Headcams on BBC Breakfast

Origamist

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

What speed were the cyclist and van driver doing in the vid? What is the cyclist's braking distance to a stop? Is there traffic behind him? How does the left bend affect his ability to brake/steer? What line to take? How close is the van to the cyclist? Reaction times? You've been in similar situations - elucidate this for us, Rick. It's very easy to suggest that emergency braking is the answer but you simply do not have sufficient information to be sure that this is the right course of action.

dilemna

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

This can be taken two ways, but taken in context of your previous posts and your sentence immediately before and then after, it is an utterly stupid thing to write.

Well if you have been in that situation before as you claim when the effort to bang on the van is more than hit the brakes you are clearly prejudicing this incident with your experiences which are irrelevant to the incident. Plus if that was your behaviour at the time you should be ashamed of yourself.

Origamist

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

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.

I'd never of thought of that

usernameistaken

interesting topic and i joined just to be able to answer. ben porter looks like one of those self-righteous people who make an issue out of all manner of things. judging by his video he also acts like this. i agree with the other pragmatists on this post, i would have avoided the situation entirely by anticipating that the van would cut me off after the bend. yeah it's not right according to the law, but that's what happens, you can't go round cycling assuming that everyone in the traffic does what they're supposed to or you will end up in an accident sooner or later. even when driving in a car other drivers people do stupid things, it's a fact of life in traffic and since they are part of the road traffic as well cyclists are also subject to these facts of life. london traffic really isn't that bad if you anticipate and ride on pragmatism rather than on principle. raher than get aggro at cars and start filming them, try instead to give a thumbs up to a car or bus driver when he gives you right of way...this fosters education of your fellow drivers much more than shouting and acting like self-righteous annoyance on the road.

rick_chasey

dilemna wrote:

Well if you have been in that situation before as you claim when the effort to bang on the van is more than hit the brakes you are clearly prejudicing this incident with your experiences which are irrelevant to the incident. Plus if that was your behaviour at the time you should be ashamed of yourself.

Pfft. By your reasoning there's nothing to be ashamed about. I never broke the law. I was always correct on the road. It was the bad drivers who put me in situations that I didn't back out of.

Anyway, you get the wrong end of the stick. I'm not making a comment on the actual incident. Of course said rider was in the right. It just didn't have to go to court. That's all.

dilemna

usernameistaken wrote:

interesting topic and i joined just to be able to answer. ben porter looks like one of those self-righteous people who make an issue out of all manner of things. judging by his video he also acts like this. i agree with the other pragmatists on this post, i would have avoided the situation entirely by anticipating that the van would cut me off after the bend. yeah it's not right according to the law, but that's what happens, you can't go round cycling assuming that everyone in the traffic does what they're supposed to or you will end up in an accident sooner or later. even when driving in a car other drivers people do stupid things, it's a fact of life in traffic and since they are part of the road traffic as well cyclists are also subject to these facts of life. london traffic really isn't that bad if you anticipate and ride on pragmatism rather than on principle. raher than get aggro at cars and start filming them, try instead to give a thumbs up to a car or bus driver when he gives you right of way...this fosters education of your fellow drivers much more than shouting and acting like self-righteous annoyance on the road.

Your very first post ............. which is very pro moton and rather anticycling from the very same footage I am viewing. Hmmmm .......... you a troll?

dilemna

Rick Chasey wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Well if you have been in that situation before as you claim when the effort to bang on the van is more than hit the brakes you are clearly prejudicing this incident with your experiences which are irrelevant to the incident. Plus if that was your behaviour at the time you should be ashamed of yourself.

Pfft. By your reasoning there's nothing to be ashamed about. I never broke the law. I was always correct on the road. It was the bad drivers who put me in situations that I didn't back out of.

Anyway, you get the wrong end of the stick. I'm not making a comment on the actual incident. Of course said rider was in the right. It just didn't have to go to court. That's all.

