Leisesturm

Ok, what's your take then, cause I'm hanged if I can find any fault with his ...

KraneXL

Connect the dots. Remember, those "What's this passage about"tests in school? Sometimes I highlight, sometimes I don't. Just read the first paragraph of the quoted passage then read mine. My second paragraph is a completely separate point.

Also, you should keep in mind that sometimes a quote is not a counterpoint or a disagreement. Rather, a reference to a particular subject. The good news is that you asked for clarification (which I am happy to provide), so at least your inquiry shows somebody was paying attention in school after all.

Leisesturm

I don't know what state those videos were taken in but the part of town the first one is showing looks fairly suburban. I would be FRAPPING my heart out. In any case, I would not be too surprised, if after holding the lane for at least a minute with no traffic ahead of me, if someone pulled up to give me @$## about it. What purpose does that video serve? None that I can see. Delete it. Take it as a lesson learned, or not. But its presence as some kind of validation or lesson for the rest of us? I disagree. The second video ... wow ... but ... I don't know ... is this an unfamiliar route for the poster? IMO it isn't that the cop was looking at his phone! I wouldn't be able to see that in any case. It's that he was driving like an @$$ that is the issue. That could have been foreseen. I never plant myself front and center at intersections to be picked off by drivers that cut the corner too tight, because they all do that when there is no car there to force them to take a more logical line through the turn. Trust me, cell phone or no cell phone, that cop would not have hit an SUV in the same spot. I would rather be alive (and whole) than have a video show how innocent I was of any wrongdoing when I was hard done to by some careless nitwit. People, you have MUCH more control over the outcomes of your various incidents that you upload to YouTube on an almost weekly basis. You really do.

Leisesturm

The offered 'clarification' is missing from your last post, so try again, the snark and obtuse psychobabble does not enlighten or impress me. You claimed "Well its already been proven that cameras affect people's behavior, so we don't need to rehash that question". Yet it is clear from both those videos that the presence of a $300, highly visible GoProŽ on the riders helmet did not keep them safe from negative motorist attention or inattention! Another poster observes this and you obviously disagree. Why? It's not that hard of a question.

KraneXL

I've impressed all the significant people I need to. No one left on Earth that important to me.Vaccines prevent disease. But does that mean that every single person that gets vaccinated can't still get sick? Think about it.

wphamilton

You wandered into the section (Advocacy & Safety) which apparently serves to attract the most argumentative and opinionated forum members. It is useful for the forum in general, in that their antics are mostly concentrated in this subforum and not inflicted elsewhere. Just ignore A&S, and anything about helmets or VC.

mcours2006

You see angry. I see passionate.

And yeah, you should definitely join a different forum if you find this offensive.

KraneXL

A forum within a forum? There are dozen of forums and endless topics. If you don't like one, move on to another. Or better yet, create one (a "be nice" thread?) of your own.

Thing is, I've been on forums that would delete any post that doesn't include pretty please with ice cream on top. Being in a forum like that would be so artificial as to be a waste of time. Still, some folks are very thin-skinned and can't take any sort of criticism even when its constructive.

BTW, I quoted your post not to take anything away, but because you made a counterpoint, and my post is merely a continuance to that end.

downhillmaster

I always chuckle when I pass an amateur videographer pedaling along in his spandex jumpsuit out looking for street justice.
Must be tough coping after you have to turn in your hall monitor armband

JoeyBike

Maybe I am mentally slow but I find just navigating traffic takes about 105% of my concentration on a bicycle. If I were looking for ANYTHING ELSE my senses would only be diminished making it more likely that I miss something important and CREATE an incident of concern that could have been avoided had I been paying strict attention to the matter at hand: survival.

JW Fas

Yeah, we're all just our own version of Batman or Ra's Al Ghul trying to dish out real world vigilantism.

Or maybe...just maybe...we use cameras because cyclists have historically been treated as second-class citizens by the courts, and hard video evidence is the only way we're taken seriously when something bad happens. Of course, this Occam's Razor approach is patently nonsense, and the former suggestion is clearly the most logical solution.

Between proving the existence of government chem trails and demonstrating Earth is flat, I don't know how you found time to craft this Nobel-worthy theory.

Shimagnolo

Riiiighhtttt.
And every driver with a dashcam is totally focused on "looking for street justice" every time he drives.
Or maybe, he doesn't even think about the camera, until the rare situation occurs where he needs the evidence it provides.

KraneXL

Amen.

For the first time in history they get a real-world view of just what its like to be in the cyclist shoes when they're caught in those potentially dangerous situations. Thanks to video, we can provide hard evidence to substantiate our complaints.

downhillmaster

hard video evidence
Do you wear your armband under or over your jersey?

