TV Company looking to buy Helmet Cam footage!

RawCutTV

Hi All,

I hope it is ok for me to do this and does not go against any forum rules!

I am from a Television Production company called Raw Cut TV and we make programmes such 'Road Wars' and 'Police Interceptors'.

With the increased use of helmet cams by cyclists, I am looking for footage of any bad/aggressive drivers (or cyclists!!) and any near misses you may have caught on your camera to add to our already extensive clip archive (www.rawcutarchive.co.uk).

Depending on the clip, we would would be willing to either buy the rights to the footage or represent the clip for you.

If you would like any further information, or if you or someone you know has a clip you think we would be interested in, please do not hesitate to contact us either by calling 020 7287 1050 or by PMing me directly on this.

All the Best,

Tom
Raw Cut TV
020 7287 1050

Kieran_Burns

Phone number checks out

posts elsewhere as well:

http://forums.cyclingweekly.co.uk/showt ... !&p=115077

Down the Road

Tom,

Bugger off!!!!

Last thing cycling needs is bad publicity that can only come from this.

Has TV reached the bottom yet or are you still digging further.

sketchley

Tom,

Can you make any assurance as to the balance of the program? For example can you give assurances that the program will not descend in to an anti cycling, all cyclists are red light jumpers, pavement riders, should pay tax etc. Furthermore can you give assurance that your program will balance any footage of poorly behaved motorists and near misses when cycling with a positive message that cycling if safe activity that increases your life expectancy?

northstar

Go and ride/drive around richmond park and you will catch plenty of bad driving and cycling yourselves.

Kieran_Burns

I made a comment on this elsewhere and I have to admit, this response pretty much sums it up for me:

Great! So now all the self righteous holier than thou helmet cam brigade who were already looking for trouble on the roads to promote their 'we are better than you' mentality can get their 15 minutes of fame by going out and antagonising a few more car drivers so they can get their (heavily edited to make them look saintly) videos onto a low rent chav targetted TV programme.

He used to say that ALL helmet cam types were the same - I disabused him of that notion

gtvlusso

Hi Tom,

Can't supply footage, but would love to see a TV company do something that is not cheap TV - using more than just the general public doing stuff or filming for them.

For some inspriation watch HBO's "The Wire", "Sex and the City" or Fox's "House"

clarkey cat

"Sex and the City"

doing quite well 'til then

Origamist

I'll need to discuss this offer with my agent (are we talking exclusivity?), PR people and driver provocation coach tonight. Who knows, OrigamistCam Productions might be trending this w/e.

Confusedboy

Oh, dear lord, no. What genius came up with that idea; then again, Raw Cut make that sort of programme, so I 'spose it was inevitable that they'd want helmat cam shock horror b*llocks sooner or later. Whatever my views, this sort of (literally) car crash tv must sell well or the networks wouldn't air it

At least I don't have to watch the result. And I won't.

dilemna

Footage is already on Youtube. This TV production company only wants to make money out of cyclists' near death experiences, threats of violence and other attacks. It would be better if the people who make Crime Watch aired the footage or the police who should take these incidents more seriously.

RawCutTV

Hi all,

Thank you for the replies. Just to clarify, we are not looking to show anyone in a bad light, neither cyclist nor drivers. The footage would not be used on any programmes as of yet, just placed on our archive library.

Having worked closely with organisations such as the police, we always represent everyone as fairly as possible and do not, and can not, take any footage out of context. I understand many people are a bit weary of the media and being misrepresented in any way, and I hope I can reassure you by saying all of our programmes such as 'Police Interceptors' are checked by lawyers before airing.

We are not trying to exploit anyone and would always suggest that if anyone has faced any threat or has been assaulted that they should always contact the Police. We represent many people and organisations from members of the public to charities such as the Born Free Foundation.

Helmet cams provide a unique perspective on road users and can help highlight the dangers some road users take (whether cyclist or motorist) and hopefully, by highlighting it, prevent it in future which can only be a good thing. From researching this subject the last few weeks, it has certainly made me more aware of how I drive.

I hope this helps to clear a few things up, we never aim to upset or show anyone in a bad light. As our company is based in Soho, many of our staff cycle into work and through work, I have often had to drive in London, which was never a pleasant experience, so I have a lot of respect for those that have the confidence to cycle.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to PM me or give us a call.

Thank you all for your time and I hope you feel a bit more confident that we are not out to give cyclists or drivers any bad press.

Tom
Raw Cut TV
020 7287 1050

asprilla

Cycling doesn't need the dangers highlighting any more; showing dangerous situations and accidents involved in cycling is all the media does. The media needs to show that cycling is a safe and healthy pass time not to put the off.

sketchley

Hi Tom,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. What kind of footage are you after? Would you like a few hundred hours of safe cycling with no incidents, just normal everyday commuting? If you are willing to pay I'm sure we can arrange that as collectively I'm sure we have quite a lot of it.

I'm sure you are good intentioned but I doubt such footage would make good TV and the bad stuff out of context would not be good for cycling. I for one would not be happy to provide any footage unless I was sure the program it was going into would represent cycling in good light. Just putting it on archive and signing over rights to you to use it as you wish is not something I would sign up to.

Kieran_Burns

The problem as I see it is that the massive percentage of trouble free and fun cycling is missed out, and the brief few moment of idiocy we face is highlighted.

Unfortunately perception is reality in these cases; and all people would see is that cyclists face incredible danger every time they dare to set foot to pedal.

I can't see that my video of the owl flying alongside of me would make good TV, or the fantastically courteous overtakes I get off the British Gypsum and Hardstaff lorries EVERY day.

What you would want to see are the mistakes - like the EON guy didn't look and almost had a Kieran pate on the side of his van; or illegal driving like the daft tart (TM) on the phone (if only for the shout.... actually I wouldn't mind THAT one being on TV )

The good stuuf doesn't make good viewing, so you'd end up with programs packed with how dangerous cycling is. This would stop parents allowing their children to cycle to school, or people choosing not to cycle for the first time to work.

THAT would make cycling more dangerous. Cycling IS safe and would be safer still if more people actively did it.

Confusedboy

Pull the other one, Tom Raw Cut, it's got (bicycle) bells on. Your output so far suggests that you do not so much work 'closely with organisations such as the police', but rather that you are largely representing thier particular viewpoint as it is their video footage that you are using; you are in a symbiotic relationship with them. The police are not, in general, either particularly aware of or sympathetic to, the kinds of problmes cyclists have to deal with. Most of them have only the vaguest awareness of laws pertaining to cyclists.The only stuff you will find worth airing from cyclists' helmet cams is going to be edited or, as I prefer to call it, manipulated for shock value and will show those cyclists in a bad light and present cycling as an activity that is normally confrontational at best and dangerous at worst; a gross distortion of reality. You do not air the many hours of police video where nothing exciting happens at all, so you are already providing a distorted view of police work which flatters them, and you now want to extend the same privilege to cyclists but without the flattery. No thanks.

Origamist

A positive, campaigning use of helmet cam film:

http://www.magnatom.net/2011/08/meeting ... tcome.html

RawCutTV

Confusedboy wrote:

Pull the other one, Tom Raw Cut, it's got (bicycle) bells on. Your output so far suggests that you do not so much work 'closely with organisations such as the police', but rather that you are largely representing thier particular viewpoint as it is their video footage that you are using; you are in a symbiotic relationship with them. The police are not, in general, either particularly aware of or sympathetic to, the kinds of problmes cyclists have to deal with. Most of them have only the vaguest awareness of laws pertaining to cyclists.The only stuff you will find worth airing from cyclists' helmet cams is going to be edited or, as I prefer to call it, manipulated for shock value and will show those cyclists in a bad light and present cycling as an activity that is normally confrontational at best and dangerous at worst; a gross distortion of reality. You do not air the many hours of police video where nothing exciting happens at all, so you are already providing a distorted view of police work which flatters them, and you now want to extend the same privilege to cyclists but without the flattery. No thanks.

Hi ConfusedBoy,
Thank you for your reply. Just to clarify that I am only looking for footage for our Archive. When I said that we work closely and represent organisations such as the Police, I meant within the Archive department of the company rather than the production broadcast side.
It is true that television is a distortion of reality. However as a company, as well as following regulation, we also follow our own ethical guidlines. If any clips were to eventually be used in our programmes we would always try and balance the story, so if a 'shocking' story was shown, we would always balance it with a happier story or a story that shows the other side of the coin. The last thing we would ever want to do is upset anyone that contributes any footage or alienate a group of people as this benefits no one!
I understand many people are weary and are protective over thier sport or hobbies. Slightly off subject, but a few years ago I took up an extreme sport whose exposure to the media is generally always when things go wrong so I can understand where you are coming from.
Thank you for taking the time to reply though, and I hope I have put your mind at some ease.

All the Best,

Tom

notsoblue

Asprilla wrote:

Cycling doesn't need the dangers highlighting any more; showing dangerous situations and accidents involved in cycling is all the media does. The media needs to show that cycling is a safe and healthy pass time not to put the off.

+1

notsoblue

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I can't see that my video of the owl flying alongside of me

Oh can you post the link to that? I must have missed it!

Kieran_Burns

notsoblue wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I can't see that my video of the owl flying alongside of me

Oh can you post the link to that? I must have missed it!

http://youtu.be/y3p2mWtuRHI?hd=1

It's not the best quality unfortunately, but clearest on 1080p and full screen (it was shortly after this I realised 720p at 60fps gave a better picture)

RawCutTV

Kieran_Burns wrote:

The problem as I see it is that the massive percentage of trouble free and fun cycling is missed out, and the brief few moment of idiocy we face is highlighted.

Unfortunately perception is reality in these cases; and all people would see is that cyclists face incredible danger every time they dare to set foot to pedal.

I can't see that my video of the owl flying alongside of me would make good TV, or the fantastically courteous overtakes I get off the British Gypsum and Hardstaff lorries EVERY day.

What you would want to see are the mistakes - like the EON guy didn't look and almost had a Kieran pate on the side of his van; or illegal driving like the daft tart (TM) on the phone (if only for the shout.... actually I wouldn't mind THAT one being on TV )

The good stuuf doesn't make good viewing, so you'd end up with programs packed with how dangerous cycling is. This would stop parents allowing their children to cycle to school, or people choosing not to cycle for the first time to work.

THAT would make cycling more dangerous. Cycling IS safe and would be safer still if more people actively did it.

Hi Kieran_Burns,

Thank you for your reply. You are right, the 'trouble free and fun cycling is missed out'. If you have anything unusal or examples of road users going out of thier way to be courtious to you or other road users we would love to see them, as this would help balance out a story. To be honest, I don't think my original message was worded the best way and so I apologise to everyone, we would never want to show a one sided story.

The owl flying next to you does sound amazing. We do like unique and or comical stories rather than just 'shock factor' ones, if you were to watch any of our programmes (whether you're a fan or not!!) I think you would be able to see what I mean.

If you are seriously interested in showing us a different side to cycling, I think the simplist way would be to put them up on youtube and send me the link(s) and I would be more than happy to have a look and go from there?

Thanks again for taking the time to reply,

Tom Levin
Raw Cut TV
020 7287 1050

notsoblue

RawCutTV wrote:

It is true that television is a distortion of reality. However as a company, as well as following regulation, we also follow our own ethical guidlines. If any clips were to eventually be used in our programmes we would always try and balance the story, so if a 'shocking' story was shown, we would always balance it with a happier story or a story that shows the other side of the coin. The last thing we would ever want to do is upset anyone that contributes any footage or alienate a group of people as this benefits no one!

