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

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

magicbastarder

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?

within limits, i'd guess; there's reasonable use of the material to consider. an obvious and trivial caveat is using the footage of you for commercial use.

but a post was recently on broadsheet - a small business whad suffered a theft obviously contacted broadsheet, and had supplied footage of someone which i assume was nearly coincident with the crime, and broadsheet willingly shared the video in a 'if you know this guy, please contact said business' manner.
but the video didn't show any footage of the chap doing anything illegal.

i was quite surprised at broadsheet - they've enough contact with lawyers to at least have a modicum of sense about such things - but there was a clear implication that an identifiable person had committed a crime, with no proof supplied.

magicbastarder

regarding the video in question - if i was wearing a go-pro, probably partly for my own protection, but also with the intention of sharing any of the juicier interactions online, i'd probably try to sound a bit less of a drama queen than yer man.

Zzippy

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.

That may be your experience, but in mine (second hand knowledge admittedly from conversations with staff who dealt with DPC) the DPC was distinctly unhelpful and the "advice" received was much more along the lines of instruction. My information is that far more emphasis was given to the possible data breach caused by storing footage of offenders committing offences, including assaulting/threatening staff, than to the actual right to bodily integrity and safety of the staff themselves.

NiallBoo wrote: »

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.

The issue is unresolved so far so I don't want to ID anyone involved, and your second point is debatable - definitely not in people's homes, sometimes private property alright but accessible to the public and not usually involving the owners of said property but other members of the public.

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

It's hard to blame him... I thought he summed her up perfectly at the end "You're an asshole"

given that he puts videos up on facebook, you'd think he'd temper his reaction somewhat. politeness and humour always do your own argument a favour. the below is what he says even before he tries to speak to the driver.

"****ing hell.
here, what's the ****ing story, buddy?
which side of the ****ing road do you drive on, this is ireland yeah?
a ****ing parked car, i have the right of ****ing way.
move the **** over so i can go on the ****ing left.
there's nowhere for me to ****ing go because..."

in my experience, the best way to engage with other people when you have a disagreement in traffic is avoid profanity, and deliberately remain calm if they're getting worked up; even if to serve to underline that you're taking the rational position.

2RockMountain

Zzippy wrote: »

That may be your experience, but in mine (second hand knowledge admittedly from conversations with staff who dealt with DPC) the DPC was distinctly unhelpful and the "advice" received was much more along the lines of instruction. My information is that far more emphasis was given to the possible data breach caused by storing footage of offenders committing offences, including assaulting/threatening staff, than to the actual right to bodily integrity and safety of the staff themselves.




The issue is unresolved so far so I don't want to ID anyone involved, and your second point is debatable - definitely not in people's homes, sometimes private property alright but accessible to the public and not usually involving the owners of said property but other members of the public.

Honestly, I think it is unfair to have a go at the DPC unless all the details are on the table. I can understand why the DPC would be concerned about body-cams operating on private property, unless the owners of that property have given permission and ensured that visitors to that property are aware of the cameras .

Zzippy

2RockMountain wrote: »

Honestly, I think it is unfair to have a go at the DPC unless all the details are on the table. I can understand why the DPC would be concerned about body-cams operating on private property, unless the owners of that property have given permission and ensured that visitors to that property are aware of the cameras .

I don't want to go into too many details on the forum as the matter is still unresolved but the issue raised is nothing whatsoever to do with private property. Anyway, it's getting well off topic. From my experience there isn't much difference between a cyclist filming a motorist's illegal behaviour and a state agency filming criminal behaviour, (except the state agency isn't uploading it to Youtube) - the DPC has objected to one so I wouldn't be surprised if they objected to the other.

2RockMountain

Zzippy wrote: »

I don't want to go into too many details on the forum as the matter is still unresolved but the issue raised is nothing whatsoever to do with private property. Anyway, it's getting well off topic. From my experience there isn't much difference between a cyclist filming a motorist's illegal behaviour and a state agency filming criminal behaviour, (except the state agency isn't uploading it to Youtube) - the DPC has objected to one so I wouldn't be surprised if they objected to the other.

Maybe, but if they object to the cyclist filming a motorist, they must also object to every 12 year old taking a selfie on the street where that includes traffic or people in the background - same issue.

average_runner

2RockMountain wrote: »

Maybe, but if they object to the cyclist filming a motorist, they must also object to every 12 year old taking a selfie on the street where that includes traffic or people in the background - same issue.

Also what about Live facebook?

Eponymous

Jawgap wrote: »

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

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

Hey!!! I used to have an Audi...


Mmmmm.

2RockMountain

average_runner wrote: »

Also what about Live facebook?

Same issue really, isn't it?