Scotsman article featuring Magnatom.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"Motorists convicted as bike-cam accepted in court"
(16 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
IAM chap is very annoying: "Poor, oppressed drivers, it just takes a second's lapse in concentration..."
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's Neil Greig, what do you expect? He's the very definition of annoying!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Don't read the comments.... (I haven't BTW)
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm always surprised to hear that IAM haven't sacked him. He gives them a bad name.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Without realising it, Neil Greig is actually on the cyclists' side.
I fear they often generate more stress and anger than they solve
You may fear it, but you're wrong. Drivers, in my experience, immediately realise the severity of their actions when they realise I have a camera, and their attitide changes to one of less stress and anger, which makes me less stressed and angry. Maybe you should get on your bike and find out for yourself, rather than incorrectly guessing?
If helmet cams make cyclists feel less vulnerable then they may lead to behaviour that increases risk rather than reduces it
So your answer is to continue making cyclists feel vulnerable, despite them having an equal right to use the road in a safe manner? His point is therefore nonsense.
a moment’s inattention or lapse can lead to a life-threatening situation for a cyclist.
That's right. So you need to concentrate 100% of the time. Thanks for making that clear.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Frothing nutters aside, there's one interesting point in the comments about wearing the camera on your helmet. The woman in the article has a huge GoPro on her head, which surely won't be good if she comes off. Helmet or not, it really doesn't seem wise to me to have one on your head: it will be a stress-concentrator on your skull in an accident. That's why mine is on the handlebars.
Posted 10 years ago # -
One day it will finally click with MSPs (& MPs) why we are the only country in the world where regular cyclists don cameras...
The law doesn't protect us through strict liability, so as a consequence the vulnerable must carry their own 'evidence recording devices'
Posted 10 years ago # -
Your helmet is already tested falling against the sharp edge of a kerbstone, so I think we can probably be fairly relaxed about the ability of the camera (or indeed a bike light) to penetrate and cause serious injury.
Or to think of it another way - if you have a crash and the helmet is totalled so badly that things on the outside are smashing through your skull bones then whether it's a camera or the thing behind the camera may not be too significant.
It's possible it could snag and contribute to a rotational injury I guess. I seem to recall that specialists generally agree that few people are killed by a fractured skull versus shear injuries to the brain caused by rotational insult?
Posted 10 years ago # -
AIUI, rotational injuries primarily affect the neck and spinal column (but I'm not a doctor)
. I'd have thought the risk of this was significantly increased by fixing a stubby lever to the outside of a helmet.Posted 10 years ago # -
I used to have a light that looked a bit like a camera on my helmet. Took it off as it stuck out a bit. Sometimes some people improved their behaviour when it was pointed in their direction. Once a gang of neds became a little shirtly as they thought it was a camera.
I would go with unobtrusive on the handlebars. I also wonder if some people film too much?
I am not saying some people go looking for incidents as there are so many ten a penny examples of bad traffic. But in a zen way each individual incident if it hasn't caused injury or insult could be released instead of posted? The totality of bad traffic needs addressed from the top down. Pressure needs to be exerted on politicians. Many of whom may choose not to cycle as they already believe it is too dangerous?
Posted 10 years ago # -
@RJ - Yes, that's where I was coming from too. Surely you want your head to be as round and smooth as possible when it hits the ground (helmet or no).
@gembo - I don't think, in the current environment, you can film too much. My view is that either one has a camera and has it on all the time, or one doesn't have a camera at all. One can never tell when the next incident will happen. However, whether one chooses to publicise the incident is a different question. With my zen head on I delete 5 hours of video every week: luckily it's all too dull to want to share and you've all seen videos of close passes before.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Do you think the IAM would write a piece on "Promoting 'safer' motoring" which has as its first sentence:?
Motoring is on the increase in the UK and the recent increase in injuries is clearly linked to its growing popularity.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I have watched all of Dave Brennan magnatom videos on you tube also when he was on the tv if the same person. Interesting videos and think although its provides a public good, possibly does not always make the best personal decsions as the benefits may be more to draw attention to the public at large to poor driving etc but the choice of roads and approach may lead to confilicts at times and more risk. He does not cycle to reduce conflict or risk.
