To the cyclist of Superhighway 7 tonight

fuelex

Sorry, but the 1st time I watched it I had the sound down.
Now after listening I'd like to say that Gaz was a complete bell end and inflamed the whole situation.
Absolute tool, you'll get shot or stabbed one of these days......but at least your family will have it recorded on a memory stick eh?

HebdenBiker

fuelex wrote:

Sorry, but the 1st time I watched it I had the sound down.
Now after listening I'd like to say that Gaz was a complete bell end and inflamed the whole situation.
Absolute tool, you'll get shot or stabbed one of these days......but at least your family will have it recorded on a memory stick eh?

Any need for the swearing and abuse?

mybreakfastconsisted

snooks wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Do you think the driver would have left more room had she thrown a life-saver?

I doubt that a driver who gets out of a car to hurl abuse at people being perfectly polite and calm would care less about whether or not a cyclist checked behind them.

Broadly, a driver should leave enough room for a cyclist so that were the cyclist to topple sideways the vehicle would not hit them.

The driver was reckless in the first overtake, homicidal in the second.

Would you really indicate every time you overtake another cyclist?

This isn't about what I would do, but you can't say the driver should have left room for the cyclist, when the cyclist herself didn't afford the cyclist she was overtaking the same courtesy.

Why do you believe that the car should have left 1 cyclist room, but convienently forget that the overtaking cyclist should have left the cyclist she was over taking the same amount of room? They are both bound by the same guidelines, they are both supposed to be following the Highway Code.

Fact is that if she would have followed the highway code, looked behind then either a) seen it was clear, signalled and overtaken the cyclist by going into the primary, or b) seen there was a car about to overtake. Then none of this would have happened.

Or to paraphrase: Broadly, a cyclist should leave enough room for another cyclist so that were the inside cyclist to topple sideways the overtaking cyclist would not hit them.

I'm not disputing that the driver was reckless, but the incident was completely avoidable if the overtaking cyclist would have shoulder checked, as cyclists we have to look after ourselves

1/

The idea that when I, on a bike, should leave the same room when overtaking another cyclist as if I were driving is daft. If the lady had followed HC 163 she would have been in Primary in the lane. You don't swing out 7 feet every time you overtake a cyclist, why on earth should you? Her overtake was safe, the other cyclist wasn't bothered because the worst that could happen would have been a few bruises, if that. A car, being two tons, has a far greather responsibility than a 150 pound cyclist and bike, for obvious reasons.

2/

It is most certainly not a fact that a lifesaver would have prevented the whole thing happening, you have no idea of knowing whether that's true. My suspicion is that no number of lifesavers would have prevented the driver from behaving like that. I can't se any window tapping either, just the cyclist politely remonstrating. What follows suggests the old axiom that there are two things men will never admit being bad at, driving being one of them, holds true.

3/

Two wrongs don't make a right. Your annoyance at the perceived shortcomings of the cyclist in no way obviates responsibility from the driver to behave sensibly around vulnerable road users. The cyclist could have been unlit, drunk, and punching kittens, it still wouldn't excuse the driver from one reckless overtake and one deliberately threatening overtake.

4/

Look at the driver behaviour again. The whole point of his reckless overtake was that he was in a tremendous hurry, right? Maybe he's carrying organs for transplant or Kate Middleton's engagement ring, something dreadfully important and critical, right? And yet he's happy to get out of the car and argue the toss. So, not in that much of a hurry then.


I've not seen any advice anywhere that when you overtake another cyclist you need to leave 7 feet of room, I'm happy to be corrected but I think you'll have trouble finding this advice. I certainly don't follow it.

This bod's face and reg is now on Youtube, gaz helpfully pointed him toward it, I doubt anyone apart from a hardened petrolhead will view the footage and consider the cyclist to be at fault as much as the driver, as the comments below the clip seem to vindicate.

Asking a driver politely to leave more room is not road rage. The driver was bridling, his anger management issues resulted in the second, far worse overtake. If that driver were to be involved in an incident in which someone is seriously hurt the footage will do him no favours at all.

Anyway, thanks for remaining polite snooks!

Monkeypump

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

snooks wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Do you think the driver would have left more room had she thrown a life-saver?

I doubt that a driver who gets out of a car to hurl abuse at people being perfectly polite and calm would care less about whether or not a cyclist checked behind them.

