‘I felt powerless – so I started filming’: CyclingMikey vs. dangerous drivers

Yes. But a mistake implies a likelihood of some damage. Better to do it earlier if practical. I'm not sure if it is though. (practical)

No--society is ridiculously lenient towards any driving offense.

It's not training: they 100% know that you're supposed to signal, stop at red lights or stop signs, park in the middle of a traffic lane, not cross a solid double yellow to pass someone going the speed limit, etc. The people who do that are choosing to do it because they feel whatever they're doing is more important and they know that most police departments stopped doing traffic enforcement years ago because it's beneath post-9/11 warrior cops unless they're looking for an excuse to search someone's car.

That's exactly it. Because I think I'm alone doesn't mean I am.

My blind spot indicator in my car has 100% prevented me from merging when I shouldn't, though I can't say with certainty how often. I'm a little embarrassed to say, too, that I've been honked at in the past for merging when I shouldn't. I think twice in 20 years, but still. I have no reason to think those incidents couldn't have been severe.

No one is 100% sure what's surrounding them at any time, plain and simple.

This is one argument I see for autonomous driving which actually seems valid to me. Those vehicles will be able to see far more than a human facing forward with a few mirrors. At the moment I think the problem is that the human can make far more sense from what they see, though.

> he uses signals for overtaking/turning, not before it to signal the intent.

This is the real reason. People aren’t incapable or put out by having to use the turn signals, they are choosing not to signal precisely because it reveals intent, and they are afraid of revealing intent. (Same is often true in many other social situations and at work!) I know I’ve done this myself in the past, and I know other people who will admit it. Fear of being cut off, fear of having someone not let you in, general fear of someone using your intent against you rather than accommodate you.

I think we need to figure out how to teach not just that signaling intent is safer, but that it works and people will accommodate a signal far more often than not. We also need to learn as drivers to respect other’s intent, that when a signal is on and it’s close but they have room, it doesn’t mean accelerate to close the gap, but that we should let them. Being nice is how we get others to be nice back.

same here. a nice example is the repair stuff including inner tubes I tend to carry around on bike tours (like 10km and more). she also made fun of me for being so well equipped. and then one day she had a flat tire. good thing I had that stuff with me. because otherwise we'd have had to walk it for quite some time.

To me, your behavior seems like basic and uncontroversial common sense, while her behavior is absolutely crazy and hard to understand.

Yes, agreed, we should not exaggerate. But guaranteed that more problems are caused by drivers who are looking at their phones while stopped than those that continue to pay attention to traffic. Because some amount of the distracted ones will suddenly start moving again when something has happened in the meantime to make that dangerous or inappropriate.

They're still active participants in traffic. Someone who is waiting for the signal without the distraction of a smartphone will have seen the flows of traffic commence and stop in the other lanes and the roads that meet at the crossing, and will go into the crossing more relaxed and with better situational awareness than the person who just got jarred from chatting with someone about whether to get take out, and “oh, could you drive past the supermarket to get some wine?” into moving because of the honking behind them. They are also much more likely to notice irregular or otherwise unsafe behaviour by others around them (like a kid on a BMX dashing across at the pedestrian crossing too late to beat the lights).

Collectively, these moments of reduced attention cause way more harm than they should, all because so many people can't leave their damn phone alone while operating a vehicle in traffic.

Distracted driving is absolutely not an over-dramatization. We're not talking about a "second or two" as you so blithely put it; sure the action might only take a few seconds (let's be reasonable and say it takes 5 seconds to reach out, grab your phone, rotate it to the correct orientation, open it, read the notification, parse the information, return your phone to its holder, return your hands to the wheel, return your eyes to the road), but the context rebuilding _after_ the distraction is brutal.

We're taking 10 to 20 seconds of complete context loss. Your mind is no longer on "I'm driving" it's on "I guess I can swing by Cub and grab some milk, wait, did I already pass the Cub? Maybe Rainbow is open.."

You will have outdated information on the location of every object around you. Is the old lady still waiting to cross on the other side of the intersection? Is the cyclist still blitzing the red or did he make it? Is that SUV that was coming up still behind me, or has it merged into the turn lane? That batch of 3 cars crossing in front is gone, what was behind them?

To rebuild this context you need to do quite a lot. Basically you need a full cycle of the attentive, aware "I'm driving" brain loop we all use when driving to get caught back up. When you put your phone back are you doing a full 360 degree update? Check left, right, left? Lean out and see what the oncoming traffic looks like? Check all your mirrors, glance over your left and right shoulders to check the blind spots? Lean your head forward and back to glance around your A-pillar support blind spots?

Check your phone quick, put it down and take the right-hand turn you were waiting for? Bet you just checked traffic on the left and then gunned it, good chance to run over the pedestrian on your right who just determined that you were yielding, and stepped into the intersection.

