Headcam cyclists in media spotlight

Anonymous

Footage used as evidence to obtain conviction...

More here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/h ... ight-14899

Crapaud

Hmmm...[scratches chin]...[scratches head]...the article raises more questions, for me , than anything else.



Does the helmet cam in the photo compromise the integrity of the helmet? Either in a crash / off, by stressing the helmet, or both.

Sue appeared on a regional BBC TV report to promote the benefits of the headcam – whilst it has potential use should she be involved in an accident, she feels it is also an important safety aid as it makes motorists think twice about how they drive when around her.

If, as some assert, that a helmet, as a safety aid, says to the public that cycling's dangerous and puts them off cycling, does a helmet camera not scream at the top of it's lungs that cycling's really dangerous?

I'd also question the validity of camera footage. I've seen numerous examples of near misses, for example, on You Tube where what is stated to have happened was far from clear from the footage alone; having something on video doesn't equal fact - it's open to interpretation.

Jamey

I think the best solution is just to have a camera crew follow you everywhere like I do.

Crapaud

Jamey wrote:

I think the best solution is just to have a camera crew follow you everywhere like I do.

You are John Sweeney and I claim my £5.

el_presidente

Jamey wrote:

I think the best solution is just to have a camera crew follow you everywhere like I do.

You are Victor Ward AICM overwhelming sense of parranoia

BentMikey

Crapaud wrote:

Does the helmet cam in the photo compromise the integrity of the helmet?

Yes, I think it would have a significant negative effect on helmet performance. Bit like lights as well. On the other hand, the lights/camera safety effect would probably far outweigh even the best possible safety effect from the helmet alone, so it's probably a net gain.

You could always mount any camera on your bike rather than on your helmet, but then you'd somewhat lose the effect on drivers.

Crapaud wrote:

does a helmet camera not scream at the top of it's lungs that cycling's really dangerous?

I think you might be right in some circumstances. I have a camera for numerous reasons, not just to shame bad driving examples. I want to be a better rider, and I can use the camera to film my own riding and ask for critique on how I handled a particular situation. I also like how the camera has a calming effect on drivers, though that would tend to confirm your view!

Belv

Mikey,
If it's not too much of a personal question...
where do you mount your camera?! :shock:

BentMikey

On my handlebars.

gtvlusso

don't think it is up to the public to act as "big brother" their are privacy laws protecting us all against snooping on your fellow citizens - I also don't like interfereing people who perhaps have not got a grasp of the realities of everyday travel and frustration or circumstance of a situation they have witnessed - the situation may not be all that it seems (In this case, yes, it was a jerk off nazi tosser!). They may have even caused it themselves innocently.

I certainly don't think it is also up to the wearer of a headcam to comment on the driving of vehicles on british roads.....thats for the Police and speed cameras/detection devices - after all we pay for this. I am a great advocate of ignore and cycle on - take the frustration out by pushing harder. Everyone sometimes has a dumb day in car or on a bike! Uploading stuff onto youtube is simply dangerous - if I saw my car or motorbike reg up their I would be asking her some awkward questions through my solicitor.

If this lady is that nervous a cyclist then perhaps she should try walking or maybe not annoying other road users into having to avoid her or wanting to get passed her quickly.

I regularly watch a lovely lady in my local city rant at anything that passes her on the road - for absolutely no reason other than being nervous herself.

This sets a dangerous precedent - we will soon all be videoing each other and getting upset over every single niggle.

Life is not a rose garden, so just get on with it! I will certainly distance myself from this ladies actions as a bicycle commuter, bicycle road racer (well, triathlon!), motorcyclist and car driver. Glad I don't live anywhere near York!

BentMikey

The solution is simple - don't drive or cycle like a c@nt, and you won't be put on youtube. It's perfectly legal to film in public like this, and given the limited police resources, plus the endemic anti-cyclist feeling amongst the police, it's something that needs to be done.

gtvlusso

May as well have CCTV in your back garden then. Or helicams looking through your skylights into your house - perhaps the "bottom inspectors" from Viz could become a reality.

Any legal eagles like to comment on filming in public/utilisation of that film?

I really think it sets a bad precedent for all concerned - we cannot all film each other as we all will have a different point of view on what is right or wrong or how we reacted in a situation - and again, we are all entitled to make mistakes or have an "off" day. Where will it end?!

I have never witnessed an anti-cycling feeling from the Police in 20 years + of cycling - am I doing something wrong? Have felt more of a target on a motorbike, but ultimately, I have never felt victimised on a motorbike when I have been stopped (twice in 20 years or so). I was stopped ligitimately...although I have never been convicted of anything.

Jamey

gtvlusso wrote:

Any legal eagles like to comment on filming in public/utilisation of that film?

I'm not a legal eagle but I am a photographer so assuming that video is treated the same way as still photos then it's perfectly fine to film in public and any shots/videos you take can be used in a court of law.

The only restrictions on photography are on private property or when you're using the photos for advertising/commercial purposes, in which case you need model release forms from anyone recognisable in the frame.

So the short answer is that helmet cams are fine.

cntl

The #1 thing that would increase cycling safety would be much greater number of cyclists on our roads.

The #2 thing that would increase cycling safety would be all cyclists using helmet cameras.

Gambatte

Plenty of examples of hit and runs, where a camera could get the reg.
Plenty of examples of drivers said to be misrepresenting what happened in an incident, once they realise police are involved. I believe thats what happened with Bollos incident, till plod/Bollo pointed out Bollo was using a camera.

nwallace

The ASO initially refused Charley Boorman and the other members of his team permission to use a helmet cam on their motorbike helmets at the start of the Dakar the year they did it because of helmet integrity. They were eventually allowed to use them after demonstrating that in the event of a crash the camera would dislodge from the helmet. (They affixed them with Velcro)

The ATC one has a Velcro loop that goes through the vents, i guess in an impact at the right angle the camera could be pulled at a force strong enough to break the helmet, iff the fixings are strong enough. I doubt they are. A Compression force on the camera would probably be less serious on the helmet than a direct impact with a boulder. (based on the camera being more breakable than the boulder)

Belv

gtvlusso wrote:

and again, we are all entitled to make mistakes or have an "off" day. Where will it end?!

Whilst i don't necessarily disagree with your overall sentiment (i haven't made up my mind either way, yet), I do disagree with this line.

'We' are not entitled to make mistakes. We DO make mistakes and these are unavoidable because imperfect humans are making split-second decisions, but this is not the same as an entitlement. Are we entitled to this mistake a certain number of times, or is there a maximum frequency? Where is the line between 'making a mistake' and negligence? Are we entitled to mistakes as long as the results are not too serious?

richardast

BentMikey wrote:

... given the limited police resources, plus the endemic anti-cyclist feeling amongst the police, it's something that needs to be done.

Is that your opinion formed on the basis of a study that you've read or a wild presumption based on a small amount of anecdotal evidence from a couple of p***ed of cyclists.

BentMikey

No, it's only my opinion. Perhaps my statement was a bit sweeping, but there certainly is a significant element of "cyclists don't count" feelings in many reports.

richardast

I haven't read these reports of which you speak, so I wouldn't know. I stopped reading "news" papers some time ago.

What I do know, however, is that there are many police officers and staff who cycle as commuters and for leisure.
There are an increasing number of police officers who cycle as part of their work (cue stories citing poor examples of police cyclists).
There are also many who are actively involved in promoting safe cycling - teaching kids to ride and maintain their bikes properly.
And then there are the projects being run where police officers get kids from difficult backgrounds to build up bikes they can keep from usable parts of the thousands of unclaimed bikes that are sitting in storage.

It would be a shame if, as cycling enthusiasts, we labelled a significant section of the wider community as anti-cyclist based on a few incidents, when many, many more of them are actually doing quite a lot to promote our favourite pastime.

gtvlusso

Some great stuff coming out of this debate!

How would we all feel as cyclists if other road users all used dash mounted cams to watch us and uploaded that footage to youtube? I think we would come in for allot more stick about road discipline! it is not just the responsible riders that get filmed, it's everyone!

I also think that sticking a cam on your helmet looks silly and makes you an instant target for ridicule (kinda like lycra - but most of us wear it anyway!). Maybe even a target yourself for some nutter to deliberately knock you off because of your camera - they are out there!

And what happens when that big range rover just smashes into the back of you, then buggers off - didn't see that did you?

As I said in a previous statement - I think it sets a dangerous precedent for all concerned. I don't want to be represented on the road by this lady. I am happy for her if she like filming for fun, but not for "her own safety" - thats just a nervous cyclist.

dirk_van_gently

Interesting article about Helmet cams here.

http://citycycling.co.uk/issue33/issue33page23.html

cee

gtvlusso wrote:

How would we all feel as cyclists if other road users all used dash mounted cams to watch us and uploaded that footage to youtube? I think we would come in for allot more stick about road discipline! it is not just the responsible riders that get filmed, it's everyone!

There an interesting point in here somewhere. Out of every 100 videos uploaded, how many of them do you think are examples of good driving. One of the issues is that these debates are generally based on the many bad examples, with the many good examples often ignored, probably because they are not as interesting (in a maudlin kind of way) as the bad ones.

It says a lot about people. We love watching people crash/fall etc (think of the snowboard/skateboard/bmx/mountainbike wipeout vids on the net). We also love to see the bad examples so we can say how terrible it was. In most of the helmet cam footage I have seen (No analysis of numbers or anything, just a thought), there are often more examples of good driving exhibited than the one bad example being highlighted.

The problem is that we remember the bad example.

There. thats my 2p

gtvlusso

Good point Cee!

BentMikey

gtvlusso wrote:

How would we all feel as cyclists if other road users all used dash mounted cams to watch us and uploaded that footage to youtube? I think we would come in for allot more stick about road discipline! it is not just the responsible riders that get filmed, it's everyone!

Oh I'm quite happy to be filmed, even though I'm far from perfect and make my fair share of mistakes. I'd much rather learn from them and move on.

gtvlusso wrote:

And what happens when that big range rover just smashes into the back of you, then buggers off - didn't see that did you?

This sort of thing is exactly why you SHOULD have a camera. Some people have two cameras, one pointing forwards, and one backwards. Most people chill out when they see a camera, they don't want their own bad behaviour on record.

gtvlusso wrote:

As I said in a previous statement - I think it sets a dangerous precedent for all concerned. I don't want to be represented on the road by this lady. I am happy for her if she like filming for fun, but not for "her own safety" - thats just a nervous cyclist.

You *really* *really* don't know anything at all about Sue. LOLOL!

Like other camera cyclists, I think that your opinions on this are far out and simply wrong.

gtvlusso

HI BentMikey,

Firstly, you are entitled to your opinion, fair enough. Can you explain why I am wrong? I think I have done a fair job of explaining my opinion.

So you feel that society would benefit from everyone filming everyones actions "just in case" - then uploading and commenting on it on youtube?

Learning from a video on youtube?! I would be livid about being filmed in the first instance for all the world to see, then bloody annoyed at someone else putting their perception of what I was supposedly doing wrong in their opinion.......it is clearly open to abuse and mis-interpretation and I think it is downright dangerous for society.

Have you read 1984 by George Orwell?

What a lovely society that would be........count me out!!!!!

If I simply don't know Sue - then maybe she is a complete nutter and a danger to herself and others then - perhaps she would like to be the point of someone elses film on youtube........Do you honestly think you would change your ways - if a video of you was up in front of millions pointing you out (in someone elses opinion - you may not agree with their opinion and have no way of removing the video)?

Do you know her personally (no offence intended)?

So what about the range rover that squashes you and nicks your cameras? Hope that never happens to anyone, but there are still looneys out there.

Gambatte

So far the only evidence we have is anecdotal, about how cameras have defused situations when a motorist has realised their comments are being recorded and about how motorists have changed their stories to the police when it was pointed out video evidence was available.

Not so far heard one piece of evidence demonstrating a negative to filming. Only opinion.

(Hmm.. where's the cheapest place for an ATC2000?)

Shadowduck

The world where we're constantly filmed when in public is coming closer, whether you like it or not - doesn't really concern me that much but then I don't do stuff (in public at least :oops: ) that I'd be worried about being filmed.

CCTV is getting more and more prevalent, cars are having dashboard cameras fitted, cyclists are using headcams... A lot of people see it as a very good way of removing the "my word against yours" element from incidents. Give it a few years and integrated dashboard cameras will probably be available as an option for cars, insurers will start offering discounts to drivers who are willing to have a camera fitted etc. I'm inclined to think it's a good thing, as it can only really work in favour of the innocent.

Parkey

I saw something a few years back about a "black box" dashboard camera for cars. It would run constantly whenever a car was being driven, discarding old footage, and was triggered by an accelerometer so it could store the 30 seconds before and after a collision for analysis.

Doubt whether hitting a cyclist would trigger it though...

BentMikey

Yes, we've started seeing footage on video justice style tv shows from insurance cameras like this installed in cars in the US.

cee

BentMikey wrote:

Yes, we've started seeing footage on video justice style tv shows from insurance cameras like this installed in cars in the US.

I have only seen camera footage like this that is pointed at the driver, not to the outside of the car. Apparently lots of cars in the US are now sold like this.

BentMikey

The ones I've seen had 2 or 3 cameras. Yes, one pointed at the driver, I remember two clips, one with the driver falling asleep, the other with him on the phone.