May be because I am an ameture so I choose roads to use that lower speeds at busy time. Also with respect to the highway code, although the IAM or some cyclists may stick to it rigerously this may not always be the safest option. If at a light and truck behind turning left and I am going left, I run the light if safe to do so, or use the crossing as a pedisrtainian may be. Some intersections seems inheirdently dangerous to bikes the highway code may not always be the most safe option.
Being self rightous about the highway code etc although may benefit society at large, and Dave Brennans conflict and advice to motorists may help road safty overall does not minimise his own risk.
Being legally correct and being sensible may not always be the same, praticall safe or sensible thing to do.
When the football is on lots of people making noise in the street etc or if lose. Legally speaking when walking down the street after Hibs or Hearts lose you could ask someone to be quiet and say well your team lost because it did not play well, or I don’t like that shade of green/red it personally I would support the other team the better team that one.
Yet although could be self righcous about the law and say well I have the right to this freedom of expression under the law, it may not be the sensible or safe opinion.
Likewise being self rightous may not always minise risk.
I think the conern over cammeras is and now people being prosecuted in this way is just part of the change in society that people have to adjust to.
The same way people use to mis behave in the street more before cammeras or people used to get away with crime if were not caught red handed. Now cammeras DNA etc. The idea if not caught at the time for something got away with it is no longer the case.This is also the same, how people may be filmed in taxis or mps in offices etc, or cook report thing, can now be done by anyone. So standards have to rise old behavours change.
The biggest change for car use may be when all cars have to have trackers in and can be prosecuted retrospectivly but don’t think society quite ready for this yet but would guess a matter of time.
Driving too fast or wrecklessly may become a thing of past in time.
If currently a customer rings a bank, and agrees to borrow 1000 pounds the call may be recorded, if someone calls and agreed to borrow million pounds it may not be. If ministers or buiness leaders do a deal there is secrecy of commnuincation. The offical secets act, how much is really security related of a senstive nature how much just to hide bad pratice.
Like transparcy has being resisted by interests group that like to be free to do things badly prehaps, people areused to the freedom to drive badly. The cammera footage is undermining this freedom, in the same way, the CCTV or DNA undermine the criminals freedom, or more transperncy would undermine the elected memebers freedom, if people are used to acting in way with no consequence will look for arguments against a change. Like commerical confidentialty and offical secrets act. Good for government, not so good for the public giving the freedom to hide from scrutiney.
Think a culture change for people to get used to being prosecuted with out being caught at the time, for what is currently considered "unfair" not getting caugt by the police at the time etc.
Tend to think these sort of stories will do a lot to change behaviour. As do get some drivers drive agressivly not just errors of judgment that may always happen. A large part of the bad driving is a choice people could modify etc.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'd have thought the risk of this was significantly increased by fixing a stubby lever to the outside of a helmet.
OK, off on a tangent here. Min and I had a discussion at PY on Friday about those Bern helmets which have a moulded peak/visor on them. We wondered if you were to come off and land on your forehead if the visor is designed with a weakness so as to snap off (like those on "traditional" helmets which are held on with velcro or little plastic studs), or if it would rather act to focus the energy of the collision onto a narrow area, or alternatively cause the head to be jerked backwards and upwards. To quote Min on horse-riding helmets; "it's better to break your nose than your neck". I've only seen the insides of a Bern once, and wasn't impressed by the pile of polystyrene and cushioning with no adjustment for head diameter (by some mechanism like a Rocklock) to actually hold the thing securely in place. It seemed to be only its own sheer weight was holding it onto the riders head.
Back on to talking about headcams on helmets, the mounts are held on to the helmet by strong double-sided tape, or little rubber straps (mine were rubbish enough to require cable ties to reinforce them and provide a secure footing), and the camera is usually held on to the mount by either rubber straps or a plastic click-to-fit thing. I imagine under any sort of force they would readily buckle and give way before the helmet would. Might still cause a rotational injury I suppose? I have my camera (when I use it) mounted on the right hand side, because that was the easiest way to mount it (the Contours have a slide-and-click mounting down each side, I imagine they were originally intended for some other use than cycle commuting.)
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
