Originally Posted by
MattTheHat
I see cameras mentioned all the time. Can someone explain to me how running a camera is going to keep a distracted/drunk/stoned driver from hitting a cyclist? Even a driver who just up and decides to run over a cyclist one day out of pure meanness...do we expect they’re going to check for a camera first?
If the argument is that the camera content is going to be used after the fact to prosecute the driver...do we really think that’s going to help? Security cameras don’t keep convenience stores from getting robbed.
Run a camera if if you like, but to think it offers any protection seems like a false hope to me.
The existence of a camera on your bike (or in a convenience store) doesn't offer direct protection, just as the existence of a police force in your town doesn't offer direct protection. Both are used AFTER an incident has occurred to bring the perpetrator to justice, and in doing so, and making those cases public (via newspaper or TV news) will cause future perpetrators to "think twice" and hopefully not perform the incident in the first place. It's called a "crime deterrent", Google it.