nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Dash cam saves your ass (no Roundabout stuff please :)

Mycroft H

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRC7RO2tOJQ

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tragedy

Do you see that flash? That's his indicator Cinio. Strange how the camera bike that's almost level with the moped at this stage has absolutely no problem slowing down and staying well back from the front rider.

If the moped rider has amazing reflexes!!!111, the camera rider's must be Godly.

Do please also note that he's roughly in the middle of the lane here, despite your assertions that he's far to the right.

CiniO

punisher5112 wrote: »

Bikers should be looking out for each other not fighting or hitting them.

Cinio that scooter rider was the one looking for a fight as the rider he hit was the one that looked more shocked and afraid from what i saw on the video.

It looks like to me that scooter rider came to biker to check if he is allright, and after hearing shouting of camerman he just escaped.

As said above bikes indicators are manual and at times can be forgotten or even press the button but not knock off as happened to me many a occasion.

Maybe it can happen, but keeping indicator on can be very misleading, and in that case definitely was for scooter rider.

You should know better undertaking is wrong even more so on a 49cc hair dryer against two way more powerful bikes.

Undertaking of vehicles signalling turn right is not wrong. And that what scooter rider was doing.

He is not experienced and that showed up in the video even riding with no protective gear and a undone/loose helmet and riding position on scooter all wrong, along with his behaviour.

I would guess he is the type that puts his leg out when going around bends and that.

Well, I don't know much about correct techniques of riding the scooter.

If you feel someone is driving badly in front of you cinio would you put yourself in harms way and undertake.

I wouldn't because I'm experienced enough on the roads to expect the unexpected. But scooter rider wasn't. Surely not expecting the unexpected though, is less kind of carelessness, than riding in such misleading way as biker did.

I hope they reported him and got damage to bike paid for.

After seeing a video, I strongly doubt scooter insurance would pay for damage to the bike.

Jesus.

Tragedy wrote: »

CiniO, everyone likes a good argument, but could you not choose a less obnoxious one to take a silly stand on?

Cinio likes a good argument alright. So much so that he'll argue the complete opposite to what he did the day before just for the hell of it

Hal1

And what did we all learn from this? two wheels bad four wheels good

CiniO

Tragedy wrote: »

Do you see that flash? That's his indicator Cinio. Strange how the camera bike that's almost level with the moped at this stage has absolutely no problem slowing down and staying well back from the front rider.

No it's not strange. Camera biker wasn't intending to overtake the biker in front, so he was keeping the same speed as him.
Mopes was intending to overtake (on the left) biker who was positioned on the right and indicating right, so he was already going faster and accelerating.

If the moped rider has amazing reflexes!!!111, the camera rider's must be Godly.

The picture you linked, shows the very first moment indicator was switched to left from right. At that moment moped was already going faster than the biker and accelerating. No matter how good reflex he has, there was not enough time to stop in time.

Do please also note that he's roughly in the middle of the lane here, despite your assertions that he's far to the right.

Your own picture is deceiving you.
I just added a scale to it. 3 units of length to the right edge of lane, and 7 units to the left. Where did you see that roughly middle lane?

CiniO

Jesus. wrote: »

Cinio likes a good argument alright. So much so that he'll argue the complete opposite to what he did the day before just for the hell of it

Oh come on.
I already explained you the difference.
Yesterday we were talking about point of having lights on at daytime. You said there was no point, I said there was point as they increase your safety.
Today we were talking about cyclist with no lights, and I was saying that there is nothing wrong with not having them (assuming it wasn't that dark they'd be required by law).
Can you see a difference between advantage of having lights at daytime, compared to not having them as being something wrong?

Completely two different things.

Jesus.

Whatever you say Cinio :pac:

CiniO

Jesus. wrote: »

Whatever you say Cinio :pac:

I assume that's the easiest thing to say, once you understand you have no point.

Tragedy

CiniO wrote: »

No it's not strange. Camera biker wasn't intending to overtake the biker in front, so he was keeping the same speed as him.
Mopes was intending to overtake (on the left) biker who was positioned on the right and indicating right, so he was already going faster and accelerating.

Moped was level with camera biker for several seconds. In fact, the camera biker caught up with the moped just before the accident.

