Headcams on BBC Breakfast

sketchley

I had this debate with my wife at the weekend. She said I should not confront bad driving as I may get assaulted. I should instead stay calm. However, if the bad driver is not told they are a bad driver they will just carry on. We debated this for some time with my stand point being that if someone cut her up in a car she would use the horn, therefore if someone cuts me up on bike why not tap on the window and ask them what they though they were doing. Her point being someone would thump me before too long.

When she saw the bbc report this morning she promptly told me she had found a solution and I should get a headcam, although she had no idea how much they cost, I'm going to order from wiggle they cost about the same a full carbon road bike don't they? :twisted:

kelsen

iPete wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Whilst I would tend to agree with the above, it may have been the case (although not possible to deduce from the video) that Mr Porter was already braking, but was not able to slow enough to avoid having to turn in with the van. It's quite difficult to judge speed accurately from a short clip like that.

At a guess, if you can bang on the side of a van, your not using both hands to brake.

+1

Kieran_Burns

Of course - *I* had a headcam before they became famous.

il_principe

daviesee wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Rubbish bit of reporting as far as I'm concerned.

I thought the reporter came across as quite sympathetic and was throwing the RLJ etc for the CTC guy to respond to. He was playing Devil's advocate because we all know what the responses will be IMO. The CTC guy should have been ready for it and responded better.

Not really my point. I just get narked with the constant media portrayal of cycling as being dangerous. That piece would have put people off. Not helpful at all.

KonaMike

My wife was less than thrilled when she saw the report,she stopped watching halway through and now thinks I am in grave danger every day !

rjsterry

kelsen wrote:

iPete wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Whilst I would tend to agree with the above, it may have been the case (although not possible to deduce from the video) that Mr Porter was already braking, but was not able to slow enough to avoid having to turn in with the van. It's quite difficult to judge speed accurately from a short clip like that.

At a guess, if you can bang on the side of a van, your not using both hands to brake.

+1

The bang on the van was after he had been forced around the corner IIRC. My point was that the video doesn't give you all the information to make an objective judgement on whether the rider should or could have braked (more). My reading of it was that the van pulled along side/slightly ahead, then swung in, so no amount of braking is going to allow that to pass without having to swerve onto the side road. I'd say being forced into a side turning merits more than muttering under your breath. But as I say, that's just my reading of the video.

@IP: yes, it was disappointing that it was such a generally negative report. The one 'cycling is actually getting safer' sentence was rather half-heartedly put in for 'balance'.

Origamist

kelsen wrote:

iPete wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Whilst I would tend to agree with the above, it may have been the case (although not possible to deduce from the video) that Mr Porter was already braking, but was not able to slow enough to avoid having to turn in with the van. It's quite difficult to judge speed accurately from a short clip like that.

At a guess, if you can bang on the side of a van, your not using both hands to brake.

+1

Slamming on the brakes, whilst passing cars (at speed) as you take at bend with a WVM passing you closely, leaves you open to getting hit from behind. The cyclist in the vid has been hit from behind at least 3 times - these exeriences would be likely to influence any decision to attempt an emergency stop in moving traffic.

dilemna

rjsterry wrote:

kelsen wrote:

iPete wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Whilst I would tend to agree with the above, it may have been the case (although not possible to deduce from the video) that Mr Porter was already braking, but was not able to slow enough to avoid having to turn in with the van. It's quite difficult to judge speed accurately from a short clip like that.

At a guess, if you can bang on the side of a van, your not using both hands to brake.

+1

The bang on the van was after he had been forced around the corner IIRC. My point was that the video doesn't give you all the information to make an objective judgement on whether the rider should or could have braked (more). My reading of it was that the van pulled along side/slightly ahead, then swung in, so no amount of braking is going to allow that to pass without having to swerve onto the side road. I'd say being forced into a side turning merits more than muttering under your breath. But as I say, that's just my reading of the video.

@IP: yes, it was disappointing that it was such a generally negative report. The one 'cycling is actually getting safer' sentence was rather half-heartedly put in for 'balance'.

+1. The SVM did give Mr Porter some space as he turned left on him. The SVM had previously been in the right hand lane approaching the junction, swinging across two lanes and Mr Porter who was cycling on the near side. I don't think any criticism can be made of Mr Porter. It was my impression that he only banged on the side of the van when the driver after making the turn then deliberately drove his van across the cyclist forcing him toward the kerb which IMHO is very dangerous. The driver then got out shouting at the cyclist and going for him for having the temerity to bang on his van to warn the driver. The driver was very agressive which must have been very frightening for Ben. Unfortunately his camera did not capture what sounded like the driver assaulting him.

