Cameras + YouTube + Google - using the power

[Jezston]

Let me get this straight. Correct me if I've gone wrong anywhere.

1. Bentmikey complains that the police and roadsafe often don't take action against drivers who perform aggressive, careless and dangerous actions, which don't result in an injury. He suggests a method by which footage could be collated so that if a driver does injure someone, it could be shown they have been responsible for similar incidents before, and also that the police didn't do anything about it. Similar affect to "fillthathole" on potholes.

2. Conversation goes well, constructive ideas shared and developed.

3. Someone posts a pointless little "lol helmet cameras get a life!!111", thread turns into a mess.

Yeah, well done guys. Methinks those who have such a weird issue with helmet camera users, making outrageous and unevidenced claims about helmet camera users behaviour, should be the ones getting a life.

 

[BentMikey]

That's pretty much spot on Jezston!

Well, apart from the police/roadsafe not taking action, but that's somewhat minor to the main point of the topic. Roadsafe are excellent, IMO, and the police generally a little more variable with some good and some bad experiences from what we've all read on here.

 

[Archie_tect]

Perhaps it has come to the point, as it does in the broadening availability of any technological advancement, that every new vehicle should be fitted with inexpensive forward side and rearward facing cameras linked to a small 'black box' so that there is irrefutable evidence for an dispute. Much as many cars [Nissan and Honda] already have reversing cameras fitted now. It would possibly raise some concerns about personal privacy but seems to make sense to me. Some of the videos on The Tube where accusations of dangerous driving have been made that I've seen don't look dangerous so care would have to be taken about the accusations made in public, but some close calls [especially those caused by careless lorry and bus drivers] are definitely worth recording.... and as for a small but dangerous number of the taxi drivers, words fail me!

 

[BentMikey]

Yes, that's a good point. It's why I think it's important for us to remain factual and unemotional, and let the drivers' actions in the videos speak for themselves.

 

[semislickstick]

[QUOTE 1661077, member: 3143"]Why are you not interested in the morality of filming drivers? LOL this is paramount to what you are proposing, if you start putting up vids for thee most basic errors which people make out on the road, then you and every other helmet cam wearer that partakes in this dumb scheme will only further alienate drivers.

And ME and all the other NON helmet camera wearers should not have to suffer the changing attitude that some helmet camera wearing doris will bring by posting some bullshit driving offence and linking it to some #tag.[/quote]

Lee, it's not just some cyclists filming on the roads, Cars, motorcycles and Lorries do too, you only have to look on youtube. Why is it just cyclists that have to worry about alienating drivers?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Yeah, well done guys. Methinks those who have such a weird issue with helmet camera users, making outrageous and unevidenced claims about helmet camera users behaviour, should be the ones getting a life.

I think they might well have a life, but one that they don't want to see publicised . The RHA article showed me that.

 

[Archie_tect]

... helmet cam users have to wear a helmet...

 

[Bigsharn]

... helmet cam users have to wear a helmet...

Not always...

 

[semislickstick]

... helmet cam users have to wear a helmet...

Good point. Lee is not against cycle mounted cameras, wa-hey!!! Well, I feel better.

 

[Nantmor]

A Police study commissioned by the Dept. of Transport found that in accidents between cars and bikes found that the cyclist was at fault in 17% to 25% of cases, and the driver at fault in 60% to 75%.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Not a surprise, really.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Good point. Lee is not against cycle mounted cameras, wa-hey!!! Well, I feel better.

I wonder what he's going to think about policewitness.com? It seems the "war" on motorists is actually a civil war.

 

[lukesdad]

[QUOTE 1661077, member: 3143"]Why are you not interested in the morality of filming drivers? LOL this is paramount to what you are proposing, if you start putting up vids for thee most basic errors which people make out on the road, then you and every other helmet cam wearer that partakes in this dumb scheme will only further alienate drivers.

And ME and all the other NON helmet camera wearers should not have to suffer the changing attitude that some helmet camera wearing doris will bring by posting some bullshit driving offence and linking it to some #tag.[/quote]
Spot on ! These cameras have replaced your brains. This sort of behavior is a negative not a positive.

 

[dawesome]

I wonder what he's going to think about policewitness.com? It seems the "war" on motorists is actually a civil war.

I wonder what he's going to think about policewitness.com? It seems the "war" on motorists is actually a civil war.

Most of the large courier firms also have GPS to track drivers. Condition of employment. Is there any actual evidence that drivers resent cameras? Anything? At all?

When I read in the paper that a road rage thug has been caught on film, traced and arrested, I don't think any sensible person's reaction is "Bloody helmet cams!" because that would be siding with the road rage thug. When even Daily Mail readers are sympathetic I think it's safe to say this "Rage against helmet cammers" is pure invention. It doesn't exist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hed-ground-irate-driver-furious-overtake.html

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Most of the large courier firms also have GPS to track drivers. Condition of employment. Is there any actual evidence that drivers resent cameras? Anything? At all?

When I read in the paper that a road rage thug has been caught on film, traced and arrested, I don't think any sensible person's reaction is "Bloody helmet cams!" because that would be siding with the road rage thug. When even Daily Mail readers are sympathetic I think it's safe to say this "Rage against helmet cammers" is pure invention. It doesn't exist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hed-ground-irate-driver-furious-overtake.html

Ahh I think you have been caught out by a quirk of English . I think, when those who are forecasting a backlash against cameras use the word "drivers" they are using it in the form that means " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " and I must admit I agree with them, I'm sure that " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " will feel "Rage against helmet cammers" . Much in the same way that muggers feel rage against the police and try not to commit crimes when the police are around . Muggers are pedestrians , but not all pedestrians are muggers, " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " are drivers, but not all drivers are " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes "

 

[Jezston]

[QUOTE 1661077, member: 3143"]
And ME and all the other NON helmet camera wearers should not have to suffer the changing attitude that some helmet camera wearing doris will bring by posting some bullshit driving offence and linking it to some #tag.[/quote]

You are a hypocrite, Lee.

You've repeatedly stated in the past that red light jumping cyclists aren't a problem for the rest of cyclists because people who hate cyclists hate us regardless of our behaviour. Which is it?

Oh and going on about how dreadful people's road use is whilst previously going on about how great cyclists in alleycat videos are, and anyone who doesn't like it is just 'jealous', makes you even more of a hypocrite.

It continues to surprise me that anyone takes anything you have to say seriously.