Safe Speed Forums

Merely based on my observations. I speak as I find. If I actually see a cyclist stop at a red traffic light, it's a rarity.

I stand by my point - for members of a group collectively notable for their lack of adherence to traffic law to be wearing headcams to detect the transgressions of others is hypocritical. And that doesn't mean I'm accusing the headcam wearers as individuals of breaking any laws, though it would help their case if they made their full journey videos publicly available to show they're practising what they preach.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I thought I'd approached angry with an open mind. He /she id respond favourably,till I analtsed the ride .Up to the island -OK .BUT ( as a road user of 40+ years) ,I'd have expected any road user approaching a junction as shown to be looking a lot further back ( but head cam says no),and to me it's a Y junction ,something to be taken seriously ,as a major hazard area . It looks like cyclist said "I HAVE RIGHT OF WAY" - SO SOD IT .
So - I now have to ask , WHY is angry leaving this bit out -as a driver of almost 45 years (add another 10 years cycling in a good mix of conditions) I wonder if there's something he's trying to hide with his defence to my analysis of his actions .
But ,I have to add - something Angry hasn't picked up on -with a bit of co operation ( instead of cycling agro) both parties could have merged mutually - or did cyclist PANIC once his bluff had been called .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

This is horribly poor roadcraft. You may assume that all other road users are idiots, but you absolutely must not behave toward them as such, otherwise you bring a bad attitude to the roads that you are in danger of finding reciprocated! If you think another road user may do something stupid then you take steps to protect yourself from their potential actions; obstructing them such that undertaking the action would be even more dangerous is not a valid defensive manoeuvre!

Taking responsibility for your own safety means putting yourself in a position where you can avoid the dangerous actions of others, not putting yourself in more danger trying to prevent them from attempting those actions.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Guys (and girls), don't waste your time wondering what you could have done differently to stop mrstridentcyclist swanning off. Nobody has done anything inappropriate; he/she has seemingly come here with the intention of making a point that seems clear-cut within their paradigm, and has met unexpectedly robust and balanced debate, that they fear they lack the wit to counter. They may return to debate, or they may skulk off abashed, but nobody should question the appropriateness of their conduct.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Yes, absolutely. A key principle of safe and considerate road use is that at no time should you seek to dictate or control the actions of others.

And surely, as often said in respect of cars, if you have what you believe to be an unsafe driver behind you, the safest thing to do is to get him/her in front of you as quickly as reasonably possible.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Something I FEEL that that head cam man did not do .But the facts are hard to input to a troll looking only to put blame in the direction he feels it needs to be placed (thanks to Robin for quoote)

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Enough said. The definition of a troll here clearly is: anyone who disagrees with your point of view and is prepared to put up an argument to oppose that point of view. You aren't interested in listening to reasoned arguments here.

So, to answer the original question, of why cyclists are using video cameras to record their journeys. The trigger that made me get a camera was an occasion last year when I was cycling along a cycle lane, minding my own business when a car came up fast from behind me, slammed on the brakes and cut across me to turn left. I braked hard, the back wheel locked, and my pannier actually did make light contact with the side of his car. Fortunately, I slowed down enough to swerve round the corner on his inside, and he finished up end-on to the corner of the opposite kerb. He then reversed, and shot off up the road. I resolved on that day that I would record every prat driver that did something stupid to me, and nothing you say will change my mind on that.

Like many others, I put clips from those videos on YouTube for no other reason than: "because I can". If anyone has a problem with that, then I guess they must be worried that they are likely one day to feature in those video clips. My response to that is that it's happening more and more and will continue, so get over it.

As far as road position is concerned, the broad consensus from people who do know what they are talking about based on solid research, is that cyclists' using primary position to take control of the road where they feel it is warranted. is the safest way to cycle. There are children and adults up and down the country who are taking approved Bikeability cycle training courses being taught to do precisely this, so you will find more and more cyclists putting their own safety over your obsession with racing to the next red light, so again, get over it.

