Headcams on BBC Breakfast

jeremyrundle

Kieran_Burns wrote:

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.

100% yes agree with you

rjsterry

uphillbothways wrote:

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.

I'm more than happy to accept an apology from someone if they cut me up or whatever through carelessness - I try and make sure that I do the same if I do something stupid - but if someone's driving is deliberately aggressive (as the van driver in the clip was BEFORE the tap on the side) and I've experienced a couple of times recently, then I don't think we should let that slide.

wgwarburton

Kieran_Burns wrote:

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.

Whilst you certainly have a point, bear in mind that while we all have a "right" to use the road (on foot, horse, bike etc), driving is a privilege that requires you to:

Be an adult
Pass a test
Carry insurance
Drive a new or tested vehicle
Register it and maintain the registration
Pay a tax to use that vehicle on the road

Which does suggest there's a different level of accountability involved.

There's an interesting discussion to be had regarding tolerating bad driving- yes, we all make mistakes but there are a few bullies around who deliberately endanger vulnerable road users.
If everyone lets bullies get their own way, they don't typically reform spontaneously, whereas a few people "standing up to them" may at least get them to seek easier targets.

By confronting motorists headcam users may well be putting themselves in danger.
They may also be inflaming a situation and engendering confrontation, or they may be forcing some drivers to recognise that they need to respect cyclists.

It takes a particular kind of person to stand up to bullies, especially bullies "armed" with a ton of steel. It seems quite likely that some situations are exacerbated by a feeling of righteousness and an element of unnecessary aggression but, let's be honest, you don't have to go looking for trouble, and it can be pretty hard to make a distinction between malice and mistake when you're on a bike.

Regarding banging on roofs/panels: As I've posted before, I think this is frequently perceived very, very badly by motorists and it's worth bearing that in mind.
I take the view that a vehicle should not be close enough for me to reach out and touch it but I'm also aware that doing so frequently provokes a violent, aggressive response from a driver so I strongly advise against it.

Cheers,
W.

nation

This is actually why reading the comments on the BBC article is so funny.

They're filled with indignant drivers saying "Well, maybe we should get cameras and film cyclists jumping red lights. How would you like that, eh?" Or words to that effect.

Honestly I couldn't care less if drivers started doing that. There's certainly nothing stopping them. The difference is that, to a driver, a cyclist running a red light (and I'm not defending RLJing, here) is at worst a mild annoyance. To a cyclist, a driver failing to correctly give way or passing aggressively is putting them in danger.

It's not in the least surprising that cyclists feel more motivated to take a step like carrying a cam.

W1

nation wrote:

The difference is that, to a driver, a cyclist running a red light (and I'm not defending RLJing, here) is at worst a mild annoyance..

That's not really true though, is it? I've had to swerve to avoid RLJers (both in my car and on my bike). I'd call that more than a mild annoyance - it could potentially cause a serious accident.

I take the point that the risk to the driver's wellbeing is much lower, but to call it a mild annoyance "at worst" isn't correct IMO.

And why don't these drivers start filming themselves? I bet because it will show-up their bad driving!

notsoblue

I tend not to let it slide tbh. I accept it increases the risk of the driver's behaviour. But more often than not they just back down and look like they've been caught out. One morning earlier this week on two mile hybrid pootle through moorgate I was riding primary along London Wall in heavy traffic and this guy in a trade estate car aggressively tried to undertake me to get ahead of me. He got close enough to almost knock my handbars.

As he did this I yelled and banged on his window. He started to mouth off, but I stood my ground and explained to him (relatively) calmly and politely what he had done and how he had endangered me and after him ranting incoherently we were both pretty much brought to a halt by the traffic and he just sat there sheepishly. And thats all I wanted really, to break through the impenetrable shell that abstracts the driver from the real world they're floundering about dangerously in.

I felt my point was made. I could have just let him get away with passively driving like a dangerous moron, but I couldn't. Chances are he'll remember this incident the next time he's given the choice of either acting carelessly around a cyclist or giving them enough space and he'll recall that he wasn't able to get away with it the last time.

shm_uk

The worm is turning.

