dynodonn 

Personally, I can only hope that I helped another cyclist's commute by being able to better report certain motorists' actions in video recording my bike rides, and in looking at some videos that were posted, has been encouraging to me.

Daniel4

If a ride was without incidence, one can always post the camera recording on youtube to promote your city.

JenJ

I guess I need another gear for bike riding, or I just stick with the trails.

Notso_fastLane

I wish I could just stick with trails, but I commute to work on my bike most days, and that is just impossible to do without sharing the road in a lot of places.

Also, I've had some incidences on trails with pedestrians that were close calls, that if they had gone just a little differently, I would have been glad I had the camera going.

dynodonn 

If you feel that your bicycle commute or road riding doesn't warrant installing cameras on your bike, save your money.

Maelochs

yes, i was also quite impressed. Bravo, @Leisesturm! An excellent addition to the thread.

Maelochs

Are you biased against people with peanut allergies? What are They supposed to do??

dynodonn 

Cameras are not and end all to all end all in bicycle/auto collisions, they just another "option" for a cyclist to use, such as a helmet, mirror, bright outerwear.....again, my choice in opting for bicycle mounted cameras was to gather better info on certain motorists' actions during my commutes. Before cameras, 0 reported motorists, after cameras, 2 to 3 motorists reported annually, plus my harassment at stop signs and stoplights dropped dramatically.

Maelochs

There is no room in this thread for fact or reason. get with the program.

I bet you have peanut allergies, and this is your revenge.

livedarklions

Really, this is going to come down to personal choice, and everyone is going to have to balance their own considerations.

Myself, I don't see any appreciable likelihood that they'd enhance my safety or anyone else's enough to outweigh the costs and inconvenience, as well as the distractions of maintaining them while riding. I'm carrying enough junk on my typical 100 mile ride that I really don't want to add anything else.

Lemond1985

I said most of the same type of stuff about girls, prior to hitting puberty. Don't knock until you've tried it. And don't complain about something that nobody is forcing you to do. Don't like cameras? Here's a thought ... DON'T BUY ONE.

livedarklions

I'm finding that comparison a little disturbing. What exactly are you doing with those cameras? Do you have to buy them dinner?

Leisesturm

I guessed you missed the implied intent of the o.p. to have every able bodied cyclist toting a camera around for the good of us all. Isn't there some kind of 'mass immunity' campaign working through these forums urging us all to camera up and get aggressive motorists off the roads? Yes, I believer there is and no, I don't believe the current opt out indifference will persist without active resistance from those of us who cycle without paranoia. Today its helmets, tomorrow its flashing lights, the next day its bells or horns, next thing you know not having a camera on top of your helmet can result in a summons for $300.

wphamilton

Weird question, but to answer you straight: I am asking about incidents involving traffic citations, insurance assessments or court cases.

The "incidents that did not happen" are confrontations with motorists, close passes that wouldn't bother me, reporting drivers for minor infractions, and so on. I don't really care about those, because my own behavior and perspective renders them irrelevant to my experience. Insurance liability or payouts and traffic citations, on the other hand, are tangible, measurable, and may have a significant likelihood.

I-Like-To-Bike

B-b-but those kind of minor incidents do not seem minor and very much bother the "advocates" who purvey paranoia when hawking the use of video cameras as an effective risk reduction tool.

randallr

Did the front camera change any of your habits? I can see some discovery happening from the rear cam - hadn't thought of that as an argument for buying one. Thanks!

dynodonn 

I originally was going to just use a rear camera, but in a short matter of time, I realized that not all motorists have front license plates. The harassment drop at stoplights and stop signs was a complete surprise, but a welcome benefit.

dragoonO1

I have used video footage from my camera(s) once for insurance purposes(established the other driver was 100% at fault, along with the police report), and once for establishing my version of events in a hit-and-run, as well as evidence of a crime, all in the same event. I filed an insurance claim with my own auto insurance. Since neither the vehicle nor the suspect has ever been identified, no citation or indictment is possible, if I understand correctly. I consider it extremely unlikely the bloke will confess voluntarily.

I have used it twice for reporting a traffic complaint to the local police departments. Both complaints resulted in LEO notifying the drivers they'd been filmed violating traffic regulations and endangering the safety of a vulnerable road user(me). Both were for "close passes," where a parallel vehicle swerved into the bike lane I was riding in, necessitating me to swerve sharply out of the path of imminent collision.

I'm not going to urge other people to use a camera, but I suppose I would advocate for my right to use one(or several) in public.

livedarklions

I don't want them, but I absolutely would advocate for your right to do so. Is that being challenged by anyone? Serious question, not being sarcastic. I've just never heard anyone claim cyclists don't have that right.

I live in NH, I think an audio recording might be more problematic legally.

Maelochs

People in public have no expectation of privacy. Still or moving image captures are allowed (depending on the the image and the use made of the image---make a thousand bucks with a head-shot of some person, that might get legal action.) Audio recording laws vary form state to state.

livedarklions

Which is why I mentioned NH. Generally, security cams here record image but not audio.

dragoonO1

Some states and a few municipalities have tried to prohibit public recording of police and/or other law enforcement actions.* During the Standing Rock/Dakota Access Pipeline protests, several of the protesters and members of the (independent) media were (unlawfully) interrupted from filming, as an example. I don't want to steer into politics discussion, so let's not make this about the DAPL, please. Examples are linked below, where the rights of the public to record in public have been recently challenged and (mostly) upheld in the courts. As I am a USA resident and citizen, I can't speak to laws in other countries where forum members may reside.

