YouTube Dilema

[jonny jeez]

Something that has struck me over the last 20 or so pages, is the repeated reference to “Head cam users” and their attitude or approach (or rationale).

I think this is an unfair description.

I use a head cam but don’t have a markedly different attitude or approach to “normal” riders. I think what defines us, is the way in which we use the footage. As Bollo, Origamist, Bettey (anon) say, I use mine as a recording device, not a conduit to you-tube. I do post videos on you tube but am selective about those that I do, I want to present a balanced view and (as I do on this forum) will often accept the role of devils advocate to facilitate that balance.

So let’s not fall into the trap of defining those of us who may or may not wear a cam…

lets define them by their actions, not their attire.

 

[scotbiker]

For those advocating driver training and leglislation I'd like to hear their thoughts on how this will be achieved?

The government aren't going to implement anything without proof/statistics defining a need for it. If the cammers keep reporting bad drivers to roadsafe etc and file police reports for the more serious ones (i.e, Magnatom's roundabout scare and BM's assault) then they are helping define that need.

 

[dondare]

Cycling PM Cameron wants "Big Society" to take over some of the social duties traditionally carried out by Nanny State.
Jag-driving Transport Secretary Hammond wants to reduce the number of traffic enforcement cameras.
Obviously the time is right for cyclists to monitor traffic as a social duty.

 

[Jezston]

Cycling PM Cameron wants "Big Society" to take over some of the social duties traditionally carried out by Nanny State.
Jag-driving Transport Secretary Hammond wants to reduce the number of traffic enforcement cameras.
Obviously the time is right for cyclists to monitor traffic as a social duty.

Haha perfect! They've been asking for suggestions haven't they?

 

[dondare]

And motorists can retaliate by filming redlightjumping cyclists.

 

[4F]

The only way to stop people (or trolls) on forums who like antagonising people by being deliberately contrarian, argumentative etc is to stop engaging with them.

When lee comes out with bollocks just ignore him, and he'll soon stop doing it when he realises there's no fun to be had.

So just because someone has a different viewpoint then they are labelled a troll ?

I have to say that I agree with Lee's initial point and pointing to a camera and saying you are going to be on you tube is going to make bugger all difference to their driving and at the worst could just antagonise a nutter. Mikey, was it you who got your helmet cam ripped from your head by said nutter ?

Most of the clips that are put up seem to be non events (apart from Bollo's incident and Magnatom's lorry at the roundabout) and I do get the impression that people are almost hoping that something does happen so they can put it on youtube.

Get the cam off and enjoy the cycling.

 

[dondare]

Or even keep the cam on and enjoy cycling.

 

[4F]

Or even keep the cam on and enjoy cycling.

Fair enough, some are quite amusing especially the commuter racing ones

 

[Bman]

I film for many reasons. Most of which have been mentioned by my fellow camera cyclists.

Wearing my camera does not change my behaviour. I know, of course I'm going to say that, but thats how I feel.

My main reason for wearing my camera is because I like to vent. Instead of just describing what occured that annoyed me, I can show like minded people, the video.

Also, my camera is a tiny MUVI, its black and I wear it on my black rucksack strap. It is not very noticiable. I have never pointed it out and I have never followed a driver to remonstrate with them, just because I know I am recording it.

 

[boydj]

.... The problem is, cyclist sometimes HAVE to berate drivers......

+1 - whether the camera is there or not because either :

1. the driver is unaware of how dangerous his/her manoeuvre was and by 'having a word', in a reasonable manner, may just learn something of future value or

2. the driver is aware and may just learn that there could be 'consequences' for driving dangerously round cyclists.

These type of incidents have been going on since way before cameras were available. Cameras just give us all the chance to learn and engage in long meaningful discussions (or interminable threads) and may provide the person with the camera with some useful evidence to take to the police or other interested party.

 

[Bollo]

Cycling PM Cameron wants "Big Society" to take over some of the social duties traditionally carried out by Nanny State.

Sounds like a communist Nanny MacPhee

ScotBiker - without turning this into a P&L thread, cycling has been the cinderella of transport for many years now. Evidence is one thing, the great god of public opinion is something else entirely. Public opinion tends to like its motors and dislike cyclists cluttering up its roads, for which it pays road tax.

 

[Bollo]

+1 - whether the camera is there or not because either :

1. the driver is unaware of how dangerous his/her manoeuvre was and by 'having a word', in a reasonable manner, may just learn something of future value or

2. the driver is aware and may just learn that there could be 'consequences' for driving dangerously round cyclists.

These type of incidents have been going on since way before cameras were available. Cameras just give us all the chance to learn and engage in long meaningful discussions (or interminable threads) and may provide the person with the camera with some useful evidence to take to the police or other interested party.

I think this is Lee's point. You can explain, cajole and threaten an errant motorist but unless there are real, possibly legal consequences then it's largely irrelevant. Threatening to 'expose' their behaviour on youtube is just pointless. Youtube is a sewer, and all you're doing is chucking another turd in.

 

[hackbike 666]

Sounds like a communist Nanny MacPhee

ScotBiker - without turning this into a P&L thread, cycling has been the cinderella of transport for many years now. Evidence is one thing, the great god of public opinion is something else entirely. Public opinion tends to like its motors and dislike cyclists cluttering up its roads, for which it pays road tax.

It does in this car orientated society.I have cycled in other countries on this planet and some of it isn't so bad or as aggressive...Japan and Thailand were like a breath of fresh air.

I have noticed it even today.The bloke in the Merton council van thingy giving us a dirty aggressive type look...I pick up because my workmate parked his 4x4 in not one of the best places.It was after this I suggested he should park it in the car park.He didn't mis-park it by accident but like me he didn't know the layout of the place we were at.

 

[dondare]

Understand your point but there are better ways, lobbying by the CTC is one.

The CTC might be glad of filmed evidence to support any demands.

 

[dondare]

I think this is Lee's point. You can explain, cajole and threaten an errant motorist but unless there are real, possibly legal consequences then it's largely irrelevant. Threatening to 'expose' their behaviour on youtube is just pointless. Youtube is a sewer, and all you're doing is chucking another turd in.

I'd have that as a sig, if I wasn't so pleased with the one I already use.