Self righteous cameramen

[rick99]

My motive is to debate a subject that I know this board has a view on. I wouldn't do so if I was not open minded to some extent A few have even agreed with the gist of my opening post.
Forums are not just for like minded people to agree on things.

I do not think this board has an opinion. Forum members' opinions are mixed. There is probably agreement that the law should be followed where practicable but only some agree with telling off other cyclists. If you want to discuss this then you should put forward the reasons why you disagree with this behaviour. The first post read more like a rant than rational debate.

The motorway speed is a red herring. The fact that you won't accept the observable fact that many speed on the motorway has stopped us having a discussion about what I actually care about.

Cameras are another red herring. You could help by keeping your own discussion on track.

Err.... no they're not. It was the central premise of my opening post that the cameras worn by these people are the things that made them feel so self righteous.

[landsurfer]

Err.... no they're not. It was the central premise of my opening post that the cameras worn by these people are the things that made them feel so self righteous.

And going back 10 pages ... you are totally right ....

When ever i see a post of the "I'm new to cycling and i wonder what camera i should get " ..... type ...

I just think ......

[BakfietsUK]

Is it "self righteous" OR is it a way of ensuring that those who break the law are forced to take responsibility for their actions. I don't think that is self righteous at all. My own motivation is to raise awareness of the badly formed boundaries around what constitutes un-acceptable behaviour toward cyclists. I wonder what sort of person could call this self righteous given the dangers faced on British roads. Are they afraid of being seen, recorded and taken to task themselves, I wonder.

I think it is good citizenship to take on bad driving and it takes some hours of work to follow up incidents worthy of reporting. Police Officers will gladly visit your address if you have footage of road rage for example, as they are none too keen on it either. They may take a statement, look at the footage and decide a course of action. All this takes time and energy. The reward for this effort is a prosecution or a "friendly" chat to the perpetrators involved. Or if you read the OP the reward is to be unduly barracked for doing what others can't be bothered to do.

I would think reporting bad driving is doing a service to cyclists, pedestrians and other drivers too. All of which would suffer if this sort of stuff went either un-noticed or un-punished. So to call them self righteous in this context is pejorative and perhaps dis-ingenuous.

Oh and by the way, my own camera records everything in front of the lens. It often records bad and un-lawful cycling, which I am equally keen to report to the authorities. Again I question the motives for this level of critique for cameras.

[Vorpal]

I have sometimes considered getting a camera. Not because of any self-righteousness, but because on the rare occasion that someone does something utterly stupid or malicious on the roads, and it affects me, it is less frustrating if I can do something about it.

The last incident:
Me riding down a narrow city street, narrowed by building works. Another cyclist was coming the other way, followed by a medium goods vehicle. The driver of the medium goods vehicle was talking on the phone as he began to overtake the oncoming cyclist. I attempted eye contact as he encroached onto my road space. He was talking ont he phone and looking in his side mirror to see when he was past the cyclist. I went into the gutter and right up against the barriers put up for the building works. The driver never seemed to see that I was there. Luckily, there was enough space in the gutter for me, and I was able to go again when he was past. When I was out of the way, I turned to try to get a photo of the vehicle registration and I couldn't because the vehicle had turned left. I did take a picture of the vehicle and record the time.

I sent an email to police and the company that owned the vehicle. I didn't hear back from the police, but the company that owned the vehicle replied and said they had identified the drive and were taking disciplinary action.

If I had had a camera, there would have been evidence or the driver's illegal and unsafe actions.

In this case, it perhaps wasn't necessary. In other cases, I've had companies or police refuse to take action on the basis that my account diagreed with the driver's, or even that as the vulnerable party, I should take more care

[Lance Dopestrong]

I have a camera. I don't use it for any purpose other than evidencing that I wasn't to blame if I come a cropper. I don't go chasing after drivers, don't post it up on YouTube, and certainly don't bother reporting bad or illegal driving to the police because I'd do nothing else all day every day if I started down that route. I'd rather catch the bus than end up like that self styled traffic droid fellow.

It's there solely as a witness to the other parties culpability if I get injured or my bike damaged.

[rick99]

Is it "self righteous" OR is it a way of ensuring that those who break the law are forced to take responsibility for their actions..............Again I question the motives for this level of critique for cameras.

'Again'...,, my motivation is to point out , broadly to my own amusement, but also to advise, that some might find themselves with more fun in their lives if they listened:
Stop shouting at me for going through red pedestrian crossing lights at 6am with no one around. Your camera doesn't make it more justifiable. It just makes you look a pedantic fool.
Also. Don't cycle in the middle of the road on 'A' roads because some lefty cycle group told you it was a good idea. It isn't. And the camera won't help you it if it goes wrong.

[mjr]

Also. Don't cycle in the middle of the road on 'A' roads because some lefty cycle group told you it was a good idea. It isn't. And the camera won't help you it if it goes wrong.

That's the first time I've heard an official UK Government publication (Cyclecraft) called "some lefty cycle group"!

[AdamS]

The national cycle training standards too for that matter. Those lefty cyclists at the DfT!

[Cyril Haearn]

I have sometimes considered getting a camera. Not because of any self-righteousness, but because on the rare occasion that someone does something utterly stupid or malicious on the roads, and it affects me, it is less frustrating if I can do something about it.

