Video of car driver spending a week cycling to work

clonmahon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXAUHJwRcg4

DePurpereWolf

It shouldn't take him a week to get to work

clonmahon

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

It shouldn't take him a week to get to work

You can't be too careful with how you phrase things around here.

Cookie_Monster

:eek: guy experiences the real world :eek:

LB6

Now do it in the middle of winter in the pouring wind and rain and see how you like it

Captain Havoc

Nice video but I can't see anyone other than a cyclist actually looking at it. Why is yer man irritated by cyclists not wearing a helmet? People like that annoy me.

Bluefoam

Yeh, his very first comment was about being irritated by cyclists who don't wear helmets... what an utterly irrelevant comment - but it does illustrate the negativity motorists have towards cyclists, whout even understanding what they are talking about.

Dermot Illogical

Bluefoam wrote: »

Yeh, his very first comment was about being irritated by cyclists who don't wear helmets... what an utterly irrelevant comment - but it does illustrate the negativity motorists have towards cyclists, whout even understanding what they are talking about.

His cycling buddy mentions it at the end as well. Apparently regulation isn't needed if cyclists wear helmets and lights.

carthoris

It looks like a PR stunt by Confused.com (who seem to be in some way affiliated with the video linked to in the first post).

This is their other one which drags up the arguments commonly seen here:
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/insurance-website-inflames-motorist-vs-cyclist-debate-32484

Lumen

That's the least irritating coverage of "driver does cycling" that I can remember.

The helmet thing is just forgivable ignorance; drivers are so used to being surrounded by passive safety measures that it seems to them to be lunacy not to use the cycling equivalents.

Iwannahurl

He seemed to be wearing a fancy-dress outfit from a joke shop at the start of the video. Glad he quickly realised that you can actually cycle in a shirt and trousers.

He should have got a bell or horn, and as a driver his handling of the Pelican crossing incident was poor IMO.

monument

Bluefoam wrote: »

Yeh, his very first comment was about being irritated by cyclists who don't wear helmets... what an utterly irrelevant comment - but it does illustrate the negativity motorists have towards cyclists, whout even understanding what they are talking about.

While cycling I've had motorists and even a few pedestrians say something like 'where's you're helmet' after I mentioned their poor driving or that they jumped out in front of me.

As a pedestrian, I've had motorists and maybe one or two cyclists give out about me not crossing at ped lights or not yielding way to them when there were no ped lights around or where they were supposed to yield to me.

It's a mixture of blame transfer and cluelessness of the law or of what is practical.

Satanta

The not wearing a helmet thing is allot like the not wearing seatbelts thing 20 years ago. Nobody I knew then wore a seatbelt and scoffed at people that did or advised the use of them. I would be irritated now by people not wearing seatbelts. And before the pedants start... it's not exactly like that but certainty similar.

monument

Expect that there the harm done by wearing helmets is far greater than the benefit of them.

Captain Havoc

If someone in another car isn't wearing a seatbelt, I don't see what the issue is, they're not in my car so I couldn't give a fiddlers if they get pulled over by the guards, bang their head off the steering wheel or go flying through the windscreen.

Captain Havoc

monument wrote: »

Expect that there the harm done by wearing helmets is far greater than the benefit of them.

This isn't a helmet debate thread.

monument

Satanta wrote: »

The not wearing a helmet thing is allot like the not wearing seatbelts thing 20 years ago. Nobody I knew then wore a seatbelt and scoffed at people that did or advised the use of them. I would be irritated now by people not wearing seatbelts. And before the pedants start... it's not exactly like that but certainty similar.

monument wrote: »

Expect that there the harm done by wearing helmets is far greater than the benefit of them.

Captain Havoc wrote: »

If someone in another car isn't wearing a seatbelt, I don't see what the issue is, they're not in my car so I couldn't give a fiddlers if they get pulled over by the guards, bang their head off the steering wheel or go flying through the windscreen.

Captain Havoc wrote: »

This isn't a helmet debate thread.

Satanta

Captain Havoc wrote: »

If someone in another car isn't wearing a seatbelt, I don't see what the issue is, they're not in my car so I couldn't give a fiddlers if they get pulled over by the guards, bang their head off the steering wheel or go flying through the windscreen.

But you get annoyed at the guy in the clip for saying he is irritated by people not wearing cycle helmets? Why should that bother you? My point is probably getting lost here. All I was trying to day is that he is looking at people not taking basic safety precautions and feels irritated. So what? He may feel the same way seeing people not wear seat belts.

