The war on Britains roads, 5th Dec BBC

walkingbootweather

I'm sure we could put together a more suitable play list How about:

First Cut is the Deepest - Rod Stewart

Going Underground - The Jam

Who wants to live forever? - Queen

(I Just) Died in Your Arms - Cutting Crew

CiB

Surely Don't Fear The Reaper, closely followed by Stairway To Heaven.

Or for those undergoing the snip as discussed in depth on here recently, it could only be Never Mind The Bollocks.

That's me done.

Ron Stuart

This overview by Nigel Wynn is about right....... http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... roads.html

What is probably even more worrying it this idiots overview.... Ian Austin MP, co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, described it: "stupid, sensationalist, simplistic, irresponsible nonsense"

He must be confusing it with 'I'm a moron get me out of here' surely?

It certainly doesn't look good for the future of cycling on our roads if this is the best our government of the day can drag up for the job of co-chair :shock:

Cycloslalomeur

PeteMadoc wrote:

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

Flanders (or maybe Wallonia as well but I've never seen a French-language plate) used to have a bicycle registration scheme complete with licence plates and, yes, vehicle excise duty. It was abolished quite some time ago, probably for being more trouble than it was worth, but I often see bicycles whose owners never bothered to remove the plate from their machine.

OMG I want one of these!! Where can I get one?

http://www.2dehands.be/verzamelen/overi ... pl=&pc_id=

http://www.2ememain.be/collections/coll ... divers/numéros-d-immatriculation/?qq=plaque+velo&afd=collections%2Fcollections-divers%2Fnuméros-d-immatriculation&pcpl=&pc_id=

Wallonia definitely ran a bicycle registration scheme too.

MattMTB

Just watched the programme- thought it was terrible.

If I see cyclegaz on the road I might have a go at him myself! Came across like an idiot.

daddy0

I've not commented yet. I think the BBC really set up cyclegaz. If you watch his Silly Cyclist YouTube channel you will realise that he is actually a pretty safe cyclist and has the best of intentions. He's not adverse to criticising himself on his own YouTube clips too.

I think the BBC did their best to try to make him look like a Silly Cyclist himself. At no point did they inform the viewer that he runs his own channel to try to promote safe cycling. They pretty much ran a character assassination piece on him.

Sure he can be a bit awkward, and the clapping clip didn't paint him in a favourable light. But pretty much all of his bits were taken out of context or edited in a way that made him look bad. Watch some Silly Cyclist videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/sillycyclists

I've met the cycle droid guy. He is a bit strange. I think he thinks he's on some holy mission or something.

It was good to see a program about cycling, but it probably did just as much harm as good. It concentrated too much on bad cyclists, and was too kind on the motorists. The police winker going on about whistles and ding ding bells needs telling too, what a twunt!

The BBC should know better. I am complaining!

Cycloslalomeur

Although it's not the sort of programme I would have made, motorists did not come away squeaky clean either in my opinion. There were two occasions of motorists shooting themselves in the foot by claiming they had been nowhere near a cyclist after complaining that a cyclist had slapped their precious tinfoil box. Then there was the cabby whose account of his manoeuvres clashed with the video evidence. He also came up with that shocking thinly veiled deaththreat I've heard all too many times. Featuring the messenger racing footage was of course glaringly biased against cyclists.

rjsterry

Daddy0 wrote:

I've not commented yet. I think the BBC really set up cyclegaz. If you watch his Silly Cyclist YouTube channel you will realise that he is actually a pretty safe cyclist and has the best of intentions. He's not adverse to criticising himself on his own YouTube clips too.

I think the BBC did their best to try to make him look like a Silly Cyclist himself. At no point did they inform the viewer that he runs his own channel to try to promote safe cycling. They pretty much ran a character assassination piece on him.

Sure he can be a bit awkward, and the clapping clip didn't paint him in a favourable light. But pretty much all of his bits were taken out of context or edited in a way that made him look bad. Watch some Silly Cyclist videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/sillycyclists

I've met the cycle droid guy. He is a bit strange. I think he thinks he's on some holy mission or something.

It was good to see a program about cycling, but it probably did just as much harm as good. It concentrated too much on bad cyclists, and was too kind on the motorists. The police winker going on about whistles and ding ding bells needs telling too, what a twunt!

The BBC should know better. I am complaining!

+1. Given how unrepresentative the rest of the programme was, I'm surprised so many are taking the portrayal of the various contributors at face value. Their interviews will have been edited to fit the 'story' as much as everything else.

vermin

rjsterry wrote:

Daddy0 wrote:

I've not commented yet. I think the BBC really set up cyclegaz. If you watch his Silly Cyclist YouTube channel you will realise that he is actually a pretty safe cyclist and has the best of intentions. He's not adverse to criticising himself on his own YouTube clips too.

I think the BBC did their best to try to make him look like a Silly Cyclist himself. At no point did they inform the viewer that he runs his own channel to try to promote safe cycling. They pretty much ran a character assassination piece on him.

Sure he can be a bit awkward, and the clapping clip didn't paint him in a favourable light. But pretty much all of his bits were taken out of context or edited in a way that made him look bad. Watch some Silly Cyclist videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/sillycyclists

I've met the cycle droid guy. He is a bit strange. I think he thinks he's on some holy mission or something.

It was good to see a program about cycling, but it probably did just as much harm as good. It concentrated too much on bad cyclists, and was too kind on the motorists. The police winker going on about whistles and ding ding bells needs telling too, what a twunt!

The BBC should know better. I am complaining!

+1. Given how unrepresentative the rest of the programme was, I'm surprised so many are taking the portrayal of the various contributors at face value. Their interviews will have been edited to fit the 'story' as much as everything else.

See, you're using the word 'story' too now - something's sinking in. :P

il_principe

rjsterry wrote:

Daddy0 wrote:

I've not commented yet. I think the BBC really set up cyclegaz. If you watch his Silly Cyclist YouTube channel you will realise that he is actually a pretty safe cyclist and has the best of intentions. He's not adverse to criticising himself on his own YouTube clips too.

I think the BBC did their best to try to make him look like a Silly Cyclist himself. At no point did they inform the viewer that he runs his own channel to try to promote safe cycling. They pretty much ran a character assassination piece on him.

Sure he can be a bit awkward, and the clapping clip didn't paint him in a favourable light. But pretty much all of his bits were taken out of context or edited in a way that made him look bad. Watch some Silly Cyclist videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/sillycyclists

I've met the cycle droid guy. He is a bit strange. I think he thinks he's on some holy mission or something.

It was good to see a program about cycling, but it probably did just as much harm as good. It concentrated too much on bad cyclists, and was too kind on the motorists. The police winker going on about whistles and ding ding bells needs telling too, what a twunt!

The BBC should know better. I am complaining!

+1. Given how unrepresentative the rest of the programme was, I'm surprised so many are taking the portrayal of the various contributors at face value. Their interviews will have been edited to fit the 'story' as much as everything else.

To be fair, Gaz used to post on here, and I've met him a few times, so my opinion not formed solely on that show. Personally I think filming your commute and then putting it on youtube is fairly weird behaviour (unless you want to track down someone i.e the assault shown), but taking it upon yourself to 'educate' fellow cyclists etc is pretty f*cking arrogant. It's not like he's the most experienced cyclist either. I'm not going to comment on cycledroid. What I will say is that IMHO helmet cammers seem to attract more than their fair share of aggro.

DonDaddyD

I didn't watch it, didn't plan to and won't ever watch it.

I have no time for these cycling-camera-vigilantes. The amount of complaining they do sucks the fun and enjoyable element from cycling. Sure they enjoy their faux urban warrior persona, me? Whenever I happen across their youtube clips I'm very rarely left with the feeling of wanting to ride my bike. I've often said that their intentions my be just, the execution is counter productive.

All it does is feed a 'them and us' tribal mentality.

And no, motorists aren't innocent either.

gtvlusso

Looks like what goes around, comes around - Admittedly this is from the dailyfail and I deplore this whole abuse by proxy that can occur through social networking/social media:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mailonline

What did Gaz really expect would happen?

Educational, yeah, right.....Whatever. I just don't want to be associated with this sh*t on either side - I just wanna cycle to work as I have done daily for the best part of 20 years, still pedaling away, enjoying it some days, hating it on other days and with very few incidents.....2 This year, from memory and neither was particularly worthy of note.

Thanks Gaz, thanks for promoting 'War on Britains roads' - It has really done nothing for cyclists or motorists other than entrench an already divided road users network. And now I feel that just by riding a bike, drivers will associate me with your stupid antics and 'The Droids' idiocy......for the last 20 years or so, it has been fine and then t0sspots like you came along with a camera and pi$$ed on it for everyone else - And now that you and 'The Droid' have opened your fat mouths, filmed and uploaded to social media sites you have started the f*cking war.....pr*t.

rjsterry

vermin wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Daddy0 wrote:

I've not commented yet. I think the BBC really set up cyclegaz. If you watch his Silly Cyclist YouTube channel you will realise that he is actually a pretty safe cyclist and has the best of intentions. He's not adverse to criticising himself on his own YouTube clips too.

I think the BBC did their best to try to make him look like a Silly Cyclist himself. At no point did they inform the viewer that he runs his own channel to try to promote safe cycling. They pretty much ran a character assassination piece on him.

Sure he can be a bit awkward, and the clapping clip didn't paint him in a favourable light. But pretty much all of his bits were taken out of context or edited in a way that made him look bad. Watch some Silly Cyclist videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/sillycyclists

I've met the cycle droid guy. He is a bit strange. I think he thinks he's on some holy mission or something.

It was good to see a program about cycling, but it probably did just as much harm as good. It concentrated too much on bad cyclists, and was too kind on the motorists. The police winker going on about whistles and ding ding bells needs telling too, what a twunt!

The BBC should know better. I am complaining!

+1. Given how unrepresentative the rest of the programme was, I'm surprised so many are taking the portrayal of the various contributors at face value. Their interviews will have been edited to fit the 'story' as much as everything else.

See, you're using the word 'story' too now - something's sinking in. :P

Arf. Fairy tale would be more accurate.

daddy0

I ride with a helmet cam. Decided to get one after I witnessed a cyclist get left hooked by a car that then drove off right in front of me. If I'd had a camera I'd have got the number plate and probably would've got a dangerous individual off the road.

I watch back anything thats "interesting", but pretty much delete all the footage a day or two later. I don't feel the need to upload any little near miss to YouTube. Most of my journeys are uneventful, probably because most of the time I'm pretty safe.

When I was getting into commuting again earlier this year I watched all the Silly Cyclist videos and I did learn a few tips. For this I am grateful to Gaz, he has helped to make me a better cyclist. If you've been commuting for a number of years already then you're not going to learn anything from his videos, and I acknowledge that they can be a bit mundane. So they're not for everyone. But I don't think he's being arrogant - quite the contrary, he points out his own mistakes too. Bless 'im :-)

bails87

Although it's not the sort of programme I would have made, motorists did not come away squeaky clean either in my opinion. There were two occasions of motorists shooting themselves in the foot by claiming they had been nowhere near a cyclist after complaining that a cyclist had slapped their precious tinfoil box.

Thing is, most motorists probably don't know that if you can touch a car then it's too close. So they're probably thinking "he wasn't going to hit the cyclist, he wasn't too close, and that mad cyclist hit the car for no reason". It's not done out of malice, just ignorance. They simply don't know how it feels to be passed at 60mph with a couple of inches of space, or have a car doing 25-30mph squeezing you into the kerb. So they assume no collision=no problem.

One thing I've seen several times is drivers saying that us cyclists are moaning unnecessarily. Cars and lorries drive inches away from each other at 70mph on motorways all the time, without complaining, so why do we moan when a car gives us the same space at a much lower speed? But I thought about this last time I was driving on a motorway, in actual fact the lanes are massive. If every car that went past me on the bike was as far apart as the cars on a motorway I'd feel a lot safer. the typical UK motorway lane is 3.75m wide, a typical car is 2m wide, so a car will typically be 1.75m or almost 6 feet away from the car in the next lane. And plenty of drivers seem to think that this is 'close'. And yet they can't understand that a foot is 'close' for a cyclist. I think it's a perception/experience thing.

The police officer on the bike really messed up with the taxi too IMO. Several witnesses all saying they're being driven at by a driver, the driver says "you know what they're like" and the PC says "yep, you've done nothing wrong, carry on" :shock:

But then I tried to raise the issue of particularly endemic mobile phone use in one specific spot on my commute with the police. It's a place where drivers routinely start driving while staring at the phone in their lap because they'v picked up, in the periphery of their vision, that the bus/truck in front has moved forwards so they assume it's clear. Unfortunately, they haven't seen me in front of them so drive towards me and I have to wave my arms/shout/jump around like a crazy person to get them to look up and stop accelerating at me. I told the officer this and was told "well that's the problem with cycling, you're not always very visible are you". :roll:

DonDaddyD

People have been cycling for decades and not needed cyclegaz or youtube to 'learn' how to ride safely.

Ironically, learning to drive made me a better cyclist and road user in general, others cite the age old Cyclecraft and trained instructors like EKE (I know we don't always see eye2eye but 'chapeau' by the way).

I mean f*ck me, even Sheldon Brown (RIP) didn't show as much hubris as Gaz, Droid et al.

mrbobuk

iPete wrote:

Seen the ad for this earlier, seems threads on here asking for head cam footage have finally been turned into a show. Looks awful, everyone is going to think cycling is for loons but who knows, might be balanced, think it'll be too cringeworthy to watch.

The ad even had some alley cat footage

I've not read any of this thread but I thought the majority of the documentary was weird and ill-presented. It displayed cyclists as a bit strange. The black guy with the camera telling people to get off mobiles and pulling the cyclist back that went through the lights, made me feel wholly uneasy - I'd say embarrassed. It made cyclists look a bit like train spotters and although raised the profile of the dangers of cycling, did more harm than good in my own opinion.

Just my two farthing.

fossyant

It's one TV programme. It's caused a few feathers to be ruffled. It will be forgotten about soon. Just how many 'Road Wars' episodes are there and similer ? (the cop V idiots in vehicles programmes) No-one bats an eyelid.

We've got one TV show about it, that's all. Day in day out, riding bike is pretty trouble free. The same few idiots that make it difficult for cyclists, are the same idiots making it difficult for everyone.

Unfortunately, the editing of the programme wasn't favourable, if it was there wouldn't be a TV programme.

Cycloslalomeur

bails87 wrote:

Although it's not the sort of programme I would have made, motorists did not come away squeaky clean either in my opinion. There were two occasions of motorists shooting themselves in the foot by claiming they had been nowhere near a cyclist after complaining that a cyclist had slapped their precious tinfoil box.

Thing is, most motorists probably don't know that if you can touch a car then it's too close. So they're probably thinking "he wasn't going to hit the cyclist, he wasn't too close, and that mad cyclist hit the car for no reason". It's not done out of malice, just ignorance. They simply don't know how it feels to be passed at 60mph with a couple of inches of space, or have a car doing 25-30mph squeezing you into the kerb. So they assume no collision=no problem.

The police officer on the bike really messed up with the taxi too IMO. Several witnesses all saying they're being driven at by a driver, the driver says "you know what they're like" and the PC says "yep, you've done nothing wrong, carry on" :shock:

But then I tried to raise the issue of particularly endemic mobile phone use in one specific spot on my commute with the police. It's a place where drivers routinely start driving while staring at the phone in their lap because they'v picked up, in the periphery of their vision, that the bus/truck in front has moved forwards so they assume it's clear. Unfortunately, they haven't seen me in front of them so drive towards me and I have to wave my arms/shout/jump around like a crazy person to get them to look up and stop accelerating at me. I told the officer this and was told "well that's the problem with cycling, you're not always very visible are you". :roll:

I'm not so sure that motorists who perform close overtakes of cyclists have pure hearts. Most would never dream of passing any obstacle at speed or overtaking a bigger vehicle with inches to spare. The only reason they think it's all right is that if they hit a cyclist the occupants of the motorised vehicle will escape unscathed.

notsoblue

bails87 wrote:

Although it's not the sort of programme I would have made, motorists did not come away squeaky clean either in my opinion. There were two occasions of motorists shooting themselves in the foot by claiming they had been nowhere near a cyclist after complaining that a cyclist had slapped their precious tinfoil box.

Thing is, most motorists probably don't know that if you can touch a car then it's too close. So they're probably thinking "he wasn't going to hit the cyclist, he wasn't too close, and that mad cyclist hit the car for no reason". It's not done out of malice, just ignorance. They simply don't know how it feels to be passed at 60mph with a couple of inches of space, or have a car doing 25-30mph squeezing you into the kerb.

This is the crux of it imo. Its just a complete inability for motorists like the taxi driver in Gaz's video to appreciate that slowly moving into a cyclist while driving at 20-25mph is a pretty dangerous and alarming thing to do. Tapping the side of the cab was seen as disproportionate and provocative when it really isn't when you consider the consequences of an intentional collision at that speed.

What I find disgusting is that person who wrote that Daily Mail article understands the above well enough to intentionally leave out anything that happened *before* Gaz tapped the Taxi. They are intentionally misrepresenting the story so it basically looks like Gaz just turned his camera on, then rode up to a taxi and banged on the side of it for no reason other than to piss off the driver.

mybreakfastconsisted

gtvlusso wrote:

Looks like what goes around, comes around - Admittedly this is from the dailyfail and I deplore this whole abuse by proxy that can occur through social networking/social media:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mailonline

What did Gaz really expect would happen?

Educational, yeah, right.....Whatever. I just don't want to be associated with this sh*t on either side - I just wanna cycle to work as I have done daily for the best part of 20 years, still pedaling away, enjoying it some days, hating it on other days and with very few incidents.....2 This year, from memory and neither was particularly worthy of note.

Thanks Gaz, thanks for promoting 'War on Britains roads' - It has really done nothing for cyclists or motorists other than entrench an already divided road users network. And now I feel that just by riding a bike, drivers will associate me with your stupid antics and 'The Droids' idiocy......for the last 20 years or so, it has been fine and then t0sspots like you came along with a camera and pi$$ed on it for everyone else - And now that you and 'The Droid' have opened your fat mouths, filmed and uploaded to social media sites you have started the f*cking war.....pr*t.

Agree with all this. Maybe they unfairly edited but gaz came across as arrogant and looking for trouble. If I get a dangerous pull out I don't ride up to the driver's window and shout and holler at them, who wants stress and aggro on a bike ride? Let it go, just use your brakes.

The cabbie was a knob, he saw nothing wrong in his overtakes and should have been told that what he was doing was recklessly stupid.

DonDaddyD

gtvlusso wrote:

Looks like what goes around, comes around - Admittedly this is from the dailyfail and I deplore this whole abuse by proxy that can occur through social networking/social media:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mailonline

What did Gaz really expect would happen?

By naming him complete with photo the Dail Mail has made him a target, and successfully demonised Gaz (and probably cyclists in general). Backfired much, Gaz?

Still, I would be looking to get the Dail Mail to take down the article as I'd worry about his safety and that of other cyclists on the road.... from vigilante (or frankly angry nutcase) motorists.

notsoblue

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

I'm not so sure that motorists who perform close overtakes of cyclists have pure hearts. Most would never dream of passing any obstacle at speed or overtaking a bigger vehicle with inches to spare. The only reason they think it's all right is that if they hit a cyclist the occupants of the motorised vehicle will escape unscathed.

+1

bails87

Cycloslalomeur: I must admit to speaking to a driver who came within inches of wiping me off the face of the earth when he went past at 60mph+ the other night. It's not entirely impossible that his wing mirror went under my arm as he passed, despite me diving towards the kerb. I caught him in traffic a couple of minutes later. He was calm, and polite. He said he was "really, really sorry" and he "didn't realise I was so close". He only overtook like that "because there was a car coming the other way so I couldn't move over".

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Looks like what goes around, comes around - Admittedly this is from the dailyfail and I deplore this whole abuse by proxy that can occur through social networking/social media:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mailonline

What did Gaz really expect would happen?

By naming him complete with photo the Dail Mail has made him a target, and successfully demonised Gaz (and probably cyclists in general). Backfired much, Gaz?

Still, I would be looking to get the Dail Mail to take down the article as I'd worry about his safety and that of other cyclists on the road.... from vigilante (or frankly angry nutcase) motorists.

So exactly how media-savvy are you both? If you were approached in an apparently genuine way to comment on a subject, about which you feel strongly, would you really tell them to get stuffed? I've had some family experience of being stitched up by a BBC journo who had already decided what the story was before the interview, so I think we could cut Gaz some slack. As I said, what makes you think the programme's portrayal of him is accurate, given how skewed the rest of it was

zx6man

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

I'm not so sure that motorists who perform close overtakes of cyclists have pure hearts. Most would never dream of passing any obstacle at speed or overtaking a bigger vehicle with inches to spare. The only reason they think it's all right is that if they hit a cyclist the occupants of the motorised vehicle will escape unscathed.

+1

gtvlusso

I think the other thing that annoys me is; Who is Gaz to presume that he is so great that he can educate people? That stinks of pure arrogance, there are cyclist all over the country who have been happily plodding away commuting, racing and so on for decades without Gaz's 'education'....

Gaz and co do seem to have a higher number of incidents than anyone else, so, I would presume that the camera makes them feel 'safe' and worthy......

How did Gaz really think that he was going to be edited in a programme called 'the war on Britains roads'? For real, did he think that it would portray him or anyone else involved in a good light? I mean, really, it beggars belief....

I know that I am getting a bit ranty and my views on bicycle cameras is well documented, but a few years ago, this was not a problem.....and now it f*cking well is. I realize that cyclist numbers have shot up and social media has allowed more of a forum for raising issues, but is filming every little moment of your life a uploading to youtube really the way to enlighten the populace? I think that this show in it's entirety proves the negative, no, it is a sh*t idea and has pi$$ed off an awful lot of people...

Stuff analyzing the individual videos in the show. The show did exactly what it sought to do - it proved that there is a 'war on Britains roads' and there are t*ts on both sides.....

Re-watched it last night - less drunk!

rick_chasey

I doubt the TV program has had much effect on anything.

No-one's persuaded here, and no-one will be persuaded elsewhere either. Either you don't agree with the prog and you'll say it's sh!t, or it'll match your view and you'll say it was accurate.

That's more or less it.

There's too much road rage generally. Bikes or no bikes. It's easier to have an argument with a cyclist since a) you see their face and b) they're not in a box. Communicating from one car to another is trickier. That probably accounts for the increase versus bikes. I've had plenty of people angry with me when I've been driving, but, unlike when I'm on the bike, they rarely can pull up beside me and give me both barrels. They just flash and tailgate and occasionally make gestures (if I'm paying attention to them).

