CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Who is this guy :(
(46 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
Quite a dull film of RLJing cyclists from taxi driver of sweary disposition. There are three or four dangerous junction episodes not linked to red lights and the one at the end with the cyclist sandwiched between him and the bus looks,like he is actually culpable to an extent? Maybe not, he maybe missed the cyclist by inches.
On the whole it is a series of innocuous incidents, hardly any of the RLJers encounter traffic of any kind. None of the pavement cyclists hit anyone. Obviously both activities should be frowned upon but could he not find any footage that even resulted in brakes being applied, bit of swerving?
Presume he has been inspired by cyclists filming their route to post his own movie. I would imagine he must have tons of footage of mental driving?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Hell hath no fury like a taxi driver waiting for a fare.
He's right that a lot of those people are riding like morons.
However at 6:16 observe him OVERTAKE a cyclist being UNDERTAKEN by a bus on Princes Street and sandwiched between the bus and the tram rail. From what I can see that cyclist shot no red light or committed any other offence beyond being unfortunate enough to have this cursing coronary-in-waiting drive up her tail.
Posted 12 years ago # -
That was the one I singled out as the most hairy.
Kind of worried that he thinks because he has seen so many RLJers and pavement cyclists that he can drive like that
You do have to wait til the end for it but he kind of shoots himself in the foot
Posted 12 years ago # -
It is an interesting insight into the working of some people's minds. Presumuably he wouldn't get worked up by me sitting by the side of the Costrorphine Road and videoing all the taxis speeding as they make their way to the airport. Not condoning the cycling but really? Nothing happens until he himself starts driving dangerously.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Indeed. No amount of pavement cyclists and RLJs he films as he sits at the lights going nowhere justify that manoeuvre in any way. It's by far and away the most dangerous thing filmed in the whole sorry clip.
It's been pointed out to me on Twitter that he has also filmed himself speeding in 20 zones...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Being model drivers themselves I fully support this taxi driver's selfless campaign to crack down on the serial law-breaker cyclists. Did you know that in London 62% of incidents where cyclists are killed or seriously injured are caused by the cyclist breaking the law? No? No, you wouldn't. I bet you're all just like them ... blah, blah, blah.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Seems a bit weird that his poor manoeuvre at the end of the clip miraculously absolves all of the previous law breaking? And yes if he focused his attention on motorists he would catch lots of them too, but RLJing and pavement cycling is just like speeding a wee bit eh, it's not really that bad....
Posted 12 years ago # -
Makes him a touch hypocritical, no? I think that's what people are highlighting (when they're not also acknowledging that it doesn't condone the cycling he's filming).
And literally speaking, yes, RLJing and pavement cycling are just like speeding a wee bit. Not that bad but not that sensible. You don't see, for instance, magnatom posting videos of cars doing 32mph.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The main thrust of his argument is that 100% of cyclists he films going through red lights, go through red lights and 100% of the cyclists he films on the pavement, cycle on the pavement.
He then shoots himself square in the foot, being not just hypocritical but also just plain daft, by putting in footage of him doing what amounts to at the very least driving without due care and attention and would seem to be the most potentially serious road offence in the whole sorry clip. So you come away from watching it thinking "jeez, there are some right daft cyclists in Edinburgh but I hope I never have the mispleasure of getting overtaken by that Taxi driver"
Posted 12 years ago # -
messenger and shooting spring to mind.
But off course adults pavement riding, skipping lights is okay cause no-one got hurt?
not excusing his driving at 6.16, but no-one got hurt!
Posted 12 years ago # -
Whether it highlights him as sweary, or hypocritical is by the by, as discussed before on this forum, RLJ,ing, and indeed adult pavement cycling are not victimless crimes, and it is the wilful decision to break the law which, rightly or wrongly (and I believe wrongly) tends to give all cyclists a bad name.
We should be saying "that is terrible behaviour by the cyclists, it should be scorned by law abiding cyclists and clamped down on by the Poloce, and so should cabbies reckless driving and speeding" NOT "oh look he's sweary/hypocritical" and ridiculing him in a manner that suggests the offending cyclists behaviour doesn't somehow "count".Posted 12 years ago # -
Having thought about this overnight I think it is quite an important film to watch tho it takes a while to get to the punchline.
a bored taxi driver waiting in ranks becomes annoyed by cyclists flouting the highway code. Finally he flips and delivers a punishment pass to a cyclist in a bit of trouble negotiating a tour bus.
Thus all the aggregated RLJing and pavement riding lead to a vindication of a more dangerous behaviour.
hence every time we consider a move such as RLJing we should recall this movie and the impact it may have on other cyclists
Posted 12 years ago # -
@ gembo
Exactly my take on it
perhaps this was the very taxi driver who 'took me out' at ChristmasPosted 12 years ago # -
Gembo. I think you've just described the plot of Taxi Driver. We're invited, if not to sympathise with then at least to understand, Travis Bickle's descent into madness as he drives the streets of New York observing the filth and degradation. This guy's the lite version. I can see him in front of the mirror practicing his "are you jumping red lights ahead of me?" speech.
