who gives a poo?

Therefore people wouldn't be able to edit their own footage, delete footage or whatever. Only the companies who could decode the footage would be able to access it. I have a friend who has cameras in his car which he uses to record his journeys. If footage of an accident for tampered with the insurance company would just get an expert and charge the cost of it to the other people when it's proven to be fake.

On another note, if everyone had cameras, even if one person edited theres the other would still be real so there would be less point tampering with footage.

 

[QuickDraw]

It's not a stupid question.It's an opinion you either agree or disagree with.

To suggest the presence of the camera creates the incidents is stupid, that's my opinion feel free to agree or disagree.

 

[QuickDraw]

*like we need help with hours of discussion
*fair point
*very good, fair point again
*how on earth can you prove that? Do we have statistics?
*and if he wants to carry on doing it, long may he. This poll is purely a view of peoples opinions. Feel free to put up a "Is maggot really a taxi driver" poll

So from all of your post, I have no problem with 4 of your 5 points, the 5th is totally un-provable, thereby I feel it is OK to disagree with you about that.

The reason I disagree with it is quite simple, there was no study design to magnatoms filming. It was not designed to show an improvement in bus drivers behaviour, what part of their behaviour has improved, and has it been purely been as a result of magnatoms videos? Of course, if you have stats to show that the First Bus driving has improved as a direct result of the vids then feel free to put them up, I am sure we and FirstBus would enjoy reading them. I was nearly squished by a FirstBus in Bristol the other day.

Besides, he seems to have more run-ins with private cars and taxis, so it hasn't really had that much of an impact has it?

4 out of 5 aint bad.

On the remaining point I think you're reading too much into what I wrote. All I said was: "it led to the success with FirstBus and a noted improvement in their driver's behaviour ". It's true. He successfully persuaded FirstBus to mount an awareness campaign with their drivers and I noticed an improvement in their behaviour around the time. Of course I can't prove that so you'll just have to take my word for it. And you certainly can't expect it to have an effect hundreds of miles away in Bristol (he's not that good).

 

[col]

To suggest the presence of the camera creates the incidents is stupid, that's my opinion feel free to agree or disagree.

Its not the camera,its the person wanting interesting footage to post that creates certain shall we say conditions.

 

[beanzontoast]

Its not the camera,its the person wanting interesting footage to post that creates certain shall we say conditions.

Something along these lines has occurred to me. Do camera wearers, consciously or otherwise, behave differently when cycling because they are wearing a camera and they know their cycling is being recorded - even if only for themselves? If so, does that different behaviour make 'incidents' more likely? And when there is an 'incident', do they behave differently because they know their actions - and the other party's reactions - are being recorded?

In other words, is it correct to assume that wearing a camera really has no effect at all on the actions - cycling or otherwise - of the wearer?

 

[Bollo]

Something along these lines has occurred to me. Do camera wearers, consciously or otherwise, behave differently when cycling because they are wearing a camera and they know their cycling is being recorded - even if only for themselves? If so, does that different behaviour make 'incidents' more likely? And when there is an 'incident', do they behave differently because they know their actions - and the other party's reactions - are being recorded?

In other words, is it correct to assume that wearing a camera really has no effect at all on the actions - cycling or otherwise - of the wearer?

It's a question that was being debated quite well in the earlier posts on the 'Invisible Me' thread. Crackle put the point well.

 

[Origamist]

Something along these lines has occurred to me. Do camera wearers, consciously or otherwise, behave differently when cycling because they are wearing a camera and they know their cycling is being recorded - even if only for themselves? If so, does that different behaviour make 'incidents' more likely? And when there is an 'incident', do they behave differently because they know their actions - and the other party's reactions - are being recorded?

In other words, is it correct to assume that wearing a camera really has no effect at all on the actions - cycling or otherwise - of the wearer?

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=536790&postcount=9

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=565353&postcount=17

 

[beanzontoast]

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=536790&postcount=9

Thanks - I missed that.

 

[magnatom]

Something along these lines has occurred to me. Do camera wearers, consciously or otherwise, behave differently when cycling because they are wearing a camera and they know their cycling is being recorded - even if only for themselves? If so, does that different behaviour make 'incidents' more likely? And when there is an 'incident', do they behave differently because they know their actions - and the other party's reactions - are being recorded?

In other words, is it correct to assume that wearing a camera really has no effect at all on the actions - cycling or otherwise - of the wearer?

I think for some people wearing a camera could change their response etc. However, have a look at this post
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=569777&postcount=24

Can you argue with the person that knows me the best?

 

[adunn01]

How can one cyclist be involved in so many incidents of a life threatening nature?!?!? Surely, for his own safety he should ditch the bloody camera?

as someone who lives not too far from magnatom and cycles a lot of the same roads, particularly the recent 'taxi driver roundabout exit' I have to say that, whether intentional or not, I do believe that Mags takes an unnecessary primary/weak primary road position far too often and, as a result, experiences a lot more incidents than your average cyclist would. Coming off that roundabout there is plenty of room for a car to safely pass in the approach to the pinch point and mags had pulled across the road unnecessarily early.

I'm by no means a gutter hugger when it comes to road position, but we all have to remember that we are slow moving traffic at times and don't have an undeniable right to hold up other road users unless we believe it would be unsafe to act in any other way.

I'd also add that he comes across as far too aggressive with certain road users. Not the taxi driver maybe when i'm sure he was in shock, but the lady driver who was about to reverse into him in a recent clip was obviously apologetic and shocked at what she'd almost done, but still had to sit in her car while an angry looking man shouted at her through her window. Incidents like that one could be good lessons for drivers,but if the cyclist over-reacts it's more likely to simply increase antagonism towards cyclists.

So, I reckon he should give up the cam. Subconsciously I think it does alter his behaviour as he believes it's a safety net which leads to an unnecessarily aggressive cycling style and over-the-top reaction to incidents.

Actually, if there was no cam there'd be no "have you read cyclecraft?!" clip which i saw for the first time yesterday. cam must stay!

I'm still quite new here and could be totally wrong though.

 

[John the Monkey]

147

Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204). You should

• try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well
• be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake
• not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey
• slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them
• not throw anything out of a vehicle, for example, cigarette ends, cans, paper or carrier bags. This can endanger other road users, particularly motorcyclists and cyclists

Where's the exception that allows drivers to ignore all this if they think the primary position isn't applicable for that part of the road? Is it some part of an extra test for "professional" drivers outside the Highway Code? Why would you not want people to drive according to the guidance of the Highway Code in general?

 

[magnatom]

as someone who lives not too far from magnatom and cycles a lot of the same roads, particularly the recent 'taxi driver roundabout exit' I have to say that, whether intentional or not, I do believe that Mags takes an unnecessary primary/weak primary road position far too often and, as a result, experiences a lot more incidents than your average cyclist would. Coming off that roundabout there is plenty of room for a car to safely pass in the approach to the pinch point and mags had pulled across the road unnecessarily early.

I'm by no means a gutter hugger when it comes to road position, but we all have to remember that we are slow moving traffic at times and don't have an undeniable right to hold up other road users unless we believe it would be unsafe to act in any other way.

I'd also add that he comes across as far too aggressive with certain road users. Not the taxi driver maybe when i'm sure he was in shock, but the lady driver who was about to reverse into him in a recent clip was obviously apologetic and shocked at what she'd almost done, but still had to sit in her car while an angry looking man shouted at her through her window. Incidents like that one could be good lessons for drivers,but if the cyclist over-reacts it's more likely to simply increase antagonism towards cyclists.

So, I reckon he should give up the cam. Subconsciously I think it does alter his behaviour as he believes it's a safety net which leads to an unnecessarily aggressive cycling style and over-the-top reaction to incidents.

Actually, if there was no cam there'd be no "have you read cyclecraft?!" clip which i saw for the first time yesterday. cam must stay!

I'm still quite new here and could be totally wrong though.

Two other cyclists have since visited the roundabout in question and agreed with my line. I am however, not going to get into a discussion about that one again!

I agree in general I need to try not to react as much, but I am after all, not superhuman, have emotions and a particular love for continuing to live and not get hurt, so yes when someone endangers me, in the past I have reacted, although I should point out that my reactions have always been of the sort where I ask 'why did you do that?' etc, and not just hurling abuse.

As for the reversing car, I don't think that I reacted particularly badly! I say, 'you don't just reverse back into me!' in an exasperated tone, she apologises, and I wave her on. Your not seriously suggesting that that was a bad reaction! Look at my hand guestures. Open hand towards the lady in question. That is a fairly neutral guesture which if you find agressive then you are in trouble!

Also read above the comments made by my wife. I think she knows me best!