The last incident:
Me riding down a narrow city street, narrowed by building works. Another cyclist was coming the other way, followed by a medium goods vehicle. The driver of the medium goods vehicle was talking on the phone as he began to overtake the oncoming cyclist. I attempted eye contact as he encroached onto my road space. He was talking ont he phone and looking in his side mirror to see when he was past the cyclist. I went into the gutter and right up against the barriers put up for the building works. The driver never seemed to see that I was there. Luckily, there was enough space in the gutter for me, and I was able to go again when he was past. When I was out of the way, I turned to try to get a photo of the vehicle registration and I couldn't because the vehicle had turned left. I did take a picture of the vehicle and record the time.

I sent an email to police and the company that owned the vehicle. I didn't hear back from the police, but the company that owned the vehicle replied and said they had identified the drive and were taking disciplinary action.

If I had had a camera, there would have been evidence or the driver's illegal and unsafe actions.

In this case, it perhaps wasn't necessary. In other cases, I've had companies or police refuse to take action on the basis that my account diagreed with the driver's, or even that as the vulnerable party, I should take more care

Another forum member wrote that he had got several drivers sacked after submitting films: first just mail the firm and report what happened. It will usually be denied. Then send the pictures!
+1

[Cunobelin]

I have sometimes considered getting a camera. Not because of any self-righteousness, but because on the rare occasion that someone does something utterly stupid or malicious on the roads, and it affects me, it is less frustrating if I can do something about it.

The last incident:
Me riding down a narrow city street, narrowed by building works. Another cyclist was coming the other way, followed by a medium goods vehicle. The driver of the medium goods vehicle was talking on the phone as he began to overtake the oncoming cyclist. I attempted eye contact as he encroached onto my road space. He was talking ont he phone and looking in his side mirror to see when he was past the cyclist. I went into the gutter and right up against the barriers put up for the building works. The driver never seemed to see that I was there. Luckily, there was enough space in the gutter for me, and I was able to go again when he was past. When I was out of the way, I turned to try to get a photo of the vehicle registration and I couldn't because the vehicle had turned left. I did take a picture of the vehicle and record the time.

I sent an email to police and the company that owned the vehicle. I didn't hear back from the police, but the company that owned the vehicle replied and said they had identified the drive and were taking disciplinary action.

If I had had a camera, there would have been evidence or the driver's illegal and unsafe actions.

In this case, it perhaps wasn't necessary. In other cases, I've had companies or police refuse to take action on the basis that my account diagreed with the driver's, or even that as the vulnerable party, I should take more care

Another forum member wrote that he had got several drivers sacked after submitting films: first just mail the firm and report what happened. It will usually be denied. Then send the pictures!
+1

That is my trick..... and effective

I find this whole thing amusing and it comes down to one simple thing

People get fed up with the bullying and dangerous tactics of a few and now have the opportunity to take effective and simple action to deal with it

This cannot be allowed to happen, so as the evidence is unequivocal, the only thing that can be done is to try and devalue the evidence by suggesting that anyone who does take action Is self righteous, vindictive, sad etc


Classic diversion tactic

[Lance Dopestrong]

I don't think it is.

I use a camera. On very rare occasions the footage goes to the police and, on one occasion, a company. I'm discrete and businesslike in my use of the camera and management of the footage. Most users are like this and that is right and proper. They are morally righteous, bit not self righteous.

On the opposite side of the coin are the folk that brazenly bring their camera to the attention of other road users as it it were a weapon of righteous justice, video their arguments with motorists, and who slap their footage up on forums and youtube. These people are undoubtedly self righteous, and that's not a distraction technique to divert attention from a car drivers misdeeds - its a fact. The irony is that the roadcraft of most of these riders is dreadful, yet seems to be conveniently overlooked by these fools.

And then there are the, thankfully rare, Traffic Droid sorts. Bullied at school, wannabe coppers who were prevented from joining by a criminal record, asthma, or an inability to pass the entrance exams. Their behaviour is self righteous to a staggering degree. To them the camera is a weapon. They feel humiliated, wronged by another, dominated in a manner which their immature psyche can not handle, and for them the camera is a tool to elevate them morally in their minds and regain control and domknance. It's a profound psychological inadequacy, a lack of both self control and self esteem.

[AdamS]

People like me, who act the way we think is best, are 'morally righteous'. People like them, who act the way they think is best, are 'self-righteous'. It's a fact!

It looks like both types of users view themselves as doing the right thing and are highly judgemental of the others. Does 'self-righteous' have any meaning here other than as a pejorative?

[Vorpal]

It's easy to be judgemental when someone else endangers me!

[Lance Dopestrong]

People like me, who act the way we think is best, are 'morally righteous'. People like them, who act the way they think is best, are 'self-righteous'. It's a fact!

It looks like both types of users view themselves as doing the right thing and are highly judgementa of the others. Does 'self-righteous' have any meaning here other than as a pejorative?

Probably not, but people do use the term, and plenty of people do choose to live up to the image the term calls to mind.

[AdamS]

It's easy to be judgemental when someone else endangers me!

Ha, sorry, that is another term that can be pejorative. I just meant it descriptively. The shouty people with cameras and the people complaining about them are critical of each other's behaviour.