That seems to be what you (
and smudgesorry, not smudge) are saying, no? It might be wrong but we can understand how it comes to pass (boom,boom) that a taxi driver cuts up a cyclist. It's not his fault. He was driven to it (groan) by all those law breaking cyclists. Poor guy. These cyclists should be condemned by all right-thinking cyclists because they bring the wrath of taxi drivers down on all our heads.Nah. I'm not buying.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Insto, not at all, not even close. But I am saying that two wrongs don't make a right and that RLJ'ing must be condemned every bit as hard as speeding etc.
To ignore or pretend the offences shown are somehow minor or insignificant is pointless and self serving. They represent a concious decision to disobey clearly understood laws. Just like a speeding driver. This in no way excuses any subsequent bad/careless/dangerous driving. It is however a small example of one of the many ways illegal cycling can affect others.Posted 12 years ago # -
As ever, we should apply the race or religion filter to see whether what is being suggested holds up to the light of day.
I actually do have a Firefox plugin which changes all varieties of 'cyclist' to the appropriate variety of 'black person' (ahem) and 'driver' to 'honest white men' for any scotsman.com -related domain. It's sometimes pretty startling.
So, we're asked to understand and sympathise with dangerous or abusive driving because, really, honest white men are so provoked by the misdemeanours of some "coloured folk" that it's inevitable they will take it out on the next one they meet? And that it's the "coloured folk"'s own responsibility to worry about this?
Considering that most of what annoys drivers isn't illegal cycling at all, that's a hard pill to swallow.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Edit, ahh, just seen your amendment! Too slow typing on a phone!!
Top quality film though ;-)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Also, on a more general point, do we not accept that different behaviour on the road is better or worse to different degrees? I'm more concerned about someone driving drunk than I am by someone driving on the phone, but I'd rather someone speeding-not-on-the-phone to someone driving under the limit while using their phone.
I'd rather any variety of cycling misbehaviour on an 8kg bike than any on an 1800kg motor.
So at the end of the day, I find it hard to get upset by pavement cycling at all. It's sort of like ripping CDs, it's illegal and can't be condoned but doesn't actually do any real harm (except expose prejudice in others that would be there anyway).
IMO, of course.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
Les Denholm (@F1les)
05/10/2012 09:14
@CyclingEdin counting cyclists going through red lights today 3 so far"
"
Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)
05/10/2012 09:24
@F1les hope you're counting drivers too, and ones on mobiles and those who stop in ASLs, and speed (esp in #20splenty) #lawsforall"
Posted 12 years ago # -
Smudge - They represent a concious decision to disobey clearly understood laws.
I'd have thought so once too, however I've realised that UK law isn't universal in this regard.
Some countries teach cyclists to travel against the traffic "salmon", just as we teach pedestrians to walk on the right on the carriageway if there's no footway.
Some Americans may expect it's OK to turn left or continue straight where there isn't a road on the left, through a red light, if they treat it as a Give Way.
Glasgow has cycle contraflows on one way streets (or cycle permeability on no through roads) that appear to be very subtly marked (based on my Edinburgh experience). I only noticed when I spotted the cycle cut through, and have no idea what would alert motorists to the potential presence of cyclists approaching the "wrong" way.
We also have shared facilities that are very sparcely marked - is the core path through St Andrews Square, still marked with NCN signs, shared? How often is the question asked "is this still shared?". Or conversely - who has cycled under the gaze of the no cycling signs on Portobello Prom? [I have, led by a council officer!]
So, whilst ignorance is no excuse, I'm no longer so confident that folk know the law and are deliberately ignoring it. Some may incorrectly think it's permissible where it isn't (or isn't in the particular case they're testing).
Robert
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
London mayor's claim that two-thirds of bad cycling accidents were due to cyclist law-breaking is proved to be utterly false. Where's the apology?"
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
Les Denholm (@F1les)
05/10/2012 09:40
@CyclingEdin I am 5 mobile phone users so far"
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
05/10/2012 09:54
@allpartycycling Forthcoming #Edinburgh report: #bicycle trips quadrupled with crash numbers static, but motorist at fault in 75% of crashes"
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
05/10/2012 10:06
@CyclingEdin @F1les #lawsforall 83% of #motorists admit #speeding, 43% in 30mph zones ... @RAC_Breakdown 2012 report http://www.rac.co.uk/advice/reports-on-motoring/rac-report-on-motoring-2012/content-chapters/5-0-safety-and-security"
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
John Lauder (@John_Lauder)
05/10/2012 10:11
1/2 We deliver over 70 community links a year in partnership with LA's who match fund our grant from @transscotland #sustransJohn Lauder (@John_Lauder)
05/10/2012 10:12
2/2 Today we're agreeing funding for projects in Edinburgh (8) Perth & Kinross (6) East Lothian (1) & A'dnshire (4). #sustrans"
Posted 12 years ago # -
The crazy thing is that a 2 second internet search has revealed to me This taxi Drivers Name D.O.B and home address!!!!
So he's not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to protecting his online identity.....
