A cyclist has accused police of failing to act after a driver passed him so close he claims he was almost knocked off his bike.
Simon Keen approached road.cc with two videos of drivers coming dangerously close to him on one commute in September, in Batford, Harpenden.
He alleges when he sent the footage to Hertfordshire Police with his concerns, they told him they won’t prosecute or educate drivers unless someone is injured. Road.cc has contacted Hertfordshire police to confirm or deny this, but the approach would be in stark contrast with a recent West Midlands Police initiative to prosecute close passing drivers in an innovative close pass initiative.
Cycling UK lauds West Midlands Police’s new close-pass initiative
Keen described the second of two close passes a “very close shave, with a car overtaking me at night approaching a blind bend and almost hitting me and an oncoming car.”
He says: “Having reported this to Hertfordshire police, which in itself was a challenge, I have been told that neither Herts police nor Bedfordshire police (where I live) will prosecute or even have a word with drivers.
“They will not consider videos as providing any evidence and will only get involved if someone is hurt,” he said.
Keen’s two close passes can be seen in the following videos. In the first instance a driver pulls out of a side road as Keen passes, which he says felt like the driver was driving directly at him. In the second incident, a different driver attempted to overtake Keen on a blind bend, with oncoming vehicles.
Warning: video below contains swearing.
He describes the incident in an email to police, seen by road.cc.
He said: “The driver had had time to overtake me when the road was clear and also made no attempt to pass me with any clearance. This incident was far worse as he only just missed me.”
Keen says it is unlikely the two drivers didn’t see him, as his bike had bright lights front and rear, as well as a Fly6 with flashing red light on the rear, he was wearing a white cycling jersey and reflective backpack, with reflective paint on his tyres and saddle bag.
Police in Camden, North London, are undertaking a similar decoy close pass initiative as West Midlands, and today sent a driver for prosecution for passing within six inches of one of their officers.
Whilst we try & educate people first when you give me 6″ passing room then jump a red light expect my officers to send you to court. pic.twitter.com/Hup404MrTC
— Sgt Clarke (@MPSCamdenTnSgt) 29 September 2016
Over the summer Hertfordshire police did a crackdown on pavement cycling in Baldock and Letchworth.
Sergeant Alan Clarke, of the Letchworth and Baldock safer neighbourhood team, said: “We have had increasing reports of people, predominantly adults and teenagers, cycling on pavements.”
“Cycling on pavements is dangerous, anti-social and unpopular with cyclists who obey the rules of the road – as well as pedestrians who have to negotiate bikes using the pavement.”
“This kind of behaviour is unacceptable, frequently causes collisions and can be very intimidating for people trying to use the footpath.”
It is unclear whether anyone had been injured by pavement cycling.
We will update the article when we hear from Hertfordshire Police.
85 thoughts on “Cyclist accuses police of ignoring close pass video footage”
You have to get wrecked
You have to get wrecked before they’ll do their job? No wonder cycling in the UK feels like the Wild West.
Useless goons.
unconstituted wrote:
Oh thank god. I was planning on burglarizing homes this weekend, and as long as no one gets hurt then I’ll be free to enjoy a life of crime and ill gotten wealth.
Cycling on the pavement IS
Cycling on the pavement IS NOT ILLEGAL!
You may use the pavement if you do it
– out of fear of traffic
– with respect of pavement users.
This is totally true of
This is totally true of Surrey Police as well.
In fact, I was advised that my credibility as a witness could be compromised in future due to having contacted them on more than one occasion.
This is footage of the car htting me from behind, but, because I didn’t have footage of the actual car against the rear wheel, no further action was taken except a note to advise the car driver of their obligations to other road users.
A fucking joke if I’m honest.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtX_zhbXgAA8C6q.jpg:large
I wonder how quickly the
I wonder how quickly the police would deal if a cyclist taking a drink puts the bottle through a window whilst trying to create some space.
There is a saying in law,
There is a saying in law, “you cannot fetter a discretion” , in other words introduce some arbitrary reaon not to do something that applies…always.
You should ask for written reasons as to:
Why they wont prosecute on your witness account and the video you have provided. I would suggest you ask no more than this at firstand when you get it post their response.
There may be good reasons not to rely upon some video evidence most of the time, but all of it, most important, all the time?
Blimy, now that second one is
Blimy, now that second one is a dangerously close pass for both the cyclist and the oncoming vehicles. You can clearly see from the headlight beam pattern just how close the car is. More than careless, downright dangerous.
(Having said that, the first manoeuvre although poor wouldn’t have bothered me; the driver did seem to know what he was doing and did give the cyclist plenty of room).
Can’t wait to read the police response to Road.cc (but think I may have a very long wait).
Strangely, if you pass one of
Strangely, if you pass one of their off-duty officers on a dual carriageway going a bit quick and he decides to report you to their traffic section, they will take the time to drop you in all kinds of sh!t with your employer’s car fleet management. W@nkers…
PaulBox wrote:
Simple answer is, dont be a speeding w@nker and you wont get your arse kicked.