The picture you linked, shows the very first moment indicator was switched to left from right. At that moment moped was already going faster than the biker and accelerating.

No it wasn't, you can clearly see and hear in the video when the moped guns it - and it wasn't til the indicator was switched on.

The moped rider can be seen looking at the camera bike, he's watching the camera bike and trying to get in front of him - not looking ahead at a slowing and indicating rider in front.

No matter how good reflex he has, there was not enough time to stop in time.

The camera bike managed it just fine because the rider didn't accelerate into an indicating bike.

Your own picture is deceiving you.
I just added a scale to it. 3 units of length to the right edge of lane, and 7 units to the left. Where did you see that roughly middle lane?

Are you deliberately trying to be misleading now?

3 steps to the right, 4 to the left
Or alternateive
2.5 steps to the right, 3 to the left.

That's pretty damn close to the middle Cinio.

PS: If you had have watched the video, you would know the centre of the road isn't halfway between the the left and the parked cars, which is what you seem to be basing your "He was all the way over on the left!!!!122" comments on.

Sobanek

Gee! Haven't seen you in ages Tragedy!
You still have that chameleon MG?
Moved out of Knocklyon 4 years ago so haven't been exactly up to speed :pac:

Tragedy

Yes! It's a garden ornament in Scholarstown these days

CiniO

Tragedy wrote: »

Moped was level with camera biker for several seconds. In fact, the camera biker caught up with the moped just before the accident.

No it wasn't, you can clearly see and hear in the video when the moped guns it - and it wasn't til the indicator was switched on.

There surely is some delay. He started accelerating before left indicator was turned on. I told you 1 seconds from the impact is when indicator was turned on. If moped rider took 0.5 second to start braking, it was really good reaction.

The moped rider can be seen looking at the camera bike, he's watching the camera bike and trying to get in front of him - not looking ahead at a slowing and indicating rider in front.

As above. If he managed to start braking 0.5 second after biker in front turned left indicator, that means he was watching road ahead as he should.

The camera bike managed it just fine because the rider didn't accelerate into an indicating bike.

He didn't accelerate, because he didn't start accelerating ealier, when biker in front had right indicator on.

Are you deliberately trying to be misleading now?

3 steps to the right, 4 to the left
Or alternateive
2.5 steps to the right, 3 to the left.

That's pretty damn close to the middle Cinio.

PS: If you had have watched the video, you would know the centre of the road isn't halfway between the the left and the parked cars, which is what you seem to be basing your "He was all the way over on the left!!!!122" comments on.

What are you talking about?
3 steps to the right is already middle of right lane.
On your picture it's tiny bit more than 2 steps to the right for the middle line.
and nearly for steps to the kerb on the left.
So it's not close to the middle.
It's close to having 1/4 of lane on the right, and 3/4 on the left.

I pictured exact scale where it can be clearly seen, and you instead of admitting what can be clearly seen on that picture, put some other tine picture which doesn't show position even close as precisely as my drawing.

Just have a look again.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

CiniO wrote: »

Camera man seems to be 100% convinced of scooter rider's fault.

But to be honest, I can see the biker indicate right and is positioned within right side of his lane. Then suddenly changes indicator to left and turns left without checking his mirror.
I'd say 50/50 would be more correct, even with stipulating more fault on the side of the biker.

I'm dumbfounded. I think you need to read the rules of the road again. Don't get hung up on one point.

He was indicating right coming off the round about. It's possible he tried to neutralize his indicator but this did not happen (ever ride a motorcycle? It's not quite as easy as a car).

The little scobby on the hairdryer was fixated on the driver with the cam as he knew he was in the wrong. He wasn't paying attention to the road what so ever.

The motorbike indicated left, and the child on the moped just ploughed on.

Say there is a right turn there (there's not, but maybe he's indicating to park) Do you still undertake at top speed? Sure if you're an inexperienced twat like the scooter driver. He should have slowed down and driven at a speed to deal with an unexpected occurance.

He's completely in the wrong, I can't believe this is even up for debate.

CiniO wrote: »

Maybe he flew off, as camera rider was abusing him and he was affraid this could turn into more serious road rage.
Well, no surprise he was bit distracted after what happened.

Rubbish, he was trying to be as alpha a duck in front of two other adults on proper two wheeled motors. If anything he is showing road rage after the incident driving aggressively up to the driver and flaying like somebody took away his soother.

CiniO wrote: »

I don't have bike licence indeed and I've ridden bikes very little. Mostly mopeds.

The agenda is quite clear now.

Coming from behind, you are always going to be completely at fault.

Tragedy

CiniO wrote: »

There surely is some delay. He started accelerating before left indicator was turned on. I told you 1 seconds from the impact is when indicator was turned on. If moped rider took 0.5 second to start braking, it was really good reaction.

Denial.

As above. If he managed to start braking 0.5 second after biker in front turned left indicator, that means he was watching road ahead as he should.

Denial

He didn't accelerate, because he didn't start accelerating ealier, when biker in front had right indicator on.

Denial

What are you talking about?
3 steps to the right is already middle of right lane.

3 steps to the right is the white line.
Do you know what the white line is Cinio? It delineates the end of one lane and the start of the other.

On your picture it's tiny bit more than 2 steps to the right for the middle line

Ahhh I get it.
For some reason you're measuring from the riders elbow to some made up point in space and time, rather than using the centre of his rear wheel.

So it's not close to the middle.
It's close to having 1/4 of lane on the right, and 3/4 on the left.

Yes. a 57/43 split is close to having a 75/25 split.
Yes Cinio.

I pictured exact scale where it can be clearly seen

There is severe fisheye distortion with the camera at the edges, which is clearly visible. You also placed the ruler too high, and didn't mark the middle of the road.

In short, your 'exact scale' is about as inexact as you could have created.

Just have a look again.

Says the guy who hasn't watched the video.

[Deleted User]

I can't believe there are actually graphs coming out, now.

The discussions in here are like something out of Father Ted.

JohnBoy26

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't believe there are actually graphs coming out, now.

Down with this sort of thing.

punisher5112

Put a brick on the accelerator.

Is there anything to be said for another mass.

Cinio you say you drive for a living you really should know better.

That fool on moped is 100% wrong and shows that even more leaving the seen of an accident, also look how quick he darts back onto bike and tries to intimidate proper biker,

Turn up your sound you can clearly hear him shouting and the wheelie and take off are the funniest I have ever seen nearly fell off the chair.

That moped rider was more likely not insured(guess), not experienced, not qualified(technically no licence as lerner), no safety gear whatsoever, loose/not fixed helmet and his riding position wow does he look like 1 absolute tool.

The only mistake two bikers made was not boxing him in and letting him away.

If I had a tip on my bike or car I would not just fly off as that would be admission of guilt as I have/ must have something to hide.

Cinio go ride a moped/motorbike and then come back and have your say as it will just show you what it is like and holding road possition for turns is different to cars/vans/trucks etc.

gutteruu

sentient_6 wrote: »

Would the guards in Mountbellew or Ballinasloe be interested in that?

Ordinarily I'm not a fan of reporting as we don't see the few minutes before or after on these clips....... but this guy was 2 seconds away from causing 2 head on collisions in 2 minutes.

[Deleted User]

I really didn't expect that Muppet on a Moped video to provoke such an argument, after all, it's so clear cut.

kupus

Hal1 wrote: »

And what did we all learn from this? two wheels bad four wheels good .

NO it just means there is many idiot drivers around.

Just a few days ago I was going through a green light at a crossroads on the bike and an idiot in a small car alto decides to cut across in front of me from the side. Luckily I had enough time to decide to either gun it or slow down as I saw that he had no intention of stopping for the red light.

Exact same thing happened before when I was in the car at a junction further up the road. I was able to stop in time and the other car was not a car but a truck.

Most of the time Im wondering did some people find their licence at the bottom of a pack of cornflakes.

One more thing is, on the subject of lights during day....... never EVER under estimate the stupidy of other drivers walkers bikers cyclists joggers etc.
So the first thing when I get on the bike or drive the car is turn on the lights. whether its 9 in the morning or 9 at night.
I want to be seen

Jesus.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Cinio you say you drive for a living you really should know better.

