I've got a camera you tw*t

Kieran_Burns

rjsterry wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I may have to do a montage of gorgeous Horse Riders

So is that riders of gorgeous horses or...

rjsterry

I saw the pictures the first time, but that doesn't answer the question does it

Ooo, look at those fetlocks...

bails87

rjsterry wrote:

I saw the pictures the first time, but that doesn't answer the question does it

Ooo, look at those fetlocks...

Kieran_Burns wrote:

horses wearing not a lot!

I think we all know who/what KB has got a soft spot for. :shock:

mybreakfastconsisted

Look at the size of the horse! She's clearly happiest with lots of hands between her legs.

ManiaMuse

I agree that a lot of the video camera cyclists do tend to attract a surprising high number of incidents, at least compared to my commutes. And on some of them the language and behaviour from the cyclist

On the other hand, a lot of the videos do show really poor and/or dangerous driving.

However I do not agree with the bit where you say cyclists shouldn't hold up drivers getting to the back of a queue.

Why?

A cyclist has every right to claim the road if traffic is moving at the same speed/stationary. I hate filtering on the left so it pisses me off when drivers overtake and then slam on the brakes at the back of a queue so I have to swing out and re-overtake. I personally find that I often do drivers a favour because they slow down more gradually instead of accelerating towards a queue and wasting fuel.

jonny_trousers

ManiaMuse wrote:

However I do not agree with the bit where you say cyclists shouldn't hold up drivers getting to the back of a queue.

Why?

A cyclist has every right to claim the road if traffic is moving at the same speed/stationary. I hate filtering on the left so it pisses me off when drivers overtake and then slam on the brakes at the back of a queue so I have to swing out and re-overtake. I personally find that I often do drivers a favour because they slow down more gradually instead of accelerating towards a queue and wasting fuel.

From a practical standpoint you are quite right, and if you really can show that you are going the same speed as the traffic in front of you then no problem, but the danger with forcing drivers behind you to slow to anything less than say 20mph (even if they are soon going to have to slow to join the queue ahead) is the frustration it inevitably builds in them. It may be completely irrational, but causing a driver to slow to a speed where they feel they could open the door and walk at the same pace (even if obviously they could not) creates resentment of the perceived cause of the hold up and sadly with many motorists, results in aggression. I try to let motor vehicles past whenever it is safe for me to do so, even if it does just mean me carefully filtering past them a few hundred metres down the road.

Also, as a related aside, most cyclists I've heard of being attacked by motorists are the ones who make deliberate contact with the vehicle. It's probably some extension-of-the-body thing. A bit like prodding someone in the chest. I think the only time I would risk slapping a car would be if it saved me from coming off by doing so.

slowbike

ManiaMuse wrote:

However I do not agree with the bit where you say cyclists shouldn't hold up drivers getting to the back of a queue.

Why?

Because you don't know the drivers intention - are they going to join the back of the queue or turn off - can you see the queue? Do you know it's there - does the driver? Perhaps the driver doesn't know the road and thinks you are holding them up.

I hold up cars on a couple of stretches of my commute - where it is not safe to overtake (blind bends) - I think I've been fortunate not to have been hooted on these sections - but I do say thanks once we're on the next straight and they come past.
But I'm not riding in a city - I don't think the drivers are as frustrated!

DonDaddyD

As a driver I hate having to sit behind a cyclist. Maybe they can hold 20 - 33mph. At those speeds (and this is the bit where being a cyclist is useful) I know that their braking speed distance is going to be, at best, touch and go.

As a cyclist I hate vehicles behind me. I know my braking is going to be different to theirs, they can't gauge my speed, my rate of braking or be forwarned about my braking if I don't have lights.

Besides which no matter how awesome I am, I cannot match a cars acceleration or ability to hold a continuous speed. So I'd rather they overtake me as quickly as possible. If that means moving in when there is a gap between parked cars to let them (usually 1 or 2) through then I'll do that. They are out of my way, I am out of theirs we can both do what we want on the road.

I do think there is an element of petulance on both sides at times. Cyclist refusing to move in, give way, brake or even stop to keep traffic moving, simply because they have right of way. Then there are motorists that quite literally bully cyclists off the road.

Sure, use the videos to demonstrate the most dangerous, most careless of these examples (offset with examples of most safe and most careful). But by posting every single questionable encounter with a vehicle must just leave the person angry and disgruntled - which is being displayed in some of those videos. It creates an image of an angry protesting cyclists and no one wants to listen to them.

Cycling is supposed to be fun.

Tricycleboy

I hold folks up where i have to.

And i think thats the key- if you have to then do it.