It was the police and CPS who would have decided whether it went to court. Ben could have refused to give evidence if he was required to which may or may not have weakened the case meaning the CPS dropped it. Good on him I say. It lets motorists know that they have to drive more carefully around cyclists and that their driving and actions may be recorded.

rick_chasey

dilemna wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Well if you have been in that situation before as you claim when the effort to bang on the van is more than hit the brakes you are clearly prejudicing this incident with your experiences which are irrelevant to the incident. Plus if that was your behaviour at the time you should be ashamed of yourself.

Pfft. By your reasoning there's nothing to be ashamed about. I never broke the law. I was always correct on the road. It was the bad drivers who put me in situations that I didn't back out of.

Anyway, you get the wrong end of the stick. I'm not making a comment on the actual incident. Of course said rider was in the right. It just didn't have to go to court. That's all.

It was the police and CPS who would have decided whether it went to court. Ben could have refused to give evidence if he was required to which may or may not have weakened the case meaning the CPS dropped it. Good on him I say. It lets motorists know that they have to drive more carefully around cyclists and that their driving and actions may be recorded.

*massive faceplam*

I'm finding it difficult to get anywhere with you because you don't understand that I' arguing a seperate point.

I'm suggesting there was an opportunity for the cyclist to avoid the incident in the first place, which he didn't take

dilemna

Rick Chasey wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Well if you have been in that situation before as you claim when the effort to bang on the van is more than hit the brakes you are clearly prejudicing this incident with your experiences which are irrelevant to the incident. Plus if that was your behaviour at the time you should be ashamed of yourself.

Pfft. By your reasoning there's nothing to be ashamed about. I never broke the law. I was always correct on the road. It was the bad drivers who put me in situations that I didn't back out of.

Anyway, you get the wrong end of the stick. I'm not making a comment on the actual incident. Of course said rider was in the right. It just didn't have to go to court. That's all.

It was the police and CPS who would have decided whether it went to court. Ben could have refused to give evidence if he was required to which may or may not have weakened the case meaning the CPS dropped it. Good on him I say. It lets motorists know that they have to drive more carefully around cyclists and that their driving and actions may be recorded.

*massive faceplam*

I'm finding it difficult to get anywhere with you because you don't understand that I' arguing a seperate point.

I'm suggesting there was an opportunity for the cyclist to avoid the incident in the first place, which he didn't take

You mean in a Sliding Doors sort of way?

Surely what you're advocating could equally apply to the van driver :roll: ?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Well if you have been in that situation before as you claim when the effort to bang on the van is more than hit the brakes you are clearly prejudicing this incident with your experiences which are irrelevant to the incident. Plus if that was your behaviour at the time you should be ashamed of yourself.

Pfft. By your reasoning there's nothing to be ashamed about. I never broke the law. I was always correct on the road. It was the bad drivers who put me in situations that I didn't back out of.

Anyway, you get the wrong end of the stick. I'm not making a comment on the actual incident. Of course said rider was in the right. It just didn't have to go to court. That's all.

It was the police and CPS who would have decided whether it went to court. Ben could have refused to give evidence if he was required to which may or may not have weakened the case meaning the CPS dropped it. Good on him I say. It lets motorists know that they have to drive more carefully around cyclists and that their driving and actions may be recorded.

*massive faceplam*

I'm finding it difficult to get anywhere with you because you don't understand that I' arguing a seperate point.

I'm suggesting there was an opportunity for the cyclist to avoid the incident in the first place, which he didn't take

Faceplams aside I think that there may have been, but it is equally likely that there may not have been, or that such an opportunity may not have been apparent to the rider. Limited video evidence with a fairly narrow field of view means that there is a lot that we don't know about the situation. This is presumably why the police and lawyers are cautious about suggesting video evidence will lead to a conviction. In such a situation, I'd give the rider the benefit of the doubt, rather than assuming that he was trying to make a point by deliberately not braking.

W1

dilemna wrote:

You mean in a Sliding Doors sort of way?

Surely what you're advocating could equally apply to the van driver :roll: ?

Good god man, there's only one troll on this thread.

You can see nothing that the cyclist could have done when faced with that bad driving to mitigate the danger? Nothing at all?