Leisesturm

There is a subtle difference between a driver running a dashcam to (try and) prove that they didn't do anything wrong in a collision, and that of a cyclist running a helmet cam to try and prove that a driver did do something wrong. Cyclists completely miss the irony in strapping on a camera when 50% of accidents are the cyclists fault. I don't know a cyclist who believes that cyclists CAN do any wrong. Its the texting, distracted, moron driver who WILL run them down and they are going to get evidence of that. Maybe. Most videos I see just show a clueless cyclist barreling into a situation I would easily have avoided. I have yet to see a license plate I could discern or anything remotely useful in ANY of the videos I have seen. I'll say it again, an objective, corroborated, 3rd party verbal and/or video account(s) of a collision is the minimum any sane defense attorney would allow to be used in any serious litigation. I would fire any attorney who allowed some cyclists fuzzy tumblings on a $120.00 go pro knock-off to raise my insurance premiums 30%. Ride smarter, it will be the best money never spent.

Maelochs

This is a point. I don't figure a lot of drivers are going to back into me, and I don't figure I am going to let them hit me if I can see them coming. And most states don't demand front license plates, so even a rear-facing camera might not solidly identify the offending driver. I figure most of the time riders get hit from the sides or back by a car traveling faster than the rider and if it is any kind of significant hit the bike goes who knows where ... so the odds of getting a clear rear license plate capture are a little long.

Not in any way to discourage those who feel better using cameras .... or helmets, or kneepads, or religious icons, or whatever. if what you bring helps you enjoy your ride, go for it.

logical

Why the twisting of words? Why is it a driver is proving that he did nothing wrong but the cyclist is proving the driver did something wrong? Why cant the cyclist be proving he did nothing wrong as well?

I guess you have never seen any video that proved anything? I mean that video above where the cop drives head into a stationary cyclist while on his phone didnt show a damn thing I guess. Chances are if that guy didnt have the video the cop is never going to give himself up and say he was on his phone. Who do you think they were going to believe? A cop or random cyclist? The cop got caught red handed and hopefully whoever took that video got everything he could out of that. A new bike, some time off, the cop suspended, and some extra cash for his troubles of getting hit. Its funny you say ride smarter like thats going to prevent every situation... thats just not feasible. In that video above theres nothing he could have done more to protect himself. He stopped looked left and right multiple times and even waited EXTRA long to make a turn and still got rocked by a cop. Tell me how you would have avoided that situation? You better not say something like "I wouldnt be on that street" because no matter where you ride theres going to be a stop sign somewhere.

As for the quality of a cheap $120 GoPro. As long as you can discern whats happening in the video thats more than enough. Plenty of people have been put away from fuzzy 2fps CCTV video where you can barely make out anything. A $120 GoPro will be more than good enough to have clear evidence to show what has happened in a situation.

The only real legit complaint for a cyclist not having a camera(if it can be considered legit) is that it looks insanely stupid. A camera mounted on a helmet just looks downright goofy. Its pretty much accepted in mountain biking but some some reason its just bad look for a road cyclist. I agree a helmet mounted camera looks aesthetically bad.

Three years ago I was hit by a car who was making a left hand turn and in trying to beat some traffic hit me while turning. Luckily it was at a super busy intersection and there were at least 5-6 peds and a bunch of other people who saw the incident to confirm that I was not at fault. But if it was my word vs the other guys word Im not so sure I would have been able to get insurance to pay for all the expenses because of it. These days most people just assume its the cyclists fault. It would have been nice to have a camera to show the situation just in case no one was there to corroborate my side of the story.

I recently picked up a camera to mount on my helmet but it wasnt for the purpose of capturing other people, but more to show off some of the nice places to ride. Since I do have the camera it now doubles as some protection as well. I dont even use it on every ride though.

I just dont understand the negative attitude for people who ride around with cameras in this thread. If you have the ability to protect yourself whats the problem?

Sometimes a license plate isnt needed. Only something to corroborate the story of what happened. Other people on hand might have seen the license plate.

Also, the type of camera being used matters as well. I have been using a 360 camera and everything all around me is captured. No matter which direction I am hit from there is going to be some evidence of your license plate, car, or whatever.

JW Fas

You made the original claim, which was called out as absurd. Now you're doubling down and can't even defend your own argument. Intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

KraneXL

Says who? And what about skydivers? hang-gliders? Ice and water skiers? And a dozen other action sports?

Cameras have been used on helmets (all type of helmets for all types of sports) for as long as they've gotten small enough to be mounted there. Although some are a lot more inconspicuous than others they've become pretty common place and accepted.

