Video: Careless van & trailer driver fined thanks to helmet cam evidence

Paul_C wrote:

Just wonder how many motorcyclists and scooterists and cyclists have died/been seriously injured since SIPS systems came into use leading drivers to pull out at junctions with only the briefest of looks...

Being taken out on a motorcycle by a car pulling out of a side road is called being "Volvoed".

Note. Volvo are the car manufacturer who first introduced the Side Impact Protection System.

andyp wrote:

'When did anyone last receive an admission of error from a driver? About 1989?'

Just before 7am today for me.

A couple of weeks ago cycling to work. I am on a straight very quiet country road. I can see a van emerge from a property on the other side of the road. It then stopped at the road edge as if waiting for me to pass but just as I approached it pulled out heading the same way as me. I shouted very loudly. The van stopped. I peered throught the back window and waved. The driver got out and profusely apologised. He said he just hadn't seen me ( I was wearing hi viz and I did have my exposure strada on flash mode though). Then he said the last thing I want to do is knock down a cyclist I'm in the local road club.

We shook hands. Apology was accepted.

SMIDSY?

Quote:

'When did anyone last receive an admission of error from a driver? About 1989?'

Just before 7am today for me.

SMIDSY?

Tony wrote:

Quote:

'When did anyone last receive an admission of error from a driver? About 1989?'

Just before 7am today for me.

SMIDSY?

Sorry mate, I Didn't See You.

racyrich wrote:

When did anyone last receive an admission of error from a driver? About 1989?

I lay the blame for that partly with the insurance companies; all those what to do in an accident guides start with 'never admit liability'

racyrich wrote:

When did anyone last receive an admission of error from a driver? About 1989?

In my most recent smash, the driver admitted liability immediately. More surprisingly, his insurers (Aviva) rang me two days later to say they were holding their policy holder entirely liable.

He was also charged with driving without due care and attention at the scene. The same police officers also carted my bike home for me too. Now, if only the ambulance had actually turned up.....

Huw Watkins wrote:

In my most recent smash, the driver admitted liability immediately. More surprisingly, his insurers (Aviva) rang me two days later to say they were holding their policy holder entirely liable.

The guy that hit me was with Aviva, and even though he admitted liability from the outset Aviva just dragged their heels at every turn. I ended up having to go through Digby Brown to get it sorted, they ended up getting me over £1000 for what should have been a £3-400 payout, and then DB's fees would have been around £4000 on top of that. People go on about these cash for crash outfits but tbh Aviva's own practices left a lot to be desired imo.

Huw Watkins wrote:

The guy that hit me was with Aviva, and even though he admitted liability from the outset Aviva just dragged their heels at every turn. I ended up having to go through Digby Brown to get it sorted, they ended up getting me over £1000 for what should have been a £3-400 payout, and then DB's fees would have been around £4000 on top of that. People go on about these cash for crash outfits but tbh Aviva's own practices left a lot to be desired imo.

Yes, had a similar experience with Aviva. They dragged out the whole thing (despite the fact that I had a witness) only paying up at the 11th hour after which the CTC lawyers would have taken the matter to court. Complete bunch of a-holes. Obviously, this guarantees that I will never use them for any of my insurance needs - ever!

dazwan wrote:

I subscribe to Magnatom's YouTube channel and wish his experiences were regularly shown on TV at peak times (without the swearing) in order to educate much of the ignorant driving public to the actual rules of the road and not the fantasy rules that many make up to fit around their shitty standards of driving.

It makes a refreshing change to hear other cyclists praising his efforts rather than chastising him, YouTube comments generally accuse him of "looking for trouble", because thats what we are all doing apparently when we are commuting to work and minding our own business.

I just wish the Police were more interested nationally in what footage cyclists and other drivers record and regularly report to them. As mentioned, most of it gets nothing but excuses from the police on the motorist's part for their poor behaviour, judgement and general lack of knowledge of the highway code.

I am starting to think the future lies in reporting knobber drivers to the insurance companies rather than the police, I'm sure they would be more than willing to have a national database of incidents (backed up with helmet cam footage) handy to use when it comes to your motor insurance renewals. I'm certain that any excuse to bump up your premiums would be welcome by the robbing bastards!

Insurance companies already do data mining on this sort of thing. And they would be very interested. They're always trying to get more info on the risk profile of individual drivers and have piloted areas such as recording vehicles improperly parked in disabled spaces and on double yellows. That followed on from various studies and a Home Office briefing note:
http://www.popcenter.org/problems/bicycle_theft/PDFs/Chenery_etal_1999.pdf
The theory goes that the sort of people that break these kinds of rules are unlikely to stop at that. It's usually a sign that you are at heart a rule breaker. Insurance companies are definitely interested in knowing the sort of driver you actually are.

oozaveared wrote:

Insurance companies already do data mining on this sort of thing. And they would be very interested. They're always trying to get more info on the risk profile of individual drivers and have piloted areas such as recording vehicles improperly parked in disabled spaces and on double yellows. That followed on from various studies and a Home Office briefing note:
http://www.popcenter.org/problems/bicycle_theft/PDFs/Chenery_etal_1999.pdf
The theory goes that the sort of people that break these kinds of rules are unlikely to stop at that. It's usually a sign that you are at heart a rule breaker. Insurance companies are definitely interested in knowing the sort of driver you actually are.

That's good to know, but as the van that jumped a red light, the guy in the pickup that nearly crushed me with his trailer (just like the video) and the guy who swung across a solid white line into a cycle path to punishment pass me (I had the temerity to overtake him in a static traffic queue) did not stop, how would I know where to send the video evidence?

Or am I being thick, as they get their systems to look at youtube.

