To get a camera or not... that is the question
Comments
-
I'm glad you did, I enjoy your videos. They have a feel good vibe and make me want to go out and do a proper MTB trip.I do have a camera but I rarely use it.0 -
I tried doing this; have variously filmed cyclocross races, road rides in the Alps and skiing. Sadly I don't have the artistic skills to turn it into anything that's actually worth watching. I've seen plenty of other examples that do work, including some excellent ski videos that a friend put together after various trips. Oh well...I bought it mainly to film my MTB adventures but I have used it a few times to record various road rides/commutes but only for entertainment purposes e.g. edit some fun looking bits together to music and share with cycling buddies. Everyone else thinks they are boring (well probably my cycling buddies do too but I don't care).
I'm not sure that it matters if other people find your videos boring. I look upon them as a sort of animated photo album; if they're fun to watch and bring back happy memories, that should be enough. It's just a shame I'm reliant on other people to produce mine!Pannier, 120rpm.0 -
I'm glad you did, I enjoy your videos. They have a feel good vibe and make me want to go out and do a proper MTB trip.I do have a camera but I rarely use it.
cheers again, I know you have commented on this before. Sadly I'm out of action at the moment video wise. I have literally tonnes of footage from my two trips in july, one MTB trip and one TDF trip.
But a) my video editor is playing up - I'm thinking that Adobe have slipped something into a release that messes up admittedly copyrighted music when I use it as a soundtrack, which means that they don't edit properly and:
b) my GoPro has broken. I had it on my handlebars when climbing La Toussuire on that famous day when Nibali and then Quintana attacked and dropped Froomedog. I was at the final corner but when it came to descending we got caught in a massive thunderstorm. Real rivers of rain running down the road and I was soaked through in seconds and shivering in cold. Unfortunately the rain got in my gopro case (I didn't have the waterproof backing on that day) and drowned the electronics.FCN = 40 -
Camera's tend to lure the wearer into a false sense of security - hence their willingness to go all Taxi Driver on everyone.
Wearers can feel like they can get away with antagonising other road users after their infractions because anything the road user will do will be 'caught on camera'.
That's all very well, but for it to be caught on camera, it still has to happen, and in an ideal scenario, it doesn't happen.
A lot of those 'man is angry in car at man on bicycle' videos are basically a camera wearing cyclist goading a driver for some minor road infraction into doing something more serious. That doesn't add any value to society in any way.
Wearing a camera also sends out a bit of a signal to the road users about what your instant reaction is going to be; hostile.
It's a bit like when you see houses in your neighbourhood with CCTV. I know when I see them I think 'uncharitable tossers' ; their default is that the world is out to get them. Most people aren't.0 -
Camera's tend to lure the wearer into a false sense of security - hence their willingness to go all Taxi Driver on everyone.
Wearers can feel like they can get away with antagonising other road users after their infractions because anything the road user will do will be 'caught on camera'.
That's all very well, but for it to be caught on camera, it still has to happen, and in an ideal scenario, it doesn't happen.
A lot of those 'man is angry in car at man on bicycle' videos are basically a camera wearing cyclist goading a driver for some minor road infraction into doing something more serious. That doesn't add any value to society in any way.
Wearing a camera also sends out a bit of a signal to the road users about what your instant reaction is going to be; hostile.
It's a bit like when you see houses in your neighbourhood with CCTV. I know when I see them I think 'uncharitable tossers' ; their default is that the world is out to get them. Most people aren't.
Did you excel at cod psychology studies at school, Rick?0 -
Pretty much. Too many people try to save the World, and end up making it worse.That's right, dangerous drivers should be ignored, or better yet, tacitly encouraged. Do nothing, folks.
Too many people are killed or seriously injured on our roads and the occasional, "messianic" cycle cam adopter is unlikely to make an appreciable difference in reducing (or even less likely, increasing) road danger levels.0 -
Origamist wrote:[url=<span class= wrote:TGOTB[/url]"]
Pretty much. Too many people try to save the World, and end up making it worse.[url=<span class= wrote:Origamist[/url]"]That's right, dangerous drivers should be ignored, or better yet, tacitly encouraged. Do nothing, folks.
Too many people are killed or seriously injured on our roads and the occasional, "messianic" cycle cam adopter is unlikely to make an appreciable difference in reducing (or even less likely, increasing) road danger levels.
So why do it?0 -
Origamist wrote:[url=<span class= wrote:TGOTB[/url]"]
Pretty much. Too many people try to save the World, and end up making it worse.[url=<span class= wrote:Origamist[/url]"]That's right, dangerous drivers should be ignored, or better yet, tacitly encouraged. Do nothing, folks.
Too many people are killed or seriously injured on our roads and the occasional, "messianic" cycle cam adopter is unlikely to make an appreciable difference in reducing (or even less likely, increasing) road danger levels.
So why do it?
You do not have to be a confrontational, likes/views chaser, just because you have a camera, Rick. If you temper your expectations, remain rational, report, complain and compliment where appropriate, you can make a small difference.0 -
You do not have to be a confrontational, likes/views chaser, just because you have a camera, Rick. If you temper your expectations, remain rational, report, complain and compliment where appropriate, you can make a small difference.
Most people don't like having their behaviour commented on (let's face it, the annual review is to be endured), especially not on the road.
Why should anyone care what you think about how they behave, positive or negative? Why do you feel you are in a position to even make those comments?
Even if there is an accident, then your opinion is the least of their worries, and the outcome of the accident much more important.0 -
You do not have to be a confrontational, likes/views chaser, just because you have a camera, Rick. If you temper your expectations, remain rational, report, complain and compliment where appropriate, you can make a small difference.
Most people don't like having their behaviour commented on (let's face it, the annual review is to be endured), especially not on the road.
Why should anyone care what you think about how they behave, positive or negative? Why do you feel you are in a position to even make those comments?
Even if there is an accident, then your opinion is the least of their worries, and the outcome of the accident much more important.
If people endanger me, I don't confront them at the roadside. It's nearly always futile. However, whilst I normally turn the other cheek, in exceptional cases, I don't, and I reserve the right to take the matter further. As unfashionable as it sounds, I consider myself a public spirited citizen, Rick (at least where the roads are concerned).
Whether people care about what I think, is neither here nor there. What matters to people who have driven recklessly around me, is what their employer, the police, the CPS, their insurers or the traffic commissioner choose to do.
If you are involved in a collision and injured, and you are able, you give a statement. If you can corroborate this with camera evidence, the outcome is far more likely to be in your favour, be this from a criminal, civil, or insurance perspective.0 -
You know what else is important? Who pays for the smashed bike and hospital bills. That's what cycling camera is for, and that's what OP is about, since we all know that many perpetrators will not stop and hope to run away without consequences.
All this other talk of nice men turning into beasts ( like entering toilet, or getting behind a car's steering wheel ) does address an existing issue, but its like a side effect to the main issue here.
Edit: OK, fellow above said it first0 -
OK, fair enough. In that case, let's get out the back of an envelope and do some quick calculations.You know what else is important? Who pays for the smashed bike and hospital bills. That's what cycling camera is for, and that's what OP is about, since we all know that many perpetrators will not stop and hope to run away without consequences.
First of all, let's look at the smashed bike scenario. Chances of being in an accident, during the life of the camera, which destroys or seriously damages your bike: Hopefully very low, but let's go with a high estimate of 1 in 100. Chances of them driving off without getting caught, or denying blame and getting away with it: high estimate of maybe 1 in 5. Multiply the two together, and you get a 1 in 500 chance (likely to be much lower in reality) that the camera will assist in getting you compensation. Now multiply by the cost of the camera (let's say £100) and you're going to breaking even in any incident that causes more than £50,000 worth of damage to your bike. If your bike is worth a more realistic £1000, you're only going to break even if there's a 1 in 10 chance of someone else causing an accident that destroys your bike and then denying responsibility, and subsequently getting away with it during the life of the camera (maybe 3 years). That assumes the camera provides enough evidence to identify and locate the perpetrator, and get their insurance to pay up. For equipment damage, the numbers just don't add up.
Now let's take the more serious scenario, where you get badly injured, let's say the accident was the other driver's fault, and you need £1 million of medical treatment over the course of your life. It's highly unlikely that 1 in 5 drivers would get away in this scenario because the police will investigate the accident very thoroughly indeed, but for the purpose of this exercise let's assume the 1 in 5 estimate still applies (let's also ignore the MIB, who compensate victims of uninsured drivers, hit-and-runs etc). For your £100 camera to be worthwhile, there would need to be a 1 in 2000 chance of you being involved in such an accident during the lifetime of the camera, and the camera providing enough evidence to identify and prosecute the perpetrator, where they would otherwise have got away with it. This seems like a ludicrously high probability. Again, the numbers don't add up; if the camera's only there for insurance purposes you're never going to get £100 worth of benefit from it.Pannier, 120rpm.0 -
OK, fair enough. In that case, let's get out the back of an envelope and do some quick calculations.You know what else is important? Who pays for the smashed bike and hospital bills. That's what cycling camera is for, and that's what OP is about, since we all know that many perpetrators will not stop and hope to run away without consequences.
First of all, let's look at the smashed bike scenario. Chances of being in an accident, during the life of the camera, which destroys or seriously damages your bike: Hopefully very low, but let's go with a high estimate of 1 in 100. Chances of them driving off without getting caught, or denying blame and getting away with it: high estimate of maybe 1 in 5. Multiply the two together, and you get a 1 in 500 chance (likely to be much lower in reality) that the camera will assist in getting you compensation. Now multiply by the cost of the camera (let's say £100) and you're going to breaking even in any incident that causes more than £50,000 worth of damage to your bike. If your bike is worth a more realistic £1000, you're only going to break even if there's a 1 in 10 chance of someone else causing an accident that destroys your bike and then denying responsibility, and subsequently getting away with it during the life of the camera (maybe 3 years). That assumes the camera provides enough evidence to identify and locate the perpetrator, and get their insurance to pay up. For equipment damage, the numbers just don't add up.
Now let's take the more serious scenario, where you get badly injured, let's say the accident was the other driver's fault, and you need £1 million of medical treatment over the course of your life. It's highly unlikely that 1 in 5 drivers would get away in this scenario because the police will investigate the accident very thoroughly indeed, but for the purpose of this exercise let's assume the 1 in 5 estimate still applies (let's also ignore the MIB, who compensate victims of uninsured drivers, hit-and-runs etc). For your £100 camera to be worthwhile, there would need to be a 1 in 2000 chance of you being involved in such an accident during the lifetime of the camera, and the camera providing enough evidence to identify and prosecute the perpetrator, where they would otherwise have got away with it. This seems like a ludicrously high probability. Again, the numbers don't add up; if the camera's only there for insurance purposes you're never going to get £100 worth of benefit from it.
You forget to factor the possibility of forgetting to switch the camera on or having it go on the blink at the crucial moment. Since getting an iPhone from work I have been absolutely distraught the couple of times I forgot to swith on the Strava app and lost all proof that i ever went anywhere at all :evil:0 -
-
OK, fair enough. In that case, let's get out the back of an envelope and do some quick calculations.You know what else is important? Who pays for the smashed bike and hospital bills. That's what cycling camera is for, and that's what OP is about, since we all know that many perpetrators will not stop and hope to run away without consequences.
First of all, let's look at the smashed bike scenario. Chances of being in an accident, during the life of the camera, which destroys or seriously damages your bike: Hopefully very low, but let's go with a high estimate of 1 in 100. Chances of them driving off without getting caught, or denying blame and getting away with it: high estimate of maybe 1 in 5. Multiply the two together, and you get a 1 in 500 chance (likely to be much lower in reality) that the camera will assist in getting you compensation. Now multiply by the cost of the camera (let's say £100) and you're going to breaking even in any incident that causes more than £50,000 worth of damage to your bike. If your bike is worth a more realistic £1000, you're only going to break even if there's a 1 in 10 chance of someone else causing an accident that destroys your bike and then denying responsibility, and subsequently getting away with it during the life of the camera (maybe 3 years). That assumes the camera provides enough evidence to identify and locate the perpetrator, and get their insurance to pay up. For equipment damage, the numbers just don't add up.
Now let's take the more serious scenario, where you get badly injured, let's say the accident was the other driver's fault, and you need £1 million of medical treatment over the course of your life. It's highly unlikely that 1 in 5 drivers would get away in this scenario because the police will investigate the accident very thoroughly indeed, but for the purpose of this exercise let's assume the 1 in 5 estimate still applies (let's also ignore the MIB, who compensate victims of uninsured drivers, hit-and-runs etc). For your £100 camera to be worthwhile, there would need to be a 1 in 2000 chance of you being involved in such an accident during the lifetime of the camera, and the camera providing enough evidence to identify and prosecute the perpetrator, where they would otherwise have got away with it. This seems like a ludicrously high probability. Again, the numbers don't add up; if the camera's only there for insurance purposes you're never going to get £100 worth of benefit from it.
These are fair estimates - but given that there are a lot of cyclists around ( and I don't know the number), it's possible that 1 such massive impact accident happens how on average often? every day? Every week? Can we get the statistics? Are they under reported?
The hope is that you catch that 1 that does hit you - in urban areas, if you have other cameras around that are around that the police can get evidence from (not forgetting the "normal" 72 hour CCTV wipe) then your probably less in need of a camera for evidence - as others have said, you can probably get the other CCTV to collaborate who was in the area at the time ( at least to reduce the cars to somewhere between 10 and 50 maybe?)
In rural areas with no cctv with limited traffic, ie 1 or 2 cars every 5 minutes, and what traffic there is normally goes way to fast for the roads, and many possible "exits", I'm not so sure.Intent on Cycling Commuting on a budget, but keep on breaking/crashing/finding nice stuff to buy.
Bike 1 (Broken) - Bike 2(Borked) - Bike 3(broken spokes) - Bike 4( Needs Work) - Bike 5 (in bits) - Bike 6* ...0 -
Bought a helmet gopro, realised I like like a TeleTubby, but persisted and realised I was watching my commute every night looking for tools when I got home. I have come to my senses and will only use it for DH sections now. also i bought a chesty and the angle looks terrible, no idea how people get a good view from those.0
-
Bought a helmet gopro, realised I like like a TeleTubby, but persisted and realised I was watching my commute every night looking for tools when I got home. I have come to my senses and will only use it for DH sections now. also i bought a chesty and the angle looks terrible, no idea how people get a good view from those.
There’s also the consideration that mounting a gro on the helmet potentially makes it more dangerous, in an accident, than not wearing a helmet.You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quin.0 -
TGOTB: a camera is a form of insurance, and like most forms of insurance it isn't there to help with costs that can be paid out of pocket, it's there to help with catastrophes. The likelihood of my house burning down is very small and the insurance policy will likely cost me more than the benefit; however, I still pay for it because if that unlikely event happens then I'm protected.Again, the numbers don't add up; if the camera's only there for insurance purposes you're never going to get £100 worth of benefit from it.
Also, keep in mind that it isn't just the bike that can be damaged - it can be you. My neck was hurt in what was a fairly low-level left-hook; months of therapy were required to get some improvement.
If you've been in court there's a fair chance you'll know the value of CCTV evidence. People expect it and it can completely change the clarity and interpretation of statements. Basically, if something is on camera, people tell the truth about it; if it isn't, there's an enormous incentive to lie and much more difficulty in getting agreement on the truth.
Finally, police like their job to be made easy, just like anyone else. If they have a higher chance of a successful prosecution then they will be happier to try. That means a disincentive for poor driving and forces local authorities to acknowledge that accidents are happening, perhaps leading to improvements that avoid accidents in the future.0 -
Bought a helmet gopro, realised I like like a TeleTubby, but persisted and realised I was watching my commute every night looking for tools when I got home. I have come to my senses and will only use it for DH sections now. also i bought a chesty and the angle looks terrible, no idea how people get a good view from those.
There’s also the consideration that mounting a gro on the helmet potentially makes it more dangerous, in an accident, than not wearing a helmet.
Never got on with mine helmet mounted - although it's light, still enough weight to make the helmet feel wrong.
Chesty takes a bit of setting up, but angle can be good, if a little fish-eyedWaterloo - White City
Cannondale Quick Carbon 1 2016
Cannondale Scalpel Carbon 3 26" (Lefty)
0 -
I mount the camera upside down on my chest mount (and rotate the view in the settings). This way it faces forward nicely with the handlebars at the bottom of the frame.
Also use the camera mounted on handlebars on my commute. Had 1 incident in 6 months where I made a complaint after a company van driver drove straight at me when overtaking cars on his side of the road. Sent the video after they requested it to support the complaint.
Try not to get wound up about the other more minor things that happen as I ride to enjoy the ride. Though the camera has been a bit of a lucky charm as I have had less incidents since having it.0 -
OK, fair enough. In that case, let's get out the back of an envelope and do some quick calculations.You know what else is important? Who pays for the smashed bike and hospital bills. That's what cycling camera is for, and that's what OP is about, since we all know that many perpetrators will not stop and hope to run away without consequences.