Glance at your phone right as the lights turn green, pull ahead into the intersection and take your protected left-hand turn? Whoops you got T-Boned, turns out the green light didn't come with a green arrow as well, and you were supposed to yield to oncoming traffic. You lost that context when you glanced at the phone and all your brain remembers was Green means Go.

Distracted Driving is multiple times more dangerous than Drunk Driving. "I was at an intersection and stopped" doesn't mean distraction won't happen.

The sibling posters have covered it, but the stop-and-go phone driver already has greatly reduced situational awareness because they missed out on the 3-5 seconds of events before the light turns green.

When I'm stopped at a light, I will check my rear view and side mirrors just for any cyclists, motorcyclists splitting lanes, or even for distracted drivers who might rear end me. I may pull forward a few extra inches to let the occasional car behind me make their right turn. Drivers focused on their phones can't extend this courtesy.

That may very well be. Especially in California.

Where I grew up in Ohio, there was a lot of traffic enforcement. Conversations with family leads me to believe there is still some degree of enforcement happening in that area, But I've seen little or none in California, outside of I-5 speed traps.

Traffic enforcement using police officers is just not very effective. People are bad at judging the risk of driving, especially as environment changes (highway to city) and as such do not very well self enforce. Speed traps only slow drivers immediately after the police officers (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245559162_Study_of_.... The only enforcement that will actually move the needle in my opinion is automated enforcement such as speed governors and cameras.

Is it hate thou? Or some variant of FOMO?

- Politicians are regularly lining their pockets

- (Big) business is stretching the law beyond reasonable doubt

- those influencers get a bigger house|car|pool|party just from looking

I am not sure if this is not "everyone is breaking the rules for their benefit, why shouldn't I do the same?"

A right turn on red light could still run over a pedestrian quite easily. Texting while in a jam will just add delay when the jam unlocks. If you keep texting after, then it's a different story (and you are moving).

I think we also tend to adapt ourselves to the rules that we routinely break, but are surprised when we see others break their own rules. Driving a car in traffic becomes our baseline for what we think is safe.

I have family members who, to this day, won't wear their seatbelt in their car because "the government has no business tellin' me what to do!" They know it is safer but won't do it out of petty spite. Orthodox Individualism is America's national religion.

EU countries in general are much more privacy focused compared to the UK. UK law & culture is that you have no expectation of privacy in public, and people can take pictures/take video of you anytime you are in public, for any reason.

Got a source for that?

My cursory reading of https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/chronique/reflexions-sur-l-u... seems to only limit it for accusation by public authorities.

There's lots of nuance though. CCTV that just records all the time is not the same as someone recording because of a specific incident. And then you get things like rules for dashcams that allow dashcams to keep an e.g. 30s buffer that gets saved on button press or if a crash is detected, ...

From jaywalking to horrific rapes in other countries. Talk about a slippery slope.

Texting while driving should result in a license suspension (temporary, at first). Then if you drive without a license that should result in jail time, yes (and I believe it does in many places).

Realistic considering it's third in a list. If you're texting at the lights with a suspended licence, yes jail time is next on the list.

> I don't condone it but some people are gonna text while driving.

People used to rail against wearing a seat belt too, and even now many people see driving with a couple of beers below the belt as totally fine when [insert excuse]. This is a behavioural issue that will be sorted in due time. Media attention like this helps. There is just no excuse for texting or otherwise fooling around with a smartphone when you are behind the wheel. If you need to do something with it, you pull over in a (legal) safe place.

Context matters. This entire article is about inner-city suburban streets in Britain, especially London with its high population density, in which pedestrians (i.e. gaggles of school kids, mums with pushchairs, people with dogs, independent cats, foxes) share the pavements and roads with cyclists, cars, sometimes even the occasional horse and carriage (even still today, yep).

We're NOT talking about stop-start commuter traffic on an American interstate.

There are a LOT more moving not-car objects which do not and will not follow the motorist's rules of the road, on these leafy suburban streets.

Phone use when idle at stop lights means you might not spot something until it's too late. Hell, even when you open your door when parked up you have to check your mirrors so you don't accidentally clothes-line a passing cyclist - that's a point that's drilled into us by good driving instructors.

As the people operating the industrial machinery, we have a duty of care to always treat it as such, and keep the others around us safe. Sorry, but your boredom is of little or no concern in relation to the safety of others. Just keep off the damn phone. Arguably even handsfree kits are a bit of a bad idea wrt concentration span and task switching - but they exist, so if you need to use your phone as a phone, you can do so without taking your eyes off the road. But otherwise, leave the damn rest until you're at home!!! The rest of your apps can wait.

