A clown takes a pratfall
Discussion
It certainly was a happy ending.
As others have suggested it's a shame the cyclist didn't go back to offer his help.....
.
Cyclist made a few errors himself and oddly had no understanding when things are getting heated. When it kicked off properly (following cyclist laughing out loud in Drivers face) he ran away. Either be a gobby chap and be ready for such reprisals or simply don't follow in the first place take it to the police. I'd wager in this instance the police wouldn't do a thing on the initial issue but then the cyclist goaded and insited violence & if he didn't realise that he is a rather stupid individual.
Either way comedy gold
As others have suggested it's a shame the cyclist didn't go back to offer his help.....
. Cyclist made a few errors himself and oddly had no understanding when things are getting heated. When it kicked off properly (following cyclist laughing out loud in Drivers face) he ran away. Either be a gobby chap and be ready for such reprisals or simply don't follow in the first place take it to the police. I'd wager in this instance the police wouldn't do a thing on the initial issue but then the cyclist goaded and insited violence & if he didn't realise that he is a rather stupid individual.
Either way comedy gold
Symbolica said:
It's interesting really - I've driven cars, ridden motorbikes and cycled around - I've seen an enormous number of people do an enormous number of dumbass things, but I've never once felt the need to film any of it. Without doubt I've done quite a few dumbass things myself, but though pure luck I've never damaged any vehicle that I've been in charge of - but luck is all that I've had on my side.
We all f
k up sometimes - if we're fortunate then either nobody is watching, or the people around us are sharp enough to avoid a collision, so I really don't understand why people get so upset when another person makes a perfectly innocent misjudgement in front of them. But I also don't understand why a person that makes a mistake can't hold their hands up and apologise to somebody for it. If either of the people in the clip followed this advice then the video would never have reached the internet, but once again two absolute dheads have met each other in public and nobody wants to back down.
fk 'em. Both of them.
Cyclists film because they are vulnerable to hit-and-run, and also are often victims of road rage. I have no problem with that stuff being filmed and used. For the clip in the OP, where the cyclist did everything they could to piss the guy off, I agree with you completely. No reason to share this clip, and two morons who had no interest in negotiating and only gave a crap about winning solved nothing at all and only succeeded in making eachother look stupid.We all f
k up sometimes - if we're fortunate then either nobody is watching, or the people around us are sharp enough to avoid a collision, so I really don't understand why people get so upset when another person makes a perfectly innocent misjudgement in front of them. But I also don't understand why a person that makes a mistake can't hold their hands up and apologise to somebody for it. If either of the people in the clip followed this advice then the video would never have reached the internet, but once again two absolute dheads have met each other in public and nobody wants to back down.f
k 'em. Both of them.kiseca said:
Cyclists film because they are vulnerable to hit-and-run, and also are often victims of road rage. I have no problem with that stuff being filmed and used. For the clip in the OP, where the cyclist did everything they could to piss the guy off, I agree with you completely. No reason to share this clip, and two morons who had no interest in negotiating and only gave a crap about winning solved nothing at all and only succeeded in making eachother look stupid.
I agree. Cyclists are vulnerable and having cameras seems a very logical step towards adding an extra bit of protection. It is as sensible as having one in a car. As you say, this chap gives the distinct impression that he is however not using the camera as a defensive tool but as an offensive weapon. He seems to clearly be using in his videos as part of his means to goad people into over reaction. He is actively seeking confrontation in the same way that some thugs do.
If we think back to our school days, ever class had at least one of these chaps who at the time were just labeled 'teachers pet' or 'swot' but now when you look back you realise that there was something far more sinister at play and that there was something quite malevolent about them but that they used teachers to administer their 'beatings' into others just like when they grow up they now use the police and youtube.
Lagerlout said:
Another thing about this cyclist, have we seen a picture of him? He's keen to post pictures of people he thinks are doing wrong, but where is there a photo of this vigilante? This is the second/third video I'm seen from him and not seen his face.
We haven't seen his face and even if we had the chances are he would have nothing to worry about.The person who has seen his face is the flying nut bar who probably lives in the same area. It will be a cold lonely ride home on those dark winter nights without YouTube as his saviour
Actually without the permission of the individual in question or anyone are you legally allowed to put pics online of others?
I ask as when someone years ago sold a house the first pic they had accidentally included the neighbour in the background - he found out and all was removed (he kicked off big time for some reason)
I ask as when someone years ago sold a house the first pic they had accidentally included the neighbour in the background - he found out and all was removed (he kicked off big time for some reason)
budfox said:
Welshbeef said:
Actually without the permission of the individual in question or anyone are you legally allowed to put pics online of others?
Yep. said:
The publication of footage taken of an identifiable person being questioned, searched or arrested by the police may give rise to a claim against the television company or broadcaster. If the Article 8 rights of the person are engaged this can lead to a claim against a private company through the law of confidence, as the House of Lords confirmed in Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers.
However, as indicated above, publication will also involve the exercise of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. In these types of cases the courts have to carry out a balancing exercise. One key factor is likely to be whether the person has been convicted of the offence for which he or she was searched or arrested. If there has been a conviction, arguably the right to freedom of expression would outweigh the privacy rights because the conviction will be a matter of public record and the courts will be reluctant to find that privacy rights are engaged by the arrest or apprehension of someone who has committed a criminal offence. If, however, the person has not been convicted because the police did not take any action or there are ongoing criminal proceedings, it would probably be unlawful to publish the footage without the person's consent, whether because of a breach of Article 8 or because it would amount to contempt of court. If the person is not identifiable from the footage, however, no privacy issue will arise in relation to publication.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/16/police-questioning-tv-privacyHowever, as indicated above, publication will also involve the exercise of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. In these types of cases the courts have to carry out a balancing exercise. One key factor is likely to be whether the person has been convicted of the offence for which he or she was searched or arrested. If there has been a conviction, arguably the right to freedom of expression would outweigh the privacy rights because the conviction will be a matter of public record and the courts will be reluctant to find that privacy rights are engaged by the arrest or apprehension of someone who has committed a criminal offence. If, however, the person has not been convicted because the police did not take any action or there are ongoing criminal proceedings, it would probably be unlawful to publish the footage without the person's consent, whether because of a breach of Article 8 or because it would amount to contempt of court. If the person is not identifiable from the footage, however, no privacy issue will arise in relation to publication.
also
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertyce...
Strawman said:
budfox said:
Welshbeef said:
Actually without the permission of the individual in question or anyone are you legally allowed to put pics online of others?
Yep. said:
The publication of footage taken of an identifiable person being questioned, searched or arrested by the police may give rise to a claim against the television company or broadcaster. If the Article 8 rights of the person are engaged this can lead to a claim against a private company through the law of confidence, as the House of Lords confirmed in Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers.
However, as indicated above, publication will also involve the exercise of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. In these types of cases the courts have to carry out a balancing exercise. One key factor is likely to be whether the person has been convicted of the offence for which he or she was searched or arrested. If there has been a conviction, arguably the right to freedom of expression would outweigh the privacy rights because the conviction will be a matter of public record and the courts will be reluctant to find that privacy rights are engaged by the arrest or apprehension of someone who has committed a criminal offence. If, however, the person has not been convicted because the police did not take any action or there are ongoing criminal proceedings, it would probably be unlawful to publish the footage without the person's consent, whether because of a breach of Article 8 or because it would amount to contempt of court. If the person is not identifiable from the footage, however, no privacy issue will arise in relation to publication.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/16/police-questioning-tv-privacyHowever, as indicated above, publication will also involve the exercise of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. In these types of cases the courts have to carry out a balancing exercise. One key factor is likely to be whether the person has been convicted of the offence for which he or she was searched or arrested. If there has been a conviction, arguably the right to freedom of expression would outweigh the privacy rights because the conviction will be a matter of public record and the courts will be reluctant to find that privacy rights are engaged by the arrest or apprehension of someone who has committed a criminal offence. If, however, the person has not been convicted because the police did not take any action or there are ongoing criminal proceedings, it would probably be unlawful to publish the footage without the person's consent, whether because of a breach of Article 8 or because it would amount to contempt of court. If the person is not identifiable from the footage, however, no privacy issue will arise in relation to publication.
also
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertyce...
eliot said:
'i have a camera - its all on youtube'
These stupid people really need to get life. I think these people have fundamental inferiority issues and think having cameras all over their bike somehow makes them automatically in the right.
They clearly go out looking for trouble just to make some sort of point or good video.
Strange people.
If they had any balls they would deal with the situation themselves without needing the virtual backup of YouTube
+1These stupid people really need to get life. I think these people have fundamental inferiority issues and think having cameras all over their bike somehow makes them automatically in the right.
They clearly go out looking for trouble just to make some sort of point or good video.
Strange people.
If they had any balls they would deal with the situation themselves without needing the virtual backup of YouTube
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff