Apparently "cyclists have been putting cameras on their helmets to collect evidence in case of accidents"... and I'm going to miss the piece (probably a good thing for my blood pressure ;-) )
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
helmet cams on the news - BBC1 0720 today
(32 posts)-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
I managed to catch it. The footage was pretty terrifying and horribly familiar. However they seemed to be suggesting that an increasing amount of driver prosecutions are coming from helmet-cam footage. One incident when white van man gets out and assaults the cyclist that has just tried to run over.
Posted 14 years ago # -
so inaccurate and fear mongering, as good as it gets in the mainstream media...
Posted 14 years ago # -
I suppose one could take it as fear mongoring but one could also see it as highlighting the issues for a minorty road user. Big media outlets need an angle the helmet cams just happen to be it.
Posted 14 years ago # -
It would be nice to think they were being that altruistic and not just looking for a good excuse to show shocking footage. Did you see Charlie Brooker's 'How TV ruined your life'?
Posted 14 years ago # -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12334486
No comments yet.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I don't think this is scaremongering in the slightest. It is a fact there are idiots on the road. If they realise there are more and more of these cameras out there and they run the risk of getting reported to the Police, fined, points on their licence, eventually banned then perhaps they may think twice about cutting someone up (especially if they are wearing a helmet with a small device attached...)
Posted 14 years ago # -
Helmet cams offer a strand of evidence that was until recently extremely rare. But increasing usage and affordability, along with increasing receptiveness to the footage, also brings the risk of precedent setting.
I'm sure we've already heard about some bike vs. car cases steered towards favouring the driver, because the cyclist was apparently not taking sufficient (but, legally, optional) precautions like helmets and hi-viz clothing. When we get to the stage that half of all cyclists are using video cameras, does it become unfavourable not to be using one, if a collision or near-collision occurs?
Or, will the mass adoption of cameras ultimately help swing the balance of liability towards the motorist?
It's the same as high power bike lights (and motorbike lights) in the face of ever more penetrative car headlights and daytime running lights. Our Ever Ready Niterider (and Niterider Ultra, if you were rich) lights were the benchmark 21 years ago, but who would dare use something so heavy and dim nowadays? As technology adoption advances, you either play along or try your luck and make do with old hat.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Always cautious of a repeat of the nuclear arms race and encouraging motorists to install cameras - I wonder whether a useful addition would be a date and time counter in the camera to be compared with the records of the mobile phone that the driver was using while SMIDSYing his way down the highway. I've been hit 7 times in 28 years of cycle commuting - each one a SMIDSY.
Posted 14 years ago # -
There are already cameras for cars on the market, mostly used by insurance companies for determining fault in car on car crashes.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Made the mistake of reading the comments. Argh. I know us cyclists can be a wee bit pious sometimes, but jeez apparently to even be allowed to discuss the matter we'd all have to be 100% law abiding, paying particular regard to those that people think are laws but actually aren't, pay some kind of imbalanced road user levy (the DMAL, 'Driver minor annoyance Levy')and have license plates, but don't add any administration costs to the government, never wear any cycle specific clothing, but always wear helmets and high viz, always ride one abreast and never, ever, ever impede any car's progress in joining the next traffic queue while at the same time adding to the traffic queue by never filtering through traffic.
Sigh.
Posted 14 years ago # -
1st three comments:
1:
"This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules."2:
"I would like to see a recording of a cyclist’s entire journey posted to YouTube, instead of a brief clip.
I wonder if it would show a cyclist riding on the pavement and going through red lights...."3:
"Perhaps pedestrians should also start wearing cameras to catch these cycle warriors when they run red light, and jump from the road to the pavement nearly knocking us innocent path walkers onto our bottoms."It goes on like that for several pages...
Posted 14 years ago # -
I tried very hard to avoid the comments ended up skimming them. Two very important memes to remember with these issues.
1) Haters going to hate!
2) They see me rolling they hatin!These are the people who's lives are so sad they are posting random hateful comments to the web. Note the subtle distinctions between the have your say on the BBC/EEN which attracts haters spouting bile and a discussion board where actual discussion takes place.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Sadly cameras will be now become much more prolific,next thing will be that you have to get a callibrated camera, approved by your life insurance company ! Assuming that you all actually tell your insurance co that you partake of dangerous pursuits !I was asked very probing questions about my mortgage application a few years back, do you or have you ever, climbed mountains,raced motor cars or bikes.ride a motor cycle or bycicle regularly !Highly unlikely ????
Not a conspiricy theorist but there are apps to track your childs progress, sat nav and those wee black things that i cant remember the name of, used on big cycle races, attach to the frame for accurate timing.
Mrs Splitshift still gets furious when sitting on the queensferry road, rush hour and a cyclist passes her. And she cycles now !
ME ME ME. I want to go first, no I never did anything wrong, ever.I am always right and am much more important than anybody !
Rant over, sorry.
Be nicePosted 14 years ago # -
those wee black things that i cant remember the name of, used on big cycle races,
transponders?
Posted 14 years ago # -
319 comments... I think I'll save the time of reading them and do my blood pressure and temper a favour. I'll have a glass of zyder instead.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I'm not sure how I feel about cyclists feeling obliged to record everything.
However, the general point made by many commenters "Maybe I should have a camera on my hat as I walk on the pavement" / "Where can I get a camera installed in my car, so that I can film those daredevil cyclists" is only going to work in our favour.
The bottom line is that a camera only records what is actually going on. Because pretty much nobody is being killed by pavement cyclists, for example, it will be very difficult for "headcam pedestrians" to document the ravening hordes that they so often moan about, while drivers are likely to find that the behaviour they're filming and moaning about (riding too far from the gutter / passing stationary traffic) is all recommended in the government's own cycling material.
It's also hard to imagine that not having a camera would disadvantage a cyclist who has been hit by a car, compared with the current position where cyclists who are hit by cars are routinely ignored or derisory hand-slaps issued. Will it disadvantage them compared with a cyclist hit while filming? Of course. But then that's the point.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Depends where you live. On my commute, I think I have enough gadgets on my bike now (3 front lights, two rear, airzound, trip computer, iPhone mount). Cant be bothered with a camera too. Sure I could generate masses of footage if I wanted to of drivers being dozy or dangerous, but I guess there must be a risk that a cyclist could provoke a driver into doing something stupid and then record it; drivers react pretty badly to being told about their poor driving and its effect on you, and often then throw their weight about. Its why I try and be mellow and just let stuff go. I'd definately switch the camera off on the occasions my red mist came down.
In Marchmont, pavement riding is a major problem, exacerbated by the poor road conditions (setts), and the volume of parked cars. I was struck by a cyclist from behind last week; not hard, just annoying. It was dark, there was a lamppost and a wide hedge and she misjudged her swerve. Not very apologetic though.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Compared with drivers already doing 30 *accellerating* to try and beat pedestrians across the zebra crossing, or tripwires leading to muggings in the meadows, you'd probably agree that it's more a "minor annoyance" than a "major problem", right?
(I suppose this depends on what you count as "major" and is entirely subjective - I've lived for three years in and around Marchmont and I can't bring to mind one single incident of pavement cycling, which doesn't mean it didn't happen - just that it clearly wasn't worth remembering).
Anyway, as regards your other comment - I'm not sure really what somebody can do in provocation which justifies the use of a vehicle as a weapon. Sure, there are drivers out there for whom the mere presence of a cyclist (never mind any action they take) is reason enough to froth with rage. So, I think it's easy to accept that a subset of drivers who are not quite ready to use their vehicle as a weapon against a cyclist might be tipped over the edge by the thought of a camera. But really, is that any sort of reason against?
Posted 14 years ago # -
OK, on my street (Thirlestane Road) there would be about 5-10 pavement cyclists an hour depending on the time of day. Any set of traffic lights with 10 RLJs or drivers going through at 40 would count as major.
Its got crappy cobbles/setts, and is a b* to cycle on at any speed. Speeding drivers are a problem too (its a 20mph zone). Some of the PCs are doing barely walking pace, some are belting along. The bigger problem is those on the North side where there are larger hedges so those exiting stairs cannot be seen. Where the pool is, there is more cycling but less pedestrians as there are fewer houses on that side of the street at the West end.
Of course 5-10 is a guesstimate; one of these days I may get round to doing an actual count. Its what it feels like though.
On the video footage, all I'm saying is that edited footage may not show the whole story of an incident.
Posted 14 years ago # -
If I'd had a hat-cam I might have been able to look back to see the number or registration of the taxi which pulled away from the kerb in front of me without looking or signalling as I was heading down the Canongate past it (with three bright front lights) the other night. Unfortunately he was performing a U-turn as well as pulling out and outran me after I turned round to chase him back uphill.
As well as most of the comments saying the same thing there seemed to be a number of repeats, though I wasn't paying enough attention to the usernames to be certain. I lasted through thirteen pages of them before giving up. As well as most of the comments saying the same thing they were
mostlyALL saying it in the most 'peculiar' manner! Arch, and pompous, not how 'real' 'people' 'speak' at ALL! They should ALL have a taste of their 'own medicine' and see how they like it! Would they post footage of that on the 'internet' I wonder! Until they ALL BARGHBARGHFROTH and so on. Much more amusingly unbalancedly imbalanced than the EEN haters.Posted 14 years ago # -
"OK, on my street (Thirlestane Road) there would be about 5-10 pavement cyclists an hour depending on the time of day. Any set of traffic lights with 10 RLJs or drivers going through at 40 would count as major."
Yes, but isn't that because the relative danger is different, not the frequency?
Here's the thing - I'd honestly trade you 100 pavement cyclists for every driver who blasts through the narrow roads of our estate at 40mph. Maybe 500 cyclists, or 1000.
Different people have different perceptions of danger, so perhaps you would genuinely trade your pavement cyclists for speeding drivers / ones who ignore red lights. And I guess if you look at the privalence of local policing objectives which focus on cyclists despite well-known local problems with dangerous driving, that's what many people genuinely want.
It's OK to differ, I suppose.
Posted 14 years ago # -
narrow roads of our estate at 40mph
These are exactly the same motorists/EEN posters that maintain speed limits are put there as part of the "war on the motorist" (not, as popular belief would have it because all scientific evidence proves that if you lower the speed there will be fewer accidents and the survival rate will be significantly higher...)
Posted 14 years ago # -
I thought that RLJs argue that there is no danger in their actions, and the Clarksons of this world that there is no danger in speeding on the motorway (unless you hit something)? On my street we have no traffic lights, so the major issues are speeding cars in a 20 mph zone and pavement cyclists, all on a major route to a primary school (the one my kids go to). Since the parked cars on both sides make it pretty unlikely that pedestrians will be harmed by any of the speeding juggernaughts, the risk to pedestrians is from bikes. In the main they miss; they dont leave a good impression though.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Since the parked cars on both sides make it pretty unlikely that pedestrians will be harmed by any of the speeding juggernaughts, the risk to pedestrians is from bikes. In the main they miss; they dont leave a good impression though.
So you'd think - but at the same time pavement cyclists only manage to kill someone every few years - it's so uncommon that it gets national press coverage.
Pedestrians walking on pavements just like yours are, in contrast, being killed every other day.
It's the difference between something society accepts (drivers are "us", so speeding drivers are just "vaguely naughty us"), while cyclists are "other", so anything they do wrong is really "wrong" - regardless of who is actually being injured and killed.
Posted 14 years ago # -
The full report is http://www.naden.de/blog/bbvideo-bbpress-video-plugin -->
[+] Embed the video | here." target="_blank">Video Download Get the Flash Videos Posted 14 years ago # -
"Police release helmet cam footage of road rage attack on cyclist"
.
More on http://road.cc/node/31926Posted 14 years ago # -
What a thoroughly horrible little man, hope they catch him and soon, and get a judge who is a cyclist!
Thought I was going to have a "moment" on the way home tonight, a car shaved past me going up the hill from Falkirk and in disgust I shook my head in disaproval, I can only assume he noticed it and took umbrage as he stopped further up the hill with the hazards on, my assumption being to... erm, "remonstrate" with me (lol). He was such an obstruction there to other traffic I think he was obliged to move on :) of course it may have been co-incidence... but I'm not bad at reading the signs :-/
(and have just dug out my helmet cam again to see if I can fit it to the new(er) plastic hat :-( ) Think I need to source a handlebar mount for it, less easy to point but a lot more convenient!Posted 14 years ago # -
I'll hopefully be getting a cam with next student loan payment in April.
Not had any problems with drivers being aggressive (yet) but I've already had a few close shaves.Posted 14 years ago # -
lesson from that seemed to be - remember to point your helmet at the licence plate!
Posted 14 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