I think the cyclist here was totally blameless. Many cyclists would have launched a tirade of expletives at the driver which would ahve thoroughy undermined any case that they might have had. Ben did not do this. He remained relatively calm inspite of this van driver driving into him and then getting out of his van to try to what looks like assault him..

rick_chasey

dilemna wrote:

I think the cyclist here was totally blameless. Many cyclists would have launched a tirade of expletives at the driver which would thoroughy have undermined any case that they might have had. Ben did not do this. He remained relatively calm inspite of this van driver driving into him.

I'd bet a lot of money the driver would not have stopped and got out had the cyclist not banged on the side of the van.


If you're on a bike you need to accept that drivers like this are out there and adjust your riding accordingly - the cyclist in this instnace knew the van was being deliberately agressive, so why does he continue to put his bike in a position that allows him to be abused by said van?

Sure he's technically correct, but it's all uncessary stress and hassle for all concerned. It also ultimately fails to address the issue, and instead further polarises it.

dilemna

daccordimark wrote:

I have to agree with the other pragmatists here too.

I couldn't believe the way he shouted "stay right, stay right" as the van overtook. I like the way Mr. Porter described it as "asking for some room"! It was a bad bit of driving but honestly I would have braked and let him get out of the way. It's just not worth turning bad driving into an assault.

I would suggest you spend some time cycling in London rather than rural West Yorkshire ........ In fact why not email Ben Porter and ask if he will give you a guided tour?

dilemna

Rick Chasey wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I think the cyclist here was totally blameless. Many cyclists would have launched a tirade of expletives at the driver which would thoroughy have undermined any case that they might have had. Ben did not do this. He remained relatively calm inspite of this van driver driving into him.

I'd bet a lot of money the driver would not have stopped and got out had the cyclist not banged on the side of the van.


If you're on a bike you need to accept that drivers like this are out there and adjust your riding accordingly - the cyclist in this instnace knew the van was being deliberately agressive, so why does he continue to put his bike in a position that allows him to be abused by said van?

Sure he's technically correct, but it's all uncessary stress and hassle for all concerned. It also ultimately fails to address the issue, and instead further polarises it.

Err .... I read what you are writing, but you are plain wrong. I believe a court found the van driver guilty of careless driving, he was fined and has points on his license. 'am I right? If I am wrong I shall hold my hands up, well only one, as I have to steer with the other . Please tell me at which point when the van driver tried to drive his van across the path of Mr Porter cycling, meaning Ben banged on the side of the van to stop himself being squashed, was actually Ben's fault?? Please, please because I am struggling to see yours and others take on this. Remember a court found the van driver was driving without due care and attention so why can't you and others see this as they obviously could?

dilemna

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

hfidgen wrote:

iPete wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

Does basic cycle training say that if a van is 3/4 of the way past you and indicating left, best practise is to maintain your position and scream as loudly as possible?

The driving is obviously terrible, but this is a perfect example of where just a little bit of pragmatism would turn a very scary incident into a complete non-event.

Completely agree, as I said earlier, you can't blame the cyclist for the knuckle draggers actions but I don't see why dabbing the brake was not a viable option. Its something I've noticed with camera users, they tend to scream, shout, bang on cars and not change course, a little evasive action and there would be no confrontation.

As for the guy on the r/a, ouch, thats a tough one to react to, both of them. Thats the reason I want an even bigger front light.

Have to say I agree - not braking there was really quite stupid! Though I think my reaction (with or without cam) would definitely be brake, whilst shouting and screaming...

IMO hitting someones car crosses a line and makes things much more likely to turn aggro. A bit of shouting rarely gets a reaction if they've been a collossal penis like that but makes you feel better and might (just might) make them consider the cyclist.

Another +1 here, it's all well and good catching the poor driving on camera but it's a bit difficult to post it to Youtube from hospital and nigh on impossible from the mortuary....

Well if this were indeed the dreadful outcome don't you think the police would be looking at the footage to see not only what happened, but whether any charges should be brought against a moton? I don't think Youtube would be considered in this instance do you? In fact this is the reason I wear a headcam so in the event I were knocked down in a hit and run, the police would see my head cam "Kerching!" (if not smashed to smithereens), hopefully it would have recorded the vehicle, which they can then identify and trace the driver, leading to their prosecution rather than my death and terrible injuries resulting in a vegetative state, merely being put down to a SMIDSY or just one of those things.

iPete

**wooosh**

Did you miss all the posts saying that the drivers was in the wrong, knuckle dragger etc etc. and selectively pick out the bits you wanted? Not a single person has said the drivers was right to do what he did.

rick_chasey

dilemna wrote:

Err .... I read what you are writing, but you are plain wrong. I believe a court found the van driver guilty of careless driving, he was fined and has points on his license. 'am I right? If I am wrong I shall hold my hands up, well only one, as I have to steer with the other . Please tell me at which point when the van driver tried to drive his van across the path of Mr Porter cycling, meaning Ben banged on the side of the van to stop himself being squashed, was actually Ben's fault?? Please, please because I am struggling to see yours and others take on this. Remember a court found the van driver was driving without due care and attention so why can't you and others see this as they obviously could?

I'm not accusing the cyclist of much, other than putting himself in a situation that you could see was gonig to go wrong.

Had the cyclists braked a little earlier, having figured the van was already driving aggresively towards him, he'd probably never have ended up in the position where he could have been squashed.

As soon as I saw the van on the video, I knew what was going to happen, and sure enough, it did.

It's a bit like me walking down the street, only to find my path blocked by two massive drug dealer types who look like they're likely to be carrying big guns. Sure, it's my right to be able to walk down whichever street I like without hassle, but do I walk into them and make my point? Probably not, since it'll end in tears.


It would have never had to go to court had the situation been avoided in the first place, whether the cyclist is in the right or not.

He's in his right to do what he did, sure, and the law is on his side. I just don't think it achieves much for him, since I imagine said instance is a drop in the ocean, and it only further polarises the issue.

kelsen

dilemna wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I think the cyclist here was totally blameless. Many cyclists would have launched a tirade of expletives at the driver which would thoroughy have undermined any case that they might have had. Ben did not do this. He remained relatively calm inspite of this van driver driving into him.

I'd bet a lot of money the driver would not have stopped and got out had the cyclist not banged on the side of the van.


If you're on a bike you need to accept that drivers like this are out there and adjust your riding accordingly - the cyclist in this instnace knew the van was being deliberately agressive, so why does he continue to put his bike in a position that allows him to be abused by said van?

Sure he's technically correct, but it's all uncessary stress and hassle for all concerned. It also ultimately fails to address the issue, and instead further polarises it.

Err .... I read what you are writing, but you are plain wrong. I believe a court found the van driver guilty of careless driving, he was fined and has points on his license. 'am I right? If I am wrong I shall hold my hands up, well only one, as I have to steer with the other . Please tell me at which point when the van driver tried to drive his van across the path of Mr Porter cycling, meaning Ben banged on the side of the van to stop himself being squashed, was actually Ben's fault?? Please, please because I am struggling to see yours and others take on this. Remember a court found the van driver was driving without due care and attention so why can't you and others see this as they obviously could?

You're both right, because you're talking about different issues:

1) Whether the incident could've been avoided
2) Whether the van driver was driving recklessly

dilemna

Rick Chasey wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Err .... I read what you are writing, but you are plain wrong. I believe a court found the van driver guilty of careless driving, he was fined and has points on his license. 'am I right? If I am wrong I shall hold my hands up, well only one, as I have to steer with the other . Please tell me at which point when the van driver tried to drive his van across the path of Mr Porter cycling, meaning Ben banged on the side of the van to stop himself being squashed, was actually Ben's fault?? Please, please because I am struggling to see yours and others take on this. Remember a court found the van driver was driving without due care and attention so why can't you and others see this as they obviously could?

I'm not accusing the cyclist of much, other than putting himself in a situation that you could see was gonig to go wrong.

Had the cyclists braked a little earlier, having figured the van was already driving aggresively towards him, he'd probably never have ended up in the position where he could have been squashed.

As soon as I saw the van on the video, I knew what was going to happen, and sure enough, it did.

It's a bit like me walking down the street, only to find my path blocked by two massive drug dealer types who look like they're likely to be carrying big guns. Sure, it's my right to be able to walk down whichever street I like without hassle, but do I walk into them and make my point? Probably not, since it'll end in tears.


It would have never had to go to court had the situation been avoided in the first place, whether the cyclist is in the right or not.

He's in his right to do what he did, sure, and the law is on his side. I just don't think it achieves much for him, since I imagine said instance is a drop in the ocean, and it only further polarises the issue.

