This was the front page story on Saturday but has only just made it onto EN website.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"Hit-and-run set to spark rise in helmet cams"
(38 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Cue the usual frothing at the mouth comments about pavement cycling, RLJs, shouldn't be on the road, etc. ad nauseam.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Thank you for reading the comments for us...!
Posted 10 years ago # -
It is going to send the commenters into overdrive! You'd think they'd get bored but they never seem to. Don't worry, I am not going to read any. Life is too short.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The image of anyone with a helmet-mounted camera just puts me in mind of squaddies in Afghanistan. Nothing could be further from the ideal of eight year olds cycling to school on their own. Incredibly sad that (the Evening News thinks) it's come to this.
Posted 10 years ago # -
EEN attempted to interview me for this story but (ironically) I was busy riding for the two days prior.
I can't say enough good things about riding with a camera but tbh I wouldn't say that getting drivers in trouble is really what it's about, because the police make it almost impossible for that to happen as much as it should.
That's not to say that having a nuclear defence for the big bad isn't high on my list, but of course that rarely happens to anyone. As someone in the article observes, it's more that it keeps everyone level-headed (especially me) and it provides useful post-incident analysis too, so I can see where I was being too passive / too trusting etc.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Digging out the archives:
Posted 10 years ago # -
I get that argument - I'm a huge fan of roadcraft and self-criticism. But.....it only reinforces the idea of the space we cycle in as a battleground where you need to hone your tactics through review of video evidence.
I'd like to hone my 'holding hands with Madame IWRATS whilst cycling' technique by real world practice.
Posted 10 years ago # -
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 the most heavily surveilled territory in the world. Why? The reasoning goes that if potential offenders know they are being watched, they will modify behaviour without needing to be physically coerced.
Foucault outlined this philosophy of the Panopticon in 'Discipline and Punish' (1975).
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.
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.
Posted 10 years ago # -
someone somewhere was suggesting that we should think of helmetcams as bottomup surveillance. the democratization of the panopticon....
Posted 10 years ago # -
I was briefly interviewed on what I thought. They spoke about a few of the things I suggested they focus on.
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.
Posted 10 years ago # -
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?
Posted 10 years ago # -
@SRD, certainly gives a new twist to the saying "I am my brother's keeper".
Posted 10 years ago # -
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.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Nelly, maybe more of analogy with those 'Neighbourhood Watch' signs one can see in suburban areas.
Posted 10 years ago # -
In which case the helmet cam has not provided any protection, merely a means to detect, apprehend and (potentially) punish the perpetrator.
Well a potential is better than absolutely nothing which is what we have at the moment IMO.
Posted 10 years ago # -
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.
Posted 10 years ago # -
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...?
Posted 10 years ago # -
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.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@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).
What next? Pedestrians with hi-viz, helmets and helmet cams? That's the logic we are following.
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.
It's win-win and the victims are paying for it all to boot!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Crowriver - I agree and I am very frustrated by it but what is the alternative?
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.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The alternative is just to get on your bike and cycle on regardless.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Roughly the same thing happened to me as earthowned when I used my cam.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@SRD, maybe you are thinking of sousveillance?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Could fake head-cams offer a placebo type protection then? ;-)
Some of the PPE stuff is already in that area of course.
Posted 10 years ago # -
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.
Posted 10 years ago # -
People always thought my light was a camera too. Thought I might as well have one, since everyone thought I did...
Posted 10 years ago # -
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.
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.
Posted 10 years ago # -
you'd want to overplay the significance of little things that do happen
That's what stops me bothering with it.
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
Posted 10 years ago # -
The alternative is just to get on your bike and cycle on regardless.
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.
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..
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
