Cyclists - what's with the head cams?

[viv1969]

To me it is these inflated views of self importance and entitlement on both sides that cause these issues in the first place.

 

[CaveDweller]

I wear one, or even more at once quite often when I'm messing about doing tricks or blasting down the mountains. It's for fun mountain biking film making though and not to try and capture annoying drivers lol. I do get a few funny looks sometimes when I have a Gopro on my head, chest and a few scattered round the bike for different angles, but it's the sacrifice I have to take to get the best "first person" view for the films. Me and my mates just do it for fun. It's nice to see a short movie after a few weeks of riding and all sit about to watch it.

I never wear them if I'm out just having a pedal about or not interested in getting shots for my biking films.

 

[dejongj]

I really like the first person type shots. I love my gopro. Even got a mount for my dog

 

[POAH]

Small fact about helmets - Not proven to save lives. Lots of opinion that they do, and lots that they don't, but no hard facts either way. Also....Only tested to collision speeds of 12mph.

I do wear one, but Im of the opinion that its next to useless, but better safe than sorry.... I think that's a good attitude to have.

.

I don't think you have ever crashed and hit your head then or talked to an A&E nurse or doctor. you hit your head off a wall at 12mph and see the damage you'vet when you wake up.

 

[CaveDweller]

I really like the first person type shots. I love my gopro. Even got a mount for my dog

I've had them for years now but not actually got round to mounting them on my dogs yet lol, must give it a shot. I've got two working Collies so might be interesting seeing a dogs POV when it comes to herding.

 

[nilagin]

 

[CaveDweller]

Seen that before, thought it was brilliant. Especially the way it runs between everyone on the sand lol, hopefully they weren't expecting it.

 

[dejongj]

I've had them for years now but not actually got round to mounting them on my dogs yet lol, must give it a shot. I've got two working Collies so might be interesting seeing a dogs POV when it comes to herding.

That would be really cool! Do it!

 

[dejongj]

Brilliant video and no moaning about other road users either

 

[Mattyd]

From that photo there is no reason for the cyclist to be that far out from the side of the road. The motorist has given excessive room

Jesus wept

look at it objectively..

The highway code says something you don't like. Bikability training says something you don't like. Perhaps you might be the problem?

You need to adjust your expectation and relax.

You say cyclists have as much right to cycle down the centre of the road yet where do they place cycle lanes in the road?

Feel free to find me the section in the Highway code that specifies any cycling position.


Cycle paths analogy is flawed. Its easier to place than at the edge from an engendering standpoint if nothing else, that does not equal a requirement to cycle at the edge.

By the kerb and if there was a cycle lane painted in the road in the highway code photo the cyclist would be right on the edge or over demarcation line

Government guidelines ask that all cycle paths be 1.5 metre wide. Most cycle paths don't follow this rule, And of course bikability training recommends cycling one meter from the kerb (for many reasons you should know if you cycle 5k a year). But that cyclist is in the recommended position.

I'd like to hear more about why you feel that cyclists have a right and should take a primary position

2 points

1st - The have the "right" because they just do. As mentioned before there is no requirement for a cyclist to "get out of the way". Their journey is just as valid and as important as yours. The only vehicle that takes priority is the one in front (be that bike or car).

2nd - Taking primary removes the danger that an overtake can have in a confined space. Simple as that. Outside of a confined space I wouldn't recommend primary position.

Worth pointing out (and this is a very very very important point) - You might very well be the best driver in the world, that does not mean everyone is. If you feel all hard done by because a cyclist has had one to many scares due to dangerously close overtakes, hows about not blaming the cyclist but blaming the motorists who have caused this defensive behavior?

so far from the side of the road and any likely hazard and just becoming a hazard themselves

You're doing it again - you're calling other legitimate road users following the rules of the road "hazards". You should probably stop doing that. If everyone follows the rules they stop being hazards.