I've said it before but I've found that the people who are constantly banging on about safety and sound very self-righteous about driving are actually the among the most dangerous there are. Cinio's video of himself driving a few pages back displayed an aggressiveness that you get from folk who believe they're infallible and turn into as*hles when they get behind the wheel.

I'm sure Cinio is a sound chap in real life but when some people get behind the wheel of a car, their entire demeanor changes. I know, I've been in cars with some of them.

[Deleted User]

Jesus. wrote: »

I've said it before but I've found that the people who are constantly banging on about safety and sound very self-righteous about driving are actually the among the most dangerous there are. Cinio's video of himself driving a few pages back displayed an aggressiveness that you get from folk who believe they're infallible and turn into as*hles when they get behind the wheel.

I'm sure Cinio is a sound chap in real life but when some people get behind the wheel of a car, their entire demeanour changes. I know, I've been in cars with some of them.

That sentence reminded me of this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZgiVicpZGk

dashcamdanny

CiniO wrote: »

Camera man seems to be 100% convinced of scooter rider's fault.

But to be honest, I can see the biker indicate right and is positioned within right side of his lane. Then suddenly changes indicator to left and turns left without checking his mirror.
I'd say 50/50 would be more correct, even with stipulating more fault on the side of the biker.

50/50 . you must be joking. (if not, I would rate your road skills as very poor. Again..)

bear1

This thread never ceases to amaze me. The scooter couldn't be more at fault but yet there are fcuking graphs coming out to prove that the scooter was legally illegally driving like a complete and utter fcuktard.
Crashes into another bike, goes right up to said biker and looking very confrontational then speeds off like a fcuktard and nearly wipes himself out again.
Yet there are posters willing to agree that the scooter was only 50% in the wrong?? Christ Almighty I need to get rid of my licence and take the bus if these are the type of drivers we have on our roads.

TBi

As a biker for 10+ years and had a moped for one of those I can say the moped driver is completely in the wrong. Lack of care, lack of foresight, lack of discipline, lack of self preservation.

The key to safe motorbike driving is driving defensively, the guy on the moped was very aggressive.

This easily avoided accident could have been a lot worse.

Pedro K

Cinio, you clearly don't ride a bike. You generally shouldn't overtake any bike in the same lane, on the left or right, because a bike may have to move either way to avoid obstacles that mean very little to a car. Wet road paint, wet manhole covers, a bundle of twigs or stones etc. In fact, when I'm riding my bike, I often ride to the right of my lane on purpose. This is called blocking position and it's done to stop people from doing exactly what I said above. Overtaking you in the same lane.

Moped driver is at fault.

hairybelly

In regards the the cyclist video. I'm always amazed and just how loonie some of the cyclists on this site are. If you go to the communiting & transport forum or cycling forum, theres an old thread about wearing hiviz clothing, and nearly every cyclist is against it.
I actually got banned on an old account because I argued that if you didnt wear hiviz while cycling at night you're only looking to be hit.

apparenlty a little red light on the back should be sufficient enough according to them :rolleyes:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

rizzodun

hairybelly wrote: »

In regards the the cyclist video. I'm always amazed and just how loonie some of the cyclists on this site are. If you go to the communiting & transport forum or cycling forum, theres an old thread about wearing hiviz clothing, and nearly every cyclist is against it.
I actually got banned on an old account because I argued that if you didnt wear hiviz while cycling at night you're only looking to be hit.

apparenlty a little red light on the back should be sufficient enough according to them :rolleyes:

I don't think most cyclists would say a 'little red light' is sufficient, they would more than likely advocate proper strength lighting rather than just a hi-vis. A high vis is useless if there is a situation where your lights don't happen to hit the hi-vis, i.e. the inside of a corner or a certain distance away if you have dips lights on, therefore a safer method would be adequate lighting. Car's do not have hi-vis markings, as adequate rear lighting is mandatory and proven.

The cyclist on this video should have adequate lighting to be seen by oncoming cars, that's for sure, and the overwhelming majority of cyclists would agree, but the argument about hi-vis shouldn't be used to paint cyclists as 'loonies'

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's just inflammatory..

bladespin

There should be no need for hi viz on any mode of transport if you have adequate lighting.