I went out a few times without a helmet when I started cycling and my whole family was irritated. I wouldn't go out without a helmet now because I have got used to taking that basic safety precaution.

Satanta

Also.. I enjoyed the clip. I think more drivers should try cycling for a week

doozerie

A positive video overall, I think, despite nonsense such as the supposed "necessity" of helmets.

Bit of an odd one at 1m55s in though - he approaches a junction where there is a woman already walking across with her dog and he just keeps on going. It's not entirely obvious to me from the video whether the junction is one where pedestrians are actually allowed to cross (not sure what the double dashed lines mean there), and whether his speed was too high to allow him to stop safely back from the line to let her cross (i.e. whether she should have waited for him to pass), but my initial reaction is that she may well have had priority and he should have stopped. The video seems to portray it as another pedestrian doing something stupid, but I wonder whether it's really a demonstration of the rider casually expecting more consideration from a pedestrian than he is entitled to expect, which is a failing of many a road user.

It would be interesting to see another interview with the guy a few months on to see if he persisted with cycling and whether his views on the benefits of segregated cycle lanes has changed.

Bluefoam

Satanta wrote: »

But you get annoyed at the guy in the clip for saying he is irritated by people not wearing cycle helmets? Why should that bother you? My point is probably getting lost here. All I was trying to day is that he is looking at people not taking basic safety precautions and feels irritated. So what? He may feel the same way seeing people not wear seat belts.

I went out a few times without a helmet when I started cycling and my whole family was irritated. I wouldn't go out without a helmet now because I have got used to taking that basic safety precaution.

No offense Satanta, but I think the whole helmet arguement has gone right over your head.... I think you should read and try to understand the points people have made here about the need for helmets...

The problem (to me) seems to be that people are being educated/misinformed by the helmet lobbyists and fail to understand that they are talking complete ****e.

Captain Havoc

Just to clarify, the whole people wearing a helmet fine but comments were made about usefulness/ safety of them which then turns this thread into helmet debate and not one about a video of motorist commuting by bike for a week. The usefulness and safety of helmets is very separate subject and I believe will derail this thread into something else entirely. If you want to start a separate thread on helmets and cover a subject that's been done to death in this forum, fire ahead but leave it out of this thread.

Bluefoam

Back to the previous point, that it seems the video is slightly disingenuous...

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/insurance-website-inflames-motorist-vs-cyclist-debate-32484

What struck me as unusual was that the car driver finished his video diary without any connection to his week on the bike - basicallly saying that his week with the bike was now over, line drawn in the sand, back to the car... brief moan about how unfit he was & what a hassle it was to cycle...

It seems to me that the whole video is peppered with not so subtle negatives about cycling and is probably designed to discourage motorists from giving up their cars - while mascarading as a lifestyle peice... But that would be rather cynical...

monument

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Just to clarify, the whole people wearing a helmet fine but comments were made about usefulness/ safety of them which then turns this thread into helmet debate and not one about a video of motorist commuting by bike for a week. The usefulness and safety of helmets is very separate subject and I believe will derail this thread into something else entirely. If you want to start a separate thread on helmets and cover a subject that's been done to death in this forum, fire ahead but leave it out of this thread.

There's no point replying vie PM as I'm sure others are confused as much as I am.

Is it ok for posters to debate if helmets are just like safety belts used to be?

Is it ok to say that helmets are a basic safety precaution?

It seems a passing reference ok, but to changed that passing reference is "a helmet debate". Am I right or wrong here?

Very much so related to the video: Isn't it a bit hard to talk about cyclists needing or not needing helmets without getting at least a bit into a "helmet debate"?

CramCycle

monument wrote: »

Is it ok for posters to debate if helmets are just like safety belts used to be?

A MOD has asked that if you wish to turn this into a Helmet thread (which is what the above would do) then start another thread.

Is it ok to say that helmets are a basic safety precaution?

It is fine, this is the internet and that is an opinion but again, put it in the/your/a Helmet thread

It seems a passing reference ok, but to changed that passing reference is "a helmet debate". Am I right or wrong here?

It is what is known as a preemptive strike, there was a good chance that the comments on helmets would de rail this thread into a much debated but not entirely relevant point .. He did not say it was a helmet debate, he said it would start one which is unwarranted and OT for this thread.

Very much so related to the video: Isn't it a bit hard to talk about cyclists needing or not needing helmets without getting at least a bit into a "helmet debate"?

Not really, it was mentioned, the driver was irritated by it for reasons right or wrong but talking about it will turn this into a helmet thread, instead of about one mans experience on a bike for a week (coming from a solely car commuting background), which is what the thread is about.