YouTube Dilema

[hackbike 666]

Bollo is probably right.

Although my videos are meant to be more of an educational thing for other cyclists...Not an opportunity to have a go at motorists online.

 

[BentMikey]

Trolling? I've raised valid points to which other memebers have agreed upon. So if someone has a conflict of views you get labelled a troll?

That's constructive that it is.

No, Lee, you tend to get labelled a troll because of the way you argue. You exhibit many of the characteristics of trolling, getting all controversial and in your face [1]. I don't think you're being quite serious in this topic, I think you are genuinely on a windup to some degree.

[1] I think this is probably what you most dislike about yourself, and why you whine about helmet camera users doing the same thing.

 

[BentMikey]

It can work for companies. Reputational risk is a wonderful thing.

That is so right. I've had profuse apology letters, and begging for me to take the video down in the past.


p.s. don't think cameras change attitudes? Lee wouldn't RLJ in front of my camera on our little ride. I bet you forgot about that, Lee.

 

[dondare]

That is so right. I've had profuse apology letters, and begging for me to take the video down in the past.


p.s. don't think cameras change attitudes? Lee wouldn't RLJ in front of my camera on our little ride. I bet you forgot about that, Lee.

Well, he knew you wouldn't follow him if he did.

 

[BentMikey]

Wrong.

 

[dondare]

No, Lee, you tend to get labelled a troll because of the way you argue. You exhibit many of the characteristics of trolling, getting all controversial and in your face [1]. I don't think you're being quite serious in this topic, I think you are genuinely on a windup to some degree.

Humour sugars the bitterest pill. Or something.
I'm never serious, even when I'm being completely serious.

 

[dondare]

Wrong.

You'd have followed him? Well, no-one was filming you.

 

[dondare]

That is so right. I've had profuse apology letters, and begging for me to take the video down in the past.


p.s. don't think cameras change attitudes? Lee wouldn't RLJ in front of my camera on our little ride. I bet you forgot about that, Lee.

Changes attitudes or changes behaviour?

 

[BentMikey]

Your memory isn't very good - you told me how you'd normally jump lights like that particular example, I told you I'd follow if you wanted to, and you still wouldn't go through the red light until I promised you I wouldn't put it on the video clip.

Aaaahaahahahahaa, such hypocrisy about how cameras won't change anyone else's behaviour, and yet one changed yours remarkably.

 

[Rob3rt]

Sorry for jumping in on this debate here, and excuse me if I am wrong in my interpretation but BentMikey, I 'think' (im not sure) that Lee (or at least someone) at some point said camera's only change peoples behaviour while the camera is in their face, then when its not there they will act the same as they did before.

Your example shows this, Lee wouldnt jump a red because you had a camera, when you arent there, he jumps reds.


Im under no illusion that having a camera will make my commute any safer (from anyone elses persepective anyway, it definatelly makes me more aware of my road ettiquette hence improving how safe I act), it will simply provide evidence in the case of an accident.

 

[Origamist]

For sure I'd ask to use it if it was available. In the same way I'd check local CCTV. I'm in no way against using cams but just question peoples' rationale for wearing them and then how they use them.

I'm glad you'd take me up on my hypothetical offer as filming rides means I can help others (and not just cyclists). Recently I came through the aftermath of an incident and was able to post the positions and reg plates of the vehicles involved, not enormously helpful, but better than nothing.

It is important to make a distinction between filming your ride and what you then choose to do with film itself.

In the Netherlands, nearly all of the films I have seen highlight the high modal share, the facilities, the ordinariness of riding a bike - the films celebrate cycling. In this country, it's far more about near misses, incidents, collisions, bad driving/riding etc. What does this tell us (if anything) about the two countries' cycling culture and the actual/perceived risk of riding a bike ?

Important to remember that camera-wearers are a massive minority on this forum, which is itself a minute microcosm of all commuting cyclists. In the main, commuting cyclists aren't out to record/ educate/ reprimand people around them but just to enjoy themselves getting from A to B.