After all, its no like you have a camcorder mounted on your head. BTW, ever hear of the GoPro Session? Anyway, other than that minor disagreement, the rest of what you claims is spot on, and I could not agree more.

downhillmaster

Called out as absurd?
In A&S?
That’s just too funny.
You keep strapping on your cameras to ride your bike.
The streets need more Nightcrawlers out there gathering ‘hard evidence’

Leisesturm

I'll take the other poster on in a separate post but this right here is priceless. I happen to agree with their take on this point and disagree with everything else. Exactly the inverse of your position. And? Nothing. But ... I don't know ... a skydiver at 10,000 feet ... recently (very) at 14,000 feet ... if they had a fuzzy cat ears on their helmet, with a GoPro on top of that, who would notice? ... 10,000 feet straight up, traveling at or near terminal velocity ... insanely stupid looking has a different ... gestalt, than the ... spectacle, of someone with the same getup waiting for the light to change at Multnomah and 21st downtown. If we can't agree on this you may as well put me on ignore. You're not likely to agree with anything else I say.

When I start to think of my commute the way a BASE jumper thinks about their next dive off of a 2,000 foot cliff it's time to put the bike away and watch ESPN on cable instead of putting my precious saddle warmer at risk of blunt force trauma. And this ignores completely the fact that action sports aficionados are using their cameras for archive purposes. Documentation for the entertainment of their friends and/or fans. There is no chance their video will show that the cliff had any part in causing their parachute to not open in time. Cyclists are mainly given over to paranoia when they mount cameras. Completely different ... gestalt.

livedarklions

It's like saying that bicyclists should use full face masks to protect their face because it makes hockey goalies and welders safer, and no one comments that goalies and welders look weird doing it.

At this point, I have no idea what the argument is about--I don't want to wear a camera, and I can't imagine a good reason for someone to care whether anyone else wants to or not. In my mind, the odds that it will either prevent or cause an injury are about as close to zilch as is possible, so it comes down to how you feel about the need to have a randomly shot record of unlikely events that may or may not be useful in reconstructing an incident. To me, that's not something I care about.

Leisesturm

Why the twisting of words? Why is it a driver is proving that he did nothing wrong but the cyclist is proving the driver did something wrong? Why cant the cyclist be proving he did nothing wrong as well?

***Because everyone knows that cyclists never do anything wrong. The driver is always wrong, the only issue is: were they also texting or otherwise distracted when they did wrong.***

I guess you have never seen any video that proved anything? I mean that video above where the cop drives head into a stationary cyclist while on his phone didnt show a damn thing I guess. Chances are if that guy didnt have the video the cop is never going to give himself up and say he was on his phone. Who do you think they were going to believe? A cop or random cyclist? The cop got caught red handed and hopefully whoever took that video got everything he could out of that. A new bike, some time off, the cop suspended, and some extra cash for his troubles of getting hit.

***Driving head on into a cyclist is WRONG period! What does his being on his phone have to do with it? This obsession with phone use is mainly what I am trying to put perspective on. There is way too much careless, aggressive, and/or plain incompetent driving being done and because a majority (yes) of drivers do NOT text and drive, their behavior gets a pass. I don't know, I've looked at that video a couple of times and I'm hanged if I could say YES, that video shows the cop was using his phone. Why is the issue of phone use so important? He made a careless turn. Nail him. No video needed to prove that the driver was completely at fault.***


Its funny you say ride smarter like thats going to prevent every situation... thats just not feasible. In that video above theres nothing he could have done more to protect himself. He stopped looked left and right multiple times and even waited EXTRA long to make a turn and still got rocked by a cop. Tell me how you would have avoided that situation? You better not say something like "I wouldnt be on that street" because no matter where you ride theres going to be a stop sign somewhere.

***Interesting you mention this because I was also wondering why they waited so long at that corner. I mean, WTF? Who is that paranoid? Yes, I would have avoided that situation. I would have been long gone when that guy clipped the corner!***

As for the quality of a cheap $120 GoPro. As long as you can discern whats happening in the video thats more than enough. Plenty of people have been put away from fuzzy 2fps CCTV video where you can barely make out anything. A $120 GoPro will be more than good enough to have clear evidence to show what has happened in a situation.

***Put away for ****, kidnapping and other violent crimes. Not for driving distracted. For that you need much better resolution. Ideally you want a stable observation point far enough from the ... event, to show what happened. Much like the footage from surveillance cameras that are so useful in documenting other incidents.***

The only real legit complaint for a cyclist not having a camera(if it can be considered legit) is that it looks insanely stupid. A camera mounted on a helmet just looks downright goofy. Its pretty much accepted in mountain biking but some some reason its just bad look for a road cyclist. I agree a helmet mounted camera looks aesthetically bad.

***Ironically this is the weakest objection going. IF helmet cameras were, in fact, useful things to use, an argument against them on 'aesthetic' grounds would be ... insanely stupid.***

Three years ago I was hit by a car who was making a left hand turn and in trying to beat some traffic hit me while turning. Luckily it was at a super busy intersection and there were at least 5-6 peds and a bunch of other people who saw the incident to confirm that I was not at fault. But if it was my word vs the other guys word Im not so sure I would have been able to get insurance to pay for all the expenses because of it. These days most people just assume its the cyclists fault. It would have been nice to have a camera to show the situation just in case no one was there to corroborate my side of the story.

***Sounds like looking a gift horse in the mouth to me. Did those five bystanders cost you anything? Looks like they helped you out a bunch. Why do you imagine a camera of your own could do any better? Know what I would say if I was a lawyer defending the cop that hit that cyclist in the video? I would clear my throat, look him straight in the eye and say to the judge "your honor, this man has been riding around with that camera HOPING for just this outcome! In fact, he waited, at that corner, long after a reasonable person would have ridden off, so he could be hit by my client!! BANG, BANG Order in the Court! I said order! I would of course have the necessary documentation of your indebtedness to a local bookie to bolster my bold counterclaim. Having independent witnesses is still the Gold Standard in litigation. When your camera seems most useful is when it isn't. The other side settles because it isn't worth the fight. You would still win without it.***

I recently picked up a camera to mount on my helmet but it wasnt for the purpose of capturing other people, but more to show off some of the nice places to ride. Since I do have the camera it now doubles as some protection as well. I dont even use it on every ride though.

***I just dont understand the negative attitude for people who ride around with cameras in this thread. If you have the ability to protect yourself whats the problem? Because the camera does NOT protect you. At best, it does nothing. At worst it makes you feel entitled to use less than 110% dedication to self-preservation.***


Sometimes a license plate isnt needed. Only something to corroborate the story of what happened. Other people on hand might have seen the license plate.

***You just keep making my case ...***

Also, the type of camera being used matters as well. I have been using a 360 camera and everything all around me is captured. No matter which direction I am hit from there is going to be some evidence of your license plate, car, or whatever.[/QUOTE]

***There are still jurisdictions in this country so backward that DNA evidence is still poorly understood and therefore routinely ignored, even when admissible. Now you want these ... mouthbreathers to look at your 360* freak show and determine from that that you should be awarded a new bike plus damages and the guy who hit you suspended without pay ... good luck with that.***

logical

First this is terrible to read. Learn to quote and reply.

I never said cyclists can never be wrong. Just pointing out that if the driver is proving he did nothing wrong than why cant the cyclist be out for the same thing? You make it sound like the cyclist is out to get mashed by every driver on the road.

Being on the phone has a ton to do with it. Charges change based on what the driver is doing. A regular hit can become reckless driving or even attempted murder or something more substantial. Its not about the phone its about getting the situation correct. A video is definitely needed cause like I said the cop would never give himself up and say he was on the phone if there was no evidence to point to that. First words out of his mouth were "I wasnt on the phone" then he probably noticed the camera and knew he couldnt get out of it. If there was no camera he would ride that all the way to the end and get away with not being on his phone.

So now being extra careful is now bad? No way you could have avoided that unless you can predict the future.

Funny enough its probably the strongest. A lot of cyclist are more about aesthetics at the cost of protecting themselves. Cameras are useful theres no denying it.

Bystanders didnt cost a thing. I KNOW my camera can do a better job because it is objective and it takes out the human portion. Humans lie, mislead, are swayed by other people and generally just forget what happens in any situation. A camera shows what happens as it is and thats it. Humans are not the gold standard in litigation. Its only the gold standard in a case where there is nothing more solid than a persons testimony.

Lets flip the script and say those bystanders said I intentionally jumped out in front of the car to get hit. The judge will believe that until I show him objective video to the contrary. He will not believe a witnesses statement over my video that shows exactly what happened as is. In my case the bystanders happened to get it right but they dont always see exactly what happened. A lot of bystanders actually lie and deceit based on their own feelings of a situation.

It obviously doesnt PHYSICALLY protect you. lol

Keywords being "may have" Why rely on someone else to help you when they are not obligated to do so? A camera is a set of eyes that are objective and true.

And it will prove that. If I were the guy in that video I would be getting a new bike(he did), the officer was put on leave(and for some reason, may or may not be related to this does not work as an officer anymore).

In my case, I did get a new bike and I did get time off paid as well. The guy who hit me was a regular dude so his insurance dealt with him however. He didnt hit me intentionally he just made the wrong choice so no criminal charges were pursued.

You seem to have a personal problem with cyclists and cameras and youre letting it get in the way of objective thinking.

livedarklions

And I thought I was verbose.