Maelochs

Seems these camera threads could become the new "helmet thread." Then we can get into helmet-mounted cameras ......

I-Like-To-Bike

Makes sense, both discussions seem to attract proselytizers for a product who wax rhapsodical about an exaggerated/mystical/imaginary/conjured capability to protect them when they ride a bicycle.

dynodonn 

I've never taken it to court, but I used my footage in giving LEO's better information in reporting certain motorists' actions.

Though my reports may get filed away, they may be useful in some other future incident.


An incident from 10 years ago, still sticks in my mind.........

Doctor sentenced to 5 years in prison for assaulting bicyclists in Brentwood


"Prosecutors said Thompson had a history of run-ins with bike riders, including a similar episode four months before the crash when two cyclists told police that the doctor tried to run them off the road and braked suddenly in front of them. Neither of the riders was injured."

https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...sentenced.html

mcours2006

Once, since I started using a camera. I hope I'll never have to use it again, obviously. It's like insurance--good to have, but pray you never need it.

Daniel4

Reminds me of what a Toronto city councillor once said about bike racks in front of buses. He's hardly ever seen it being used so therefore it's waste of money.

You can say the same thing about barrier-free access doors, sidewalks in the suburbs or the spare tire in the trunk of your car.

Vancouver planner Brent Toderian is fond of saying, you cannot justify a bridge by counting the number of people who currently swim across the river.



​​​​​​

CB HI

Although I have not shown video to police, several others have and shown it to be worth while. As to insurance, Hawaii is a no fault state, and the motorist's insurance is required to cover the medical cost of the pedestrians or cyclist that the motorist collides with even if it was not the motorist fault. The property damage side is really too small to go to court over and they do not want their customer pulled into small claims court, so the insurance has covered that cost to me. I have never been at fault in a collision with a motorist.

Since someone mentions helmets, how many wear helmets for that one very rare time? And to Maelochs, camera wearers are not trying to force others to wear them or claim you will die without one, we have simply said that we find them helpful.

The other point of having a camera is to keep things from escalating. Most of my problems with drivers have been while commuting during rush hour. So if you do not commute, you get to pick when you ride and have more freedom of what roads you ride, which removes most of the driver problems for cyclist. But during rush hour commutes, I have had drivers tailgate and honk, force me off the road (mostly CDL truckers and cabbies) and a few idiots that got out of their cars and threatened to fight. Before the camera, too many of these drivers where repeat customers, especially in Hawaii, where the number of OK commute roads is very limited. Since the camera, these drivers only try it once.

There are four things that have resolved my motorist problems to a very few and only once per motorist:
1. In 1998, the very few insurers of trucking/bus companies here got tired of cyclist complaints on the CDL drivers and cyclist getting paid out under no fault. The insurance companies told the drivers union they would pull out of Hawaii if the union did not solve the problem. It only took one week for the problem to get solved and stay solved for 15 years. Since 2013, there have been a few new or import drivers that have needed a lesson.
2. Having a wrist mounted camera and eye glass mirror. Seeing a tailgater or someone setting up too close a pass, and I move my arm out to make it very clear they are being recorded. They back off and generally give me an extra 5 feet during the pass. In 2013, a cement truck driver intentionally forced me off the road. At the next red light, I moved ahead of him and pointed to the camera. He then safely passed me, pulled off the road and as I came by, he profusely apologized. Clearly he had been reported before and he knew a report with video would get him fired. I did not report him because it was better having a driver that had learned his lesson than a replacement that might need a teaching.
3. I carry a mace gun. For the motorist that want to get out and fight, and think little of the camera, putting a hand over the mace gun on the front strap of the camelbak and saying "Do you really want to get it on" gets them running away. That has been required 4 times in the last eight years. Before that, I had to use my hands/fist in self defense three times and twice I pointed my bicycle at them making it clear I was will to run into them if they kept approaching. These confrontations happened with 4 Hawaii drivers, two Washington DC drivers and a Minnesota driver on vacation in CO.
4. I am now retired and chose the time I ride (not rush hour) and more freedom of roads. Full choice of roads for recreational/fitness rides and some choice for committing to the gym.

Having a camera and mace gun on hand is far more useful than a helmet. But the helmet is useful for the front facing camera and I cannot get on the military bases without the helmet.

If you want to use a helmet or not, I could care less.
If you want to use a camera/mace gun or not, I could care less. I am simply stating why I find a camera and mace gun useful.

KraneXL

If that's what you think then you don't get it. Although you get to reap the benefits nonetheless.

mcours2006

I use lights on my bike, therefore I'm a light zealot. I use a camera so I'm a camera zealot. I ride with a helmet so I'm a helmet zealot as well. I sometimes take the lane on a narrow lane so I'm a VC zealot. It's amazing how some folks around here are so eager to label people zealots because we make a statement that something is helpful to us and might be useful to others.

dynodonn 

After I retired this is now my plan as well.

Maelochs

Yup ... strong candidate for the new "helmet thread" topic.

wphamilton

All I did was ask if it's useful. Like anything else, if there's little likelihood of seeing a real benefit, it's not worth the trouble. If it's been helpful - in actually proving one side of an incident to insurance, or to a law enforcement officer or to a court - then maybe it's worthwhile.