Broadly, a driver should leave enough room for a cyclist so that were the cyclist to topple sideways the vehicle would not hit them.

The driver was reckless in the first overtake, homicidal in the second.

Would you really indicate every time you overtake another cyclist?

This isn't about what I would do, but you can't say the driver should have left room for the cyclist, when the cyclist herself didn't afford the cyclist she was overtaking the same courtesy.

Why do you believe that the car should have left 1 cyclist room, but convienently forget that the overtaking cyclist should have left the cyclist she was over taking the same amount of room? They are both bound by the same guidelines, they are both supposed to be following the Highway Code.

Fact is that if she would have followed the highway code, looked behind then either a) seen it was clear, signalled and overtaken the cyclist by going into the primary, or b) seen there was a car about to overtake. Then none of this would have happened.

Or to paraphrase: Broadly, a cyclist should leave enough room for another cyclist so that were the inside cyclist to topple sideways the overtaking cyclist would not hit them.

I'm not disputing that the driver was reckless, but the incident was completely avoidable if the overtaking cyclist would have shoulder checked, as cyclists we have to look after ourselves

1/

The idea that when I, on a bike, should leave the same room when overtaking another cyclist as if I were driving is daft. If the lady had followed HC 163 she would have been in Primary in the lane. You don't swing out 7 feet every time you overtake a cyclist, why on earth should you? Her overtake was safe, the other cyclist wasn't bothered because the worst that could happen would have been a few bruises, if that. A car, being two tons, has a far greather responsibility than a 150 pound cyclist and bike, for obvious reasons.

2/

It is most certainly not a fact that a lifesaver would have prevented the whole thing happening, you have no idea of knowing whether that's true. My suspicion is that no number of lifesavers would have prevented the driver from behaving like that. I can't se any window tapping either, just the cyclist politely remonstrating. What follows suggests the old axiom that there are two things men will never admit being bad at, driving being one of them, holds true.

3/

Two wrongs don't make a right. Your annoyance at the perceived shortcomings of the cyclist in no way obviates responsibility from the driver to behave sensibly around vulnerable road users. The cyclist could have been unlit, drunk, and punching kittens, it still wouldn't excuse the driver from one reckless overtake and one deliberately threatening overtake.

4/

Look at the driver behaviour again. The whole point of his reckless overtake was that he was in a tremendous hurry, right? Maybe he's carrying organs for transplant or Kate Middleton's engagement ring, something dreadfully important and critical, right? And yet he's happy to get out of the car and argue the toss. So, not in that much of a hurry then.


I've not seen any advice anywhere that when you overtake another cyclist you need to leave 7 feet of room, I'm happy to be corrected but I think you'll have trouble finding this advice. I certainly don't follow it.

This bod's face and reg is now on Youtube, gaz helpfully pointed him toward it, I doubt anyone apart from a hardened petrolhead will view the footage and consider the cyclist to be at fault as much as the driver, as the comments below the clip seem to vindicate.

Asking a driver politely to leave more room is not road rage. The driver was bridling, his anger management issues resulted in the second, far worse overtake. If that driver were to be involved in an incident in which someone is seriously hurt the footage will do him no favours at all.

Anyway, thanks for remaining polite snooks!

Most, if not all, of this is only assumption and your own interpretation of events.

Didn't someone earlier say "get a life"? It's becoming truer after every post.

gtvlusso

1/

The idea that when I, on a bike, should leave the same room when overtaking another cyclist as if I were driving is daft. If the lady had followed HC 163 she would have been in Primary in the lane. You don't swing out 7 feet every time you overtake a cyclist, why on earth should you? Her overtake was safe, the other cyclist wasn't bothered because the worst that could happen would have been a few bruises, if that. A car, being two tons, has a far greather responsibility than a 150 pound cyclist and bike, for obvious reasons.

gtvlusso: Rather than allowing someone to squeeze by - you should assume the primary road position - stops anyone else trying to squeeze by you as you overtake. Confidence and a shoulder check required + some serious pedal power, something this lady clearly lacks. Cars are about 1 to 1.5 tons - and we all have the same responsibility on road as each other no matter what the vehicle size.