Grubbythumb wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

Insurance companies already do data mining on this sort of thing. And they would be very interested. They're always trying to get more info on the risk profile of individual drivers and have piloted areas such as recording vehicles improperly parked in disabled spaces and on double yellows. That followed on from various studies and a Home Office briefing note:
http://www.popcenter.org/problems/bicycle_theft/PDFs/Chenery_etal_1999.pdf
The theory goes that the sort of people that break these kinds of rules are unlikely to stop at that. It's usually a sign that you are at heart a rule breaker. Insurance companies are definitely interested in knowing the sort of driver you actually are.

That's good to know, but as the van that jumped a red light, the guy in the pickup that nearly crushed me with his trailer (just like the video) and the guy who swung across a solid white line into a cycle path to punishment pass me (I had the temerity to overtake him in a static traffic queue) did not stop, how would I know where to send the video evidence?

Or am I being thick, as they get their systems to look at youtube.

Exactly, how would we submit the video to the insurance companies?

jacknorell wrote:

Grubbythumb wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

Insurance companies already do data mining on this sort of thing. And they would be very interested. They're always trying to get more info on the risk profile of individual drivers and have piloted areas such as recording vehicles improperly parked in disabled spaces and on double yellows. That followed on from various studies and a Home Office briefing note:
http://www.popcenter.org/problems/bicycle_theft/PDFs/Chenery_etal_1999.pdf
The theory goes that the sort of people that break these kinds of rules are unlikely to stop at that. It's usually a sign that you are at heart a rule breaker. Insurance companies are definitely interested in knowing the sort of driver you actually are.

That's good to know, but as the van that jumped a red light, the guy in the pickup that nearly crushed me with his trailer (just like the video) and the guy who swung across a solid white line into a cycle path to punishment pass me (I had the temerity to overtake him in a static traffic queue) did not stop, how would I know where to send the video evidence?

Or am I being thick, as they get their systems to look at youtube.

Exactly, how would we submit the video to the insurance companies?

There isn't a way at the moment it's just that insurance companies definitely are interested in anything that helps profile drivers and yes they do look at You Tube. It would be better and I am sure that time will come when they collectively host a rogues gallery site where you can upload video of bad driving.

Housecathst wrote:

"If helmet cams make cyclists feel less vulnerable then they may lead to behaviour that increases risk rather than reduces it."

This twat from IAM is a nasty piece of work. Is he suggesting that cyclist should be in fear of there life at all times, would it be wrong to hope that he suffers a nasty accident at the hand of one of his own members driving a 4x4, perhaps he he might have a bit more empathy after that.

I think he's referring to the potental behaviour of the cyclists rather than the motorists.

RPK wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

"If helmet cams make cyclists feel less vulnerable then they may lead to behaviour that increases risk rather than reduces it."

This twat from IAM is a nasty piece of work. Is he suggesting that cyclist should be in fear of there life at all times, would it be wrong to hope that he suffers a nasty accident at the hand of one of his own members driving a 4x4, perhaps he he might have a bit more empathy after that.

I think he's referring to the potental behaviour of the cyclists rather than the motorists.

Well yes, he is, but does he apply the same logic to crumple-zones, airbags, seat-belts etc with relation to the behaviour of the motorists? By his own logic he should be against anything that makes the driver feel safer.

That said, my impression has always been that the IAM are by far and away the least annoying of the car-driver organisations (way, way, better than the ABD or the taxi-driver's association, for example). They sometimes say quite sensible things.

Hi RPK,
IAM not only deal with motorists, they also have (and I must say, very good) membership for motor cyclists, and cyclists.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

RPK wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

"If helmet cams make cyclists feel less vulnerable then they may lead to behaviour that increases risk rather than reduces it."

This twat from IAM is a nasty piece of work. Is he suggesting that cyclist should be in fear of there life at all times, would it be wrong to hope that he suffers a nasty accident at the hand of one of his own members driving a 4x4, perhaps he he might have a bit more empathy after that.

I think he's referring to the potental behaviour of the cyclists rather than the motorists.

Well yes, he is, but does he apply the same logic to crumple-zones, airbags, seat-belts etc with relation to the behaviour of the motorists? By his own logic he should be against anything that makes the driver feel safer.

That said, my impression has always been that the IAM are by far and away the least annoying of the car-driver organisations (way, way, better than the ABD or the taxi-driver's association, for example). They sometimes say quite sensible things.

Housecathst wrote:

"If helmet cams make cyclists feel less vulnerable then they may lead to behaviour that increases risk rather than reduces it."

This twat from IAM is a nasty piece of work. Is he suggesting that cyclist should be in fear of there life at all times, would it be wrong to hope that he suffers a nasty accident at the hand of one of his own members driving a 4x4, perhaps he he might have a bit more empathy after that.

Well I am a member of the IAM and also think he's a twat. But I think he's referring to a phenomena called "risk homeostasis". It's where attempts in infrastructure or technology that reduce actual risk are nullified by people changing their behaviour to being more risky such that actual risk remains constant.

The most classic example was in Canada where roads cross train tracks. There was a certain rate of collisions each year and the cause on the unguarded crossings in rural areas was deemed to be the sightlines. drivers couldn't see trains coming. The solution was to cut back the trees so that drivers could clearly see the train. The collision rate went up. This was because when drivers could see the train a certain proportion of them took the opportunity to speed up to get across before the train (trains can be a mile long in some of the places).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

I can't really see how this applies to a camera though. It's more likely that the IAM chap isn't a cyclist and is unaware how common bad driving is around cyclists. The IAM itself just issued a road manifesto ahead of next May's general election. Top of the list is the biggest road danger and casualty group which is young drivers. But second on the list is better protection for vulnerable road users including cyclists.
http://www.iam.org.uk/component/content/article?id=20567