Home
Bottle thrower fined, points on licence - are you aware of any precedent with cyclists' helmet cams?...

In what is thought to be the first time that footage from a cyclist’s helmet camera has helped secure a conviction, a van driver has reportedly been cautioned for assault and charged with driving without due consideration, resulting in him being fined and receiving five points on his driving licence, according to the website iPayRoadTax.com.

In June this year, the website, which was founded to dispel myths about “road tax” – abolished in 1937, but which cyclists are regularly accused of not paying – highlighted a YouTube video in which a van driver and cyclist exchanged words after the cyclist was cut up, the incident ending with the driver throwing a bottle of orange juice at the bike rider before speeding off.

The whole incident was captured on the cyclist’s helmet-mounted camera, and you can also read the full exchange on the iPayRoadTax website. The footage was subsequently taken down from YouTube, with the anonymous cyclist, whose YouTube user name is idontpayroadtax, telling Carlton Reid, the founder of iPayRoadTax, that the driver had been reported to the police and he did not want to prejudice the case, which has now been decided.

Although there are a large number of cyclists who post helmet cam footage of bad driving they witness on their rides, including road.cc user Joby Spragg, we believe this is the first time that footage from a cyclist’s helmet-cam has helped secure a conviction, although if you know of any such cases, we’d be glad to set the record straight.

However, away from cycling, private film from head-mounted cameras has been successfully used in evidence before. In 2008, in the first case of its kind, Darren Ingham from Salford was convicted of a public order offence and given a two-year supervision order after stopping on his bike to threaten and abuse two traffic wardens who were issuing parking tickets.

In the meantime, you can show your support for iPayRoadTax by sporting one of their pretty stylish jerseys made by Foska.
 

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

37 comments

Avatar
simonmb [353 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

I don't think I'm typically a reactionary kind of bloke - but the driver of the van should be imprisoned for such behaviour. A few pounds and five points? He's probably the type who'll continue driving long after his licence has been revoked anyway. On a sidenote: those iPayRoadTax jerseys - what are they supposed to do, really? Offer cyclists safe passage? Can't see that working.

Avatar
STATO [497 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Im still not convinced by the whole 'no such thing as road tax' argument.

Ok, so i know tax you pay on a car is not 'road tax' but thats the general term used by EVERYONE to describe our vehicle tax system and to randomly quote 'no such thing blah blah..' is just asking for people to ignore everything you say. We should be pushing to remind people that cyclists arnt required tax and the current system is based on emissions anyway, not focusing on what the correct terminoligy is.

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Simon, you'd be surprised.

Standard cycling jerseys with bike brands or Tour de France sponsors elicit not a second of recognition from drivers, but a dirty great big VED disc is something they recognise, and often react to.

And this isn't just me saying this. I've reported on others who have had taxi drivers talking to them about roads funding cos of the jersey (there's one 'conversation' on YouTube).

The tax disc graphic is an attention grabber. Now, whether any motorists will ever change their opinions of cyclists and our "non-payment of road tax" is another matter, but the very fact the subject gets broached has got to be a positive.

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

There are lots of 'general terms' which used to be used but fell out of favour because it became impolite or offensive to use them.

Saying 'road tax' is not offensive per se but when used to hate on cyclists it's a term of abuse that needs to be tackled.

The great majority of nice, kind, well-meaning motorists who use the term 'road tax' don't have it in for cyclists but I'd wager they genuinely believe VED pays for roads, and that as cyclists don't pay VED they are allowed to use the roads on sufferance not by right.

Avatar
alotronic [461 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

I am buying one.

Can you write us a guide and recommend some kit please editors?!

Avatar
gaz545 [12 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

A result!
As a well known user of helmet cameras and publishing footage online, i've yet to get someone convicted. Not that it is my aim to do such a thing. This is dispite being run of the road several times and being assaulted.

Avatar
timlennon [210 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Really, Gaz? I can't believe some of yours haven't led to legal action ...

But echoing alotronic, if you can help on a guide to getting a camera, I might have Xmas lined up!

Avatar
dave atkinson [6214 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes
alotronic wrote:

I am buying one.

Can you write us a guide and recommend some kit please editors?!

yeah, okay.  1

Avatar
RhodeLong [2 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

I am now a helmet cam convert and am currently liasing with the Police after an incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hinrf9D-TAA

There is no realistic chance of a prosecution here however the Police have taken it seriously and are going to visit the driver and have a "friendly" chat about his dangerous driving and suggest that future incidents will likely result in prosecution. This is in marked contrast to a formal complaint I tried to make against a different driver a year ago for a similar incident but without the camera footage it was, "my word against his."

Check out www.fightbaddriving.co.uk

Avatar
italiafirenze [70 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Disgraceful behaviour by the van driver. It is clear that his driving can only be described as dangerous, he should no longer have a driving license, regardless of what he uses his van for.

I know plenty of cyclists who wouldn't have reacted as calmly as our videographer, good on him for taking the appropriate steps. Poor show on the courts for allowing the driver to escape with such a lenient punishment.

Though I have to agree that the "No such thing as Road Tax" argument was not going to work on this driver; though in the interest of doing my bit, I've changed all our work invoices to read Vehicle License, instead of Road Tax, as well as all references on my website.

I was under the same misconception as the general public until this website put me straight; though I hasten to add I never used it as a reason to run cyclists off the road.

Avatar
james-o [234 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

going off topic a bit, but however road tax is funded it's a smaller part of a bigger issue isn't it?

stop at red, i pay road tax; all aspects of a bigger problem we all face, that of a lack of respect and understanding (at times in both drections, or between riders and pedestrians) between people in general. these points all seem to be debatable by on each side whatever the facts and all come back to the fact that driving in the uk is a low-responsibility yet high-consequence action. A kitchen gets checked once every 6 months for cleanliness, yet once you have a driving licence that's it, you're almost free to drive for life? well maybe the odd delay if you cause serious injury and don't get a good defence lawyer, but the penaties are not exactly harsh compared to industrial accidents or other comparable responsibilities. driving seems to be considered to be a 'right' here in the UK.

I also see people riding in a way that riles as much as bad drivers because they are part of the excuse for those drivers who give me no room / right of way in the first place. to every rider who jumps red lights, shouts at pedestrians who don't hear them, undertake etc, you're making it worse for all of us...

We need to get our own house in order as well as fight for better rights in general, across the board. the right to ride in safety should be protected by better laws, but there must be some reason why we can't get this right in the UK while most other European countries have fewer real problems. Is UK road's over-crowding or a possesive 'right of way' mentality a large part of it?

maybe helmet cams are a good idea, but like overly-bright, strobing rear lights, they may annoy others as much as defend us.

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Overly-bright strobing rear lights are a problem? They annoy drivers? Good. You've been noticed, then.

Of course, iPayRoadTax is a very small part of the overall picture, but Every Little Helps.

Avatar
simonmb [353 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes
Carlton Reid wrote:

Overly-bright strobing rear lights are a problem? They annoy drivers? Good. You've been noticed, then.

Annoying drivers is a good thing? Why so confrontational Carlton? What do you think of drivers who annoy you - and then revel in the fact? It's this kind of cycling-fascism that puts the rest of us in the gutter.

Avatar
timlennon [210 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Finding the right medium between a light that makes sure I'm seen, and a light that isn't annoying has proved very hard. Frankly, I've more or less given up, and accepted that some drivers will find my lights annoying. I can only hope they'll overlook that and accept that I'm making the effort to be seen.

I wouldn't say it's a good thing to annoy drivers (or any other road user for that matter), but it's certainly good that they've seen me.

Avatar
Tony Farrelly [2868 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

I'm with you there tim - I don't particularly want to annoy drivers, but if that is a by product of not being squashed by them I'll just have to live with it.

Recently Bath Council have spent a lot of money on traffic calming and constructing a new bus lane on the first part of my route in to work - at certain points it funnel drivers who've just been unleashed from the slow moving roads of downtown Bath in to a couple of choke points, just when they really want to put their foot down on the drive out of Bath. The road looks like a dual carriageway, but isn't the limit is 30mph. It really is the most ill thought out piece of traffic management* I've ever had the misfortune to ride through and it will kill a cyclist sooner or later. After nearly being squished on too many occasions last week - including twice being physically knocked sideways by the back wash from speeding lorries passing centimetres from my side - i fitted a big old Cateye back light and I turned it on during the day - result a massive drop in the near miss squish count. I further reason that if some bugger does knock me off they will have some explaining to do as to why they didn't see me.

*Ironically just past the last lethal choke point there's one of those signs that flash your speed at you and tell you to slow down - everyone slows down for that, dunno why they just couldn't have put in a series of them all the way up the hill… (oh did I mention these are all drivers speed up a very long hill, I on the other hand and very much not speeding up it) maybe that would have been too much like joined up thinking or something.

Avatar
italiafirenze [70 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

How can a driver really get annoyed by a flashing cycle light? You can't be behind it for long enough and if it makes you aware of the cyclist then you should be pleased.

The only light based annoyances are those of cars either:

1. Driving with front foglights illuminated in clear conditions

2. Drivers who choose to illuminate only their parking lights when driving in poor or dark conditions like early morning, rain or dusk. It's only the next stage on the switch! Just keep turning it!

Avatar
james-o [234 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Carlton, you're right but there is a difference between being seen and safe and going too far - you have to see things from a stressed driver's pov and it's not a rational debate at that moment, it's a reactionary split-second where we risk coming off worst. justice etc is too late then. If you use one of those really bright, pulsing lights it can be a distraction / wind up to drivers sat behind you at lights - i mean those 1 watt+ rear lights, they are seriously eye-burning when at eye level. drivers are a lot more keen to get in front of you as soon as they can after sitting behind one of those.. On an unlit country road they are great for being noticed at a distance - less so in close / slower city traffic.
of course we need to be noticed and i dont excuse the rationale of this, but a visible helmet camera, a big road tax logo or a super bright strobing light are the kind of things that can be seen as 'confrontational' by some and do wind up some drivers - it's wrong but it's those split-second moments of pent up aggression that result in us being cut up. that's the point i'm trying to make. starting the debate is right, it needs to be had, but maybe the roads are not the best place for it.

i'm not one for apologising for my presence and i do ride assertively, but i also know that there are ways of avoiding stressing out the traffic-jam bound any more than they often already are. reflectives and constant lights, or smaller flashers, are just as effective and i find i get less stress on the roads when using them. just from my experience of daily slow, inside-the-m25 riding anyway. a lot will depend on where you ride - Tony i can see your point in traffic like that.

anyway my original point here is that we need a more cover-all campaign to get behind as an industry, as a body of people with rights and with the growing public interest in cycling. Roadpeace seems the closest? maybe as a more recent-years commuter i've missed it before, but have we ever all really got behind roadpeace as a charity / campaign that doesn't pitch any group against another, one that simply highlights the danger of the roads and the need for attention, care and common courtesy? if we put all our attention on the various aspects into looking at the bigger picture, maybe we can get somewhere. it's a simpler message that appeals to people to respect others over thoughts on tax, regisrattion plates etc..

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Confrontational? Fascist?

Because I advocate bright lights?

"Be seen, be safe."

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

You don't need to be wearing a helmetcam, iPayRoadTax jersey or pulsing strobe to be cut-up by motorists. The biggest provocation is simply being a cyclist.

Avatar
Tony Farrelly [2868 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

I don't think I've ever been dazzled by a cyclist's rear light, or one on a car for that matter - when I am dazzled by the lights of oncoming traffic (whatever it is) my instinct is to slow down… simple self preservation. Surely only the suicidal or the murderous would do anything else?

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Tony - re the idea yesterday for a helmetcam piece. I think this conviction will see a rise in interest in cameras, so do a piece ASAP!

The camera used, BTW, was a Contour HD. I've revised the piece http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=415

That story got a staggering 29,000+ unique visits yesterday. It got picked up by Reddit and Pistonheads.com. That's a lot of motorists exposed to how roads are actually funded, and that cyclists might be riding with cameras. Over time, this belief that cutting-up cyclists might be recorded on film might just calm down a lot of motorists.

It's an awful indictment of our car-dependent society that motorists will only give us a wide berth because some of us might get them convicted with video evidence.

Avatar
Tony Farrelly [2868 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Yep, we're on it Carlton.

Avatar
simonmb [353 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

"Confrontational? Fascist?

Because I advocate bright lights?"

No Carlton. It's because you openly endorse angering other road users as a way of reducing road cycling casualties. Were other road users to employ these deliberate tactics on cyclists you would be, and indeed have been, amongst the most vocal of critics.

Avatar
badbunny [71 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes
james-o wrote:

If you use one of those really bright, pulsing lights it can be a distraction / wind up to drivers sat behind you at lights - i mean those 1 watt+ rear lights, they are seriously eye-burning when at eye level.

So is sitting behind another driver in the winter who keeps his foot on the brake with a high level brake light rather than using his handbrake.

Avatar
Mark Clarke [21 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

First point - this is an extremely aggressive and dangerous driver. He pulled out of the junction and cut the cyclist up. He probably would have done the same to a car and it just seems to be his dysfunctional attitude and personality rather than anything to do with the cyclist.

Second - because he was a cyclist, the driver then compounded it by clearly baiting him and trying to run him off the road. I don't think he would have done this to a car. He threw a bottle at him - which unfortunately, I and several other of my mates have experienced. One was a half drunk can of Heineken ... it refreshes the parts other van drivers can't reach (like their brain cell - singular).

Third - seems to be a bit of a second thread developing about cyclists winding up drivers by fitting bright lights. Sorry guys (drivers) - but are you nuts? I ride (and drive a car) and I'm delighted to see cyclist lit up like a Christmas tree. As far as I'm concerned, the brighter the better ... be safe, be seen! If these itsy bitsy lights are hurting your eyes, then don't get so bloody close to them!

On a final point, I was hit yet again by a car yesterday. I had lights on and they weren't the retina-destroying type. He could see me fine - he just thought he'd cut into the cycle lane to get 1 car length in front of the next car. He's an idiot - got nothing to do with what lights I had on or not! Unfortunately, you'll always get these people and all lights will do will reduce the accidents at the margin, as these muppets will still drive dangerously.

Avatar
TiNuts [97 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

@RhodeLong
It's great that they are at least going to have words with the driver as the driving is definitely designed to intimidate. I've had some minor success with reporting a close overtake to the Police (with associated helmet cam footage); they claimed a letter would be sent to the driver.

Very pleased that, as per original article, there has now been a successful prosecution.

Regarding kit, it all depends on budget. I use the MiniHDVR from Dogcamsport and can recommend that. If you want something really rugged go for a Vio POV1.5 - pricey though!

Avatar
Jakal79 [69 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

The main thing i've learned while riding my bike here in Denmark is simple, being right doesn't matter if you're dead.

I'm not saying that drivers should get away with dangerous driving, they shouldn't. But have been hit by a car, getting a trip to the emergency room and almost a month of the bike. Now i'm cautions, rather safe than sorry, so now i don't ride without a brightly colored vest or jacket anymore, rather look like a fool than be missed.

When i use my car i give bikeriders the attention i hope to recieve myself. Only overtaking when it's safe, not riding their rearwheel and so on, i can't see how 1 min in my traveling time can ever be worth injury to another person.

My point is to many drivers do not realize that they are sitting in a weapon, 2 tons at 50 mph will kill almost anything it hits. And it's always hard to put yourself in anothers position because, when you're late nobody is as late as you, or when you're in pain no one else could ever be in worse pain than you. Their situation is always unique.

But i can only say that behaving like they do will only worsen the situation. Provoking will not resolve a situation that some what comes from cars getting better and safer to drive. If you felt your life was in peril everytime you did 60 mph in your car you wouldn't do 60 mph very often.

Any way just my thoughts.

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Obviously I'm out of touch here but I had no idea there were cyclists out there worrying about over-brightness of rear LEDs.

Powerful front lights might be an issue cos they can blind oncoming motorists and cyclists but never once have I thought rear LEDs could be eye-searingly dangerous. You have studies to back up your claim?

In the meantime, go check out this new report. It's DfT's research on what drivers think of cyclists (clue: most think we shouldn't be on the road cos we don't pay road tax and we aren't bright enough in the dark):

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/news/bike-to-work/drivers-dont-think-cyclists-s...

Avatar
cjc119 [2 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

Anyone got a link to these "overly bright" and "annoying LED's" ? My impression from the rear lights I've seen are they are not up to the job.
Totally agree with what Mark Clarke says above , couldn't have put it better myself.  41

take care
Chris

Avatar
Tony Farrelly [2868 posts] 5 years ago
0 likes

and you can check out that DfT report here as well http://road.cc/content/news/24074-oi-cyclist-get-road-dft-report-highlig... We'll be following this up over the next few days too. Friday afternoon isn't a good time for getting a quote for some reason  39

Pages