I've got a camera you tw*t

bails87

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgUGtD7FY2Q

Bloody hell! What happened to that cretin?

Is that my vid?

If so, the police asked him to write a letter. He expressed his "regret that we bumped into each other".

And that was the end of the matter. The police said the video didn't show anything wrong with the driving, and any other offences were 'only minor'.

keyser__soze

Jeez, that sucks. They completely ignored him assaulting you? :shock:

mybreakfastconsisted

That's depressing.

bails87

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Jeez, that sucks. They completely ignored him assaulting you? :shock:

No, they asked him to write a letter. Clearly that's taking a robust approach to violent crime.



:roll: <-that's at West Mids Police, not you Keyser!

Kieran_Burns

Happy thoughts... happy thoughts!

http://youtu.be/HRBQq1jQlNU?hd=1

bails87

Well despite that, I still can't wait to be back on the bike!

mybreakfastconsisted

Yeah, stay happy, the ride in can be the best part of the day. But..

twice in the last fortnight I've had car drivers deliberately swerve at me. A car was waiting at a tricky junction, not indicating, as I approached a narrow gap and passed him he jerked forward a foot towards me. I realised then he was waiting to turn right, if he'd indicated I would have waved him across. "Teaching me a lesson" I guess, the big cock knobber.

peat

bails87 wrote:

Peat wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I agree, don't be a knob head, whatever your form of transport, but I don't see why a camera makes you one.

Sub-consciously justifying your purchase?

I'm sorry, but I have genuinely no idea what you're talking about.

My camera was 'justified' when it meant that I was able to get my bike repairs and private physio treatment paid for by a driver's insurance rather than out of my own pocket.

Sorry, i meant the global 'your'. Not you in particular.

With some of these cases in point, it does seem like some of the youtube-hero's ride around looking for trouble and activley revel in it, reminding all involved that 'I've got a camera you tw*t'. That is where my comment came from.

Now, if the very wearing of the camera induces this or not is debatable. I would say that the tosser-gene was already present in the subject.

mybreakfastconsisted

it does seem like some of the youtube-hero's ride around looking for trouble

Anyone in mind?

bails87

Peat wrote:

Sorry, i meant the global 'your'. Not you in particular.

With some of these cases in point, it does seem like some of the youtube-hero's ride around looking for trouble and activley revel in it, reminding all involved that 'I've got a camera you tw*t'. That is where my comment came from.

Now, if the very wearing of the camera induces this or not is debatable. I would say that the tosser-gene was already present in the subject.

Ah sorry, I see what you mean. If only we were french, tu or vous really helps!
But yes, I agree with you, the "put your reg into youtube" annoys me too.

mybreakfastconsisted

There is that chap in Bristol who rides like a muppet, you know the one who collided with the woman on the shared-use path. No need..

Found it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wIDCosIt8E

completely avoidable and you just cannot sound angry with that accent.

slowbike

bails87 wrote:

Yep, camera's definitely have a way of making stuff look further away than it actually is. I've had videos where I've been clipped by a passing car, but if it wasn't for the "thunk" you'd watch the video and think that the car was close, but not that close.

No - I would think that car was TOO close - and the drivers response totally inappropriate ...

bails87 wrote:

I have no problem with shouting at drivers if they're about to squash me. "WHOOOOAAA" is our equivalent of a horn .

That's what I use too ... and I do have a loud voice ...

bails87

Slowbike wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Yep, camera's definitely have a way of making stuff look further away than it actually is. I've had videos where I've been clipped by a passing car, but if it wasn't for the "thunk" you'd watch the video and think that the car was close, but not that close.

No - I would think that car was TOO close - and the drivers response totally inappropriate ...

Ah, well the police didn't think there was anything wrong with it!

slowbike

bails87 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Yep, camera's definitely have a way of making stuff look further away than it actually is. I've had videos where I've been clipped by a passing car, but if it wasn't for the "thunk" you'd watch the video and think that the car was close, but not that close.

No - I would think that car was TOO close - and the drivers response totally inappropriate ...

Ah, well the police didn't think there was anything wrong with it!

Hmm ... yes .. Police ... sometimes you get the wrong one ...

DonDaddyD

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

I don't think you'll hear many arguments from people here Slowbike. Those who regularly post videos of their altercations with motorists on Youtube are well known for having a certain knack for seeking out trouble.

Utter rubbish.

I disagree with some of bassjunkie's and Cyclegaz's videos (I've openly referred to them as camera crusaders) and the perception it creates of cyclist. However I don't believe they actively go looking for trouble. I have also ridden with bassjunkie, he is an awesome cyclist, seasoned and competent. I think you have misrepresented these people.

The issue I take is that the videos containing altercations with motorists is not balanced with equal amount of positive encounters.

pastryboy

Every time a youtube clip comes up I end up watching the linked videos and regret it.

There's a few genuinely shocking things but most of them are either complete non-issues or much worse, whinging cyclists who are actually at fault.

This is a prime example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJVgFw7 ... re=related

Poor, poor riding. Was so obvious what was going to happen.

First.Aspect

I have a big Exposure light which I pretend is a camera to dissuade people from assaulting me.

That's a lie, but I've thought about it.

slowbike

pastryboy wrote:

Every time a youtube clip comes up I end up watching the linked videos and regret it.

There's a few genuinely shocking things but most of them are either complete non-issues or much worse, whinging cyclists who are actually at fault.

This is a prime example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJVgFw7 ... re=related

Poor, poor riding. Was so obvious what was going to happen.

I Wouldn't be happy with the speed either the 3rd cyclist left them for dust!bathe other two were flippin slow!

slowbike

DonDaddyD wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

I don't think you'll hear many arguments from people here Slowbike. Those who regularly post videos of their altercations with motorists on Youtube are well known for having a certain knack for seeking out trouble.

Utter rubbish.

I disagree with some of bassjunkie's and Cyclegaz's videos (I've openly referred to them as camera crusaders) and the perception it creates of cyclist. However I don't believe they actively go looking for trouble. I have also ridden with bassjunkie, he is an awesome cyclist, seasoned and competent. I think you have misrepresented these people.

The issue I take is that the videos containing altercations with motorists is not balanced with equal amount of positive encounters.

A couple of cgs vids do seem a little whining about a non issue - if you're going to cycle in traffic then vehicles will get close.

Actually - perhaps that is it - a lot of the vids are in London complaining about cars passing them about a foot away. At the speed difference a foot may be acceptable - try that when the passing vehicle is doing 60 like I sometimes get !!

jds_1981

In an attempt to bring some balance to the equation, car 'helmet-cam' videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3XBE-rK ... r_embedded

rick_chasey

People behave differently when they think they have proof they're right.

DonDaddyD

Slowbike wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

A couple of cgs vids do seem a little whining about a non issue - if you're going to cycle in traffic then vehicles will get close.

Actually - perhaps that is it - a lot of the vids are in London complaining about cars passing them about a foot away. At the speed difference a foot may be acceptable - try that when the passing vehicle is doing 60 like I sometimes get !!

You cannot take a video and assume that is their entire commute. Its a film of one incident during a commute over a 7 dayperiod. These guys ride ssomewhere between 10 and 20 miles.

That said I have questioned whether they enjoy cycling because the sheer volume of examples they have of bad driving and subsequent arguments would suggest they do not or perhaps should not.

But as I said, that's a perception these films create.

First.Aspect

Slowbike wrote:

A couple of cgs vids do seem a little whining about a non issue - if you're going to cycle in traffic then vehicles will get close.

Actually - perhaps that is it - a lot of the vids are in London complaining about cars passing them about a foot away. At the speed difference a foot may be acceptable - try that when the passing vehicle is doing 60 like I sometimes get !!

