Lemond1985

Having once been in the position of not owning a bike camera, and not knowing anything about them, I admire those of you celebrating your ignorance on the topic. Enjoy it while it lasts, I was once in your position, and it was fairly awesome, as I recall. I had joy, I had fun, I had seasons in the sun. Truly.

Enjoy it while it lasts, because ignorance is bliss, as they say.

dynodonn 

If your personal thoughts or bike riding experience doesn't warrant the use of cameras, no problem, but after years of my frustrations in dealing with motorist harassment, and the advent of very compact high definition video cameras at an affordable cost, I jumped at the opportunity to buy and install them.

wphamilton

That sounds promising. Can you share some specifics from your experience? How frequently has your video been useful in swaying insurance payouts, issuing of traffic citations, or court judgements?

Lemond1985

I have only been using mine a few months, so no experience with any of those. However, common sense dictates that having video evidence of an incident is more persuasive to a police officer / judge / personal injury attorney / insurance adjuster than some wild story, colourfully told, with many clever sound effects, hand gestures, and cleverly-used curse words.

Probably a terrible analogy (please shoot me for even making it) but just because I wear a seat belt, the fact that it hasn't saved me from flying through my windshield in the past week, would be a pretty weak argument against using one. Perfectly valid, but quite absurd statistically when you look at the thousands of people saved every year by them. S*** happens to all of us, eventually, and only a fool would ignore that fact.

Maelochs

This is the "JoeyBike" attitude. "It's a war zone out there. Yours is coming, it isi just a matter of time."

Actually, stuff vary rarely happens to me ... possibly because of my attitude, possibly because I have learned to play well with others .... possibly just good karma, who knows?

I know this: If I went out every day thinking, "Eventually I am going to get hit by a car," I wouldn't ride. Only a fool would do that.

I know for a fact that Nothing is safe, and rising a bike in traffic offers a lot of opportunity for bad things to happen ... but so does driving. Dealing with people to get places is not safe Statistically .... yet almost all of us, when we climb into our cars, do not imagine that we will get hit that day.

I spent all day yesterday riding around town, from downtown to a couple of the busier major roads. I never once thought I was going to get hit. I always know the chance is there---I always look and look twice more to see if some idiot more intent of getting where he is going than watching where others are going, might make a dumb move ... but I Always assume I will not get hit and I will finish my ride safely. I take precautions for that reason. if I did not think that my safety efforts were going to be sufficient, I would not ride my bike. Only a fool would ride if s/he really believed that s/he was going to get run over by a car.

Further ... a camera is not a safety device (as would be a seat belt.) A camera is potentially a source of evidence if you do get hit and survive. Equally, a car could hit you from a direction not covered by your cameras, or a jury could look at the footage and say that the accident was your fault. (See the AAA thread where the guy claims that cyclists in California are getting ticketed for taking the lane legally.) So even if the incident is captured on video and the camera survives and you also survive, the data could prove counter-productive.

I have no issue with people mounting cameras anywhere on their bikes. I simply don't care, and more than I care what brand of bike you ride or who made your jersey or any of that.

What I find amusing is that people are now seeming to get defensive about their choices to have cameras, and in response to some imaginary assault, are inventing "powers and abilities far beyond mortal" cameras.

This is the nexus with helmets, as I see it. in both cases people took a simple personal gear choice and elevated it to a titanic struggle between enormous forces of salvation and destruction, with totally unfounded certainty, and attacks on people who do not share the same religion, be it the Way of the Plastic Hat or the Cult of the Camera.

it is amusing but also saddening ... but so far the humor is worth the depression.

Lemond1985

Maybe a real world example would be helpful. Let's say it's Feb 9, 2019, you're riding along minding your own business. Suddenly a 100 lb German Shepherd lunges at you for no reason, and takes not one, but two bites out of your leg, as you begin bleeding profusely.

QUESTION: Would you feel better having the incident recorded on video, or would you prefer the dog's right to privacy be protected, and he be allowed to dine on your leg in complete anonymity? This is one of those "yes" or "no" questions.

JoeyBike

Yes.

wphamilton

Personally, I'm not interested in feeling better about having it recorded or about the dog's privacy, nor any other false choice that may be presented as "a yes or no question".

I am asking advocates (the nominal topic here) how frequently if at all, their video has been used to prove the true events of an incident. For tangible results. Your answer is apparently "never", so thanks for that part.

JoeyBike

Well, this does misrepresent me a little. Yes, it can be a war zone out there HOWEVER....we can do things (or avoid doing things) that will slant the playing field in our advantage on bikes. There are actions we can take, and places we can avoid at peak hours, and all sorts of "tricks of the trade" that may be employed to survive basically forever (with a little luck I guess).

I do not believe getting run over is just a matter of time. I started commuting by bike at 15 and I make 61 this month. Others here have survived to live long, happy lives as well.

KraneXL

Only if you live alone in the forest. Cameras affect all of us. Whether we admit it or not. My point. Your counter statement far exceeds what I said.

JoeyBike

There are cameras ALL OVER the forest, if hunting is allowed there. Or if someone is growing weed or whatever.

One of my favs: https://www.bemidjipioneer.com/news/...ands-minnesota

CB HI

So what is your threshold for deciding if a camera while cycling is worthwhile. Was the one instance of the cyclist reporting the old guy in my post worthwhile having the cell phone record the harassment resulting tickets for the old guy worth it for those 2 cyclist? Or is it in the range of a cyclist must use the camera once a week in swaying insurance payouts, issuing of traffic citations, or court judgements?

For me, just having the camera that stopped a motorist from throwing punches was worth it for me. (5 times in 8 years)
For me, just having the camera the one time that got a violent homeless guy kicked off the bike path was worth it for me. Sadly Hawaii law is screwed up and the woman he punched in the face 3 times refused to write a complaint so cops did not take it further as most states would have locked the guy up. (one time in 8 years)
For me, just having the camera that put a cement truck driver from even forcing me off the road again was worth it for me. (one time in 8 years)
For me, just having the camera that got a tailgater or close passer to back off when I displayed the camera was worth it for me. (about once every month or 2 months over the last 8 years)
ETC.

wphamilton

A decent likelihood of needing it even one time - where video is actually the difference maker in proving liability and responsibility - might make it worth the trouble to me to mount a camera and keep it charged and operational.

In your list I see confrontations, gathering evidence against a pedestrian belligerent, claims that it alters motorist behavior, but no incidents where the video was useful to prevent a citation, generate a citation, force insurance to pay their obligation, or to support a case in court. In my last 3,990 commuting trips at my current job, I have yet to experience any similar incidents.

Since you ask me specifically, ALL of your examples are irrelevant to me. I have not experienced any confrontations with motorists. Motorists do not seem to be provoked the way you've experienced, and I don't think that a bike camera was actually required to catch your belligerent in the act. So those are not persuasive - it's why I asked very specifically, for video objectively used and tangible results.

wphamilton

No it doesn't. It states exactly what you said.

"usefulness of cameras has not only been proven, but they've revolutionized the way we live our lives." - The general statement.

Then you state that it is an "incontrovertible" answer to my question regarding the utility of bike cameras - the specific conclusion.

Just stop digging. When you slip up with a logical fail, and it happens to everyone, it is always better to just take the lump and go on. Don't double down. It just makes you doubly wrong.

KraneXL

Not only do I admit where I'm wrong, but I ask for and seek out the correction and ask for clarification, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Second, I made an open and general statement so there was nothing to correct. You made the connection to your bike camera post. Which btw, wasn't directed at you (note: I didn't put counterpoint).

So that you don't go any further down this fruitless path, I might add that the statement wasn't original, it came straight out of an academia text. Believe it or not there are studies in the field of video, film and media and its effects of society.

When I learn something new or relevant, I try to share it. Nevertheless, even in the off chance that the statement was incorrect, your argument wasn't with me, rather, with the professional that published the research in that field of study.

wphamilton

Krane, you quoted my question and answered it. There is no more "direct connection" than that. Just stop.

Shimagnolo

Citation issued:

Citation issued:

Citation issued and evidence provided to insurance:
(Possible 2nd citation since the video proved the truck driver lied on police statement)

Citation issued:

LEO visit & warning:
(Driver not visible in video, and car was registered to 2 people)

Citation issued for illegal passing, *and* reckless driving:

This are the ones I know for sure resulted in citations.
There are a couple more I reported, but didn't follow up to see if the driver was cited.

dynodonn 

With cameras now installed, maybe "feeling better" has it's pluses, especially in giving law enforcement some very specific information about the motorist's description, vehicle type/color, and license plate number.........., otherwise stew over it for sometime and feel thwarted in having only vague info, unhelpful to most LEOs.

CB HI

Then your question was already irrelevant from your perspective, since you have not had the same issues that I have had in Hawaii and Washington DC. As a military member who moved often, I had lived and cycled in a large number of states, out of all those states, Hawaii and Washington DC have been the problem state and district. So be happy you are not in one of the problem areas.

CB HI

Good work and videos. I am waiting for the complainers claiming the incidents should not have been reported, except the collision of course. The fact the motorist were cited, demonstrates my point that Colorado is currently taking cyclist safety seriously.

wphamilton

If pressed, I would say instead that the answer was irrelevant. Since you listed several incidents, none of which were related to the question ...

MikeyMK

If i rode on roads i'd probably use one. It's hard to tell, because i wouldn't ride on roads.

Freewheeling Sp

To me, it's seems like the best camera would be one where you could play back the footage to the police when they arrive (assuming you're alive and conscious). The original Fly12 and 6 allowed you to see the video on your smartphone, but my understanding is that the new Fly CE versions do not allow that. My question: what camera do you use and how do you access your video? Would you be able to access it at the scene of a collision?

mcours2006

In my case it wasn't necessary to have the footage view at the scene. The driver was arrested for DUI on the spot. In fact, I was the one who informed the LEO to give the driver a sobriety/breathilizer test as I had noticed a scent on him. I gave the video footage to the police later on.

The cameras use a micro SD car, which can be viewed using the police officer's onboard computer.

Lemond1985

Glad I wasted the time it took to respond earnestly to your unserious, insincere question. I will know not to make that mistake again.