I think the problem with this approach is that balancing the shot of for example Magnatom almost being taken out by an articulated lorry with a shot of someone *not* almost getting violently killed only serves to skew the reality of cycling. If 50% of my time on a bike was spent confronting motorists or narrowly avoiding horrific accidents, I wouldn't cycle myself. But thats the impression that is given when the media "balances" the issue.

asprilla

In 10,000 London miles over the last 18 months I've had two minor offs due to pedestrians (probably the biggest cause of cycling incidents) and one where I wasn't paying attention and jammed my wheel in a drain over at low speed.

I've stopped and spoken to two people about their driving and I've maybe used sign language on another20-50 to indicate that they should check their signalling, look for cyclists, give more room or stop dedicating their lives to onanism.

If your footage library manages to correctly reflect the realities of cycling then you, like youtube, are going to have a lot of very boring footage.

RawCutTV

Sketchley wrote:

Hi Tom,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. What kind of footage are you after? Would you like a few hundred hours of safe cycling with no incidents, just normal everyday commuting? If you are willing to pay I'm sure we can arrange that as collectively I'm sure we have quite a lot of it.

I'm sure you are good intentioned but I doubt such footage would make good TV and the bad stuff out of context would not be good for cycling. I for one would not be happy to provide any footage unless I was sure the program it was going into would represent cycling in good light. Just putting it on archive and signing over rights to you to use it as you wish is not something I would sign up to.

Hi Sketchley,

Thank you for your reply. We would be happy to look at anything you suggest. As I've said below, we do aim to always balance a story to give it some context.

If you or anyone is uncomfortable with selling the rights to the footage to us, we would be more than happy to just represent the footage for you. This would mean IF the footage was ever sold on to another company for a programme, and you were not happy or unsure as to how the footage would be used, we would agree not to sell it.

We do like to build a relationship with contributors and so we would do anything that could jeopardise this. If you already have some videos on youtube, I would be more than happy to have a look if you post me the links.

I hope that answers your questions? If you are still unsure of anything please do not hesitate to get in contact.

All the Best,

Tom
Raw Cut TV
020 7287 1050

RawCutTV

notsoblue wrote:

RawCutTV wrote:

It is true that television is a distortion of reality. However as a company, as well as following regulation, we also follow our own ethical guidlines. If any clips were to eventually be used in our programmes we would always try and balance the story, so if a 'shocking' story was shown, we would always balance it with a happier story or a story that shows the other side of the coin. The last thing we would ever want to do is upset anyone that contributes any footage or alienate a group of people as this benefits no one!

I think the problem with this approach is that balancing the shot of for example Magnatom almost being taken out by an articulated lorry with a shot of someone *not* almost getting violently killed only serves to skew the reality of cycling. If 50% of my time on a bike was spent confronting motorists or narrowly avoiding horrific accidents, I wouldn't cycle myself. But thats the impression that is given when the media "balances" the issue.

Hi notsoblue,

I see what you mean. Personally, if I was cutting a story using Headcam footage, to use your example of someone nearly being taken out by an artic, I would use that one example of the bad driving and then a number of shots of drivers giving cyclists plenty of room which would give the impression that someone almost being killed is a rareity. With our programmes we always give stats to balance the arguement.

I must add though that this is currently only for our archive, not a programme. For arguements sake, if you were tought you had some footage we may be interested in but you were not happy with us buying the rights to the footage, we would be more than happy to represent the footage for you. This would mean it would go up on our website (and if you were not happy with how we represented it, it would be taken down and corrected). IF another company wanted to buy it for a programme or we wanted to use it on one of our own and you were unsure or unhappy that it may be misrepresented we would always agree not to sell it or use it!

I hope that helps!

Tom
Raw Cut TV
020 7287 1050

RawCutTV

Hi Everyone,

Just thought I would clarify a few more things with everyone to hopefully help to put you at some ease. I think my original post was not worded in the best way and so I understand why you may be concerned to our intentions, and so I apologise to everyone!

