Bertnl

A friend of mine recently got in an accident with a motorist. The motorist was wrong, but my friend couldn't prove it.

To avoid such situations I'm considering buying one of these actioncams you see today. It's for the purpose of recording my daily commute only, I hope I never have to use it. So image quality isn't that important. Neither does it need a screen.

I'm looking for straight forward model, with long recording time. Idealy it overwrites older recordings, so I don't need to take care of that. Is there such a thing? Any recommendations?

chaadster

Rideye

Bertnl

Wow, that is exactly what I was looking for. I hope this will be avaiable in Europe soon.

genec

I want to know what this means:
The website is too simple... there is no explanation of their "wondrous" features.

chaadster

I'm all for skepticism, but even more for thoughtful consideration. Do you not think incorporating accelerometers and GPS seems like pretty basic stuff that would net a lot of data without needing to get into the wondrous realm?

I-Like-To-Bike

Speaking of skepticism, any idea of number of the actual instances where bike cam videos and associated "data" have successfully been used by a cyclist in an accident investigation to "prove" anything for insurance or legal purposes?

gregf83 

You can buy a Garmin virb from PBK for under 150. The rideye looks fine but is a new unproven product that's not shipping yet and having accelerometers detecting a crash seems unnecessary as you'll know when you crashed.

genec

Gee, did it say that on the web site? I didn't recall reading of either "accelerometers or GPS." All I read was "sensors" with no explanation of what sort of sensors, what data is captured, or what the sensors actually do. For all I know they could be heat sensors or light sensors. GPS? really? Please point me to that text.

gregf83 

No idea. Do you? I'm aware of video being used in numerous cases as an objective reference to what actually happened when you only have the imperfect recollection of a couple of observers. It's a simple extrapolation to conclude that having video evidence of an accident would be useful in attributing fault after the event.

chaadster

Sure, it could be heat and light sensors, too....and still wouldn't be wondrous. It would be wondrous if it had sensors that didn't actually do anything, though.

alan s 

That my favorite for grilling. Aged.

gregf83 

yes I think it so. I provided some basic photos to a friend involved in a bike accident that was disputed by the driver. My photos showed the rider dressed in brightly coloured kit which made the drivers claims of not seeing the rider somewhat comical. A video would have been better but the photos were sufficient.

i don't understand how you can even argue this point. After an accident one of the first things you should be doing is looking for witnesses. Sadly, in many cases witnesses are not available so video evidence would be the next best thing.

Do you believe an insurance adjuster wouldn't accept video evidence? That seems like a stretch. Or do you not believe a video would show anything useful? Or perhaps you believe that everyone is honest and that all distracted drivers texting on their phones immediately fess up when an officer shows up to take their statement?

chaadster

Some folks have no sense...

Moving along to something with a purpose, I'll also suggest the OP take a look at the Mobius ActionCam, which will not as simple as some of the others, is popular, immediately available, and inexpensive enough that it if proves to be too fussy, you're not out a substantial amount of cash. Also, easy shipping to EU:

https://www.mobius-actioncam.com

achoo

Judge for yourselves if a camera can be useful:


This is the video Metric Man posted that made his case open-and-shut.

What to believe, your own lying eyes or Herschel Shmoikel Pinchas Yerucham Krustofski?

CbadRider

I just deleted a bunch of useless bickering that derailed the thread. I-Like-To-Bike and achoo, please leave this thread.

CbadRider
Forum Admin

Route 66

If you had just one of these cameras, would it make more sense to mount it on the front or the rear of a bike?

Metric Man

Rear. The front camera missed everything important. BTW, for the record, the insurance company didn't even dicker when they were presented with the video. They wrote a check for the full value of the policy. I could have saved the attorney fees but I wasn't sure how this would go...if I had to do it over I would go it by myself.

Route 66

Thanks. It sounds as if a rear mounted camera would be something to consider having, because you never know...

kickstart

I know of one major transportation company running cameras in the cabs of their trucks with a 3rd party monitoring and evaluating the videos. The cameras record on a 30 second loop, but only capture 12 seconds when triggered by certain events such as hard braking, rapid changes in direction, a collision, and a few other parameters. Those 12 seconds being 8 seconds prior, and 4 seconds post incident. Apparently automatically limiting the scope of the recording eliminates issues raised by editing them, and minimizes showing culpability, as it seems more often than not, both parties are at fault for an incident.
If one chooses to record their own actions for self protection, its best be sure that their actions will stand scrutiny for the length of the video without editing.

chaadster

Apparently one of my posts, and one of only three posts with info directly relevant to the OP's question, got deleted, so let me resupply the link to the Fly6 cam: Home | Cycliq

Wanderer

Go Pro is getting pretty cheap..............

Lone

does anyone have any experience with a HD camera that can zoom in on driver's faces?

spivonious

Metric Man, I am very glad you survived that, and I'm very happy to hear that the driver stopped. Looks like he got distracted and veered into the shoulder at the wrong time. Did any criminal charges come out of this?

As far as cameras, I'm also seriously considering getting one. There have been a few serious collisions in my area in the past couple of months with no witnesses except for those involved. Every time, the driver claims that the bicyclist suddenly changed direction and hit the vehicle.

I think a helmet cam would be the best solution for one camera; otherwise getting a front and rear is good. Even though hits from the rear are the most likely to cause injury, hooks are much more common. A helmet cam would capture the hook and which direction the rider's head was facing.

The Rideye looks good, but I'd really like to know more information about it. Do the sensors sense heavy braking or evasive maneuvers? What makes it different than just a normal camera?

noglider 

I suspect this number would be hard to collect, and given how new action cameras are, it would be hard to put the number in context. Recently, someone from England posted his video of being hit by a car who didn't yield upon entering a roundabout. The video also made his case open-and-shut. The potential is definitely there. Whether it is worthwhile is a difficult question to answer. I'd use them, but I make a lot of short trips. Attaching and detaching adds to my time.

I disagree that having it on the rear is more valuable than on the front. Clearly, this the rear camera is the one that helped @Metric Man, but being hit from behind in the day time is much rarer than being hooked or hit from the front. If you're playing the odds, I think you should put it on the front.

no motor?

Wow, I'm glad you came out OK in this. What kind of cameras were you using?