http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "Hit-and-run set to spark rise in helmet cams" en Mon, 18 May 2026 19:25:59 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636&page=2#post-150120 Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:01:11 +0000 neddie 150120@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Regarding the EEN 2 paragraph 'article' on motorist strict liability...</p> <p><a href="http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/cyclists-bid-to-make-drivers-prove-innocence-1-3384034" rel="nofollow">http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/cyclists-bid-to-make-drivers-prove-innocence-1-3384034</a></p> <p>Why bother writing an article when you can let the commenteers do it for you? Good comments from Dropped in Tully &amp; Dave H. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636&page=2#post-150115 Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:51:02 +0000 minus six 150115@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I reeled one in this morning, while having the temerity to take a lane on the A90 downhill stretch to Quality Street junction.</p> <p>Total EEN frother giving it large. You've got to laugh - they're so out of time, living in the past.</p> <p>Either that, or cycling as transport remains in the distant future.</p> <p>Sometimes its hard to tell in the timewarp that is Edinburgh. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636&page=2#post-150108 Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:35:21 +0000 acsimpson 150108@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>This article and another regarding campaigns for strict motorist liability are in the top 5 most commented on EEN at the moment. No prizes for guessing the lines of "discussion". </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636&page=2#post-149996 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:58:31 +0000 acsimpson 149996@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Why stop at a black box. Can we have a direct data link with tickets appearing through the post to anyone who exceeds a certain speeding threshold. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636&page=2#post-149979 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:12:07 +0000 minus six 149979@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>It should be that all motor vehicles are mandated to carry front, rear &amp; side cameras, as well as a black box recorder.</em></p> <p>I'd settle for a black box to record speed.</p> <p>We really need a revision of the popular concept that motor vehicles are a private extension of the driver's living room. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636&page=2#post-149964 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:30:37 +0000 I were right about that saddle 149964@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@edd1e_h</p> <p>Your wish is their command!</p> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car</a></p> <p>Now <em>there's</em> a controversy-free technology..... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636&page=2#post-149953 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:38:05 +0000 neddie 149953@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It should be that all <em>motor</em> vehicles are <em>mandated </em>to carry front, rear &amp; side cameras, as well as a black box recorder.</p> <p>Information from the engine, ABS system, traction control, GPS, airbag accelerometers could all be collected and used to build up a picture of driving style and events leading up to an incident. This information is already available in all modern cars and the cost of adding a 'black box' to record it all would be insignificant.</p> <p>Tampering or disabling such a black box would carry a penalty similar to failing to provide a breath specimen.</p> <p>The mere presence of such a system is proven to modify driver 'behaviour' </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636&page=2#post-149927 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:39:12 +0000 chdot 149927@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I'd end up agitating the cops with irrefutable evidence of all manner of motoring offences, demanding justice yet knowing full well they'd not be in the least bit interested."</p> <p>Yes. </p> <p>Of course you could be 'reasonable' and only show them the most offensive offences. </p> <p>Sadly 'we' believe that the police are seldom interested <em>and</em> (for video evidence) there seems to be no straightforward way of submitting it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149925 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:34:13 +0000 Min 149925@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>The alternative is just to get on your bike and cycle on regardless.</em></p> <p>Well I think that is cool and if you can attain a sort of zen-like calm about automatically getting the blame if anything happens then that is even better. But I reckon that most people don't need too many "sorry I didn't see you" moments or people trying to run them over then simply driving away (see bad driving thread, all pages) to want to start armouring up. In fact the evidence suggests they don't with PPE getting ever more popular. </p> <p>I mostly want to bang my head against a brick wall - without wearing a h*lm*t. But that is not going to help either.. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149924 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:28:13 +0000 minus six 149924@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>you'd want to overplay the significance of little things that do happen</em></p> <p>That's what stops me bothering with it.</p> <p>I'd end up agitating the cops with irrefutable evidence of all manner of motoring offences, demanding justice yet knowing full well they'd not be in the least bit interested </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149920 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:34:45 +0000 Instography 149920@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I used my camera a few times but since I don't wear a helmet I found the bike attachment irritatingly rattly. The whole process of downloading, reviewing, editing and then applying some kind of soundtrack over the wind noise made it a cumbersome chore. And then nothing at all happened! I can see how if you've gone to the trouble and expense of buying the camera you'd really want stuff to happen. Or at least you'd want to overplay the significance of little things that do happen. </p> <p>I did make one little film that I enjoyed of my commute with absolutely nothing happening. Just me pootling along enjoying myself. A sort of anti-helmet cam film. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149907 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:47:00 +0000 SRD 149907@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>People always thought my light was a camera too. Thought I might as well have one, since everyone thought I did... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149905 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:39:04 +0000 gembo 149905@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I had a light on my helmet for a while that some folk thought was a camera, not sure it changed much, some wee ma likes shouting at me are you filming us. This was before the vogue for filming. Also it looked like a light and had light shining out of it but this did not deter some folk from thinking it was a camera. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149904 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:35:41 +0000 LaidBack 149904@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Could fake head-cams offer a placebo type protection then? ;-)</p> <p>Some of the PPE stuff is already in that area of course. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149868 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:30:42 +0000 crowriver 149868@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@SRD, maybe you are thinking of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance">sousveillance</a>? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149864 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:55:00 +0000 neddie 149864@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Roughly the same thing happened to me as earthowned when I used my cam. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149861 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:40:42 +0000 earthowned 149861@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The alternative is just to get on your bike and cycle on regardless.</p> <p>I have a helmet cam and used to use it daily but in the last year or so it has sat gathering dust in my desk drawer (until loaned to SRD). Why?</p> <p>To be honest it became a drag making sure batteries were charged, making sure there was space on the memory card, saving files and video editing.</p> <p>But the main annoyance was that it was detracting from my simple enjoyment of cycling because I was lingering over every single minor incident that occurred, replaying it over in my head.</p> <p>I re-found my enjoyment of cycling when I put the damn thing away and stopped worrying about accidents. It's not my responsibility to gather evidence to help police the roads. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149855 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:06:35 +0000 Min 149855@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Crowriver - I agree and I am very frustrated by it but what is the alternative? </p> <p>You can talk about normalising cycling but cycling was normalised back when it was normal. Now that it isn't normal anything and I mean ANYTHING we do (wear/don't wear PPE it's all the same) can be dismissed as idiotic and "asking for it" simply because it is NOT normal. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149854 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:57:54 +0000 crowriver 149854@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Min, I see your point but what I object to is the privatisation of responsibility for gathering evidence. Cyclists feel pressured to ride "tooled up" as a "deterrent" to motorists. It's the same tendency as the expectation we'll all wear helmets, hi-viz, why not body armour too? It puts the onus even more on individual cyclists (ie. potential victims) to protect themselves, rather than the onus on motorists, law enforcement agencies, and road designers to take responsibility for protecting cyclists (and pedestrians).</p> <p>What next? Pedestrians with hi-viz, helmets and helmet cams? That's the logic we are following.</p> <p>Cui bono? Motorists are absolved of responsibility because "anyone misbehaving will be caught on camera". Never mind if the cyclist dies. Police don't have to worry about patrolling the roads: helmet cams will do it for them. No need for the tiresome task of tracking down witnesses either. Video camera manufacturers and retailers will profit handsomely. After all, you need to spend a bit for HD quality.</p> <p>It's win-win and the victims are paying for it all to boot! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149853 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:54:05 +0000 Min 149853@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Of course. Obviously they have to keep finding new ways to keep us firmly under-wheel and if we start seeing the odd wee semblance of justice from using headcams then headcams will need to be turned against us in the way that h*lm*ts and h*-v*z already have been. It's the only way. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149852 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:49:16 +0000 LaidBack 149852@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I've never used one. I enjoy some users footage. Sometimes I wonder though what went on before. Could people not running a head-cam ever be considered to be taking a risk in the same way as not having my annoying shop alarm. Surely not...? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149850 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:43:33 +0000 fimm 149850@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There are several examples out there of motorists being prosecuted and convicted on the basis of headcam evidence. Magnatom had one not so long ago. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149848 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:28:33 +0000 Min 149848@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>In which case the helmet cam has not provided any protection, merely a means to detect, apprehend and (potentially) punish the perpetrator.</em></p> <p>Well a potential is better than absolutely nothing which is what we have at the moment IMO. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149845 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:09:03 +0000 crowriver 149845@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Nelly, maybe more of analogy with those 'Neighbourhood Watch' signs one can see in suburban areas. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149844 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:08:48 +0000 I were right about that saddle 149844@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Plus my thoughts are tinged by the videos you see on Youtube of people haring around London clearly looking for things to crash into/people to shout at on camera. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149843 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:07:49 +0000 crowriver 149843@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@SRD, certainly gives a new twist to the saying "I am my brother's keeper". </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149842 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:07:01 +0000 Nelly 149842@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Crowriver - Is that an extension to the 'Burglar Alarm' theory - that unless wired to the local plod station, they are next to useless - as nothing happens except some annoyed neighbours? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149841 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:06:09 +0000 ARobComp 149841@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I was briefly interviewed on what I thought. They spoke about a few of the things I suggested they focus on.</p> <p>My main point was that it is a way for us to explain beyond just words how frightening it can be for a cyclist when a car performs a very close pass, or a manuvour which the driver thinks is absolutely fine, but which is not. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149840 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:05:27 +0000 SRD 149840@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>someone somewhere was suggesting that we should think of helmetcams as bottomup surveillance. the democratization of the panopticon.... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12636#post-149839 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:58:26 +0000 crowriver 149839@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The notion that a video camera offers 'protection' is complex. It's a similar rationale to the near universal rollout of CCTV in these islands. We are <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-surveillance-camera-for-every-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html">the most heavily surveilled territory in the world</a>. Why? The reasoning goes that if potential offenders know they are being watched, they will modify behaviour without needing to be physically coerced.</p> <p>Foucault outlined this philosophy of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon">Panopticon</a> in 'Discipline and Punish' (1975). </p> <p>Essentially when you wear a helmet cam you turn yourself into a policeman by proxy. That's a rather double edged role to adopt, I'd suggest. Be careful what you wish for.</p> <p>Also survellance as prophylactic preventative relies upon the state being willing to use the evidence of wrongdoing to take action against those responsible. Can we really say that it will in the case of offences against cyclists? Perhaps only if the wrogdoing results in serious injury or death? In which case the helmet cam has not provided any protection, merely a means to detect, apprehend and (potentially) punish the perpetrator. </p>