Here's a good HN debate on that topic, with several current commuter cyclists participating. The result is a lot more nuanced than "clearly fails".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19634987&p=2

E.g.

  ahoy: I don't know a single cyclist who agrees with that (Forrester) statement.

 
  btrettel: I've been a transportation cyclist for roughly a decade and I agree with everything he said. Many cyclists do, particularly more experienced ones. Bike lanes can be helpful, but they are not the panacea many people make them out to be. I think the main benefit bike lanes have is increasing the number of cyclists which leads to the "safety in numbers" effect. I think far too many bike lanes are made poorly, however, and these ones seem to be less safe than if there was no bike lane.

The same is true as a driver or a pedestrian. Another driver could easily jump the curb and hit you on the sidewalk/pavement, or swerve into you from the opposite lane. And you will end up hurt.

The difference between the cyclist and motorist is these scenarios is that while both are dangerous and stupid, the motorist at least has the innate protection of the vehicle in case of an accident.

The cyclist has a helmet and if they're really lucky some Kevlar sewn into their gear.

In a collision 1 ton vehicle vs a couple hundred pounds of flesh and whatever the bike is made of, the 1 ton vehicle almost always wins.

Given the risk profile of cyclist versus vehicle you'd think that cyclists would be a bit more aware of their surroundings.

Sort of? I've been sideswiped by a car stopped in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Driver yanked the wheel and hit the gas without looking or signaling. I was immediately adjacent to him in a green bike lane and got hit with no warning.

No ticket or warning was issued. I had a camera rolling.

Used to cycle in London all the time. Driving around a lot in Scotland right now.

The problem isn't when the cars are stationary -- it's when they start moving.

When stationary at a traffic light etc there's a hella lot of situational information that's actually quite important. e.g. are there cyclists coming up from behind me? are they on my left or right?

Fiddling with a radio or phone for an entire red light can mean zero situational awareness when setting off.

I've had a very close call with a "stationary" car.

At a junction where the lights filter left, then ahead, then right. I know the sequence well, it's been my walk to work for 15 years. One car stopped in the 'ahead' lane, the lights are red. Roads are otherwise empty, it's 6am. The pedestrian signal has gone red, but I know it's still 'safe' because the left filter's next, and the left lane's empty.

I received a glancing blow from the car in the 'ahead' lane that went (ahead) when the left filter went green. They blew a red light, and nearly took a pedestrian with them.

Being distracted at a red light is an issue, because you look up from your phone, see the green, and have a small panic because you're "late" - and react to the green light, short-circuiting the sensible thought processes like .. is that green for my lane. is there someone in front of me. Is it actually safe to enter the junction. Just "oops, go".

(and yes, that was a legal cross for me, "jaywalking" doesn't exist here - humans have more rights than cars.)

I've watched quite a few of his videos and observed it myself. Endless people claiming they never do it while moving, but it's an outright lie. Besides, phone use while stationary creates congestion since it slows reaction to the traffic signal by several seconds for every driver doing it.

Right, and see how you remember that? He had to go to the hospital. In the car situation, the kid is dead.

Don't worry about the helmet, it's not your problem.

As for "stopping", what you think of it depends on how you perceive laws should be taken. Are laws something that should be enforced "to the letter" each and every time a violation is spotted? Or are they a matter of judgement for enforcement officers?

In the vast majority of cases, they're a matter of judgement. This is why there is virtually NO RISK for me as a cyclist to proceed through a red light literally in front of police cars.

There are good reasons for cyclists to NOT stop at every intersection. One big reason is, actually, safety. Car-bike accidents almost always happen at intersections. In many cases, it's best for cyclists to get through the intersection before the mass of cars starts moving again. This way they can get through the intersection, position themselves safely, and gain enough speed so as not be an annoyance on the other side of the intersection. Sure, the cyclist has to fully aware of cross-traffic and if they get smacked, it's their fault. But the sense of outrage that some motorists feel when cyclists proceed through an intersection before them is akin to a toddler-tantrum IMHO.

The environmental cost of providing water? Are we going to start charging for water fountains now?

Great, let's charge people for the environmental cost and negative externalities that their method of transportation causes. A driver will be paying 1000x that of a cyclist.

How many pedestrians are killed by cyclists and motorists each year in Seattle?

I think the line becomes blurred when you actively gather the evidence, rather than happen upon it, and post the videos online to publicly shame the people in question.

So if a a cyclist decided to bike up and film people smoking marijuana in their car, then submitted it to police aggressively, you wouldnt feel it was a vigilante act?

There are traffic cameras and traffic police. If you're doing their job for them, you're a vigilante. Not complicated.

I'd agree more with your distinction if he was randomly happening upon crimes and reporting them instead of proactively seeking them out.

The fact that UK police are asking road users to do this makes it worse, and less advisable to do, not better/more.

Which happens for many reasons besides red lights, especially in a country like the UK where traffic circles are more common.

Bear in mind this is UK where the vast majority of cars are manual transmission stickshift. So you really can't drive smoothly with a phone in one hand. Using a bluetooth headset while driving is legal here, using a hand held phone is not.