You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
They're running a piece on it know - good stuff.
Ace, always been tempted to get one, I on't be banging on the side of vans now though. The CTC guy seemed to dodge the question about car's having cams to catch RLJ's though.
They usually follow these kind of stories up by reading out loads of nonsense comments like these
[url= http://twitter.com/#!/search/cyclists%20bbcbreakfast ]Twtitter[/url]
A few of the commuting cam wearers seem to be up for an "incident" from the vids I've seen.
Example of the last BBC report (cambridge local news)
I thought it was a pretty good report and has made me want to get a head cam.
Just waiting for those posters saying "heshouldhavewaitebehindthevanandnotbangedonthesidenehnehneh" Yeah, cos drivers should get away with doing whatever the hell they like.
[i]The CTC guy seemed to dodge the question about car's having cams to catch RLJ's though.[/i]
Probably because the question was totally irrelevant - the piece was about cyclists safety and insurance claims.
The CTC guy seemed to dodge the question about car's having cams to catch RLJ's though.
Probably because the question was totally irrelevant - the piece was about cyclists safety and insurance claims.
I disagree. The RLJ/Commuter Racers who think that the law doesn't apply to them are a part of the overall problem with cycling safety. The perception that all* cyclists ignore the rules is part of the reason that so many motorists/pedestrians/cyclists feel anger towards us.
*Primarily fixie riding ****monkeys and middle aged men in Altura jackets if my most recent commutes are anything to judge it by.
It's very hard to call for drivers to drive with due care and attention, and to obey all the rules when the CTC could be seen to condone the actions of the annoyingly large number of cyclists who don't.
Pretty sure he didn't condone "their" actions, but it made a bloody change for a piece to be on OUR SIDE for once. Would you rather it had changed into a "Cyclists are using helmet cams to get positive results from insurance claims, but most of them are actually idiots, so shouldn't be on the road" piece?
Well, I was quite happy that the balance was towards cyclists.
Here's the website mentioned - http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/
(Can't find the one about motorists injured by cyclists I'm afraid)
It was quite a good piece in itself but it was unfortunately followed by the usual comments by the presenters 10 minutes later of "we're not getting much sympathy for cyclists on the texts/emails - lots of calls for them to be taxed", etc etc etc
What's the perception of cyclists got to do with the TV thing under discussion? Surely when a car hit's a bike it's an accident and the driver's opinion of the cyclist he didn't see is irrelevant? Unless you think some of these accidents are premeditated and, therefore, attempted murder?
Dez, I agree that it's good to see a piece more aimed at the cyclist (Well, the decent law abiding ones at least), it's just that our argument is so often diluted by the negative perception created by a minority of idiots.
All it's going to take is for one of these camera cases to come to court, only for the camera user to be shown, on their own camera, jumping a red light for example.....
The all cyclist ignore the rules is just another tabloid band wagon.
They have never condoned red light jumping. As with everything it's a risk and expected outcome. Cyclist jumping red lights can be dangerous but people are not being killed by this behaviour, people driving badly is behaviour which is tolerated but does kill people. The "cyclists need to get their house in order before criticising others" argument is weak. No one is saying all cyclist are riding correctly. People on bikes are not in charge of multi ton objects and being allowed to get away with killing people far more often and with far more lenient sentences than would be occur in any other situation where someone was in charge of a large peace of machinery. It's call proportionality.
All it's going to take is for one of these camera cases to come to court, only for the camera user to be shown, on their own camera, jumping a red light for example.....
Unless that was immediately involved or prior to the accident it would be irrelevant.
Indeed, my only complaint about the report is that it made me late for work, cos I was watching when I should've been jumping on my bike! I was actually quite amazed at how "for cyclists" it was.
(oh, and the fact that he called helmets "safety hats" ❓ )
whilst i feel it was good to get some coverage of the issue i always feel that the media try to set up an us and them argument. when really we all need to work together and move forward - luckily the CTC promoted this.
However the 'camera instead of insurance' angle wasn't really helpful. I have insurance - CTC membership. the camera is to gather evidence as too often the cyclist is left facing a fight against a 2 tonne truck on the road and then a fight against the justice system when trying to report crime.
[i]camera is to gather evidence as too often the cyclist is left facing a fight against a 2 tonne truck on the road and then a fight against the justice system when trying to report crime.[/i]
That is exactly what I thought the report was about.
For those that missed it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12330181
"Primarily fixie riding ****monkeys and middle aged men in Altura jackets"
Oh dear! Just noticed I tick all those boxes. Goes away and hangs head in shame.
Edit: Just realised, wore a Gore one today and not my Altura jacket. I'm saved.
That is exactly what I thought the report was about.
when i watched it at 8:45(ish) they talked a lot about insurance.
apparently they had covered it a couple of times?
Not that it makes any difference
http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2010/12/03/49606-film-of-abuse-from-driver-is-not-evidence039
I'm not sure about this
In the report they showed some real incidents where the drivers where at fault and dangerous. No argument there.
However I've seen some some head cam footage on here where it was not so clear cut. For example a video a while back where the rider, going down the inside of a queue, turned his head to have a go at a driver, and went right into the back of a van. LOL. Of course, it wasn't his fault etc etc
So headcams are not a substitute for riding with intelligence and I feel that sometimes the enflame the situation and put cyclists in a bad light.
Spent a week working in London a few weeks ago and rather than use the tube, i walked to the office every day. Loads of drivers using mobiles, no indicators, jumping lights etc, total chaos.
Using pedestrian crossings is a waste of time - many (not all) cyclists ride straight through while people are crossing on green. Cyclists on the path - just one big free for all.
I'll stick to the downhill trails in future, much safer! 🙂
Oh here we go again... Déjà vu!
[i]For example a video a while back where the rider, going down the inside of a queue, turned his head to have a go at a driver, and went right into the back of a van[/i]
I've seen that too - that rider (local to me) just films constantly and posts stuff on Youtube. How that is relevant to using helmet cam footage as evidence if a motorist knocks you off, I'm not sure. I don't think he'll be taking that to court any time soon.
Personally I got the impression that the van driver knocked into the cyclist and in so doing thought he'd kicked the van. He got done for it so I'm guessing that was the case, as no doubt the cyclist would have been stoned to death for tax evasion had there been the slightest opportunity to do so.
As far as I'm concerned I've got no sympathy for law breakers on either side of the fence. However, I do suspect that a lot might be to do with too many people in too small a space rather than anything else.
The Mobile phone users/Boy Racers who think that the law doesn't apply to them are a part of the overall problem with cycling safety.
Phew that's that fixed
There was a women on TV a few weeks ago from CTC up against Quentin thingy that used to be on Top Gear. He waded in immediately and predictably with "but you see so many cyclists jumping red lights they break the rules". She had a good comeback "loads of drivers have tickets for speeding, parking etc but for some reason not all considered to be criminals as you blame all cyclists for the actions of a few". Jolly good point !!
unlike wilson who has a conviction for clocking cars!!
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12334486#dna-comments ]Beeb web article[/url]
Goodness me - all the usual muppets commenting on the Beeb pages...
They really ought to run a 10mins slot on, say The One Show, to de-bunk some of these myths and add some reality to the debate 👿
Very good piece I thought in general. Not sure the chap and the van driver did themselves any favours, he was clearly indicating and moving across so just hang back and save yourself the grief or injury. There do seem to be some that are spoiling for the fight. The van driver was an idiot to react the way he did too.
Im bothered about all this, by using cameras like this it'll give those in the do gooders office an excuse to make more rules and turn us all into programmed robots!
Theres too many cameras as it is checking on our every move.....