2/

It is most certainly not a fact that a lifesaver would have prevented the whole thing happening, you have no idea of knowing whether that's true. My suspicion is that no number of lifesavers would have prevented the driver from behaving like that. I can't se any window tapping either, just the cyclist politely remonstrating. What follows suggests the old axiom that there are two things men will never admit being bad at, driving being one of them, holds true.

gtvlusso: She should have checked behind her and made a better decision - she was not aware of what was going on and made a poor decision as a result. had she been faster and taken the primary road position - the move *may have been acceptable. Ultimately, the car had rolling speed and probably did not expect a fairly stupid cycle overtake.

3/

Two wrongs don't make a right. Your annoyance at the perceived shortcomings of the cyclist in no way obviates responsibility from the driver to behave sensibly around vulnerable road users. The cyclist could have been unlit, drunk, and punching kittens, it still wouldn't excuse the driver from one reckless overtake and one deliberately threatening overtake.

gtvlusso: Her overtake was reckless, the driver has simply adapted to her idocy. If she gets arsey about that, thats her problem. She needs to cycle with more awareness.

4/

Look at the driver behaviour again. The whole point of his reckless overtake was that he was in a tremendous hurry, right? Maybe he's carrying organs for transplant or Kate Middleton's engagement ring, something dreadfully important and critical, right? And yet he's happy to get out of the car and argue the toss. So, not in that much of a hurry then.

gtvlusso: Again - she made a stupid move and forced a decision from him - does he brake like f*ck or go for it? I would have gone for it too, her move was unexpected, had she bothered to look, indicated or something - the driver may have had an idea of what she was gonna do and could have taken better action. If she had any confidence, she would have taken the primary road position and been faster.

I've not seen any advice anywhere that when you overtake another cyclist you need to leave 7 feet of room, I'm happy to be corrected but I think you'll have trouble finding this advice. I certainly don't follow it.

gtvlusso: No one does - but it does not excuse not being aware of your environment, particulary if you lack speed and confidence.

This bod's face and reg is now on Youtube, gaz helpfully pointed him toward it, I doubt anyone apart from a hardened petrolhead will view the footage and consider the cyclist to be at fault as much as the driver, as the comments below the clip seem to vindicate.

gtvlusso: B*ll*x! That is an abuse of someones right to privacy - and only a biased opinion that is not shared by quite a few members on this cycling forum.

Asking a driver politely to leave more room is not road rage. The driver was bridling, his anger management issues resulted in the second, far worse overtake. If that driver were to be involved in an incident in which someone is seriously hurt the footage will do him no favours at all.

gtvlusso: Gaz has admitted putting his hand on his chest - as far as you can see, the "issue" escalates from there, mostly due to Gaz's involvement. Gaz has violated this guy - if he had done it to an "angry" person - Gaz *may now have a broken jaw - There is a clear right to self-defence here. The footage is edited to be biased towards the cyclist and an unfair portrail of the actual incident.

As I said before - this footage should be removed from youtube and said lady should learn to ride a bike with some common sense. And Gaz should not interfere in this way as it simply was not called for.

mroli

rjsterry wrote:

Unfortunately, tapping on a window does seem to inexplicably enrage some motorists - it shouldn't, but it does

I often wonder about this. What would you do if a motorist leaned out of a car and slapped your bike?

Keep your hands to yourself I reckon.

zanes

I'm sure this has been said already, but, hypothetically, if it was taken further would gaz's hand on the drivers chest constitute assault?

As others have said, 50/50 on the initial incident.

jds_1981

Right to privacy in public????

gtvlusso

jds_1981 wrote:

Right to privacy in public????

Then placed on youtube in front of millions of people instead of a "few".....and "accused" by biased editing and poor analysis, yes, right to privacy! Very diffcult to prove for normal members of the public, but very apt if this guy would have been Brad Pitt...However, Gaz is giving this guy no way to exonerate himself - perhaps he could be a target for other cyclists like "Mybrekkie"....reg number is also visible.

northstar

zanes wrote:

I'm sure this has been said already, but, hypothetically, if it was taken further would gaz's hand on the drivers chest constitute assault?

I don't see him putting his hands on his chest in the video and if he did I can't see how it would be assault, the driver was being aggressive to the female cyclist and I would have done the same and put myself in the way like gaz545 did - there is a very good chance he wouldn't have got out of his car if that cyclist was male.

Alphabet

been trying to avoid this thread as the whole thing is very very petty. but as i'm a very very petty person, here's my fiver's worth:

She was in the wrong, but it was barely noticeable as an 'incident' anyway. the fact that she knocked on the passenger side window means he stepped out of his car - otherwise it'd be fairly hard to have a conversation. He was utterly polite until the whole thing was blown out of all proportion with all this 'you are on camera!' 'protecting a fellow cyclist!' 'call the police' 'YOUTUBE!' driver bashing nonsense. completely over the top and a little pathetic. would've annoyed the shit out of me and I wouldn't have blamed him if he had actually swung for you. the net result was that he did then cut up a cyclist because he was all red misty.

Seeing the massive list of petty transgressions listed down the right on youtube, you really do need to gain some perspective. sometimes please drive like @rseholes, some people ride their bikes like @rseholes. as far as i can tell, all this does is make some drivers even more anti-bike and, some cyclists even more anti-car and the remaining cyclists anti-anti-car-cyclists

Hot Orange

Alphabet wrote:

She was in the wrong, but it was barely noticeable as an 'incident' anyway. the fact that she knocked on the passenger side window means he stepped out of his car - otherwise it'd be fairly hard to have a conversation. He was utterly polite until the whole thing was blown out of all proportion with all this 'you are on camera!' 'protecting a fellow cyclist!' 'call the police' 'YOUTUBE!' driver bashing nonsense. completely over the top and a little pathetic. would've annoyed the shoot out of me and I wouldn't have blamed him if he had actually swung for you. the net result was that he did then cut up a cyclist because he was all red misty.

Seeing the massive list of petty transgressions listed down the right on youtube, you really do need to gain some perspective. sometimes please drive like @rseholes, some people ride their bikes like @rseholes. as far as i can tell, all this does is make some drivers even more anti-bike and, some cyclists even more anti-car and the remaining cyclists anti-anti-car-cyclists

+ lots

Stu T

Hot Orange wrote:

Alphabet wrote:

She was in the wrong, but it was barely noticeable as an 'incident' anyway. the fact that she knocked on the passenger side window means he stepped out of his car - otherwise it'd be fairly hard to have a conversation. He was utterly polite until the whole thing was blown out of all proportion with all this 'you are on camera!' 'protecting a fellow cyclist!' 'call the police' 'YOUTUBE!' driver bashing nonsense. completely over the top and a little pathetic. would've annoyed the shoot out of me and I wouldn't have blamed him if he had actually swung for you. the net result was that he did then cut up a cyclist because he was all red misty.

Seeing the massive list of petty transgressions listed down the right on youtube, you really do need to gain some perspective. sometimes please drive like @rseholes, some people ride their bikes like @rseholes. as far as i can tell, all this does is make some drivers even more anti-bike and, some cyclists even more anti-car and the remaining cyclists anti-anti-car-cyclists

+ lots

and more

PBo

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Anyway, thanks for remaining polite snooks!

Snooks was remarkably polite. By and large I am polite. But I lost it in your case, because I was cross of trying to argue with someone who seems to ignore the evidence in front of their eyes, and claims that black is white.

I've edited my posts to remove the insults and make them less condascending, and I apologise. Amazing how after a nights sleep one can reread the post and cringe at what one has written.

As I've been big enough to admit I was out of order, can you be big enough to address my previous points - with evidence and facts, not speculation and opinion?

Also a few more points about your post to snooks

I can't se any window tapping either, just the cyclist politely remonstrating.

Check the video again at 44 secs. gaz caption tells us she knocks on the window.

The driver was reckless in the first overtake, homicidal in the second.

Stop merging the 2 incidents.

The second was wrong nobody has denied that. However, without the first, and then the confrontation second wouldn't have happened. This does not excuse it in any way, but the main issue of debate was whether his first pass was reckless or not. Clearly he'd lost it by the second one, which is different from him being a generally reckless driver.

(Whatever the provocation, I actually wonder whether his second overtake would be worthy of some kind of careless/reckless prosecution, although don't know if gaz' video is admissable evidence? Trying to cut someone up is a very large step up from a bit of a slanging match.)

It is most certainly not a fact that a lifesaver would have prevented the whole thing happening, you have no idea of knowing whether that's true. My suspicion is that no number of lifesavers would have prevented the driver from behaving like that.

