raqball

JoeyBike

A good camera (or two) could help your next of kin with a lawsuit if you get injured or killed. Otherwise, unless you have the Hubble Space Telescope mounted to your bike and it looks like a cannon to motorists, the camera will never be noticed.

I wore a helmet camera for years. Not for safety but to film how my bike messenger friends ride in traffic.

rumrunn6

[QUOTE=JoeyBike;22663803]unless you have the Hubble Space Telescope mounted to your bike and it looks like a cannon to motorists, the camera will never be noticed/QUOTE]
I really enjoyed your videos. you were an inspiration
I've done a little switcheroo, meaning riding with a little cannon on top of my head to getting a black GoPro and mounting in front of a black helmet purposely so it wouldn't be noticed

the night setup is a bit obvious, but if it's dark, ppl only see the light

switched the placement of camera & light. was doing this before I got the GoPro

if I was still a commuter I might put it back up top



was interesting having it on top facing backward






we never know what we're gonna see, so I find it fun to have a camera, at least for ride highlights

JW Fas

It's one thing to give dubious reasons as to why you reject sources, but it's another to actually support your own claim. At least I've done the latter.


When my first camera was mounted to the handlebars (and thus out of view) there wasn't any difference. When it went on my helmet and became glaringly obvious the behaviors changed. Same routes and the same cars.


In post #3 you said people aren't seeing cameras. Which one is it?


How is that irrelevant? The knowledge that a camera was present modified human behavior. It demonstrates the point.


As I've stated previously, it's not a 100% foolproof solution. Much in the same way lane control doesn't eliminate 100% of punishment/buzz passes (but it does deter most of them). It's interesting you mention the trash thrower, though, because that has had further reaching effects. Not only did it result in criminal assault charges against the girl and the driver (her boyfriend), but those two aren't well liked at school any more. I know that because my friend's daughter goes to the same high school.

If we revisit post #4, I said I'm tentatively willing to accept yours and bbbean's position that visible cameras don't deter poor behavior. Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter because the overall value of having the camera is worth it...which answers the original question OP posed. Even without the deterrence aspect cameras still provide a reliable witness, can identify an offender and get them criminally charged, can help you recoup civil losses, and can be a source of shame or embarrassment to the offenders.

njkayaker

They aren't "dubious reasons". I suspect you didn't even look at them.

Most of them don't support your claim. They are irrelevant. Providing irrelevant references isn't "doing" anything.

Anyway, you are trying to convince "me" of you claim. I'm pointing out why I'm not convinced. That is, I'm not really making a claim: I'm just talking about the null hypothesis (the thing you are arguing isn't true),

Very few things are 100%. A few people noticing cameras in completely unspecified situations doesn't mean many people do.

??? The person wearing the camera knows they are wearing it. That doesn't mean other people are going to notice it.

There's no indication it has any real affect (outside of rarely).

It matters because you claim it's a significant benefit. It matters because it's useful to know how things really work. If it didn't matter, it's odd to even mention it. Especially, if the "reliable witness" is a good enough reason.

raqball

I think it depends on the camera and where it's placed as far as if motorists will see it. Something like a GoPro mounted on a helmet will probably be noticeable to some motorists whereas mine mounted on the seat rail is probably noticeable to nobody unless they are at a stop in traffic and behind me. Could a visible camera prevent some bad behavior? Perhaps...

As I've stated a few times I don't really have mine for prevention and for me at least, it's all about documentation.. But if someone is at a red light and want to throw something at me when the light turns green, and they notice the camera then sure I bet it would prevent that behavior..

bbbean 

OK. And I've noted lots of reasons that a camera is a useful accessory. Glad we're on the same page.

Daniel4

Bad drivers make for good youtube uploads.

njkayaker

I don't think cameras mounted on the top of helmets are anywhere as easy to notice as some people appear to think. If they worked well as deterrents, people would just tape boxes to the top of their heads and save $300+.

