Cyclists - what's with the head cams?

POAH said:
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.
Click to expand...

If I was about to hit you, I'd deserve it... and not many cyclists wear full face helmets :)
 
POAH said:
driving examiner is a numpty though lol
Click to expand...

They mostly are, but they're still the ones who permit or deny a driving licence, and successful appeals against failure are as rare as hen's teeth and even successful ones only result in a retest with another knob lol :-)
 
viv1969 said:
And commited a speeding offence en route...on a bike :LOL:
Click to expand...

Don't jest, Ruth! :rolleyes:

I was in Richmond Park today doing 20mph as were all the other cars, and was overtaken by morons on bikes who think that the 20mph doesn't apply to them. :mad:

Knobs.
 
Tigger.ufo said:
Don't jest, Ruth! :rolleyes:

I was in Richmond Park today doing 20mph as were all the other cars, and was overtaken by morons on bikes who think that the 20mph doesn't apply to them. :mad:

Knobs.
Click to expand...

Amen lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
neil_g said:
To be fair I don't thinks there are any rules for speed limits on a cycle. There is no bicycle on the chart on rule 125..

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/control-of-the-vehicle-117-to-126

And even if there were there isn't a (mandatory) speedometer on a bike. Do you rely on the flow of traffic? Motorists have been using that excuse to get out of tickets for,years..
Click to expand...


From the Regulations of Richmond Park

http://www.frp.org.uk/pdf/frp/44_On_the_Road_In_Richmond_Park_Website_version_040712.pdf


Cyclists* and Motorists:
Rules for Car and Bike Alike
*Includes hand cyclists and sporting wheel-chair users.

Speed Limit:
It’s 20 For Car and Bike Alike

Road Traffic law and Royal Parks
Regulations mean the
20mph
limit
applies to
both drivers and cyclists*

20 mph: It’s a limit, not a target.
So
adjust your speed for the conditions.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, thanks for sharing rather than just banging back a "witty" comment like some :)

Wonder how that works with overriding highway rules, I'm assuming it's a private road not maintained by the agency?

Any my comment still stands about speedometers and bicycles.
 
neil_g said:
Interesting, thanks for sharing rather than just banging back a "witty" comment like some :)

Wonder how that works with overriding highway rules, I'm assuming it's a private road not maintained by the agency?

Any my comment still stands about speedometers and bicycles.
Click to expand...

If you read the PDF it refers to Road Traffic law and it is not rocket science to realise that the cars are doing 20mph.

The ones I saw today were putting themselves and other cyclists at risk by overtaking in a stupid manner, cutting back in when they are nearly head on into oncoming traffic and tailgating so if you ease off the accelerator because there is a cyclist on an incline they are in danger of denting my boot!

I stand by my comment about knobs.
 
Fair enough. I won't comment on their behaviour because I wasn't there or have a video to watch etc.

Still a valid point about whether you rely on someone else's speed, while that could work it could equally cause more trouble than it's worth.
 
neil_g said:
For what it's worth after a little reading, the 20mph limit appears to be a bylaw. Also there appears to be some grey area as to whether its enforceable with the current wording.

(Bare in mind this is a cycling site, it may be biased)

http://road.cc/content/news/95155-a...lists-richmond-park-exceeding-their-authority
Click to expand...

They are not doing themselves any favours with all the selective interpretations they are making.

The park regulations are VERY specific as to who the 20mph limit applies to and if people want to cycle in the park then they should abide by those regulations which are for the benefit of everyone.
 
To be fair the lawyer was saying the wording of the legislation those very vague/board rules referred to was open to interpretation. But hey, only saying.

And I'd still like to know who's going to pay for all of those calibrated bicycle speedos .. :p

Chances are I'll never ride (the road) though a royal park so I'm fairly safe either way :)
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
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. ..... Personal responsibility for all will work better.
Click to expand...
Have you been down Exhibition Road in London recently (ie the last couple of years)? Anyone who hasn't, but has the opportunity, really should. It's amazing. There are no pavements, very few road markings and signs, and pedestrians and cyclists everywhere.

The first time I had to drive down it after it was remodelled, I thought it was terrifying. You need to take it quite slowly, and you need to be totally aware of everything around you... which is the whole point, of course. You're wearing a tonne of metal and most of the other road users aren't. It's very obvious that you're responsible for avoiding them, not vice versa.

And the thing is, it works. This "shared space" concept isn't any kind of panacea, but I think it has a powerful educational effect.
 
Helmet camera's on cyclists have made for some awesome Youtube videos, love the rage one's.
 
StewartR said:
Have you been down Exhibition Road in London recently (ie the last couple of years)? Anyone who hasn't, but has the opportunity, really should. It's amazing. There are no pavements, very few road markings and signs, and pedestrians and cyclists everywhere.

The first time I had to drive down it after it was remodelled, I thought it was terrifying. You need to take it quite slowly, and you need to be totally aware of everything around you... which is the whole point, of course. You're wearing a tonne of metal and most of the other road users aren't. It's very obvious that you're responsible for avoiding them, not vice versa.

And the thing is, it works. This "shared space" concept isn't any kind of panacea, but I think it has a powerful educational effect.
Click to expand...
Yes I have indeed. It's is another things that annoys me about government. Those has been going on for a long long time abroad yet they insist on spending our pounds to learn our own lessons. They should do this much more clearly and widespread.
 
It's like when traffic lights are out of order, everyone takes more care and are often polite and helpful to each other - and it works much better.
 
dejongj said:
Make the "weaker" party in traffic always automatically faultless such that the stronger and heavier participants have to anticipate more
Click to expand...

A man after my own heart.

You asked earlier why on the continent they have less issues with cyclists - well this is one reason. Over in Europe they rule called "presumed liability" - generally speaking if there is any doubt over who was at fault, the one who introduced the most danger (ie a car) is the one found at fault from a financial perspective only (you wont get thrown in jail, but you will be responsible for any financial problems the more vulnerable party has as a result).

At 1st this seems quite bizarre to British ears, but consider it works for everyone. A cyclist would automatically be at fault in a collision with a pedestrian for example.

Its stops everyone thinking they have a god given right over others to be on the road (a very common problem in the uk, and partly illustrated by some views here ;) ) - people give pedestrians time to move on the road, people give cyclists space, people generally become less selfish, and it works.





nilagin said:
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.
Click to expand...


I was going to stay out of this (because life's too short) but this one does deserves a reply - Because if nothing else its half interesting.

Registration (past a very simple frame stamp) wont happen. There are a few reasons for this, but mainly its too complex (there are more bikes out their than cars believe it or not - hidden away in peoples garages etc), it would mean registering kids to cycle, it would mean registering your old granny to go down the shops, it could mean registering bikes to cycle round a park - it would essentially become an additional expense that no government will implement because it would be seen as a tax for not driving, it would result in less cyclists, which would result in more cars on the road. Which would mean more deaths, more pollution, more congestion, more road upkeep costs....Its very counter productive ultimately.

Also...Iv yet to hear of a single motorist killed by a cyclist, and cyclists kill no more than 2 people a year (sometimes its as low as zero). When you compare that to cars, around 1800 a year die are a result of motorized traffic. Cyclists represent around 2% of traffic, but in no way represent anywhere near 2% of the danger.

As for hit and runs - The whole hit and run thing is greatly exaggerated, and misunderstood by many people. Believe it or not when someones hit by a car or bike taking registration numbers is the last thing on their mind. I believe there are 10 hit and run incidents each day in London by mortised traffic (yes...One city, has 10 a day - I have no idea what the national figure is). Most go unsolved unfortunately, in spite of the cars being registered. And when A cyclist does hit something, they are often on the ground as a result of a crash, not cycling away into the sunset.

Insurance - Im insured via 3 policies. One of which is my household cover which covers my liability away from home (I wonder how many people realise that many house hold cover policies have this?). But again, it wont happen. You can get full 3rd party insurance for you bike for about £25. If nothing else that tells you one thing, its tells you that a bike has such low potential to harm that's only £25 (and Ill bet half of that is admin fees). Cyclists are simply not dangerous enough to justify it.

Worth remembering as well, lack of insurance does not equal lack of (legal) responsibility.


neil_g said:
To be fair I don't thinks there are any rules for speed limits on a cycle. There is no bicycle on the chart on rule 125..