Stumps wrote:
But if there’s no collision, what harm is done? /ducks
I couldn’t give a toss if someone goes 80 on a dual carriage way if they keep a safe distance. I’d rather have people prosecuted for tailgating at 70, or going 35 in a 30.
Simple answer to this….
Simple answer to this…..they don’t have time to investigate it!
Without sounding harsh there are far more serious crimes than this that they also don’t have time to investigate. This is the world we now live in.
The police service has been so stripped of finances and resources that they have to draw the line somewhere. Whilst every victim will feel their individual circumstance is the most important thing going on unfortunately to the police it’s unlikely to be the case.
Yes there will be horror stories when things get missed and something isn’t done when it should’ve been but this isn’t one. There are thousands of near misses every day, if each driver was prosecuted, yes the roads might be a safer place but you wouldn’t have a police force in your area to do anything else!
Simple maths at the end of the day, demand is (and I can’t emphasise how much) massively greater than resources!
fullers1979 wrote:
Given that the same police force had the resources to mount a highly publicised operation to crack down on pavement cycling in the well known den of dangerous cycling, Baldock and Letchworth *, the resource argument does not wash. Sorry.
It’s not math, it’s priorities.
*(KSIs from pavement cycling: 0. No, I’m not going to google the stats, but I’ll gladly by anyone who proves me wrong a pint)
I hope they don’t prosecute
I hope they don’t prosecute because:
1. it wasn’t closer than the mandatory distance.
2. it will hopefully discourage utter twats like this who go around with cameras shouting at motorists and giving all the rest of us a bad name.
I’m a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid and many years before the current boom. I do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist. This is because I do my damnedest to stay close to the kerb, to make myself visible, to not cycle two-abreast, to always presume that a car has not seen me and will not assess my speed correctly.
Please, get a life and ride safely. The guy should have slowed down when he saw the van turning instead of steaming through. Yes, the driver made an error of judgement. You however are a 12-stone piece of meat on a 9kg frame, versus a couple of thousand kilos of van. Regardless of what situation you are in, you are not a car and you do not have right of way due to basic physics and common sense. Back off.
Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs) are going to increase tension and screw things up for all of us. Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can’t see you and become nervous as they don’t know what you are going to do, because they don’t want to kill you! Grow up!
Applecart wrote:
4 paragraphs of bollocks. Good work.
4 paragraphs of bollocks.
4 paragraphs of bollocks. Good work.
[/quote]
Nice critical analytical skills you’ve got there. I therefore take it you believe the opposite, which seems bizarre on a cycling website.
Applecart wrote:
4 paragraphs of bollocks. Good work.
— Applecart
Nice critical analytical skills you’ve got there. I therefore take it you believe the opposite, which seems bizarre on a cycling website.— vonhelmet
Have you watched the end of the video yet?
vonhelmet wrote:
Have you watched the end of the video yet?
[/quote]
Yes. The car was too close. The cyclist was however too far out from the verge. If I was in that situation at night, I would be several inches away from being in the bushes as it’s f***ing dangerous riding on narrow roads at night. It’s almost an extreme sport. Cycling several feet out into the lane might make this guy’s d*ck shrink a bit less from the sheer terror of it, however the effect is to make it more dangerous for all involved – as you can see in the video.
Applecart wrote:
Yes. The car was too close. The cyclist was however too far out from the verge. If I was in that situation at night, I would be several inches away from being in the bushes as it’s f***ing dangerous riding on narrow roads at night. It’s almost an extreme sport. Cycling several feet out into the lane might make this guy’s d*ck shrink a bit less from the sheer terror of it, however the effect is to make it more dangerous for all involved – as you can see in the video.
[/quote]
Have you ever cycled before Applecart? I’m guessing not…..well certainly not in the UK where we have somewhat less than perfect roads.
Cycling a few inches away from the bushes would result in you being in the bushes more often than not. You need to cycle around 1 to 1.5m away from the verge for several reasons. Firstly because of pothles, secondly to avoid road furniture such as gutters etc, and finally so that you are further into the driver’s field of vision.
A few of your other priceless comments “It wasn’t closer than the mandatory distance” – um ok there is no specified distance, other than rule 163 of the Highway Code which says give motorcyclists, cyclists and horses at least as much room as you would give a car. Which he never. Also rule 163 says you should “Overtake ONLY when it is safe to do so” and by cutting in when he did it was not safe to overtake.
“Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can’t see you” – well if they can’t see a cyclist with lights and reflective gear on in the dark they shouldn’t be driving. Would you use the same line if we were discussing pedestrians?
“1. if you remember that drivers underestimate cyclists’ speed, you can pre-empt most behaviour and avoid getting killed. This is generally held to be desirable.” – please let me know how you can pre-empt a driver coming from behind you, overtaking you into the face of oncoming traffic then squeezing you onto the verge? From the time you see the car headlights to the time the car was cutting him up was a sum total of about 5 seconds.