If anyone has any unusual headcam footage that they think we may be interested in, we would love to see it. The footage would only be for our archive not for any of our programmes.

If you have some footage we may be interested in we could either buy the rights to the footage or represent it for you. From reactions so far and the nature of the subject, many of you would be unhappy to sell us the footage as after the sale, you lose the rights to the footage. However the sale is negotiated and contracted, and so any uncertainties you may have as to how the footage would be used would be discussed and agreed before the sale.

If you preferred to just represent the footage for you, this would mean it would go up on our website (and if you were not happy with how we represented it, it would be taken down and corrected). IF another company wanted to buy it for a programme or we wanted to use it on one of our own and you were unsure or unhappy that it may be misrepresented we would always agree not to sell it or use it! As I am sure you have read, we always try to balance a story through stats and by showing more examples of the positives than the negatives.

We always build a relationship with contributors and we already have good working relationships with members of the public who have their own CCTV and send us footage to bigger organisations who we represent.

Thank you all for taking the time to read my posts and for giving me your views.

Tom
Raw Cut TV
020 7287 1050

RawCutTV

Origamist wrote:

A positive, campaigning use of helmet cam film:

http://www.magnatom.net/2011/08/meeting ... tcome.html

Very Interesting read! Thank you!

jonny_trousers

RawCutTV wrote:

IF another company wanted to buy it for a programme or we wanted to use it on one of our own and you were unsure or unhappy that it may be misrepresented we would always agree not to sell it or use it!

That sounds fair enough to me, and who knows, perhaps their are companies out there who would use such clips to create programmes devised to educate motorists in a positive way (yeah, yeah, I know...), rather than them going towards When Cyclists go Splat 17. I don't use a headcam so it is of no consequence to me, but I would advise those who are interested in Tom's offer to go with his representation option as, once you've sold the rights to your clip, for whatever sum, you will have no control over how it is used (or how much money Raw Cut TV then make out of it).

Just out of interest Tom, how much are you paying for clips accepted into the archive?

First.Aspect

If there is any geuine intention to make a non sensationalised programme from cyclists' perspective then can I suggest that you contact an organisation such as the CTC, rather than trying to get hold of a few good clips of crashes?

You explain "balance" in simple terms as showing each side equally. However in some cases this trivial metric gives undue emphasis to one side. Can you honestly say that approximately 75%-90% of incidents you show will be the drivers' fault? No? Would you consider that biased? In fact, that would that be a representation of statistical reality.

What reasearch would you do? Interview a few police officers who will say things about cyclists wearing helmets, some cyclists not knowing the rules and cycling being jolly dangerous just look at that pool of blood over there? Or would you take the time to look at causes of accidents, road design, the attitude of the police, the legal system and so on?

I am sorry to be so downbeat and cynical, but I simply can't see how you can start with a few bits of helmet camera footage and end up with anything terribly sophisticated or informative.

I'm currently about a 1/4 of the way through a very long recovery from an injury caused my a man carelessly operating a very heavy piece of machinery in public. The machine ran completely out of control and could have killed me. Had the machine been a piece of farm equipment, or had the accident occurred on an industrial site, it would have been a very serious matter indeed. The HSE would have been involved and there would have been a court case. Unfortunately, the machine was a car and the punishment is a small fine and some points on a driving license; a slap on the wrist for being a wee bit careless with a 2 tonne, 200hp piece of metal.

People who cycle to work face near misses or worse every day. We are constantly subject to abuse when people are aware of us, or danger if they aren't. The onus is for us to be seen and for us to avoid being hit, not for drivers to look or to steer clear. To some of us, these are exremely serious issues and there is at least the appearance that you are trolling the internet for some good footage of crashes, to make a crashes programme, which would air in the autumn in the same time slot as the buildings falling down programme which runs in the summer.

dhope

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Just out of interest Tom, how much are you paying for clips accepted into the archive?
Will it fund me buying a GoPro HD and weaving in and out of traffic on future commutes?