For too long motorists have got away with acting like they own the road.

Cyclists are now increasingly establishing their own rights and Mr. Motorist doesn't like it one bit.

daccordimark

dilemna wrote:

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?

I've done my time in London thanks and even back then when I was young, idealistic and slightly foolhardy I quickly realised it wasn't worth getting all worked up and full of attitude over every bit of bad driving.

Mark.

Kieran_Burns

WGWarburton wrote:

Whilst you certainly have a point, bear in mind that while we all have a "right" to use the road (on foot, horse, bike etc), driving is a privilege that requires you to:

Be an adult
Pass a test
Carry insurance
Drive a new or tested vehicle
Register it and maintain the registration
Pay a tax to use that vehicle on the road

Which does suggest there's a different level of accountability involved.

(snip)

Cheers,
W.

We all have a right to walk down the street, this does not mean you do so with no regard to other people. I think you're confusing social responsibility with the potential consequence of an action.

The law sees it this way - this is why people get so emotional about fines imposed for 'careless driving' when someone has been injured / killed. The offense is set, the consequences are different. It's one reason why I think you must separate the compensation for something from the action.

It's also one of the reasons why I despise RLJ - they hide behind 'minimal' consequences for what is an illegal act, and also why I equally despise artibtrary speed restrictions.

nation

W1 wrote:

nation wrote:

The difference is that, to a driver, a cyclist running a red light (and I'm not defending RLJing, here) is at worst a mild annoyance..

That's not really true though, is it? I've had to swerve to avoid RLJers (both in my car and on my bike). I'd call that more than a mild annoyance - it could potentially cause a serious accident.

I take the point that the risk to the driver's wellbeing is much lower, but to call it a mild annoyance "at worst" isn't correct IMO.

And why don't these drivers start filming themselves? I bet because it will show-up their bad driving!

Fair enough. I don't RLJ and won't defend it.

The whole point was that if drivers felt they were being put at risk of serious injury or death as frequently as some cyclists apparently do, then they probably would start carrying cameras.

sketchley

While I accept the "Don't put yourself in danger " argument. The problems with bad driving will not be resolved by everyone simply getting out of the way of them, in fact this is likely to reinforced the bad driving as it achives a positive outcome for the bad driver, e.g. Bikes get out of the way if I drive agressively at them and cut them up. Simularly while there is often no sanction for cyclists who RLJ or motorcyles using ASL and only positive outcome it's not going to stop.

I'd much rather that an aware cyclist allows the bad driver to get close, while leaving an exit option just in case, but at the same time gets the bad driver on film and reports them so a sanction can be handed down; as the alternative could be that after getting out of the way at the first opportuity, the diver then does the same thing to a less aware cyclist who then hasn't left themselves the exit option.

That being said while in the wrong the van driver never puts the cyclist in any real danger, there are exit option to the left all the way round the corner for the cyclist and I don't think for one minute the van driver didn't know the cyclist was there. The biggest problem with this driver is his agression when confronted. The tanker driver on the other hand in the youtube of the full BCC article, deserves to have his/her HGV license taken away (i was going to write deserves to be chased down and beaten but that would be wrong :twisted:) this was a much more serious incident.

snailracer

Kieran_Burns wrote:

We all have a right to walk down the street, this does not mean you do so with no regard to other people. I think you're confusing social responsibility with the potential consequence of an action.
...

Everyone has responsibilities, some more than others. Are you suggesting pedestrians should be equally as regulated, trained, licensed and subject to as many laws as motorists?

Kieran_Burns wrote:

...The law sees it this way - this is why people get so emotional about fines imposed for 'careless driving' when someone has been injured / killed. The offense is set, the consequences are different. It's one reason why I think you must separate the compensation for something from the action.
...

The law doesn't always see it that way. The are two offences on the books: 'dangerous driving' and 'causing death by dangerous driving'. Same crime, however the punishment differs because of the consequences. CPS explanation as follows:

"Parliament regarded the consequences of dangerous driving as being a relevant consideration so that if death does result, this in itself can justify a heavier sentence than could be imposed for a case where death does not result."

I appreciate the points about completely separating the action from the consequences, and punishments vs compensation, however that is a rather abstract legal argument that won't be resolved until this country's criminal and civil codes are unified, which means never.

Kieran_Burns wrote:

...It's also one of the reasons why I despise RLJ - they hide behind 'minimal' consequences for what is an illegal act, and also why I equally despise artibtrary speed restrictions.

Do you despise RLJ equally as much as drunk driving? Or dropping litter? Surely some offences, because of their potential consequences, are worth 'despising' and some are just 'mildly annoying'?

noodles71

I run a course for drivers like this van man....

Course Title: Introduction to D-lock 1A

I expect to get flamed but try taking a complaint to the police where you don't stick up for yourself and let the guy take a swing at you. London Police will not act upon the assault. simples.....

gaz545

Perhaps a few people here who think they are better cyclists, should use a helmet camera. I have one spare that I can let you borrow.

Who is man enough to put their cycling up for review? You talk the talk, but can you cycle the road?

rick_chasey

gaz545 wrote:

Perhaps a few people here who think they are better cyclists, should use a helmet camera. I have one spare that I can let you borrow.

Who is man enough to put their cycling up for review? You talk the talk, but can you cycle the road?

You pay for it, i'll wear it. Deal?

_Brun_

I would but don't have a helmet. I am quite tempted to get a GoPro Hero to stick on the bars now they do a better value 960p version.

Origamist

Sketchley wrote:

That being said while in the wrong the van driver never puts the cyclist in any real danger, there are exit option to the left all the way round the corner for the cyclist and I don't think for one minute the van driver didn't know the cyclist was there. The biggest problem with this driver is his agression when confronted. The tanker driver on the other hand in the youtube of the full BCC article, deserves to have his/her HGV license taken away (i was going to write deserves to be chased down and beaten but that would be wrong :twisted:) this was a much more serious incident.

There are railings leading to the zebra crossing as they exit the corner, as such, this kind of street furniture is a problem if you need to exit stage left in an emergency...

The film of Magnatom and the HGV did not make it to court for the following reason:

From the cyclist involved:

At the start of this process I thought the police were at fault, then I felt that the PF were at fault, now it would appear that the Scottish Government and the Supreme Court are at fault!

As suggested in the letter I was sent, the problem was indeed identification of the driver, which, yes sound totally crazy. Of course none of us linked my case to this. In October this year a Supreme court ruling overturned the normal practice of the Scottish police of questioning a suspect without a lawyer present.

This is relevant to me as the driver in this case was interviewed in March this year, without a solicitor present during which he did admit to driving the HGV. However, due to the Supreme Court ruling this admission is inadmissible in court.

As Vike suggested there are other ways of determining who was driving the HGV, unfortunately the police thought there was no need with the statement admission. So there were no other corroborating checks. The PF agreed that having the HGV tachy and work rotas etc would probably have covered this. In hindsight the police probably could have done a better job and this wouldn't have been an issue.

Out of interest I asked the PF about the issue of corroboration with respect to the helmet camera. Yes he agreed that my testimony and my video evidence would not count as corroboration. However, there is apparently a way around this. When it gets to court you have an 'expert witness', in this case possibly a traffic cop, who would describe what he sees in the video and his opinion of it. So the good news is that camera evidence is acceptable in Scotland despite the differences in the law.

iPete

gaz545 wrote:

Perhaps a few people here who think they are better cyclists, should use a helmet camera. I have one spare that I can let you borrow.

Who is man enough to put their cycling up for review? You talk the talk, but can you cycle the road?

I don't see many people claiming to be perfect here. I'm certainly not and I wouldn't mind someone making a few pointers, I've already adjusted my cycling to be even more Zen after this thread & do watch your cycling idiots videos.

