Moron Motorists #3

[ColinOldnCranky]

Andrew, I am not looking specifically at the particulars of your particular post and I have utmost faith in your motives and behaviour anyway. However the company's complaint is occasionally made and, simplistically, it is a valid pov.

Pls take my posting as a general suggestion only - of a way to reduce the validity of one type of (often disingenuous) complaint about posting adversely about parties absent from these forums.

[Aushiker]

My response would be short. "Whats hidden about my agenda?"

Thanks for the suggestion. Glad someone bothered to read why I posted the video here

Andrew

[herzog]

Support you 100% Andrew

[human909]

Andrew, I am not looking specifically at the particulars of your particular post and I have utmost faith in your motives and behaviour anyway. However the company's complaint is occasionally made and, simplistically, it is a valid pov.

Pls take my posting as a general suggestion only - of a way to reduce the validity of one type of (often disingenuous) complaint about posting adversely about parties absent from these forums.

Sure the "complaint is "valid". The offending company can complain as much as they want. My response to their complaint is if they don't like such videos being posted on-line then they should take action to ensure that their drivers don't offend on the road.

[trailgumby]

I'm not understanding how it is Andrew's job to help the company protect its reputation.

The driver made a choice to drive dangerously close to a vulnerable road user. He doesn't get to choose the consequences. Nor does the company.

If they'd been big enough to cop it on the chin, everyone would have moved on. People expect that sometimes things like this happen, employees occasionally drop balls. The company's reputation is either enhanced or damaged by how they respond, which Andrew has always reported accurately and fairly, so far as I can tell.

This kind of response does not enhance their reputation. The driver shot the company in the foot once. Now they've gone and shot themselves again, in the other foot. I'm not sure whether to laugh or roll eyes. I'm just glad I don't work for an outfit like that.

[Coolabah]

Last time I looked it was generally legal to video public events. This video may well be bad PR for their business. They need to make sure their drivers and other staff are fully aware that they represent the company at all times whenever they wear the uniform, answer the phone or drive a company vehicle on the roads.

It comes back to the basic issue at hand - is it really important for your driver to save 2 seconds by endangering the life of a cyclist ? Why can the driver not use the brake ? The ball is in their own court.

+1 Il Padrone, well said I could not agree more , nor put it more succinctly. I am puzzled by some of those other posters comments on the nay side, but I guess we all have our own points of view in life !!

[herzog]

Might be worth pointing out to them that the vehicle in question is a workplace and the driver is subject to all of their workplace safety obligations.

Endangering a member of the public with dangerous machinery should not form part of their standard practices I would hope.

[trailgumby]

Had a ripper this arvo on the way back from a 50km mtb ride with my son:

20-something P-plater in a Mitsu 2-door (Lancer?) couldn't be bothered waiting, so he overtook us on the wrong side of the road across double lines and on the wrong side of a centre traffic island over a speed hump with a pedestrian crossing on it.

No camera unfortunately, much to my son's disappointment.

[Coolabah]

Might be worth pointing out to them that the vehicle in question is a workplace and the driver is subject to all of their workplace safety obligations.

Endangering a member of the public with dangerous machinery should not form part of their standard practices I would hope.

....AHH... well: sounds good ... is it actually a feasible thing ? Can we all lodge complaints with Safe Work Australia (or whatever they are called this week ) when a work vehicle does this to us ? I know at my work we have to ensure the safety of the public on our ( stationary ) premises... hmmm.. I really hope so ...

[human909]

Might be worth pointing out to them that the vehicle in question is a workplace and the driver is subject to all of their workplace safety obligations.

Endangering a member of the public with dangerous machinery should not form part of their standard practices I would hope.

....AHH... well: sounds good ... is it actually a feasible thing ? Can we all lodge complaints with Safe Work Australia (or whatever they are called this week ) when a work vehicle does this to us ? I know at my work we have to ensure the safety of the public on our ( stationary ) premises... hmmm.. I really hope so ...

That is a can of worms that I don't think even work safe want to open. That said I'm surprised it is not used by others in incidents. I would certainly chase that hard if I ever had an incident.

