Video: taxi driver deliberately runs cyclist off the road

MarkiMark wrote:

Something very wrong about people with that many cameras on their bike. Even though the evidence seems to speak for itself, the lack of sound on the video is suspicious. As a fairly fast everyday commuter with no cameras who encounters almost nothing but very good behaviour from motorists, I am concerned that there is a body of cyclinsts that go out looking for trouble. I've seen countless videos posted by commuters (not this one) seeming to assume that everybody will obviously agree that the motorist is at fault, when to my eyes it is clearly the cyclist that is at fault. Sorry, and I'm a full-on rider, not a timid kerb crawler.

How exactly does anyone "go out looking for trouble"?

I've been riding with cameras for a couple of years, as do thousands of commuters.  It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to my riding style, nor do I feel the need to upload the few incidents I've had to report for anyones entertainment.  

Using cameras does attract the odd stupid comment...

bikebot wrote:

MarkiMark wrote:

Something very wrong about people with that many cameras on their bike. Even though the evidence seems to speak for itself, the lack of sound on the video is suspicious. As a fairly fast everyday commuter with no cameras who encounters almost nothing but very good behaviour from motorists, I am concerned that there is a body of cyclinsts that go out looking for trouble. I've seen countless videos posted by commuters (not this one) seeming to assume that everybody will obviously agree that the motorist is at fault, when to my eyes it is clearly the cyclist that is at fault. Sorry, and I'm a full-on rider, not a timid kerb crawler.

How exactly does anyone "go out looking for trouble"?

I've been riding with cameras for a couple of years, as do thousands of commuters.  It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to my riding style, nor do I feel the need to upload the few incidents I've had to report for anyones entertainment.  

Using cameras does attract the odd stupid comment...

How does he "look for trouble" ? Easily. Having watched some of his videos he's been known to take out a meter stick and MEASURE the exact distance between himself and another stopped vehicle (showing them a yellow card if HE feels they are too close) . .  there's also the sheer number of cameras he has mounted, no one NEEDS that number of cameras unless he is funding them throuugh advertising off youtube etc.  
As for his "Pole camera" I've sommented several times on his youtube channel that it's actually been dangerous at times, where he wobbles a bit and it has almost knocked into pedestrians. Not tomention that Rolls Royce, Mercedes etc have had to remove their bonnet emblems under "safety regulations" in case those small ornaments hit someone. ( I'm pretty sure a Gopro up the a$$ on an unsuspecting pedestrian is likely to attract an amount otf attention from the safety bridage)
That's not to say the taxi driver is justified in running him down . . .  that's still wrong regardless of how much of a pratt the cyclist makes himself seem.

Quote:

How does he "look for trouble" ? Easily. Having watched some of his videos he's been known to take out a meter stick and MEASURE the exact distance between himself and another stopped vehicle (showing them a yellow card if HE feels they are too close) . .  there's also the sheer number of cameras he has mounted, no one NEEDS that number of cameras unless he is funding them throuugh advertising off youtube etc.  
As for his "Pole camera" I've sommented several times on his youtube channel that it's actually been dangerous at times, where he wobbles a bit and it has almost knocked into pedestrians. Not tomention that Rolls Royce, Mercedes etc have had to remove their bonnet emblems under "safety regulations" in case those small ornaments hit someone. ( I'm pretty sure a Gopro up the a$$ on an unsuspecting pedestrian is likely to attract an amount otf attention from the safety bridage)
That's not to say the taxi driver is justified in running him down . . .  that's still wrong regardless of how much of a pratt the cyclist makes himself seem.

He did what?! He got out a meter stick and showed motorists a yellow card? What a danger, the poor motorists must have felt so vulnerable with nothing but a carcass of metal and glass between them and the yellow piece of cardboard. Why do you not say that the motorists breaking the law are looking for trouble?

And then you go on to profile cyclists as the same danger as Rolls Royce and Mercedes large vehicles?

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

StuInNorway wrote:

bikebot wrote:

How exactly does anyone "go out looking for trouble"?

 

I've been riding with cameras for a couple of years, as do thousands of commuters.  It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to my riding style, nor do I feel the need to upload the few incidents I've had to report for anyones entertainment.  

Using cameras does attract the odd stupid comment...

How does he "look for trouble" ? Easily. Having watched some of his videos he's been known to take out a meter stick and MEASURE the exact distance between himself and another stopped vehicle (showing them a yellow card if HE feels they are too close) . .  there's also the sheer number of cameras he has mounted, no one NEEDS that number of cameras unless he is funding them throuugh advertising off youtube etc.  
As for his "Pole camera" I've sommented several times on his youtube channel that it's actually been dangerous at times, where he wobbles a bit and it has almost knocked into pedestrians. Not tomention that Rolls Royce, Mercedes etc have had to remove their bonnet emblems under "safety regulations" in case those small ornaments hit someone. ( I'm pretty sure a Gopro up the a$$ on an unsuspecting pedestrian is likely to attract an amount otf attention from the safety bridage)
That's not to say the taxi driver is justified in running him down . . .  that's still wrong regardless of how much of a pratt the cyclist makes himself seem.

Thansk for clarifying that, I'll be careful not to MEASURE anything. Using a moderate amount of cameras is fine, using an excessive number of cameras or measuring anything means you are looking for trouble.

I thought it might have something to do with riding, but I stand corrected.

MarkiMark wrote:

Something very wrong about people with that many cameras on their bike. Even though the evidence seems to speak for itself, the lack of sound on the video is suspicious. As a fairly fast everyday commuter with no cameras who encounters almost nothing but very good behaviour from motorists, I am concerned that there is a body of cyclinsts that go out looking for trouble. I've seen countless videos posted by commuters (not this one) seeming to assume that everybody will obviously agree that the motorist is at fault, when to my eyes it is clearly the cyclist that is at fault. Sorry, and I'm a full-on rider, not a timid kerb crawler.

Ok, so how is the rider at fault in this situation? Driver pulls alongside, then moves over into the cyclist. Court seemingly agreed, although imposed what feels like an unduly lenient punishment. I'd just like to understand the reasoning behind your statement

MarkiMark wrote:

Something very wrong about people with that many cameras on their bike. Even though the evidence seems to speak for itself, the lack of sound on the video is suspicious. As a fairly fast everyday commuter with no cameras who encounters almost nothing but very good behaviour from motorists, I am concerned that there is a body of cyclinsts that go out looking for trouble. I've seen countless videos posted by commuters (not this one) seeming to assume that everybody will obviously agree that the motorist is at fault, when to my eyes it is clearly the cyclist that is at fault. Sorry, and I'm a full-on rider, not a timid kerb crawler.

I can't believe I am reading this!  You don't sound like a full on rider, and I would love to ride where you ride , I encounter bad driving at least every hour, maybe more frequently than that.  I don't have any cameras.

It is a reflection of our society that the cabbie thinks he can get away with it.  It also reflects badly that some people who ride bikes feel they have to have not just one camera but an elaborate multi-camera set up to catch these utter scumbags.

It is an outrage that he hasn't been prevented from driving, what have you got to do to be considered not fit to be a professional driver?

The bastard should NEVER drive again.  The video should be made compulsory viewing for anyone in charge of a vehicle so they can see what is not acceptable.  

MarkiMark wrote:

Even though the evidence seems to speak for itself, the lack of sound on the video is suspicious.

It's not really his fault if you forgot to turn the sound on.

MarkiMark wrote:

Something very wrong about people with that many cameras on their bike. Even though the evidence seems to speak for itself, the lack of sound on the video is suspicious. As a fairly fast everyday commuter with no cameras who encounters almost nothing but very good behaviour from motorists, I am concerned that there is a body of cyclinsts that go out looking for trouble. I've seen countless videos posted by commuters (not this one) seeming to assume that everybody will obviously agree that the motorist is at fault, when to my eyes it is clearly the cyclist that is at fault. Sorry, and I'm a full-on rider, not a timid kerb crawler.

I have two cameras mounted on my commute bike (I don't bother for weekend rides), because a few months back just pulling away from some traffic lights the car behind me drove into me throwing me across the road. the driver stopped briefly, but didn't leave any details and I didn't have the numberplate. Had I had my rear camera then I would have shown what happened, the nuumberplate, and probably that the driver was on the phone at the time.

The standard of driving in the UK is bad, but London is worse still. The Police will fob you off if you don't have evidence (I doubt they would have done anything in this case without the video).

thereverent wrote:

MarkiMark wrote:

Something very wrong about people with that many cameras on their bike. Even though the evidence seems to speak for itself, the lack of sound on the video is suspicious. As a fairly fast everyday commuter with no cameras who encounters almost nothing but very good behaviour from motorists, I am concerned that there is a body of cyclinsts that go out looking for trouble. I've seen countless videos posted by commuters (not this one) seeming to assume that everybody will obviously agree that the motorist is at fault, when to my eyes it is clearly the cyclist that is at fault. Sorry, and I'm a full-on rider, not a timid kerb crawler.

I have two cameras mounted on my commute bike (I don't bother for weekend rides), because a few months back just pulling away from some traffic lights the car behind me drove into me throwing me across the road. the driver stopped briefly, but didn't leave any details and I didn't have the numberplate. Had I had my rear camera then I would have shown what happened, the nuumberplate, and probably that the driver was on the phone at the time.

The standard of driving in the UK is bad, but London is worse still. The Police will fob you off if you don't have evidence (I doubt they would have done anything in this case without the video).

They tried not to do anything even with the video, driver awareness? It's a sad indictment of the quality of driving accepted on out roads that drivers need to be .axe aware that hitting someone with your vehicle is wrong.

MarkiMark wrote:

Something very wrong about people with that many cameras on their bike. Even though the evidence seems to speak for itself, the lack of sound on the video is suspicious. As a fairly fast everyday commuter with no cameras who encounters almost nothing but very good behaviour from motorists, I am concerned that there is a body of cyclinsts that go out looking for trouble. I've seen countless videos posted by commuters (not this one) seeming to assume that everybody will obviously agree that the motorist is at fault, when to my eyes it is clearly the cyclist that is at fault. Sorry, and I'm a full-on rider, not a timid kerb crawler.

I wasn't going to respond at all, but...

Today had to endure a nasty fast road with cars illegally parked on double yellows at regular intervals all along it, then had a huge lorry cross the dividing line to drive straight at me head on on the wrong side of the road while taking up the entire lane (in order, it turned out, to illegally park on my side of the road, completely blocking the lane right in front of me as if I wasn't there, and obliging me to screech to a halt and get off and walk past on the pavement).

Are you seriously telling me you never encounter illegally parked cars, forcing you into the flow of traffic on very fast roads, for example? Never come head-to-head with cars going the wrong way on one-way roads?
Where is this nirvana in which you live?

KiwiMike wrote:

Narcissist doesn't seem to begin to cover it.

Narcissist? I don't think so.

Somebody on a serious crusade against misbehaving road users maybe.

Good for him.

flobble wrote:

KiwiMike wrote:

Narcissist doesn't seem to begin to cover it.

Narcissist? I don't think so.

Somebody on a serious crusade against misbehaving road users maybe.

Good for him.

"Crusade" is the right word for Lewis

Some of you may know him from "The Complainers"

brooksby wrote:

Why would you do that unless you were a professional or semi-professional film maker?

You'll be surprised what other details it can pick up, for example on a different video his pole mounted backwards facing camera was the only one, out of what seemed like ten cameras, that captured a driver hitting a moped because he was looking at his phone. The other cameras only picked up the collision, not what the driver was doing.

webster wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Why would you do that unless you were a professional or semi-professional film maker?

You'll be surprised what other details it can pick up, for example on a different video his pole mounted backwards facing camera was the only one, out of what seemed like ten cameras, that captured a driver hitting a moped because he was looking at his phone. The other cameras only picked up the collision, not what the driver was doing.

Fair enough, but its not exactly everyday cycling, is it?

brooksby wrote:

webster wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Why would you do that unless you were a professional or semi-professional film maker?

You'll be surprised what other details it can pick up, for example on a different video his pole mounted backwards facing camera was the only one, out of what seemed like ten cameras, that captured a driver hitting a moped because he was looking at his phone. The other cameras only picked up the collision, not what the driver was doing.

Fair enough, but its not exactly everyday cycling, is it?

I live in Newcastle, but I know who Traffic Droid is.  I have seen him on one of those "When people get angry" channel 5 type shows where he recorded an incident.  So I would hazzard a guess that the cabbies down there in the big smoke know who he is.  I have no idea why the cabbie did what he did, i.e. pull in front of him and stop, and then pull up next to him and attempt to stop him.  Putting 2 and 2 together, and possibly getting 5, I wonder if he saw the cameras, figured it was traffic droid, and decided to stop him to have a word.  Attempt 1 failed, so attempt 2 was more final.

It does come across that what traffic droid does is extreme, but the way I see it, he is a guy out on the road every day and has probably had his share of near misses.  Rathre than sitting back and taking it, he strapped a camera to his head.  He had some success with this, so now that has escalated to several cameras.  But fair play to him.  He is hopefully doing some good bringing to light these sort of incidents, and maybe eventually this will have a positive impact for us all.

I don't think he goes out looking for trouble (unlike that video a couple of weeks back of the fella having a go at the lady in an Aldi car park), but he probably has to overcome that stigma every time he does record/capture an incident.

I would just love to know what was going through the cabbies head when he did this, what the hell was he trying to achieve.  And was there a fella there defending the cabbie?  Would his defence have been different if traffic droid was more seriously injured, or do people take the stance that "well, he seems ok, it wasn't that bad"?

swldxer wrote:

Door mirror and BRAKES, not breaks.

Gosh! You're young, but agree on the breaks/brakes; that's a proper error.