There'd be less bike vs car agro if they shared less road, but that's a bit moot.

There's definitely too much agro though.

It's not a 'war' but it's not OK either.

I've had a moped get angry enough with me trying to pass me on the inside by the curb that he wrote my back wheel off and didn't stop. I've had women get out of their car and try to hit me because she knocked me on the head with her wing mirror. I've had a guy try to run me over before getting out and kicking me on the ground because he felt I was slowing him up (despite being inside a painted cycle lane).

I've seen my mate be properly left hooked (flying over the windscreen) in front of me and the driver didn't stop.

Worst, some lads in a car thought it was funny to push me off. I was in hospital with a broken pelvis. First I knew about it was on my way towards the floor.

I'm probably partly to blame, but I genuinely don't go looking for trouble. I don't film it, and I don't feel like I need to exert my right. I don't 'educate' people' I don't knock on windows, or even put my hand on cars. I probably give to much back from time to time when I get abuse, but still - the above shouldn't really be happening. It's not every day, not even every month, but it's still too often.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Looks like what goes around, comes around - Admittedly this is from the dailyfail and I deplore this whole abuse by proxy that can occur through social networking/social media:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mailonline

What did Gaz really expect would happen?

By naming him complete with photo the Dail Mail has made him a target, and successfully demonised Gaz (and probably cyclists in general). Backfired much, Gaz?

Still, I would be looking to get the Dail Mail to take down the article as I'd worry about his safety and that of other cyclists on the road.... from vigilante (or frankly angry nutcase) motorists.

So exactly how media-savvy are you both? If you were approached in an apparently genuine way to comment on a subject, about which you feel strongly, would you really tell them to get stuffed? I've had some family experience of being stitched up by a BBC journo who had already decided what the story was before the interview, so I think we could cut Gaz some slack. As I said, what makes you think the programme's portrayal of him is accurate, given how skewed the rest of it was

Perhaps I have had media training? Perhaps my 1st rule is to never become the story.

I don't think Gaz and all the other camera-crusaders should be afforded any slack. Far too arrogant, when pretty much everyone said that their actions were proving counter productive they continued, vindicated in the belief that they were doing good and that they were 'educating' us on how we could be better road users.

Well here we are.

gtvlusso

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Looks like what goes around, comes around - Admittedly this is from the dailyfail and I deplore this whole abuse by proxy that can occur through social networking/social media:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mailonline

What did Gaz really expect would happen?

By naming him complete with photo the Dail Mail has made him a target, and successfully demonised Gaz (and probably cyclists in general). Backfired much, Gaz?

Still, I would be looking to get the Dail Mail to take down the article as I'd worry about his safety and that of other cyclists on the road.... from vigilante (or frankly angry nutcase) motorists.

So exactly how media-savvy are you both? If you were approached in an apparently genuine way to comment on a subject, about which you feel strongly, would you really tell them to get stuffed? I've had some family experience of being stitched up by a BBC journo who had already decided what the story was before the interview, so I think we could cut Gaz some slack. As I said, what makes you think the programme's portrayal of him is accurate, given how skewed the rest of it was

Sorry @RJSTERRY, I am not gonna cut him any slack - the boy made a t*t of himself and makes me look bad and I don't even know or agree with him on any level.

How many MP's celebs and so on have to apologise after making comments on social media/TV; The Jeremy Clarkson incident 'My comments were taken out of context'...it is practically weekly that we hear this.

Perhaps being a little less trusting and a bit more streetwise would have helped, completely naive to think that this was going to be a 'good' thing or end well - The title says it all in reality they may as well have entitled the show 'All cycle commuters are now f*cked'.

Or by not making his videos public in the first place, keeping them private and for private use (legal cases, masturbating and so on) perhaps the whole debacle would never have happened?

If you want your 15 minutes of fame, then be prepared for the 15 minutes of your life being at the mercy of the mob. Though I still deplore the abuse that Gaz has received. At least I just think that he is a t*t!