Perhaps you are speaking figuritively, but I don't know that a foot is ever acceptable. How long is your arm? How do indicate if a car passes a foot away from you? Broken hand? Broken elbow?
Its not even acceptable if you are filtering really. I certainly wouldn't want a cyclist that close to my car. Although when the cyclist is filtering, less than 100kg is moving, whereas when a car passes a bike, 1500kg is moving, so the physics is considerably less favourable.

slowbike

First Aspect wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

A couple of cgs vids do seem a little whining about a non issue - if you're going to cycle in traffic then vehicles will get close.

Actually - perhaps that is it - a lot of the vids are in London complaining about cars passing them about a foot away. At the speed difference a foot may be acceptable - try that when the passing vehicle is doing 60 like I sometimes get !!

Perhaps you are speaking figuritively, but I don't know that a foot is ever acceptable. How long is your arm? How do indicate if a car passes a foot away from you? Broken hand? Broken elbow?
Its not even acceptable if you are filtering really. I certainly wouldn't want a cyclist that close to my car. Although when the cyclist is filtering, less than 100kg is moving, whereas when a car passes a bike, 1500kg is moving, so the physics is considerably less favourable.

I've certainly had cars pass within a foot of me - not at high speed though ... high speed "close" tends to be at around arms length.

If you look at traffic moving slowly - it is usually much closer than traffic moving at speed. Perhaps some cyclists don't accept that the reduced clearance is acceptable - perhaps it isn't?! We all have our comfort zones and they're not identical ...
Cyclists certainly do pass close to cars - you see it all the time - especially in the vids - ok - they are a little more agile than a car - but surely they should afford the vehicle the same level of clearance they are expecting the vehicle to give them?

gtvlusso

DonDaddyD wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

A couple of cgs vids do seem a little whining about a non issue - if you're going to cycle in traffic then vehicles will get close.

Actually - perhaps that is it - a lot of the vids are in London complaining about cars passing them about a foot away. At the speed difference a foot may be acceptable - try that when the passing vehicle is doing 60 like I sometimes get !!

You cannot take a video and assume that is their entire commute. Its a film of one incident during a commute over a 7 dayperiod. These guys ride ssomewhere between 10 and 20 miles.

That said I have questioned whether they enjoy cycling because the sheer volume of examples they have of bad driving and subsequent arguments would suggest they do not or perhaps should not.

But as I said, that's a perception these films create.

+1 with DDD.

Kieran_Burns

I may have to do a montage of gorgeous Horse Riders - I passed a lovely lady riding towards the Riding Centre this morning, and the Mother and Daughter combo from a couple of weeks back... <wibble>

and people wonder why having a camera is a good idea

Accident liability? Recording personal achievements? Education? Nope. Perving? Yep.

gtvlusso

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I may have to do a montage of gorgeous Horse Riders - I passed a lovely lady riding towards the Riding Centre this morning, and the Mother and Daughter combo from a couple of weeks back... <wibble>

and people wonder why having a camera is a good idea

Accident liability? Recording personal achievements? Education? Nope. Perving? Yep.

+1 with this too....!

If you want to use a cam do it for:

1, fun - mountain biking, fast road riding - recording races.
2, perving
3, because you enjoy video editing
4, 'just in case the worst happens'
5, you are not a confident rider and need the feeling of security
6, you are rich and can afford the cameras and equipment

don't do it:

1, to allegedly educate someone (revenge by proxy) - they don't educate anyone, it is car crash TV viewing.
2, revenge by putting reg numbers on youtube
3, to be safer....a camera does not make you safer

joenobody

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I may have to do a montage of gorgeous Horse Riders

Please do

Origamist

Yeah, this cycle cam prurience angle has real potential. How about free Contour HD cameras for registered peedohfiles who cycle? You could also throw in a handy cycle-route map that takes in the local parks, playgrounds, swimming pools etc...

#privateyefromthemessageboards

rjsterry

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I may have to do a montage of gorgeous Horse Riders

So is that riders of gorgeous horses or...