First of all, let's look at the smashed bike scenario. Chances of being in an accident, during the life of the camera, which destroys or seriously damages your bike: Hopefully very low, but let's go with a high estimate of 1 in 100. Chances of them driving off without getting caught, or denying blame and getting away with it: high estimate of maybe 1 in 5. Multiply the two together, and you get a 1 in 500 chance (likely to be much lower in reality) that the camera will assist in getting you compensation. Now multiply by the cost of the camera (let's say £100) and you're going to breaking even in any incident that causes more than £50,000 worth of damage to your bike. If your bike is worth a more realistic £1000, you're only going to break even if there's a 1 in 10 chance of someone else causing an accident that destroys your bike and then denying responsibility, and subsequently getting away with it during the life of the camera (maybe 3 years). That assumes the camera provides enough evidence to identify and locate the perpetrator, and get their insurance to pay up. For equipment damage, the numbers just don't add up.
Now let's take the more serious scenario, where you get badly injured, let's say the accident was the other driver's fault, and you need £1 million of medical treatment over the course of your life. It's highly unlikely that 1 in 5 drivers would get away in this scenario because the police will investigate the accident very thoroughly indeed, but for the purpose of this exercise let's assume the 1 in 5 estimate still applies (let's also ignore the MIB, who compensate victims of uninsured drivers, hit-and-runs etc). For your £100 camera to be worthwhile, there would need to be a 1 in 2000 chance of you being involved in such an accident during the lifetime of the camera, and the camera providing enough evidence to identify and prosecute the perpetrator, where they would otherwise have got away with it. This seems like a ludicrously high probability. Again, the numbers don't add up; if the camera's only there for insurance purposes you're never going to get £100 worth of benefit from it.
These are fair estimates - but given that there are a lot of cyclists around ( and I don't know the number), it's possible that 1 such massive impact accident happens how on average often? every day? Every week? Can we get the statistics? Are they under reported?
The hope is that you catch that 1 that does hit you - in urban areas, if you have other cameras around that are around that the police can get evidence from (not forgetting the "normal" 72 hour CCTV wipe) then your probably less in need of a camera for evidence - as others have said, you can probably get the other CCTV to collaborate who was in the area at the time ( at least to reduce the cars to somewhere between 10 and 50 maybe?)
In rural areas with no cctv with limited traffic, ie 1 or 2 cars every 5 minutes, and what traffic there is normally goes way to fast for the roads, and many possible "exits", I'm not so sure.
Those are not fair estimates, thankfully. Incident chances should be orders of magnitude lower than 1 in 500 or it would be impossible to commute. Don't really see what this has to do whether to get camera or not as insurance, either.0 -
Exactly; I chose very high estimates to illustrate the point that, even then, it doesn't make sense to buy a camera as insurance. If the probabilities are an order of magnitude lower, you actually need your bike to be worth half a million before it's worth "protecting" with a camera. If you have a hundred quid, and want to spend it on reducing your chances of being out of pocket in the event of an accident, there are far better ways to spend it.
OK, fair enough. In that case, let's get out the back of an envelope and do some quick calculations.You know what else is important? Who pays for the smashed bike and hospital bills. That's what cycling camera is for, and that's what OP is about, since we all know that many perpetrators will not stop and hope to run away without consequences.
First of all, let's look at the smashed bike scenario. Chances of being in an accident, during the life of the camera, which destroys or seriously damages your bike: Hopefully very low, but let's go with a high estimate of 1 in 100. Chances of them driving off without getting caught, or denying blame and getting away with it: high estimate of maybe 1 in 5. Multiply the two together, and you get a 1 in 500 chance (likely to be much lower in reality) that the camera will assist in getting you compensation. Now multiply by the cost of the camera (let's say £100) and you're going to breaking even in any incident that causes more than £50,000 worth of damage to your bike. If your bike is worth a more realistic £1000, you're only going to break even if there's a 1 in 10 chance of someone else causing an accident that destroys your bike and then denying responsibility, and subsequently getting away with it during the life of the camera (maybe 3 years). That assumes the camera provides enough evidence to identify and locate the perpetrator, and get their insurance to pay up. For equipment damage, the numbers just don't add up.