Maelochs

I have Zero interest in who uses cameras. personal choice. Might be useful, might not. Might be fun to take pics of rides. My only interest is seeing people fight over nothing, inventing things about nothing out of nothing and fighting over those non-things .... We could get 20 pages of this nonsense.

Shimagnolo

About 15 years ago, as I was leaving a gas station, I was sideswiped (in my car) by an idiot kid (driving a truck) who was trying to pass me on the right to get out of the gas station before me. Cop arrived, listened to the kids bull**** story that I t-boned him, and gave me a ticket for careless driving! I hired an attorney, and finally got the ticket plea-bargained down to a non-moving violation. All told, it cost me ~$2000.
And that is why now whenever I'm driving, motorcycling, or cycling, I always have a camera.

And for an example of traffic accident with a camera:
Helmet camera: Rear camera (under tail rack):
- Helmet is missing audio because impact unseated microSD card and corrupted file. I found a program that recovered the video, but lost the audio.
- The voice you hear on the rear video is the truck driver.
- The reason I'm rolling around moaning is because the impact drove my crotch into the bikes fuel tank so hard that it bent the tanks mounting brackets.
- Upon seeing the video a couple days later, the cop was really PO'd at the truck driver who had written a signed statement, swearing he had stopped at the stop sign.

KraneXL

The usefulness of cameras has not only been proven, but they've revolutionized the way we live our lives. That much should be incontrovertible to anyone open to reason.

Maelochs

Wow ... you can sure be wrong boldly.

wphamilton

Reasoning from a general claim that cameras are useful, and concluding that a bike camera is useful, is a logical fallacy, not incontrovertible reasoning.

Leisesturm

Thank you for illustrating yet again why it is far better to not have a camera and ride like it than to have a camera and ride like it. Seriously. WTF? I would have been on the brakes the nanosecond the vans front bumper cleared the sidewalk on his side. I avoid accidents like that two or three times a month! In my city the cops are NOT coming out to take a report after an accident in which no one was killed and in most jurisdictions when YOU hit something, no matter what they did or didn't do, when YOU hit them. YOU are at fault. Period. Don't hit stuff. As for the second video ... I can just picture the puzzled looks from the jury. You want us to take money from this guy and give it to you based on that?? Better that you not have any video at all if that's the best you can do. Where is the front camera view. The one that shows you riding defensively? I'm starting to get upset now because accidents are no joke. They are a BIG DEAL. Accidents are nothing anyone wants or needs to see! They are a lesson to be learned only by the people that were involved. If viewed properly they can be teachable moments, even if you were not at fault! But, of course, that is not how they are viewed. They are viewed as validation. They serve to reinforce and entitled view of vehicle operation. Dangerous. I'll ask the (rhetorical) question again: what percent of the 813 cyclists killed last year ... how many of the cyclists killed last year also had an earlier non-fatal collision that did not serve as education for increased defensiveness when around multi-ton road vehicles? It matters because the number is not zero.

KraneXL

Please reread my post again.

Maelochs

See what I mean? This could go on endlessly.

jon c. 

Might have revolutionized your life. Hasn't had any significant impact on mine.

Maelochs

Even if one accepted @KraneXL's rather exaggerated statement, it still in no way applies to bicycles. Shoot, bicycles have revolutionized the way some of us live. I don't mount one on my bike when I ride.

Checkout price scanners, I would say, affect more people directly each day that cameras ... and again, I don't mount one on my bike.

If we want to carry it further .... Looking back 200 years a Hugwe amount of technology has been developed which has "revolutionized" life. Cheap artificial light has done more to change life than cameras And check-out scanners---it used to be expensive to get up too far before dawn or to stay up much after dusk. Almost half the world was entirely dark half the time. That is what I would calla "revolutionary' alteration.

Home appliances .... the cotton gin .... motorized farm vehicles and motor transport ... all that stuff "revolutionized" life.

Most people use cameras to take selfies ... not exactly revolutionary.

dynodonn 

Bike mounted video cameras are now an integral part of my bike riding, just like a helmet, and bright colored/reflective outerwear, and mirror, as they say "your mileage may vary". My "aha" camera moment finally came when I was being repeatedly harassed by a certain motorist in a period of a mile on my commute.
When the harassing motorist decided to fuel up at a gas station further down the road, the act of my pulling in behind them, and to write down their license number caused such a considerable commotion, that I decided that cameras were a much easier and less stressful measure in getting information on motorist harassment .

wphamilton

Why? Do I appear to miss something?

Reason requires inquiry, collecting the observed facts, and then evaluating those facts. You present one premise: that cameras have revolutionized our lives. Accepting that as true (even though it is arguably not), it does not follow that a bike camera also revolutionizes our lives, or is even useful. The argument from the general statement to a specific conclusion is a classic logical fallacy.

Daniel4

It's getting as heated as the interpretation of the American 2nd Amendment.

Even though the OP was advocating bike cameras, I don't think he's advocating legislation to have bike cameras as a mandatory requirement.

But it would seem odd if we find a person arguing for the right to own something under the 2nd amendment but strongly arguing against cameras.

Maelochs

I am not sure anyone is arguing against cameras. I made a joke about a camera conspiracy, @I-Like-To-Bike expanded upon it (not sure how serious he was) and now ... yeeee-ha! I just like seeing people warp logic and meaning to try to win a debate which isn't even happening ...