[bychosis]

Perhaps after uploading a video it might be courteous to refrain from putting the company name in print/text until the company has had a opportunity to view and respond to the video. That way it won't appear in google straight up. Working a a council, we educate our drivers that the public are watching, all too often we are chasing up allegations based on actions of employees, both founded and unfounded.

Hopefully the word is spreading that YouTube is watching!

[Rhubarb]

Had a ripper this arvo on the way back from a 50km mtb ride with my son:

20-something P-plater in a Mitsu 2-door (Lancer?) couldn't be bothered waiting, so he overtook us on the wrong side of the road across double lines and on the wrong side of a centre traffic island over a speed hump with a pedestrian crossing on it.

No camera unfortunately, much to my son's disappointment.

So it didn't happen - you know the rules ...

[ColinOldnCranky]

This kind of response does not enhance their reputation. The driver shot the company in the foot once. Now they've gone and shot themselves again, in the other foot. I'm not sure whether to laugh or roll eyes. I'm just glad I don't work for an outfit like that.

+1, a pretty fair slant on it.

It is a classic case of an kicking an own goal. The blog wasn't looking to tarnish them but they seem to have taken it that way and kicked an own goal in the process.

[Biffidus]

I don't think that their request is out of line, but you have every right to video the behaviour of their vehicle in public and post those videos online. If they don't want people to see videos of their company-branded vehicles being driven badly then they should either (a) take steps to improve the quality of their driving, or (b) remove the company branding. Personally I would add their request to the Youtube comments and your blog entry. Their reaction to the video tells you more about the company than the driving incident itself.

[K2]

....Suggested responses most welcome.

My (possibly not very helpful) response:-

Dear Andrew, your post has just come to our attention. So firstly on behalf of the management & Staff at Nu Style LIGHTING, we sincerely regret your experience, we can assure you that we have addressed this matter with all our drivers to be more aware of cyclist on the roads in general and not just at roundabout.

Excellent response...totally ruined by continuing.

While we thank you for the free plug! Its Advertising we can do without via your posts.

Ah that's the problem with advertising. Once you put it out there it is left to Joe Public to interpret it. You think you're sending out a clear message (say on the side of a van) but your representatives might not necessarily be on the same page (nor even thinking whilst driving that message home).

However in reviewing your posts & blog its clear your agenda is to highlight the cyclist vs. motorist debate!

Nah, not even close. Must try harder.

We wish luck with this. However in our company case you clearly had visibility of our phone number on our van as per your video footage shows and believe a phone call would have given us more impact with the specific driver concerned in that particular incident, rather being used for advancing your hidden agenda here .

The company has always had the ability to hire competent drivers and to educate those that require it. Why do they expect a third party to provide assessment for them, and since they clearly do, what level of payment are they offering for this service?

Given that they've already formed an incorrect assumption about Andrew's purpose, is it safe to assume this "hidden agenda" is akin to "faceless men"?

In addition to this any driver not just ours if are caught on your video’s breaking the road rules believing you could be seriously injury or killed you! Then we don’t think that’s too much to ask that you take your complaint with evidence in hand to the police before using it as YouTube post. That’s if you are serious about improving the attitudes of motorist vs. cyclist on our roads.

Ah, ye olde "vs" again. Perhaps a company trying to take its competitive edge to the road is part of the problem. Hint: If you really want to improve your driver's attitudes, perhaps words like sharing and safety might prove more useful.

For the company behind a driver that's caused him any concern whatsoever on the road to be making requests/suggestions as to how he should deal with the matter is ludicrous. Of course Andrew regularly does take serious matters up with the authorities and with companies when he considers it warranted...and there's the rub...he decides. Events unfold on a public road; he elects to post the video on a public forum; the company can deal with it responsibly, save face as per their first sentence, and possibly come out of it looking better as a result, or they can choose to make matters worse for themselves as this mob have done. That's wholly their choice.

Andrew, once again we regret and are apologetic on your experience with one of drivers and thank you for you bring it to our attention, needless to say we didn't appreciate how you choose to communicated it this matter. NSL Management.

Again, should have stopped at the comma.

So it's confirmed - slap both both driver training and public relations courses on that hidden agenda.

[hannos]

I think they should proof-read what they type before sending it out there...

[arkle]

Whilst I don't disagree with most of the points raised, and Andrew's overall intentions, and the company's response was generally bad, I do feel some empathy with their comment

"in our company case you clearly had visibility of our phone number on our van as per your video footage shows and believe a phone call would have given us more impact with the specific driver concerned in that particular incident"

If I let my son take my car out for the evening and he did something that placed a cyclist in danger, perhaps unintentionally or through ignorance, despite my attempts at having tried to educate him about these things in the past, and he was caught on video, I would much rather the cyclist called me and let me know what had happened so that I could address it with my son and actually improve his behaviour, than have the video posted somewhere I may never see it in the hope that, "shaming fathers in public will create a culture where fathers educate their sons better about driving safely near cyclists in the future."

arkle

[leighthebee]

The driver made a choice to drive dangerously close to a vulnerable road user. He doesn't get to choose the consequences. Nor does the company.

Vulnerable road users. Where did this term come from? You are a road user, or you are not.

[jules21]

If I let my son take my car out for the evening and he did something that placed a cyclist in danger, perhaps unintentionally or through ignorance, despite my attempts at having tried to educate him about these things in the past, and he was caught on video, I would much rather the cyclist called me and let me know what had happened so that I could address it with my son and actually improve his behaviour, than have the video posted somewhere I may never see it in the hope that, "shaming fathers in public will create a culture where fathers educate their sons better about driving safely near cyclists in the future."

the video just shows what is visible to anyone who was physically there and saw the car and driving. it's not some magical device which turns people against a business. there are dozens of businesses which thrive, despite huge amounts of negative publicity. if you're going to paint your car with your business name, you need to acknowledge that your (and anyone behind the wheel's) driving is on display. in Andrew's case, at least they offered an apology of sorts.

[Summernight]

The driver made a choice to drive dangerously close to a vulnerable road user. He doesn't get to choose the consequences. Nor does the company.

Vulnerable road users. Where did this term come from? You are a road user, or you are not.

A pedestrian is also a road user. I believe it has been used as a term to try and show the difference/raise awareness between someone driving a car/truck/bus and other road users who don't have as much steel or safety stuff around them as those in cars and up (I believe motorcyclists are also termed 'vulnerable road users' in addition to cyclists, pedestrians, wheelchair users etc.).

If there is more awareness that these sorts of road users are not as encased in steel as the motorist then hopefully said motorists will be more aware to take extra care around these road users (which everyone should do anyway for all forms of road user but that clearly doesn't always happen).

[ozzymac]

I don't see why I should waste my time contacting companies that I post photos etc off due to there bad driving.

If it comes up in any searches well that's good, if said company wants to contact me, I would be more than happy to discuss there drivers inability to drive with a bit of common sense.

Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

[Daus]

Like your work Andrew, keep them honest.

[il padrone]

I would much rather the cyclist called me and let me know what had happened so that I could address it with my son and actually improve his behaviour, than have the video posted somewhere I may never see it in the hope that, "shaming fathers in public will create a culture where fathers educate their sons better about driving safely near cyclists in the future."

I think that Andrew has already made it quite clear that this was in no way his intention when he posted the video. It was part of a discussion about how to better place yourself on the road when approaching large roundabouts to avoid such close-shaving. Real, practical roadcraft advice for other cyclists.

[schroeds]

My moron motorist tale from yesterday on mcarrs creek rd up at pittwater....riding along at appx 35kmh somthing flies across my face and hits my shoulder hard.

Some bogan travelling in a car going opposite direction had tossed a (fortunately empty) beer can at me. Guess combined speed it hit me was 70+kmh...it hurt. If it had hit me in the face.....

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

[trailgumby]

The driver made a choice to drive dangerously close to a vulnerable road user. He doesn't get to choose the consequences. Nor does the company.

Vulnerable road users. Where did this term come from? You are a road user, or you are not.

Vulnerable, as in those who don't have a couple of tonnes of steel and glass surrounding them to protect them from impacts from other road users who do have said steel and glass. Typically, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Not truck or car drivers.