And when you're clear of the pinch point or blind bend or whatever and they overtake, give em a thumbs up in acknowledgement, and they won't mind having been held up or be a dick to the next guy up the road. This even works on the mean streets of london.

Sod wearing a camera- i don't need the stress.

Kieran_Burns

Don? are you watching my vids at all?

jonny_trousers

Tricycleboy wrote:

And when you're clear of the pinch point or blind bend or whatever and they overtake, give em a thumbs up in acknowledgement, and they won't mind having been held up or be a dick to the next guy up the road. This even works on the mean streets of london.

I always do this. It makes the motorist feel good about what they did, even if they didn't intend to. Next time around they might remember that cyclists are appreciative of them taking their time.

bails87

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Don? are you watching my vids at all?

Wearing a cam doesn't stress me out, I don't think it stresses KB out either. I thank drivers who give me space, I get thumbs ups or waves back when I do so.

I love how using a cam makes me a self righteous cycling warrior/lycra lout who doesn't give an inch to the evil puppy stamping drivers

People are idiots. If you put a camera on them, and put 'highlights' of their journey on youtube then you can see that they're an idiot. That doesn't mean that they weren't an idiot before they had the cam, or that people without cams are automatically not idiots.

jonny_trousers

bails87 wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Don? are you watching my vids at all?

Wearing a cam doesn't stress me out, I don't think it stresses KB out either. I thank drivers who give me space, I get thumbs ups or waves back when I do so.

I love how using a cam makes me a self righteous cycling warrior/lycra lout who doesn't give an inch to the evil puppy stamping drivers

People are idiots. If you put a camera on them, and put 'highlights' of their journey on youtube then you can see that they're an idiot. That doesn't mean that they weren't an idiot before they had the cam, or that people without cams are automatically not idiots.

Ah, this whole thread is yet another example of generalising within the cycling community. There will be headcam wearing knobbers who go looking for trouble just so they can post it up on Youtube and there will be people who use one because they like the added security of having a record of any potential altercation. I don't use a webcam simply because I can find too many other things to spend my money on, but I can definitely see the benefits to wearing one.

First.Aspect

If you don't change a motorist's journey time, you aren't holding them up.

One rider per bike, usually one driver per car. Why should my journey time be any less important?

Let drivers past if its safe, but by the same token don't criticise cyclists who take the primary on the run up to a red light.

Slowbike, pardon me for saying but while I'm sure you cycle, you have some odd ideas about cycling.

DonDaddyD

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Don? are you watching my vids at all?

^You have vids?

Kieran_Burns

DonDaddyD wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Don? are you watching my vids at all?

^You have vids?

I AM using a cream though

Kieran_Burns

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Tricycleboy wrote:

And when you're clear of the pinch point or blind bend or whatever and they overtake, give em a thumbs up in acknowledgement, and they won't mind having been held up or be a dick to the next guy up the road. This even works on the mean streets of london.

I always do this. It makes the motorist feel good about what they did, even if they didn't intend to. Next time around they might remember that cyclists are appreciative of them taking their time.

*cough* http://youtu.be/9U94jr60Pfw?hd=1 *cough*

A vid for all occasions

jonny_trousers

First Aspect wrote:

If you don't change a motorist's journey time, you aren't holding them up.

One rider per bike, usually one driver per car. Why should my journey time be any less important?

You are, of course, quite right, but the issue isn't so much about being right, it's about drivers' perception. It's about trying not to antagonise if you can help it. Obviously riding in primary makes sense if it is the only safe thing for you to do, but I've noticed a few cyclists out there who have a touch of belligerence about the way they feel they have a right to hold up the flow of the traffic, even if they could allow frustrated motorists to pass by without putting themselves in danger (pointlessly or otherwise).

ManiaMuse

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

ManiaMuse wrote:

However I do not agree with the bit where you say cyclists shouldn't hold up drivers getting to the back of a queue.

Why?

A cyclist has every right to claim the road if traffic is moving at the same speed/stationary. I hate filtering on the left so it pisses me off when drivers overtake and then slam on the brakes at the back of a queue so I have to swing out and re-overtake. I personally find that I often do drivers a favour because they slow down more gradually instead of accelerating towards a queue and wasting fuel.

From a practical standpoint you are quite right, and if you really can show that you are going the same speed as the traffic in front of you then no problem, but the danger with forcing drivers behind you to slow to anything less than say 20mph (even if they are soon going to have to slow to join the queue ahead) is the frustration it inevitably builds in them. It may be completely irrational, but causing a driver to slow to a speed where they feel they could open the door and walk at the same pace (even if obviously they could not) creates resentment of the perceived cause of the hold up and sadly with many motorists, results in aggression. I try to let motor vehicles past whenever it is safe for me to do so, even if it does just mean me carefully filtering past them a few hundred metres down the road.

Don't get me wrong, I don't deliberately hold up cars. But I don't cave in and cycle in the gutter to let a driver past when it is pointless either. Often drivers are so fixated on overtaking a cyclist that they don't consider what, if any, advantage they will gain from doing so.

I guess it helps that I am a fast cyclist. I was more talking about the drivers who drive up alongside me and overtake me really slowly at a speed differential of only 1-2mph and then immediately slow down to join a queue, effectively boxing me and forcing me to docey-do around them because most of the time I want to overtake them on the right.

Am I really holding them up? Assuming they are going the same way as me I will beat 95% of London traffic so I'm going to overtake them at some point anyway.

First.Aspect

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

If you don't change a motorist's journey time, you aren't holding them up.

One rider per bike, usually one driver per car. Why should my journey time be any less important?

You are, of course, quite right, but the issue isn't so much about being right, it's about drivers' perception. It's about trying not to antagonise if you can help it. Obviously riding in primary makes sense if it is the only safe thing for you to do, but I've noticed a few cyclists out there who have a touch of belligerence about the way they feel they have a right to hold up the flow of the traffic, even if they could allow frustrated motorists to pass by without putting themselves in danger (pointlessly or otherwise).

I think we are agreeing with each other, to be honest. Let people past where its safe (almost all of the time), but take the primary in the run up to lights, at pinch points, blind bends, etc.

I can be a fine line between belligerent and defensive cycling, but ManiaMuse desribes the latter. A half overtake, particularly by larger vehicles, is dangerous. I'd rather be "annoying" and safe in the primary than compliant and crushed.

slowbike

First Aspect wrote:

Slowbike, pardon me for saying but while I'm sure you cycle, you have some odd ideas about cycling.

I do cycle. - another pr for a hill segment this afternoon - not quite sure how because it didn't feel fast! No issues with cars at all. The combine this morning was a little unexpected and going a little too fast along the lane - but we didn't collide - so why worry.

Odd ideas about cycling? I don't think so - been doing it for a good number of years both in countryside and London suburbs - only ever been knocked off in London (door opening) and only ever been punched in countryside - police took a dim view of a motorist punching a child - yup it was that long ago!

First.Aspect

At the very least you make defensive cycling sound like an alien concept. And you (not only you, mind) seem to buy into the idea that cars should be allowed past, even if it is to immediately stop. I disagree because that's usually dangerous.

I do think you have a point about some camera warriors. However I can see how one would get to the poit of posting every near thing on the internet as a catharsis.

Far be it from me to change your views on "it was a bit close but they didn't hit me so its okay", but the one time "its a bit close and they clipped me", you end up in hospital. From that I take the position that its "okay" because of luck and not good judgement, which is not okay.

Agent57

Here's a bit of balance.

Manchester city centre, evening rush hour. No one tries to kill me and I don't shout at anyone, despite the drivers in my cycle lane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTSi3FI0CFs

Am I a saint? The video has a dislike - probably a cyclecam warrior who thinks I'm letting the side down.

bails87

Agent57, the dislike is probably because it's really boring!

thelawnet

First Aspect wrote:

If you don't change a motorist's journey time, you aren't holding them up.

One rider per bike, usually one driver per car. Why should my journey time be any less important?

Three on my bike usually. One in a car.

Pah, get out of my way.

Agent57

bails87 wrote:

Agent57, the dislike is probably because it's really boring!

Heheh, yep! But that's the point. Most rides are like that - nothing much happens. All we normally see on YouTube are the edited "lowlights" from the cam warriors - I know, I've done it myself...

bails87

Agent57 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Agent57, the dislike is probably because it's really boring!

Heheh, yep! But that's the point. Most rides are like that - nothing much happens. All we normally see on YouTube are the edited "lowlights" from the cam warriors - I know, I've done it myself...

I know, that's kind of my point too, the normal 'nothing happened' stuff isn't interesting.

'man bites dog', and all that.

bails87

bails87 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I saw the pictures the first time, but that doesn't answer the question does it

Ooo, look at those fetlocks...

Kieran_Burns wrote:

horses wearing not a lot!

I think we all know who/what KB has got a soft spot for. :shock:

Just for you, KB:

Check out these three fillies, spotted on my ride today!

king_jeffers

This guy ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5swR7HFySs8&feature=plcp

Does no one any favours... worth a look at his channel. Dunno why but the video I've linked is really dunny... think its the extended insult

il_principe

Could the thread tile be titled - "I've got a camera, I'm a tw*t"

Contentious maybe, but a lot of these helmet cam wielding wannabe vigilantes are complete t00ls.