True, but I imagine 10 years ago the amount of commuter cyclists filming their rides numbered a few dozen, 5 years ago - in the hundreds, and now - in the thousands (and increasing rapidly with the Muvi explosion).

 

[Jezston]

I'd just like to take the opportunity to clear up any confusion I may have caused by making the following statement.

I don't have much of a problem with Lee's argument here. In fact I actually agree with a lot of it. What I DO have a problem with is his whole STYLE or argument. He may not be trolling, but he's using trolling techniques. Stalling, insults, reversing, putting the onus on the other to prove him wrong rather than making the effort to prove himself right. Arguing for the sake of arguing. Being argumentative to deliberately get peoples backs up and start an argument where one wasn't needed. Insulting people who have a different view to him. I'm not just talking this thread, but many others too. The one sticking in my mind was after me daring to speculate that one of his fellow truckers might be responsible for an accident that what I said was 'moronic' without stating WHY.

I hate this whole style of internet argument.

Person A: Statement
Person B: You are wrong, and here is an insult. And I'm not going to say why you are wrong.
Person A: Why am I wrong? Insult returned.
Person B: Prove to me why you are right, you idiot.

This kind of shoot I see on the internet all the time, and it pisses me off. Lee pulls this shoot all the time.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the points or not at all. I just HATE this style. It's not about having an argument so that all points can be raised and after debate an educated consensus can be reached. It's not about trying to convince the other person of your perspective. It's about amusing yourself by creating tension, creating argument because you like a fight, drawing attention to yourself and having fun with it, and THAT is trolling, and it doesn't get anyone anywhere.

 

[Mark_Robson]

Even as a camera user I have to agree that Lee's point is valid.
The argument that cameras and the consequences of ending up on Youtube will modify peoples behaviour reminds me of the speed camera debate.
If people are speeding then they will slow for a speed camera and then accelerate once they have passed it, so that shows that speed cameras only modify peoples driving when they are visible, stick a copper in a bus stop with a speed gun and he will have a field day. Surely the same argument applies for head cams?
IMO the only purpose that a camera serves is to provide a source of evidence in the event of an accident and to help the cyclist improve his own road skills.

 

[Bollo]

There's a piece in the guardian today about police use of head cams. Not completely on topic, but worth a read. Linky here

 

[jonny jeez]

I'd just like to take the opportunity to clear up any confusion I may have caused by making the following statement.

I don't have much of a problem with Lee's argument here. In fact I actually agree with a lot of it. What I DO have a problem with is his whole STYLE or argument. He may not be trolling, but he's using trolling techniques. Stalling, insults, reversing, putting the onus on the other to prove him wrong rather than making the effort to prove himself right. Arguing for the sake of arguing. Being argumentative to deliberately get peoples backs up and start an argument where one wasn't needed. Insulting people who have a different view to him. I'm not just talking this thread, but many others too. The one sticking in my mind was after me daring to speculate that one of his fellow truckers might be responsible for an accident that what I said was 'moronic' without stating WHY.

I hate this whole style of internet argument.

Person A: Statement
Person B: You are wrong, and here is an insult. And I'm not going to say why you are wrong.
Person A: Why am I wrong? Insult returned.
Person B: Prove to me why you are right, you idiot.

This kind of shoot I see on the internet all the time, and it pisses me off. Lee pulls this shoot all the time.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the points or not at all. I just HATE this style. It's not about having an argument so that all points can be raised and after debate an educated consensus can be reached. It's not about trying to convince the other person of your perspective. It's about amusing yourself by creating tension, creating argument because you like a fight, drawing attention to yourself and having fun with it, and THAT is trolling, and it doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Couldnt of said it better myself

And this attitude is compounded when two members who display similar characteristics lock horns...as with Mikey and Lee..Mikey, you often take this same approach, (I'm right, your wrong and everyone who disagrees is just piss poor) although, granted your initial responses are never normally as inflammatory as Lee's...

I fear this one will go on and on

Popcorn anyone?