I'll take a camera but if you don't want to sit through 1 hour 15 minutes of footage you can try this but blink and you'll miss

Stop for red lights, very rarely go under buses, hold the primary at traffic lights when there is no point pushing to the front etc etc. Critique welcome but my filtering isn't for the squeemish.
http://www.vimeo.com/17864192

sketchley

Origamist wrote:

.....

There are railings leading to the zebra crossing as they exit the corner, as such, this kind of street furniture is a problem if you need to exit stage left in an emergency...

Yes railings are there, but driver take a very wide line so he has left soem "room", I suspect if he'd taken tighter line cyclist would of put his own safety first and backed off. My point was not if this was acceptable on the part of the driver or not, just that I think the driver is aware of the cyclist. I do not think the driver is intending harm to the cyclist he is just trying to intimidate. The tanker is another story the driver leaves no room at all so is either trying to kill the cyclist or is not aware they are there either way this is much more serious than the van incident IMO and it's criminal it didn't end up in court and that driver is still on the road, I hope I never meet them when cycling.

Origamist

Sketchley wrote:

Yes railings are there, but driver take a very wide line so he has left soem "room", I suspect if he'd taken tighter line cyclist would have put his own safety first and backed off. My point was not if this was acceptable on the part of the driver or not, just that I think the driver is aware of the cyclist. I do not think the driver is intending harm to the cyclist he is just trying to intimidate.

The driver initially takes a wider line, but squeezes the cyclist (the van is easily within touching distance) as they continue after the bend (don't forget - he's got an opposing lane to use if wants to give the cyclist more room). What's more at the time of the incident, you cannot be sure what the driver will do - hence why the cyclist might have been wary of the driver forcing him to the kerb/railings. What isn't in doubt (or it wasn't for the courts) is that the van driver was breaking the law when he overtakes on the zig-zags approaching the zebra crossing.

I don't think the driver intended to hurt the cyclist, but he drove in a manner that endangered another road user through casual disregard...

sketchley

After the bend the cyclist is lining up to pass the parked blue car, so there is a car width between him and the barriers. It's only when they reach the parked car that there is no room. The driver is clearly trying to beat the cyclist to this pinch point to go through first. If I were riding I'd probablly do the same knowing that if the van continued to do what he was doing I could brake and move left. I would certainly of tapped the van as well. If however there was no parked car and the whole thing was happening 3 feet to left after the bend I would have backed off before (and probally gone round and tapped on the window).

At the risk of stating the point again. I do not think the van driver is in the right, as he's not. I also do not think the cyclists should have backed off and avoided the situation as there is for the most part a safe exit.

A simular thing happened to me last week, van driver pulls along side slams on anchors then turns left and indicates at same time when I was only just behind passenger windows. Instant reaction was to brake and let him go round once I knew it was safe tapped the very back of the van. I had no chance to avoid this short of stopping dead on the spot at the last minute. Driver got out shouted abuse including telling me that I should of been looking where he was going :shock: plus I was apparantly a fat f****** c***. This incident is why I've just ordered a camaera for the bike.

BSRU

Origamist wrote:

What isn't in doubt (or it wasn't for the courts) is that the van driver was breaking the law when he overtakes on the zig-zags approaching the zebra crossing.

Unfortunately this is not true, a motorised vehicle cannot overtake another motorised vehicle whilst inside the zig zag area. It is perfectly legal for a car to overtake a cyclist in the zig zag area.
A motorised vehicle cannot overtake a stationary vehicle, including cyclists, which is waiting for pedestrians to cross.
I know this as recently I posted a YouTube video with me being overtaken by a car on a zebra crossing as I thought it was illegal, according to the Highway Code. But on investigation, the legislation quite clearly states it is only illegal for a motorised vehicle to overtake another motorised vehicle.

The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions
Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings

24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—

(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.

(2) In paragraph (1)—

(a)the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and

(b)the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the crossing.

Origamist

BSRU - this is actually very funny - as it was just this (the overtaking of the cyclist on the zig-zags) that supposedly swayed the magistrates (according to Ben who was in court) vis a vis the carleess driving charge!

iwearshorts

In a years worth of commuting I've felt the need to slap the side of a vehicle twice after being put in unnecessary danger. On both occasions they stopped to confront me (they really don't like you touching their precious car). I calmly explained to them why I'd felt the need to get their attention. The first one just ranted at me. Second one accused me of taking up too much of the road (I wasn't) and so I'd wasted precious seconds of his life as he couldn't overtake me. Drivers like that are bullies and the only way you'll teach a bully to behave is to confront them.

Also on both occasions other cyclist stopped and watched proceedings from a distance, I like this, it makes the irate driver nervous.

BSRU

Origamist wrote:

BSRU - this is actually very funny - as it was just this (the overtaking of the cyclist on the zig-zags) that supposedly swayed the magistrates (according to Ben who was in court) vis a vis the carleess driving charge!

I always thought it was illegal to, obviously the magistrates were not clued up on the precise definition of the law instead of the woolly definition in the Highway Code. The legal definition also implies a motorised vehicle cannot pass another motorised vehicle illegally stopped on the zig-zags

Strangely, using your vehicle to bully another road user out of the way, as in the video, is classed as the more serious charge of dangerous driving.

Origamist

BSRU wrote:

Origamist wrote:

BSRU - this is actually very funny - as it was just this (the overtaking of the cyclist on the zig-zags) that supposedly swayed the magistrates (according to Ben who was in court) vis a vis the carleess driving charge!

I always thought it was illegal to, obviously the magistrates were not clued up on the precise definition of the law instead of the woolly definition in the Highway Code. The legal definition also implies a motorised vehicle cannot pass another motorised vehicle illegally stopped on the zig-zags

Welcome to the courts!

rjsterry

BSRU wrote:

Origamist wrote:

What isn't in doubt (or it wasn't for the courts) is that the van driver was breaking the law when he overtakes on the zig-zags approaching the zebra crossing.

Unfortunately this is not true, a motorised vehicle cannot overtake another motorised vehicle whilst inside the zig zag area. It is perfectly legal for a car to overtake a cyclist in the zig zag area.
A motorised vehicle cannot overtake a stationary vehicle, including cyclists, which is waiting for pedestrians to cross.
I know this as recently I posted a YouTube video with me being overtaken by a car on a zebra crossing as I thought it was illegal, according to the Highway Code. But on investigation, the legislation quite clearly states it is only illegal for a motorised vehicle to overtake another motorised vehicle.

The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions
Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings

24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—

(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.

(2) In paragraph (1)—

(a)the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and

(b)the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the crossing.

You'd have thought that it was fairly obvious (especially to people who draft legislation for a living) that the word 'motor' is needlessly limiting in that context. If they'd just left it at 'vehicle' as they did in the next clause, then we'd have a consistent law applicable to all. Perhaps the magistrates were exercising a bit of common sense.

freakybacon

On moneysavingexpert.com in the discussions forum they have managed 8 pages so far on this subject. The usual complaints surfaced in the first page, road tax, insurance, RLJ etc. You would have thought cyclists would be more popular on that forum with our eco friendly healthy mode of transport.... nope! We are down with the tax evaders and benefit cheats!!!

dilemna

freakybacon wrote:

On moneysavingexpert.com in the discussions forum they have managed 8 pages so far on this subject. The usual complaints surfaced in the first page, road tax, insurance, RLJ etc. You would have thought cyclists would be more popular on that forum with our eco friendly healthy mode of transport.... nope! We are down with the tax evaders and benefit cheats!!!

jeremyrundle

iwearshorts wrote:

In a years worth of commuting I've felt the need to slap the side of a vehicle twice after being put in unnecessary danger. On both occasions they stopped to confront me (they really don't like you touching their precious car). I.

So would I and I am a cyclist, it is "provocation" according to the police, the ONLy time I would do it is if there were no other course of action.

Do NOT think I disagree with you, though, I hate pig motorists, but GET A CAM.