CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

The War on Britain's Roads premieres Wednesday 5th December, 9pm BBC one

(147 posts)

  1. ExcitableBoy
    Member

    Baldcyclist: " For some reason helmet cam'ers seem to be involved in more incidents than the general cycling populous. Are they just unlucky? Or do they feel a need to feed their audience?"

    Whilst it could be that they are unlucky, I'm not sure how you can tell that they are involved in more incidents than the general cycling populous. The footage could be taken over a long period,they may well cycle many miles and cycle on more hostile routes - hence the desire to film.

    Is Gareth the person who does 'silly cyclists' on Youtube? The main thing I don't like about that is the way he shouts at other cyclists for doing things he feels are unsafe.

    My wife and I have a similar amount of cycling experience over many years, but quite different styles. She is far less likely to take primary, rides in the door zone,often moaning at me for getting in everyone's way and inconveniencing drivers. She feels much safer that way and has never been in an accident . I however was doored a couple of years ago by someone who overtook me and then had their passenger open their door! I guess however one rides, we need to be alert for the unexpected.

    It is difficult to be sure about Gareth's riding without having ridden the road oneself, so I would trust what he says and assume he has taken the correct line - it is more than likely what I would have done (ie ride about 3 feet from middle line). Otherwise what I find happens is that cars pass you too closely at speed, pressuring you to move even further left, until you're 18" from the barrier on your left being blown around by a lorry overtaking too close, too fast and making you wish you'd 'inconvenienced' them for a few seconds. It always amuses me that car drivers never seem to be concerned when bikes are stuck behind them!

    Posted 12 years ago #
  2. Focus
    Member

    I suspect a number of online helmet cam users start off with the intention of a) blowing off a little steam after an unpleasant incident and b) get a little moral support from fellow cyclists to make themselves feel better. But then they probably feel the pressure to supply their "audience" with more to watch whilst enjoying the ego boost from the positive comments they get. This could easily lead to them looking for conflict to fill their website.

    I use my camera for incident recording and trip highlights but I would consider using it to track down someone online in the way shown in the documentary if the police couldn't trace a driver.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  3. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "Whilst it could be that they are unlucky, I'm not sure how you can tell that they are involved in more incidents than the general cycling populous. The footage could be taken over a long period,they may well cycle many miles and cycle on more hostile routes - hence the desire to film."

    But Gareth is only 24, he can't possibly be old enough to have had that many incidents? I've been cycling in and out of Edinburgh for more than 20 years along the A8 and I haven't had as many incidents as him in his short cycling career.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  4. Dave
    Member

    Baldcyclist: " For some reason helmet cam'ers seem to be involved in more incidents than the general cycling populous. Are they just unlucky?"

    I'm not sure how you are measuring this; for instance, my first YouTube channel (2008-2012) has 31 videos, which works out to eight per year. However of those only six are "bad driver" videos, 1.5 per year.

    I did, say, 3-6,000 miles a year, so that's quite a few thousand miles between incidents that I found worth sharing.

    What is the equivalent rate for the 'general cycling populous'? It often seems to me at PY etc. that people on this forum who aren't headcam users have /more/ incidents than I do.

    On a practical note though - look at Magnatom's channel for example. He has quite a lot of videos (33 per year), say half of which are of him being shaved in dodgy overtakes from behind. If he *did* want to entertain by manufacturing these close overtakes, how does he communicate that to the following drivers?

    I would have thought if anything that people whose commutes expose them to worse driving might be more likely to justify a camera?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  5. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "If he *did* want to entertain by manufacturing these close overtakes, how does he communicate that to the following drivers?"

    You don't, what you might do, perhaps subconsciously is ride in primary position where it is not necessary to do so. If you are blatently making it difficult for people to get past, you will get someone to pass closely out of frustration, or comment on the way past. If you then 'have a word' at the next set of lights, you will get people to provide the entertainment quite easily on cue.

    I've had my share of incidents too over the years (hit by car, hit by cyclist, near miss recently)but these people seem to be involved in incidents all the time, and be involved in arguments frequently, I've only ever had one shouty argument with a driver (admittedly my fault, the shouty bit, not the incident).

    Posted 12 years ago #
  6. stiltskin
    Member

    Isn't there a danger that we are just victim blaming here?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  7. wee folding bike
    Member

    Walker's wig suggests that cyclist appearance/behavious can change driver behaviour.

    One more data point. I've been dong this pretty much daily since 1980 in Ayr, Glasgow, London and… Airdrie. I could see there being geeky fun in a camera but the footage would be excessively boring. The most exciting thing would be checking what week the daffodils come into flower each year. Glasgow is usually a week or two ahead of Airdrie.