This is the reason to do it.

travelinhobo

Well, thank you for all those responses! (Sorry for the delay in getting back. I'd forgotten I posted this question.) I have read every response except those many which were arguing about previous responses. (As a car-free cyclist, I possess no car insurance.) So, in summary, the real purpose for wearing one isn't prevention of close calls, but in for evidence when an accident does occur. Good to know. As for those of you who believe these little box cameras on the helmets are large, eh, no they aren't. Certainly not. I do like the idea of one of the last responses to just make a little box and attach it to the helmet to make the drivers think you have a camera! I may do that.

raqball

Got a junk yard dog trying to attack me on camera today...

Well okay, maybe not and I've named this pooch Scruffy!

https://vimeo.com/756020716

mdarnton

The one single thing that seems missing from this discussion is posters flocking here to say that their camera actually was useful to them for the purpose of catching or punishing someone who wronged them. So far the takeaway seems to be that having a camera for that purpose is wishful thinking.

raqball

I posted about my previous right hook accident here in this thread.. Post # 15 to be exact.

The driver fled and was never caught. If I had a camera then it would have recorded the plate and made it easy for the police to find it..

Since adding the camera I have not had another accident but I have had numerous close calls and guess what? Each and every time the plate was recoded so if any of those had resulted in an accident where the driver fled then the driver would have been caught..

Any other questions?

JW Fas

I provided three examples of exactly that.

raqball

Yeah not sure what thread that guy was reading but it most certainly can't be this one.. LOL...

Interesting that he uses the same 'wishful thinking' verbiage as the other anti camera guy though..

Daniel4

Allow me to remind you of post #4 in which you posted at #5 asking JW Fas what camera he was using.

Daniel4

In addition to the reminders by other members, I'll make my contribution of a personal experience.

It was my first report using evidence from my helmet cam. I had reported the date, time, location and markings (incl. licence plate) of a FedEx truck inside an intersection waiting for the car in front of it to turn left. The driver lost patience and passed the left turner on the right side. I had posted in the Fedex PR contact section that had I been further ahead, I would have been knocked over by the Fedex truck.

Fedex wrote back to me that they'll talk to the driver. I responded back to the email with a series of pictures of that truck making the dangerous move. I didn't know how to do video clips at that time. The pictures clearly showed all the identifying markings on the truck.

mdarnton

Well, yeah..... and I'm still thinking about it. But this thread is making me wonder whether it's worthwhile because so many of the responses, proportionally, are speculative rather than substantive. I just expected that a thread like this would draw MORE people with personal accident experiences than it would people talking about other issues like whether cars behave differently around cameras.

I'm sure my personal experience enters into it. I'm 73, riding off and on for quite a bit of that, including in recent years in Chicago downtown traffic (straight up and down State Street every day) and not once have I had an experience where I wished I had a camera attached. So I'm kind of depending on you guys to sway me over to changing my mind, seeing mobs of people (rather than three or four) talking about how the camera made a difference, and this thread isn't doing that. Maybe the takeaway is that Chicago is a lot better place to ride than I thought it should be. After all, I did comment in another thread today that I usually choose to ride streets rather than bike paths/lanes because drivers here are much better behaved than the bicyclists.

JW Fas

Consider the overall size of the cycling community. Then consider how many have made the financial investment into cameras. Then consider how many regularly visit Bike Forums and use the Advocacy & Safety subforum. As of this post there were 12 people perusing the sub (5 members, 7 guests). It's not exactly a surprise there haven't been many with firsthand experience of what cameras do.

Daniel4

Also consider that dead cyclists can't post that they wish they had mounted cameras. But for those who did, they had the foresight to provide evidence to the police.

And then there are those who are still cycling without highly visible cameras who still have nothing to compare if cameras actually change driver behaviours or not.

Daniel4

Allow me to share the one incidence that convinced me to get a helmet camera.

I was riding southbound on a Wednesday at around 11am on Toronto's Don Mills Road in the diamond lane. I heard a honk. Very often honking is for other cars. But when I looked in my mirror, I saw a tractor trailor coming up behind me. Then I heard another honk. I looked at the lanes to my left and they were all empty. The tractor-trailor changed lanes, passed me then entered back into my lane with just a few feet to spare.