Posted 12 years ago # -
Now that we've had the twitter update :-/
For the people opposed to cycling (never mind provision for cyclists) the issue of the law-breaking cyclist is a bogeyman, an Aunt Sally, a straw man, a rhetorical device brought up to distract attention from the more important question of what should change on the road to stop drivers killing cyclists. I think it's no accident that in the aftermath of the positive olympic related attention there's been a rash of formulaic articles in the press about the law-breaking cyclist. Normal service must be restored lest things get out of hand and road space gets reallocated.
And cyclists fall for it every time, allowing themselves to become embroiled in discussion of the relative rights and wrongs of drifting through red lights or cutting off lights by going round pavements. Because that's what these people are doing. They're not hammering across busy junctions causing drivers to swerve out of control into crowds of pedestrians at lights.
We're spending time in forceful condemnation of behaviour that is, in safety terms, completely irrelevant and sometimes literally chasing "offenders" to berate them and make sure they understand the damage they're doing. They're causing the anger and the killing. They're stopping things getting better by not obeying rules. The thinking seems to be that until we're all being properly compliant and obeying a set of rules designed to benefit cars, they won't improve things.
It's a bullying and infantilising tactic - the kind of thing teachers say to unruly pupils, that they'll all suffer if one steps out of line in the hope that the class will police itself.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Nah sorry, I'm not buying chunks of that, claiming that "drifting through red lights" (to save what, ten seconds?) is acceptable is putting yourself in the same category as drivers who speed all the time because "it's not really dangerous". It sounds too much like the justifications I've seen from the speeders on the EEN boards.
There are two seperate arguments going on here, one, that breaking the law on a bicycle is ok because the people doing it believe it is safe, based on their experience that they've not had an accident so far, (just like the majority of speeding drivers), and two, that this behaviour prevents improvements to cycle provision.
I'm afraid I've got to say that in my opinion both are spurious. Breaking the laws on foot, on a bicycle or motorcycle or in a car is not just illegal it's selfish, just because "I haven't had/caused a crash", proves nothing.
I don't care if 999 people do it and nothing happens, the thousandth one who causes another avoidable collision is the problem. There are many, many traffic laws which I could flout and it's highly likely nothing would happen, but the laws have to be written for the lowest common standard of road user and unfortunately there are a lot of users who shouldn't (imho) be alone in charge of a sharp stick let alone a wheeled vehicle (imho). To protect them, and us, we (should) obey a standard code of rules. So I avoid speeding, I obey traffic signals and try to ride safely. I'm not Mr Perfect (and never will be) but I do try at least not to knowingly break the law, and I'm certainly not going to condone anyone else who does it.However that has stuff all to do with media who trade in stereotypes. They always will and a lot of people will swallow the bile, just look at the circulation figures for the Sun, Mail etc etc. Nothing we do will change that.
These people will harp on about the Aunt Sally you correctly identify, but really it makes little difference (imo) to the provision (or not) of cycle infrastructure, and any councilor or politician who uses the argument to justify inaction should be easily shot down.
RLJ'ers and pavement cyclists are NOT "causing the anger and the killing", they are merely another irresponsible road user making the experience less safe for everyone else.
The rules aren't there "to benefit cars", they're there in years of vain attempts to stop people hurting and killing each other with horses, carriages, cars, bikes, bicycles etc etc. If we wish to retain our default "right" to use the carriageways which others are licensed to share with us then we need to accept the personal responsibility to ride within the legal constraints.Condoning/justifying illegal manouevres however just makes us look hypocritical to any non cycle users who read/hear that sort of thing. After all, I'd call for a clampdown on drivers who speed in town or who make "punishment passes", so why would I condone other "low level" vehicle infractions. These are not subjective offences, they are black and white. Red or Amber means stop, green means go, it doesn't get much simpler and if waiting 30 sec for the green light is going to make someone late then they need to leave earlier, same as the impatient clown in the speeding car.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Nah sorry, I'm not buying chunks of that, claiming that "drifting through red lights" (to save what, ten seconds?) is acceptable is putting yourself in the same category as drivers who speed all the time because "it's not really dangerous". It sounds too much like the justifications I've seen from the speeders on the EEN boards.
Suppose running red lights or cycling on the pavements caused, roughly, zero deaths or serious injuries per annum while misbehaviour in cars is associated with 30,000 or so.
Are they really, truly in the "same category"? If you ask me it's a sign of how broken we are that it's even possible to argue about.
It's interesting for me because of my current role as unlikely cycling mentor. I genuinely don't think he will ride solo without using the pavement so, as I'm in the position to choose between "pavement cyclist" and "non cyclist" on wider society's behalf, what should I go for?
It's a serious question. Hitherto I've assumed that basically anyone can just ride on the roads as it's only a question of having the balls to get in the way and ignore people shouting, beeping and/or cutting you up (as we see on the 'dodgy driving' topic) but I now see that actually, there are a lot of people, perhaps a vast majority, who are either not going to cycle or do it on their own terms, whatever the fine points of the law.
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
