Clip from Today FM yesterday (GoPro Cyclist & Motorist Argue)

Generic Dreadhead

Yesterday around 6:30pm-6:55pm they played a clip of an Irish cyclist (who apparently was equipped wit ha GoPro camera) arguing with a female driver blocking traffic.
It was quiet eye opening (to the treatment of cyclists) and funny (how she lost her mind and hyper escalated everything)
Does anyone know where the source Audio/Video clip resides I wanted to show some colleagues.
I tried asking TodayFM and got nothing back

Dermot Illogical

Cormac... wrote: »

Yesterday around 6:30pm-6:55pm they played a clip of an Irish cyclist (who apparently was equipped wit ha GoPro camera) arguing with a female driver blocking traffic.
It was quiet eye opening (to the treatment of cyclists) and funny (how she lost her mind and hyper escalated everything)
Does anyone know where the source Audio/Video clip resides I wanted to show some colleagues.
I tried asking TodayFM and got nothing back

This one?

P_1

Cormac... wrote: »

Yesterday around 6:30pm-6:55pm they played a clip of an Irish cyclist (who apparently was equipped wit ha GoPro camera) arguing with a female driver blocking traffic.
It was quiet eye opening (to the treatment of cyclists) and funny (how she lost her mind and hyper escalated everything)
Does anyone know where the source Audio/Video clip resides I wanted to show some colleagues.
I tried asking TodayFM and got nothing back

They usually have a listen back feature on their website. Look for the show it featured on

Generic Dreadhead

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

This one?

Bang on!

God that's fricking cringe :pac:

I genuinely laughed out loud when I heard it yesterday (at the bit when she starts roaring about being a woman on her own)

But that was just Audio, looking at the video footage, I'm confused as to if she was actually being serious

Thought it was recent, not from bloody 2013

P_1 wrote: »

They usually have a listen back feature on their website. Look for the show it featured on

Everything about the listen back section does not lend itself to finding 60 seconds of a show.
Plus the adverts... god the adverts

radia

The focus on that historical incident could have been prompted by this more recent encounter with an unreasonable woman (UK rather than Irish) posted by Jeremy Vine, which happened in the last few days.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/30/jeremy-vine-posts-footage-alleged-road-rage-incident-cycle

average_runner

Its actually funny, but sad its real.

I know its not a legal rule, but if the car is parked on your side you give way to on coming traffic. That also includes bikes giving way to cars!

Generic Dreadhead

I have no doubt that the cyclist is the right about the way of the road.

I meant was her whole sthick about "I'M A WOMAN ON MY OWN AND I'M BEING THREATENED" genuine like?

average_runner

Cormac... wrote: »

I have no doubt that the cyclist is the right about the way of the road.

I meant was her whole sthick about "I'M A WOMAN ON MY OWN AND I'M BEING THREATENED" genuine like?

Cyclist was totally right, she was blocking his side of the road.

Generic Dreadhead

I know.... I am in agreement

codie

Cyclist in my opinion was a total p*ick. What was the point of it all.He is the one that held up all the traffic throwing abuse.Just get on with it ,she made a mistake,there wasn't any accident.Cyclist made a meal of it.

expectationlost

Cormac... wrote: »

I have no doubt that the cyclist is the right about the way of the road.

I meant was her whole sthick about "I'M A WOMAN ON MY OWN AND I'M BEING THREATENED" genuine like?

the best bit of that is when he calls her an asshole because she was being one.

There was some story recently of a Irish paper journalist giving out about go-pro cyclists?


did Vine have a camera on the back of his bike?

cython

expectationlost wrote: »

did Vine have a camera on the back of his bike?

Yeah, he had front and back.

average_runner

codie wrote: »

Cyclist in my opinion was a total p*ick. What was the point of it all.He is the one that held up all the traffic throwing abuse.Just get on with it ,she made a mistake,there wasn't any accident.Cyclist made a meal of it.

Why didn't the driver get on with it? All she had to do was say sorry, it's not that hard

codie

average_runner wrote: »

Why didn't the driver get on with it? All she had to do was say sorry, it's not that hard

If she did get on with it well then she would of had to go through him.She made a mistake,we all do it.Cyclist made a mistake too with his behaviour. No need to hurl abuse like that.This type of behaviour is what gives cyclists a bad name.There has to be give and take.I think she was foolish even opening the door of the jeep to a lad on a bike *uckinf and blinding.The majority of women would not engage in any way.

Wishbone Ash

codie wrote: »

Cyclist in my opinion was a total p*ick. What was the point of it all.He is the one that held up all the traffic throwing abuse.Just get on with it ,she made a mistake,there wasn't any accident.Cyclist made a meal of it.

The most disturbing aspect of that clip was that the cyclist was wearing full fingered gloves in June.

Lemming

Well that video is a blast from the past. Methinks it was a very slow news day for TodayFM if they dredged up a three year old incident.

prinzeugen

Lemming wrote: »

Well that video is a blast from the past. Methinks it was a very slow news day for TodayFM if they dredged up a three year old incident.

But the cyclist (cycledub) is still out there doing the same thing daily.

He was identified also.. Some senior civil servant.

mollser

That was cycle dub? He has a serious problem. There was nothing in that, after all she didn't try to plough on through him, she was stopped to let him through, she was clearly on that side of the road to overtake the parked cars! Then he roars abuse at her? ?


He really needs to chill out, he does cyclists no favours unfortunately.

Rackstar

Whatever about the incident. I can see no more than an utterly horrible man on a bike.

Disgusting person.

Eamonnator

Cormac... wrote: »

I have no doubt that the cyclist is the right about the way of the road.

I meant was her whole sthick about "I'M A WOMAN ON MY OWN AND I'M BEING THREATENED" genuine like?

I would say that the woman says " I'm a woman on my own and I'm being threatened", because the nutcase on the bike had the life frightened out of her, cursing and swearing at her. She said the first thing, that came into her mind.

ThisRegard

Rackstar wrote: »

Whatever about the incident. I can see no more than an utterly horrible man on a bike.

Disgusting person.

Ah c'mon, he's just a man and a bike on their own. The lady was a clown in fairness, she became a caricature.

Chuchote

prinzeugen wrote: »

But the cyclist (cycledub) is still out there doing the same thing daily.

He was identified also.. Some senior civil servant.

He is not a senior, or any level, civil servant. Why do people spread this idea?

Planet X

She was wearing Hi Viz.
Fair play.

gordongekko

average_runner wrote: »

Why didn't the driver get on with it? All she had to do was say sorry, it's not that hard

Because she's a woman

neris

Was good to hear a bit of good aul ronnie pickering

average_runner

codie wrote: »

If she did get on with it well then she would of had to go through him.She made a mistake,we all do it.Cyclist made a mistake too with his behaviour. No need to hurl abuse like that.This type of behaviour is what gives cyclists a bad name.There has to be give and take.I think she was foolish even opening the door of the jeep to a lad on a bike *uckinf and blinding.The majority of women would not engage in any way.

For her to get on with it, she should of moved to the left side of the road and put her hand up saying sorry. It's what most decent drivers would do .

Jawgap

The video only really proves the old adage that there are good cyclists, bad cyclists and muppets.

A muppet with a bike and a GoPro is still a muppet. Other than generating content for his YouTube channel I never saw what this video achieved other than its possible for anyone to mildly torment a motorist if they really put their minds to it.

Ericdravancrow

Nuthouse for her..

NiallBoo

average_runner wrote: »

I know its not a legal rule, but if the car is parked on your side you give way to on coming traffic.

Is it not?

If you want to move into a lane (like when overtaking a parked car) then you have to respect the right-of-way of someone already in that lane.

ford2600

https://youtu.be/13CSWRyaAgA

I think the collective noun is shower

NiallBoo

prinzeugen wrote: »

But the cyclist (cycledub) is still out there doing the same thing daily.

He was identified also.. Some senior civil servant.

That wasn't cycle dub.

Cycle dubs's voice is much more annoying and nasal.

flatty

He was understandably frustrated. Personally, I'd have jumped on the footpath, or cycled on the right side to get around her, neither of which are safe or legal. It came across badly, but largely he swore to himself, and was actually pretty reasonable. She should have apologised, and it would have defused everything, but her driving, that of a thug tbh, suggests she is far from a reasonable person. Aggressive in the extreme when safe in her two tonne truck. Hysterical in the extreme when confronted. The classic behaviour of a bully IMO.
Idiot.

barney shamrock

Should of, would of, could of......jesus.......

Lemming

Lets look at it this way shall we? If he had been on four wheels instead of two, was her road position wrong?

The only answer is yes because he already had taken ownership of the lane. She simply thought "oh it's only a cyclist, he'll move for me". Hence her road position was to force him onto the wrong side of the road or up onto the pavement (such as it was). She was completely in the wrong and instead of a simple apology which would have defused the entire situation, she choose to play ignorance and then hysterics.

wtlltw

NiallBoo wrote: »

That wasn't cycle dub.

Cycle dubs's voice is much more annoying and nasal.

Having watched the video I reckon prinzeugen is correct. Bizarrely enough he never shows videos of his own errors or mistakes, something I have witnessed on numerous occasions. Maybe I'll stick a go pro on my head.

NiallBoo

wtlltw wrote: »

Having watched the video I reckon prinzeugen is correct. Bizarrely enough he never shows videos of his own errors or mistakes, something I have witnessed on numerous occasions.

I don't agree, to me they sound very different.

Anyway, it doesn't matter too much. I don't think we should bring cycledub into these things.

Any chance of debating the actual topic goes out the window - it's like when someone brings up Hitler.

wtlltw

NiallBoo wrote: »

- it's like when someone brings up Hitler.

Lol

Sorry I had forgot about the original clip (which I've seen before - but it is a different cyclist). I was curious what the other guy (won't mention the name) does with his daily cycle video footage.

2RockMountain

Eamonnator wrote: »

I would say that the woman says " I'm a woman on my own and I'm being threatened", because the nutcase on the bike had the life frightened out of her, cursing and swearing at her. She said the first thing, that came into her mind.

She didn't look frightened at all to me. She looked fairly controlled, even calm, quite assertive. She clearly had a think about how to escalate to try to 'win' the encounter, and decided to play the 'female' card, without even making an effort to put it on. She was obviously not threatened at all. If she felt threatened, the first thing she would have done would have been to wind up the window and drive off. But no, she was happy to stay on the spot, have a chat, and then play the 'threatened female' card.

Cormac... wrote: »

Yesterday around 6:30pm-6:55pm they played a clip of an Irish cyclist (who apparently was equipped wit ha GoPro camera) arguing with a female driver blocking traffic.
It was quiet eye opening (to the treatment of cyclists) and funny (how she lost her mind and hyper escalated everything)
Does anyone know where the source Audio/Video clip resides I wanted to show some colleagues.
I tried asking TodayFM and got nothing back

Was this on the Last Word with Matt Cooper?

freedominacup

ford2600 wrote: »

https://youtu.be/13CSWRyaAgA

I think the collective noun is shower

In this particular case pair will do.

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

the best bit of that is when he calls her an asshole because she was being one.

There was some story recently of a Irish paper journalist giving out about go-pro cyclists?

oh this is what I was thinking of Cyclists may breach data laws with on-board cameras
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cyclists-may-breach-data-laws-with-on-board-cameras-413613.html link to DPC annual report https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/21-06-2016-Commissioner-publishes-Annual-Report-2015/1576.htm even after reading the article im not sure how they would, perhaps if they upload online it?

I suspect somebody in the Irish Examiner management got filmed and criticsed online and didn't like it, maybe you've already discussed this article on boards?

Lemming

The most important word in that entire Irish Examiner article is the word "may". In short, the DPC knows it has exceptionally narrow scope in being able to tackle any complaints (regardless of merit) concerning the use of cameras in public.

Zzippy

The Data Protection Commissioner is utterly anal in their interpretation of the law. I know of a state agency where staff are threatened on a regular basis and who work in isolated areas. They introduced body cams to improve staff safety, and better evidence collection for enforcement of the law. Footage never shown in public and only saved in instances where court proceedings may result. DPC disregards their safety in favour of the privacy of criminals and orders them to stop using the cams. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Youtube got a threatening letter from them over dashcam/helmet cam videos.

Jawgap

Zzippy wrote: »

The Data Protection Commissioner is utterly anal in their interpretation of the law. I know of a state agency where staff are threatened on a regular basis and who work in isolated areas. They introduced body cams to improve staff safety, and better evidence collection for enforcement of the law. Footage never shown in public and only saved in instances where court proceedings may result. DPC disregards their safety in favour of the privacy of criminals and orders them to stop using the cams. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Youtube got a threatening letter from them over dashcam/helmet cam videos.

[State Agency] "we're using body cams and cctv to protect our staff through deterrence and to facilitate evidence gathering to allow prosecution in the unlikely event an incident occurs. We'll be wiping the recordings daily unless there's a reason not to

[DPC] you can't do that

[State Agency] ok, we're going to keep the data, sell it and/or give it to any government that asks nicely and we'll do it in such a way your puny audit efforts will never uncover even a fraction of what we're doing.

[DPC] Bang away lads, you're grand. And if you want us we'll be in our offices over the Centra in Portarlington.

Jawgap

Lemming wrote: »

The most important word in that entire Irish Examiner article is the word "may". In short, the DPC knows it has exceptionally narrow scope in being able to tackle any complaints (regardless of merit) concerning the use of cameras in public.

I'm open to correction, but I was always given to understand that once you are in a public area there is no reasonable expectation of a right to privacy?

Lemming

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm open to correction, but I was always given to understand that once you are in a public area there is no reasonable expectation of a right to privacy?

I would hazard a guess that what the DPC have failed to add to their "you may be liable" statement is an impressively specific set of criteria as to under what circumstances it may (there's that word again ... ) also be possibly likely to see the inside of a court room yet alone a ruling against oneself.

It's a conservative statement akin to "you may get lung cancer from walking past someone who is smoking" designed to put the frightners up people, nothing more.

DirkVoodoo

Lots of cyclists out along the road from Enniskerry to Stepaside, great to see. Also nice to see a lot of patient and courteous motorists, treating cyclists as fellow road users.

Oh, except for the douche in the 2011 Audi A4 (black) who decided to honk his horn along the entire road and wave a finger out the window as he passed everyone.

Maybe he was checking the wind direction, but more likely he was just making himself look like a complete and utter fool.

DJD

DirkVoodoo wrote:

Oh, except for the douche in the 2011 Audi A4 (black) who decided to honk his horn along the entire road and wave a finger out the window as he passed everyone.

Ha!
I was up for a spin around Ticknock today. Meanwhile my better half took the kids down to Enniskerry in the car. She was right behind this fella on the way back.
Her opinion of him was less polite than yours

Jawgap

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

.....

Oh, except for the douche in the 2011 Audi A4 (black) who decided to honk his horn along the entire road and wave a finger out the window as he passed everyone.

.....

Audi drivers are not called 'Audiots' for nothing......

......except for A4 Estate drivers, they're sound

2RockMountain

Lemming wrote: »

The most important word in that entire Irish Examiner article is the word "may". In short, the DPC knows it has exceptionally narrow scope in being able to tackle any complaints (regardless of merit) concerning the use of cameras in public.

The Examiner took one line from the DPC report about use of body-cams by organisations and applied it to cyclists with helmetcams. Interestingly, they didn't apply it to drivers with dashcams, or to 12-year-olds on the street taking selfies for Snapchat, all of which are equally as relevant as cyclists with helmetcams.

Zzippy wrote: »

The Data Protection Commissioner is utterly anal in their interpretation of the law. I know of a state agency where staff are threatened on a regular basis and who work in isolated areas. They introduced body cams to improve staff safety, and better evidence collection for enforcement of the law. Footage never shown in public and only saved in instances where court proceedings may result. DPC disregards their safety in favour of the privacy of criminals and orders them to stop using the cams. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Youtube got a threatening letter from them over dashcam/helmet cam videos.

The DPC doesn't generally tell public bodies what to do. They may give advice if asked, and such advice rarely involves an absolute ban or an absolute green light for any particular initiative. It would be very interesting to get details of this proposal from the state agency in the public domain. I'd have thought the DPC concerns may be more about HOW the proposal was to be implemented, rather than the permission in principal.

NiallBoo

2RockMountain wrote: »

The DPC doesn't generally tell public bodies what to do. They may give advice if asked, and such advice rarely involves an absolute ban or an absolute green light for any particular initiative. It would be very interesting to get details of this proposal from the state agency in the public domain. I'd have thought the DPC concerns may be more about HOW the proposal was to be implemented, rather than the permission in principal.

Is there any reason not to name the agency here? It's hardly personal or slanderous.

Anyway, it's it possible that the hitch was that they sometimes work on private property/chat with people in their homes? Seems like a more obvious issue.

Generic Dreadhead

2RockMountain wrote: »

Was this on the Last Word with Matt Cooper?

Yes, right in the last 10 mins of the show