Now let's take the more serious scenario, where you get badly injured, let's say the accident was the other driver's fault, and you need £1 million of medical treatment over the course of your life. It's highly unlikely that 1 in 5 drivers would get away in this scenario because the police will investigate the accident very thoroughly indeed, but for the purpose of this exercise let's assume the 1 in 5 estimate still applies (let's also ignore the MIB, who compensate victims of uninsured drivers, hit-and-runs etc). For your £100 camera to be worthwhile, there would need to be a 1 in 2000 chance of you being involved in such an accident during the lifetime of the camera, and the camera providing enough evidence to identify and prosecute the perpetrator, where they would otherwise have got away with it. This seems like a ludicrously high probability. Again, the numbers don't add up; if the camera's only there for insurance purposes you're never going to get £100 worth of benefit from it.
These are fair estimates - but given that there are a lot of cyclists around ( and I don't know the number), it's possible that 1 such massive impact accident happens how on average often? every day? Every week? Can we get the statistics? Are they under reported?
The hope is that you catch that 1 that does hit you - in urban areas, if you have other cameras around that are around that the police can get evidence from (not forgetting the "normal" 72 hour CCTV wipe) then your probably less in need of a camera for evidence - as others have said, you can probably get the other CCTV to collaborate who was in the area at the time ( at least to reduce the cars to somewhere between 10 and 50 maybe?)
In rural areas with no cctv with limited traffic, ie 1 or 2 cars every 5 minutes, and what traffic there is normally goes way to fast for the roads, and many possible "exits", I'm not so sure.
Those are not fair estimates, thankfully. Incident chances should be orders of magnitude lower than 1 in 500 or it would be impossible to commute. Don't really see what this has to do whether to get camera or not as insurance, either.
For example, there's a guy in my office who has front- and rear-facing gopros on his helmets, a fluorescent "Polite" jacket, an Airzound, and myriad lights; his handlebars look like the weapon mounts on an Apache helicopter. Despite this, he rides like a complete chopper. In his particular case, rather than spending a couple of hundred quid on cameras he'd have been better off spending half that on Bikeability training. I'm not suggesting everyone needs Bikeability training, but there will almost always be better things to spend the money on than a camera. There are probably personal accident policies out there that will give you better value for money.
Just because something makes you feel safe, doesn't necessarily mean it's actually doing you any good.Pannier, 120rpm.0 -
Thanks for the anecdote, however irrelevant, about a clown from the office. If you insist on making calculations, maybe you should work off yearly total costs covered by a hit and run sufferers vs what they would be paying if they had cameras.
In any case, you are willing to accept higher risk than me when putting yourself out on the road, let's just leave it at that, if you will.0 -
In any case, you are willing to accept higher risk than me when putting yourself out on the road, let's just leave it at that, if you will.
0 -
BUY CAMERAS OR DIE!!!!!!!!!!?!!!!RIP commute...
Sometimes seen bimbling around on a purple Fratello Disc or black and red Aprire Vincenza.0 -
Maybe I'm willing to accept a higher level of risk than you, maybe I'm more risk averse; who knows? However I am fairly confident that I have a better understanding of the level of risk I'm actually accepting :-)In any case, you are willing to accept higher risk than me when putting yourself out on the road, let's just leave it at that, if you will.
You might be surprised to hear that, in London at least, more pedestrians are injured in hit and run incidents than cyclists. Do you think it's a good idea to strap a camera to yourself when you walk down the pavement? Do you get your phone out and start filming, every time you cross the road?Pannier, 120rpm.0 -
Won't leave it, will you? thanks for a chuckle from your condescendage and irrelevant facts. At that, did it occur to you, that amount of pedestrians could, possibly, be ever so slightly bigger than that of cyclists?
I want camera so i don't end up paying thousands for smashed bike and medical bills; if such an event does not occur - all the better. Also, please, don't assume about 'feeling' it gives me when out on the road. If you cannot stay objective and keep your wits about as soon as you click 'Record', that is your problem.0 -
No, no, no. Cameras won't stop you dying to death. It's crash helmets that do that.BUY CAMERAS OR DIE!!!!!!!!!!?!!!!0 -
No, no, no. Cameras won't stop you dying to death. It's crash helmets that do that.BUY CAMERAS OR DIE!!!!!!!!!!?!!!!
How's about a helmet made of cameras???RIP commute...
Sometimes seen bimbling around on a purple Fratello Disc or black and red Aprire Vincenza.0 -
No, no, no. Cameras won't stop you dying to death. It's crash helmets that do that.BUY CAMERAS OR DIE!!!!!!!!!!?!!!!
How's about a helmet made of cameras???
Utterly useless unless painted high viz yellow.0