It's not a fact that a "lifesaver" would have prevented it. Correct. However, it depends on what the cyclist would have done as a result, NOT the driver. The cyclist would have to have changed their behaviour, and not overtaken. You can throw as many lifesavers as you like, but if you don't act on the information, then incidents still happen. I think you misunderstand the point of a "lifesaver". The lifesaver is a defensive tool, not something to do instead of a signal, or telepathic communication with a driver. It's up to the cyclist to act on what they see - in this case maybe decide to signal, or not overtake. IF the driver saw a lifesaver, AND was alert to the implications of this, they may have slowed down. But throwing a lifesaver and carrying on with an unsafe manouver is not how it works......

This bod's face and reg is now on Youtube, gaz helpfully pointed him toward it, I doubt anyone apart from a hardened petrolhead will view the footage and consider the cyclist to be at fault as much as the driver, as the comments below the clip seem to vindicate.

Look this kind of comment is what makes it look like you only see the evidence that suits you. What about the 21 (i've counted them - up to Zanes this morning) people on this thread who question the cyclist - are we all hardened petrolheads? No - we are just capable of seeing the argument a little more objectively, not through a total anti-car agenda. (just to be clear not one of those people had vindicated the second incident). Even Gaz was more concerned with the motorist leaving the car than the original overtake. The "bad driving" youtube comments all come from about 6 people. People criticising him just on him getting out the car does not constitute a vindiciation of your view.

I doubt that a driver who gets out of a car to hurl abuse at people being perfectly polite and calm would care less about whether or not a cyclist checked behind them............................Asking a driver politely to leave more room is not road rage. ..... I can't se any window tapping either, just the cyclist politely remonstrating.

I can't argue with any factual evidence here - neither of us can, as there isn't any, only opinion - but I am not the only one who questions that the cyclists were polite and calm. He only hurled abuse right at the very end after presumably getting wound up - not to excuse it, but you are just speculating he got out the car to hurl abuse...

Would you really indicate every time you overtake another cyclist?

Well (lazily) not if there was no traffic behind me - but yes if it meant my manouver was going to move me more into the flow of traffic.....please quote HC that says cyclists are immune from signaling our intentions?

so....please rebut this post, and my previous post with the analysis of the video

ebt

Somewhere, theres a drivers forum that reads

"It'd been a shit day, I was glad to be heading home through the usual crappy traffic, was just passing xxxxx when some some cyclist overtook another one without signalling and wobbled out of her lane without indicating. No harm done, shit happens.

When I got to the lights, she knocked on the window, so I got out of the car to hear what she wanted to say. Bit wierd, some fella on a bike jumped in front of and put his hand on my chest whilst mouthing off about the police, youtube blah blah. Anyway, told the yellow vigilante to f*ck off and went home for a steak and chips. Steak was great!"

Seriously, she was in the wrong. The only reason the driver got annoyed was the goading he got when he got out of the car. If you look for trouble, sooner or later you will find it.

Pufftmw

Just to be controversial (oo'er missus), I don't think the driver was intentionally agressive in his second overtake. As he starts off he finds himself catching up with the still accelerating cyclist (who is himself overtaking) and not wanting to get held up, starts to overtake. At this point the road splits into 3 lanes with 2 filtering right but he's going straight on but because there is stationary traffic in the middle lane ahead, he needs to come back to his left so as not to hit the car. The cycle was still accelerating so was moving faster than when the driver had made his judgement to overtake but the driver had nowhere to go, so he moves back to the left - see how close he takes it to the stationary car in the middle lane in order not to completely cramp the cyclist.

I also imagine that if he had the arse with the OP that he would have been a lot closer to him both from the rear and once he'd gone past but it would appear that when the road opened up again, he moved out to give the OP a good amount of clearance.

At worst a pissy judgement call on the overtake but not deliberately aggressive.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Pufftmw wrote:

Just to be controversial (oo'er missus), I don't think the driver was intentionally agressive in his second overtake. As he starts off he finds himself catching up with the still accelerating cyclist (who is himself overtaking) and not wanting to get held up, starts to overtake. At this point the road splits into 3 lanes with 2 filtering right but he's going straight on but because there is stationary traffic in the middle lane ahead, he needs to come back to his left so as not to hit the car. The cycle was still accelerating so was moving faster than when the driver had made his judgement to overtake but the driver had nowhere to go, so he moves back to the left - see how close he takes it to the stationary car in the middle lane in order not to completely cramp the cyclist.
.

This. (FWIW, I drive that bit of road a fair bit, and the layout for cars is pretty terrible).

As for the first overtake, the cyclist ought to have shoulder checked before starting the overtake; if she is going to move into the area of the road predominantly used by cars, and it's unlikely that she's matching their speed, it's for her to look for a gap.

As the driver, I might have swung out fractionally, or possibly even braked slightly, but I really think the way the driver overtook was well within the bounds of acceptable driving. I get passed that close 30 plus times a day. If you're going to get in a tizz over it, then riding in London ain't for you.

She plainly had an issue with it though, and tapped the window. I'd guess (as others have) that the driver got out because he didn't have electric windows. And from that point onwards, the cameraman inflames what would have been a perfectly manageable situation. I blame the headcam.

What came from that whole incident? Footage that is (IMO) at best ambivalent and not incriminatory, and one more driver who thinks that all cyclists think they merit special treatment.

Oh, and gaz545 sure did get scapled bad. By a BURD! :shock: I wouldn't advertise that on the internet if I were you mate.

snooks

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

1/

The idea that when I, on a bike, should leave the same room when overtaking another cyclist as if I were driving is daft. If the lady had followed HC 163 she would have been in Primary in the lane. You don't swing out 7 feet every time you overtake a cyclist, why on earth should you? Her overtake was safe, the other cyclist wasn't bothered because the worst that could happen would have been a few bruises, if that. A car, being two tons, has a far greather responsibility than a 150 pound cyclist and bike, for obvious reasons.

This is probably what the driver was thinking

I agree that bikes and cars are two totally different vehicles, but unfortunately the highway code (which you originally quoted) doesn't distinguish between them when carrying out certain manoeuvres on the road.

"67

You should

* look all around before moving away from the kerb, turning or manoeuvring, to make sure it is safe to do so. Give a clear signal to show other road users what you intend to do (see 'Signals to other road users')
* look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path
* be aware of traffic coming up behind you
* take extra care near road humps, narrowings and other traffic calming features
* take care when overtaking (see Rules 162-169)"
from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837

you know rule 163

So all road users "in an ideal world" should adhere to the highway code.

I find it hard to criticise the driver for not following the highway code, and not criticise the cyclist for doing exactly the same thing

As for just a couple of bruises, sadly it wasn't the case here:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12742237


mybreakfastconsisted now in BOLD
2/

As someone ^^ up there said, the life saver/shoulder check/blindspot check is an information gathering exercise, it's for your benefit to see whether it is safe to perform a manoeuvre. It's not an indication. Even an indication is just that and indication of intent, not and acquisition of right

3/

Your annoyance at the perceived shortcomings of the cyclist in no way obviates responsibility from the driver to behave sensibly around vulnerable road users.

Correct, my point was that the cyclist, while not responsible for the incident, could have prevented it, by either not overtaking or by taking the primary. If it wasn't safe to take the primary she shouldn't have overtaken at the point at waited until it was safe to.

The same can be said for the driver, of course

4/

Look at the driver behaviour again. The whole point of his reckless overtake was that he was in a tremendous hurry, right?

I'm not justifying the driver's actions, I don't believe anyone is, scores of drivers overtake me, only to get stopped at the red light ahead, some times they do make it passed the next green, most of the time they don't....But it will never stop them trying. It's kind of a cute thing about dumb drivers, like hamsters on a wheel


Asking a driver politely to leave more room is not road rage.

If I get a close pass I just do a pushing out/pushing away from me hand movement to let them know they were a bit close. Tapping on cars gives the driver a fright and they go into fight or flight mode. If someone is driving aggressively it's a pretty good assumption that they may already have increased stressed levels, and tapping on windows might just send them over the edge.

This is why I feel uncomfortable about the whole web cam name and shame thing. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6g79GZsZws this could have gone horribly wrong, if Gaz happened to tap on the window of the local dealer or gang member (I live in East London, we have a few around) or a bloke a lot bigger than him who would think nothing of knocking Gaz flat in the middle of the road (which happened to my Ex's brother when someone cut him up in a car, the guy did have the decency to drag him to the kerb before driving off though)

No one likes having their mistakes pointed out to them, we all believe we are perfect, I am of course, but it must be so hard for everyone else

Anyway, thanks for remaining polite snooks!

My pleasure To you as well,

mybreakfastconsisted

The whole "right to privacy" thing has been explored by the estimable Magnatom.

Filming one's commute counts as recreational filming, the same as anyone taking photos in public. It breaches no laws, there is no need for the footage to be taken down.

Speaking of whom, the lifesaver guarantees bugger all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ADxWFV1 ... r_embedded

I think the original clip demonstrates one of the failings of Boris's Superhighways, that anyone not in those silly painted lanes is viewed, by some drivers, as an intruder onto "their" bit of road.

Alphabet

blimey. just clicked around on youtube. there's a lot of this headcam vigilante nonsense isn't there?

no wonder everyone thinks cyclists are such a smug unlikeable bunch...

Clarion

Nonsense?

I wish I'd had a headcam when abused & assaulted by a cabbie last week. Or when it happened in May, comes to that. Or the time someone drove their car at me repeatedly earlier in the year...

greg66_tri_v2.0

Clarion wrote:

Nonsense?

I think Alphabet's point was "headcam vigilante nonsense". The sampling of footage, or users for that matter, on youtube may not be representative, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that for a subset of cyclists wearing a headcam is tantamount to wearing a Sheriff's badge.

Newsflash: it isn't.

Alphabet

yes, 99% of the clips on there are nonsense. obviously if you go over the handlebars when a car pulls out on you, followed by a swift kicking from an evil driver, it'll be useful in court, but the crap on youtube is 'car passes a bit close' 'car gets annoyed that i'm not in the bike lane' 'driver reacts badly to me reacting badly to him'

and that is nonsense.

Alphabet

Greg66 wrote:

Clarion wrote:

Nonsense?

I think Alphabet's point was "headcam vigilante nonsense". The sampling of footage, or users for that matter, on youtube may not be representative, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that for a subset of cyclists wearing a headcam is tantamount to wearing a Sheriff's badge.

Newsflash: it isn't.

yep, that's what i meant, summed up better than i summed it up.

will3

Greg66 wrote:

Clarion wrote:

Nonsense?

I think Alphabet's point was "headcam vigilante nonsense". The sampling of footage, or users for that matter, on youtube may not be representative, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that for a subset of cyclists wearing a headcam is tantamount to wearing a Sheriff's badge.

Newsflash: it isn't.

Absolutely. Having a head cam doesn't mean you have to post loads of footage on Youtube does it? And not posting it on youtube doesn't affect the footage's usefullness should you get hit.

Not even the bits where you get scalped by girls.

jzed

Alphabet wrote:

blimey. just clicked around on youtube. there's a lot of this headcam vigilante nonsense isn't there?

no wonder everyone thinks cyclists are such a smug unlikeable bunch...

Yep - I spent an evening watching Gaz's videos and came to the conclusion he must be a magnet for incidents so I now cycle in the opposite direction. Whilst I understand why Gaz uses the headcam and have no issues with it or him posting them (unless they show me being scalped)- my view was that alot of the incidents are non-incidents (see the one where the white van moves over to let the police car through), but each to there own. I can't help thinking the incidents of pulling up and having arguments with bus drivers or indeed car drivers is a good thing. The guy from the clip probably now has a chip on his shoulder about cyclists.......

Alphabet

I now have a chip on my shoulder about cyclists. Going to cut them up on my commute as much as possible now.

jzed

Alphabet wrote:

I now have a chip on my shoulder about cyclists. Going to cut them up on my commute as much as possible now.

I ventured into the other forum mentioned in the Fued thread and Gaz has posted there too. Boy do they have a completely different perspective to the pretty balanced views on here. Some major chips....

jonny_trousers

JZed wrote:

The guy from the clip probably now has a chip on his shoulder about cyclists.......

I must admit, that was my worry too.

snooks

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Speaking of whom, the lifesaver guarantees bugger all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ADxWFV1 ... r_embedded

Even in that video the rider says it was the life saver that saved them pulling across into the path of that pickup

The life saver is looking over your shoulder to make sure the path is clear, it's looking behind you before you manoeuvre, in a car it's checking your blind spot.

It didn't get the name "life saver" for nothing, looking behind you will save you life