BBC video of cyclists with helmet cam

Marco_Panettone

Hintza wrote: »

I just thought it would be a good idea so that you can all have a good moan at motorists without being interrupted.

It is just strange that there are hardly any posts on here "about cycling", 95% of them are started to have a pop at motorists when most motorists are actually quite considerate to cyclists. We all know an equal or greater percentage of cyclists ignore the highway code themselves and are a menace driving through red lights etc.

custardy wrote: »

what is your basis for that?

To be fair, this is generally true in my experience. I commute 60 miles a week by bike in London and the vast majority of vehicles cause me no problem at all. However, any that DO cause problems are ALWAYS going to come off better than me in a collision. I'm VERY used to what most people will see as 'close calls' so now need actual contact for it to bother me too much (a sad state of affairs in itself).

I'd LOVE to see cycling as part of the driving test. Putting drivers on bikes and out on the road will very quickly make them realise how vunerable cyclists are. This would lead to an attitude change in many drivers who would then not aim for gaps that aren't safely there, making the roads a safer and more pleasant place to be for everyone.

real1314

Once we all have headcams that we wear 24/7 to gather evidence against each other for petty offences, society will be a much happier place?

I can't believe that anyone is really fussed about a stationary vehicle where the driver is sending a text - technically illegal, but hardly a real offence; no safety issues involved, just an example of crude law making.

btw, how will we take action on all the cyclists running red lights? perhaps they all need to be licensed, plated and insured? After all, what's sauce for the goose.....

:cool:

custardy

real1314 wrote: »

Once we all have headcams that we wear 24/7 to gather evidence against each other for petty offences, society will be a much happier place?

I can't believe that anyone is really fussed about a stationary vehicle where the driver is sending a text - technically illegal, but hardly a real offence; no safety issues involved, just an example of crude law making.

btw, how will we take action on all the cyclists running red lights? perhaps they all need to be licensed, plated and insured? After all, what's sauce for the goose.....

:cool:

does that solve all ills for cars?

longtimelurkersam

real1314 wrote: »

I can't believe that anyone is really fussed about a stationary vehicle where the driver is sending a text - technically illegal, but hardly a real offence; no safety issues involved, just an example of crude law making.


:cool:

I thought that if the engine was off and the handbrake was applied then it was not illegal. Some people do this at lights, I have seen them as it takes them an age to get going.....

Marco_Panettone

real1314 wrote: »

Once we all have headcams that we wear 24/7 to gather evidence against each other for petty offences, society will be a much happier place?

I can't believe that anyone is really fussed about a stationary vehicle where the driver is sending a text - technically illegal, but hardly a real offence; no safety issues involved, just an example of crude law making.

btw, how will we take action on all the cyclists running red lights? perhaps they all need to be licensed, plated and insured? After all, what's sauce for the goose.....

:cool:

The upsurge in cyclists using cameras is due to the failure to prosecute other road users for illegal and dangerous road use. In a 'car' crash drivers have to exchange details - this is less easy to do if you're unconscious on the side of the road and there aren't witnesses (more common than you'd like it to be).

Your claim that something isn't a 'real' offence is the same claim that some cyclists use for red light jumping - it isn't endangering anyone else, so what's the problem? Obviously I disagree with both. If it's the law then stick to it. After all, what's sauce for the goose...

real1314

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

The upsurge in cyclists using cameras is due to the failure to prosecute other road users for illegal and dangerous road use. In a 'car' crash drivers have to exchange details - this is less easy to do if you're unconscious on the side of the road and there aren't witnesses (more common than you'd like it to be).

Your claim that something isn't a 'real' offence is the same claim that some cyclists use for red light jumping - it isn't endangering anyone else, so what's the problem? Obviously I disagree with both. If it's the law then stick to it. After all, what's sauce for the goose...

The fact that you quote these "some cyclist" to counter my point is rather vacuous. You might as well claim that "some people" think using heroin is ok.
Running a red light does cause a problem - it means pedestrians cannot assume they can cross, road users of all types on green have to be more careful etc - it does cause a safety risk.
How does that align to texting from a stationary vehicle? What risk does that actually pose? :cool:
As for the headcam for safety argument - why did he film the texter then? was his safety threatend

thelawnet

roddydogs wrote: »

Shes not turning right, shes going straight on, and before she gets to the hatched area, a motorcyclist is crossing, then cars!

Yes, you're right, those motorists' driving is shocking.

Turning right
180
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users.

Google streetview here of the road from which the cars are coming:

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Deals+Gateway,+London&hl=en&ll=51.47446,-0.021029&spn=0.006389,0.013078&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=12.706523,26.784668&oq=deals+g&hnear=Deals+Gateway,+London+Borough+of+Lewisham,+London+SE13,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.474532,-0.020926&panoid=vN_PV1mHoAz_Ei3RH1O5mg&cbp=12,210.85,,0,7.2

As is plain to see they are turning right, not straight on, and they should NOT turn across her.

None of which, by the way, makes it illegal to enter a box junction when the exit road is clear, as it was here.

thelawnet

real1314 wrote: »

The fact that you quote these "some cyclist" to counter my point is rather vacuous. You might as well claim that "some people" think using heroin is ok.
Running a red light does cause a problem - it means pedestrians cannot assume they can cross, road users of all types on green have to be more careful etc - it does cause a safety risk.
How does that align to texting from a stationary vehicle? What risk does that actually pose? :cool: As for the headcam for safety argument - why did he film the texter then? was his safety threatend

Of course it was. The man sending the text was in charge of two tonnes of metal, and is not paying attention. What happens when the lights change? Does he know the cyclist is there? He could get left hooked, run down, anything.

It is ILLEGAL to use a mobile while in charge of a motor vehicle. Whether stopped or not. You have to pretty gullible to assume that someone you can SEE to be a lawbreaker is going to pay attention to whatever alternative moral code you think he should adopt, be that 'only texting while stopped at traffic lights'. He's as likely as not going to keep going, still fiddling with his phone.

The main culprits for red light jumping are cars by the way. Several seconds after they've changed in many cases. Very few lights have red light cameras so it's not really a risk (the penalties for red light jumping are relatively minor even if you are caught). Would rather be run down by any number of red-light jumping bicycles than a car, thanks all the same.

Marco_Panettone

real1314 wrote: »

The fact that you quote these "some cyclist" to counter my point is rather vacuous. You might as well claim that "some people" think using heroin is ok.
Running a red light does cause a problem - it means pedestrians cannot assume they can cross, road users of all types on green have to be more careful etc - it does cause a safety risk.
How does that align to texting from a stationary vehicle? What risk does that actually pose? :cool:
As for the headcam for safety argument - why did he film the texter then? was his safety threatend

I don't really know what your point is. To say anything other than 'some cyclists' would be factually incorrect. It's the same as 'some drivers think using a mobile phone at the wheel is ok despite it being illegal'.

Just to reiterate what I said earlier IT IS NOT OK TO JUMP LIGHTS ON A BIKE. It is also NOT ok to use a mobile phone at the wheel of a motor vehicle. That's how it aligns.

You said:
Originally Posted by real1314

I can't believe that anyone is really fussed about a stationary vehicle where the driver is sending a text - technically illegal, but hardly a real offence; no safety issues involved, just an example of crude law making.

You seem to be suggesting that road users can pick and choose which laws they obey. I am saying that this is not only incorrect, but dangerous. It is dangerous to ALL users, however many wheels your vehicle has at that point in time.

Arg

If someone wanted to jump red lights legally they can hop off the bike and push it across.