    I haven't watched the BBC show, it was on BBC 1 so it's probably guff, but I have watched the odd bit of YouTube and some people seem to over react.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  8. fimm
    Member

    A lot of head cammers are in London and do serious milage in heavy traffic. It is not unreasonable that they see more poor driving than someone who does a short distance in the quieter conditions we have here.

    I personally don't believe that headcammers go out looking for incidents. That just seems ridiculous to me. But I guess having recorded an incident there's the descision to put it on youtube or not. And if "that's what you do" then you do it, even if the incident is one that you'd otherwise mutter about under your breath and forget.

    What I find most interesting reading the discussions of headcam videos is the cyclecraft you can learn from them. There's a real culture of learning from your mistakes, I find. Do you get motorists on motorists forums going "I had XYZ incident, how might I have avoided it?"?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  9. I've heard the argument before that it seems headcammers have more incidents as they almost 'deliberately' seek out the conflict. I do actually believe there's a 'little' of that, but at the same time, as has been mentioned about the likes of Magnatom, if you watch the videos then the drivers are passing too closely (to use one example) and I don't think in most cases you can blame his road positioning (in some I'd argue I'd be positioned differently, though it's a moot point given I don't know the roads).

    Personally I actually find I get less bother using the camera. Or rather if something happens I don't react to it (unless it's ridiculously bad) as I know I've got it on camera and I cna check it later. Then when I do check it it never really seems as bad as it felt, and I figure there's no need to upload and 'name and shame'. I do see quite a few videos where I wonder why the person even bothered uploading it.

    The 'name and shame' thing is interesting too. I used to, but stopped doing it. The main reason was I didn't actually want someone putting their reg number in, finding the video, then launching a vendetta against me. Reg numbers are visible, but I don't put them into the title or anything to make them searchable - to the extent that my last couple of vids have had comments (BentMikey amongst them) actually asking me to put the reg in the title (I didn't).

    Torn on their purpose. I'm as, if not more, likely to be filming bad infrastructure rather than bad riding. And really looking forward to being able to film Dig in at the Dock (normally not allowed cams on bikes in CX).

    Posted 12 years ago #
  10. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    It would be a shame if the footage was thought to be anything other than the normal experience of the average cyclist. Isn't that the point?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  11. Dave
    Member

    ...context loss - the point of the documentary?

    I still haven't bothered to watch it, and don't intend to, but I understood they slipped in some professional alleycat racing footage to pass off as everyday riding to the people the interviewed.

    Hardly "the normal experience of the average cyclist" - that's like filming a cannonball run and presenting it as someone trying to drive to work...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  12. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "
    It would be a shame if the footage was thought to be anything other than the normal experience of the average cyclist. Isn't that the point?
    "

    I really don't think this is the normal experience of the average cyclist. If it were, why do we persuade people to give cycling a try ? That would be an even more difficult sell than t already is! In fact, if that was going to be my experience on an average day cycling to work I just wouldn't do it.

    @Dave , I don't know how the 'hipster' footage was described to the interviewees, but it was clear in the commentary that this was idiots on bikes and not passed off as every day riding.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  13. What we're straying into here is, when we describe the clips as 'normal' experience of cyclists, thinking of that as 'happening all the time round every corner'.

    By 'normal' I think of it more as we do have to put up with this. But I think Gaz and the robocycle guy and Magnatom all, 90% of the time, if not more, have perfectly normal commutes.

    On the Hipsters, that's interesting to hear @baldcyclist - I'd heard beforehand that there was controversy as it was being passed off as 'normal', and there was a late commitment by the BBC and the producers that it would be flagged as a professionally shot alleycat race and definitely not representative of 'normal'. Carlton Reid, after the show, was tweeting that the BBC had reneged on that - I didn't watch that segment, so can't comment, but if it was presented as a 'race' through the streets, rather than normal commuting, then there's not really any problem with showing it, because it does happen and it is stupid. So as long as it's not presented as 'normal' then it would be fine to show (in much the same way as a car cutting you up 20mph over the limit does happen, but isn't 'normal').

    I'm rambling now. :)

    Posted 12 years ago #
  14. Arellcat
    Moderator

    thinking of that as 'happening all the time round every corner'.

    Watching videos of road incidents is no different from watching videos of snooker trick shots, or watching brodiesmith21 throwing frisbees with apparently unerring accuracy.

    You only see what you're shown, so you don't know that behind the scenes are hundreds of uneventful commutes, frame upon frame of uneventful potting, and the endless succession of frisbee attempts that didn't make it. If the public thinks that a bunch of video clips is evidence of it happening all the time, the public is stupider than I thought.

    Edit: Probably ought to add that I haven't watched and don't intend to watch the television programme.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  15. Arellcat
    Moderator

    It gets better, too. Check out Ashley Winston (aka @thecarguru) and his splendid take on TWoBR:

    "...my idea is to tackle the problem where it is worst. Let's make central London a permit-only cycling zone, allowing cycling access only to those people who have registered their bikes. This will cut down on the reckless cycling if the riders know that they will be prosecuted."

