It is clear from the sad parade of evidence, that camera use and the reliance on camera data to validate a minority of cyclists ego's that these cameras are a menace! I have no hope (because I don't own one) of a camera proving that it was the motorist at fault. A notable figure in the recumbent cycling community on our West coast and the owner of one of the few recumbent oriented cycle shops had a serious accident with a car that left her grievously injured but alive. She had no camera. She was ruled partially at fault and ordered to pay damages of over $4000.00. That amount pales into insignificance to the cost of her own hospital bills. The cycling community rallied around her and paid all her expenses but she had lasting physical issues from the accident and lost control of her enterprise, and a year or two after the accident she took her own life. I hear that story and my reaction is ... "I need to stay focused and treat all intersections with extreme caution". A camera owner hears that story and thinks "that wouldn't happen to me, my camera would show who really was at fault.
And? Would that take care of the TBI? The internal organ damage? The orthopedic and reconstructive surgery? Maybe the money, but my standards for being made whole are a LOT higher than many peoples. So... 45 ish years in with nothing serious in my accident record. Realistically I've got 5 years of good riding left till I have to go to three wheels and e-assist. In the meantime, if NOT having a camera keeps making me THINK about what I'm doing every minute I'm out there. It's worth it not to have one. Some of the best money I've never spent. FWIW. Serious question, and not at all rhetorical: does anyone else besides me think the motorcyclist in the earlier videos posted could have avoided T-boning that van? I don't know, I think some answers to that question could take this thread in a more productive direction.