Originally Posted by
genec
The "stacked against cyclists" aspect presented earlier largely stems from the "burden of proof" aspect and the fact that cyclists may not be in condition to offer on site testimony.
...
Just as cyclists are seen as "protecting" one another, the same holds true for motorists.
The "burden of proof" "aspect" is a core part of our legal system. Yes, even when it comes to cyclists, I would rather risk guilty people go free than innocent folks imprisoned. You are making the accusation against the motorist, you must prove your case. Cameras may well be the best way to make that happen, because as I mentioned before witnesses are horribly unreliable before you even get to impartiality. In any case where it becomes he-said/she-said (or whatever variation thereof), court cases often end up in no convictions, simply because of the difficulty of accomplishing that burden of proof. It is not a stacked deck against cyclists, it is a stacked deck against the generic accuser, for good historical reason.
It is not cyclists stick up for cyclists, and motorists stick up for motorists, it is that anyone I am riding with likely are my family and friends. People you are well known to in some manner to generally cannot act as an impartial witness, just like my friends sitting in my backseat are not impartial witnesses if I crash in a car.