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/control-of-the-vehicle-117-to-126

And even if there were there isn't a (mandatory) speedometer on a bike. Do you rely on the flow of traffic? Motorists have been using that excuse to get out of tickets for,years..
Click to expand...

Speed limited (I believe) only apply to "motorized" traffic. Same for mobile phone use - But a cyclist can still be fined for cycling recklessly.

It purely because a bike of 1/20th of the mass of a car. And most cyclists struggle going faster than 20mph - So you might knock someone over but you wont be doing this in a hurry (or worse!) http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/475342/Family-of-four-escape-as-car-crashes-through-front-door
 
neil_g said:
Twist my words any further they'd be a curly whirly...

I'm interested to know how speed limits for bicycles would work.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I do like a Curly Wurly, wish they were as big as I remember growing up.

Sorry for the interruption , carry on with the bike v car thing you got going :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
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.
Click to expand...

Easy to say, but the guy on the bike might just as easily kick your arse. I don't think being a bike gives you a disadvantage if confronted aggressively.

I've been almost knocked off the road by idiot drivers when on the bike. Had a few of them stop after I gave them the finger - did they think i was going to turn and fly away? They sped off as quick once they seen me coming for them. I stick to the rules, I stay in close to the curb as possible, plenty of room to drive past me without having to swerve in any way. I stop at lights, indicate when about to turn and all that good stuff. If someone tried taking advantage just because they're safe inside a steel box, I will let them know how I feel about their stupidity. You're putting my life at risk by trying to bully me off the road for no reason.

It goes both ways, there's D'heads out there on the road, and it doesn't matter what form of transport they use. There's decent drivers, decent cyclists ... etc - it's all about following the rules and being safe. Not who's right or wrong or who'll bash who. If both parties abide by the rules, then there should never be an issue, or this idiotic hatred towards people because of what they use to get about.
 
Last edited:
So basically....nobody watches the videos unless something kicks off (which statistically must be staggeringly rare) and then people get involved to criticise both sides (largely depending on whether they cycle more than they drive and vice versa than any logical basis). Do I have that right?

Can I actually buy shares in GoPro?
 
JonathanRyan said:
So basically....nobody watches the videos unless something kicks off (which statistically must be staggeringly rare) and then people get involved to criticise both sides (largely depending on whether they cycle more than they drive and vice versa than any logical basis). Do I have that right?

Can I actually buy shares in GoPro?
Click to expand...
Lol as I said in my first response. The big winners are the camera manufacturers and resellers.
 
I don't get the go-pro thing tbh. Some people do upload vids of them just ... cycling ... usually in more interesting locations though. Like through woods or scenic valley areas.

Go-pros are really designed for more energetic sports, water sports make best use of them.
 
Cagey75 said:
I don't get the go-pro thing tbh. Some people do upload vids of them just ... cycling ... usually in more interesting locations though. Like through woods or scenic valley areas.

Go-pros are really designed for more energetic sports, water sports make best use of them.
Click to expand...
might be true of road cycling but mountain biking, especially the gravity based disciplines, are much more interesting.

for example heres a qualifying run for tomorrows redbull rampage :D

 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
might be true of road cycling but mountain biking, especially the gravity based disciplines, are much more interesting.

for example heres a qualifying run for tomorrows redbull rampage :D
Click to expand...


Yeah, I get that and I've watched some cool stuff. My initial post was because I frequently run along a footpath between here and Whitstable. It's basically a loose packed footpath with some tarmac between a couple of fields. Quite pleasant for running and totally traffic free.

If I run at the right time of day then I can meet a dozen or so bikes with riders who are clearly commuting to work along a pleasant, flat track between some fields. There are no BMWs to threaten and TBH even when the fields are looking nice, one day is pretty similar to the next. Nearly all of them have GoPros strapped to their heads. I wondered if I was missing something.
 
Mattyd said:
A man after my own heart.

You asked earlier why on the continent they have less issues with cyclists - well this is one reason. Over in Europe they rule called "presumed liability"
Click to expand...

They also have a great deal more room than we have on the UK roads!

Mattyd said:
Insurance - Im insured via 3 policies. One of which is my household cover which covers my liability away from home (I wonder how many people realise that many house hold cover policies have this?). But again, it wont happen. You can get full 3rd party insurance for you bike for about £25. If nothing else that tells you one thing, its tells you that a bike has such low potential to harm that's only £25 (and Ill bet half of that is admin fees). Cyclists are simply not dangerous enough to justify it..
Click to expand...


if a motorist causes any damage to a cyclist or his bicycle the driver can be prosecuted by the state and the drivers insurance covers the damages/claims.
if a cyclist hits a car/bus/vehicle/wall/anything etc the owner of the damaged property has to take out a civil claim to seek recompense and AFAIK is also responsible for the legal bill. (it's also a lengthy process)


IMO if a vehicle is on the road it should be registered, it should be insured and subject to a safety inspection each year.
I also believe that all road users should be licensed before using public roads and should also have to pass a cycling test to be issued a license.

As an aside, this morning I was pulling out of my drive to go to work, a cyclists came wobbling down the road he was having a conversation on his mobile phone and didn't even see me waiting to pull out.(it's not just car drivers who break the law)
 
AHILL said:
As an aside, this morning I was pulling out of my drive to go to work, a cyclists came wobbling down the road he was having a conversation on his mobile phone and didn't even see me waiting to pull out.(it's not just car drivers who break the law)
Click to expand...

Using a mobile phone whilst riding a bike isn't yet a specific offence in it's own right.
 
AHILL said:
They also have a great deal more room than we have on the UK roads!




IMO if a vehicle is on the road it should be registered, it should be insured and subject to a safety inspection each year.
I also believe that all road users should be licensed before using public roads and should also have to pass a cycling test to be issued a license.
Click to expand...


Never going to happen, the cost benefit ratio just wont make it worthwhile...
Do you really want the roads to be filled with more cars, shorten the average life expectancy and your taxes to go up because of your wish to increase the scope of the nanny state?
 
AHILL said:
They also have a great deal more room than we have on the UK roads!




if a motorist causes any damage to a cyclist or his bicycle the driver can be prosecuted by the state and the drivers insurance covers the damages/claims.
if a cyclist hits a car/bus/vehicle/wall/anything etc the owner of the damaged property has to take out a civil claim to seek recompense and AFAIK is also responsible for the legal bill. (it's also a lengthy process)


IMO if a vehicle is on the road it should be registered, it should be insured and subject to a safety inspection each year.
I also believe that all road users should be licensed before using public roads and should also have to pass a cycling test to be issued a license.

As an aside, this morning I was pulling out of my drive to go to work, a cyclists came wobbling down the road he was having a conversation on his mobile phone and didn't even see me waiting to pull out.(it's not just car drivers who break the law)
Click to expand...
Does Holland have more room than the UK? Seriously? No they don't do they.

It is just willingness. More regulation isn't going to achieve anything. It is a cultural change that is required. And yes when you pull out of your drive you have to watch out for all traffic. Especially those that are weaker than you in case they do something stupid. The responsibility is with us to avoid injuring others regardless of them being perceived to break a law or not.

Personally I find it very selfish when people just take their rights. Sure you have the right, however that doesn't mean you have to exercise it, especially not when you are going to hurt someone else whilst doing so.

Anyway just my two p. I like less state interference.
 
neil_g said:
might be true of road cycling but mountain biking, especially the gravity based disciplines, are much more interesting.

for example heres a qualifying run for tomorrows redbull rampage :D

Click to expand...


That's more like it alright! You have to get a sense of speed, height, danger - that actually had me wincing when he hopped over some of the gaps! :D

On a straight, boring road though, a go-pro on a bike is useless/boring.
 
i dont even know how registration would work to be honest. its not like a car that has a unique VIN number. sure a bike frame has a serial number but I don't believe all manufacturers operate to the same numbering schemes so they'd all be different lengths/format and perhaps become duplicated cross manufacture. and where would you put the registration details? you couldnt have a numberplate style affair as that'd just act as an air brake constantly.
 
neil_g said:
To be fair I don't thinks there are any rules for speed limits on a cycle. There is no bicycle on the chart on rule 125..

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/control-of-the-vehicle-117-to-126

And even if there were there isn't a (mandatory) speedometer on a bike. Do you rely on the flow of traffic? Motorists have been using that excuse to get out of tickets for,years..
Click to expand...

Just found out that the approx biking equivalent of dangerous driving is quaintly called 'Causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top