I dont have too much of an issue with the overtake btw - but don't confuse that with an admission that it was a good overtake.

I agree with many point and also disagree with many

I just wonder why this is all such an issue in the UK opposed to other countries where people are much more in harmony on the road. Sure cyclist have the right absolutely, doesn't mean they have to exercise it. Likewise doesn't mean that when you are properly on the left you should view yourself as a victim and be bullied.

To me it is these inflated views of self importance and entitlement on both sides that cause these issues in the first place.

broadly speaking I agree. Most of my argument does not stem from the fact that I will exercise my rights, it stems from the fact that for whatever reason some think I don't have those rights

Should also be noted - I own 2 cars, one campervan and a scooter. I drive a reasonable amount and everything Ive said here I follow when driving. And I have no problems with that.

And regarding other countries....Better infrastructure leads to more people cycling which in turn leads to better understanding and empathy. And because of that almost everyone has family members or/and friends that cycles regularly.

I don't think you have ever crashed and hit your head then or talked to an A&E nurse or doctor. you hit your head off a wall at 12mph and see the damage you'vet when you wake up.

As I said, I have no issue with wearing one (I do wear one, and recommend everyone does), but statistically speaking they have not lowered deaths anywhere in the world. Anyway, Its probably the most discussed topic in cycling. Im not going to get into a discussion about it though, its a whole can of worms. But I do recommend having a look online. Lots of info out there.

 

[neil_g]

Death stats maybe not but id be interested to know how
many non helmet wearers ended up brain damaged to some degree.

 

[nilagin]

Jesus wept

look at it objectively..

The highway code says something you don't like. Bikability training says something you don't like. Perhaps you might be the problem?

You need to adjust your expectation and relax.







Government guidelines ask that all cycle paths be 1.5 metre wide. Most cycle paths don't follow this rule, And of course bikability training recommends cycling one meter from the kerb (for many reasons you should know if you cycle 5k a year). But that cyclist is in the recommended position.

I have looked at it objectively and I maintain there is no need for the cyclist to be that far away from the kerb and the driver has given more than enough room. 1m from the kerb is over excessive and I never felt the need nor found myself in any situation to ride a metre away from the kerb, not even to avoid drain gratings.

 

[Mattyd]

Death stats maybe not but id be interested to know how
many non helmet wearers ended up brain damaged to some degree.

Im sure the stats are out there - warning though, its a massive can of worms. For every article saying one think you will find a load of others that say something else.

You will also have to contend with correlation and causation in the respect that is it helmets that save lives or the fact helmeted cyclists tend to be better cyclists...but you will find a load of articles/papers on that too

I have looked at it objectively and I maintain there is no need for the cyclist to be that far away from the kerb and the driver has given more than enough room. 1m from the kerb is over excessive and I never felt the need nor found myself in any situation to ride a metre away from the kerb, not even to avoid drain gratings.

You continue thinking that, Ill continue to follow the recommended, taught policy.

 

[nilagin]

You continue thinking that, I'll continue to impede other road users when it's unnecessary.

That's more like it.

 

[neil_g]

How good you are is fairly irrelevant as you cannot predict an accident

There seems to be quite a rise on some of the mtb forums/groups pages showing their smashed helmet stating that they "walked away".

I could also link to a friend of a friend who fell off their horse banged their head and is now paralysed and has to wear a nappy.

Personally I prefer the common sense approach. If youre partaking in something that has some risk of head injury it's better to wear one than become a vegetable/dead.

But we digress

 

[Tringa]

Seems we have three topics on the is thread now

On the original one. I think head cams are for fun and also for recording road incidents just like, as has been mentioned, dash cams.


On the video of the incident with the cyclist and van driver.

The van driver gave the cyclist plenty of room but he should not have overtaken there. I agree if that had been done in a driving test I think there is a good chance of failure.

The obstruction was very short and there was no oncoming traffic so he would have been able to overtake very soon after it. I'm not suggesting had the obstruction been bigger and if there was heavier oncoming traffic then overtaking in the way he did would have been acceptable, just that in this situation he could see he would be able to get passed the cyclist very soon after the obstruction.

There is also a road joining from the left. I'm fairly sure the Highway Code advised against overtaking close to junctions. While the immediate area of the junction is clear, there is a parked vehicle which could be obscuring another vehicle about to join the main road.

However, the reaction of the cyclist is ridiculous. Why does he have a helmet cam for – to show what a considerate road user he is and how others are being reckless. The van driver should not have overtaken where he did and the first few seconds after the light went to green show how inconsiderate he was being, but after that the cyclist did not cover himself in glory. Have to agree with the text on the video, though. It was so important for the van driver to save a few seconds that he went around the cyclist at the obstruction, but then had enough time to stop and try to have a go.

Neither should come away from this feeling happy about their actions, idiocy on both sides.


Then there is the cycling helmet discussion. Always amazes me that some people appear to be so vociferous about the uselessness of cycling helmets; is it being macho? It might be true that if you go head first into a kerb at 30mph a helmet is not going to save you, but I think most cyclist are travelling much slower and anything that offers protection to the head must be a good thing.

This makes interesting though, IMO obvious, points. http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf


Dave

 

[AHILL]

The problems I find with cyclists are:
1: the majority of them are totally unaware of what is going on around them.
2: their attitude to other road users is questionable at best
3: they flaunt the law at every opportunity
4: have no tolerance for anyone "not" on a bicycle.

The problem I find with motorists are:
1: the majority of them are totally unaware of what is going on around them.
2: their attitude to other road users is questionable at best
3: they flaunt the law at every opportunity
4: have no tolerance for anyone on a bicycle.

 

[Marc]

Just seen the video and I'm pretty sure that someone would have failed their test if they'd made that overtaking manoeuvre but, then again, most people probably do things on a day to day bass that would at least contribute to a test failure. He still gave the cyclist enough room and the cyclist's reaction was over the top, as was the van driver's subsequent reaction.

 

[Paul-H]

It seems that every other cyclist I see has a GoPro (other action cameras are available) strapped to their heads now.

Why?

Is it just for "evidence" if somebody cuts them up or are they all shooting panoramic footage of the Kent countryside and selling it to stock?

Does anybody ever watch the movies?

its so that when they fall off when riding through red lights or ignoring giveway signs or going the wrong way up one way streets it digs into the ground and snaps their fool necks

 

[nilagin]

Just seen the video and I'm pretty sure that someone would have failed their test if they'd made that overtaking manoeuvre .

I'd be intrigued to know why it would or could be a failure. It's no more than a traffic light controlled contraflow. There is more than enough room for both cyclist and the van to negotiate the road ahead side by side.

 

[viv1969]

It would definitely result in a driving test failure.

 

[dejongj]

I'd be intrigued to know why it would or could be a failure. It's no more than a traffic light controlled contraflow. There is more than enough room for both cyclist and the van to negotiate the road ahead side by side.

My guess is that although I agree there is plenty of room, there is this perceived notion that it can only be safe when you overtake like the cyclist was taken up the amount of space of a motorvehicle. And since you couldn't do that in that situation, a interpretation could be that you have to wait your turn and let the cyclist go first and hang back.

Heck there are some cyclist that ride around with a ruler to measure the distance you leave. I'm all up for rules but that can never be a partnership when some are so anal about their right and can't see the big picture. Just a bad at those motorist harping on and on about registration needs for cyclists.

 

[Marc]

I'd be intrigued to know why it would or could be a failure. It's no more than a traffic light controlled contraflow. There is more than enough room for both cyclist and the van to negotiate the road ahead side by side.

My guess is that although I agree there is plenty of room, there is this perceived notion that it can only be safe when you overtake like the cyclist was taken up the amount of space of a motorvehicle. And since you couldn't do that in that situation, a interpretation could be that you have to wait your turn and let the cyclist go first and hang back.