He may have been legally and morally right, and the van driver was evidently a complete moron, but being right whilst also being injured isn't worthwhile in my opinion.

walkingbootweather

Pragmatically it is generally preferable to anticipate and avoid conflict whenever possible but I am reminded of the Irish philosopher, Edmund Burke, who is famously quoted "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. "

Perhaps sometimes it is good that evil, or just plain ignorance is exposed :?:

Probably this incident could have been avoided. Maybe this driver would have continued to drive in this manner. Possibly the next cyclist he encountered would have been less experienced and unable to avoid. Potentially an outcome might have been much worse that what we are debating here.

dilemna

W1 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

You mean in a Sliding Doors sort of way?

Surely what you're advocating could equally apply to the van driver :roll: ?

Good god man, there's only one troll on this thread.

You can see nothing that the cyclist could have done when faced with that bad driving to mitigate the danger? Nothing at all?

He may have been legally and morally right, and the van driver was evidently a complete moron, but being right whilst also being injured isn't worthwhile in my opinion.

For some one advocating avoidance you are extremely confrontational. Just an observation.

W1

dilemna wrote:

W1 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

You mean in a Sliding Doors sort of way?

Surely what you're advocating could equally apply to the van driver :roll: ?

Good god man, there's only one troll on this thread.

You can see nothing that the cyclist could have done when faced with that bad driving to mitigate the danger? Nothing at all?

He may have been legally and morally right, and the van driver was evidently a complete moron, but being right whilst also being injured isn't worthwhile in my opinion.

For some one advocating avoidance you are extremely confrontational. Just an observation.

It's boring when you've spent pages clearly deliberately mis-reading Rick's posts.

Don't avoid the question.

deptfordmarmoset

walkingbootweather wrote:

Pragmatically it is generally preferable to anticipate and avoid conflict whenever possible but I am reminded of the Irish philosopher, Edmund Burke, who is famously quoted "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. "

I think I agree with Burke here. A less abstract consideration here might be to ask:

When is it right to stand up to bullies?

iwearshorts

I don't think Ben hits the van in anger with his hand, he has to vend off the van as it gets too close. Also like the way he protects himself by lifting up the front wheel of the bike and pointing it at the angry man as a bike shield.

pastryboy

What's the story with the clip on that BBC video where the driver hits the cyclist head on? Never seen it before and assume it must have been discussed on here at some point.

emotionless_softcore

pastryboy wrote:

What's the story with the clip on that BBC video where the driver hits the cyclist head on? Never seen it before and assume it must have been discussed on here at some point.

IDK where it was discussed here but a slightly more detailed version is on YT.
Comments on the video include a few from the original uploader (i.e. the injured cyclist).
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... ains+blood

badgerman26

Interesting topic. Any recommendation of HCs?

Any views on this one; http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/dvr-d01 ... ays/850295

ddraver

It's been a while since I ve commuted in a city but thinking back to when i was in nodnoL, I think I'd have just let him go after the corner myself

As much just to curry favour by letting him get ahead....

Kieran_Burns

pastryboy wrote:

What's the story with the clip on that BBC video where the driver hits the cyclist head on? Never seen it before and assume it must have been discussed on here at some point.

That was his first day out with the new 1080p contour hd IIRC

ketka82

The trouble with riding in traffic is that there is an extremely fine line to tread between being unecessarily and dangerously self-righteous and protecting yourself as a road user.

Sometimes riding too defensively can also be counter-productive. Allowing yourself to be pushed out of the way by drivers enforces the view that cyclists belong in the gutter and have a responsibility not to get in the way of cars rather than it being the responsibility of the car driver to pass cyclists safely and attentively. On the other hand I fully agree that being in the right but dead is not much good either and that as a cyclist you are in a vunerable position whether or not the law is on your side.

Yes, perhaps Ben could have avoided the situation but at the same time I'm actually glad that he didn't. At the end of the day, as a result of the video the driver was made accountable for his poor driving and horrendous behaviour and punished for it. It's just a shame that doesn't happen more often.

rjsterry

An edited version of this morning's report has just been shown on BBC London News. Good to see that the 'cycling is getting safer' bit was kept in and the general thrust of it was more 'cyclists are sticking up for themselves' than the longer version this morning. Just shows how much difference a bit of editing makes.

MaxwellBygraves

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.

Well said!

jds_1981

walkingbootweather wrote:

Pragmatically it is generally preferable to anticipate and avoid conflict whenever possible but I am reminded of the Irish philosopher, Edmund Burke, who is famously quoted "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. "

Perhaps sometimes it is good that evil, or just plain ignorance is exposed :?:

Probably this incident could have been avoided. Maybe this driver would have continued to drive in this manner. Possibly the next cyclist he encountered would have been less experienced and unable to avoid. Potentially an outcome might have been much worse that what we are debating here.

Exactly.

Anyway, my interpretation of the video (which quite possibly isn't accurate as hard to properly assess video) is the cyclist did brake reasonably hard - looks like he went from about 20 down to under 10 miles an hour.
I've given motorists a rap on the window when they've put me in less danger than that. I believe that often they really don't realise and warning them that you're there will make them think a bit more in future.

Ultimately I' of the opinion that the cyclist did nothing wrong.

uphillbothways

I absolutely empathise with helmet-cam users and have had plenty of frightening experiences myself, but I can't help but disagree with the general attitude. Nobody is a perfect driver, we all make mistakes and it's particularly easy to err in such a difficult and distracting environment as an urban commute. I don't think it's fair to label people as bad drivers based on a single incident, nor do I think it helpful to respond to what might be a genuine error with aggression. If you rode around filming me, I'm sure you'd catch some shocking riding when I'm hanging off my chinstrap after a long day.

Plenty of people in this thread have said that they tend to get a bit shouty and sweary when caught up in an incident. None of us would endorse behaving like that, but it is entirely understandable and I think it's only fair that we extend that understanding to motorists. Of course they are much safer in their cars, but it is no less shocking or aggrieving for them to hear a bang on their window or the scrape of handlebars on their paintwork.

I'm reminded of the words "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle". It sounds a bit hippy-dippy, but I feel genuinely sorry for people who have a go at me on the roads - not at the time, granted, but in hindsight. The teenage moron that throws a can at me, the mondeo man who orders me off the road - how sad and narrow must their lives be, how dismally angry and frustrated and hateful must they feel? After an incident on the road I have a little breather, sprint for some lampposts to burn off the adrenaline, and give thanks that by some cosmic accident I'm not the other bloke.

If you disagree with all that, if you think I'm soft, consider this instead: dead right is the same as dead wrong. You might have the law on your side, but they have the laws of physics on theirs.

jeremyrundle

Mark Elvin wrote:

Which reminds me, I need to find a half decent camera with a helmet mount. ANy suggestions?

Yes as I have said before

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12755370

snailracer

uphillbothways wrote:

...Nobody is a perfect driver, we all make mistakes and it's particularly easy to err in such a difficult and distracting environment as an urban commute. ... If you rode around filming me, I'm sure you'd catch some shocking riding when I'm hanging off my chinstrap after a long day...

But there is no equivalence between cyclists and motorists - a road-raging motorist can easily kill people, a cyclist can't. Therefore, motorists should be held to a higher standard. If a motorist is dangerous, he should have taken the bus.

Kieran_Burns

snailracer wrote:

uphillbothways wrote:

...Nobody is a perfect driver, we all make mistakes and it's particularly easy to err in such a difficult and distracting environment as an urban commute. ... If you rode around filming me, I'm sure you'd catch some shocking riding when I'm hanging off my chinstrap after a long day...

But there is no equivalence between cyclists and motorists - a road-raging motorist can easily kill people, a cyclist can't. Therefore, motorists should be held to a higher standard. If a motorist is dangerous, he should have taken the bus.

Completely wrong IMO - we should ALL be held to the same high standard. Your mode of transport does not define your moral or social accountability.

Peyote

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Completely wrong IMO - we should ALL be held to the same high standard. Your mode of transport does not define your moral or social accountability.

I can sort of understand this from a purely moral perspective, but surely the consequences of your actions should be taken into account? That is why there are varying licenses to use vehicles (HGVs, PSVs etc...). If the holders of these licenses have been trained because they have to be more responsible to use a given vehicle or transport people then surely they should be expected to behave to a higher standard, and be more accountable for the consequences of their actions?