JoeyBike

It just seemed like the perfect thread to join.

"Cycling with traffic is no more dangerous than walking down a staircase"

OR --->

"Maybe I need a security camera front and rear to partake in the this non-dangerous activity"

The other chickens might want to get their stories straight before sharpening their peckers.

livedarklions

How about bicycling isn't really a very dangerous activity statistically, and even if that isn't true, cameras aren't actually going to make me safer?

I don't mind you joining any thread, that's not the point. My point is that basically you have about four posts you keep posting in threads regardless of subject. Whether you're riding recreationally is irrelevant to this thread, and I have seen versions of that post literally dozens of times in several unrelated threads. At some point, you're spamming.

Maelochs

To me, @JoeyBike is saying, "Russian Roulette is just crazy dangerous ... so I only play a couple times a week. That improves my odds."

Some might sense some logical disconnect there.

Notso_fastLane

Not according to Leisesturm, but you guys should hash that out somewhere else.

livedarklions

So now to complete the thread hijack by turning his argument into a straw man?

His logic is fine--cycling for utility=benefits>risks.
Recreational cycling= risks>benefits

How he or anyone else values those is subjective, so argument about them will not be terribly productive or interesting.

The problem with changing it to Russian Roulette is there aren't any benefits to balance against the risks, so that person is clearly crazy.

Also, just as a probabilistic statement, all other things being equal, the more time you are bicycling the higher the likelihood that something bad (or good) will happen to you while biking.

What does any of this have to do with the thread?

Daniel4

There's basically only two general topics of discussion in all their variations:
1) how one cycles- helmet or no helmet, run red lights and stop signs or obey all signs; salmoning and sidewalk riding; lights, horns, cameras, etc.

2) how motorists drive- their dangers to other road users; bike lanes or no; traffic enforcement.

Item 1) may not make you safer but will increase your survivability ( depending upon one's opinion).

Item 2) how motorists drive will determine how safe bicyclists on the road will be.

And because of this, similar posts can be uploaded repeatedly to the risk of being called a broken record. But being accused of repetition doesn't change one's opinion of a topic especially if it's relevant to the discussion.

livedarklions

Dividing things into two categories that ridiculously general isn't terribly convincing. Why stop there? There are only two topics, bicycles and not bicycles. Anything about bicycles therefore fits in any thread about bicycles. Anything about not bicycles can therefore be put into threads about not bikes.

Over-repetition adds nothing of value to the conversation of any topic, and whether Joey rides through the park on his day off or why is not relevant to this thread.

Daniel4

Regardless, threads usually fall into these two general categories and their variations. So reiterating previous points are relevant and remain of value to the poster if not to those who disagree.

JoeyBike

I used helmet cams for years, daily. In fact, I beta tested VHoldr (Now called Contour) cameras before GoPro was even a thing. I was one of Contour's "Pro" testers and got everything free or extremely reduced in price. In return of course I had to USE them a lot and post reviews, facebook pages, and add them to my old Website which had a lot of traffic. Of course I was trying to increase their sales in return for the goodies. I had a vested interest in increasing the sales of action cams. Yet still, I can't (and never did) sell them based on any safety concerns.

OK...to answer your question: "What does any of this have to do with the thread?"

I pioneered and used action cams for years and they NEVER made me feel safer. In fact, watching re-runs of cars running into each other at traffic lights because the operators were gazing into their phones gave me anxiety about cycling near the fools. On top of this I live in a city where tons of people use bikes to get somewhere and seems like every week, or month, one or more of them are getting hosed on their bikes. Many of the "accidents" were captured on security cameras affixed to buildings or traffic signal poles. I watched those videos as well and those didn't make me feel any better. Sure the footage helped catch the motorists - after the cyclist's backs were broken. Now there are security cameras virtually everywhere. Is anyone SAFER? I don't think so.

The only sure-fired way I felt safer was to bike on "safer" routes (IMO) with little to no traffic, and cut out any cycling that was not absolutely necessary (IMO). As you all know and are tired of reading.

This is why I am on this thread. Cameras may help your next of kin find justice and a little peace perhaps, but they WONT SAVE YOU.

I will take under advisement the fact that many of you got my message (RE: limiting my exposure to motorists) and are sick of me repeating it. I appreciate the feedback.

livedarklions

See, now that post is actually on-topic! It's also really well-stated.

I actually like your posts and enjoy talking and even arguing with you (for the most part). It might not have been my place to step in, but I just got sick of you and @Maelochs having the same tired argument yet again in another thread. I'm probably being a schmuck by judging such things, but I think you both are better than that.

Maelochs

Nothing is quite so helpful as a person who can point out my errors in such a way that i can try to fix them. Thanks, @livedarklions.

dynodonn 

Pretty much mirrors my thoughts as well........I would not have ridden during morning and evening rush hours with Dick and Jane Wolfpack just for recreational purposes. My commutes always remind me of one television program that I watched, whereas a business exec decided to buy and fly a WW2 fighter plane, and with his idea of going out to just fly around aimlessly, without a care and to leave the business world behind, being quickly squashed.

He quickly learned how fast and intense it was to fly the particular fighter plane he bought, and how quickly things can go wrong if a certain level of concentration and mechanical care was not maintained.

livedarklions

My riding is almost entirely recreational so obviously my calculations are completely different from Joey's, but my routing is highly dependent on time of day, and while I haven't actually reduced it to formal logic, it's certainly a calculation of risk and benefit similar in form to the above.

dynodonn 

Though I am now retired, and no longer have to commute during rush hour traffic, recreation bicycling is practically nil in my cycling travels. On occasion, I might go a little longer route back from a certain destination, but my rides are mostly executed with military precision in their strategy, and being as efficient as possible.

What I to happen to miss, were the home/BBQ cooking aromas during some of my evening commutes.

.

JoeyBike

Same here.

I wonder if BBQ scented room deodorizer would sell? Maybe you have that coveted million$$ idea!

rbhamilton

Wow. As a new member this is a real eye opener. Quite an angry bunch if you can get into such a crazy argument over bike cameras. Think I should join a different forum. See ya... never.

Shimagnolo

Just wait until you see the chain-lube threads!

KraneXL

What about instead of running away you use your knowledge and experience to fix what you see is wrong? Afters all, what good is all the knowledge in the world if you don't use it to help others?

JW Fas

Car dash cams don't necessarily change other drivers' behaviors because the cameras aren't conspicuous. For cyclists the camera's positioning may or may not influence motorists. If it's on your handlebars and/or seatpost, don't count on it being seen. If, however, it's on your helmet sticking out like a sore thumb, the chances of it being noticed are much greater. You don't have to be a camera aficionado to know when you see one. People instantly think "GoPro" (kudos to them for commanding the market share).

There isn't an absolute guarantee a camera will show which party was at fault in a collision or altercation, but the chances of it are way higher than having no camera at all. My $300 camera was still cheaper than any insurance deductible I have, and it's paid for itself.

KraneXL

Well its already been proven that cameras affect people's behavior, so we don't need to rehash that question. However, as you say, the camera needs to be conspicuous otherwise they may not notice its there.

Your video does demonstrate however, one of the most annoying negatives of placing the camera on your helmet. The constant glittery movement as you move your head to look in different directions. Also, the camera will only see where your head is pointed. Which might not help much if the incident happens in a different direction making having the camera, useless.

Daniel4

This is no different from any discussion forum or on-line commentary anywhere, including news and youtube.

Lemond1985

LOL, you had that cop dead to rights. I wonder if the thought crossed his mind to just keep going and not say anything? Can you imagine trying to convince ANYONE that really happened the way it did if you had not had your camera running?

"A cop, who was on his cell phone, got distracted while turning and hit you head on??? And you did absolutely nothing wrong? Yeah, right buddy! Dream on. Dude, quit making stuff up."

Maelochs

Wait ... logic check. A conspicuously mounted camera can affect the behavior of drivers ... as is demonstrated by THIS GUY GETTING HIT?

Seems ot me that this video disproves the myth that drivers notice cameras on cyclists ... they don't even notice cyclists.

JW Fas

He was looking down after all. You can't even see asphalt let alone a camera when you're doing that.

KraneXL

I think you need to run a diagnostic on your logic program if that was your conclusion.