When I caught up to him at the traffic lights, I rode up to him and told him that this was a diamond lane and cyclists are supposed to be here. Then he told me "F*ck You." I rode back in front of him and made my right turn as did he.

My short-term memory was never so good as to remember what company the tractor-trailor belonged to. That incidence had also reminded me a few days earlier east bound on Lawrence Avenue East another commercial vehicle had made a right turn from the lane to my left.

If I had a camera in these two incidences either 1) I could have recorded the vehicles and reported the drivers back to their employers or 2) the sight of the camera would have prevented these two incidences from occurring.

And since I had my camera, nothing like these two incidences had occurred again. Except now, I keep an eye for other dangerous beviour and try to report them, like what that Fedex driver did.

A year later, I purchased a second camera for rear-facing. When I examine the videos what cars following me actually do, I am quite satisfied. They follow at a fair distance and they even stop at traffic lights about a car length away from me.

raqball

Add to that there have been several posters in this thread who've put forth valid reasons for having a camera with real world experiences and video documentation. We've basically only had the one person (trying to sell insurance?) who pushed back strongly against them.

But overall this thread leans towards their value, or the possible value, of having one..

I-Like-To-Bike

Overall this thread, like many on A&S leans towards attracting eager participants in choir singing in an echo chamber. Any discordant notes are attributed to trolls and dimbulbs influenced by Big Auto or some other Enemy of Real Bicyclists and are dismissed or ignored as not representative of the Real Bicycling Advocates™ and Real Bicycling Safety Experts™ in the choir.
I wouldn't put much faith in any A&S poll or reading of the screeds posted on A&S as representative of anything but the thoughts and preferences of a few ardent and/or emotional posters.

Leisesturm

Now two. When cameras were new I used to be a more active critic of their utility. Enough time has passed that I no longer bother. But I have been following this thread. Someone saying "fully paid up life insurance is a better hedge against disaster than a camera" being ridiculed, seems like a good point to get off the couch. The popcorn was getting cold anyway. What I KNOW is that 50% of people that have judgements placed on them by court systems in America do not pay them. The court may well award you substantial damages against the cretin who hit you while texting but if they were uninsured, good luck. The court will not assist you in enforcing their judgement.

If on the other hand, you buy your own insurance (what a concept). You are covered, even if the other person is not. If YOUR insurance company refuses to cover your claim, you CAN sue them. Assuming you bought a policy from a company with visibility, longevity and high standing in the industry you should not ever have to resort to that, but you could. And if you won there wouldn't be any way for them not to pay you after they have been ordered to by a court. Insurance isn't free but neither are cameras. Yes cameras plural. A single camera could never be the winning ticket in a game so filled with randomness as the "Come on, hit me, I need the money" sweepstakes.

So me and mine are covered by what is called an "Accidental Death and Dismemberment Policy". It isn't Term Life Insurance, as is being scoffed at in this thread. In the event of a fatal accident, or serious injury, even if it is my fault, my wife gets enough money to pay off the house and live out (modestly) the rest of her days and vice versa. No arguing over pre-existing conditions or percent of responsibility, etc. If it was an accident and the outcome was bad. The policy pays the claim. With the employer match the payments are a doddle. Under $10/mo. I'm not selling insurance. Truth be told, the policy is my wife's idea. So no love for the racketeers from this quarter. But neither do I have any love for riding around looking for trouble like a Tik Tok presenter.

raqball

You do realize you can have both right? A camera and insurance.. What a strange concept that would be, I know...

Your comment about courts not assisting is absolutely false.. You can garnish pay, tax returns and put a lien on their property via a court order.

Also it appears as though you are a-ok with the driver getting away as long as your bills are covered. If the accident were lethal do you not think your significant other, children, family etc would want the person caught and held to account? Do you not think the community might be safer getting a driver off the road and in jail who would kill someone and flee the scene?

If all you are worried about is dollar signs then rock on with the insurance only coverage.. I'd personally want the cash to cover damages / expenses and the person held accountable.

As far as the other anti-camera poster being 'ridiculed' as you put it goes, I am not seeing that. He on the other hand keeps insulting others by make crude and obtuse statements calling those who support camera usage starry-eyed and other uncalled for remarks.