Do Cycle Cameras make the road safer?

[biking_fox]

No, because drivers don't fear being caught intimidating you, ignoring you, or behaving in otherwise inconsiderate ways, nor do they fear the consequences of being caught.

They might have some utility in capturing evidence for insurance claims.

Currently.
But if/when they're frequently adding to people's insurance bills/ evidence of liability, then there's a chanc that the average standard of driving will improve. You'll still get idots of course, but more people will think that little bit harder. Mostly of course it'll be driven in insurances charging less for people with in-car cams. But every little helps.

I had one for a while, but have stopped using it as it got boring to watch and couldn't be bothered charging it every day. I believe the batteries are much better now.

 

[crazyjoe101]

I had one for a while, but have stopped using it as it got boring to watch and couldn't be bothered charging it every day. I believe the batteries are much better now.

The batteries might be but battery life never improves because they just make things smaller and normally use built-in batteries so that you 'have' to replace the device when the battery dies.

 

[srw]

Currently.
But if/when they're frequently adding to people's insurance bills/ evidence of liability, then there's a chanc that the average standard of driving will improve. You'll still get idots of course, but more people will think that little bit harder. Mostly of course it'll be driven in insurances charging less for people with in-car cams. But every little helps.

To get this you'd have to actually affect claims cost. Most of peoples' premiums go on damage to their own cars; the number of claims involving injury to people (which is where liability starts kicking in) is so small that cameras in car or on bike are unlikely to make a measurable dent.

 

[Turdus philomelos]

I am almost 100% certain that this is not true. You are allowed to film in a public place and you do not have to inform or obtain consent from anyone in a public place to do so. Unless Scotland has some specific law to the contrary then this is the case, although I couldn't find such a law with a quick Google search.

Ahh, I forgot to also mention PC's Point, (early morning excuse), the Fly6's video evidence wouldn't be legal as it's a camera disguised as a bike light.

 

[si_c]

Ahh, I forgot to also mention PC's Point, (early morning excuse), the Fly6's video evidence wouldn't be legal as it's a camera disguised as a bike light.

Wouldn't that be like complaining to a court that it's unfair to convict you for stealing because the CCTV camera was hidden. Evidence of wrongdoing is evidence of wrongdoing surely.

 

[Bimble]

Wouldn't that be like complaining to a court that it's unfair to convict you for stealing because the CCTV camera was hidden.

As far as I understand it you still have to post a clear public notice to say you are recording so you would have to "out" your hidden camera to the public, even if you don't specifically point out its location.

Equally I would imagine you would have to have an image / frame in the video that clearly, without shadow of doubt, identifies the person you are bringing charges against, otherwise I expect they'd be able to use the defense that it isn't them in the video.

I caught glimpses of a program on TV the other night (or maybe last night) about insurance claim fraud and quite a bit of dash-cam footage was used to assist with proving that some claims were set up. Useful for prosecution but I doubt it acts as a deterrent.

 

[Bimble]

I think that you and your in-house copper are confusing the requirements that apply to organisations with what applies to individuals. They're two very different sets of requirements.

In-house copper? I thought everyone who recorded the public with fixed external CCTV cameras had an obligation to state that they were doing so?

 

[Bimble]

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/ - seems you are exempt if you are recording individuals within the boundaries of your property, but not outside:

CCTV used on your property will be exempt from the Data Protection Act unless you are capturing footage of individuals outside your property.

It doesn't go into any detail about what type of equipment, but does mention audio recording being a separate privacy issue (see last para).

 

[crazyjoe101]

There is a difference between recording individuals and recording the environment around you in general. The Data Protection Act only pertains to information that is strictly related to a person and their identity - granted facial shots and vehicle regs blurr these lines, but I believe the UK Information Commissioner released a statement once stating that recording these things in a public place is fine as if you are out and about then your face and vehicle registration are public domain knowledge anyway - if you were to attach a name to mentioned face that would change I think as the name is NOT public domain knowledge just from them driving about.
I can't see how having a concealed/overt camera has any bearing on this as the guy I reported had no clue he was being filmed despite the huge camera shaped object on the top of my head and the police had 0 quarrels with my footage, including the format and storage it was given to them on.

 

[doog]

There are guidelines relating to CCTV and numerous public organisations as stated (dont even try to go there) but nothing in relation to filming anything from your bike, skateboard or car in private or public. The admissibility of video evidence at court however is a separate matter completely and can be subject to all sorts of issues in relation to Identification. However most video evidence is circumstantial anyway and usually requires further corroboration.

 

[Simontm]

Interesting.
In journalism college we were taught that (in press complaints) there had to be a reasonable expectation of privacy - in other words, if you sunbathe in your garden, you have an expectation of privacy and not being filmed or your picture taken but if you sunbathe on a beach you don't.
So being in a public area removes right to privacy.
Should ask the lawyers at work whether this has changed.

 

[crazyjoe101]

Interesting.
In journalism college we were taught that (in press complaints) there had to be a reasonable expectation of privacy - in other words, if you sunbathe in your garden, you have an expectation of privacy and not being filmed or your picture taken but if you sunbathe on a beach you don't.
So being in a public area removes right to privacy.
Should ask the lawyers at work whether this has changed.

I'd say that's pretty accurate but I would also say that a camera which films what I am seeing when I'm riding my bike, in less detail is hardly encroaching on anyone's privacy because it sees no more than anyone would see just by being out and about. If you're out in public you're by definition publicly visible.

 

[ufkacbln]

I had one company try and complain to the Police that I had "breached the driver's personal privacy" by recording the dangerous driving, I was happy with that.

Ended up with the Police stating that if they wished to provide the video as evidence , then the most likely outcome would be a formal warning about the driving in the video, and no action about the privacy