[edit]Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmWoUtxFG8M and then ask yourself whether it was wise of the cyclist to take the road position he did.[/edit]

Yes, you will wail and moan and call me a troll and call me names like "angry", and call me a hypocrite because some cyclists run red lights, and tell each other that I made some tactical error in my arguments, and if that makes you feel better, then good for you.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

My definition of a troll is: anyone who continues to voice an opinion (be it via keyboard or pedals) that has not withstood scrutiny and hasn't been justified, especially when confounding issues have been pointed out.


"Enough said."


That was never my issue. Is your opinion in this entrenched? You do know this campaign calls for the return of proper trafpol, don't you?

Part of my concern is again described below:


Where were the queues and red lights in magnatom's video that I pointed to?
Like I have already said, I have no problem with these techniques being applied. The issue is, and always was, those to take it to a silly extreme.
There is a great deal of difference between reasonable and unnecessary.


In that particular circumstance, adopting the PP it is perfectly fine and is something I do.
This is a world apart from magnatom's default position of sitting well into the carriageway, avoiding the cycle lane altogether.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Yes, it does. You are making an assertion specifically accusing members of the group "headcam wearing cyclists" of being hypocrites, yet you are unable to quote a single instance of a member of that group breaking the rules of the road.


I have hundreds of hours of video showing just that, but (a) it is not possible to post that on YouTube at 1.8GB per hour, and (b) you wouldn't bother to look at it anyway.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Like, for example, Botach's persistence in saying that Magnatom didn't look properly despite my explaining that this inference cannot be made from the video footage and is in fact contradicted by the appearance of the tanker in the frame as Magnatonm enters the roundabout?

I think you will find that I am actually one of the few people in this thread who has substantiated my position with authoritative references, and links to solid evidence.


No, where were the motorists he was unnecessarily holding up? He has every right to be in the middle of the carriageway as long as he is not unnecessarily holding up other road users, and he clearly isn't!

Of course it shouldn't be taken to the extreme, and you conveniently ignore the fact that I've already said that twice, so you can support your stupid assertions about trolling.

My issue is that many motorists object to being held up for just a few seconds for the sake of cyclist's safety. I have provided a very clear example of that here: http://www.mrgrumpycyclist.org/?p=17 , which I already referenced earlier. I frequently have impatient drivers sounding their horns here, and have on two occasions suffered real road rage from what I can only refer to as thugs. Tell me, do you think my holding up traffic behind me by exactly 4 seconds in that video clip is unreasonable? (4 seconds is the time between the back of the bus in front drawing level with the cycle lane and my reaching it.)



See above!

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

No, it really doesn't. You have made a glaring error with your understanding.
The "group" are all the cyclists; the "members" are those (within that group) who use the cameras - a sub-group. It is entirely possible (and reasonable to claim) that the cycling group exhibits a certain behaviour, but the camera sub-group does not.
Peter's statement follows basic logic; your interpretation makes an assumption that wasn't given or implied.


Why should he? Peter has never made or implied that claim; it was only you who inferred it, wrongly! Hence your obvious confusion.



However, I don't entirely agree with your sentiments Peter.
Yesterday I watched a YouTube video, of a camera-wearing cyclist showing nothing but legal transgressions and bad riding from other London cyclists, and he had loads of videos like it. Irritatingly, I now cannot find them.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

No, you are the one whose logic is flawed here. The group that he accuses of being hypocritical, is specifically "headcam wearing cyclists", and he uses evidence drawn from a much larger group to attempt to support that assertion. This is an example of what is called a logical fallacy, specifically the fallacy known as "Description of Division". You may find reference to this at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/division.html. In this case, the "whole" is "cyclists" and the "part", as you correctly point out is "headcam wearing cyclists", and he did not provide any argument for attributing the characteristics of the whole to the part.


Because, according to the definition you yourself gave earlier, to push arguments that are not substantiated is trolling, and it is not I who am confused, it is you. (See above.)


Gaz545's excellent "Silly Cyclists" series may be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/gaz545

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Not only is it a valid defensive manoeuvre it is the only available defensive manoeuvre.


That is, in effect, saying that there is no place for cyclists on the same roads as motor cars.



Positioning on the high side when going through a pinch point reduces the danger rather than increases it, That is the whole point of doing it.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

You are again wrong; there was no "persistence". I corrected him (showing the confounding factor), and he accepted his error and moved on. This is not troll behaviour.
Continuing to claim that instance as troll behaviour, is trolling!

Furthermore: it was you who said:

So that cyclist should have been well aware of teh tanker and it's possibility for its intended path. This is something I have mentioned previously.


Indeed you did, but I have shown that it wasn't relevant to what was being discussed; "reasonable vs unnecessary".

I was also one of the few who had substantiated my position, and indeed undid yours.


Errrm, really?
I agree that one could use the whole road is not holding up others, but your insistence that he clearly wasn't is merely a throw-away claim, devoid of any substance.

Furthermore:
Wasn't it your position that he shouldn't use the cycle lane at all because he was going too fast - 21 to 22mph? Wasn't the implication here: regardless of traffic ?
Your stance here is very inconsistent.


Yet you have committed exactly the same error, by stating the cyclist magantom was going too fast to use the cycle lane, so it follows that cyclist should slow down and make proper use of the road space, for everyone's safety and convenience. I have said this twice already in this thread!


Given the ample space that opened in front, I think I would be checking behind so I can make a good judgement. Doing so gives invaluable signals to following road users.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

To quote another poster earlier: you didn't answer my question.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

You said "did not provide any argument for attributing the characteristics of the whole to the part", which is correct. So why did you assume that he did attribute the characteristics of the whole to the part? What's the name of this fallacy?

Furthermore, he actually did state "And that doesn't mean I'm accusing the headcam wearers as individuals of breaking any laws", therefore providing the premise of not attributing the characteristics of one subgroup ('without cameras') of a group (cyclists), to the other sub-group ('with cameras') of that group (cyclists).

Like I said: "your interpretation makes an assumption that wasn't given or implied.", and you actually seem to be continuing with it.


That's the one. Thank you.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Not one thing that you said there has any bearing on that fact that the logical basis of his assertion that headcam wearing cyclists are hypocrites, is fallacious.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Your question is difficult to answer, because you didn't check behind you and didn't give any signals.
The best answer I could give is: I would have if I felt the situation behind warranted it; so "possibly".




Seeing as your keen to play the "you didn't answer my question" game, here are some questions that you haven't answered, or even acklowledged:

Simply 'staying out' for long periods will only result with road rage. Do you really want to frustrate a bad driver when you're in their path - and so exposed?

Yet I have never felt any compulsion to record or report. What are we doing so differently? Where does our experience differ?

So the letters state it is not compolsory, but should do where where practicable. Our cyclist didn't do so where practicable. That's to the "letter"?

How do you conclude "unfounded" when it is clearly shown in the clip, before and after the roundabout?


Why not? I think we need to explore this as it this is the crux of our disagreement.

I have explained my position. So why do you feel it is warranted to not use the cycle lanes in this case, regardless of the lack of hazards (as well as going against the letter of the HC) ?

In your view, at what speed does it become appropriate to use these lanes? (apply your argument to this case, so we can get a direct quantitive answer instead of 'it depends')

Wasn't it your position that he shouldn't use the cycle lane at all because he was going too fast - 21 to 22mph? Wasn't the implication here: regardless of traffic ?



The balls were always in your court. Let's see if you're going to be as "hypocritical" as you wrongly accuse others of being.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

No it isn't. Unlike the earlier question, it is very straightforward: "do you think my holding up traffic behind me by exactly 4 seconds in that video clip is unreasonable?" Stop wriggling and answer the question. I really want to know this.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

You seem to be evading a critical issue about cycling safety; let's go on.
Assuming one wouldn't be aware of one's surroundings as per the clip, the my answer is "no" it is not unreasonable.



Nor do I need to:


We were talking about "law breaking".

I have already shown how I disagree with Peter about the issue of hypocrisy (cyclists posting transgressions of motorists only).

Speaking of which: now stop wriggling and answer the following questions (which are critically pertinent to the ongoing debates):


The balls were always in your court, and they remain there. Let's see if you're going to continue to be as "hypocritical" as you wrongly accuse others of being.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign