- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
MCR cyclistVideo: Some drivers "genuinely apologetic" says Manchester helmet cam rider
A Manchester cyclist who uses helmet cam footage to try and shame drivers into improving their behaviour has spoken of his successes in getting apologies from some drivers — but is still remaining anonymous because of abuse from others.
The 24-year-old from Rusholme rides 500 miles a month through the meanstreets of Manchester and posts his videos on his YouTube channel MCR CYclist.
He told the Manchester Evening News: “Drivers who were abusive on the roadside when incidents have happened then view the footage and get in touch to say they are now seeing it from a whole new perspective and are genuinely apologetic. On those occasions, I take down the video because it’s done its job and the drivers seem genuinely aware that what they did was wrong.”
“If I get just one driver to change their ways - and potentially save a cyclist or pedestrian from harm - then what I’m doing is worth it.”
Here's his compilation of his greatest hits - literally in a few cases.
He says uploads only videos where a driver's action has caused serious risk. “If I’m in danger or if I had to take some form of action to prevent myself or others being harmed I upload it.”
Nevertheless, he's asked that his identity be kept hidden so he doesn't get targeted while riding.
“The police have seen my videos and they have spoken to some drivers and considered taking action so I get quite a lot of abuse," he said.
“I don’t want to be vulnerable if people recognise me on my way to work for my own safety.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- eburtthebike 6 min 46 sec ago
Waste Investigations Support and Enforcement (WISE)..... No, not wise: stupid.
- Hirsute 21 min 20 sec ago
Yes, it was by Cllr Emily Kerr (don't turn up on my doorstep sweaty from your bike !)...
- Steve K 27 min 44 sec ago
Personally, I'm a fan of the advertising hoardings at Fulchester Rovers approach to advertising. Drink beer. Smoke tabs. Sleep in beds Etc
- brooksby 35 min 36 sec ago
Quick show of hands: how many people think that if the council was to start allowing motor vehicles through there then these people wouldn't see a...
- brooksby 46 min 11 sec ago
- brooksby 1 hour 30 min ago
We would all refer M'Learned Friend to Replies Made Every Other Time They Make This Snark
- belugabob 1 hour 39 min ago
Yes, we stole our bikes, clothing, food, houses, furniture, never paid for anything (there y avoid contribution to the tax coffers) and are all...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 52 min ago
I got the impression that he was thinking of the same jacket as me but possibly not; in any case, it isn't people making a mistake that annoys, it...
Add new comment
51 comments
So I wrote bad instead of dangerous, of course I was paraphrasing because that is the nature of conversation, I was not changing the meaning of anything. This being an internet forum you are just looking for opportunities for pedantry. I don't know or care what you do on your bike, but your 'maybe one' statement is just utter rubbish if you cycle in the city. Clearly you don't like being called out and put in the same pot as Urban_Manc but your 'personal experience' is no more valid than his. See if you can come up with another version of your 'you're not me so I am right' shtick.
So I wrote bad instead of dangerous, of course I was paraphrasing because that is the nature of conversation, I was not changing the meaning of anything. This being an internet forum you are just looking for opportunities for pedantry. I don't know or care what you do on your bike, but your 'maybe one' statement is just utter rubbish if you cycle in the city. Clearly you don't like being called out and put in the same pot as Urban_Manc but your 'personal experience' is no more valid than his. See if you can come up with another version of your 'you're not me so I am right' shtick.
Congratulations on understanding what maybe one means.
However, Dr Lecter, you appear to now be referring to BAD driving, rather than my earlier mention of DANGEROUS driving. Changing the goalposts doesn't help your cause.
I suggest that you know nothing of my riding experiences this year, or indeed the difference between a statement and an observation.
Reckless Driver 3 is, of course, a prat. But the van immediately afterwards? What is the problem there? He sees a car and a bike both turning left (my keyboard is dead, coffee incident...turning is supposed to have inverted commas around it as clearly the rider has been forced left...).
So he sets off. The bike then re enters the main road from the right had side of the side road...once the van has already started moving. Also...wheres the shoulder check from the cyclist when moving back to the main road?
yes, it is driver 3 at fault. But the van driver can only go on what he sees. The cyclist is at fault for driver 4 (and many other incidents in this clip).
Load of fuss about nothing.
This guy has never heard of defensive cycling in traffic……… or looking behind him which would have prevented 99% of those close passing left hooks or buses pulling in on him ……… Another helmet cam numptee.
He's primarily a wannabe film maker.
In the video above, Reckless #2 was a prime example of how *not* to ride in traffic.
Manchester is an absolute SHIT HOLE, the drivers are some of the worst in the country.
The appalling behaviour is actively encouraged by GMP and Manchester council due to their persistent failures to act and their total incompetence.
I've started using the pavement for probably half my commute, the roads are just too dangerous and I'm a cyclist with decades of experience.
Police and council are the main culprits, Manchester authorities have a culture of accepting criminal behaviour, probably due to the fact they behave in a similar manner.
What an utter hypocrite. You could draw a fire triangle with Commute/Pavement/Criminal written around it and a picture of you barreling along the pavement inside. I hope you don't ride into a child's push chair because you have decided it is safer for you than the road.
what utter nonsense. I ride in and out of Manchester every single day, 49km round trip. I can safely say that in the past year Ive seen maybe one instance of dangerous driving.
Reality is definitely somewhere between these two statements. Nothing like the internet for polarizing opinions.
not quite. one appears to be a baseless rant accusing all sorts of people of all sorts of things. the other is personal experience. unless you've been on my wheel all year, im not sure how you can disagree with my experiences.
Far be if for me to characterize another persons personal experience, but if you ride as much as you claim and have seen 'MAYBE ONE' (that's one or possibly none) example of bad driving in a year then you were not paying attention. I suggest you are indulging in hyperbole like Urban_Manc if only a little better phrased. I called BS on your statement just as you did on his. Quid pro quo Clarice.
No one ever has 'right of way'. You sound like motorists going on about 'road tax'.
Intriguing - could you expand?
I was always under the impression that the Highway Code told you when to give way to other road user, rather than say you have "right of way". Subtle differences, but one that matters.
Duncann
Sorry the pedestrian has right of way ALWAYS. If you hit one with a car, motorbike, bicycle you will be in the wrong.
Blame can't be universally and irrevocably assigned - it's neither legally nor morally just.
I'm in favour of strict liability, which puts the onus on the more 'dangerous' mode user to explain themselves - but that relies on the *possibility* that they might NOT have been wrong.
We all have a duty of care to ourselves and others, particularly to the more vulnerable - but that's not the same as saying, "You're bigger, therefore it's always your fault no matter what the circumstances". You are effectively arguing for the prosecution of train drivers who hit trespassers. Trains can't stop quickly or swerve to avoid, of course, but - in some circumstances - neither can bikes (or cars, buses, trucks). Judgement must be case-by-case.
I'm off home. I won't look or wait before crossing the street. I have right of way, and if I get hit by a bus it won't be my fault.
If the pedestrian stepping out from behind a bus into the path of the cyclist is at fault from the view point of the cyclist... then by logic the cyclist riding out from the blind side of a bus must also be at fault from the view point of the car driver that was truning right.
If we are to presume the car is at fault then a car could never turn right through a gap in stationary traffic just in case a cyclist decides to undertake a bus or similar large vehicle.
Defensive riding surely is about not putting yourself at risk and passing any large vehicle on the left is a risky thing to do.
Re: your first paragraph - the cyclist has right of way. They, like everyone else, should use due care and attention, of course. The pedestrian had neither right of way, nor did they exercise due care and attention.
Re: your second paragraph. Everyone is perfectly entitled to turn right through stationary traffic. The traffic *wasn't* stationary and the driver did not appear exercise due care and attention in his/her manoeuvre. I'm unclear how far you'd take your argument - what if there had been a cycle lane across that junction? Should cyclists be expected to automatically waive their rights to accommodate others bad behaviour?
I agree with your third paragraph - cyclists should be alert to these sorts of danger, of course, and this one seems to have been so to some extent - it was his/her actions that avoided collision. It doesn't mean that others' wrongdoing should be accepted though.
To put 'the bus incident' into context, the bus stop is about 200 metres beyond a major set of lights. The bus/cycle lane is obviously on the left hand side. There is always a huge volume of traffic turning left at these lights so many buses start from the right hand lane while cyclists start from the left in the alloted box. What frequently happens is that you find buses from the right end up out of position when someone puts there hand out at the bus stop. Most wait and hold back to filter into the traffic and pull over. Some, like this guy feel the need to do the opposite and bully their way across cars and into the cyclists path. From experience the cyclist will now be stuck in a line of buses all waiting to get into that space. He would have had a bus behind and coming alongside in a dangerous manner if he had done anything but continue with the assumption that the driver had seen him as he would have been at the same set of lights.
Stopped watching at the bus one. The cyclist in my humble opinion knew exactly what the bus was trying to do yet didn't back off, which he could have done so very easily. Buses have to stop and its easy enough to anticipate by any cyclist over the age of 16... That was just a determination to show everyone he was cut up by a bus when it was totally and easily avoidable.
I'm sure some of the clips show downright horrendous driving from motorists but I am seeing the same old thing with helmet cammers. They continue to put themselves at risk or encourage and almost will motorists to drive badly simply because they have a camera strapped to their head.
I'm not anti-head cammers, I sometimes where my own Contour when I'm out, but I never publish stuff or go hunting for bad drivers. Its just some of them are a breed apart.
I find this quite worrying. Road safety shouldn't depend on courtesy. It's nice to be nice but the cyclist behaved reasonably and lawfully and the bus driver - in charge of a far more dangerous vehicle and who should had that in mind - did not.
It's nice to be nice but such gestures need to be used with care. Will a gesture be understood as intended? What if there had been another cyclist close behind - would he/she understand/comply? And you'd prefer to force the cyclist(s) into faster-moving traffic on the right?
The law exists to mediate between the competing interests of road users and just about everyone knows the rules. I'd prioritise being safe and being legal before waiving the rules in the name of being nice.
Some sweeping generalisations there. You don't say what you mean by "putting themselves at risk" or "almost will motorists to drive badly" (such power over the actions of others) but I suspect you may mean riding in primary position.
I think the usual stages in the development of a camera cyclist are: ride in the gutter -> experience lots of near misses -> learn to ride properly (bikeability) -> experience lots of driver aggression -> start wearing a camera -> get accused of deliberately looking for trouble.
I think it is a sorry state of affairs where someone needs to record in order to protect themselves. But thats another debate, for another day. I think overall he’s doing the right thing, I can only see a few issues:-
Reckless #2: He’s at fault. Having just looked at his YouTube channel at the original even he admits so. Maybe he shouldn’t have included it in.
Bus Cutting in: Having just looked at the original too, he hasn’t done very good editing but the bus has cut him up, he’s ahead of the bus. Bus should have waited. Also the weather condition don’t look too appealing.
Video compilation: He’s taken all his videos out of context, in one compilation it isn’t good. Looks messy. I had to go look at a few incidents in the original video before I knew what was happening and could appreciate it. Also, some of his wording about “reckless” is very strong.
I’m not sure I can fault him to much (except above). What he is posting is no different to the numerous other YouTube cam cyclists. But, I guess sometimes its about perspective, hindsight and experience.
Totally with Duncann on this one.
The default (and legal obligation, btw) is to proceed ONLY when the road is CLEAR. That means, stop moving forward unless you can see where the hell you're going, and there's nobody/nothing in the way.
The fact that even cyclists can't understand this principle is frightening me more than drivers maneuvering this way.
The worst thing in that video was the horrible shutter role, please buy a new camera.
There’s an interesting theme in many comments here around the issue of drivers not being able to see.
It *is* difficult for drivers to see past buses/trucks, and cyclists on the other side may be rare but the idea that it’s OK to set 1-2 tonnes of machinery in motion without knowing whether it’s safe to do so – or that you can be sure of stopping it in time if a *foreseeable* risk emerges - is bonkers. Can you imagine doing this in a factory or building site? ("Sorry, your Honour, I started the huge saw without knowing if there was anyone working on the other side. Well, it's too big to see around, y'know, and there isn't usually anyone there") The law would rightly hammer you.
This is the argument around strict liability – while everyone has a duty to themselves and others around them, it applies particularly to those who can do the most harm.
Can’t see? Don’t go. If you must go, you accept liability – so should go in such a way as you can react suitably to foreseeable events, which includes legally filtering/undertaking cyclists.
Indeed: "Always drive in such a way that you can stop within visible distance". the most fundamental rule of driving.
Surely the line from ChairRDRF should read;
Indeed: "Always drive/ride in such a way that you can stop within visible distance". the most fundamental rule of using the road.
Pages