“2. Staying left, in my experience, is appreciated by drivers as they can pass safely without the stress of thinking they’re going to knock you off” – or as more often happens gives the driver the sense that you want them to overtake and as such they will try to do so before it is safe to do so.
“This means: never assume somebody has seen you, assessed your speed correctly, or will give you space as the potential cost of this is your life. If you bear that in mind you have a lot less to get angry about” – so you would recommend, as a ‘cyclist’ stopping on the approach to every hazard involving another car, just to be sure?
Most cyclists I know would react to a dangerous pass in some way shape or form. It is the fight or flight response of the human body kicking in. As for camera’s creating a them and us culture, the culture was there long before camera’s became popular, it’s just now more and more of the incidents are being caught on film due to the number of camera’s out there.
Please go and find some sensible arguments rather than the standard anti cycling rhetoric you are spouting
Applecart wrote:
you didn’t watch to the end did you?
robertoegg wrote:
Yes I did. The car was close. However, it was a narrow road, there was oncoming traffic, and the cyclist was too far out from the verge. If he was riding like a reasonably intelligent person the car could slip by just fine. I’ve done plenty of night riding and I know it’s a hairy experience, you need to be tucked right in to the edge. Unsurprisingly, I’ve not had any problems of this sort.
Secondly, the cyclist is clearly un utter tool. Just listen to his voice, shouting “wanker” and “tosser” at everyone with his f***ing camera on his head in the middle of the road, thinking he has all the visibility and physical properties of a motor vehicle. I think he shouldn’t be riding quite frankly.
Applecart wrote:
Hard to know where to start there’s so much nonsense. So divorced from reality in fact that I doubt you are a cyclist at all. Only someone staggeringly uninformed of the reality on the ground and devoid of any sympathy would post a comment like yours.
My advice to you is buy, or even borrow a bike, and go out for a ride and act like a saint on the road (it’s not hard; stop at red lights, be seen, be aware, say 18 inches from the kerb etc). Within the hour you’ll have had a near miss and it won’t have been your fault.
[quote=Applecart]
I hope they don’t prosecute because:
1. it wasn’t closer than the mandatory distance.
2. it will hopefully discourage utter twats like this who go around with cameras shouting at motorists and giving all the rest of us a bad name.
I’m a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid and many years before the current boom. I do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist. This is because I do my damnedest to stay close to the kerb, to make myself visible, to not cycle two-abreast, to always presume that a car has not seen me and will not assess my speed correctly.
Please, get a life and ride safely. The guy should have slowed down when he saw the van turning instead of steaming through. Yes, the driver made an error of judgement. You however are a 12-stone piece of meat on a 9kg frame, versus a couple of thousand kilos of van. Regardless of what situation you are in, you are not a car and you do not have right of way due to basic physics and common sense. Back off.
Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs) are going to increase tension and screw things up for all of us. Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can’t see you and become nervous as they don’t know what you are going to do, because they don’t want to kill you! Grow up!
— Applecart
What a heap of confused drivel.
1. There is no ‘mandatory distance’, but if there were, this would be closer than it.
2. Did you actually watch the video? If so, please tell me what a right turning van has to do with anything. The issue was simply a standard impatient numpty pushing past with no space.
3. Your “advice” to stay very left and not double up just encourages this stupdly dangerous driving.
4. “Stay safe” is dandy, but quite what you think the cyclist could have done to avoid this idiot driving is beyond me. Other than riding in primary, which you would say is wrong because it upsets the almighty drivers.
5. Are you, in fact, L Willo returned from the grave?
[/quote] 3. Your “advice” to
[/quote] 3. Your “advice” to stay very left and not double up just encourages this stupdly dangerous driving.[/quote]
Agreed………….generally the closer you cycle to the kerb the more likely it is that some fcknut will see an opportunity and ‘squeeze’ past.
[/quote] What a heap of
[/quote] What a heap of confused drivel. 1. There is no ‘mandatory distance’, but if there were, this would be closer than it. 2. Did you actually watch the video? If so, please tell me what a right turning van has to do with anything. The issue was simply a standard impatient numpty pushing past with no space. 3. Your “advice” to stay very left and not double up just encourages this stupdly dangerous driving. 4. “Stay safe” is dandy, but quite what you think the cyclist could have done to avoid this idiot driving is beyond me. Other than riding in primary, which you would say is wrong because it upsets the almighty drivers. 5. Are you, in fact, L Willo returned from the grave?[/quote]
Thanks for at least bothering to state your position!
I do agree about the van, he was in the wrong. However:
1. if you remember that drivers underestimate cyclists’ speed, you can pre-empt most behaviour and avoid getting killed. This is generally held to be desirable.
2. Staying left, in my experience, is appreciated by drivers as they can pass safely without the stress of thinking they’re going to knock you off. It’s personal, and it’s what works for me. Likewise, two-abreast cycling irritates drivers enormously, so I don’t do it. This is my personal opinion.
3. No idea who L Willo is. Staying safe, however falls into the above two points.
Applecart wrote:
What a heap of confused drivel. 1. There is no ‘mandatory distance’, but if there were, this would be closer than it. 2. Did you actually watch the video? If so, please tell me what a right turning van has to do with anything. The issue was simply a standard impatient numpty pushing past with no space. 3. Your “advice” to stay very left and not double up just encourages this stupdly dangerous driving. 4. “Stay safe” is dandy, but quite what you think the cyclist could have done to avoid this idiot driving is beyond me. Other than riding in primary, which you would say is wrong because it upsets the almighty drivers. 5. Are you, in fact, L Willo returned from the grave?[/quote]
Thanks for at least bothering to state your position!
I do agree about the van, he was in the wrong. However:
1. if you remember that drivers underestimate cyclists’ speed, you can pre-empt most behaviour and avoid getting killed. This is generally held to be desirable.
2. Staying left, in my experience, is appreciated by drivers as they can pass safely without the stress of thinking they’re going to knock you off. It’s personal, and it’s what works for me. Likewise, two-abreast cycling irritates drivers enormously, so I don’t do it. This is my personal opinion.
3. No idea who L Willo is. Staying safe, however falls into the above two points.[/quote]
Riding two abreast is not only legal, it’s encouraged by the highway code.
Most of us cyclists do stay left, but when a section is two narrow for an overtake it’s safer to “take the primary”, i. e. move out, to stop a dangerous driver from passing.
Again the highway code recommends this behaviour.
Applecart wrote:
Edit – decided not to feed the troll. No point upsetting the applecart.
Applecart wrote:
One presumes that when you’re not cycling you’re basejumping, wingsuit flying and climbing skyscrapers without a harness, because you must have nerves of steel.
Or you’re talking bollocks (Perhaps you drive in Harpenden?)
I’m genuinely all for giving equal opportunities to the less abled, but I draw the line at blind people driving. Even Keith Peates would struggle to justify that second overtake.
kraut wrote:
People have irritated me, yes. However the vast majority of the population do not have the psychological problems that result in road rage. People with road rage are a small but obviously very vocal minority. I lot of cyclists with road rage seem to have cameras strapped to their heads and spend an inordinate amount of time and energy recording themselves and others and putting it on the internet. I’m generally too busy riding my bike quite frankly.
OK I did raise my voice the other day when a young lady was chatting on her phone and missed me crossing. I had to brake hard, but I was ready to do so as I presumed she hadn’t seen me. She was clearly in the wrong, but my rule still applies: always presume that drivers haven’t seen you.
The trick to being a good driver, or cyclist for that matter, is pre-empting other people’s behaviour. That is the key to ah – ah – ah – ah – staying alive.
Applecart wrote:
Seriously? You “do your damdest to stay close to the kerb”?
Do that and you can get knocked off.
Most days on my commute I have drivers try to squeeze past me when there’s a traffic calming measure than means the road is too narrow for a bike and a car.
Not so long ago a typical incompetent tried to squeeze past, realised his idiot mistake at the last minute, and hit the kerb on the central reservation and blew his tyre and wrecked his wheel rim.
Last year another fool did the same and hit me with his wing mirror at seventy.
That hurt.
Luckily I had a witness so he got done for dangerous driving. Had the witness not been there a camera would have done the trick.
Listen : I’ve been knocked off my bike 5 times over the years, mostly by idiots pulling out of junctions into me, and they got zero punishment as its my word against theirs.
Too many drivers get away with threatening people’s lives, and just because you’ve been damned lucky, doesn’t mean everyone else should just roll over and accept this.
Sheesh.
The first was pretty much
The first was pretty much business as usual. The second was absolutely outrageous.
I could continue!
I could continue!
In accidents, what is the number one reason drivers give? Answer: “I didn’t see him.” Remember that if you are cycling, and always, always presume that they haven’t seen your skinny ass.
Secondly if they have seen you, the next misjudgement is to under-estimate the cyclist’s speed. Case in point here, the van driver did think this guy would be so fast and pulled out. It’s so bloody simple! Wake up!!! Cyclists need education too, clearly ffss
Applecart wrote:
Please don’t, you’ve said more than enough crap for now.
Bobbinogs wrote:
Such as?
Applecart wrote:
…to the end of the video clip before you posted a load of nonesense?
Why, please do. Then feel free to defend the car driver who very nearly destroys a bloke cycling along…
robertoegg wrote:
Willos back with a new name, or just another daily mail refugee
Applecart wrote:
Obvious trowel is obvious.
Applecart wrote:
If one hides in the gutter as you seem to propose then they’re even less likely to see you. Fecking idiot.
Applecart wrote:
Troll alert.
I mean you can’t be so daft as to claim that the cyclist was “too fast” therefore it wasn’t the fault of the driver.
Seriously?
Do I need to spell it out.
If a driver can’t estimate the speed of a fellow road user then they should not have a licence.
A license is a privilege, not a right.
What a load of rubbish. The
What a load of rubbish. The police get more than enough money. As do the NHS. It’s just that they waste it willy nilly because it’s somebody else’s money ie ours!
It’s about time we held our public services to account more instead of just saying they need more money. The amount of waste is incredible.
Have you ever noticed how absolutely anybody can have their prescription delivered? Who do think pays for that? I could go on but it drives my blood pressure up.
It happens to me everyday,
It happens to me everyday, they pass exceeding the speed limit and I have had my arm touched on several occasions with their mirror. Not a lot you can do. The cops don’t give a shit. I just live with it :/
Re Herts Police.
Re Herts Police.
Now this is what you call irony;
https://twitter.com/HertsPolice/status/781524328923922432
HalfWheeler wrote:
Good link easy to add a tweet to Herts Police
HalfWheeler wrote:
Note that their logo is a car. That says it all, really.
Quote:
Contradiction.
Not sure why this bloke was
Not sure why this bloke was yelling at the first pass ~40 seconds in, it does make him seem like one of these self appointed “cycling safety campainers” who makes a mountain out of everything and puts everything on a youtube channel.
I do obviously agree with the second pass being far too close.
DrG82 wrote:
I dont think the first pass is about the distance so much, its that the car has done that thing where theyve decided not to wait a few moments more, or worse they just didnt look or care, and just pulled out of the side road, and you end up riding alongside them whilst they complete their turn, which is disconcerting because you kind of know you are in a temporary blind spot where they cant judge the distance away from you properly or see you in the mirrors properly.
so I can see why a rider would react to that, and dont forget sometimes its not the first encounter on a ride youd likely have had, its just the one that causes you to shout.
Thames Valley Police also
Thames Valley Police also refuse to take action and are now saying they are only interested in the “Fatal Four”, so they think that the offence of driving without a seatbelt is more serious than someone who endangers a vulnerable road user. Hants Constabulary are even worse.
Fifth Gear wrote:
Oddly enough Thames Valley Police are more than happy to take action based on video evidence when you cross a hatched area on, say, leaving the M4 at J6. Don’t ask me how I…cyclists may be better drivers, but not necessarily perfect. But the course was actually less excruciating than expected.
But obviously endangering cyclists is far less important.
That must be L Willo. Sounds
That must be L Willo. Sounds just like his brand of trolling.
I wouldn’t have reacted the
I wouldn’t have reacted the same way as the cyclist in the first clip. You could see the van pulling out and then just ease off or apply a little bit of brake just to fall in behind and avoid getting squeezed.
In the second instance, the driver should be done for careless driving. Any over-reaction driver or cyclist could have ended in tragedy. And not investigating if there is no injury! The whole point is to prevent the injury, not to panic react when it all goes wrong. Prevention is better than cure, just look at the driver who got a slap on the wrist 8 times for mobile phone use but was only given a real punishment when he killed a cyclist while on the phone!
On a more practical note, try contacting your police and crime commissioner and MP. About all you can do other than vigilante actions 🙂
First pass was OK I thought
First pass was OK I thought (maybe just the camera angle?), but the 2nd pass in the last 10 seconds of the video was utterly shambolic and clearly dangerous! How on earth that doesn’t get a word and a 3 points caution I don’t know! Keep fighting for it, do it in writing as suggested above. You have the right to get home safely when using the road, that motorist was very close to stopping that, and deserves a warning.
Yay, it’s the Mail
Yay, it’s the Mail Windowlickers’ Day Out again!
think the issue though not
think the issue though not expressed as such is that cyclists deserve what they get for venturing onto “busy” roads – reasoning being that different standards are being applied – there are plenty of prosecutions of drivers for poor and inconsiderate driving offences when the driving has “merely” potentially, but not actually endangered other drivers – to apply the concept that a collision must occur for the driving to be below an acceptable standard is applying a different ruleset and an inappropriate one
resources are different issue from willingness to prioritise
That first ‘incident’ was a
That first ‘incident’ was a non event. I’d even argue that on a quiet road, the driver was doing the sensible thing… by pulling out and leaving plenty of room, it stops the car from being caught behind the cyclist moving forward.
However I get why the cyclist was pissed at it… it was a bit cheeky. It was not careless driving though was it?
I’d have submitted the second pass only, and maybe the forces may have been more receptive.
Probably not.
I commute 5000 miles a year
I commute 5000 miles a year by bike. I see my fair share of bad driving, but don’t feel the need to get a camera. I fact I’m sick of cameras intruding into every aspect of daily life.
Do I feel any safer and notice anyone driving better now that people are videoing rides and sending them to the police – NO.
Do I get more abuse from drivers who see cyclists as the enemy – YES.
drosco wrote:
Each to their own. Personally I use a camera so there is evidence if I’m injured or killed by the driver of a vehicle. I want my family to have some way of seeing justice done, and hopefully to avoid unnecessary hardship.
drosco wrote:
conicence does not equal cause
roads are getting busiers drivers are getting more stressed -> abuse levels go up
drivers are more stressed and agressive -> camera use goes up.
I do not accept that the prevalence of camers causes abuse to go up, as we all know people are more likely to behave if their actions can be proven.
I ride with a camera incase
I ride with a camera incase the worst happens and hopefully there wil be some evidence and that will give my family some peace of mind.
Only once ive sent a video clip to a company because the driving fell far bellow the poor standards Ive come to expect.
Fine, people can do what they
Fine, people can do what they want, but it does create a them and us, which impacts on all cyclists, not only those who choose to use cameras.
Personally, if I was so obsessed with getting killed riding a bike everyday that I felt the need to wear a camera to record my demise, I probably would be riding at all.
drosco wrote:
Cycling community wanker.
Bikebikebike wrote:
I was knocked off my bike bike twice last year by two drivers. One turned right and drove into me as I was passing a junction, the other pulled out of a left hand junction and knocked me across the road into oncoming traffic. I had first one then the other collar bone broken. The response from both South Wales and West Mercia police was tough tits no action against the drivers is necessary.
So yes I now have a Fly 6 cam and a helmet cam. If a driver can see he’s being recorded he might, just might, watch his own behaviour.
Disappearinghead wrote:
I’m really sorry that happened to you. I don’t however think that having a camera will make someone less likely to hit you because if they have time to clock you with a camera, they certainly have time to not drive into you and potentially commit manslaughter. If it makes you feel safer though so be it. I would always presume that they haven’t seen me though.
drosco wrote:
Drivers squash cyclists.
Drivers drive aggressively around cyclists.
In response:
Cyclists wear helmets.
Cyclists wear cameras to record driver behaviour.
And the cause of the ‘them and us’? The camera wearers…
drosco – go and sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done.
@ Drosco, How on earth does
@ Drosco, How on earth does carrying a camera create a them and us scenario?
The camera just records what is happening and in the unlikely event of an incident it cuts thru’ the “He said..” “She said..” nonsense.
I will accept that cameras positively affect behaviour if people know that they are being filmed, as witnessed this week when it was reported that Police wearing body cameras saw a 93% reduction in complaints.
But again I cannot see how would create a them and us situation either.
How dare I have an opion that
How dare I have an opion that isn’t the same as yours!
(insert expletive here)
Cretins.
drosco wrote:
I don’t even know what an “opion” is. (Some kind of onion?)
I just don’t see how using a camera (or two) is antagonising car drivers. You may be confusing cause and effect here – maybe the increase in driver aggression is causing more cyclists to consider getting cameras to provide evidence in case of a collision. That’s what prompted my purchase of Fly6 and Fly12 cameras.
Just pointing a camera at a public road should not be a bone of contention. If you’re driving along normally, then what’s the problem? It’s only the reckless and feckless drivers that should have any concern that they’re being filmed and being on a public road means that there’s no expectation of privacy (despite all those car drivers who pick their noses thinking that no-one’s watching).
In the reverse case, I don’t think cyclists object to car dash-cams and protest that the motorists are making it a “them-and-us” scenario. Likewise, motorcyclists have been using video cameras for a while and I don’t think people consider them to be divisive.
The simple truth is that a camera shows objectively (albeit from a single view-point) what was happening and is useful if there’s any need to provide evidence. Otherwise, you just have an argument from different onions.
watched the video, no issues
watched the video, no issues withh the guy pulling out.
cyclist probably neededs a better headlight to ride on unlit roads
finally got to the close pass after a long period of nothing, crazy close can’t be defended.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I get what you mean about the first one but when someone does that to you there is always a heart in mouth moment when you aren’t sure if they have seen you or not, so I can understand him calling the guy a tosser. Probably wouldn’t have posted the video if the second, worse one wasn’t on the same bit of video.
I don’t agree.
I don’t agree.
This constant reporting of incidents on social media is making the problems worse in my experience. It’s polarising attitudes to cyclists.
drosco wrote:
By George, I think you’re onto something!
Fook the root cause analysis: all you need now are some stats that show that the numbers of cyclists killed and seriously injured on the road has proportionally increased since social media – they shouldn’t be hard to find!
Blimey, I’ve stirred up a
Blimey, I’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest here! If your life revolves around raging at people with cameras on your helmets for not giving you space and watching videos of other people doing that on the internet, you’re a nob. Try giving people the benefit of the doubt and you’ll enjoy cycling, as well as your life a lot more.
As for people rubbishing what I’ve said, the two key issues are:
1. visibility (drivers don’t see you)
2. speed (drivers under-estimate cyclists’ speed, and cyclists over-estimate drivers’)
Both points are fully backed-up by research. If you keep these in mind you’ll be a hell of a lot safer. I’m not saying drivers don’t need education too, but you need to also control your behaviour and stop raging at people as it makes us all look like sad twats. Enjoy cycling folks and stay safe, please.
Applecart wrote:
Are you saying that cyclists’ behaviour is a significant factor in cyclist KSIs?
– If you are, you’re wrong. No research will back that up. Look up causes of cyclist KSIs – govt and RoSPA figures.
– If you’re not, then you must accept that you’re arguing a trivial point – that cyclist behaviour is largely irrelevant to the type of driver behaviour that really matters (ie that which leads to cyclist KSIs).
davel wrote:
Blimey, I’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest here! If your life revolves around raging at people with cameras on your helmets for not giving you space and watching videos of other people doing that on the internet, you’re a nob. Try giving people the benefit of the doubt and you’ll enjoy cycling, as well as your life a lot more.
As for people rubbishing what I’ve said, the two key issues are:
1. visibility (drivers don’t see you)
2. speed (drivers under-estimate cyclists’ speed, and cyclists over-estimate drivers’)
Both points are fully backed-up by research. If you keep these in mind you’ll be a hell of a lot safer. I’m not saying drivers don’t need education too, but you need to also control your behaviour and stop raging at people as it makes us all look like sad twats. Enjoy cycling folks and stay safe, please.
— davel Are you saying that cyclists’ behaviour is a significant factor in cyclist KSIs? – If you are, you’re wrong. No research will back that up. Look up causes of cyclist KSIs – govt and RoSPA figures. – If you’re not, then you must accept that you’re arguing a trivial point – that cyclist behaviour is largely irrelevant to the type of driver behaviour that really matters (ie that which leads to cyclist KSIs).— Applecart
I think there is a vaild point here to be fair… cycling behavious is not the cause in the majority of cyclist KSI’s, the fault sits with the driver in an overwhelming majority of cases. However, cycling behavious can and does affect the exposure / vulnerability of cyclists to poor standards of driving.
And actually… ranting and raving gets you no where… it doesn’t make the driver go… “oh woops, I think I got it wrong there, that cyclist is right, I’ll take greater care next time”
It makes them think… “cyclists… dicks”
The right answer is providing controlled feedback when possible… not saying thats what I do… that I don’t pull out the obsenities from time to time, but really, the only chance of positive change, is positive, constructive discussion.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
As epitomised by Chris Boardman – totally agree we need that. We’re not in the promised land yet, though, are we? ‘Drivers’ and authorities aren’t showing that many signs of listening, are they?
In the meantime, some progress on prosecution (W Mids police) and fear of being filmed or abused by gobby/punchy cyclists might not be a bad thing.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Yes, you got it. I would go further and say that, as drivers are usually at fault we need to be even more careful not to antagonise people and to pre-empt accidents by following the general rule that: everybody is blind to cyclists and cannot judge speed. You’ll probably live longer.
At least someone gets what I’m saying: ie. steaming along in the middle of the road with a camera on your head shouting at drivers and making signs is not going to help anyone, it just creates bad feeling.
Applecart wrote:
“She provoked him, your honour. She deserved it. If she hadn’t antagonised him, it would never have happened.”
davel wrote:
Blimey, I’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest here! If your life revolves around raging at people with cameras on your helmets for not giving you space and watching videos of other people doing that on the internet, you’re a nob. Try giving people the benefit of the doubt and you’ll enjoy cycling, as well as your life a lot more.
As for people rubbishing what I’ve said, the two key issues are:
1. visibility (drivers don’t see you)
2. speed (drivers under-estimate cyclists’ speed, and cyclists over-estimate drivers’)
Both points are fully backed-up by research. If you keep these in mind you’ll be a hell of a lot safer. I’m not saying drivers don’t need education too, but you need to also control your behaviour and stop raging at people as it makes us all look like sad twats. Enjoy cycling folks and stay safe, please.
— davel Are you saying that cyclists’ behaviour is a significant factor in cyclist KSIs? – If you are, you’re wrong. No research will back that up. Look up causes of cyclist KSIs – govt and RoSPA figures. – If you’re not, then you must accept that you’re arguing a trivial point – that cyclist behaviour is largely irrelevant to the type of driver behaviour that really matters (ie that which leads to cyclist KSIs).— Applecart
Yes, I’m saying cyclists’ behaviour is as much a factor. I’ve looked at the stats and the main cause is “didn’t look properly” and it’s about 57-43 drivers vs cyclists fault at junctions this backs up my assertion of “I didn’t see him”, but also that cyclists can be equally careless.
Looking at a Guardian article from 15.12.2009, it says that collisions are attributed solely to the driver 60-75% of the time. My point therefore is, as it is so incredibly risky sharing the road with cars, don’t take any kind of risk as a cyclist. This means: never assume somebody has seen you, assessed your speed correctly, or will give you space as the potential cost of this is your life. If you bear that in mind you have a lot less to get angry about..
Applecart wrote:
Looking at a Guardian article from 15.12.2009, it says that collisions are attributed solely to the driver 60-75% of the time. My point therefore is, as it is so incredibly risky sharing the road with cars, don’t take any kind of risk as a cyclist. This means: never assume somebody has seen you, assessed your speed correctly, or will give you space as the potential cost of this is your life. If you bear that in mind you have a lot less to get angry about..— Applecart
This is exactly the sort of nonsense argument we used to have with L.Willo. Yes, I could stop every time I’m not certain someone has seen me, but I’ve got places to be. I can’t take 2 hours to get to work because I’m stopping every time I see another car.
[/quote]
[/quote]
This is exactly the sort of nonsense argument we used to have with L.Willo. Yes, I could stop every time I’m not certain someone has seen me, but I’ve got places to be. I can’t take 2 hours to get to work because I’m stopping every time I see another car.
[/quote]
I’m not talking about stopping. My commute right now is 5k on a cycle path so I’m lucky, however I used to cycle 25 miles Weston-Super-Mare to Bristol, or 11 miles Clevedon to Bristol for work regularly on A, B and country roads and never had any problems. You just have to be careful around junctions – always presume they haven’t seen you. That either means gunning it so you’re past the cars before they can decide to turn, or feathering the brakes well in advance so you never put yourself inbetween a car and a left turn. This helps you to not die, which is good.
Applecart wrote:
Proven not to be the case, studies have shown passing distances unchanged unless the cyclist where a vest marked “Police” or “Polite” in which case they are fine, they see you but they don’t care unless they think the police are watching.
Police Scotland can’t even be
Police Scotland can’t even be arsed doing anything even when someone is badly injured,they would of likely done cyclist for wasting police time
PSNI also did not do anything
PSNI also did not do anything when given video footage of a driver who went straight on in a right turn only lane and skimmed me by no more than a couple of inches.
Apart from being hit, this is my closest call.
The only solution I have found in Belfast city traffic is to ride in the middle of the lane and take control to stop forced overtakes by dickheads. Most of the time, I move faster than the cars, so they hold me up.
The only Police Force that seem to be stepping up to the mark and (reportedly) doing their duty to protect the vulnerable are the West Midlands, with their close pass overtaking policy. See how this progresses, but good on them.
Applecart, sorry, but you are
Applecart, sorry, but you are completely wrong.
I have been cycling for over 30 years; I’ve done and ridden just about everything, including 12 years in London, some of it as a cycle and motorcycle courier.
I am a cycle guide with my own tour company.
What you are advocating is, in my opinion, dangerous and incorrect.
What has saved me from accidents is defensive riding, where you assert yourself and take a primary position on the road. This does not mean obstructing cars, but making them aware that you are there and have a right to be there.
Riding tight to the kerb is asking for trouble. You have nowhere to go if there’s a super close pass. I always leave a margin for safety.
Yes, assume drivers haven’t seen you, but when they do pull out on you, don’t expect me to apologise and send them flowers. THEY are the ones in a 1.5 tonne hunk of metal that can kill you. THEY are the ones that should be extra careful not to kill a fellow human being. The level of driving skill and awareness is shockingly poor and needs to be brought to everyone’s attention. If that’s by multiple close pass / pull out videos then so be it.
I have had 5 interactions
I have had 5 interactions with Hertfordshire Police in 20 years of living and working in the county: A missing child, assisting at first response to an attempted suicide, first response at a serious road traffic accident, complaint about kids with airguns, and 1 complaint about behaviour of another road user. In each situation they have been proactive, professional and prompt to respond. With regard to my 2 complaints, they took them seriously and took what I consider to be the appropriate action.
I guess it depends on luck with who you get, what your expectations are and your own ability to treat professionals with respect. To accept their judgement as to how to deal with your complaint based on their training, experience, available resource and options as to appropriate course of action.
Seeing the way some people interact with authority, it’s not really surprising that they get short shrift as time wasters.
Just remembered another. Friendly advice about road safety at the start of motorcycle season, free tea a safety video and chat with Police riders that was actually half an hour well spent.
They’re a moton troll: they
They’re a moton troll: they registered as ‘Applecart’ to post balls that they probably believe.
I do have some ‘sympathy’ for the invisibility of cyclists.*
However, the argument of ‘stay well left/out of the way/ride defensively’ put forward by the likes of Applecart, L.Willo and every other moton apologist who thinks, because they have a bike, that they can educate cyclists, collapses there (and many other areas, to be fair).
The argument that drivers can’t see you calls for making yourself more visible and obvious, and do exactly the opposite of sheepishly hiding in the kerb, trying not to inconvenience our motorist masters. It’s exactly the sort of contradictory bilge spouted by people like this who are twats first, drivers second, and cyclists when they’ve had their driving licence revoked.
* http://road.cc/content/news/81753-invisible-cyclists-eye-tracking-experiment-finds-drivers-dont-see-more-1-5-riders
I’ve seen the RAF pilot quoted here and his arguments referred to a lot too…
http://road.cc/content/feature/159493-trend-spotting-should-we-all-be-using-lights-daytime