Heck there are some cyclist that ride around with a ruler to measure the distance you leave. I'm all up for rules but that can never be a partnership when some are so anal about their right and can't see the big picture. Just a bad at those motorist harping on and on about registration needs for cyclists.

^WHS^

 

[neil_g]

the big picture is that one side of the argument is encased in 1.5t of steel shell, the other is on a rather exposed 30lb of bicycle. if either (not pointing the finger at one particular side) party messes up its not going to be the one in the steel shell that ends up hurt/dead. so maybe one side has a better case for being a bit anal?

fwiw I hate riding on the road and if the slightest bit possible (even if it means a route extension) i'll always take the off road option because I cant trust most motorists.

 

[viv1969]

It would definitely result in a driving test failure.

Ok...I've just shown this to a driving examiner, and as it happens the van's initial overtake wouldn't result in a test fail...because at no point did he force the cyclist to:

Swerve
Slow down or
Stop

Known as the three "S" s in a test situation.

Are they both nobs? Yes.
But barring other errors, the van driver would still have his licence.

 

[Cobra]

I'm more surprised that the cyclist actually waited at red, there was plenty of room for him to weave in and out of the cones

 

[nilagin]

Just a bad at those motorist harping on and on about registration needs for cyclists.

I think that they should be registered and have some sort of 3rd party insurance. They can be at fault for an accident causing injury to pedestrians or damage to vehicles, yet have a chance of disappearing into the sunset without a care in the world. At least with a registration, their is a chance they can be traced.

 

[LASTOLITE]

I'm more surprised that the cyclist actually waited at red, there was plenty of room for him to weave in and out of the cones

Indeed


I treat ALL 2 wheeled riders, bipeds and quadrupeds the same, give em a wide berth and expect them to do the very thing that would lead to their own demise in any normal circumstance - in short just never trust any of them to comply with any rules of the road what so ever.... simple then I can never be accused or blamed for any of their antics.

I call it my Lycra Alert.......

 

[dejongj]

I think that they should be registered and have some sort of 3rd party insurance. They can be at fault for an accident causing injury to pedestrians or damage to vehicles, yet have a chance of disappearing into the sunset without a care in the world. At least with a registration, their is a chance they can be traced.

I don't think it is necessary and would be interested to see in any stats that support that damage by cyclists is a common occurrence.

Even more so, where does it stop. Pedestrians can and do cause a lot of damage as well. Shall we have a big registration number made mandatory on their back?

Less regulation would be my preference. Less rules make it simpler. Make the "weaker" party in traffic always automatically faultless such that the stronger and heavier participants have to anticipate more. Less rules will provide less ambiguity and opportunity for interpretation.

Personal responsibility for all will work better.

Granted idiots will always be there, but let's not legislate for the minority.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Some of them it gives a reason to be aggressive and on the look out for confrontations to record - apparently.

Both nobheads, but while going a bit fast to pass like that, the van wasn't really doing anything that was endangering the cyclist.

Why was that cyclist so far out though? He was pretty much in the middle of the road.. LOL.. what a total cleft. I hate cyclists like this.... the slightest transgression and they react with violent behaviour. Well.. I tend to react to violence aimed towards me with violence - attack being the best defence and all that.. Let's hope he never gets a chance to sound his horn or give me the finger because his erratic road positioning give me no choice but to pass closer than I'd normally like, or he'll have some nice go pro footage of my fist approaching in 720 30P to post on You Tube. It would be worth the police caution to punch some of these militant, aggressive cyclists squarely in the face.

 

[POAH]

I'd be intrigued to know why it would or could be a failure. It's no more than a traffic light controlled contraflow. There is more than enough room for both cyclist and the van to negotiate the road ahead side by side.

probably down to it being a single lane contraflow

 

[POAH]

Both nobheads, but while going a bit fast to pass like that, the van wasn't really doing anything that was endangering the cyclist.