I live in Oregon, which is a single party "wiretapping" or audio recording state, meaning it's explicitly allowed to record any conversation that a person may be a party to without notifying anyone else in the conversation of the recording in progress. As mentioned above, public video and audio recording isn't prohibited, because there is no expectation of privacy in public, and that has been settled in the courts if I'm not mistaken. I don't know what the laws for automated audio recording are in Oregon, but I know that automated video recording is allowed and is in use in many places.

* https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-spe...raphing-police
* https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-spe...raphers-rights - Video recording is essentially photography, but many photographs are recorded every second, and played back in sequence.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...?noredirect=on
* https://krcgtv.com/news/local/eighth...ials-in-public
* https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...g-them/391610/
* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...police/533031/

These are relevant results from a targeted google search. Because I use my cameras as evidence collection devices in matters that may require police action or intervention, I try to monitor the legal environment surrounding that activity, namely filming in public, and filming police in public, since they are likely to respond in a crash.

Maelochs

As far as I know it is legal to film public officials in the course of their jobs so long as you do not interfere. I have seen quite a few cases mentioned, but cannot vouch for the legality in every state. of course, you might want to have a second person filming surreptitiously in case a LEO decides that "interfering" includes standing across the street filming. Also, it is not recommended that one point anything at police in a manner which might be deemed threatening ... even a cell phone. The suggestion is the keep the camera or phone in front of the body between chest and navel and not extended.

I have had LEOs object to me taking photos at events ... best thing to do is decide whether you want all your gear smashed and to go to jail or not. if you have a lot of financial and legal backing, do whatever. if you figure it would be better to keep covering the event from a different location, do that. But in an accident situation, i cannot imagine a LEO would object, unless the LEO was grossly at fault (like that trooper that hit a cyclist at a "T" intersection, and was videoed.) If i were questioning whether I might lose my cameras, I would take the ticket and bring the video evidence to court. otherwise, I would certainly inform the officers at the scene that I had the incident on video.

All that is hypothetical. I simply don't go around places where bad things happen.

randallr

Very interesting. I've looked at the Fly6 camera, but I hang my rear light on a leather strap on a Sackville cloth sack (rather than a solid, hard mount) and doubt the image would be steady enough. But I'll keep your comments in mind if I can figure out a way around my mounting issue.

CB HI

Federal courts and even some that have made it to the Supreme Court have ruled it is fully legal to video and audio record in public. Many of the case laws come from states arresting people on wire tapping charges for video recording police, in particular Illinois that got slapped down for the arrest and had to pay out on a law suit to citizens that recorded police. There is some case law that implies 10 feet is a sufficient distance from police as to not interfere with them; cops risk problems for themselves if they demand you move farther away. Case law says that photography by a citizen, in and of itself cannot be deemed suspicious activity, so cops cannot legally detain a citizen for simply videoing in public, and it is a constitutional violation for police to order a citizen to delete a public recording, to take the camera and delete the recording, or to confiscate without a warrant the camera on the claimed grounds that the video contains evidence of a crime (this last one is only somewhat settled law, but gets cops in trouble most of the time). Government public areas include streets, sidewalks, easements, parks, open land, parking lots, building lobbies and other building areas, etc. that citizens are generally allowed to be. Government buildings/land includes private property leased by the government. If you are on public property, one can video anything they can see with their eyes, which includes private property, things that can be seen through building windows, vehicle windows, open doors, etc. The court ruled, 'the eyes cannot be trespassed'.

There is no expectation by any person of privacy when out in public. This means cops, public officials, ordinary citizens, illegals, kids, injured people, etc. may be recorded when they are out in public (restrooms are not 'out in public' and up skirts is not part of being out in public, running around naked in public is 'out in public'). Cops and EMTs like to claim that injured people in public cannot be recorded because of HIPPA laws, which is false because HIPPA only applies to medical professionals.

Cops also like to try to trespass citizens from public property who are recording. Cops that do this are violating the law unless the citizen broke a law while on the property, and simply recording is not a violation of any law unless you use a recording to commit identity theft.

Public security check points may be recorded. That includes the TSA doing their work. The one provision is that if you go into a TSA area that you are not allowed to be in, recording their computer X-ray screens will get you in trouble. Border patrol internal check points may be recorded. Border and Customs entry points can cause you some problems because they are allowed to take and inspect your electronics of any type (and they sometimes take and inspect them for weeks).

The most contentious location to record right now is a court house. More case law and law suits need to come down on this. Judges, Sheriffs, US Marshals and hired security believe that citizens may be prohibited from recording anything inside or outside a court house building. Eventually case law will likely come down to citizens may not record from inside rooms they are not allowed in general as public access, i.e. chambers, private offices, jury rooms, prisoner holding areas, etc. Judges can decide if recording is allowed or not in their court room. Other areas open to the public such as lobbies, hallways, public waiting areas, concession areas, security line check points, etc. and all areas outside the building (less secured fenced parking and prison access not visible from a public accessible area) will be determined to be open to recording.