I disagree with you. Following your logic one would never be able to ride more than100m down a street, road or pavement . So how do you propose that cyclists draw attention to the bad drivng and often reckless or dangerous driving we often experience and which killed 104 of us last year and injured 1,000s of others?

Surely this piece by the BBC is to explore why more cyclists are deciding to wear or carry helmet cams to record instances like this or dare I say it when we are just driven straight into as a moton just has not seen us? You seem to be condoning the poor driving and aggressive behaviour of some motons.

cougie

The cyclist only bangs/fends off the van when the van appears to deliberately squeeze in on him on the straight road after the corner.
I dont see that him shouting the van to stay right was wrong at all.

And yes - at the end of the day - the driver got prosecuted successfully - so he was in the wrong.

The cyclist could have let it all go and been meek and mild and bullied out of the way - thats probably the safest bet - but hopefully the driver will be a bit more considerate to cyclists in future ?

iPete

So dilemna, essentially your proposing cycle martyrdom?

Disagree, plenty of us make it more than 100 metres down the road riding like this, anyway you're lucky to get 100metres before you hit a red in the city.

ishmael

If I got insurance would that make it a bad thing if I then got hit by a car and killed?

sketchley

iPete wrote:

So dilemna, essentially your proposing cycle martyrdom?

Disagree, plenty of us make it more than 100 metres down the road riding like this, anyway you're lucky to get 100metres before you hit a red in the city.

I'd much rather see the van driver prosecuted for the infraction in the video than for actually knocking a cyclist off their bike and injuring them. Make of that what you will.

cougie

I'm liking the idea of cycle martyrdom.

Perhaps if we had some volunteer suicide bomber cyclists - then motorists would give us just a little bit more space on the road.

Can we set up a religion with this in ? If Scientology can pull all their mumbo jumbo off - this should be easy ?

Flyingbogey

I must admit i was in a very similar situation recently. It required my full attention to avoid being squashed and whacked the side of the van the instant i felt the danger had passed. Driver leapt out very unhappy, i used the excuse i was warning him of my presence. mmm, bit of a lie that one, luckily he didn't want a scrap as i'm fully 16st and 6'5" but even luckier for me as i fight like 2 day old kitten.

rick_chasey

dilemna wrote:

I disagree with you. Following your logic one would never be able to ride more than100m down a street, road or pavement . So how do you propose that cyclists draw attention to the bad drivng and often reckless or dangerous driving we often experience and which killed 104 of us last year and injured 1,000s of others?

Surely this piece by the BBC is to explore why more cyclists are deciding to wear or carry helmet cams to record instances like this or dare I say it when we are just driven straight into as a moton just has not seen us? You seem to be condoning the poor driving and aggressive behaviour of some motons.

Woh woh woh.

Firstly. There's no "us", alright? That helps for a start. It's not an us and them situation, and if you think it is, then I can probably see why you're pleased said incident not only occured, but was filmed. I used to be just like the cyclist guy in the video.

Knowing that I was legally in the right, I'd put myself in positions where I knew drivers were in the wrong, so that I could then shout at them, bang on their car, make out i'm some big victim and get all worked up, just like the one above. I used to love the thrill, the adreneline, knowing I was in the right, riling them up. It was like street crime UK, seeing the pathetic losers getting wound up and slammed up.

I eventually stopped when a driver who drove far too close to me (whislt I was in a solid line cycle lane) punched me off my bike and kicked me on the ground, having tried to run me over, after I told him to "f*cking watch out you tosser - you were too close".

In this particular instance You can see what the van driver is going to do, so why let him do it? It takes two parties for an incident to ccur, so if one party backs out, there is no incident.

Setting out on your bike with the mentality it's 'us' versus 'them' is one that inevitably attracts you to problems, in the same way the van driver probablyhad the same mentality. Understand the road in terms of getting there hassle free, then you'll notice you never get into so many bad situations.

Secondly, I'm not condoning anything. It shouldn;t have to be this way, but unfortunately it is. I am offering some preventative measures.
It's all very well saying this is a good thing, but ultimately, what would have been better is that the incident never happneed. From the cyclist's perspective, there is nothing he can do to stop the driver being a nutter - but he can do something to avoid being in the path of said nutter in this situation.

Going out, being the moral righteous rider, always on the right side of the law, happy to punish any car that deviates from it is not a particuarly attractive trait, and one that is unlikely to find any sympathy from the wider public. Indeed, it's likely to envoke more rage, just like the van driver's.

Bassjunkieuk

dilemna wrote:

Well if this were indeed the dreadful outcome don't you think the police would be looking at the footage to see not only what happened, but whether any charges should be brought against a moton? I don't think Youtube would be considered in this instance do you? In fact this is the reason I wear a headcam so in the event I were knocked down in a hit and run, the police would see my head cam "Kerching!" (if not smashed to smithereens), hopefully it would have recorded the vehicle, which they can then identify and trace the driver, leading to their prosecution rather than my death and terrible injuries resulting in a vegetative state, merely being put down to a SMIDSY or just one of those things.

I appreciate the points above and as a HC user I truly hope that none of my footage ever has to be used for that purpose. I think the point some people where trying to make is that sometimes hanging back from a dangerous situation can be the safest option. In this instance it already appears that the driver is being very aggressive so hitting his van is most likely going to make him go mental. I'd expect the same reaction would have been received if he'd tried to be "more reasonable" and tapped on his window.

Personally I tend to get a bit sweary when things like that happen so I'm never a great ambassador for cyclists and I've already had a close call with a driver in Brixton as I didn't know when to keep quiet (that was over 3 years ago now....). I think I've only ever hit a couple of vehicles and that has been when they have pulled across me and I've already got myself under control - one was a black taxi who turned left in front of me and another was a MPV who decided to swap lanes at the bottom of Denmark Hill without indicating.

I've now resorted to a hand gesture to indicate poor driving which occasionally gets a reaction and will always report any drivers in company vehicles, usually with a link to the video on Youtube. Speaking of which I still haven't had a response from TFL - can only assume they don't care if their bus drivers run zebra crossings with pedestrians on ;-)

ETA: Well put Rick! I'm sure that's what I was angling to say but as usual it came out all wrong!

dilemna

iPete wrote:

So dilemna, essentially your proposing cycle martyrdom?

Disagree, plenty of us make it more than 100 metres down the road riding like this, anyway you're lucky to get 100metres before you hit a red in the city.

Not at all. This is the problem with cycling forums. You get trolls who will for the sake of it take a contrary position, claiming white is black or vice versa just for the sake of it.

If you think the roads are perfectly safe for cycling and that there are no instances where such bad driving puts a cyclists safety at risk and that there are no motons that drive carelessly, recklessly or dangeorusly around cyclists, then why don't you simply say, rather than trying to apportion some sort of blame to the instant cyclist Ben Porter that he was some how the author of the events that befell him. He was not, the van driver was. End of. A court of law even agrees :roll: .

iPete

Again, you seem to have missed the posts agreeing with this, driver was wrong etc etc etc etc etc. Read above, you must think this place is full of trolls, people are simply pointing out that self preservation works best. I've got a commute to go and enjoy, this is going in circles. :roll:

Origamist

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm not accusing the cyclist of much, other than putting himself in a situation that you could see was gonig to go wrong.

Had the cyclists braked a little earlier, having figured the van was already driving aggresively towards him, he'd probably never have ended up in the position where he could have been squashed.

As soon as I saw the van on the video, I knew what was going to happen, and sure enough, it did.

Let's not forget that the cyclist was initially put in a difficult position by a poorly timed and executed overtake.

Many cycling forumites are like QWERTY soothsayers - they can see things happening/unravelling in seemingly perfect clarity and can respond timeously and faultlessly to dangerous situations that are presented to them on the web. They can watch videos over and over again and fine tune how they would have avoided the conflict. In real time, in a stressful situtation, with multiple sensory stimuli, reaction time delay, and various courses of action available (and of course, the danger of unintended consequences) - we are all fallible when it comes to making decisions on the fly.

rick_chasey

Origamist wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm not accusing the cyclist of much, other than putting himself in a situation that you could see was gonig to go wrong.

Had the cyclists braked a little earlier, having figured the van was already driving aggresively towards him, he'd probably never have ended up in the position where he could have been squashed.

As soon as I saw the van on the video, I knew what was going to happen, and sure enough, it did.

Let's not forget that the cyclist was initially put in a difficult position by a poorly timed and executed overtake.

Many cycling forumites are like QWERTY soothsayers - they can see things happening/unravelling in seemingly perfect clarity and can respond timeously and faultlessly to dangerous situations that are presented to them on the web. They can watch videos over and over again and fine tune how they would have avoided the conflict. In real time, in a stressful situtation, with multiple sensory stimuli, reaction time, and various courses of action available (and of course, the danger of unintended consequences) - we are all fallible when it comes to making decisions on the fly.

I've been in that situation many a time - the effort to bang on a van is more than to hit the brakes, which is pretty standard.

The guy's going out to prove on his cam how bad drivers are to people on bikes and succeeded.

SUre, in the heat of the moment, you make the wrong decision. I'm saying he did. It's no excuse though, especially since he films it and gives it for all to see.

dilemna

Rick Chasey wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I disagree with you. Following your logic one would never be able to ride more than100m down a street, road or pavement . So how do you propose that cyclists draw attention to the bad drivng and often reckless or dangerous driving we often experience and which killed 104 of us last year and injured 1,000s of others?

Surely this piece by the BBC is to explore why more cyclists are deciding to wear or carry helmet cams to record instances like this or dare I say it when we are just driven straight into as a moton just has not seen us? You seem to be condoning the poor driving and aggressive behaviour of some motons.

Woh woh woh.

Firstly. There's no "us", alright? That helps for a start. It's not an us and them situation, and if you think it is, then I can probably see why you're pleased said incident not only occured, but was filmed. I used to be just like the cyclist guy in the video.

Knowing that I was legally in the right, I'd put myself in positions where I knew drivers were in the wrong, so that I could then shout at them, bang on their car, make out i'm some big victim and get all worked up, just like the one above. I used to love the thrill, the adreneline, knowing I was in the right, riling them up. It was like street crime UK, seeing the pathetic losers getting wound up and slammed up.

I eventually stopped when a driver who drove far too close to me (whislt I was in a solid line cycle lane) punched me off my bike and kicked me on the ground, having tried to run me over, after I told him to "f*cking watch out you tosser - you were too close".

In this particular instance You can see what the van driver is going to do, so why let him do it? It takes two parties for an incident to ccur, so if one party backs out, there is no incident.

Setting out on your bike with the mentality it's 'us' versus 'them' is one that inevitably attracts you to problems, in the same way the van driver probablyhad the same mentality. Understand the road in terms of getting there hassle free, then you'll notice you never get into so many bad situations.

Secondly, I'm not condoning anything. It shouldn;t have to be this way, but unfortunately it is. I am offering some preventative measures.
It's all very well saying this is a good thing, but ultimately, what would have been better is that the incident never happneed. From the cyclist's perspective, there is nothing he can do to stop the driver being a nutter - but he can do something to avoid being in the path of said nutter in this situation.

Going out, being the moral righteous rider, always on the right side of the law, happy to punish any car that deviates from it is not a particuarly attractive trait, and one that is unlikely to find any sympathy from the wider public. Indeed, it's likely to envoke more rage, just like the van driver's.

Maybe we shoud just agree to disagree. I am looking at the footage that Ben Porter's head cam captured and I see no reason WHATSOEVER to admonish him. He did not abuse or swear at the van driver. He was not agressive. He did not create the situation. He shouted a perfectly acceptable warning toward the van and when the van pulled across him he banged the side. Wouldn't you if that happened to you or would you merely apologise to the van driver for getting in his way as you hit the road or kerb? I didn't detect the "them versus us mentallity" from the footage that you are suggesting or any of the content in your quote below:

Knowing that I was legally in the right, I'd put myself in positions where I knew drivers were in the wrong, so that I could then shout at them, bang on their car, make out i'm some big victim and get all worked up, just like the one above. I used to love the thrill, the adreneline, knowing I was in the right, riling them up. It was like street crime UK, seeing the pathetic losers getting wound up and slammed up

Bassjunkieuk

Origamist wrote:

Many cycling forumites are like QWERTY soothsayers - they can see things happening/unravelling in seemingly perfect clarity and can respond timeously and faultlessly to dangerous situations that are presented to them on the web. They can watch videos over and over again and fine tune how they would have avoided the conflict. In real time, in a stressful situtation, with multiple sensory stimuli, reaction time, and various courses of action available (and of course, the danger of unintended consequences) - we are all fallible when it comes to making decisions on the fly.

One of the benefits of using a HC IMHO, asides from the usual recording bad driving & a bit of SCR fun is that you can look back in hindsight on your riding. You can review what you did and ask "Could I have done this differently?" I had one recently with a clip I forwarded to Gaz regarding some silly cyclist and in doing so I realized that whilst I was moaning about the 10 cyclist who squeezed up the inside of a left turning WV I'd actually left myself in a less then ideal position with a lorry alongside me. I felt safe enough at the time but having someone else look at the video and say "you could have gone a bit further forward and made eye contact with the driver" was very useful.