Why was that cyclist so far out though? He was pretty much in the middle of the road.. LOL.. what a total cleft. I hate cyclists like this.... the slightest transgression and they react with violent behaviour. Well.. I tend to react to violence aimed towards me with violence - attack being the best defence and all that.. Let's hope he never gets a chance to sound his horn or give me the finger because his erratic road positioning give me no choice but to pass closer than I'd normally like, or he'll have some nice go pro footage of my fist approaching in 720 30P to post on You Tube. It would be worth the police caution to punch some of these militant, aggressive cyclists squarely in the face.

you'll find it will be more than a caution

 

[Pookeyhead]

you'll find it will be more than a caution

It may still be worth it.

Doubt it would be more though. I have a spotless lack of criminality on my record, and I'm a professional, educated person... just lost it in the heat of the moment by this mad man's self righteous, viscous verbal attack. That's the honest truth 'guv.... yeah. no problem. When you see complete asswipes with previous, properly beating the crap out of people on CCTV and still get a light, suspended sentence, I'm sure I'll be just fine.

 

[POAH]

It may still be worth it.

Doubt it would be more though. I have a spotless lack of criminality on my record, and I'm a professional, educated person... just lost it in the heat of the moment by this mad man's self righteous, viscous verbal attack. That's the honest truth 'guv.... yeah. no problem. When you see complete asswipes with previous, properly beating the crap out of people on CCTV and still get a light, suspended sentence, I'm sure I'll be just fine.

you'd be going to court and getting a criminal record for assualt. probably a fine and victim compensation

 

[Pookeyhead]

you'd be going to court and getting a criminal record for assualt. probably a fine and victim compensation

I doubt rational thought would be part of the equation though. It takes a lot to rile me, but these knobs are just looking to cause trouble. I doubt Id react to this knob, but the videos I've seen where they start banging on the roof of your car and stuff... sorry.... black eye heading thier way.

 

[nilagin]

probably down to it being a single lane contraflow

But it's a lane and a half and if you read Ruth's post above, you'll see she has asked a driving examiner who say's there is no evidence of the van driver doing anything wrong in overtaking the cyclist.

 

[Musicman]

Small side note....In Bikeability training cyclists are taught to take primary position to block traffic who might take their chances with a dangerous overtake when its not safe todo so. This is what I would have done.

It's not just Bikeability (which is the successor to the RoSPA Cycling Proficiency scheme for those that have not heard of it); it's advice from central government.

http://think.direct.gov.uk/cycling.html

Cyclists: ride central on narrow roads

I'm sorry that is just plain stupid. Why instruct a vulnerable road user to take up such a dangerous thing. No wonder motorists get peeved at cyclists.

The problem that motorists are unaware of this advice to cyclists is discussed by Mark Treasure on his 'As Easy As Riding a Bike' blog

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpres...-uk-cyclists-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place/

 

[viv1969]

It's not just Bikeability (which is the successor to the RoSPA Cycling Proficiency scheme for those that have not heard of it); it's advice from central government.

http://think.direct.gov.uk/cycling.html





The problem that motorists are unaware of this advice to cyclists is discussed by Mark Treasure on his 'As Easy As Riding a Bike' blog

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpres...-uk-cyclists-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place/

And of course all advice ftom central government is always the very finest

 

[POAH]

I doubt rational thought would be part of the equation though. It takes a lot to rile me, but these knobs are just looking to cause trouble. I doubt Id react to this knob, but the videos I've seen where they start banging on the roof of your car and stuff... sorry.... black eye heading thier way.

you'd struggle to give me a black eye with my helmet. only time I'd bang a car if it was going to hit me.

 

[POAH]

But it's a lane and a half and if you read Ruth's post above, you'll see she has asked a driving examiner who say's there is no evidence of the van driver doing anything wrong in overtaking the cyclist.

driving examiner is a numpty though lol