This mornings idiot

[Perry]

You handled that a lot better than I would have done.

I would have said something like, "Well done!.....Ya Fu___ing knob!

 

[yello]

What is it about the legally unambiguous sign, "Give way to oncoming traffic" that you don't understand?.

Oh, I'd understand the sign. No problem there. I just wouldn't have considered there to have been a problem. It looked to me as though there was room to pass safely (and I do accept the camera may distort that view). That's all that would have concerned me in honesty. I don't go around asserting my rights just because. Too easy going for that.

 

[hackbike 6]

Same here I would have just been on my way like the cyclist in front.Perhaps im just used to that in London.

Oh I get that with Cambridge it's supposed to be much more of a cycling tolerant city.

 

[Mr Pig]

I'm sorry mate, but I think that all you've done is made another car driver think that cyclists are jumped-up twats!

There was plenty of room. The cyclists right in front of you passed the car without any problem, the car was driving very slowly, and I don't see any kind of problem or danger that warranted your rebuke. In fact I might've given the driver a wave for moving over and slowing down!

I understand that 'legally' he should've stopped but common sense suggests that while that's necessary for two cars there is ample room for a bike to pass a car there.

Sorry, but that's my opinion. I don't think we'll see much progress towards a better deal for cyclists on the road while we're treating drivers as the enemy. They've got to feel that we're reasonable before they'll take our views at all seriously.

 

[domd1979]

Just read through the thread.

Providing the car was moving at a reasonably slow speed (it was) I'd have taken the gap and carried on. With the car on-coming the driver is on the side the cyclist is passing unlike when you're being overtaken and there's no way the driver can accurately judge the gap. I certainly wouldn't have stopped to lay into him. I agree with going for a primary to begin with since that helps to control the speed of the car before then moving over.

Same here I would have just been on my way like the cyclist in front.Perhaps im just used to that in London.

Oh I get that with Cambridge it's supposed to be much more of a cycling tolerant city.

 

[joebe]

Dodgy and Mr Pig sum this one up perfectly, yes you had right of way, but come on..... looking at the other cyclist you had a shed load of room and there was absolutely no need for your holier-than-thou (sp) attitude.

It's all about give and take, so we can all get on together. If I was that driver I would be thinking what an absolute nob, where does he get off behaving like that.

Helmet cams can be very useful, but there now appears to be darker side to them, i.e the uTube brigade that feel compelled to post the most minor of incidents and often seem to go out of their way to manufacture situations.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you were out of order almost to the extent of bullying the other car to stop. This seems a ludicious position to put yourself in given the lectures your giving about it all being done for your own safety.

 

[magnatom]

Helmet cams can be very useful, but there now appears to be darker side to them, i.e the uTube brigade that feel compelled to post the most minor of incidents and often seem to go out of their way to manufacture situations.

I take it you are referring to me there?

I think you are right, that without care, cameras could be mis-used. I honestly can't think of an occasion where I have manufactured an incident though. Sure I have in the past had words with drivers and filmed that, but I have done exactly the same without my camera on. That is just who I am, although I am trying to 'chat' less. If anyone can point out one of my videos where they feel I have manufactured an incident, feel free to point it out.

For me, this incident does look a little bit minor, but we have to remember, we weren't there, we have no idea how good the other cyclist in the video was (i.e. they were possibly taking a risk there), and it can be difficult judging distances on film.

We also have to take into account the fact that cab might have had some more serious incidents on this section of road. These experiences might suggest to cab that his approach is the best approach.

 

[Absinthe Minded]

Well, I've watched the film, and read all the comments and I have to say that it looks like you've made a big deal out of nothing here.

When you hold your hand up, it looks like you're ready to overtake the cyclist in front of you - I think I'd of tucked in behind him / her (that would've reduce my speed for the pinch point, too), and just carried on.

Of course, you can argue about the way the camera makes it look, speed, or anything else - but from where I'm looking it seems that you've made a big deal out of nothing.

joebe is right about the YouTube brigade - very few of the posted videos look that serious to me, but maybe that's all down to camera perspective; the real events may have looked different.

 

[dodgy]

And if camera perspective really is reducing the ability of these helmet cameras from telling the truth, what's the point of them? Has any cyclist so far been able to use footage to convince the police to take positive action against a motorist or other wrong doer?

Dave.

 

[dondare]

Anyone who knows Cambridge will know that motorists see a lot of illegal, dangerous and generally idiotic behaviour by cyclists and therefore just don't regard them as real traffic. They also expect cyclists to squeeze through any gap and use the pavement if there's not enough road; this chap must have been somewhat bemused to be stopped and admonished by you in the circumstances.
As a general point, many of the incidents on youtube don't look that bad, I suppose you have to be there to realise that they are.

 

[magnatom]

And if camera perspective really is reducing the ability of these helmet cameras from telling the truth, what's the point of them? Has any cyclist so far been able to use footage to convince the police to take positive action against a motorist or other wrong doer?

Dave.

It doesn't make them useless, it is just something that need to taken into account when viewing the video. This particular video is not a good example, but you can often use features on the road, the reactions of those on the video etc to infer things like 'closeness' etc. Speeds can be estimated as well, although there will always be an error in this.

Having the camera does not replace witness reports, but it can back up or be used to verify them.

No charges have been brought from my use of the helmet camera, but on the one occasion that I reported a driver for poor driving and I had footage, the police did have a very strong word with the driver. I was happy with that.

Bollo, has successfully used his footage in a compensation claim.

 

[domd1979]

If you watch the film between 0:15 and 0:17 its pretty obvious that there's sufficient room to pass. Pausing the film and comparing the width of road available to the width of the Audi shows that.

You're right, we weren't there. That didn't stop Cab going on ad infinitum for 60 pages on that thread (potentially the longest thread ever on Commuting?) about the bus/cyclist where even though Cab wasn't there, all the available evidence pointed to the cyclist being sat in the bus' blind spot, yet Cab still declared the bus driver an evil cyclist killer and that the cyclist could not possibly have been wrong by the simple virtue of being on a bicycle.

There are bad drivers out there, but Cab's automatic assumption is that all drivers are evil, all cyclists are correct, which just isn't the case - as shown by this latest video clip.

Perhaps the driver took the same attitude as RLJing cyclists - the priority is there to control motorists, not cyclists......

For me, this incident does look a little bit minor, but we have to remember, we weren't there, we have no idea how good the other cyclist in the video was (i.e. they were possibly taking a risk there), and it can be difficult judging distances on film.

We also have to take into account the fact that cab might have had some more serious incidents on this section of road. These experiences might suggest to cab that his approach is the best approach.

 

[dodgy]

Thanks magna, that's good to know.

Dave.

 

[magnatom]

As a general point, many of the incidents on youtube don't look that bad, I suppose you have to be there to realise that they are.

I don't always post videos because they were particularly bad. I post them because they highlight particular problems that cyclists face. I think part of the reason that they aren't particularly dangerous is that I try and cycle in such a way, so that I have an escape route at all times.

In my three years cycle commuting I think I have probably had only two or three incidents where I actually felt in any danger. Even then, I probably had a way out.

 

[magnatom]

There are bad drivers out there, but Cab's automatic assumption is that all drivers are evil, all cyclists are correct, which just isn't the case - as shown by this latest video clip.

I don't know cab personally (although recently we passed about 4 metres from each other!) but I really don't think he has that attitude. In fact he has told me I was in the wrong (cycling wise) on a few occasions in the past.

Of course he will be biased (I probably am as well) towards cyclists as that is who we are, but I, and I am sure cab, try to be as fair and even handed as possible.

I actually tend to agree that cab may have overreacted here, that is my opinion based on the facts we have, but we don't have all of the facts and I am willing to admit that I could be wrong.