    Then it gets a bit unstuck:

    "The only thing I can't figure out with my plan to ban cycles from central London is what we would then do with the 6,600 Barclays Bikes available to rent on London's streets."

    Because cycling only happens in London, and any incident is always the cyclist's fault.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  16. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    Me: "It would be a shame if the footage was thought to be anything other than the normal experience of the average cyclist. Isn't that the point?"

    I was responding to WC's comments on general head-cam footage, not the footage used in the programme. Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

    What I mean is, it would be a shame if the day to day footage captured by Magnatom and others was thought to be exceptional. It has impact, for me, because it captures the experiences of an ordinary cyclist. I have had experiences every bit as bad as Magnatom's.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  17. chdot
    Admin

    "BBC1's War on Britain's Roads doc may breach BBC editorial guidelines"

    http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/bbc-doc-portrays-dvd-stunt-cycling-footage-as-standard-behaviour/014036

    Posted 12 years ago #
  18. DaveC
    Member

    BBC cycling documentary is 'irresponsible', says MP

    'The MP who chairs the all-party cycling group writes to new BBC head to express his concerns over The War on Britain's Roads'

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/dec/03/bbc-cycling-documentary-irresponsible-mp

    Posted 12 years ago #
  19. magnatom
    Member

    LOL! One thing I have learned having become a (very, very) minor celebrity (infamous not famous) is that commentators, who invariably don't know you or have ever met you like to tell you how you think. I always find it amusing reading on the t'internet how my mind works. :-)

    Of course, if anyone really wants to know why I film, how I think etc, the best start is to read my blog, something that surprisingly many commentators haven't done.

    On a slightly different subject, with regards to the number of incidents I have had...of the 33 a year that has been mentioned above, how many of those are of interesting things I've seen, floods, rides through the Clyde tunnel, people singing, people weeing in the cycle lanes etc? You might be surprised how few are actually incidents. Then look at the incidents. How many are serious? How many are the sort that without a video (which I produce to inform and learn from) would be forgotten by the next day? How many are actually serious?

    Again you might be surprised. Mind you, facts are a pain in the rear end. They tend to get in the way of a good rant.....

    Posted 12 years ago #
  20. Dave
    Member

    Unfortunately, most people aren't going to go into that much depth before drawing conclusions.

    For instance, even as someone who has a YouTube channel I didn't do more than count what proportion of your channel homepage videos looked like incidents VS interest features. That's the last 10, IIRC.

    While it would be nice to think that people watching the BBC documentary would have sought out your blog to get a more rounded picture, is it realistic to think that happened (are your traffic stats through the roof?) - I doubt even other cyclists are bothering to do so, tbf. I exclude myself here since I have a camera... otherwise I would have ;-)

    I guess for me it's another sharp observation about media handling and publishing footage (in whatever format) rather than the activity of wearing a camera per se - quite a few people on this board have cameras, judging by the cross-section we see at coffee meet ups. However, this seems to be more in an observation capacity than 'public education'.

    Ironically I've just received another request for use of YouTube footage from a production company. I'm giving serious thought to whether I should just pull that whole channel down.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  21. Min
    Member

    Magnatom - it is much easier for people to believe that you were "asking for it" than to believe it could happen to them.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  22. Hey magnatom, always good to see you on here. I'd forgotten to mention as well, hope you don't mind me saying here, that after the programme you had a commenter on your YouTube channel email you to apologise for the comments he had left and that the programme had actually changed his view of the 'war'.

    Unexpected result, but a mighty fine one!

    Posted 12 years ago #
  23. chdot
    Admin

    "

    BBC's War on Britain's Roads: even more fake than we feared

    Footage passed off as genuine in cycling documentary was choreographed by a filmmaker with paid participants, it emerges

    "

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/dec/13/war-britains-roads-fake

    Posted 12 years ago #
  24. Dave
    Member

    I decided as a result of this programme (despite still not having watched it) to kill off my longstanding 'EdinburghFixed' YouTube channel.

    I'm not embarrassed of anything on it, but I've declined a series of requests to use footage on TV now, and I'm worried that eventually someone will air something regardless (spun in as unflattering a light for cyclists in general as they can concoct).

    Not something I want to be involved in, so I've closed the whole thing down.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  25. LaidBack
    Member

    ... it's odd (worrying) how this programme seems to have affected people on the forum.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  26. wee folding bike
    Member

    I didn't bother watching it.

    It was on BBC1 but didn't have Attenborough or Paul Merton/Iain Hislop so it was bound to be guff.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  27. chdot
    Admin


RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin