If the driver was paying attention to the cyclist, the camera wouldn't make a difference, and if the driver wasn't, the camera wouldn't be noticed.
Been said, and ignored, by people who value winning an internet debate over making sense.
Frankly, if I werre passing a cyclist while driving, I might not notice the camera, because I wouldn't be watching the rider's head---i'd be watching the rider's body mass, the other cars around and behind, oncoming traffic, and road debris on the road edge ahead (because I know how much that matters, which most drivers who don't ride don't understand.) Unless the cyclist came up across from me while we were both stopped at an intersection I likely wouldn't notice the camera .... and I guarantee you Nobody notices a rear-view camera.
But, to restate the obvious point people are obviously denying ... if the driver sees the rider, the driver will generally not hit the rider. If the driver does not see the rider, the driver will not see the camera.
Most collisions are from the side, so the helmet-cam is worthless anyway. Most of the rest are from the rear, so the helmet-cam is worthless anyway.
But I certainly do not care what other riders wear on their heads, or under their seats, or on their bars or stems, or anywhere else.
And I always get a good chuckle from people who have to take, "Here is not a bad idea" and transform it into "This is the Only Way to Live" as soon as one or two people don't agree. Glad I meet those folks on the internet, where I can scroll down or shut the page.